I see no good reason why anyone should have to be expected to memorize bikes vs. cavalry vs. beasts. It's a wargame, not an RPG.
I don't think you need a million distinctions, but right off the bat cavalry and bikes are very different things, and used in war sometimes for the same purposes, sometimes not. That said, cavalry should probably have different rules than bikes, they interact differently with terrain especially difficult or hazardous terrain that wheeled vehicles may struggle with. Again, wargames should have these distinctions and it's perfectly fine to expect someone to memorize a core thing that won't be changing at the drop at the hat or at the whim of the boys in marketing. Just because it's not an rpg doesn't mean everything should be cookie cutter and loaded with abstraction. As always, complexity vs depth but most people never gave a crap about even talking about how units would interact with terrain. I distinctly remember a 6-7th ed game where an opponent thought it made eminent sense that bikes could just fly through the air two floors to the top of a ruin to assault my scouts, no, sorry, that's just not how context and unit types work. U can bespoke a random number in inches on a unit card and have a stat fest, it really doesn't solve how far gone 8-9th has gone. I remember distinctly a flyer assaulting a bunker in 8th and that was just about when I called it quits. 30k is better off for having terrain rules and detail and armour facings and all the things that annoyed the people that never had time to read rules or barely paint. Some games and hobbies should consist of more than a cursory look at a unit card and a couple hours to glue grey plastic together. If there's a fear for 30k its having it inherit the worse aspects of 40k and the race to the bottom game design.
gorgon wrote: I see no good reason why anyone should have to be expected to memorize bikes vs. cavalry vs. beasts.
A - You don't have to memorise it, just read the rules.
B - Depending on the army you play, some of those unit types never come up.
Move characteristics are a fine addition but let's not pretend remembering unit types is a big issue for HH players.
100% this, something that never changes and you interact with all the time really isn't difficult to commit to memory. I've had plenty of acquaintances that only attended the mega battles because they never learned the rules and required all of us to tell them what to roll. I never thought gw would cater the game to that sort of mindset, "I shouldn't have to read, I have money".
To me, it isn't the stats or core rules that really make 8th/9th feel like a CCG. That's about the codexes and their layered buffs and combos and gotcha stratagems and such. A lot of the extra complexity of 7th doesn't express itself in better gameplay. Both 7th and AT have armor facings, but one of those games gets much more hot and heavy into unit maneuvering and counter-maneuvers to jockey for/protect against side and rear shots, and it isn't 7th.
Completely dissagree, got far more side and rear shots in 7th and 30k than AT. AT has no core reserves and it's actually pretty hard to get into a titan's rear armour, there's maybe 1 strat for outflank and 1 legio specific for terrible deep strike, unlike the vast amount of disruption units in both 7th and 30k that could come in from a flank or deep strike and hit units in the flank or rear.
Either way, 8-9 did away with that and that's not a direction for 30k to go. The stratagems honestly make AT worse overall if you ask me, a lot of the gotcha stuff is never fun.
Crablezworth wrote: Really glad the guy above me isn't in charge of game development.
Really glad you're not in charge of game development.
Jokes on you though, Irbis might not be involved, but the guy that is in charge seems to share his same viewpoints considering they are in fact implementing the thing that you are complaining about and he is defending.
30k is enjoyed because it hasn't gone the route of 8-9th. I'm not sure why we must ruin it for the sake of those who have 9th to play and enjoy.
This is overly dramatic. The ruleset remains fundamentally centered on 7th, there are still Armor Values and facings as well as initiative stats. They haven't "gone the route of 8th and 9th" by making dreadnoughts not vehicles and replacing unit type based movement with a built in movement stat. The fundamental aspects of the game mechanics that make the game what it is are very much rooted in pre-8th 40k (hell even movement stats are, that was a thing in the 1st/2nd ed era).
RazorEdge wrote: Battletech is since 2019 more alive then ever before.
Because it received continuing support by way of a massive kickstarter that launched a whole new range of miniatures, as well as a number of new rulebooks/sourcebooks (whatever they are called), as well as a number of revised rulebooks. It didn't suddenly and spontaneously get "more alive" on its own.
chaos0xomega wrote: Jokes on you though, Irbis might not be involved, but the guy that is in charge seems to share his same viewpoints considering they are in fact implementing the thing that you are complaining about and he is defending.
It's a rumour. We have no idea what is and is not being implemented.
Crablezworth wrote: Completely dissagree, got far more side and rear shots in 7th and 30k than AT. AT has no core reserves and it's actually pretty hard to get into a titan's rear armour, there's maybe 1 strat for outflank and 1 legio specific for terrible deep strike, unlike the vast amount of disruption units in both 7th and 30k that could come in from a flank or deep strike and hit units in the flank or rear.
Either way, 8-9 did away with that and that's not a direction for 30k to go. The stratagems honestly make AT worse overall if you ask me, a lot of the gotcha stuff is never fun.
You kinda made my point though. Yes, side/rear armor gets targeted in 30K/7th, but that's mainly because so many units can just magically appear on the tabletop or can come screaming in one move from halfway across the table to target side or rear armor. That's not a game of maneuver, really...it's not like you've worked to coordinate and position units to bracket targets. It's just press-button gameplay. There's no great tactical depth there.
chaos0xomega wrote: Jokes on you though, Irbis might not be involved, but the guy that is in charge seems to share his same viewpoints considering they are in fact implementing the thing that you are complaining about and he is defending.
It's a rumour. We have no idea what is and is not being implemented.
The jokes apparently on me though, because they're making a game I won't play or spend money on....
You kinda made my point though. Yes, side/rear armor gets targeted in 30K/7th, but that's mainly because so many units can just magically appear on the tabletop or can come screaming in one move from halfway across the table to target side or rear armor. That's not a game of maneuver, really...it's not like you've worked to coordinate and position units to bracket targets. It's just press-button gameplay. There's no great tactical depth there.
Not really, outflank has you sitting on a board edge for a turn and deep strike without something to help from scatter can often mean delay, death or your opponent places the unit very far from said push button... It absolutely is a game of maneuver. And a good one at that.
gorgon wrote: You kinda made my point though. Yes, side/rear armor gets targeted in 30K/7th, but that's mainly because so many units can just magically appear on the tabletop or can come screaming in one move from halfway across the table to target side or rear armor. That's not a game of maneuver, really...it's not like you've worked to coordinate and position units to bracket targets. It's just press-button gameplay. There's no great tactical depth there.
Have you actually played HH? The only basic units that get Outflank are Recon Squads and Javelin Speeders, and Deep Strike is given to Land Speeders, Jetbikes, flyers, Drop Pods, and Jump Pack troops (of which there are 2 in the basic Legion list). Certain Characters or Rites of War can confer these rules to units in an army but those rules are still used sparingly. Deep Strike relies on your army either having mobile forward operating Nuncio Voxes or good luck. Outflank is a one-trick pony that might get you a turn of shooting unless your entire army is doing it, which is unlikely.
Yeah, all 500 of you. But everyone else who's moved on isn't interested in more complexity where it doesn't need to exist.
Aha, you're a funny guy. Do you actually have a point or are you just being a prat?
JSG wrote: That'd be why Battletech is dead then, regardless of the copium being huffed in this thread.
Yep, so dead it's sold in major retail stores.
