Tyran wrote: My assumption was that a Dreadnought is a hellish existence, and suffering does make you less intelligent as it taxes your mental resources.
Gosh thank god it doesn't affect the other 3 mental stats then
Sgt_Smudge wrote: This feels like a bit of nitpicky complaint, doesn't it?
I mean when it's incredibly easy to turn it into an insult, could be derogatory to some people and could simply be handled by calling it something more relatable to what it is I.e. "tech skills". Not really no.
It'd be like if saturnine were canonically called fat instead of bulky.
I mean the debuff to intelligence is apparently going to be called "off with their fingers" since that's what it means.
This is a also really dumb complaint, but why is the special rule for the Inversion Beamer called Conversion? What does that leave for the Conversion Beamer?
Unrelated, this dread has "exchange" in its weapon options, so huzzah for that at least.
given that most people still see HH as a narritive focused game, names of appetites that break immersion or make no sense for the narritive are a problem
Not Online!!! wrote: I get it has an invul of 4... but when 6 meltas reliably can put down a 340 pts model...
How so? 6 shots, 4 hit (3+), 2 wound (4+), 1 is negated (4++).
Plus:
What’s more, the Saturnine boasts a thermal diffraction field that reduces the strength of weapons with the Las, Plasma, Melta and Flame traits.
Also, that has to be within 6” of Meltas.
Any Dread or Tank left within 6” strike range of a Meltagun is gonna be in trouble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Power Cosmic wrote: This is a also really dumb complaint, but why is the special rule for the Inversion Beamer called Conversion? What does that leave for the Conversion Beamer?
Unrelated, this dread has "exchange" in its weapon options, so huzzah for that at least.
Same broad family. Not sure what Conversion will actually do, but it seems Inversion Beamers are just Conversion Beamers where someone’s reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.
Same broad family. Not sure what Conversion will actually do, but it seems Inversion Beamers are just Conversion Beamers where someone’s reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.
Most evidently. Iirc old-school conversion weapons had boosted stats when they and their target both remained stationary, maybe it's related to that.
On a semi-related note, i dig that the saturnine stuff shares some of the subtle (for GW, anyway) nods towards Necron design language that's seen in the Mechanicum range, it's not too glaringly obvious but ties the whole setting together in a way that just (wait for it...) clicks for me.
Well we can see from the other weapon info, Inversion Beamers have Heavy (RA), so +1 S when fired from stationary.
So presumably, Conversion will do something different?
Given lore wise they convert matter to energy, and the greater the mass the more devastating the effect, it might be a bonus to knacking Dreads and Vehicles?
Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.
lord_blackfang wrote: Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.
So similar to Las/Flame/Melta/Plasma being referenced in what the Thermal diffraction field does?
lord_blackfang wrote: Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.
So similar to Las/Flame/Melta/Plasma being referenced in what the Thermal diffraction field does?
Yes. The concept already exists in 2.0 but it's not spelled out in the profiles. Each section just says "the weapons below are all considered "x" weapons for rules that affect "x" and so you get stupid referencing problems because the Neutron Beam is under Las Weapons but a Lascutter is under Exotic Weapons and you have absolutely no way to find that out except by reading the entire armoury. Now the profile tells you the weapon type and this opens up room to hopefully list them alphabetically.
Is it just me, or can anyone else picture the Saturnine Dread fitted with a huge feth-off Assault Cannon on each arm?
There's just something about the silhouette seems to support it - maybe could be used to represent an M.41 "lower tech" variant, where some of the knowledge for the hi-tech weapons has been lost?
I wonder if the AT Warlord Gatling Blasters would fit...?
Padre wrote: Is it just me, or can anyone else picture the Saturnine Dread fitted with a huge feth-off Assault Cannon on each arm?
There's just something about the silhouette seems to support it - maybe could be used to represent an M.41 "lower tech" variant, where some of the knowledge for the hi-tech weapons has been lost?
I wonder if the AT Warlord Gatling Blasters would fit...?
Redemptor Gatling would be a better fit, they are larger than AT Warlord weapons. If you want bigger, maybe steal the gatling gun off the stompa kit.
lord_blackfang wrote: Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.
Good spot! And yeah, having a weapon’s family on its profile is definitely welcome.
Also encouraging to see some pretty nasty ranged weapons “only” doing 3 or 4 damage per successful unsaved wound. Makes me hope tanks and Dreads will be tough enough to really need focussed fire to destroy them.
lord_blackfang wrote: Conversion isn't a rule, it's a trait. A keywrd based on its in-universe method of operation. It just tells you which section of the Armoury the weapon is in and if any special defenses work against it.
Good spot! And yeah, having a weapon’s family on its profile is definitely welcome.
Also encouraging to see some pretty nasty ranged weapons “only” doing 3 or 4 damage per successful unsaved wound. Makes me hope tanks and Dreads will be tough enough to really need focussed fire to destroy them.
One Shotting is funny, but not Every Time.
For all my criticisms so far I will praise the general lower lethality. There are some 40k-isms showing up such as making everything faster via fewer core penalties i.e. heavy change and rapid fire going that can end up in slowly ramping up lethality, but the vehicle changes and general lack of firepower on the big new shinies is encouraging.
Tanks will also benefit from weapons not being destroyed.
Sure, it’s thematic to have them become ever less combat effective. But….
2.0 had a serious flaw where the first Weapon Destroyed had to be assigned to a Primary Weapon, defined by being above a certain Strength value. Heavy Bolters did not meet that criteria.
Which left things like the Cerberus with essentially Compulosry Lascannon Sponsons. Otherwise, the first Weapon Destroyed ruined its main gun.
Granted that was easily fixed in other ways, but the new system is appealing to me.
Though I do wonder if long term, well experienced players will find the first few games a bit more challenging due to the increased survivability of tanks.
I, too, am somewhat optimistic regarding the damage/resilience balance. The second wave dreadnought guns look pretty nasty tho, so I wonder if the somewhat low lethality we've seen otherwise is just a factor of a specific design decision to make plasma in particular terrible and everything else still could be deadly.
It may be to make Plasma less an obvious jack of all trades weapon.
We know tanks don’t get armour saves. So Plasma being AP4 doesn’t seem to matter against tanks. What does matter is its S and D stat.
And they look….pretty alright against Tanks. At least for now, we’re yet to get a solid idea of AVs and HP averages. Not necessarily good enough that I’d let myself be entirely reliant on them, but decent enough to be back up.
With its AP4 and Breaching greatly lowered now? They’re no longer a go-to Marine deleter. But like their anti-armour capability, still not a bad weapon due to high strength for reliable wounding, and D2 on standard setting, enough to outright kill heavy infantry like most Terminators.
