Thanks, I already hate it.

Why? Why are they making a beer and pretzels "historical game" more and more complicated?

Nostalgia bait but getting it wrong.

I dont know many people following this IRL but the only one hyped for extras stats is the guy who cant finish a 1k 40k game in 3 hours due to having to over check and explain everything. They dont understand why I am less keen.....

I play a mix of shooty and stabby with my Imperial Fists. I can finish 1500 points games in the time limit at events, but rarely finish 2000+ games in the time limit. I don't need this crap.

Those don't really feel like rules for a game at the scale current HH or 40k are at.

They might look more at home on a 2nd ed 40k game at 1.500 points... where you'd field three characters, two vehicles and like 3 combat squads and where everything was much more "zoomed in".

Thing is... even there? Even there, in 2nd ed 40k, they did away with those extra traits for a reason. They take away more than they give.

Our group all said the same thing. It's totally cool for Necromunda where at most it's 12 models and there's a lot of interaction with doors and consoles and gubbins.
But when I'm dropping 80 infantry, 10 tanks and an assortment of other stuff (big games + Militia), I don't need 4 leadership stats to know my squishy meatshields are running when 2/3rds get mulched by a squad of Despoilers.

I am a big fan over having a few more stats over a bunch of special rules for everything, but it remains to be seen if these are particularly useful ones that differentiate units enough to avoid those, rather than being nostalgia bait.

My favourite is tech thralls who are immune to suppression as they've been lobotomised and programmed not to flinch. But mysteriously run away in fear very easily.

Dudeface wrote:
My favourite is tech thralls who are immune to suppression as they've been lobotomised and programmed not to flinch. But mysteriously run away in fear very easily.

Tech Thralls are also now T5, apparently.

I'm more interested in how the damage stat for weapons is gonna work now. They showed some profiles like Vulkan, who still has 7 wounds. I would hope a single saturnine powerfist attack can't drop half his wounds (they showed the profile for it and it does 3 damage). Considering a Saturnine terminator probably has 2 attacks with an extra on the charge, a single model would be able to cause 9 damage if all his attacks hit. That is assuming each failed save yields the full damage amount. Does this damage spread beyond a single target? Do you roll a save for each point of damage? None of it sounds better than how the game has played so far.

They've also got the Centurion listed as I1 and the Sergeant as A1, so I'm guessing they're mistakes.

 kronk wrote:
Thanks, I already hate it.
Why? Why are they making a beer and pretzels "historical game" more and more complicated?

because this is what they think a beer and pretzels historical game
something you play without ever caring to finish it or what the outcome is but having as many "cinematic moments" as possible created by RPG like rules as the players care about every single model on the table

you know, it is the players fault to take more than 20 models for game that is written to work with 10/s

 Gert wrote:
Our group all said the same thing. It's totally cool for Necromunda where at most it's 12 models and there's a lot of interaction with doors and consoles and gubbins.
But when I'm dropping 80 infantry, 10 tanks and an assortment of other stuff (big games + Militia), I don't need 4 leadership stats to know my squishy meatshields are running when 2/3rds get mulched by a squad of Despoilers.

Even marine armies reach that point easily.
This is rather stupid, we also haven't seen vehicles rules as of yet.

 Gert wrote:
Our group all said the same thing. It's totally cool for Necromunda where at most it's 12 models and there's a lot of interaction with doors and consoles and gubbins.
But when I'm dropping 80 infantry, 10 tanks and an assortment of other stuff (big games + Militia), I don't need 4 leadership stats to know my squishy meatshields are running when 2/3rds get mulched by a squad of Despoilers.

12 units of 1 model vs 12 units of 10 models isn't a difference in this instance. This is the one area where scale basically doesn't matter, because it isn't like all 10 models are making a check - just one model. And we already have a check like this, but now it is a better narrative reflection of the units. A flat high leadership was never a good way to handle it, though I understand why they simplified it previously.

The constant refrain is "Heresy is a narrative game!" and as soon as GW adds a level of granularity to give dimensions to the vast array of units in the game that don't have a ton of difference (so many Marines), people complain. Wild.

I actually liked the article's description and it was exactly what I had envisioned it being. Now there is some tactical and strategic depth to taking units, especially if we get missions/objectives that lean into it.

12 units of 10 models is a difference though. Because when you come to move or position them you're moving 12 models not 1.

Dudeface wrote:
My favourite is tech thralls who are immune to suppression as they've been lobotomised and programmed not to flinch. But mysteriously run away in fear very easily.

Yep, makes about as much sense as Charonite Ogryns being exceptionally stupid AND hopped up on combat drugs, but having impeccable discipline and leadership ability. I get what they were going for, but maybe leadership isnt the right term.

 Overread wrote:
12 units of 10 models is a difference though. Because when you come to move or position them you're moving 12 models not 1.

More importantly those 12 units can range from single model, to three, to ten, or thirty and can all have characters attached that can modify these stats further not to mentioned Psychic powers, wargear, or Reactions.

I'm okay with the advanced stats, I mean it's not actually complicated even after some beer. I want to see other rule stuff to build an opinion.

Depending on how damage works out, a single Saturnine Terminator could theoretically kill Vulkan in one round.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 Gert wrote:
Depending on how damage works out, a single Saturnine Terminator could theoretically kill Vulkan in one round.

Of course, I could be wrong.

There was a mention of damage being more effective against vehicles and dreadnoughts, so could be a thing where it's only used against specific targets.

Damage vs Primarchs is the sort of rules minutae I wouldn't worry about without context (yet)

Primarchs could easily have "only takes 1 wound per attack" or whatever - hey, it adds narrative granularity!

But the 4 mental stats are obnoxious. We already see this nonsensical overlap and contradiction between Leadership and Cool (pretty sure it's the same gak in Necromunda) while the other two are niche enough they should just be special rules on the maybe a dozen models across the entire game where they will be meaningfully different from a Tactical Marine.

And if we have separate stats to defend against the panic of losing combat and the panic of being shot at, wouldn't it make more sense to first have Toughness vs swords and Toughness vs bullets?

If they are smart they are going to use cool for morale test and leadership for regroup tests, that would give some design space in which you can have units that are hard to break but hard to rally if they break (or the opposite which seems fluffy for skirmisher units).

They can even bring back targeting LD checks to give LD even more to do.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
We already see this nonsensical overlap and contradiction between Leadership and Cool (pretty sure it's the same gak in Necromunda) while the other two are niche enough they should just be special rules on the maybe a dozen models across the entire game where they will be meaningfully different from a Tactical Marine.

And if we have separate stats to defend against the panic of losing combat and the panic of being shot at, wouldn't it make more sense to first have Toughness vs swords and Toughness vs bullets?

Yeah, how weird would it be if we had seperate stats for how accurate something was at range, and how accurate it was in melee! /s

I mean, Tactical Marines are just as accurate in melee as they are at shooting.

So not what's being compared there, Smudge.

Granularity for the sake of nostalgia or disguising it as an attempt at narrative isn't the same level as having different stats for shooting and combat.

The preview already pretty much makes it appear as 90% of the units in the game will have the same number for the 3 new stats and maybe a different number for leadership.

Therefore it's a perfect thing to rework into just two stats in three years to legitimize a new edition .

I do ask how much more complex this actually is?

Sure, at first we’ll find ourselves “wait, do I take that against my Cl or my WP”. At least in the early days.

And we’re yet to find out what a Fail might cause - though that seems to be coming tomorrow.

But they’re all just 2D6, roll lower than stat.

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

 Gert wrote:
So not what's being compared there, Smudge.

Granularity for the sake of nostalgia or disguising it as an attempt at narrative isn't the same level as having different stats for shooting and combat.

I'm just matching the same energy that blackfang displayed and putting that into context. I'm making no defence for nostalgia baiting, but pretending like 30k doesn't have similar stats which could also be considered redundant isn't a fair argument.

Which stats do you have in mind?

 Overread wrote:
12 units of 10 models is a difference though. Because when you come to move or position them you're moving 12 models not 1.

Mostly irrelevant for these specific stats that are being complained about. You also shoot more, attack more, take up more space. However, it is still one test being made no matter the model count. So the complaint about it being too much for a game larger than skirmish level just doesn't add up. Now if every gun had to make an ammo check? Sure. If every model could be knocked down? Sure. Certainly some individual levels of detail don't fit this scale, but these new stats aren't it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

It's not as simple as you're making it. Let's not be disingenuous here. I don't play often, but I can rattle off WS/BS/S/T/I/Ld and so forth on all of my units. fairly well. I might get a Ld wrong, but I'm within one point. I've played since 5th edition and those are all pretty much the same.

This is 3 or 4 new things. Are they going to be the same for most Space Marines? I would hope so, but I don't really know that they are. If so, that's not hard to eventually remember, but it doesn't change that there are 3 new stats and I use them for different checks. When do I roll against each stat? I will guarantee that I will have to read the rule the first several times each game when the check(s) comes up. Why on earth would they add this, which is to me, needless complexity. Nostalgia? No thanks.

And whose nostalgia? Even most Heresy players haven't been born yet the last time Cool was a stat in 40k.

beast_gts wrote:
They've also got the Centurion listed as I1 and the Sergeant as A1, so I'm guessing they're mistakes.

Centurion has been updated to I5 - Tech-Thralls & Sergeant unchanged.

I really hope, with the new stats, a character will get the option to challenge other characters in a battle of wits.
One of them could place 2 goblets in front of eachother and challenge the other to chose one. Just one of them contains lethal poison!

The duel would be fought first with IN, against CL as they debate how likely it would be for the challengee to put the poison close to himself, and what kind of person he might be.

Then a duel of WP against CL for not giving away the secret of the poison while gloating.

Finally a reversed CL against IN to see who is removed from play (best out of 3)

Ofcourse, every primarch will have new rules like "Luck" "Suave" and "Blather" and "Immune to poison" to make the challenge obsolete.

Inconceivable

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do ask how much more complex this actually is?

Sure, at first we’ll find ourselves “wait, do I take that against my Cl or my WP”. At least in the early days.

And we’re yet to find out what a Fail might cause - though that seems to be coming tomorrow.

But they’re all just 2D6, roll lower than stat.

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

It depends how many rules and USR's come off the back of it and the weird variance in some stats (such as why is a Consul more psychically resistant than any old marine). It's more that for the bulk of the game (marines) the stats are so close together so far to not even be worth inventing the system and it's added mental load.

With a game of this size/scale, adding in a couple of marginally different tests isn't a big deal admittedly, but it's the economy of that scale. In Necromunda where they've borrowed it from it's a dozen models a side and the time taken to move them, fire with them etc. will be notably shorter than moving and firing with say 20 tac marines, or 10 rotary cannons etc. making the over added minor faff just one more small sap on time.

 kronk wrote:
This is 3 or 4 new things. Are they going to be the same for most Space Marines? I would hope so, but I don't really know that they are. If so, that's not hard to eventually remember, but it doesn't change that there are 3 new stats and I use them for different checks. When do I roll against each stat? I will guarantee that I will have to read the rule the first several times each game when the check(s) comes up. Why on earth would they add this, which is to me, needless complexity. Nostalgia? No thanks.

We don't know right now how they handle the other rules. I played the older 40k rules too, but HH 2.0 is really a mess regarding special rules with even more special rules, unit sub-types and sub-sub-types etc. . Sorry, but no one played this edition without frequenting the rulebook and Libers every time in the first games.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do ask how much more complex this actually is?

Sure, at first we’ll find ourselves “wait, do I take that against my Cl or my WP”. At least in the early days.

And we’re yet to find out what a Fail might cause - though that seems to be coming tomorrow.

But they’re all just 2D6, roll lower than stat.

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

More importantly imho, I would much rather have Ld 12 or Cl 12 than faff around with three reference books to figure out what this guy’s specific flavour of fearlessness does.

I wouldn't play 30K for mass battles with Legions Imperialis sitting right next to it.