Up, I can go into probably a dozen or more stores around me(not game stores). I only have 3 stores locally to buy 40k & zero to buy 30k.
, so it's got that going for it.
JSG wrote: That'd be why Battletech is dead then, regardless of the copium being huffed in this thread.
Yep, so dead it's sold in major retail stores.
Which ones? I've never seen a Battletech item on a store shelf anywhere.
I mean Walmart has it listed on their website.
On topic, Im curious to see what happens with nu30K but I dont want it to be too watered down. I wanted an 8e version early on in 8, but these days, no thanks and luckily its not looking too much like that. But still I dont know how much of what we've seen in rumors I actually want.
Am I understanding this correctly? They're updating the rules, so that it is no longer compatible with the existing HH books, but it still won't be compatible with the current 40K either? (Or any past edition of 40K for that matter.)
That really sounds like the worst of both world type of a situation...
Slightly off-topic, but that means nothing. Wal-Mart, Target, etc have started effectively having their own "marketplace".
On-topic:
I would love 30k to get "maingamed". Especially if it meant Solar Auxilia in plastic or finally getting rules for my gorgeous Thanatar in 40k.
The thing with the 30k Cybernetica is that they were dangerously close to A.I.
They were destroyed and replaced with the Kastelan robots the Mechanicus uses because the Mechanicum machines were far too independent of human control and were a threat. The newer Kastelan machines were specifically designed to only operate when a doctrine wafer is implanted, they cannot perform even basic functions without one and as such always require a Techpriest controller.
I don't like to tell people they shouldn't be allowed to use X model in 40k but for so much HH stuff it really shouldn't be a thing or if it has to be then there should be restrictions and requirements like there was in 6th/7th. If you wanted to take units like Contemptors or Deimos Predators, then you either got one Relic unit or you had to take a Techmarine/Chapter Master/Warpsmith. These things are supposed to be incredibly rare and valuable but because of the poor state of the rules we saw things like Leviathan spam and Contemptor Volkite spam. Plus it just ruins the units IMO. These things don't maintain the status of prized relics maintained carefully for generations when every Chapter and Warband can just chuck as many as they want into every battle they fight. HH loses a little bit of what makes it special every time GW ports another Legion unit into 40k.
Slightly off-topic, but that means nothing. Wal-Mart, Target, etc have started effectively having their own "marketplace".
On-topic:
I would love 30k to get "maingamed". Especially if it meant Solar Auxilia in plastic or finally getting rules for my gorgeous Thanatar in 40k.
I hadn't realized that about them, I typically avoid them.
Gert wrote: The thing with the 30k Cybernetica is that they were dangerously close to A.I.
They were destroyed and replaced with the Kastelan robots the Mechanicus uses because the Mechanicum machines were far too independent of human control and were a threat. The newer Kastelan machines were specifically designed to only operate when a doctrine wafer is implanted, they cannot perform even basic functions without one and as such always require a Techpriest controller.
Nearly all of this is factually incorrect...
I even double checked a copy of the 9e Mechanicus 'dex and it specifically states that the Kastelan pattern is as old as the founding of the Mechanicum, with many Forge Worlds claiming to have some from before even then. I've also never seen any book stating that the 30k Cybernetica intentionally destroyed any of their robots, especially considering that every 30k robot would have been subject to the Crimson Accords of Mars which dictated the acceptable limits of independence for any automata. It's also never stated that only Kastelans received the doctrina wafer system, only that the Legio Cybernetica implemented the system following the Heresy and that the reputation of the common 30k robots was relatively tainted by their association with the Dark Mechanicus. Additionally, the codex explicitly states that the methods of creating Kastelans is nearly lost and forge worlds will go to extreme expense just to recover fallen units from battle.
So yeah, there's no reason that 40k forge worlds couldn't field other Imperial robots which are seemingly equally as rare as Kastelans. Try double checking your information before posting
Those legio Cybernetica units are something I've always lusted after. Now with the new HH box coming up, I can finally include some in my BA army, if only for using in HH. Don't really mind, since HH will eventually be my only option when GW finally legends Firstborn from 40K.
Where is this explained with the Mechanicus robots because in the War of the Beast (M32) they're still around. And there was an announcement of FW to port them to 40K, the book just never went to print.
Custodes got even better! The only thing that could reliably kill them was either plasma or ap2 at initiative I'm salty about psychic phase. I liked the old one. Don't like the garbage Sigmar/40k has.
I also don't like all the potential loaouts to Predator. Waaaay too many options that are leading to a mess 9th is.
I'm salty about psychic phase. I liked the old one. Don't like the garbage Sigmar/40k has.
umm page 67 rumours say no psychic phase and instead powers activated on relevant phase...which is direct opposite of sigmar/40k. Biggest difference between the two being does the psychic/magic happen before or after movement.
Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.
edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol
Rihgu wrote: Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.
edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol
Different people pick up information differently. For some the visual table is more easily understood, for others the math.
If they don't have it memorized, the table is going to be easier for a specific comparison they need in the moment.
Part of the criticism of 8th/9th was in fact about dropping the tables. Having both table and explanation was rather a staple from 1st-7th.
Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?
Rihgu wrote: Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.
edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol
Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st
With out knowing which are broken for you, I couldnt tell you exactly.
1st is the PDF Cover 2nd is the Primarch Rule description 3rd is vehicle info 4th is Hit/Wound 5th is Battle Smith description 6th is Defensive Weapons 7th is Blast Example Pictures 8th is Shrouded, Sniper, Specialist Weapons 9th is Blind and Bulky 10th is Psyker
chaos0xomega wrote: Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?
Rihgu wrote: Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.
edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol
Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st
In 7th, at least, you never got 2+ or 6+ to hit in melee. And you needed 2x+1 WS of your attacker to even be hit on 5. All you needed to do to hit on 3+ was be higher at all.
chaos0xomega wrote: Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?
Rihgu wrote: Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.
edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol
Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st
In 7th, at least, you never got 2+ or 6+ to hit in melee. And you needed 2x+1 WS of your attacker to even be hit on 5. All you needed to do to hit on 3+ was be higher at all.
As far back as 3rd, melee to hit only ranged between 3+ and 5+.
So it is confirmed, leaks are leaking...what a shame. Horus Heresy was a great game. Get ready to get mediocrity and unpainted models, guys. Brace yourself, troubled times are coming !
On subject, I'm glad they seem to retain important part of the rules, like armor values. I'm wondering if the current armies books will still be somehow usable, at least at first
For God's sake have you never heard of spoiler tabs?
Side note, very disappointed with this and will have to wait for the full rules but from this, it looks like I won't be continuing with the new Edition. Shame.
Yeah and the fact that you can only use a max of three leaves you with some intersting tactical choices. Especially when you're being charged. Do you use one up to fire overwatch or save it for later? Also allows the main player to second guess and try for multiple charges
This could easily be the best 40K rulebook GW/FW ever put out with taking inspiration from the old and new editions and breaking up IGOUGO. Also, since it's handled by FW it won't be rewritten in three years but rather refined.
Oh, hey, check out the to-wound chart. Looks like it’s capped at toughness = double Strength +1 is impossible to wound. Not new for HH but definitely welcome in the face of lasguns-ate-my-land-raider.
chaos0xomega wrote: Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?