So it does have its niche, from what we’ve seen so far. Whether it’s too niche? Yeah let’s convene again when we’ve seen more and got some games under our belts on that one.
That wraps up our look at the big new kits coming in the Saturnine box set, but don’t fret – there’s still loads more to see from the new edition, with a highly anticipated look at new army building rules coming next week.
We've had one, yes, but what about second army building rules?
That wraps up our look at the big new kits coming in the Saturnine box set, but don’t fret – there’s still loads more to see from the new edition, with a highly anticipated look at new army building rules coming next week.
We've had one, yes, but what about second army building rules?
Maybe showing off Solar Aux and Mechanicum detachments?
That wraps up our look at the big new kits coming in the Saturnine box set, but don’t fret – there’s still loads more to see from the new edition, with a highly anticipated look at new army building rules coming next week.
We've had one, yes, but what about second army building rules?
I was assuming Rites of War/alternate primary detachments/additional force org charts/etc that will be in the libers.
lord_blackfang wrote: I was assuming Rites of War/alternate primary detachments/additional force org charts/etc that will be in the libers.
I don't think RoW exist the same way. Armies now have the flexible build that RoW used to give them- all bikes, many dreadnaughts, etc... Not sure what they'll look like now.
Well one thing that I suspect is that as keeping regular Centurion around unlocks an extra detachment, Consular upgrades instead let you take specific detachment or unit(s).
So if you upgrade your Centurion to be Master of Signal you can take related unit/detachment such as Scouts, Recon or Seeker unit for example. Or whole Recon detachment.
Sotahullu wrote: Well one thing that I suspect is that as keeping regular Centurion around unlocks an extra detachment, Consular upgrades instead let you take specific detachment or unit(s).
So if you upgrade your Centurion to be Master of Signal you can take related unit/detachment such as Scouts, Recon or Seeker unit for example. Or whole Recon detachment.
They have entirely removed the Horus Heresy section from Warhammer Digital. If they aren't going to put the new edition on digital then I definitely won't be getting any of it.
Saturnine release date and price leak - releases 26th of July, 195GBP
If they follow the typical two week preorder, those will open 12th of july?
I will certainly not be getting a box, even if its priced like AoD was.. since there is nothing inside I'd really need. Bring on the plastic Landspeeders already
Dysartes wrote: Surely if they're over 50%, they're no longer the ally, they're the main part of the force?
Well you can have 50% in Allied Detachments and 25% in Lords of War, which also don't have to be your main faction... so you could "play Marines" and have 75% points in Mechanicum.
Very likely a load of cobblers, but apparently a medium-size Knight has been coughed and whispered for Legions Imperialis...very interested in seeing the upcoming Liber Questoris books to see if this is true...unless it's in a later supplement...if true at all.
Well, rumours are pretty thin on the ground right now and its at least a nice thought.
I still think the Dominus would be an easy win. If GW stopped mucking around and just said right now "sure, it's in the upcoming Liber book", I'd order one right away and consider getting into 30K.
Yeah, I dunno about spending that much on the new boxed set either. The Saturnine models I can take or leave, apart from the Praetor (he’s so OTT I really like him). And the gun platform does nothing for me. I might just wait for the Mk 2 kit to come out separately.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: MkII is gonna be for my veteran type units. A nice visual key for me and my opponent without having to buy fancy pants extra parts.
That works for me, although I like mixing the armour types in my units. Speaking of veterans, has anyone worked out if the basic veteran squad is still a thing? Seeing as I just finished converting a squad with mixed ranged and melee weapons, just for the visual factor.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: MkII is gonna be for my veteran type units. A nice visual key for me and my opponent without having to buy fancy pants extra parts.
That works for me, although I like mixing the armour types in my units. Speaking of veterans, has anyone worked out if the basic veteran squad is still a thing? Seeing as I just finished converting a squad with mixed ranged and melee weapons, just for the visual factor.
Considering that they specifically mentioned being able to make Vets from the box during the reveal, I'm going to go with yes.
Biggest takeaway is the game is going down to 4 rounds, which sounds like typical GW cope for making the rules more fiddly and longer to resolve... I wonder if it's going down to 40k table size too.
The VPUSRs seem okay, at least it makes taking and retaking objectives more interesting than just pure "who can stand in this circle for longer"
Not that 4 rounds allow for all that much back and forth.
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Biggest takeaway is the game is going down to 4 rounds, which sounds like typical GW cope for making the rules more fiddly and longer to resolve... I wonder if it's going down to 40k table size too.
The VPUSRs seem okay, at least it makes taking and retaking objectives more interesting than just pure "who can stand in this circle for longer"
Not that 4 rounds allow for all that much back and forth.
ooopphhhh.............
well all the more reason to stick with 2.0 or even 1.0
I've also just realised that the mission is picked before you make your army.
Lmao nice one, rules writers, you've made official GW events impossible unless you're changing your army every single game or have every mission revealed beforehand, defeating the point of a narrative event.
lord_blackfang wrote: I'm going to enjoy youtube sycophants bend over backwards to explain how that's a great change.
A friend: "cool, makes sense as you can build an army that's narrative to the mission. You just have to prearrange well in advance of whoever you're playing, draft up your own event rules, try not to tailor your list too much and avoid anyone who does. Seems like a good change"
I really wanted to get into Heresy, I was waiting to see what would change, what improvements were going to be made, rules that were going to be refined. I'm not a massive fan of the Saturnine stuff but that's fine because Marines is Marines but... Yeesh. I really don't think there's anything I've read so far that made me think "awesome!" and instead I've been left scratching my head wondering what they were thinking. The wind has been completely and utterly blown from my sails.
I think I'll just get my heresy fix from Legions...
That's the point being made, though, and goes back to the whole "unnecessary rewrite".
What part of the play process wasn't working that suddenly someone needed to put that in there? Boggles the mind and it feels like "oh bugger we've not got enough changes, quick throw darts at the silly idea board until something sticks!".
Fayric wrote: "So, that is the misson we are about to play, now lets pick armies!"
"Oh, I, uh, pick the army I already had prepared.
"Fine, me too!"
I'm sure we all know someone who will carry a bag/box of stuff, likely 5k points of mixed crap and want to hash a list out at the 11th hour because they're bad at communicating and planning. This is weirdly enabling for them.
I wonder if this is a clunky way of saying it is like AOS where you pick your battle tactics ahead of time. I can't imagine you literally build your army on the spot.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: I wonder if this is a clunky way of saying it is like AOS where you pick your battle tactics ahead of time. I can't imagine you literally build your army on the spot.