Saying that, I have previously considered using Rogue Trader as an alternative ruleset to 30K, but haven't been inspired enough to splash out on the models to host a game. Seeing the reintroduction of old stats makes me wonder if GW might be looking to make 30K more accessible as a skirmish-battle size game. They already have Zone Mortalis, but that was tacked on rather than baked into the core rules.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
More importantly imho, I would much rather have Ld 12 or Cl 12 than faff around with three reference books to figure out what this guy’s specific flavour of fearlessness does.

Bold of you to assume GW won't invent 3 flavours of debuff immunity for each new stat

beast_gts wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
They've also got the Centurion listed as I1 and the Sergeant as A1, so I'm guessing they're mistakes.

Centurion has been updated to I5 - Tech-Thralls & Sergeant unchanged.

I think the Sergeant thing may be pointing to the return of the difference between Sergeants and Veteran Sergeants.

SamusDrake wrote:
I wouldn't play 30K for mass battles with Legions Imperialis sitting right next to it.

Saying that, I have previously considered using Rogue Trader as an alternative ruleset to 30K, but haven't been inspired enough to splash out on the models to host a game. Seeing the reintroduction of old stats makes me wonder if GW might be looking to make 30K more accessible as a skirmish-battle size game. They already have Zone Mortalis, but that was tacked on rather than baked into the core rules.

Then they need to encourage smaller games. The only reason 3k became normal is due to the LoW cap. Scrap that in some capacity and it becomes feasible to play smaller games without complaints of lack of primarchs etc.

Its also to give people room to field multiple 20-man squads of marines and still have points for tanks and support.

Remember the good old days, when there were two camps?

1. GW is just going to release a 2.5 Edition of cleaned up rules (Like Necromunda).

2. GW is going to streamline the heck out of the game, and make it like 10th Edition 40k.

Did anyone see this nightmare fuel of rules coming? I sure as hell didnt.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Remember the good old days, when there were two camps?

1. GW is just going to release a 2.5 Edition of cleaned up rules (Like Necromunda).

2. GW is going to streamline the heck out of the game, and make it like 10th Edition 40k.

Did anyone see this nightmare fuel of rules coming? I sure as hell didnt.

Yes. I was hoping they'd do some clean up, wether that was as a 2.5 or 3.0 - but I'm not at all surprised by things getting worse.

I think some of this teeth-gnashing is a bit premature. I am prepared to wait and see whether these additional stats are as cumbersome as many seem to think they are. And after all, Heresy players tend to argue that it's a better game precisely because it's more granular than WH40k. It still does not look to me as though this is a major re-work of the game, and that was my greatest concern. If they haven't effed-up the army lists, and (as seems to be the case) vehicles still work essentially as they did, then it seems to me that we may have come through mostly unscathed.

 Snord wrote:
I think some of this teeth-gnashing is a bit premature. I am prepared to wait and see whether these additional stats are as cumbersome as many seem to think they are.

Well, they were a bit cumbersome the last time they were in the game so I doubt they'll be any better here 30+ years on.

I'm with Snord. I'll see how the new rules are, and if they suck I'll play 2.0 with Panoptica PDF that actually fixes the game. I feel alot of the Heresy community will do this if this is the case. And if this is a 3 year new edition cycle I believe the community will just straight up not buy into that. Nobody wants that.

I'm not unhappy with what I've seen so far. Hopefully they show a nice array of weapons later this week

Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

ccs wrote:
Well, they were a bit cumbersome the last time they were in the game so I doubt they'll be any better here 30+ years on.

True enough, but Rogue Trader was cumbersome from every angle. The HH rules are ultimately based on 3rd Edition, which was a far more streamlined rule set. Maybe (maybe) adding a few additional stats won't make any material difference to the flow of the game. I'm trying to be positive here, in the face of the reality that we have a new edition of HH before most players wanted it.

All in the execution.

I like the concept of different mental stats. It adds design space for greater difference in unit reliability.

But it all depends on what failing a given test means - and how often that might come up.

For instance? Tech-Thralls have CL12, WP4, INT4. But thus far, we don’t know what that actually means for them.

We’re told WP is for psychic shenanigans - but not exactly how. Nor do we currently have any idea what psychic powers are going to look like here.

We don’t know how often an INT test is going to come up. Or CL for that matter.

Vorian wrote:
Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

That the majority of the game (marines) are mostly the same number across the board for all these stats. There will be instances of minor variance. There are largely all thing sthat could have been tested against the LD stat as was, or a rule that existed in isolation rather than having to be on every profile.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

Is it adding time to your game instead of reducing it, though? I'd say yes.

Was there any grievances that HH games were too fast?

I think its a great addition to stop one stat handling so many different situations that may occur in the new edition.

so Intelligence sounds like it will be used for possibly mission objectives and other things, if we still just used straight LD on that then all kinds of things you wouldn't expect to know how to do it are amazing.

I like the ability to distinguish a units ability and resistance vs falling back, pinning, psychic attack and objective/repair work that isn't one stat fits all. also stops debuffs to said Ld just screwing over a random stat (Psykers blowing up at night more)

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

Is it adding time to your game instead of reducing it, though? I'd say yes.

Was there any grievances that HH games were too fast?

Well, we don’t know right now. But a WP, CL or INT test we know work the same as LD. Roll 2d6, aiming for equal to or lower than your stat. That’s not adding much time at all.

Now, if they’re frequent checks? Sure. But those saying it might make the difference between completing a game in 2 hours and not? I feel that’s a bit of a stretch. And apologies for being a phallus? A flaw of the tournament system which inflicts hard time limits on a game not designed for hard time limits.

Even in Necromunda 4 is too many, tho there I don't begrudge Intelligence, in a sci-fi gang of 10 you definitely want to know who hacks terminals and fixes guns the quickest just as much as who punches the hardest. Here you really don't need a stat for that, because it's a specialist job and the specialist can have the ability to do it and everyone else can suck the same at it with no need to gum up the already long statline. Same with Willpower.

The other two COULD be fine as "ability to give and follow orders" and "determination and bravery" but they're not, they're this weird overlapping and contradicting mishmash. And honestly if you remove all the morale stuff from Leadership you might as well also make Leadership a specialist ability of HQs and now you're back to a single morale stat. Wow it's almost as if GW had a thought out reason for removing these stats 30 years ago but doesn't have a thought out reason for bringing them back, just filler for filler's sake.

Again, we don’t know that.

INT could be used for Objective Scoring for instance. In which case, it would absolutely matter and factor into army building. To continue with Tech-Thralls, it may turn out they’re suited to camping on certain objectives. But any which involve my currently hypothetical INT test may be ones for the Thallaxi to go after.

I know I’m probably sounding like a bore right now, but seriously. It’s all going to be in the execution, and we’re far from having sufficient info or experience to make any kind of judgement.

Dudeface wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

That the majority of the game (marines) are mostly the same number across the board for all these stats. There will be instances of minor variance. There are largely all thing sthat could have been tested against the LD stat as was, or a rule that existed in isolation rather than having to be on every profile.

So, what's the problem? This seems pretty minor.

If the changes are minor and don't actually change anything of substance, then the changes didn't need to be made but the Corporate Wheel decided 3 year cycles are what print money so 3 year cycle it is.

 Gert wrote:
If the changes are minor and don't actually change anything of substance, then the changes didn't need to be made but the Corporate Wheel decided 3 year cycles are what print money so 3 year cycle it is.

I mean, that's pretty much a given, because, you know... corporations wanna corporate. And the writing's on the wall already about that, GW has lighted the sky with their intentions about this.

Still, they could probably have sold it anyways with almost no changes whatsoever, if nothing else because the rules are inside a big box full of new minis, so hopefully the design team has also a say.

So far the hints don't fill me with joy, but eh.

They could have sold that box for the same price with no book, just a photocopied page of Saturnine stats for 2.0, honestly.

Spend the development time on polishing 2.0 with a free pdf, and end up with a healthy game and player base.

But we have to churn, churn, churn. Bleed out and discard old fools, there's a new one born every minute.

Vorian wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

That the majority of the game (marines) are mostly the same number across the board for all these stats. There will be instances of minor variance. There are largely all thing sthat could have been tested against the LD stat as was, or a rule that existed in isolation rather than having to be on every profile.

So, what's the problem? This seems pretty minor.

It's just more for the sakes of more. Either it's a bunch of extra tests for extra stats with extra USRs and rules that interact with them, bloating the game and mental load. Or they're a niche nothing burger that didn't need adding.

Ironically these would be better in 40k where there's a greater diversity of profiles. But splitting them out when most of the game will sit on a 7/7/7/7 profile is sort of pointless.

Looks like standard GW mo. "Let's bloat to obscure all the randomness and balance issues. Will it make players spend more time on leafing through rulebooks checking stats and rules than playing? Who cares!?"

Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

Mod edit - there are better ways of expressing yourself, this was not it.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

Cyel wrote:
Looks like standard GW mo. "Let's bloat to obscure all the randomness and balance issues. Will it make players spend more time on leafing through rulebooks checking stats and rules than playing? Who cares!?"

Have you even played 2nd Ed Heresy?

Because thanks to some really poor layout, and no index or contents, flipping around trying to find special rules is the main criticism for accessibility.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

The fondness some of you have for whinging is babyish, pathetic and, honestly, embarassing.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

The problem is rules are GW's weakest area.
And with the 3 year cycle and with many of dakka's userbase being older gamers - you're up against a wall of people who have been through multiple edition changes across multiple different games. Basically people have spotted the patterns in how GW behaves with rules and thus predictions are based not on blind hope (we've all had that) but on tried and tested and repeated rules editions.

It's actually a breath of fresh air when we got the Old World Rules as we have and the original launch edition of the new Necromunda and Warcry.

There is talent there in GW but it gets muddied with underfunding on the rules; too short a timescale; the edition churn and management directives.

 Overread wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

The fondness some of you have for whinging is babyish, pathetic and, honestly, embarassing.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

The problem is rules are GW's weakest area.
And with the 3 year cycle and with many of dakka's userbase being older gamers - you're up against a wall of people who have been through multiple edition changes across multiple different games. Basically people have spotted the patterns in how GW behaves with rules and thus predictions are based not on blind hope (we've all had that) but on tried and tested and repeated rules editions.

It's actually a breath of fresh air when we got the Old World Rules as we have and the original launch edition of the new Necromunda and Warcry.

There is talent there in GW but it gets muddied with underfunding on the rules; too short a timescale; the edition churn and management directives.

I've been playing since the end of Rogue Trader so, despite a gap for university, I've experienced plenty of edition updates.

There is an alarming tendency to doom-monger the future whilst looking back with rose-tinted specs at what has come before. People wanted 2.5 rather than 3.0, me included, but that doesn't mean that 2.0 was perfect. Indeed, the desire to see 2.5 is due to the fact that people know 2.0 has numerous flaws. One of those issues was the over-bundance of special rules, spread across multiple books and without common sense applied as to how to decide which book to look in. Advanced characteristics and a daage stat for weapons are a way to actually streamline the numerous special rules, whilst also doing exactly what the article points out about stats for techmarines, masters of signal and psykers all working in a slightly different way.

People worry at the start of every edition. Some editions make things better, others make them worse. In my experience (which, as I say, is extensive) the problems more commonly come during editions, not at the start. 7th edition, for example, was a great rule set, ruined by so-called "Decurions". 8th edition with its indices was a decent ruleset ruined by introducing too many stratagems.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

The fondness some of you have for whinging is babyish, pathetic and, honestly, embarassing.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

Come on now, the entire online warhammer community is known for whinging. Everywhere. About everything.

The HH community is well renowned for a stereotype of "back in my day" rivet counters who are hostile to anything that isn't textbook to the era and demand impeccable hobbling to their standards or you get out.

The point is those are stereotypes and whilst they probably have basis in reality somewhere, there's still a mixture of opinions and experiences to lean on.