Rihgu wrote: Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.
edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol
Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st
In 7th, at least, you never got 2+ or 6+ to hit in melee. And you needed 2x+1 WS of your attacker to even be hit on 5. All you needed to do to hit on 3+ was be higher at all.
As far back as 3rd, melee to hit only ranged between 3+ and 5+.
I didnt mean the numbers specifically (thats why I said "basically the same" rather than "identical"), I meant the style of the chart cross referencing values.
Yeah, was never the biggest fan of hull points, there never felt like there were enough of them and by having a fixed target number to hit you were incentivized to make decisions targeting vehicles based on how long it would take you to cross a magic threshold, rather than the pre-hull point system where attacking vehicles was always fraught with the uncertainty of whether you would manage anything at all.
Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.
Crablezworth wrote: Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.
I dunno, we somehow managed to play big WHFB games back in the day and those let you do a reaction to every single charge. I suspect most people will manage fine.
Crablezworth wrote: Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.
I dunno, we somehow managed to play big WHFB games back in the day and those let you do a reaction to every single charge. I suspect most people will manage fine.
I suspect people will buy the plastic models and play 40k with them as always.
Yup. I can't wait to see a single plasma pistol shot blowing up Land Raider (because stuff like tank hunter or rending or one of the other 4758375 "universal" special rules was cheesed on top of it) again. Though, weird how stuff that actually happens, unlike 4chan strawork lasgun gak, is never mentioned by HH elitists in such comparisons, funny that
Crablezworth wrote: Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.
Dunno. Rules are quite simple. Guess most just utilize elementary school lessons and play?
Yeah, was never the biggest fan of hull points, there never felt like there were enough of them...
That's my one big issue with hull points. They could have been a great consolation prize for people like me who can't roll well on the damage table to save their life, but instead of being an inefficient way of removing a vehicle through brute force eventually, they became the opposite and made vehicles far too susceptible to damage from the ever increasing number of multi-shot mid-strength weapons that were added with every edition. Hull points could have been a far better thing than we got.
I have to admit, I like a lot of what I'm seeing. The reactions mechanic reminds me of "Decisive Move/Fire/Fight" strat from KT18 and it was always an invaluable asset in the game. I see the same for these reactions, will bring a lot of added depth to the IGOUGO.
Also liking the bulky (X).. and pinned. a lot of things seem really on point for me, but admittedly have never played HH so I'm not really giving an educated opinion here
I find it interesting in the Psyker section of the leaks, Daemon is now a unit type, That might be indicative of what's to come for the Dreadnoughts and Automata.
Crablezworth wrote: Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.
It's possible that there's more to this than a single page or two reveals and that special rules for 3+ player games may be covered in a later page?
Reactions seem cool. Reminds me a bit of some of the tactics you can use in Age of Sigmar 3rd ed, which are generally pretty good and make you really think about how you want to spend those command points.
I'm excited for the new system. It's got some of the old flavor that I miss but pulling things in some new directions, to keep it fresh.
And I'm sure there will be a large community of people that will simply refuse to update to the new system, just like how there's still people playing warhammer fantasy and ADnD and all that...
I'm really starting to warm up to the picture these rules leaks are painting. I always liked armour facings and pie plates, and hated startagems. It kind of sounds like a ruleset which 7th Ed 40K should have become, addressing many of the most griped annoyances such as monsters vs dreads being treated differently and the like.
I was always sure I'd buy the new box just because of the included models, but now I'm thinking the rules are looking appealing to me as well. Looking forward to more leaks!
Just reading reactions... What a disaster. Especially for small games. You have a 500pts assault oriented army ? You want to charge this support unit with heavy weapon with your elite unit that costs half your point ? Well, better play Iron Warrior and shoot them because if you charge them with palatine blades, they are going to shoot you before you hit them ! And be left with no army.
Awful rule. It makes good units even better by allowing them to act even when attacked by range or assault.
Let's see the full rulebook but there isn't a single change that looks good so far. If it ain't broken, don't fix it !
Any news on the big black books by the way ?
Yeah, was never the biggest fan of hull points, there never felt like there were enough of them...
That's my one big issue with hull points. They could have been a great consolation prize for people like me who can't roll well on the damage table to save their life, but instead of being an inefficient way of removing a vehicle through brute force eventually, they became the opposite and made vehicles far too susceptible to damage from the ever increasing number of multi-shot mid-strength weapons that were added with every edition. Hull points could have been a far better thing than we got.
All what they really had to do was make hull points essentially ablative wounds, I.E. when you roll a vehicle destroyed result you lose a hull point instead, means you won't ever one-shot a vehicle and they will take a bit more fire before they become vulnerable. I also never entirely cared for the implementation of shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed/immobilized - I think a bracketing system like we currently have would have worked better, but instead of it being based on wounds taken it would be based on results rolled. I.E. whereas before the table went 1 - shaken, 2 - stunned, 3 - weapon destroyed, 4 - immobilized, 5 - destroyed, 6 - explodes, it could go more like 1-2: -1 impact, 3-4: -2 impact, 5-6: destroyed (or hull point), and then you just add up the cumulative impacts of damage done each round to find which profile you're using (i.e. using the typical 3 bracket setup of vehicles in 9th, 1-5 impacts might just be -1 BS, whereas 6-10 impacts might be -1BS and -5" move, and 11+ impacts -2 BS, -1WS, and 0" move for the turn - and then each round it resets back to zero. It would stop us from having to deal with tanks basically being rendered useless every turn from players shooting it with low grade weaponry just to score a couple shaken/stunned results, etc. And that could, of course, vary by model.
Slightly off-topic, but that means nothing. Wal-Mart, Target, etc have started effectively having their own "marketplace".
I've bought the starter box in FNAC Callao, right in the middle of the busiest shopping street in all Madrid (they did the Horizon: Forbidden West Promotion with the mecha dinosaur statue right there). It sold out fast, though.
godardc wrote: Just reading reactions... What a disaster. Especially for small games. You have a 500pts assault oriented army ? You want to charge this support unit with heavy weapon with your elite unit that costs half your point ? Well, better play Iron Warrior and shoot them because if you charge them with palatine blades, they are going to shoot you before you hit them ! And be left with no army.
Awful rule. It makes good units even better by allowing them to act even when attacked by range or assault.
Let's see the full rulebook but there isn't a single change that looks good so far. If it ain't broken, don't fix it !
Any news on the big black books by the way ?
You're oversimplifying things. The idea is to use pinning against a unit you want unable to react.
Once you mix the pinning mechanic into the reactions, a lot of interesting things happens, opening up new levels of tactical depth.
Another thing to keep in mind that your army equally benefits from reactions during your opponents turn. Someone ends up within 12" in order to bring their meltas etc into range? Counter advance them and you are pretty much guaranteed a charge next turn.
Right and unless there is an extreme change in what Pinning is, can you tell me how many weapons have that specific ability? If the Pinning mechanic is changed I can see it being useful but if it stays as is (i.e. a weapon rule) then its not exactly a hard counter.
Gert wrote: Right and unless there is an extreme change in what Pinning is, can you tell me how many weapons have that specific ability? If the Pinning mechanic is changed I can see it being useful but if it stays as is (i.e. a weapon rule) then its not exactly a hard counter.