You do unless you either A. don't care what mission it is and bring the same list regardless or B. Do that step before you meet.
I’ll be interested to see what official Tournaments do here.
The Line (X) rule certainly encourages a good amount of simple troops to maximise your VP scoring.
But with different missions offering different VPs for the core Objectives, it sounds possible you can completely hamstring yourself with The Wrong List.
Wait. I’m being daft here, aren’t I? Tournaments typically publish the missions ahead of time, making it much less of an issue.
Curious, I'm used to most events giving the missions before hand. 1st game is X, 2nd is x and 3rd is X.
Yes you could change your list around if it's not scoring related and you took a lotta line; to a list bad at capturing and good at killing, but i think in friendly games your opponent may raise an eyebrow at that.
In an event I think you'd still want a list that can handle multiple mission types.
Events could do a "bring 1-3 lists, you can choose one of those without modifications" if people want options but minimizing tailoring and decision paralysis
MajorWesJanson wrote: Events could do a "bring 1-3 lists, you can choose one of those without modifications" if people want options but minimizing tailoring and decision paralysis
To make it even more fun, you can only use 1 list per tournament. Use list 2 in the first game? Can't use it for the 2nd or 3rd.
...
But I think we are veering off course. Narrative games and Tournaments are usually two different beasts. I cannot imagine GW forcing random army list shenanigans on players in a tournament setting.
The page mentioning different ways to play has leaked, so I'm guessing there's going to be Official Guidance For Events. I assume they'll at least mention a line like "Many events will require you to build a single list beforehand and use it for each game throughout the entire event." and then add a quip about it being a test of your tactical mindset and ability to prepare for all outcomes and possibilities.
edit: it may be worth mentioning that the uh, "narrative" event series that I often attend has never had a set list requirement and is usually set up to disallow that. Many people bring a single list anyways, by their own choice.
As far as the Line rule and the Vanguard rule... I hate that they're only including three core missions and all three will be about standing in circles. I can't wait to generate 8 points from 2 objectives off of Line only for my opponent to wipe out all my line with their Vanguard, generating 8 points and then scoring the objectives for 2 more... I foresee yet another edition where anything with only a bolter or chainsword is completely dead weight.
So which kind of games/players benefit from that change or who is supposed to benefit
For tournaments it doesn't matter at all, for gaming groups/friends it doesn't matter either.
Narrative Events have their own rules anyway and adjust on the fly if needed
And for pick up games it would just mean to carry more models than needed around and add another hour before you start playing because someone needs to write a new list (in excel on their phone)
This is more like a need 2000 points of models to play 1500 points game so you can switch around for each mission
I know games like SAGA have a list building step after the mission is rolled and also tournaments allow to change list before the game is started
But in this games the amount of models needed is lower and list building itself works rather different, so there is a different impact.
kodos wrote: So which kind of games/players benefit from that change or who is supposed to benefit
For tournaments it doesn't matter at all, for gaming groups/friends it doesn't matter either.
Narrative Events have their own rules anyway and adjust on the fly if needed
And for pick up games it would just mean to carry more models than needed around and add another hour before you start playing because someone needs to write a new list (in excel on their phone)
This is more like a need 2000 points of models to play 1500 points game so you can switch around for each mission
I know games like SAGA have a list building step after the mission is rolled and also tournaments allow to change list before the game is started
But in this games the amount of models needed is lower and list building itself works rather different, so there is a different impact.
It's one of those "obviously you ignore it" type rules, so I suspect that's good grounds for "it needs changing/removing"
It's something that totally works for Kill Team or Necromunda where you play with less than 10 models per player.
My Chaos gang had almost every possible option I wanted but including some hangers on but that still didn't crack 25 models which could be carried in a small box easily enough.
That sort of thing doesn't work when the baseline is 2k and you can easily have upwards of 60 models including tanks, walkers or big monsters.
Well, Heavy unit subtype pendulum'd from great to trash (predictable as I just painted up 20 Breachers) apart from that nothing particularly bad about the unit types section.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Updated HH 2.0 rules for the Tarantula
tl;dr: Only shoots as Reactions, never on your turn. Has Augury Scanner for Interceptor and a special shooting reaction at an enemy moving within 48"
It's a bit worrying they value the melta with 9" armourbane range on an immobile unit the same as a lascannon
And in peak GW style, they may exchange their heavy bolters for Two Orias frag missiles, which is a weapon that doesn't exist because it's called an Orias frag launcher.
I'm not normally this negative but by god GW make it easy for me...
tl;dr: Only shoots as Reactions, never on your turn. Has Augury Scanner for Interceptor and a special shooting reaction at an enemy moving within 48"
It's a bit worrying they value the melta with 9" armourbane range on an immobile unit the same as a lascannon
And in peak GW style, they may exchange their heavy bolters for Two Orias frag missiles, which is a weapon that doesn't exist because it's called an Orias frag launcher.
I'm not normally this negative but by god GW make it easy for me...
Actually, it's correct, the missiles are one use weapons. Of course, they could have wrote Orias frag launcher with two Orias frag missiles or two Orias frag launchers, but I think the way they wrote it is clear enough.
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Part of my day job involves dealing with accessibility legislation. The paragraph above is an absolute abomination just from an English stand-point, but for people with any number of reading impairments its downright criminal. It's weird. They learned that bullet points exist in 9th and these rules are perfect candidates for using them to shorten the rules and make them easier to parse. The whole bolded paragraph is essentially extraneous and the rest of the rule is barely readable due to the capitalisation and really awkward phrasing, much like all the other HH rules.
The rule itself also feels like it has the potential to overcomplicate things. There are a lot of things that modify and interact with the basic principle of standing in a circle. I can see this being difficult to balance and leading to a lot of the problems the old Troops units had where some were really good while others were pretty bad but were only taken for the Troops designation.
lord_blackfang wrote: But narrative events, which is what Heresy players predominantly run, usually don't, afaik.
I can only speak to my AdeptiCon experiences, but yes. We don't get the mission packs until the day of the HH event. Sometimes straight from a printer that very morning. *Looking at you, Zac* I can't speak to the Big Blam (the super heavy and Titan nighttime event).
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Part of my day job involves dealing with accessibility legislation. The paragraph above is an absolute abomination just from an English stand-point, but for people with any number of reading impairments its downright criminal. It's weird. They learned that bullet points exist in 9th and these rules are perfect candidates for using them to shorten the rules and make them easier to parse. The whole bolded paragraph is essentially extraneous and the rest of the rule is barely readable due to the capitalisation and really awkward phrasing, much like all the other HH rules.