You want to be excited about a multitude of extra stats, then feel free to do so. It doesn’t mean everyone has to agree.

Largely any discussion that isn't "GW suck and I hate them so these rules suck", with any real merit or willingness to debate is good discussion imo.

We've at least had some indication that rules indexing is improving - guns have keywords. That means they could be alphabetized rather than sorted by technology type.

Dudeface wrote:
Come on now, the entire online warhammer community is known for whinging. Everywhere. About everything.

The HH community is well renowned for a stereotype of "back in my day" rivet counters who are hostile to anything that isn't textbook to the era and demand impeccable hobbling to their standards or you get out.

The point is those are stereotypes and whilst they probably have basis in reality somewhere, there's still a mixture of opinions and experiences to lean on.

You want to be excited about a multitude of extra stats, then feel free to do so. It doesn’t mean everyone has to agree.

Largely any discussion that isn't "GW suck and I hate them so these rules suck", with any real merit or willingness to debate is good discussion imo.

Honestly, the HH whatsapp groups I am in are a lot better than here. And I avoid anything to do with TOW, so I avoid the worst of the whinging.

I wouldn't say I'm excited about a few extra stats (hardly a multitude) but I'm curious to know more and believe it could work. I'm fine with people who are worried, but there are a bunch of people doing exactly what you say - "GW suck and I hate them so these rules suck." If we get the game and it turns out to be gak, I'll be fine to say so. But we've had a tiny glimpse so far, and the hyperbolic language I highlighted above were all picked from recent posts here.

Well, to do something constructive I checked out the 2.0 community edition (Liber Panoptica) and I still hate that, too. It's hundreds of pages of material that is indexed worse than the actual HH books and adds way too much gak it doesn't need to.

The downside of no page limits is the Liber Panoptica.

 Fifty wrote:
The downside of no page limits is the Liber Panoptica.

Hardly its only downside....

I'm just waiting to see the actual rules interactions before I totally give up on this game. The stuff they've previewed has not filled me with confidence or anything remotely joyous.

Still love the minis and will continue with them sans game if need be.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Not even close. That was the dawning of 40k 10e.

 Fifty wrote:
Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet.

Well, aside from the handful of us that were there the last time these stats existed. Our low expectations are based on experience. MAYBE I'll be surprised. But I doubt it.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ainqvvwt/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-what-are-tactical-statuses/

Ah yes,

4 stats, with 4 affects, from 4 statuses with new USRs and lots dont make sense. Seemingly you can be afflicted with multiple and need multiple leadership tests against multiple stats each turn.

Doesn’t seem terribly complex to me?

Flame Weapons being able to Route units is something like the sound of, akin to setting individuals alight in 2nd Ed 40K and original Necromunda.

Sounds like tactical status might also impact or outright prevent Reactions, which also sounds nice.

As many can guess, I don't have much faith in GW pulling this off well, but I am actually an enormous fan of suppression in all its forms. It's always the states in between "perfectly fine" and "dead" when models are the most human and relatable. Oh and it makes for good tactics, too.

And snipers locking an enemy into position but flamers making them fall back sounds pretty tasty. The payoff might be worth the mental load here.

It remains to be seen whether we still also have the secret additional forms of suppression like Blinded and Concussed.

Giving weapons more nuance and ways to impact the battlefield beyond raw damage seems like a great move. It feels like a big swing away from the blander direction of the mainline games.

Those rules sound promising, but I still need the whole picture - it's GW after all.

I'd be nice to see standard flamers on the table occasionally. Not a weapon you see a lot. Wonder if Interemptors will be able to Rout with their plasma burners.

What will be really interesting is if they give massed tacticals some version of suppression. I'd love to see squads of say... 15+ tacticals being able to inflict suppression on a rapid fire. And an even greater effect if you Fury of the Legion. Because nothing says "gak, hit the deck!" like 60 bolter rounds coming your way. Same goes for Heavy Bolter squads. 30+ heavy bolter shots should definitely be able to keep heads down.
It might also give certain consuls like the Armistos a new lease on life if he can dole out Tactical Statuses. Given he's the heavy weapon expert consul, it's make thematic sense.

Yeah, I agree. Proof is in the pudding of course, but weapons having implementation beyond simple Kill Power sounds good for variety and challenge.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Giving weapons more nuance and ways to impact the battlefield beyond raw damage seems like a great move. It feels like a big swing away from the blander direction of the mainline games.

Agreed and it also means that you've got way more variety in how your units perform on the table. 40K and AoS have both felt more bland weapon wise as GW has stripped out choices and options; but also filled them with things like more mortal wounds at which point most weapons are purely running on damage alone.


The big risk with the HH is if it ends up relying on you checking multiple pages to make these new systems work. Or worse if they end up being scattershot over several books.
If its something that can be referenced quickly and easily that makes a massive difference.

Someone needs to make a pdf HH: Datasheet edition

 Overread wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Giving weapons more nuance and ways to impact the battlefield beyond raw damage seems like a great move. It feels like a big swing away from the blander direction of the mainline games.

Agreed and it also means that you've got way more variety in how your units perform on the table. 40K and AoS have both felt more bland weapon wise as GW has stripped out choices and options; but also filled them with things like more mortal wounds at which point most weapons are purely running on damage alone.


The big risk with the HH is if it ends up relying on you checking multiple pages to make these new systems work. Or worse if they end up being scattershot over several books.
If its something that can be referenced quickly and easily that makes a massive difference.

That is the concern for me - conceptually I'm ok with it, whether GW can do it reasonably in a manner that isn't faff for faffs sakes? Who knows

I expect even if GW fails to make these easy to navigate, the community will pick up the slack with various cheat sheets. They usually do. So as long as the rules work well, should be good. I'm excited for the level of granularity I've seen so far. Definitely going to make HH feel very different from AOS and 40k.

There is always Wahapedia.

Does everyone not just use a list builder like New Recruit and print out your army sheets at this point? I'm currently focusing on TOW and looking back at HH, I'd never play either out of the army books on the table.

Always pen and paper for me.

OLD FARTS UNITE!

I like having paper printouts as well, but I'll print my list from a builder. GW rulebooks are terrible for actually playing at the table across the board.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Does everyone not just use a list builder like New Recruit and print out your army sheets at this point? I'm currently focusing on TOW and looking back at HH, I'd never play either out of the army books on the table.

It depends how many pages of reference I want I guess, usually I just use an app.

I make lists in Excel and printouts in Word.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Always pen and paper for me.

OLD FARTS UNITE!

Well, this old fart generally makes a spreadsheet and prints them onto 8"x5" index cards.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Does everyone not just use a list builder like New Recruit and print out your army sheets at this point? I'm currently focusing on TOW and looking back at HH, I'd never play either out of the army books on the table.

I don't. I absolutely despise Battlescribes layout and the way they form their army lists. Whenever I see people checking it for rules/stat queries it always takes far, far longer for them to find it, then it does for me to look it up in a book. Not sure about the other programs though, as I'm not sure if people use them.

The Libers/rulebook are a mess, no argument there. But once you know them, it is fairly simple to find what you're looking for. Way easier to book mark stuff too.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I make lists in Excel and printouts in Word.

Me too! Excel is great for army lists. I generally don't print my army lists out, I just cut and paste them from Excel into a private Discord server I made. But I do print off army lists/cheatsheets for events.

 Tyran wrote:
There is always Wahapedia.

Wahapedia is out of date and incomplete on Heresy. Lots of stuff missing.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is always Wahapedia.

Wahapedia is out of date and incomplete on Heresy. Lots of stuff missing.

...and piracy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Always pen and paper for me.

OLD FARTS UNITE!

*raises hand*

My army lists are all scribbled out by hand in a notebook that's also full of notes on colour schemes, conversion ideas and pointless doodles.

Back on topic, I am intrigued by the Tactical Statuses rules. A rather clumsy name, but it might add some nuance to the game.

...so, after doing Jenetia Krole dirty during the Siege of Terra, GW think a background piece on her makes sense? This company, I swear...

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I make lists in Excel and printouts in Word.

I use Excel as well.

My hope for the new edition is as follows:

List Building - I'm hoping it is like Old World. I've always wanted to run a Techmarine and a Heavy Bolter Support Platform unit. However that is two Elite slots and I'd rather take Contemptors, Apothecaries, and 2 Terminator Squads. If we get X points for the various unit types and a ROW augmented the unit allocation, I would think this would be a good thing. If you were required to spend a minimum of 25% of your army on troops, that would be 500 points for a 2,000 army or 2-3 units. This would scale up as well as it would require more foot troops for mega battles. That is just my thought - of course over time, the community would end up tweaking or restricting specific units based on game size.

Rules for smaller games - I find that its harder to sell other players on Heresy when they hear a 10 man tactical squad is only 100 points base and about 150 points kitted out and then the average game size is 2,500 - 3,500 points. I'd love to see smaller games like Zone Mortalis included as part of the base rules vs buy yet another book so you can play the game at 1,000 points! Though ZM is still pricey to play since you need the terrain. However, if you do play ZM, it is a lot of fun and there are multiple places that sell mdf ZM terrain much cheaper than GW, well at least for about half the price for 25% more.

New stats - I'm OK with having more ways to interact with units on the table but I'm hoping it doesn't bog down the game play. I liked the thought of the Tactical Support Units but never thought they were useful in larger games unless you were using plasma or meltas because the other weapons really didn't have much punch. The flamers were entirely situational as they were decent in ZM but not in a pitched battle. If these weapons can force pinning, can cause a unit to route, etc., then it should add more variety for list building.

Reasons to take other units - playing ZM, is the only time I've taken certain units like Destroyers or Moritats. These units can really shine when not fighting in a pitched battle. Destroyers are amazing when dismantling dreadnoughts in confined hallways and Moritats are great at providing covering fire and clearing a path for them. I've tried using them in two pitched battles with little success.

If these things end up happening, I will be a happy Heresy player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
...so, after doing Jenetia Krole dirty during the Siege of Terra, GW think a background piece on her makes sense? This company, I swear...

Wasn't she killed by Kharn at the Lions Gate Space Port? Its been a while, but if I recall correctly

I do hope this won't be a month's worth of only waffling on about Saturnine, and they have something to announce for Legions Imperalis in the meantime.

Just filler lore today

Weapons tomorrow, which we already know how they work. Maybe we see a contentious profile reworked (gravis power fist?) and a trait or two?

My hope for the new edition is as follows:

List Building - I'm hoping it is like Old World.

What are you even talking about
OW list building is even more restrictive as FOC. Wanna take something cool at lower points? Nah-ah, you can't, because the model is 265-300 points. Wanna take more cool/good stuff in 2k? Nah-ah, because it's only 500 points. Try allocating 500 points to 3 units, that each cost 200+ points.
And then you are forced into picking the least gak units from Core/Troops.
Even if the base games are 3k, you are still limited to 750, which is way less than being able to take 0-3 x3.

Personally I always liked the FOC

Actually reflects real battlefield roles ("Rare" isn't a tactical role)

Pretty flexible but prevents most weird spam

Of course there was always room for more nuance (like extra slots at higher points levels)

And maybe a % minimum for Troops wouldn't be amiss as some units are so cheap it makes the "tax" negligible.

I also always liked the FOC - it did need updating and honestly, esp for 40K, it likely needed tailoring to specific armies a bit.

I know that near the end of the lifespan of the FOC Tyranids had problems because all their specialist mid-level monsters were "elites" which meant you were really restricted on what you could take.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Personally I always liked the FOC

Actually reflects real battlefield roles ("Rare" isn't a tactical role)

Pretty flexible but prevents most weird spam

Of course there was always room for more nuance (like extra slots at higher points levels)

And maybe a % minimum for Troops wouldn't be amiss as some units are so cheap it makes the "tax" negligible.

The FOC helped me make viable armies when shifting to 3rd Ed 40K. It completely changed how the game for me.

I'm also sad it was removed from Warhammer/TOW.

I liked the idea of the FOC as it helped new players build semi balanced armies.