Its usually on snipers, think some artillery and kakophoni for emperors children
If anything I expect emperors children to do well into it, noise marines to turn off reactions then follow up with precise charge from palatine blades and I wouldnt be surprised if EC in general get access to extra uses because of their gimick of "countering" strategies
to me it makes sense for a melee heavy army to advance under some initial bombardment that limits the enemy, its what half the melee assaults in HH go like
edit- I could actually see that being used to differentiate the melee armies, World eaters using heavy siege tanks and/or quad mortars then troops go in while blood angels use jetpack and air assaults to limit reactions to them. Alot will depend on if pinning is more common, though it will increase the stocks of marine sniper squads which have always kind of sucked in 30k outside of certain factions.
for other legions I expect something that mirrors their 40k stuff as space wolves unique one is a nod to their heroic intervention
Alpha legion- mess with reactions
Night lords- Vox scream from 40k to turn off them in an area
raven guard- fire and fade
iron hands- maybe bonus repair
iron warriors- just get imperial fist one
world eaters- probably dont get access to most of them, maybe the "makes opponent count as having disordered charge" one becomes "that + you count as having charged"
ultramarines- get to use everyones as gman liked to pinch ideas that worked.
I like the reactions as the closes we will get to alternate activations just aslong as dont go too far, have just the core, 1 for each legion and very rarely one for rights of war. Also its possible smaller point games like 500 pts will have limited reactions, zone mortalis could limit it to 1 reaction per turn
Not sure what to make of this, but this list has been just popped up on a Discord. Apply massive doses of salt:
- Multiple units deploying with a single reserve roll
- There's a bunch of different subtypes of Monstrous Creatures now. Dreadnoughts, Daemons and Automata
- Automata can't do reactions and are slow
- Dreadnoughts have Wargear that makes them immune to instant death but vulnerable to melta and haywire.
- Weapon Strength is capped at 20
- Landspeeders are now treated like bikes with a toughness value
- Rhinos and Landraiders increase transport capacity by 2
- Twinlinked is gone - replaced with 8th ed inspired rule for more shots
- Lascannons have sunder rule
- Almost all vehicles are in squadrons
- Plastic thallax, predators, landraiders, are hinted at
I can believe the plastic Thallax, especially given the recent bump in unit sizes on Skitarii. They've gone from being a relatively "elite" unit to more of a "horde-y" unit.
Fingers crossed, still, for some love in 40k proper!
Why would Legions get special "reactions" if they already have Legion traits though? At that point, they are the same as Stratagems which is something I want HH to avoid like the plague.
Honestly, a lot of this just seems like change for the sake of change.
The only thing I wouldn't mind is a slight change to the Psychic system where it's back to a set number of powers and a Ld check to cast the power while keeping the current system of multiple disciplines.
Gert wrote: Why would Legions get special "reactions" if they already have Legion traits though? At that point, they are the same as Stratagems which is something I want HH to avoid like the plague.
Honestly, a lot of this just seems like change for the sake of change.
The only thing I wouldn't mind is a slight change to the Psychic system where it's back to a set number of powers and a Ld check to cast the power while keeping the current system of multiple disciplines.
Agreed, far too much of it for the sake of it too.
I'm excited at the prospect of plastic 30k era predators. I also love the theme of 30k in taking vehicles in squadrons. Probably my favorite thing about Imperial Guard.
Plastic HH vehicles would be icing on the cake for any Rogue Trader -era Marines collector. I could see the kits selling well to 40K players as well. Which actually makes that rumour kinda plausible.
EDIT: Wait, plastic Thallax automata?! Oh my, that'd be a treat! Salivating at the thought
Also like that rumour about dreads being vulnerable to melta & haywire.. Although the same should also apply to other robotic units like automata etc
Gert wrote: Why would Legions get special "reactions" if they already have Legion traits though? At that point, they are the same as Stratagems which is something I want HH to avoid like the plague.
Absolutely agreed. Stratagems, particularly now that they are using them as "card to use equipment you used to have" are absolutely awful.
godardc wrote: Just reading reactions... What a disaster. Especially for small games. You have a 500pts assault oriented army ? You want to charge this support unit with heavy weapon with your elite unit that costs half your point ? Well, better play Iron Warrior and shoot them because if you charge them with palatine blades, they are going to shoot you before you hit them ! And be left with no army.
Awful rule. It makes good units even better by allowing them to act even when attacked by range or assault.
Let's see the full rulebook but there isn't a single change that looks good so far. If it ain't broken, don't fix it !
Any news on the big black books by the way ?
You're oversimplifying things. The idea is to use pinning against a unit you want unable to react.
Once you mix the pinning mechanic into the reactions, a lot of interesting things happens, opening up new levels of tactical depth.
Another thing to keep in mind that your army equally benefits from reactions during your opponents turn. Someone ends up within 12" in order to bring their meltas etc into range? Counter advance them and you are pretty much guaranteed a charge next turn.
And besides...He complains game getting broken at 500 pts? Well duh. Game isn't designed to work well at 500. Games have sweet spot games works(at least GW games). In 30 odd years GW has yet to create game that works at every scale. FB every edition, 40k every edition, lotr, epic, BFG, AT they all have range of points they work well and less or more than that it breaks balance. Reactions or not 500 pts would be bad game size to play anyway. And 5000 pts is also going to break things as game just doesn't scale up to that anyway.
Use the game for points it's supposed to be played and then complain if it doesn't work. If you play too small or too big prepare to house rule tons.
More grist for the mill. Thanks to Petitioner's City over on B&C - looks like my discord swipe was swiped from the 4chan list below:
So does anyone else want to try to summarize the things from the discord chat so far? teehee.gif here is some of it, but i can't find everything.
Source 1
- suggests Mournival were playtesters
- suggests transport capacity has gone up across the board, but didn't have access to Militia/Talons/etc rules, just Legions (and seemingly just the special legion rules)
- Salamanders will love their flamestorm cannon predators as troops squadrons [not sure if this is a Sally rite of war or Armoured Breakthrough]
- "the rites of war that were posted in bolter and chainsword are correct"
- Apparrently Imp Fist Tartaros can't take Storm Shields, but not sure.
- "Flamers are more powerful across the board"
- Sehkmet are only Cataphractii now
- "Days of sorrow got buffed" and "blades of perdition" are good
Source 2
- "Like taking a power fist was nearly always better then power axe as hitting last if you get me. Now both are good. And in different armies. Can be powerful. Also tactical sgts cannot have artificial armour."
On 4chan the following was posted:
"From a guy with the book:
>You can combine multiple units deploying the same way into a single reserve roll, like deep strikers. So if you declare a deep strike assault you can, for example, drop 3 units of assault marines on the same area, and then assault with themIt's risky, as interceptor is a thing and cognis signums let you interceptor without spending a point on reactions - then overwatch at full
>Outflank works like in AT >There's a bunch of different subtypes of MC. Dreads, Daemonic MC, and so on are in with different rules.
>Cybernetica had another major nerf they can't do reactions and move extra slow
>Dreads have Wargear that makes them immune to instant death, take D3 wounds instead and are vulnerable to melta and haywire.
>S is capped at 20, but over ten is just for instant death purposes. Dreads can take chainfist to get to S8, leviathan S12, Landspeeders are just a T6 jetbike now with four wounds
>Oh, and rhinos, landraiders... 2 more capacity, so putting heroes in units is easy
>TL gone in favor of more shots [I find this doubtful since we have seen twin-linked and gravis side-by-side in the pred entry, or am i wrong?]