The rule itself also feels like it has the potential to overcomplicate things. There are a lot of things that modify and interact with the basic principle of standing in a circle. I can see this being difficult to balance and leading to a lot of the problems the old Troops units had where some were really good while others were pretty bad but were only taken for the Troops designation.
I wonder how they solve it in the german translation because that capitalisation of nouns is just normal german writing (aside from the one verb they also capitalise).
lord_blackfang wrote: But narrative events, which is what Heresy players predominantly run, usually don't, afaik.
I can only speak to my AdeptiCon experiences, but yes. We don't get the mission packs until the day of the HH event. Sometimes straight from a printer that very morning. *Looking at you, Zac* I can't speak to the Big Blam (the super heavy and Titan nighttime event).
I surveyed my players and others for my event this weekend. By far the majority preferred to find out the missions on the day.
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Part of my day job involves dealing with accessibility legislation. The paragraph above is an absolute abomination just from an English stand-point, but for people with any number of reading impairments its downright criminal. It's weird. They learned that bullet points exist in 9th and these rules are perfect candidates for using them to shorten the rules and make them easier to parse. The whole bolded paragraph is essentially extraneous and the rest of the rule is barely readable due to the capitalisation and really awkward phrasing, much like all the other HH rules.
The rule itself also feels like it has the potential to overcomplicate things. There are a lot of things that modify and interact with the basic principle of standing in a circle. I can see this being difficult to balance and leading to a lot of the problems the old Troops units had where some were really good while others were pretty bad but were only taken for the Troops designation.
I wonder how they solve it in the german translation because that capitalisation of nouns is just normal german writing (aside from the one verb they also capitalise).
If I were a translator for GW, I'D WRITE THE RULES IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, EXCEPT FOR THE NAMES OF Special Rules, WHICH NATURALLY Need To Stand Apart FROM THE RULES TEXT.
But I assume they'll bold the names of special rules, and/or use italics to highlight them if neither is already taken by something else. That seems like the least intrusive way to do it. All caps and colored text are an option, but stand out a lot more.
Fayric wrote: The greatest hoax to appeal to nostalgia for horus heresy even when its brand new design, brand new rules and lore they make up as they go along.
Or is it "bringing back" mental stats that were removed from warhammer before the average Heresy player was born
Crew sprue is as said before separate. But also really, really cool.
Lots of bits and bobs once can use for converting up character. For instance, I’m currently just a Servo-Arm away from a Forge Lord. And one can easily use it to make that Consul that allows you to field Castellax.
Tempted to get another three, but the Quad Heavy Bolter. Sure I’ll end up with an inordinate “never going to field 12 in a single battle” Rapier Carriers. But it will give me a full suite of them, and plenty bods to make a Seeker Squad.
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Makes me wonder if they'll keep the Mechanicum forces that can remove terrain.
I keep reading all of these leaks and it feels like the 30K Designers are just digging through the archives, saying, "The fan base loves all these old crunchy rules, why don't we add even more? They'll be so happy if we added all the old rules to the game!"
Having never played 30k (and not much 9th/10th either) and just skimming the warxom rule posts this all rather looks like the sort of game 5th edition tragics like myself would like? Are there any widely adopted fan rulesets for 40k factions to use the HH rules?
RustyNumber wrote: Having never played 30k (and not much 9th/10th either) and just skimming the warxom rule posts this all rather looks like the sort of game 5th edition tragics like myself would like? Are there any widely adopted fan rulesets for 40k factions to use the HH rules?
There was an Aussie guy who did army books for Eldar, Orks and I think Necrons for the 1st edition rules. He never updated them for 2nd though. There are PDFs floating about, but I'm not sure where you'd find them.
The team that wrote Panoptica (or whatever its called) did Ork/Eldar rules for 2.0 I believe, but whether or not they're worth using is up to you.
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Damn, that alone is almost enough to make me want to play.
I've been wanting to ask (while realizing it will be impossible to answer until months from now), but:
HH has always been considered the continuation or descendant of the old (3rd-7th) edition 40K rules. Does the new edition still feel that way, or have enough things been changed that it now feels like something else?
Altruizine wrote: HH has always been considered the continuation or descendant of the old (3rd-7th) edition 40K rules. Does the new edition still feel that way, or have enough things been changed that it now feels like something else?
Good question. I think it's fundamentally still the same game, albeit increasingly more fiddly - which is maintaining the development trajectory of 3rd-7th. The gameplay logic is still the same, besides the addition of reactions. It's a wargame, a contest of maneuvering and target selection between two fairly similar forces, and not whatever unholy frankenstein of a CCG and MOBA that modern 40k is.
Gert wrote: I've also just realised that the mission is picked before you make your army.
Lmao nice one, rules writers, you've made official GW events impossible unless you're changing your army every single game or have every mission revealed beforehand, defeating the point of a narrative event.
Unless each player can have their own mission instead of both using the same one. Each player could have two very different objectives.
They were very close to getting terrain and LoS spot on, except you must be able to draw LoS without interruptions, so a rhino blocks sight to a lancer.
lord_blackfang wrote: Good question. I think it's fundamentally still the same game, albeit increasingly more fiddly - which is maintaining the development trajectory of 3rd-7th. The gameplay logic is still the same, besides the addition of reactions. It's a wargame, a contest of maneuvering and target selection between two fairly similar forces, and not whatever unholy frankenstein of a CCG and MOBA that modern 40k is.
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Makes me wonder if they'll keep the Mechanicum forces that can remove terrain.
I keep reading all of these leaks and it feels like the 30K Designers are just digging through the archives, saying, "The fan base loves all these old crunchy rules, why don't we add even more? They'll be so happy if we added all the old rules to the game!"
I think there's definitely a train of thought here that is "Why is Heresy a different game from 40K?", and a lot of the new changes feel like they're embracing that question.
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Makes me wonder if they'll keep the Mechanicum forces that can remove terrain.
I keep reading all of these leaks and it feels like the 30K Designers are just digging through the archives, saying, "The fan base loves all these old crunchy rules, why don't we add even more? They'll be so happy if we added all the old rules to the game!"
I think there's definitely a train of thought here that is "Why is Heresy a different game from 40K?", and a lot of the new changes feel like they're embracing that question.
Some areas have run in parallel however, a rudimentary version of 9ths detachments, removal of rapid fire, removal of negative options when it comes to heavy weapons on infantry. Much like as the MOBA/CCG described above, 30k much as 40k now has become, is about positive affirmations and making things go faster/more freedom without as many hard choices.