If you wanted to allow players to use it, maybe give them a bonus to leadership (call it 'the chain of command') for filling out all the slots appropriately.

From what I remember from the stream, I expect 8th edition style list building - take what you want, but if you fall into one of a number of predetermined FOCs you get a bonus.

 Overread wrote:

The big risk with the HH is if it ends up relying on you checking multiple pages to make these new systems work. Or worse if they end up being scattershot over several books.
If its something that can be referenced quickly and easily that makes a massive difference.

The #1 issue I have with HH 2.0 is that the special rules are spread out all over the place. Some special rules are in the main rule book, some are in the equipment description sections for that faction, some are in the legion description, and still others are in the faction special rule section that comes before the equipment special rules section. I'm hoping for, but not holding my breath for, a lot more compiling of special rules in the main rule book so that i don't have to go on a scavenger hunt. In every game, it seemed like there was always one unit that had a special or unique rule that took forever to look up.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I make lists in Excel and printouts in Word.

I make excel lists and print them in excel.

Do you think all those special rules were a part of what turned off new players from buying in to Horus Heresy?

When I started to get back into the hobby, the GW employees even waved me away HH and over to regular 40k.

When I asked about the game I was told the game is fun, but a b**** to play as the books are poorly laid out and every unit has its own special rules.

 Quixote wrote:

When I asked about the game I was told the game is fun, but a b**** to play as the books are poorly laid out and every unit has its own special rules.

I mean that's how AoS and 40K have been for a good while now.



More likely is that GW store staff don't get commission for Forgeworld models and HH was historically almost entirely FW production. So your local GW manager wouldn't "want" to encourage HH players because they basically couldn't profit off them for the store metrics even if you bought a LOT through the store.

With HH now rolled into GW central its way better for your local manage to encourage sales; by which point some might discourage it now just because of stock issues. At least for newbies steering them into 40K and AoS which have more plentiful stock is a way better engagement than encouraging new people into HH where they might have to wait weeks/months for some models to come back into stock.

GW Store Staff just…..don’t get commission.

Ever.

What Forgeworld didn’t do was contribute to Store Takings, as to the best of my knowledge, you only ever paid FW directly through the website. Whereas for GW Website? You used the terminal to place your order, and paid at the till. The whole Virutal Warehouse thing.

If I played HH, I'd use Battlescribe like always. iPad in split screen mode, with scribe on the right side of the screen and whatever I might happen to need to reference next at the left side, while Tidal plays a downloaded 40K music playlist in the background for atmospherics

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW Store Staff just…..don’t get commission.

Ever.

What Forgeworld didn’t do was contribute to Store Takings, as to the best of my knowledge, you only ever paid FW directly through the website. Whereas for GW Website? You used the terminal to place your order, and paid at the till. The whole Virutal Warehouse thing.

Ahh sorry yes I meant Takings/target sales and such not commission.

 Quixote wrote:
Do you think all those special rules were a part of what turned off new players from buying in to Horus Heresy?

When I started to get back into the hobby, the GW employees even waved me away HH and over to regular 40k.

When I asked about the game I was told the game is fun, but a b**** to play as the books are poorly laid out and every unit has its own special rules.

Priority One
Insure customer interest in Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer Age of Sigmar and our Citadel Paint Range.
All other considerations secondary.
Specialist games expendable.

 Quixote wrote:
Do you think all those special rules were a part of what turned off new players from buying in to Horus Heresy?

I wouldn't think so. I think if you're into the HH, you wouldn't let that be your barrier IMHO. The cost of entry, maybe.

I probably should have asked this question a couple weeks ago, but how do the Saturnine Terminators scale with 40k firstborn Dreadnoughts? Looking like they are about as tall, but maybe not as wide or long?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I probably should have asked this question a couple weeks ago, but how do the Saturnine Terminators scale with 40k firstborn Dreadnoughts? Looking like they are about as tall, but maybe not as wide or long?

Nobody knows, obviously, but this guy did some pixel counting and has a (theoretical) picture of what you're asking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIBe7op-Ic8

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I probably should have asked this question a couple weeks ago, but how do the Saturnine Terminators scale with 40k firstborn Dreadnoughts? Looking like they are about as tall, but maybe not as wide or long?

Nobody knows, obviously, but this guy did some pixel counting and has a (theoretical) picture of what you're asking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIBe7op-Ic8

DAMN!!!! and darn it. While those honking big terminators are neat, my plan was to get a single one and convert it into a Dark Angel character, because they have all the "good stuff" from the past. However, that looks a tad too large for the 40k setting. Guess I'm ordering one from Pop Goes the Monkey.

Priority One
Insure customer interest in Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer Age of Sigmar and our Citadel Paint Range.
All other considerations secondary.
Specialist games expendable.

I see what you did there, good Sir - an Alien reference should never go unrewarded or unrecognised.

Well played.

 Padre wrote:
I see what you did there, good Sir - an Alien reference should never go unrewarded or unrecognised.

Well played.

Damn, I missed that. Well played indeed...

The side view silhouette of those Saturnine termies looks hella derp though! Cracked me up when I saw it in the most recent HH rules article about the supression/etc effects

They just suck design wise... I am sorry. The dread is halfway acceptable but the saturnine terminators... just no.

Oh they do fall a bit... short... in the front-to-back department huh.

I can't help but feel they'd look better with a whacking great power armour power back on there to adjust that silhouette.

I know Terminators don't usually get those, but I think it might work here. Maybe an upscaled Mk6 pack?

Not a fan of the sat termies at all. I'll be skipping the starter box and just going in on mk2 assault boxes I think

 Padre wrote:

I see what you did there, good Sir - an Alien reference should never go unrewarded or unrecognised.

Well played.

My work here is done!

But seriously, there's definitely some silliness at play with their business strategy when it comes to their "other games". Gave up on their highstreet stores a long time ago, and only pop in for something that only they can order in.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ky4t9whx/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-investigating-the-new-weapon-stats/

Damage (D): This is a new stat for Age of Darkness which should be familiar to players of other Warhammer systems. It shows how many Wounds or Hull Points it strips from its target

hull points are here to stay, so we can assume vehicles are more or less unchanged

The side view on the Saturnine Termies is certainly unflattering. We don’t really consider ballistic shape much when it comes to HH designs, but these things would be walking shot-traps.

And in other news, the revised weapon rules are out. I see a reference to hull points for vehicles, so I’m breathing easier on the vehicle rules remaining essentially the same.

Errr, increasing shots, fewer penalties, feels like 40k is having an impact

Yeah, can't say I'm keen on movement not appearing to prevent your Infantry from firing with Heavy weapons, nor reducing how effective the basic boltgun is.

Hm, a lot to take in there.

More maneuverability should be welcome, but of course it does diminish decision making when there's practically no tradeoff. And the tradeoff is clearly intended to be quite small as the Heavy rule only gives a flat +1 to a stat (could be on multiple stats, but the bonus can't get bigger). Would have preferred double shots if stationary for example (heavy bolter being 2 on move, 4 stationary...)

Expected nerf to Disintegrator, they're not even as good as classic plasma. Termies and vehicles straight up don't care about being Thanos snapped, which feels off. Could at least have Rending.

Moderately worried that AP3 will be everywhere and AP2 nowhere to push Termies this edition.

The extra nuance in melee is honestly nice, power axe feels in a good spot finally.

So if I've undserstood what they're saying about heavy weapons, we now have lascannon squads that can move AND shoot?

Interesting.

I note that a Meltagun, at D6, is described as being able to one shot a Predator. Or a Deredeo.

Which suggests Dreadnoughts in general have been toned down.

The rest I’m cautiously enthused by. A more mobile game might be fun. And I like at least the concept that different Heavy Weapons gain different benefits from remaining stationary.

"Firepower" instead of "Attacks" is a dumb change as is "Ranged Strength" instead of "Strength". It's a gun, why would anyone care what it's non-ranged Strength is?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The extra nuance in melee is honestly nice, power axe feels in a good spot finally.

Yeah it always struck me as stupid that power axes struck as slowly as power/chain fists. Unwieldy need and (X) stat.

Another thing I just picked up - there's no provisions in the weapon profiles for the interaction between shooting and charging. Should we assume you can always charge (except maybe if you stayed stationary to proc Heavy and similar bonuses)

 Snord wrote:
The side view on the Saturnine Termies is certainly unflattering. We don’t really consider ballistic shape much when it comes to HH designs, but these things would be walking shot-traps.

I'm assuming they're designed to stand side on to the enemy and only turn to face when they're ready to shoot, to minimize silhouette? JK they're just single pose flat like 2nd ed tactical marines and such

Billicus wrote:
"Firepower" instead of "Attacks" is a dumb change as is "Ranged Strength" instead of "Strength". It's a gun, why would anyone care what it's non-ranged Strength is?

The article explains RS being there for other rules interactions, to differentiate between shooting something and clobbering something.

I imagine a common one will be power shields and that, where it might reduce RS, but do nowt against Melee.

check back on Monday for one of the most fun rules revisions of the new edition – the Challenge step. You’ve never seen a more narratively satisfying addition to combat in Warhammer…

Doubt

Meh, not sold. As stated, D is just a replacement for brutal, for the most part. Its not a fix for dreadnoughts, because its also impacting vehicles who now need more hull to offset the inflation in lethality. Ive seen this movie before, lethality usually inflates faster than survivability, this will probably be an infantry edition.

I suspect the vehicle damage table might be gone. Note how the article points out that a D6 melta can pop a Predator in one shot through hull points. And note how the lascannon paragraph hints their optimal target are Termies and doesn't mention vehicles at all - possibly because a D2 hit is just a D2 hit with no possibility of causing a bigger effect.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

check back on Monday for one of the most fun rules revisions of the new edition – the Challenge step. You’ve never seen a more narratively satisfying addition to combat in Warhammer…

Doubt

Challenges were fun in WHFB, a way to accrue some extra combat res if you really battered the poor sap into the muck.

But…yeah. Will have to wait and see what’s in store here.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Billicus wrote:
"Firepower" instead of "Attacks" is a dumb change as is "Ranged Strength" instead of "Strength". It's a gun, why would anyone care what it's non-ranged Strength is?

The article explains RS being there for other rules interactions, to differentiate between shooting something and clobbering something.

I imagine a common one will be power shields and that, where it might reduce RS, but do nowt against Melee.

Which is sort of needless bloat, isn't it

Well…who knows? Were told the intent, but are yet to see the practice.

Also, please define bloat. As a lot of the time, it seems to be used when they mean “here’s a change I don’t like”.

Its an unnecessary distinction. The rukes already distinguished between melee and ranged strength by referencing whether or not a rule triggered off of a "melee attack" or a "ranged attack"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well…who knows? Were told the intent, but are yet to see the practice.

Also, please define bloat. As a lot of the time, it seems to be used when they mean “here’s a change I don’t like”.

Extra stuff invented for the sakes of inventing extra stuff. Most of what is changed so far is largely "for the sakes of it", which to some will be innovation, to others regression and other just bloat.

This shield provides a 4+ invulnerable save, except against melee attacks.

This shield provides a 4+ invulnerable save against RS attacks

Looks like a shorter wording to me.

As for the rest? Again, we don’t know a great deal about the overall implementation. It might be awful, it might be great. It might be merely acceptable.

So instead of learning lessons about just tweaking dreads, we're looking at them going straight back to "can get one shotted". Cool, awesome, love it. Definitely the fix that was needed and not at all an overblown reaction that makes them worthless again.

Well, all it really tells us is a Deredeo specifically has no more than W6 or HP6.

We don’t know what its Toughness is, we don’t know what its Save is. We don’t know what other damage mitigation rules it may or may not have.

And let’s not be daft. Any Dreadnought, left parked within 6” of a Melta squad was probably in for a bad day regardless of edition. 2nd Heresy was arguably the safest for such silly actions.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

As for the rest? Again, we don’t know a great deal about the overall implementation. It might be awful, it might be great. It might be merely acceptable.