>Lascannons have sunder
>Almost all vehicles are in squadrons, including the arcus, and most went up in points, all have sponsons if available by default, typhons can squad.
>No more psychic phase. It's a LD test now. Hoods reduce psyker leadership in a radius, and force weapons double the strength of the wielder before weapon bonuses. A psyker knows all 2-3 powers in their school. There are 8 schools.
>Almost all vehicles are in squadrons, including the arcus, and most went up in points, all have sponsons if available by default which kinda sucks for smaller games.
>Marine side, rites of war are simpler, pride of the legion is restrictive, there's an all dread rite. All [hit] hard. And predator tanks with any sponson or turret can be troops in armored breakthrough which was combined with spearhead."
- Apparrently Imp Fist Tartaros can't take Storm Shields, but not sure. (Exceptionally dumb.)
- Sehkmet are only Cataphractii now (Dumb.)
- Also tactical sgts cannot have artificial armour. (Was just a fun little upgrade.)
- You can combine multiple units deploying the same way into a single reserve roll, like deep strikers. So if you declare a deep strike assault you can, for example, drop 3 units of assault marines on the same area, and then assault with themIt's risky, as interceptor is a thing and cognis signums let you interceptor without spending a point on reactions - then overwatch at full (I don't like staggered deployments TBH.)
- Dreads have Wargear that makes them immune to instant death, take D3 wounds instead and are vulnerable to melta and haywire. (Leviathans and Deredeo's will be nigh unkillable.)
- No more psychic phase. It's a LD test now. Hoods reduce psyker leadership in a radius, and force weapons double the strength of the wielder before weapon bonuses. A psyker knows all 2-3 powers in their school. There are 8 schools. (Mostly because Psychic Hoods aren't supposed to be a thing in HH.)
- Almost all vehicles are in squadrons, including the arcus, and most went up in points, all have sponsons if available by default which kinda sucks for smaller games. (Mandatory sponsons is dumb.)
- Marine side, rites of war are simpler, pride of the legion is restrictive, there's an all dread rite. All [hit] hard. And predator tanks with any sponson or turret can be troops in armored breakthrough which was combined with spearhead. (Not sure what needs simplified in RoW, gives me fear.)
But also just in general it feels like there are changes being made just for the sake of being different. The Crusade and HeresyFB page mod actually banned the posting of the rumours because it was starting too many arguments and getting too many people down. It's like a car crash, you don't want to look but you have to see.
The thing is it's not like a WHFB situation where the game was badly managed or a 40k situation where things get changed to keep people interested. All HH needed was a box like Calth and a rules patch rather than a rework. The minimal amount of support to keep it going.
Ah yes, the old "make this relatively new and expensive model illegal" approach.
Was it ever actually clarified that IF tartaros could take storm shields? It's not in the FAQ.
Any Legion Terminator or Terminator Character, from the Red Books I believe. Also you know the Imperial Fist Praetor in Terminator Armor is in Tartaros and using the shield.
Spoiler:
Edit: Though the FW page does now seem to call it Cataphractii Armor.
- Apparrently Imp Fist Tartaros can't take Storm Shields, but not sure. (Exceptionally dumb.)
- Sehkmet are only Cataphractii now (Dumb.)
- Also tactical sgts cannot have artificial armour. (Was just a fun little upgrade.)
- You can combine multiple units deploying the same way into a single reserve roll, like deep strikers. So if you declare a deep strike assault you can, for example, drop 3 units of assault marines on the same area, and then assault with themIt's risky, as interceptor is a thing and cognis signums let you interceptor without spending a point on reactions - then overwatch at full (I don't like staggered deployments TBH.)
- Dreads have Wargear that makes them immune to instant death, take D3 wounds instead and are vulnerable to melta and haywire. (Leviathans and Deredeo's will be nigh unkillable.)
- No more psychic phase. It's a LD test now. Hoods reduce psyker leadership in a radius, and force weapons double the strength of the wielder before weapon bonuses. A psyker knows all 2-3 powers in their school. There are 8 schools. (Mostly because Psychic Hoods aren't supposed to be a thing in HH.)
- Almost all vehicles are in squadrons, including the arcus, and most went up in points, all have sponsons if available by default which kinda sucks for smaller games. (Mandatory sponsons is dumb.)
- Marine side, rites of war are simpler, pride of the legion is restrictive, there's an all dread rite. All [hit] hard. And predator tanks with any sponson or turret can be troops in armored breakthrough which was combined with spearhead. (Not sure what needs simplified in RoW, gives me fear.)
But also just in general it feels like there are changes being made just for the sake of being different. The Crusade and HeresyFB page mod actually banned the posting of the rumours because it was starting too many arguments and getting too many people down. It's like a car crash, you don't want to look but you have to see.
The thing is it's not like a WHFB situation where the game was badly managed or a 40k situation where things get changed to keep people interested. All HH needed was a box like Calth and a rules patch rather than a rework. The minimal amount of support to keep it going.
You are smooshing different sources here, and honestly the 4chan ones felt a bit funny. I think it's worth remembering the salt
Also the storm shield thing isn't clear, it was a quick glance by that person with the book - always remember one is an unreliable narrator, esp if one doesn't play that legion.
I don't trust the rumours, never have never will. But the fact remains that this could be true and that just sucks IMO.
I don't want to read these rumours but at the same time want to know what is possibly happening. So until the rules are out all I have is disappointment and sadness because these rumours do not paint a picture that inspires hope for HHIMO.
stonehorse wrote:Glad to see reactions added to the game, will help male the game more dynamic and interesting.
Yeah, I'm surprised to see people lumping it under 'change for the sake of change', since a free-form reaction system is a significant departure from GW's traditional I'll-make-a-sandwich-while-you-take-your-turn IGOUGO and will definitely impact the dynamics of the game. Other games with similar mechanics haven't been dominated by doomstacks so I'd be surprised if that's a major problem here. A reaction system is also a great opportunity for GW to differentiate high-tempo forces from slower and less reactive ones, like Automata apparently not getting reactions at all.
Much of the rest of what I see seems like streamlining or logical iteration. Codifying damage mitigation as a mechanic is a good change, as is embracing parentheses on USRs rather than making me remember what adjective added to 'Bulky' corresponds to what number of slots it takes up. Having Dreadnoughts and Automata finally work equivalently has been a long time coming. A bit extra transport capacity so you can take a character or two along with a squad in a transport makes sense in a game with lots of 10+ model squads.
I'm curious to see what changes they're making to vehicles and flying MCs, and whether the USRs are getting pared down at all, but so far nothing about the core rules changes seems wildly negative to me.
catbarf wrote: Yeah, I'm surprised to see people lumping it under 'change for the sake of change', since a free-form reaction system is a significant departure from GW's traditional I'll-make-a-sandwich-while-you-take-your-turn IGOUGO and will definitely impact the dynamics of the game. Other games with similar mechanics haven't been dominated by doomstacks so I'd be surprised if that's a major problem here. A reaction system is also a great opportunity for GW to differentiate high-tempo forces from slower and less reactive ones, like Automata apparently not getting reactions at all.