The article makes it look like GW are confident this will be a long-running edition whose core rules are robust enough that it can take many years of new content without another reboot. Which is deluded, obviously, but boy wouldn't it be nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yea the Sabres are resin, you can see how the track covers bend inwards a bit.
lord_blackfang wrote: The article makes it look like GW are confident this will be a long-running edition whose core rules are robust enough that it can take many years of new content without another reboot. Which is deluded, obviously, but boy wouldn't it be nice.
I want to think the same, but GW now regard rule books and army books as completely disposable. I bet they are amongst their most profitable items.
Yea the Sabres are resin, you can see how the track covers bend inwards a bit.
I think so too. The hunter-killers are a different design to the plastic ones.
I disagree. I'd rather wait and get a nice more robust campaign book like we currently get than multiple $40 single mission, single army rule, 2-3 unit splat books.
Personally I'm in the "they'll get through about 6 legion DLCs this edition and we can only hope they're as inconsequential in HH as they are in TOW" camp
The day 1 DLC table of contents lists a new Consul (probably), the Rapier crew command squad, and the Tarantula turret Whirlwind, plus a new Prime slot bonus. Which is honestly a decent rate of new content if you get one journal every 3 months forever, as long as I don't have to pay for a scan.
We're also promised some variant Saturnine, which I bet will just be "first, get 10 Praetor hammers..."
Dudeface wrote: Not seeing many people annoyed about day 1 dlc
It was announced on the reveal stream, so we're long in the acceptance phase.
Fair, it's just incredibly poor taste to have the extra units in there same day imo. A narrative mission pack? Sure, but expansions to the core army list you release same day? Sort of sucky.
Platuan4th wrote: I disagree. I'd rather wait and get a nice more robust campaign book like we currently get than multiple $40 single mission, single army rule, 2-3 unit splat books.
Depends if you'd use the majority of the content.
For example, my only interest in Cthonia was Zone Mortalis and I wasn't paying £35 for it.
Dudeface wrote: Fair, it's just incredibly poor taste to have the extra units in there same day imo. A narrative mission pack? Sure, but expansions to the core army list you release same day? Sort of sucky.
Obviously, I agree. But at least it's actual expansion stuff that never existed before and not cut content. Hopefully it's also not impactful for the meta.
Dudeface wrote: Fair, it's just incredibly poor taste to have the extra units in there same day imo. A narrative mission pack? Sure, but expansions to the core army list you release same day? Sort of sucky.
Obviously, I agree. But at least it's actual expansion stuff that never existed before and not cut content. Hopefully it's also not impactful for the meta.
Well that's my point, those units are cut content from the army books. HH isn't typically a game with a concern for the meta, but yeah a game warping unit would suck.
Platuan4th wrote: I disagree. I'd rather wait and get a nice more robust campaign book like we currently get than multiple $40 single mission, single army rule, 2-3 unit splat books.
Depends if you'd use the majority of the content.
For example, my only interest in Cthonia was Zone Mortalis and I wasn't paying £35 for it.
My group are narrative players and have run every single one of those campaigns.
Sapping most of my remaining hope, and I was already running on fumes.
RoW are gone gone
No mention of Legion wargear
Folding some (all?) Legion units and abilities into Prime upgrades is the worst bit, you'll get maybe 2-3 things per army and they compete with extra unit unlocks.
Gonna be pretty sad if White Scars need to burn a Prime upgrade to make one Cavalry unit scoring.
lord_blackfang wrote: Sapping most of my remaining hope, and I was already running on fumes.
Yeah me too.
But what a shame that Dark Angels advanced reaction is for the new edition. It gaks all over our useless 2nd ed reaction. Being able to fight twice would have been monstrous for Cenobium.
2.0 as is. We know it, we don't abuse it, and it works fine because of that.
We all run goofy lists from time to time and we test out crazy ideas like "Chariots of the Gods" which is just World Eaters landspeeders all upgraded with Chainaxes.
A new edition just isn't on the cards for us, we don't have the time to learn all the new rules when we just got to a place where we're about to start a Siege of Cthonia campaign.
Gert wrote: 2.0 as is. We know it, we don't abuse it, and it works fine because of that.
How do non-Marine players fare? I'd really like to grow the variety of armies we have and our choice of edition might come down to which has better balance between Legions and Aux/Mech
lord_blackfang wrote: How do non-Marine players fare? I'd really like to grow the variety of armies we have and our choice of edition might come down to which has better balance between Legions and Aux/Mech
So far our group has gone through Daemons, Solar Aux, Militia and Mechanicum. One player has Custodes but has been focused on their Legions for the most part so can't really comment.
All in all, we've found it no real issue. The worst excesses of given non-Marine factions (i.e. unbreakable leadership Solar Aux) aren't on the table because we self regulate.
Ultimately they're all more hit/miss compared to Legions but honestly that's part of the fun of it.
I've almost exclusively been playing Militia since the PDF launched and trying every single combo of rules has been an absolute blast. I very rarely win but rolling a dice to see which horrific concoction of drugs each unit in my army has been taking has made for some amazing real world interactions with players outside of our group. Sometimes half the army is pinned turn one, sometimes they take every performance enhancement available and throw bareknuckle punches at Space Marines.
Modelling tip for the crew? Remove the location nub for the arms. They don’t need as precise placement as when matching up to Bolter/Special Weapon. And the nubs can prevent certain arms matching to certain bodies.
I'm officially sticking with 2.0. Night Lords without Night Fighting?
Yeah, I'll take a "pass", thanks.
SNARK: Oh thank God. If it's one thing my gunline Imperial Fists hate more than nightfighting is 100 jump pack Night Lords I "can't see" until they're assaulting me.
In reality, Night Fighting just needed some toning down, not outright removal.
kronk wrote: In reality, Night Fighting just needed some toning down, not outright removal.
In GW there is only the pendulum, never nuance.
My number one slot has to go to the humble Legion Centurion. Whereas before they were taken because folk couldn’t spare points for a Champion but wanted the Weapon Skill buff, they’re now a critical pillar in army construction – just how they should be!
"Nobody liked Centurions because they don't have a role, so we made them mandatory"
That's dumb to make them critical to list building, unless this is just a fluffy/hype sentence. I always took a Legion Centurion Castellan in 2nd Edition, but before with Castellan came about, I never bothered with one.
That's dumb to make them critical to list building, unless this is just a fluffy/hype sentence. I always took a Legion Centurion Castellan in 2nd Edition, but before with Castellan came about, I never bothered with one.
Centurions get double slot unlocks, so you can choose to have 2-3 do-nothing HQs instead of 5-6 interesting but expensive HQs
That's dumb to make them critical to list building, unless this is just a fluffy/hype sentence. I always took a Legion Centurion Castellan in 2nd Edition, but before with Castellan came about, I never bothered with one.