A reasonable response?! Inconceivable in a Horus Heresy thread.

But seriously, I am with you. We have been drip fed very little so far. Folks should be a bit more patient before making sweeping assumptions.

I'm disappointed because having had a proper look, the weapon stuff is not bad rules.

I'm still not convinced on the whole "4 leaderships" thing mind.

But getting dragged back into the 3 year cycle is too much of a cross to carry.

Are we sure that Saturnine thing up on the left is a Dreadnought?
It looks more like a Knight....

With these weapon profiles and the Statuses Updates this actually sounds and looks like a totally different game merely inspired by old Warhammer 40K rules, whatever GW is saying about it.
Whether that's good or bad we need to see but all the talk of "this is still the game you know and love" looks quite unnecessary and like PR speech when they actually changed the whole thing and made something like a mishmash of HH 2nd and 40K 10th.

I wouldn't be surprised if they change vehicle AV to flat T values. Just like they did with 8th 40k and beyond. I guess v4 will bring us mortal wounds and all those critical damages
To be honest, the more I look into it, the more it feels like they are trying to re-invent a bicycle.

The more i look at it, the more i think ill be sticking to 2nd edition. It should be easy enough to backport rules for saturnine stuff and the handful of new units theyll probably release this edition.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The more i look at it, the more i think ill be sticking to 2nd edition. It should be easy enough to backport rules for saturnine stuff and the handful of new units theyll probably release this edition.

I'd really like a lil old community edition, like below 20 pages of rules changes should cover it.

For Saturnine, Liber Centura is a decent place to start, IIRC they basically went with just W3 and Battle Hardened (1), but of course they didn't anticipate everyone having plasma/disintegrator cannons.

 Gert wrote:
I'm disappointed because having had a proper look, the weapon stuff is not bad rules.

I'm still not convinced on the whole "4 leaderships" thing mind.

But getting dragged back into the 3 year cycle is too much of a cross to carry.

This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

Poor writing makes the game imbalanced, not the frequency of updates. But doing full rewrites instead of polishing what's there will keep it imbalanced.

Will be interresting to see where they take this edition when it comes to models.
Second edition have been the great move to plastic with some more or less "lojal to the original" remakes.

Now, saturnine models is new territory for designing new plastic stuff (they really dont look like the original Sat termie, and even the mk 2 armour looks way more hi-tech than the studded bucket look I would have expected). So after breachers and upscale of terminator patterns, where will they go?
New stuff they pretend was always there, or bringing plastic to the resin legion specific units (all those legendary units that will look incredibly silly next to the upscaled plastic).

Well for one we're still missing literally the entire Fast Attack section except jetbikes. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the statement remained true by the end of 3rd edition, but let's hope.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well…who knows? Were told the intent, but are yet to see the practice.

Also, please define bloat. As a lot of the time, it seems to be used when they mean “here’s a change I don’t like”.

"bloat" implies getting bigger. and that is happening this edition (although i quite like the change to leadership stats; besides the point). so a fair point can be made about bloat in some cases... but this choice is just changing a name. nothing is getting longer or more belaboured because of these changes

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Sure it doesn't, but none of the games that have gone on three-year cycles have left them. Main systems get 3-year cycles, GW considers HH a main system.

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

A new edition rewritten every three years does not a healthier game make. All it does is force people to rebuy £30-40 books every three years and relearn a game that a large number of people might rarely play (as in once a month).
FAQs or clean-ups can do the same thing without also forcing people to relearn the game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

Poor writing makes the game imbalanced, not the frequency of updates. But doing full rewrites instead of polishing what's there will keep it imbalanced.

Frequency of updates can at least lead to corrective action. Poor writing will never go away, because games are complex and GW's approach is too dynamic vs something like Battletech that hasn't really changed in 40 years. If a company is going to try to be dynamic and keep games fresh and new, it needs to have a more regular cycle of updates/FAQs, or the game can stay unhealthy for too long driving away players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Sure it doesn't, but none of the games that have gone on three-year cycles have left them. Main systems get 3-year cycles, GW considers HH a main system.

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

A new edition rewritten every three years does not a healthier game make. All it does is force people to rebuy £30-40 books every three years and relearn a game that a large number of people might rarely play (as in once a month).
FAQs or clean-ups can do the same thing without also forcing people to relearn the game.

We can put that to a test relatively soon with The Old World when it hits 3 years. Then we will have a good sample size to work with.

FAQs and clean-ups don't generate sales though and we know that GW's focus is sales. Not that I love that, but I recognize that as a driver of their dynamic model. And I wouldn't call this "re-learning". The jump from 7th to 8th in 40k or from WHFB to AOS was a more significant change than this appears to be, where that was genuinely re-learning. This is just a tweak to very familiar concepts.

battletech is hardly balanced either. It's 'balance' is a lack of force orgs, but everyone knows there are killer mechs and trash mechs, and most tournies these days do availability limits which effectively means you better paint your guys non descript or in the right colors if you wanna win

The older more groggy games just aren't good at balancing. It's gak that embraces new design paradigms with a focus on competition.

But also a balanced competitive game requires regular updates to shift metas and keep the list building exciting or it will die. There's a reason 40k updates so frequently, and that's a legacy of competitive gaming, even if 40k is too hobbled by legacy design to be truly great for it.

ok, so while a 3 year churn is good for competitive gaming, I thought HH was a rivet counter's game, forging the narrative and all that instead?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
FAQs and clean-ups don't generate sales though and we know that GW's focus is sales. Not that I love that, but I recognize that as a driver of their dynamic model. And I wouldn't call this "re-learning". The jump from 7th to 8th in 40k or from WHFB to AOS was a more significant change than this appears to be, where that was genuinely re-learning. This is just a tweak to very familiar concepts.

A clean-up ruleset would be one similar to the original Age of Darkness ruleset (the red one). It didn't add any new concepts that weren't already in the game, but it did tidy up the bigger issues with balance and fixed some rather problematic items *cough*Invisibility*cough*.

HH did not need a whole new edition only three years in, and just because you know the decision was made to drive sales, that doesn't make it the right thing to do for the system, which is what people here are saying. This isn't the same situation as HH1, which had 6 main books before its clean-up rule set was released.

You can also call it whatever you want, I can't use the books I've had for barely 3 years to play this new edition, so yes, it is learning a new edition. Stats, tactics, synergies, army construction, reactions, all of this needs to be learned anew to match the rules of the new edition. That's time a lot of people won't have. The system didn't need rebuilding from the ground up and it didn't need changes like we've seen thus far to fix some of the issues in HH2 so ultimately there is no reason for this edition to exist beyond "Buy Product" which a large number of players are finding to be a bit of a joke.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I suspect the vehicle damage table might be gone. Note how the article points out that a D6 melta can pop a Predator in one shot through hull points. And note how the lascannon paragraph hints their optimal target are Termies and doesn't mention vehicles at all - possibly because a D2 hit is just a D2 hit with no possibility of causing a bigger effect.

...ugh. I kinda hate that.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

As for the rest? Again, we don’t know a great deal about the overall implementation. It might be awful, it might be great. It might be merely acceptable.

A reasonable response?! Inconceivable in a Horus Heresy thread.

But seriously, I am with you. We have been drip fed very little so far. Folks should be a bit more patient before making sweeping assumptions.

Can anyone remember the last (or any recent) example(s) of a GW rumour/preview displeasing people, other people going WAIT AND SEE, and then the final result mellowing out the disappointed crowd by not being bad as they expected?

Legit question! I can only remember the times people were vindicated, including two examples from this exact same release.

WAIT AND SEE, it might just be a boxed set and not a new edition
WAIT AND SEE, the new edition might be mild revision and not a big shakeup

The weapons preview put the nail in it.
This is not the same game.
It is a new game with similar concepts and a boatload of new ideas and rehashed ideas slapped on top.

Renaming characteristics, breaking apart others, and adding new/old ones is too much to claim its the same game.
The Challenge Phase they mentioned further distances it from the previous incarnation.

Horus Heresy didn't need that.
At this point, there's temptation to go all the way back to the Red book version.

I am so excited by the new edition that I ran out & bought the Liber Mechanicum for HH2ed.
So I now have all the books for all the forces I have any interest in.
Most future models will be things that already have rules, at least for a bit.
Boarding Marines, Fellblade, MkII Assaults, Tarantula, Rapier, etc.
I am sure there is already a profile good to proxy whatever the Mechanicum infantry preview is.

The rules treadmill can die in a fire.
I'm done with it.
Now the clock starts for an all plastic Storm Eagle/ Fire Raptor kit...

stratigo wrote:
battletech is hardly balanced either. It's 'balance' is a lack of force orgs, but everyone knows there are killer mechs and trash mechs, and most tournies these days do availability limits which effectively means you better paint your guys non descript or in the right colors if you wanna win

The older more groggy games just aren't good at balancing. It's gak that embraces new design paradigms with a focus on competition.

But also a balanced competitive game requires regular updates to shift metas and keep the list building exciting or it will die. There's a reason 40k updates so frequently, and that's a legacy of competitive gaming, even if 40k is too hobbled by legacy design to be truly great for it.

I used Battletech more as an example of a non-dynamic ruleset than about balance. It is a mostly narrative game, so the balance isn't perfect when the lore of some Mechs is that they actually suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
FAQs and clean-ups don't generate sales though and we know that GW's focus is sales. Not that I love that, but I recognize that as a driver of their dynamic model. And I wouldn't call this "re-learning". The jump from 7th to 8th in 40k or from WHFB to AOS was a more significant change than this appears to be, where that was genuinely re-learning. This is just a tweak to very familiar concepts.

A clean-up ruleset would be one similar to the original Age of Darkness ruleset (the red one). It didn't add any new concepts that weren't already in the game, but it did tidy up the bigger issues with balance and fixed some rather problematic items *cough*Invisibility*cough*.

HH did not need a whole new edition only three years in, and just because you know the decision was made to drive sales, that doesn't make it the right thing to do for the system, which is what people here are saying. This isn't the same situation as HH1, which had 6 main books before its clean-up rule set was released.

You can also call it whatever you want, I can't use the books I've had for barely 3 years to play this new edition, so yes, it is learning a new edition. Stats, tactics, synergies, army construction, reactions, all of this needs to be learned anew to match the rules of the new edition. That's time a lot of people won't have. The system didn't need rebuilding from the ground up and it didn't need changes like we've seen thus far to fix some of the issues in HH2 so ultimately there is no reason for this edition to exist beyond "Buy Product" which a large number of players are finding to be a bit of a joke.

Yeah, plenty of valid criticism there. But alas, until we aren't in a for-profit world, the "buy product" thing is the real driver behind everything. And not one I excuse, but one I understand. And to a degree we have to play along or the game itself dies.

Also, isn't the idea of learning new strats, tactics, synergies, and all that fun? I think it is. Games get stale. Not every edition or new idea is going to be a winner, but we shouldn't lament change when it comes along just because sometimes things aren't perfect. Basically, at that point, why play at all? If it isn't fun, keep playing the edition you love.

Sorry, rambling now, but I am just perplexed by all the endless negativity and doom & gloom.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Also, isn't the idea of learning new strats, tactics, synergies, and all that fun? I think it is. Games get stale. Not every edition or new idea is going to be a winner, but we shouldn't lament change when it comes along just because sometimes things aren't perfect. Basically, at that point, why play at all?

Again, this isn't about change being bad, it's about the pace. I don't mind the weapon rules from today, I just don't think they're so drastically needed that it had to be implemented right now. An FAQ and 2 more years of HH2 would have been fine enough. Five years is long enough to allow for the rules to settle and an FAQ to poke more holes that can be addressed with a new edition.