But why should Automata not get reactions? Some like the Thanatar are Initiative 2 but Castellax and Vorax have the same Initiative as Marines. An automata controlled by a Cortex Controller acts like any other unit so why should automata not receive reactions like any other unit?
Having Dreadnoughts and Automata finally work equivalently has been a long time coming.
Yes, Leviathans very much needed that extra boost to push them from unbearable to "sent from hell". Dreadnoughts of all classes are fine in the current ruleset, I don't see why they need to get tougher when most have good armour and an Invuln save to boot.
They don't think for themselves. Them not having reactions is entirely thematic. Hell, you could introduce rules that allow them to gain reactions (like a 'Sentry Mode') but they have to give something up in return, showing the limitations of not-quite-AI.
And Dreadnoughts as T/W vs AV is a great step. One of the first changes we made to the rules when we got sick of 40k and did our own version of (at the time) 4th Ed rules.
Gert wrote: But why should Automata not get reactions? Some like the Thanatar are Initiative 2 but Castellax and Vorax have the same Initiative as Marines. An automata controlled by a Cortex Controller acts like any other unit so why should automata not receive reactions like any other unit?
Like HBMC said, the whole idea of the automata is that they're relatively dim-witted and slow-to-react robots; that's why the Mechanicum is keen to produce cyborgs like Thallax that can act with a greater degree of autonomy.
Lack of reactions is a suitable way to model the idea of the holder of the Cortex Controller sending them orders, rather than them being able to organically react of their own initiative.
Gert wrote: Yes, Leviathans very much needed that extra boost to push them from unbearable to "sent from hell". Dreadnoughts of all classes are fine in the current ruleset, I don't see why they need to get tougher when most have good armour and an Invuln save to boot.
If we assume that nothing about their performance or cost will be changed to offset any potential gain from this rules shift, despite this being a completely new edition of the game, then yes they could become very oppressive.
We don't even know if the switch to monstrous creature stats will actually make them tougher. They could get worse depending on how their stats are set. Making assumptions at this stage is kind of silly.
catbarf wrote: Like HBMC said, the whole idea of the automata is that they're relatively dim-witted and slow-to-react robots; that's why the Mechanicum is keen to produce cyborgs like Thallax that can act with a greater degree of autonomy.
Lack of reactions is a suitable way to model the idea of the holder of the Cortex Controller sending them orders, rather than them being able to organically react of their own initiative.
The point of a Cortex Controller is that any programmed behaviours are eliminated in favour of direct control (sort of) by a Techpriest though. There's no changing of programming because the Techpriest has a sort of neural link to the machine, extending their will to the automata.
If automata didn't get reactions unless there was a Cortex Controller in range, then I would agree the rule makes sense but it just seems random as a flat rule that tries to bring a pretence of "balance".
If we assume that nothing about their performance or cost will be changed to offset any potential gain from this rules shift, despite this being a completely new edition of the game, then yes they could become very oppressive.
We don't even know if the switch to monstrous creature stats will actually make them tougher. They could get worse depending on how their stats are set. Making assumptions at this stage is kind of silly.
Riiiiight. So it's OK to take these rumours at face value and say they're looking amazing but if you say they might be badly written or theorise they might be bad, that's a bit no-no.
Where does it say that about cortex controllers, exactly? I want to look that up.
That said, if it is correct then you should at least wait to see if tech priests have a rule like “Cortex Controller: Friendly Automata within X inches ignore this, that, and the other part of the core rules for their unit type” or not, really. It’s not like we have the playtest army lists yet. Unless I missed something?
You know, just in case they actually want to use the Automata type for non-Adeptus Mechanicus things at some point.
So for both the Cybernetica Cortex and the Cortex Controller this is from the Mechanicum Taghmata book from FW:
Cybernetica Cortex
Spoiler:
Comprising a synthetic "brain" of sorts of the most advanced Battle-automata, a Cybernetica Cortex consists of an armoured casing containing a complex bio-plastic mass which extrudes nerve-like grey tendrils into the body of the robotic frame into which it is housed, invigorating it with strange false-life. Far beyond a simple cogitator in capacity, it is neither truly alive nor sapient like the dread and inhuman "Silica Animus" feared of old. Instead, it is akin to a primal web of bellicose instinct, guided not by self-awareness and reason, but by a programmed framework of encoded behaviour, comprising simple and exacting instructions and commands. The result is a superior, self-guided weapon; a machine-predator that will actively and instinctively pursue its Foes as well as act with a degree of tactical sense and self-preservation beyond anything a servitor is capable of, but without the dangers of revolt and development of blasphemous intelligence - or so the Legio Cybernetica claim.
Cortex Controller
Spoiler:
This control and signalling device uses data-djinn to command Battle-automata fitted with Cybernetica cortex systems, allowing the wielder to witness the battlefield through the automata's own senses as well as monitor their status and exact precise control over their actions. Only the most highly experienced and specifically augmented adepts of the Mechanicum and the Forge Lords of the Legiones Astartes can hope to fathom the use of these fractious devices and successfully interpret the storm of data streaming from their un-living minions.
But again, just so its clear, people can say they like the new rules and that they are brilliant, but I am not allowed to point out flaws and possible issues because "we don't know all the rules". Seems fair.
Gert wrote: Riiiiight. So it's OK to take these rumours at face value and say they're looking amazing but if you say they might be badly written or theorise they might be bad, that's a bit no-no.
Gert wrote: But again, just so its clear, people can say they like the new rules and that they are brilliant, but I am not allowed to point out flaws and possible issues because "we don't know all the rules". Seems fair.
Nobody's saying you're 'not allowed to point out flaws and possible issues'. Criticizing rules we've actually seen is fine. Declaring that Dreadnoughts are getting an extra boost and being made tougher when we have no idea what their statline will actually look like is nonsense.
Take a standard boxnaut with AV12/12/10 and 3 HP under the current system. A S9 lascannon gets a glancing hit on a 3, and a penetrating hit on a 4+. If the boxnaut becomes T8 and W3, then it'll be approximately as hard to kill- no degradation or lucky one-hit-kills, but also no vulnerable AV10 rear either, and either way it's three successful 3+ rolls to kill. It could even be T7/W3, again, we don't know. And given what we've seen so far of breaking from convention, it's possible Wounds-based Dreads/Automata will suffer degradation in the new system. We don't know.
Now if the new rules come out and Dreadnoughts are, in fact, hellishly hard to kill and imbalanced and totally break the game wide open, then yes, by all means complain about it. But right now you are committing the classic new-codex mistake of combining snippets of new rules with what you already know of old rules. Just... chill a bit, and let's focus on what we've seen rather than what we assume the rest will look like.
We don't even know if the switch to monstrous creature stats will actually make them tougher. They could get worse depending on how their stats are set. Making assumptions at this stage is kind of silly.
Riiiiight. So it's OK to take these rumours at face value and say they're looking amazing but if you say they might be badly written or theorise they might be bad, that's a bit no-no.
Difference is he's not assuming to know everything. Points, stats etc are changing. Have you seen points for units? You can't say is unit good or bad before seeing points. Just for ridiculously obvious example. Automatons 1 pts per model weapons included. They would be super powerful whether or not they get reactions.
The army lists are changing. You can't look at old points and consider how they are because you know what? Old points won't be used.
Well, the supposed leaks show Contemptors are going to T7 6W, but we can't see the armour save.