I like it. While I am not overjoyed with the revised approach to force building, I think it makes sense to push these 2nd tier commanders as important components of an army list. Legion armies would have numerous seasoned officers like this, and aesthetically they add a lot of character to an army. My only concern is the points cost, which presumably cuts into your unit selection.
That's dumb to make them critical to list building, unless this is just a fluffy/hype sentence. I always took a Legion Centurion Castellan in 2nd Edition, but before with Castellan came about, I never bothered with one.
Centurions get double slot unlocks, so you can choose to have 2-3 do-nothing HQs instead of 5-6 interesting but expensive HQs
Even with the double unlocks for Centurions I feel army building becomes much more restrictive this edition, despite what the articles on Warhammer Community suggest. Also, it doesn't seem to scale well for larger games.
I won't copy the image over as it's fething huge and I can't make it smaller.
Can't say i'm a huge fan of that type of nested doll "Boobenfarten: the unit affected by boobenfarten get's one Polpenlügen status of your choice" when none of these sub-rules feature anywhere else than in the context of this specific special rule anyway. It just seems like an incompetent way of formatting things to me, needlessly inflating the number of rules terms you need to learn (and after a certain point it becomes actually confusing, especially if 2/3rds of them are technobabble that sounds same-ish and has no directly intuitive relation between the term and what it does, unlike e.g. "Trample" "First Strike" or "Deathtouch" in MtG or whatever).
I won't copy the image over as it's fething huge and I can't make it smaller.
So by the end of the year, the rules content will be back to where it was before the new edition, plus there'll be six (+?) additional books to the rulebook and a set of PDF rules which are totally just as valid as the non-Legacies rules, and that's why they're hidden away in a PDF to die quietly.
I won't copy the image over as it's fething huge and I can't make it smaller.
So by the end of the year, the rules content will be back to where it was before the new edition, plus there'll be six (+?) additional books to the rulebook and a set of PDF rules which are totally just as valid as the non-Legacies rules, and that's why they're hidden away in a PDF to die quietly.
I won't copy the image over as it's fething huge and I can't make it smaller.
So by the end of the year, the rules content will be back to where it was before the new edition, plus there'll be six (+?) additional books to the rulebook and a set of PDF rules which are totally just as valid as the non-Legacies rules, and that's why they're hidden away in a PDF to die quietly.
I'm officially sticking with 2.0. Night Lords without Night Fighting?
Yeah, I'll take a "pass", thanks.
SNARK: Oh thank God. If it's one thing my gunline Imperial Fists hate more than nightfighting is 100 jump pack Night Lords I "can't see" until they're assaulting me.
In reality, Night Fighting just needed some toning down, not outright removal.
HH 2.0 only needed some tinkering and not outright rewriting into a bastardisation of Rogue Trader and 40k Stratagem fest.
Not a complaint either way, but just wondering which way the tree is going to fall...
I'm a bit confused as the other day they said that Zone Mortalis would fall under the new journal books, but now this is saying it's going to be a Warcom download? Hmmm...
SamusDrake wrote: I'm a bit confused as the other day they said that Zone Mortalis would fall under the new journal books, but now this is saying it's going to be a Warcom download? Hmmm...
It probably will be included in a Journal but later down the line and the PDF would mean we don't have to wait for that release first.
Also, not sure if it's been niggling at anyone else or if its just me, but the covers of the new libers are uuuuuuuuugly with those colourful cartoony images. The 2.0 ones were much nicer (and neutral) with the understated faction icon.
It's not a huge thing in the grand scheme of things. But when I'm going to be paying probably $100 for this thing, I want to it be nice looking.
lord_blackfang wrote: Pictures comparing rules writing for The Old World and Heresy 3.0
The difference in quality of writing there is night and day. It's laughable.
tauist wrote: those journals feel alot like 40K Crusade books to me somehow
They might be closer to the old Citadel Journal - maybe it's just the name evoking that thought - with mixes of 'stuff' in a semi-regular publication. Back in the days when big expansion books were less common features of GW stuff that release model worked, and they've gone back to that with their Blood Bowl schedule, but it may just be too much on top of the rather large shift in rules for 3.0.
tauist wrote: those journals feel alot like 40K Crusade books to me somehow
They might be closer to the old Citadel Journal - maybe it's just the name evoking that thought - with mixes of 'stuff' in a semi-regular publication. Back in the days when big expansion books were less common features of GW stuff that release model worked, and they've gone back to that with their Blood Bowl schedule, but it may just be too much on top of the rather large shift in rules for 3.0.
They're meant as a Heresy version of the Arcane Journals for Old World because GW thinks of Old World as AoS Heresy and have said it in multiple articles. That's the parallel they're evoking.
Platuan4th wrote: They're meant as a Heresy version of the Arcane Journals for Old World because GW thinks of Old World as AoS Heresy and have said it in multiple articles. That's the parallel they're evoking.
However, Arcane Journals are single faction splatbooks, Campaign Journals are game updates that for the most part everybody is supposed to buy.
Platuan4th wrote: They're meant as a Heresy version of the Arcane Journals for Old World because GW thinks of Old World as AoS Heresy and have said it in multiple articles. That's the parallel they're evoking.
However, Arcane Journals are single faction splatbooks, Campaign Journals are game updates that for the most part everybody is supposed to buy.
They keep saying, which people keep parroting, that they're entirely optional.
Can't spot any difference between those and the resin ones. I hope there is some plastic charonites but if there is I'd say these aren't them (hope that's not a bad sign).
Or, and hear me out on this one, change is fine when it's warranted.
The changes to Psychic Powers in HH1 were absolutely needed because Word Bearers and Thousand Sons could abuse them.
Dreadnoughts, being changed from vehicles so they could compete with Automata and Monsters, also needed but were not executed very well.
The largest complaints have been that so far, the rules are a word pile that is difficult to parse, that a 3-year edition cycle is grim and not required, and that a lot of the changes are adding complexity for complexity's sake rather than enhancing the system.
"Wait and see" doesn't really hold truck when entire sections of the rules have been leaked online.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Why are the new models for 30k so much cooler than the Marines on 40k?
It's like Cawl and Bobby G were all about uniformity in 40k.
I just wish the rules in 30k were worth messing with. I really wish that the game is good, and not as bad as some are making it out to be.
Nah, 30k rules turning out just good and interesting. Play few smaller scale games and see how turns out.
Horus Heresy folks are just that grumpy old folks that don't want any changes.
That is NOT true! I would've dearly loved them to change the organization of the 2e books. It's so damned annoying to flip between (at least0 4 sections of 2 books to find all the special rules. Wich is still preferable than trying to read the blocks of text for each rule on my phone....