I too found myself eying up the HH2 Libers I don’t have, complete the set and sit the churn out.
No cheap ones on eBay yet……

How long has MKVI been $84? MKIII are $79. Did they just restock them and increase the price? They were just out of stock a couple days ago

So kind of dumb question and probably in the we do not know area, but with Melta, is the Melta (X) the range, or the damage number? Their example uses 6 for both the range and the damage, so I have no clue if melta is a fixed range/half range as it always has been, in which case the X is the damage, or if it always multiplies damage by 2, in which case the X is range. They specifically call out doubling the damage 3 up to 6, but I'm unsure if that is because this specific example just lined up that way or not...

 skrulnik wrote:
The weapons preview put the nail in it.
This is not the same game.
It is a new game with similar concepts and a boatload of new ideas and rehashed ideas slapped on top.

Renaming characteristics, breaking apart others, and adding new/old ones is too much to claim its the same game.
The Challenge Phase they mentioned further distances it from the previous incarnation.

Horus Heresy didn't need that.
At this point, there's temptation to go all the way back to the Red book version.

I am so excited by the new edition that I ran out & bought the Liber Mechanicum for HH2ed.
So I now have all the books for all the forces I have any interest in.
Most future models will be things that already have rules, at least for a bit.
Boarding Marines, Fellblade, MkII Assaults, Tarantula, Rapier, etc.
I am sure there is already a profile good to proxy whatever the Mechanicum infantry preview is.

The rules treadmill can die in a fire.
I'm done with it.
Now the clock starts for an all plastic Storm Eagle/ Fire Raptor kit...

Yes, exactly this. When the news dropped it was HH 3.0, and not a 2.5 “cleanup”, I picked up the 2 Liber (Mechanicus and Imperialis) books I didn’t have, and the Martian Civil War campaign book, to complete my HH2.0 collection, and call it a day. Downloaded their FAQ/errata sheets and all set. I have a stack of stuff to build, I don’t need the Saturnine guys, and in my admittedly small group of garagehammer friends, HH2.0 is enough to keep us going.

Good luck to everyone who wants to deal with the churn, but having come back to 40K at the tail end of 7th, and very enthusiastically adopting 8th Ed, when 10th came round, the burnout hit and I realised that for me, at least, settling on an edition you are happy with - and have like-minded folk to game with - is the way forward.

Hopefully, we’ll see some legion-specific units redone in plastic, and that will scratch my hobby itch going forward.

I wish I could present some compelling arguments to counter the comments above - I want to think that these changes are improvements. But the points made about the lack of necessity for such a major overhaul, particularly so soon after the last edition dropped, are impossible to dispute. Nor can I claim to have much faith in GW’s judgment when it comes to tinkering with their rules - they (IMO) gutted WH40k of most of the features I liked in the course of ‘improving’, and it’s no longer really a war game. And I say that as someone who stayed with that game for 9 editions including RT.

Another issue with churning out editions is that there is even less time for playtesting the changes. We know that this has always been one of GW’s weaknesses, and it’s likely to have been exacerbated by their increased secrecy. These new rules will likely have been locked in several months ago. I just don’t believe that they can have been play-tested with any degree of rigour.

These is one example of a game that started off being regarded as a terrible idea and which proved to be successful, and that’s AoS. Although it seems to have faded somewhat in the face of WtOW’s popularity. So there is still some basis for being less pessimistic about the new edition. I’ve also seen some (cautiously) positive reactions to the changes from some of the YouTube people who focus on HH.

I’m not going to complete my 2nd Edition book collection (I only have the rulebook and the 2 Legion books). I’ll give the new edition a go, although I might skip the boxed set. The qualification to this is that if they eventually invalidate half the models I’ve done I might just bail.

 Fifty wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:
Well, the preview was preponed so I guess they have to stretch their planned content.

anteponed?

I've never seen preponed outside of India, I kind of like the word

 kurhanik wrote:
So kind of dumb question and probably in the we do not know area, but with Melta, is the Melta (X) the range, or the damage number? Their example uses 6 for both the range and the damage, so I have no clue if melta is a fixed range/half range as it always has been, in which case the X is the damage, or if it always multiplies damage by 2, in which case the X is range. They specifically call out doubling the damage 3 up to 6, but I'm unsure if that is because this specific example just lined up that way or not...

I understood the number as saying in what range you get armourbane. And armourbane doubles your damage against vehicles. So I'll assume a heavy melta will be Melta(12) and having a range of 24". It opens up space to have weapons with 18" range and Melta in 12", or 30" range and Melta in 6" or whatever.

Is anyone else feeling like this is slowly looking like modern 40k advanced?

kind of always was

I guess they tried to be more of their own with 2nd Edition and now are going back to what worked before

which makes sense from a sales point of view to catch those who like current 40k and want to fall back to something similar with more lore when the new Edition comes

Dudeface wrote:
Is anyone else feeling like this is slowly looking like modern 40k advanced?

A little bit yea

Maybe it's time each of writes their own edition

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Necromunda has been the churniest churn-fest that ever churned!

But, yeah, let's all Wait And See for three years...

There are different types of churn. Necromunda and LI have, let's say, DLC churn, where the rules stay the same but content was cut and you have to buy 6 books just to get the full game as it was in the 90s.

I really like how concise the special rules are. Right now: Why say something in a sentence when you can say it in a paragraph?

Glad to see some of the special rules melding into stats; at times I had to make unit index cards with them all so I wouldn't forget them in a battle. Honestly, I still mess up Rending vs Breaching; my ghost will tell everyone that will/will not listen. ugh.

We're only seeing a small selection of weapons. While heavy weapons get to move and melta is strong, it'll be up to good general to figure out how to counter them. I have a feeling there's going to be a certain amount of "nerf them" tactics when it comes to putting debuffs on units. No Sunder on Lascannons. yay!

Overall more movement is good. I like the tactical choices in CCW now.

Thumbs up so far.

Heavy weapons moving prooobably means the game won't be playable without ITC ruin corners everywhere.

Or heavy weapons are going to be going up in points, and if vehicles always count as stationary for heavy weapons that makes them comparatively more viable.

It certainly helps things like Predators be more than lumbering pillboxes, even if the weapons don’t always count as stationery. Which should help them compare favourably with Dreadnoughts.

Another thing? If, and right now it is only an if due to lack of information, the damage chart is gone? Tanks may get a significant boost.

Consider something with a tasty turret gun, but due to points constraints, Heavy Bolter sponsons. Right now, a single weapon destroyed takes out the turret weapon first. Hence I’ve built most of my sponsons as Lascannons, as those count as main guns, and so keep it a viable asset for longer.

Vehicle damage chart is crazy. Im the kind of guy that always see my expencive tanks blow up first turn due to an unlikely row of sixes rolled. When I started playing HH it was swinging between sweet nostalgia memmories and PTSD to be honest.

But then again those are the games you remember and generate the strongest feelings about the game.

If the chart is gone I hope vehicles are at least subject to Tactical Statuses in some capacity.

Suppression is fun!

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There are different types of churn. Necromunda and LI have, let's say, DLC churn, where the rules stay the same but content was cut and you have to buy 6 books just to get the full game as it was in the 90s.

That's not quite right either. I think "DLC churn" is a fine way to describe it, but the extra books were adding content that demonstrably did not exist and had no precedent in the old version.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Heavy weapons moving prooobably means the game won't be playable without ITC ruin corners everywhere.

Did HH preserve working terrain rules for non-ruins terrain?

Part of the reason for ruin corners is that the other terrain types were stomped on. For example, 4th edition area terrain would have done the job of ruin corners but could be expressed as ruins, forests, thickets of alien plants, etc.

 Altruizine wrote:

That's not quite right either. I think "DLC churn" is a fine way to describe it, but the extra books were adding content that demonstrably did not exist and had no precedent in the old version.

You needed... maybe 5 splatbooks just to collect the 6 OG gangs for Necromunda. Goliaths and Eschers were literally a day 1 expansion book and not in the starter box. Pretty sure LI came out swinging with cut content too... like the entire fast attack section, that came in the first "expansion".

Did HH preserve working terrain rules for non-ruins terrain?

Part of the reason for ruin corners is that the other terrain types were stomped on. For example, 4th edition area terrain would have done the job of ruin corners but could be expressed as ruins, forests, thickets of alien plants, etc.

Sadly not really. I did notice the ruin corners try to replicate area terrain functionality. It only took until mid 9th edition (12 years, give or take) for the tournament circuit to figure out that what the game needs to be tactical is terrain that blocks LOS without blocking room for placing models.

I don't think GW has ever written a good set of challenge rules, but maybe with Marine vs Marine base they'll succeed this time.

How would people want challenge rules to work?

 Dysartes wrote:
How would people want challenge rules to work?

I want them to go away, they're a dumb thing for an army game.

Agreed.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
How would people want challenge rules to work?

I want them to go away, they're a dumb thing for an army game.

This.

 Dysartes wrote:
How would people want challenge rules to work?

Ideally, whilst not necessarily applicable to the modern game sensibilities? A means to try to neutralise Hero Hammer.

Rather than allow your Big Scary Psycho to lawnmower their way through my unit, I issue a challenge with at least a Unit Leader, almost certainly costing their life whilst preserving the rest of the unit. Granted, unless I’ve something else up my sleeve for the next turn (such as my very own, ideally biggerer Bug Scary Psycho Turbo Nutter in place to counter charge) I’m merely delaying the inevitable. But sometimes, even a delay can do the necessary job.

I’m also not entirely unfond of the Overkill concept, where the harder I butter your dude, the more combat res points I can earn - but ideally at a cap. This allows even low to medium level characters to seriously aid in line breaking by horribly duffing up an enemy unit leader.

I don't dislike the idea of challenges, but I don't like that you potentially don't get a choice about them.

It's either accept a challenge you very likely won't win, or completely lose the use of a character for that turn's combat. That smacks of Feel Bad to me. I'd much rather it be something along the lines of you don't have to accept a challenge, but then you can only use the lowest leadership in the unit for any subsequent tests that round "as the confusion of battle has rendered the units command structure ineffective". Or somesuch. Make up your own justification.

Or maybe have characters on a tier system. Sergeant are 1. Veteran Sergeants (vets and legion elite units) are 2. Consuls are 3, Preators 4 and Primarchs 5.
Everyone can challenge their own Tier, but a lower Tier character can punch up and challenge a higher Tier at his own risk, but a higher Tier character can't punch down and bully the little fish.

Sure your tactical Sgt. with power fist could try and blat that paragon blade wielding Praetor. But you best be prepared to lose him if he feths up.


Of course you'd have a Tier system structured so that it not only account for Marines, but also Solar Aux, Mechanicum, Talons, etc.
It's a fairly simple system and I'm sure it wouldn't be too tricky to work out. But I still wouldn't trust GW not to feth it up though.

 Snrub wrote:
Or maybe have characters on a tier system. Sergeant are 1. Veteran Sergeants (vets and legion elite units) are 2. Consuls are 3, Preators 4 and Primarchs 5.
Everyone can challenge their own Tier, but a lower Tier character can punch up and challenge a higher Tier at his own risk, but a higher Tier character can't punch down and bully the little fish

I love this idea.

That tier system could also solve the “lose a character for a round problem”, if you allow characters with a higher tier (say two ranks above) to flat just ignore a challenge from a lower tier.

Primarchs don’t really care that Sgt. Plucky Pluckerson has challenged them to a duel when they can just slaughter the entire squad…

 Jadenim wrote:
That tier system could also solve the “lose a character for a round problem”, if you allow characters with a higher tier (say two ranks above) to flat just ignore a challenge from a lower tier.

Primarchs don’t really care that Sgt. Plucky Pluckerson has challenged them to a duel when they can just slaughter the entire squad…

Isn't Sgt Plucky standing up to Horus and being obliterated, triggering the big E kind of a major bit of Heresy lore?

Yes!

Each Sergeant you feed to the enemy Primarch gives your own Primarch +1 Attack, or something.

No...

+1 Willpower

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
That tier system could also solve the “lose a character for a round problem”, if you allow characters with a higher tier (say two ranks above) to flat just ignore a challenge from a lower tier.