This would appear to be a substantial increase in durability if AT guns remain at 1 wound a pop.
Allegedly they have some rule that means they're affected by Melta and Haywire, but we don't know what or how.
I think give that information, combined with how we know the new system is most similar to current Heresy, it's appropriate to voice concerns with the information we have.
Monstrous Creatures are notorius for being a bit overly strong compared to vehicles based on core rules alone, and what we've seen suggests that's not changing.
kirotheavenger wrote: Well, the supposed leaks show Contemptors are going to T7 6W, but we can't see the armour save.
This would appear to be a substantial increase in durability if AT guns remain at 1 wound a pop.
Allegedly they have some rule that means they're affected by Melta and Haywire, but we don't know what or how.
I think give that information, combined with how we know the new system is most similar to current Heresy, it's appropriate to voice concerns with the information we have.
Monstrous Creatures are notorius for being a bit overly strong compared to vehicles based on core rules alone, and what we've seen suggests that's not changing.
IIRC the rumour was that there will be wargear which gives immunity to instakill but makes vulnerable to melta & haywire. That would actually mean that dreads without this wargear could still be instakilled, regardless of wounds, unless they hapoen to be eauipped with said wargear.
catbarf wrote: Nobody's saying you're 'not allowed to point out flaws and possible issues'. Criticizing rules we've actually seen is fine. Declaring that Dreadnoughts are getting an extra boost and being made tougher when we have no idea what their statline will actually look like is nonsense.
I didn't say Dreadnoughts, I said Leviathans. Do we seriously expect that Leviathans won't still be very very good in this new edition?
tneva82 wrote: Difference is he's not assuming to know everything. Points, stats etc are changing. Have you seen points for units? You can't say is unit good or bad before seeing points. Just for ridiculously obvious example. Automatons 1 pts per model weapons included. They would be super powerful whether or not they get reactions.
The army lists are changing. You can't look at old points and consider how they are because you know what? Old points won't be used.
I'm not assuming to know everything. I'm assuming a Leviathan will still be good because it's a Leviathan.
It could very well be that Boxnoughts will gain a slight boost and Contemptors will get even better but I wasn't talking about them.
But I'd just like to point out that nobody has been told "You're being too positive about the rules you don't know the full picture of", just people who aren't happy with what they've seen.
Gert wrote: Do we seriously expect that Leviathans won't still be very very good in this new edition?
Gert wrote: I'm assuming a Leviathan will still be good because it's a Leviathan.
You've lost me, I don't understand what logic is going into this at all.
Anyone who's witnessed an edition change in a GW game before has seen units that were very good become useless overnight.
The argument that Leviathans were good in the last edition, so they must be good in the new edition, and therefore the switch to T/W will assuredly make them brokenly hard to kill, makes no sense.
Gert wrote: But I'd just like to point out that nobody has been told "You're being too positive about the rules you don't know the full picture of", just people who aren't happy with what they've seen.
Because, again, the difference is not that you're being negative and others are being positive, it's that you're making assumptions about rules you haven't seen while others are commenting on the rules as presented.
catbarf wrote: You've lost me, I don't understand what logic is going into this at all.
Anyone who's witnessed an edition change in a GW game before has seen units that were very good become useless overnight.
The argument that Leviathans were good in the last edition, so they must be good in the new edition, and therefore the switch to T/W will assuredly make them brokenly hard to kill, makes no sense.
Actually, the argument, in this case, would be that Leviathans were broken when introduced into HH, nerfed a bit to extremely good, got ported to 40k, and were one of the highlights of 8th Ed tournament cheese. For a Leviathan to not be an amazing unit you'd have to double the points sink or make the weapons utterly worthless, something that I don't particularly see happening.
Because, again, the difference is not that you're being negative and others are being positive, it's that you're making assumptions about rules you haven't seen while others are commenting on the rules as presented.
My assumption is based on a unit that hasn't been bad since it was introduced into both HH and 40k.
I CBA continuously arguing about this. I think generally these leaks aren't good. There are bits I like such as Psychic Powers going to Ld checks instead of dice pools and in theory, the Reactions could be cool but overall I'm not impressed with what I've seen.
That's why I'm keeping myself from buying second Telemon. Might be gak in new edition. Honestly, I'm avoiding of buying anything now as they might also make gak units even more gak, like Coronus. Or, heck, they might as well make Sagittarum and Venatari actually good...
Threats of the new edition hasn't affected what I've bought for my army, I've bought the models and units that I think are cool and fit my theme.
Well, I'm slightly lying, rumours of modelless units have put the brakes on my buying some Ultramarines Locutarus.
I'm not that interested in them, so doing was a maybe anyways, but once I heard those rumours it quashed any ideas I had.
I do agree there's little point discussing how competitive things will be.
For all we know the devs were just as concerned with Leviathans as Gert and they're riding in as LoW and 500pts...
But it is appropriate to discuss mechanics. For however balanced they may be, MCs in 40k feel strange in that they can reliably tank several powerful AT shots.
It's possible they have added a damage characteristic in some way to AT guns, but I've seen nothing to suggest they have and what we have seen suggests to me they wouldn't have.
That means a 6W Contemptor is going to be soaking lascannons like it's fine wine (up to and including collapsing after they've downed one too many). That's not right to me, not right at all.
We shall have to see. Alas, I believe the leaks have stopped for the foreseeable future.
Also not a fan of landspeeders switching to wounds/toughness. Javelin speeders are huge and one of the cooler units in the game, I never once thought I'd like them to be more like bikes.
Landspeeders are a strange one.
It's openly stated that the marine's armour is a major component of it's defence (hence they're not Open Topped). That opens the question - if a marine is T4/3+, why is a Landspeeder AV10?
Especially with the jetbikes being flipping huge and almost the same size as a Landspeeder, making the landspeeders essentially just attack jetbikes.
I get you've got to draw an arbitrary line between "toughness" and "armour" at some point.
But my point is MCs have proven in past editions to be quite unsatisfactory in "feel" compared to vehicles IMO.
If I had my way I'd overhaul the whole attack/defence system and use a system more like DUST'47, which has an organic transition being unarmed infantry all the way through up to heavily armoured vehicles without there ever being a hard "switch" of stats. But I don't so we won't
kirotheavenger wrote: Landspeeders are a strange one.
It's openly stated that the marine's armour is a major component of it's defence (hence they're not Open Topped). That opens the question - if a marine is T4/3+, why is a Landspeeder AV10?
Especially with the jetbikes being flipping huge and almost the same size as a Landspeeder, making the landspeeders essentially just attack jetbikes.
I get you've got to draw an arbitrary line between "toughness" and "armour" at some point.
But my point is MCs have proven in past editions to be quite unsatisfactory in "feel" compared to vehicles IMO.
If I had my way I'd overhaul the whole attack/defence system and use a system more like DUST'47, which has an organic transition being unarmed infantry all the way through up to heavily armoured vehicles without there ever being a hard "switch" of stats. But I don't so we won't
It might have been stated to death already, but if mc's were the problem (and they are), I'm not sure why they've chosen to mess with everything else.
There's a direct conflict of interest between wanting the game to get some love in the form of like updated faq/errata and selling us new stuff. I can't state how much I wish they just focused the plastic releases everyone wants and left the game alone if change is just going to be for the sake of it. It's the same way I feel about video game sequels that want to re-invent the wheel, throw the baby out with the bath water, but still use and abuse every once of good will a franchise/established ip/name brings to it. I'd rather they slightly refine than re-invent the wheel.