Gert wrote: "Wait and see" doesn't really hold truck when entire sections of the rules have been leaked online.
Phase 2 Wait And See-ism: You can't comment [negatively] on what GW has put out specifically for that purpose. You have to WAIT AND SEE for the full release (and enter Phase 3).
I think the Custodes are going to be later on not only due to the number of kits getting a plastic refresh, but probably a big hype to finally introduce the Emperor himself. Maybe kickstarting a refresh of the Primarchs with Horus being first.
I think the Custodes are going to be later on not only due to the number of kits getting a plastic refresh, but probably a big hype to finally introduce the Emperor himself. Maybe kickstarting a refresh of the Primarchs with Horus being first.
I wouldn't expect the Emperor any time soon. The primarchs are already slowly getting a refresh- resin Angron is the next that will come out.
Platuan4th wrote: They're meant as a Heresy version of the Arcane Journals for Old World because GW thinks of Old World as AoS Heresy and have said it in multiple articles. That's the parallel they're evoking.
However, Arcane Journals are single faction splatbooks, Campaign Journals are game updates that for the most part everybody is supposed to buy.
They've already said they're doing non-faction Arcane Journals for TOW that cover specific events just like Heresy is doing.
Vorian wrote: But we're already into the 2nd round of Primarchs? Horus, Fulgrim and Angron coming soon
So far, it seems to be less a second round than showing the glow-up all the Daemon Primarchs got for becoming, y'know, Daemons. The pattern doesn't seem to indicate a new model for Ferrus Manus is incoming, for example.
BorderCountess wrote: So far, it seems to be less a second round than showing the glow-up all the Daemon Primarchs got for becoming, y'know, Daemons. The pattern doesn't seem to indicate a new model for Ferrus Manus is incoming, for example.
They really want to avoid the hassle that comes with late war Ferrus with customer service having to explain to everyone that no, the head isn't missing.
What are people's objections to the new rules so far? Outside of the questionable wording/formatting/capitalization.
So far things feel fairly interesting, my only major gripe so far is the turn count. Which can be house ruled rather easily. Oh, and bolters not being all about short range volley's any more.
The only change Dreadnoughts needed in the current edition is just reduced wounds. A contemptor with 4 wounds opposed to 6 would really impact their oppressive resilience without returning them to their horrendous 1.0 state.
OR you can go the 3.0 GW way. "People complained about Dreadnoughts!" Reduced WS and BS, reduced durability in the form of multi-damage weapons that can one shot them, nerfed the ability to take multiple by removing talons and therefore adding an HQ tax for every dreadnought, nerfed their leadership by removing fearless making them susceptible to status tokens and potentially running from combat. Yeah hit em with the ol' Quad nerf!
Now tell me, in what way is a single Contemptor Dreadnought with all its nerfs worth the same HQ tax as the Armored Support detachment that gives you up to 4 tanks?
I wouldn't expect the Emperor any time soon. The primarchs are already slowly getting a refresh- resin Angron is the next that will come out.
I honestly thought they had finished with the Primarchs with Fulgrim-transfigured and no idea they were doing an unnecessary refresh on top of it. Certainly they should have had the Emperor before even attempting such a thing.
cody.d. wrote: What are people's objections to the new rules so far? Outside of the questionable wording/formatting/capitalization.
So far things feel fairly interesting, my only major gripe so far is the turn count. Which can be house ruled rather easily. Oh, and bolters not being all about short range volley's any more.
-There is no reason to make missions 4 turns outside of making the game more palatable for a competitive scene. The only argument I've seen people make in support of this change is "the game is usually over by turn four anyways." Which I would argue, ok if thats the case just leave the mission length alone. If its "always decided by turn 4" anyways who cares if there's two more turns. But as someone who has actually played the game for 12 years now, the amount of extremely close 5-6 turn late game struggles is all I need to remember to be completely opposed to this change. The Heresy community has a competitive scene, but its miniscule in comparison to 40K, because most in the community value HH for the narrative gameplay and personalization and conversion potential for the forces involved. And many others play HH specifically because it isn't dominated by a competitive scene like 40K. We don't want changes every 3 months for the sake of shaking up the meta. We don't want L shaped ruins and massive objective templates covering our tables.
-Multi damage weapons feel very off. I see no reason to make a melta-gun deal 6 damage when you can have squads of 10 running around and they only increase vehicles hull points by 1-2 points. This edition is going to be dominated by tactical support squads just decimating everything in one volley. Can you imagine playing against a drop-pod assault list with melta? Sounds fun.
-Line is now just a new version of OC. Yay.
-The tactical status are interesting, but I really don't see the value 3 additional statistics bring to the game that a simple leadership test couldn't already achieve.
-The challenge phase is laughable with the examples they have shown of it in action so far. Its essentially 6 additional pages of bloat along with the inevitable tide of legion/faction specific gambits you'll now have to memorize or feel gotcha'd every duel. And it seemingly results in a single round of combat to determine the victory, which is pretty much exactly how the game worked before. This is just going to slow the game down and feel gakky when you haven't memorized all 36 gambits that will be out at launch.
-All the Saturnine weapons seem terrible besides of course the dreadnought weapons that come out as DLC later. But all the options on the terminators and the dreadnought have more likely hood of killing you than the enemy. Id rather have a heavy bolter and a powerfist on my saturnine terminator than two guns that are going to cook my ass the first time I shoot.
-Perils of the Warp is terrible now, any doubles makes the prospect of running a Psyker a complete no-go for me.
-I know I for one don't want 18-36 "arcane journals" at the end of this inevitable 3 year edition that are invalidated paperweights as soon as 4.0 hits.
-They're pissing on us for fun putting an Automantic Pavaise on the Araknae turret instead of the Deredeo....
-There was a whole now invalid campaign book that detailed the inductii, and we cant use them until October. Sick, glad I just painted up 60 despoiler Inductii. That should be included in the Libers as part of each legion special rules breakdown on day one. Ridiculous content padding nothing more. We are doomed to just retrace ground thats already been retraced every three years now.
-The fact that we generally just have to memorize way more ancilary crap now. Theres core reactions, core gambits, legion specific advanced reactions, legion specific gambits. Probably even more stuff too.
The only thing I actually like so far is the force org and initiative modifiers to melee weapons. Everything else seems completely unnecessary.
Wounds and DMG stats are an odd place. Instant death is gone it seems so perhaps it's for the best. I honestly don't know if dreads are going to be scary in this edition, not just cause of us not knowing a dread fists stats. Which is the reason to take one rather than just a unit of devestators. But also because a single melta shot at half range will knock them out, and that's just a little melta gun. Imagine what the big shots like a Kratos.