Primarchs don’t really care that Sgt. Plucky Pluckerson has challenged them to a duel when they can just slaughter the entire squad…

Isn't Sgt Plucky standing up to Horus and being obliterated, triggering the big E kind of a major bit of Heresy lore?

Yes, sergeant Ollanius Pope Pious the eleventyseventh something. Who was a rando guardsman despite none teleporting on board, a catholic perpetual (again with no actual reason to be on board Horus’s personal flagship), a Custodian, or a Blood Angel driven mad by the sight of his slaughtered Primarch, depending on which version of the story you’re reading today.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yes!

Each Sergeant you feed to the enemy Primarch gives your own Primarch +1 Attack, or something.

No...

+1 Willpower

"I can cast psychic powers better for feeding my 3 sergeants to Perturabo!!!!" - Vulkan, mirca M31, right before realising he isn't a psyker.

So!

I've stumbled on a reveal stream reaction video that came out much later than the usual content creators and caught things those scrambling to publish first missed. https://youtu.be/ZnByF9krm9I?si=FjVBCshjliWIgJFK

Among them that there are Glaives amongst the Fellblades in the cinematic trailer.

And during the rulebook flipthrough, the first artwork of Mk4 with the new proportions.

Sunday Preview – Tyranid Raveners burrow into Kill Team
Tarantulas & Rapiers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oh interesting that these are coming out ahead of the new edition. Maybe their rules will suck

Also one thing those guys spotted in the stream was an image of a Whirlwind with the Hyperios missile launcher on top, which I'm guessing must be a legal option and you can build it just by plonking the Tarantula turret on it.

Very tempted by the Rapiers, a cute mini-mini landraider
Curious what their prize is going to be.

What is the armor the crew are wearing? looks like grimdark bodycams on the chest

wolfrider wrote:
Very tempted by the Rapiers, a cute mini-mini landraider
Curious what their prize is going to be.

Probably 40€ for two?

Curious what their unit size will be. If they still top at 3 it's going to be so obnoxious to get a full unit armed the same.

 skrulnik wrote:
What is the armor the crew are wearing? looks like grimdark bodycams on the chest

It's based on the original LE2 Imperial Space Marine armor and gets a mention in the armor timeline of the 2.0 rulebook. The helmets are from the MkIV techmarine, and the shoulders also look more MkIV than the rest of the model.

 skrulnik wrote:
What is the armor the crew are wearing? looks like grimdark bodycams on the chest

Possibly a homage to the original Imperial Space Marine LE2

Its GWs way of saying "nah, we arent making distinct sets of armor for this unit"

Well all the Rapier control stuff is separate so you can fit them on MKII/III/VI if need be.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its GWs way of saying "nah, we arent making distinct sets of armor for this unit"

I mean the other option is 6 skus for one unit, so I'm actually ok with this.

If someone wants armor mark specific crew they can use the crew arms on their Mk II, III, VI etc.

Oh, i fully support it too. Its probably one of the nost consumer friendly moves they made in yesrs lol

Given the resemblance to the tech marine helm, it might be something specific to that branch of the legions. Like it has some specific advantages for working with vehicles and artillery.
Between these guys and the iron warriors being poster-boys this edition, don’t be surprised if the Legion Basilisk turns up again, but the crew has this armour.

Ooh, rapiers already. I fully expect whichever option I buy to be the bad one in 3.0 but such is life. Graviton it is for me

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Ooh, rapiers already. I fully expect whichever option I buy to be the bad one in 3.0 but such is life. Graviton it is for me

Buy both then. My Knights aren't a fan of heavier weapons.

Three sets of the Laser/Quad Gun for me, I think.

One resin grav and one resin quad launcher will be leading batteries of the plastics for me.

I might the second set tp use as quad launchers and then put the laser destroyers on a tank, like my Spartan I haven't built.

 BorderCountess wrote:
I might the second set tp use as quad launchers and then put the laser destroyers on a tank, like my Spartan I haven't built.

The Felblade is going to come with proper Laser Destroyer sponsons, which I plan to swap with a quad las from a spartan myself.

I wonder how Laser Destroyers compare to quad las with the new edition. Maybe drop from 48" range to 36" but gain Dam 2 base and otherwise the same?

lord_blackfang wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

That's not quite right either. I think "DLC churn" is a fine way to describe it, but the extra books were adding content that demonstrably did not exist and had no precedent in the old version.

You needed... maybe 5 splatbooks just to collect the 6 OG gangs for Necromunda. Goliaths and Eschers were literally a day 1 expansion book and not in the starter box. Pretty sure LI came out swinging with cut content too... like the entire fast attack section, that came in the first "expansion".

Which is how they've always been.

The addition of all those unique models was purely for sales purposes...

The addition of absolutely everything has always been for sales purposes

Necromunda may have been a victim of its own success in terms of initial rapid replacement and notable upgrade.

The current one is essentially the standard 40K/AoS approach - rulebook, army book. And the army book contains the vast majority of your rules, with the occasional addition elsewhere.

The sourcebooks, which contain the new toys, are also a way to keep eyes on the game, something the original kinda lacked. Beloved as the game was, it didn’t have many big releases. The new method corrects that, with a bunch of gorgeous non-gang specific releases to tempt every player’s pocket.

LI? Part of that is down to parasites like Chapterhouse. Parasites can’t beat you to market if the units don’t exist in-game yet. And it’s not terribly different to the Olden Days, where to have a complete set of rules, even in 2nd Ed, you’d need…

Space Marine, Armies of the Imperium, Renegades, Ork & Squat Warlords, Titan Legions, Hive War and regular copies of WD, all of which fed in new units and new units on a pretty regular basis. And for the true connosieur, the odd edition of Citadel Journal.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
LI? Part of that is down to parasites like Chapterhouse. Parasites can’t beat you to market if the units don’t exist in-game yet. And it’s not terribly different to the Olden Days, where to have a complete set of rules, even in 2nd Ed, you’d need…

"Parasites" is overly harsh - if GW shows no intention of releasing a kit/sculpt of something they've including in an army list there's going to be someone who will fill that gap, either with an article on how to do a specific conversion or by releasing a sculpt for it. These days, it'd probably be an STL, rather than a physical model.

Serving a gap in the market - and exposing how inept GW were when it came to IP - hardly makes someone a parasite.

Chapterhouse was a parasite company of extremely limited creative input. Taking someone else’s designs and charging money for them = cheeky. But using their own trademarks to promote them, especially when some of your designs are just crap (Grav Vespa, anyone?) = parasite.

But my overall point stands. Holding off new models for a new volume of rules or WD article is Standard Epic.

which is 90% of content for GW games out there
make everything available that GW promises but does not deliver with your own brand and earn money with it

cut all the "parasites" off and and things would be pretty empty

The actual parasites are youtubers who post a "GW did a bad thing / Warhammer is doomed" video every week

3rd party products fixing a gap in the market are just signs the market leader is fething something up, and they're making the game healthier,and GW's sales higher, by supplying the missing thing.

Anyone got Rapier prices?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The actual parasites are youtubers who post a "GW did a bad thing / Warhammer is doomed" video every week

The real parasite is Youtube and how they've coded and weighted their algorithm
A lot of the youtubers just do this because it seems to be the only way for many to generate clicks. If they run videos that aren't GW they get tanked on clicks and views by the system because GW is the "big name" and if they aren't emotive titles they also get less attention.

It's the case of "bad news sells" changing too "we only advertise bad news"

The actual parasites are the STLs we printed along the way

I'm going to shoot a few Bothans just to maintain the joke:

Rapiers £44 / 55 Euros
Tarantulas £37 / 47.50 Euros

I really wish they were in the LI unit box bracket.

I also really wish we knew the new unit sizes.

Still in for Rapiers.

Never been entirely convinced by Tarantulas. Not sure why.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Never been entirely convinced by Tarantulas. Not sure why.

I'm a fan of the original Imperial Tarantula - I think it's the Space Crusade influence. However, I'm currently making a trench board and Tarantulas seem appropriate for that.

Immobile stuff is meh. Funny they should head the new ultra mobile edition where everyone moves and shoots everything with a bunch of small immobile guns before the starter and a large immobile gun in the starter.

Hmm, these prices are probably too high for me for some nice to have side projects, as is often the case with GW. I already got Rapiers 10 years ago from Puppets War and they did the Job just fine, would only get one Set for the Quad launchers.
Tarantulas would be more for scenery in Stargrave, but again, not a price that you put in the basket just to reach the gratis shipping threshold...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still in for Rapiers.

Never been entirely convinced by Tarantulas. Not sure why.

Agreed on both counts. Although Rapiers currently take up a valuable Elites slot, which makes it hard to take 2 units of them. That may change with the new edition.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still in for Rapiers.

Never been entirely convinced by Tarantulas. Not sure why.

Traditionally, they've always been fast attack, so they were a good budget pick for a legion that didn't take much, if any, fast attack (Iron Warriors, etc). Hopefully, they'll get some sort of deep strike ability, where they gravchute into position. They used to be able to, especially with Elysian Drop Troops. It'd suit Iron Warriors to have tarantulas dropped down behind or in trenches.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still in for Rapiers.

Never been entirely convinced by Tarantulas. Not sure why.

Traditionally, they've always been fast attack, so they were a good budget pick for a legion that didn't take much, if any, fast attack (Iron Warriors, etc). Hopefully, they'll get some sort of deep strike ability, where they gravchute into position. They used to be able to, especially with Elysian Drop Troops. It'd suit Iron Warriors to have tarantulas dropped down behind or in trenches.

Well in fluff currently Tarantula turrets are dropped on the field. Even the new Araknae Quad is also apparently dropped into battle.

 Snord wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still in for Rapiers.

Never been entirely convinced by Tarantulas. Not sure why.

Agreed on both counts. Although Rapiers currently take up a valuable Elites slot, which makes it hard to take 2 units of them. That may change with the new edition.

We’re told the new edition has relatively free build for armies. What that means and actually looks like? Who knows right now.

Well. GW know, but they’ve kept schtum

To be fair, the fact that the old FOC was kept for a game that is meant to be played at larger points values (~3000 points) was always kinda weird as the old FOC really struggled at 2000 points or more (which was why 7th allowed a second FOC at 2000).

That means that basically every HH army either has FOC shenanigans or doesn't really work.

Challenge!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/zxczxmzi/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-a-challenge-of-champions/

 zedmeister wrote:
Challenge!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/zxczxmzi/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-a-challenge-of-champions/

Looks like the FOC hasn't gone away after all...

Ok, challenge rules are interesting.

I like the gambits, but with nine universal and further Legion Specific ones, balance could be an issue.

There’s nowt wrong with say, Emperors Children excelling in Duels, but I fear an advantage could become a Delete Button.

Definitely something I’d want to experiment with in dice based theory hammer once we have more rules.

 Quixote wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Challenge!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/zxczxmzi/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-a-challenge-of-champions/

Looks like the FOC hasn't gone away after all...

I was gonna say, the few leaks I've seen imply there's still an FOC, but not what it looks like.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ok, challenge rules are interesting.

I like the gambits, but with nine universal and further Legion Specific ones, balance could be an issue.

There’s nowt wrong with say, Emperors Children excelling in Duels, but I fear an advantage could become a Delete Button.

Definitely something I’d want to experiment with in dice based theory hammer once we have more rules.

It's almost like challenges were a bullshitty time wasting mechanic, easily abused to manipulate the fight phase, which most people hated and that's why it was removed.

Edit the more I think about it, why were 4 leadership stats needed and the none of them used for duels, instead leaning on some algebraic stat of modifiers and a dice roll?

Eh, I’m not at all against the mechanic as a concept. For certain Legions with the right equipment, it may prevent a character simply rampaging through an entire unit, bringing an element of risk.

Gambits add to that, but whether in a positive or negative way will require knowledge of all the Gambits and possible equipment stuff.

How the heck did they make charnabal weapons *worse* even in their own niche of being the duel weapons?

They stayed exactly the same as they are now (at least the sabre did) except now because of dice rolls they can go *second*, and they still have next to nil chance to deal damage.

And all this duel complication and no mention of off-hands? Like at least they could've let the off-hand use the additional attack it grants in challenges, instead of just giving +1A to the main weapon. We're trying to be narratively satisfying with these rules, right? ack.

Oh brilliant, an entire phase my main army categorically won't interact with at all.

Looks like the rules writers didn't learn with thr Psychic Phase.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eh, I’m not at all against the mechanic as a concept. For certain Legions with the right equipment, it may prevent a character simply rampaging through an entire unit, bringing an element of risk.

Gambits add to that, but whether in a positive or negative way will require knowledge of all the Gambits and possible equipment stuff.

At best you find that in some circumstances you have a character who can out duel another character or stall them. Reducing it to unit vs unit and you've got value from a niche character build.

It's still a win more or lose more mechanic at heart and eats a load of time doing it for 4 fights a turn.

Like the “advanced” stats, I’m sure there’ll be an initial slowdown in gameplay as folks get used to it.

But once we’re up to speed? It’s choose your gambit, determine Initiative with bonuses, give them a good slap with some modifiers. Which shouldn’t take terribly long, unless your opponent is determined to spin out the clock choosing a sodding Gambit.

Which, let’s be honest, is a clock spinning they’d achieve through other means, if that’s central to their plan. Irritating in a setting with strict time limits for your game - but then, it’s not a game designed with strict time limits in mind.

 Quixote wrote:
Looks like the FOC hasn't gone away after all...

Literally the only good thing we see in this article

This gak is worse than every bad change we've seen so far put together. Honestly so bad that right now I can't even think of anything else I disliked previously and I'm sure there was stuff. Slow, stupid, badly phrased, bloat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Like the “advanced” stats, I’m sure there’ll be an initial slowdown in gameplay as folks get used to it.

But once we’re up to speed? It’s choose your gambit, determine Initiative with bonuses, give them a good slap with some modifiers. Which shouldn’t take terribly long, unless your opponent is determined to spin out the clock choosing a sodding Gambit.

Which, let’s be honest, is a clock spinning they’d achieve through other means, if that’s central to their plan. Irritating in a setting with strict time limits for your game - but then, it’s not a game designed with strict time limits in mind.

Unless you're pressed into situations where you know you’ve won/lost the duel before it starts and it doesnt matter if they accept or not, which is often how these mechanics go. It's not fun seeing your character either forced to skulk in the back or get turned into sushi.

Looks like some rules writer got really taken away by the concept, I mean, 9 gambits + legion specific ones' to choose from for a "Sub-phase", wtf? Talk about bloat...

Which is why we need the remaining rules and that for proper context. We also need to consider already injured characters, and how deadly a challenge might be to them if the Gambit goes awry.

It might be awful in practice, but I’m still open to it for now.

Challenges are the first thing I am disappointed by rules wise. Feels like they reused the mechanics from Death from the Skies fighter battles. At least from the sounds of it it is far more limited and not every combat with a Sergeant or better involved

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which is why we need the remaining rules and that for proper context. We also need to consider already injured characters, and how deadly a challenge might be to them if the Gambit goes awry.

It might be awful in practice, but I’m still open to it for now.

Chances with GW are that out of the 9 gambits there are 2-3 obvious ones' you'll take 90% of the time(like, one if you really want that char dead, one if you rather want the squad dead, too, and one defensive one or so) and others are for fringe cases that only become relevant because of combos with Rites, Legion Rules, weapons etc.

What I’m intrigued by is whether there’ll be much point in Challenging when there’s only Unit Champions throwing hands.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Chances with GW are that out of the 9 gambits there are 2-3 obvious ones' you'll take 90% of the time(like, one if you really want that char dead, one if you rather want the squad dead, too, and one defensive one or so) and others are for fringe cases that only become relevant because of combos with Rites, Legion Rules, weapons etc.

Despite being a clear sign of bad writing I honestly hope this is the case, imagine having to decide from 10 viable options four times every melee phase.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which is why we need the remaining rules and that for proper context. We also need to consider already injured characters, and how deadly a challenge might be to them if the Gambit goes awry.

It might be awful in practice, but I’m still open to it for now.

Chances with GW are that out of the 9 gambits there are 2-3 obvious ones' you'll take 90% of the time(like, one if you really want that char dead, one if you rather want the squad dead, too, and one defensive one or so) and others are for fringe cases that only become relevant because of combos with Rites, Legion Rules, weapons etc.

Yeah, that is probably spot on. I like the idea of challenges being like those big character battles from the books and GW has always struggled making those work in practice. Maybe this will do it finally.

I also hope the penalties for refusing a challenge aren't so crippling that it becomes effectively mandatory to accept if you don't want your unit to be wiped out as a result of refusing.

The only way I could be enjoying the challenge mechanics more is if they still have weird rules for moving the characters which could result in other models popping out of existence around them. Pleeeease GW.

I wonder if character vehicles (like a Knight) will be issuing challenges.

Was this bit there the whole time? I completely missed it on first read.

and vehicle rules on Friday. Yes they’re tougher, and no we haven’t changed how it all works.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Was this bit there the whole time? I completely missed it on first read.

and vehicle rules on Friday. Yes they’re tougher, and no we haven’t changed how it all works.

Reddit person who seems to know a lot said that facings remain, tanks are tougher with better output, there is only a glancing table now with no destroyed result.

But that sounds like what a clever designer would do

High D makes Destroyed redundant, glancing results hopefully folded into the Tactical Statuses

I would be surprised, honestly, if vehicles didn't have a set of specific !Tactical Statuses which function just like Tactical Statuses, but since they're for vehicles you get them from the damage chart instead of specific weapon types.
And of course, no testing Psychological characteristics, they're vehicles!

Shaken, stunned, immobilized, weapon destroyed is 4 results that could reuse the 4 status tokens- suppressed, stunned, pinned, and routed respectively

The challenge rules seem to be complexity and time consuming for the sake of it.

There have been challenge mechanics in other editions of Warhammer (40K and WHFB) and usually it starts the same as what happens with the new HH rules, but then HH piles on the padding.

1: Player makes a challenge with a character/unit leader.
2: Opposing player chooses to take that challenge and the models are normally placed next to each other. If refused the refusing hero/leader makes no attacks.
3: They fight between themselves using all appropriate rules and when all done any modifiers the final battle (wounds) are added to the combat total.

Simple,streamlined, and has been used for 20+ years.

The challenge systems seems cool.

Its also obvious and unnecessary bloat that will slow the game to a crawl.

Im curious what the design brief for this edition was, "add every crazy rule you can imagine, we want the average game to be an all day affair".

 Quixote wrote:
I wonder if character vehicles (like a Knight) will be issuing challenges.

So like...that poor Chaplain is well ****ed.

Not big on these duelling rules. If you are going to get into the nitty gritty of duels, then the worst thing you can do IMO is still have people strike first or second.

Not being able to strike at all before your opponent kills you removes the interactivity something at the scale of a duel should be granting.


To get the actual back and forth they should start either start with the highest I with a single dice and then flick to the other character, alternating between individual attacks, or have them strike simultaneously and give the higher I model bonus attacks to reflect their speed.

No matter how many fancy rules you provide, having one model wait to see if it survives its duel is just no fun for anyone.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
I wonder if character vehicles (like a Knight) will be issuing challenges.

So like...that poor Chaplain is well ****ed.

I was thinking of some poor sod Sergeant in a Solar Auxilla Lasrifle Section.

"SARGE! The giant robot knight is calling for you... specifically!"

 Quixote wrote:


I was thinking of some poor sod Sergeant in a Solar Auxilla Lasrifle Section.

"SARGE! The giant robot knight is calling for you... specifically!"

HAHAHAHAHAA!

"Well??? Where is he? Lets'be'avin'him!"

 Hellebore wrote:
Not big on these duelling rules. If you are going to get into the nitty gritty of duels, then the worst thing you can do IMO is still have people strike first or second.

Not being able to strike at all before your opponent kills you removes the interactivity something at the scale of a duel should be granting.


To get the actual back and forth they should start either start with the highest I with a single dice and then flick to the other character, alternating between individual attacks, or have them strike simultaneously and give the higher I model bonus attacks to reflect their speed.

No matter how many fancy rules you provide, having one model wait to see if it survives its duel is just no fun for anyone.

Yeah, this is one of the cases where following combat closer along the lines of how it's set up in Kill Team would be better, since at least you can plan to be defensive via parry/block versus just going all out on offense.

Rulebook is in the wild now thanks to one of those eBay listings, pictures popping up all over the place. Nothing from the army books though.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Rulebook is in the wild now thanks to one of those eBay listings, pictures popping up all over the place. Nothing from the army books though.

Had a look, I'm off the game completely. I wasn't a fan of 9thbed army building and I'm not super joyed to see 15 unit types all locked in littleboxes arbitrarily when there are also basically no mandatory requirements for an army beyond a character.

6 pages of rules for challenges, but they've Simplified vehicles down to 40k levels almost. It's very all over the place with needless complexity in places imo.

A few things spoiled.

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A few things spoiled.

Vehicle damage being the only nice one - glancing hits are a D3 table of Tacticas Statuses with no HP loss, penetrating is just HP loss equal to Damage with no suppression.

Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

This is what bothers me, the vehicle rules are actually not in line with what this rules set stands for. They would be perfect for 40k however, the tactical statuses also good for 40k where there are less other things to consider.

But they're in here, drowning in loads of just... stuff.

One of the more bizarre page leaks indicates that during any Charge, both units Snap Fire at each other with Assault weapons.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

That does not sound good, but then nothing does when you're describing it...

As with WH40k, the move away from a 'restrictive' FOC might satisfy the players who just want their favourite toys on the table, but it leads to s**t looking armies.

 Snord wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

That does not sound good, but then nothing does when you're describing it...

As with WH40k, the move away from a 'restrictive' FOC might satisfy the players who just want their favourite toys on the table, but it leads to s**t looking armies.

I mean its a verbatim explanation of the page, I aren't sure how else you can explain it lol

And yet I've had no luck explaining how it's worse to the sycophants in the HH discord...

From what I see you will have fewer unit slots overall, and need to spam HQs to unlock anything that isn't the first 4 Troops, usually 1 HQ to 2 non-HQ. So you'd need 5 HQ just to get to the 4 Elites, 3 Fast, 3 Heavy of yore. But of course you can take something dumb like 3 HQ 6 Heavy. So the only ones who benefit are spammers.

And by the looks of it you can game it a little by taking an army of only allies with no models of the main faction, and get a slightly better HQ to non HQ ratio. Ain't nobody proofread this gak.

Dudeface wrote:
I mean its a verbatim explanation of the page, I aren't sure how else you can explain it lol

How can it be both 'verbatim' (which means literally the same words) and an explanation? It's a highly subjective interpretation, from someone who tends to put the worst possible spin on everything rules-related. Whether or not he's correct in this case is another issue.

 Snord wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean its a verbatim explanation of the page, I aren't sure how else you can explain it lol

How can it be both 'verbatim' (which means literally the same words) and an explanation? It's a highly subjective interpretation, from someone who tends to put the worst possible spin on everything rules-related. Whether or not he's correct in this case is another issue.

How is this not a relevant description?

FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment".

 lord_blackfang wrote:
A few things spoiled.

Everything else is... pretty bad. FOC is indeed like 8th edition but worse - a clusterfeth of tiny detachments - the bigger of which grand bonuses to the more basic types of units - and units split into no less than 15 battlefield roles. Terminators are their own battlefield role with their own slot... which is pointless because as most support types they come 2 slots to a "terminator detachment". Bleh.

Almost sounds like Flames of War, which I love. This could be quite cool!

No one gonna share the pics or even a link so we can see for ourselves?