Also armour bane isn't a thing right so meltas have to roll against that armour value to actually kill a tank right?
Saturine armour can take a gun and a fist I believe, but I agree they seem merely okay.
The challange phase is waaaaaay overbloated without doubt. I'm unsure why they ditched initiative for focus dice and the like. Probably so it's not just a case of walk up with a specific weapon and win every time?
Bloat and churn do seem to be things GW has issues with nowdays.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: The Heresy community has a competitive scene, but its miniscule in comparison to 40K, because most in the community value HH for the narrative gameplay and personalization and conversion potential for the forces involved. And many others play HH specifically because it isn't dominated by a competitive scene like 40K. We don't want changes every 3 months for the sake of shaking up the meta. We don't want L shaped ruins and massive objective templates covering our tables.
This is what has me scratching my head the most about this new edition. GW must know who makes up the Heresy scene. They must also know what Heresy players have been saying about 2nd Edition, and what they wanted to see. Yet (in terms of rules) their approach is wildly inconsistent. Some of these changes seem to be aimed at providing the higher level of granularity that Heresy players (or at least many of them) tend to enjoy. But changes like the 4 turn limit seem to be aimed more at the competitive side, which seems like a mistake - and is arguably what messed up WH40k. So there's no clear design philosophy. I think it goes back to my earlier comment - by pushing these new editions out this quickly, they simply don't have the time to playtest them property (do GW even playtest any more?).
At least the models are cool. The new Rapier kit is lovely, and while the Saturnine stuff isn't entirely to my taste I am sure the kits will be fun to build and paint.
The way the Knight army looks to work is genuinely a good change and that certain Household Ranks unlock auxiliary detachments is very cool.
Honestly beyond the knight being more intelligent than a dreadnought, (because people keep telling me a Dreadnoughts hands are too big to use a control console, it simply must be the pilot is a literal genius to do it with a battlecannon) rules seem good.
Aren't the vows a 40k thing? I mean, didn't they just copypaste them?
Also, I giggled at the unit spotlight, which highlighted the two worst knights in v2. Guess Porphyrion will no longer be usable, to people buy more Asterius
Certainly not opposed to the changes for list building, but the limitation of at least 2 Armigers did feel sensible in ensuring it didn't turn out to be nothing but super heavies.
I'd have to see a review of Liber Questoris before making the leap to 30K, but I have a feeling that I'll sticking to Epic somehow...
CragHack wrote: Aren't the vows a 40k thing? I mean, didn't they just copypaste them?
Also, I giggled at the unit spotlight, which highlighted the two worst knights in v2. Guess Porphyrion will no longer be usable, to people buy more Asterius
Just because it's in 40k doesn't mean it's bad, and it's not exactly like Knights are a spectacular concept that has deep facets.
The Houses and Heraldry might have changed, but the culture remains the same.
CragHack wrote: Aren't the vows a 40k thing? I mean, didn't they just copypaste them?
Also, I giggled at the unit spotlight, which highlighted the two worst knights in v2. Guess Porphyrion will no longer be usable, to people buy more Asterius
The vows work differently and have been missing for 10th Edition, outside of kill the enemy Warlord, get stuff.
I really like the idea of adding solar aux or Mechanicum forces to your army. It's sorely needed in 40k.
CragHack wrote: Aren't the vows a 40k thing? I mean, didn't they just copypaste them?
Also, I giggled at the unit spotlight, which highlighted the two worst knights in v2. Guess Porphyrion will no longer be usable, to people buy more Asterius
Just because it's in 40k doesn't mean it's bad, and it's not exactly like Knights are a spectacular concept that has deep facets.
The Houses and Heraldry might have changed, but the culture remains the same.
Knights were great and flavorful in v1, with all the household ranks. Oaths are lame, they don't give any flavor at all. I'm not talking 10th, I think it was 9th?
The way Knights were treated in v2 was just dump and unreasonable. On the other hand, I'm happy that I've never passed the point of buying two more armigers to reach the 3k limit.
Mr_Rose wrote: Mendicant means beggar so probably knights that get work-passage with whoever’s going somewhere.
Likely based on the mendicant orders of the church:
By contrast, the mendicants avoided owning property, did not work at a trade, and embraced a poor, often itinerant lifestyle. They depended for their survival on the goodwill of the people to whom they preached.
Mr_Rose wrote: Mendicant means beggar so probably knights that get work-passage with whoever’s going somewhere.
Likely based on the mendicant orders of the church:
By contrast, the mendicants avoided owning property, did not work at a trade, and embraced a poor, often itinerant lifestyle. They depended for their survival on the goodwill of the people to whom they preached.
Not required, no. Putting corrupted/possessed vehicle/knight/titan rules all in one place could keep them consolidated and also help bulk out a Dark Mech release though.
Im gonna guess no. posessed/warped/mutated stuff is something that GW has been reluctant to touch and only barely scratched the surface of with knights in the previous edition.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Soooo.....are the rules for Corrupted/Chaos tainted Knights going to be in the Liber? Or something else that has to wait for a PDF?
Maybe the rules from the Exemplary battles pdf (and later Mars campaign book). I mean they need something to fill the book and the Liber Mechanicus seems to have the Daemon engines as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and the Libers. Loyalist, Traitor and Mechanicum for now.
Better keep a couple of stores ready for the launch - a good many sets are "one per customer" these days as means to try and stop scalpers. Even 3rd party stores are doing it now. Plus it also helps spread out the stock they get between customers.
Even for a core set it can end up doing that before things settle down for general release.
beast_gts wrote: Do we know for sure which book will have the Secutarii rules in? I'd assume Questoris but they're listed under Mechanicum in the store...
beast_gts wrote: Do we know for sure which book will have the Secutarii rules in? I'd assume Questoris but they're listed under Mechanicum in the store...
Well the new "Liber Questoris" book on the front says "Knights and Titans" I would hope they are in there.
I guess with this new edition I'll go back to staring at the "online only," & "Temporarily Out of Stock," tags on GWs site.
Ugh.
Can I ask you guys a favor, those of you who get the books soon, can you tell me if there are rules for small games or Zone Mortalis level gaming? I haven't seen anything online for it.
Lathe Biosas wrote: Can I ask you guys a favor, those of you who get the books soon, can you tell me if there are rules for small games or Zone Mortalis level gaming? I haven't seen anything online for it.
ZM rules will be a free PDF in November, per the roadmap -
I can't speak to the Big Blam (the super heavy and Titan nighttime event).