I've always been a proponent of merging MCs into vehicles. Are they not both large heavily armoured things with squishy bits on the inside?
But that's clearly not happened. GW clearly heard people complaining that MCs were so much better than walkers and, in classic "completely misunderstanding the problem", have just made walkers MCs to solve it! Hurray for us...
I don't think 7th edition was a perfect ruleset, not at all, so I can understand why they might want to fix it.
Some changes, notably adding 'reactions' are clearly intended to be a direct improvement to some of the worst problems of 7th edition.
Great, more of that.
However, the leaks concern me. The execution seems way off. How can react and when, and what those reactions can be, seem to be really bad for the game from what I've seen.
Other changes like Dreadnoughts to MCs again seem really bad.
Dreadnoughts are an absolutely classic and just don't work as MCsimo.
So I do worry this is going to be a change for the worse.
I've always been a proponent of merging MCs into vehicles. Are they not both large heavily armoured things with squishy bits on the inside?
But that's clearly not happened. GW clearly heard people complaining that MCs were so much better than walkers and, in classic "completely misunderstanding the problem", have just made walkers MCs to solve it! Hurray for us...
I don't think 7th edition was a perfect ruleset, not at all, so I can understand why they might want to fix it.
Some changes, notably adding 'reactions' are clearly intended to be a direct improvement to some of the worst problems of 7th edition.
Great, more of that.
However, the leaks concern me. The execution seems way off. How can react and when, and what those reactions can be, seem to be really bad for the game from what I've seen.
Other changes like Dreadnoughts to MCs again seem really bad.
Dreadnoughts are an absolutely classic and just don't work as MCsimo.
So I do worry this is going to be a change for the worse.
The reactions thing bothers me to a core level, 30k is already made worse by certain things like a faction made entirely of knights or other silly crap. These ruin matched play just as much as narrative stuff and I've seen it first hand. Just some 40k player usually double dipping, I get the value of an obnoxious army that works in 2 games but ya, don't the rest of us just love it. Either way it's gw's fault, but thinking of stuff like that the reaction thing just seems stupid. It really messes with the scale of the game, not to mention larger mega battles or 2 v 2's or whatever. Also, one of the things I like most about 30k is it's relatively easy to document without too much interruption, outside of the odd intercept it's pretty straight forward to make a battle report out of. The reactions thing just throws a wrench into that. A lot of mega battles are a bit absurd in their dimensions, like the board might be 12x4. I'm not sure what good the reactions do there other than just make something that already take likely a lot of coordination and make it even messier. You already see rules being bent to allow for simultaneous things that won't affect causality at either end of the board to be rolled at the same time to save time.
I don't know when everyone decided turn based gaming was always in need of weird initiative stuff or alternating activations, those systems have just as many faults and arguably less flexible. If people have a problem with overwhelming firepower or alpha strikes that can be addressed with more los blocking terrain or as always with 30k breaking out the wallet and buying and fielding the exact same unit your opponent has that's pissing you off. That's been one of the only recourses to balance in 30k and one of the added benefits of so many units existing in so many places/lists.
I think I'd want to see more of the rules and how the various factions interact with those rules before making sweeping 'it's awful' sorts of statements, but that's Dakkadakka for you.
In almost every case of people overblowing rules changes between editions or game modes, the reality is not nearly as bad as people make it.
Like, 9th ed had a great starting ruleset. Only later on, when powercreep wasn't the normal 10% more effective but more like 50% more effective did we start to see a lot of the issues of the edition.
drbored wrote: I think I'd want to see more of the rules and how the various factions interact with those rules before making sweeping 'it's awful' sorts of statements, but that's Dakkadakka for you.
In almost every case of people overblowing rules changes between editions or game modes, the reality is not nearly as bad as people make it.
Like, 9th ed had a great starting ruleset. Only later on, when powercreep wasn't the normal 10% more effective but more like 50% more effective did we start to see a lot of the issues of the edition.
That last part sure sounds like a sweeping awful sort of statement of opinion presenting as fact. Regardless, I agree that you should see the rules reviewed in their entirety before making a judgement (if you're ok with the rumored/leaked changes) or spending a penny (if you're not ok with them).
drbored wrote: I think I'd want to see more of the rules and how the various factions interact with those rules before making sweeping 'it's awful' sorts of statements, but that's Dakkadakka for you.
In almost every case of people overblowing rules changes between editions or game modes, the reality is not nearly as bad as people make it.
Like, 9th ed had a great starting ruleset. Only later on, when powercreep wasn't the normal 10% more effective but more like 50% more effective did we start to see a lot of the issues of the edition.
That last part sure sounds like a sweeping awful sort of statement of opinion presenting as fact. Regardless, I agree that you should see the rules reviewed in their entirety before making a judgement (if you're ok with the rumored/leaked changes) or spending a penny (if you're not ok with them).
Hey, I did say this was dakkadakka. I wouldn't be a proper dakkaite if I didn't participate in the same behavior that I'm decrying.
Crablezworth wrote:I don't know when everyone decided turn based gaming was always in need of weird initiative stuff or alternating activations
It really started to take off in the '90s, so it's not exactly a new trend.
Historical and realistic wargames do it to provide some semblance of friction, where you cannot act with impunity before your opponent gets a chance to respond and throw a wrench in your plans. More casual games do it to increase player interaction, keep both players in the game, and provide more major decision points. There are lots of ways to skin that cat, but straight IGOUGO is a rarity nowadays and with good reason.
It's not about limiting alpha strikes. That's a useful side effect, and one of the reasons it gets proposed for 40K, but the core reason for activation/reaction mechanics is to add some depth to the command-and-control aspect of the game and produce more simultaneity than thirty-minute pendulum swings.
In any case the proposed mechanic is so limited in scope (compare to Dust or Starship Troopers, where any unit can react, not just one per phase) that I want to see how it actually plays out before judging.
It would have been more surprising to me if GW had taken over HH from FW but left the rules as is to keep the niche-within-a-niche 30K community happy.
This is the price of getting new plastics, etc. GW will want to grow that market, not just sell the new kits to the existing small community. And whether you agree with it or not, there are a lot of potential players/customers who feel that the v7-based HH ruleset is stale.
Hell, even if no one felt that way, we all know that rules churn is how GW sparks interest in new editions of 40K.
gorgon wrote: It would have been more surprising to me if GW had taken over HH from FW but left the rules as is to keep the niche-within-a-niche 30K community happy.
This is the price of getting new plastics, etc. GW will want to grow that market, not just sell the new kits to the existing small community. And whether you agree with it or not, there are a lot of potential players/customers who feel that the v7-based HH ruleset is stale.
Hell, even if no one felt that way, we all know that rules churn is how GW sparks interest in new editions of 40K.
This is very true. Many players stopped playing around the 7th edition time. Source? How many people came back for 8th or even 9th that hadn't played in 3+ years. 8th was a huge launch, both because of how many new people it brought in and how many returning people came in.
Advertising 30k as more of 7th isn't going to inspire a lot of people to try the game out. It'll make people that loved 6th and 7th happy, but that's a small and shrinking group of people.
Remember that successful 30k means more long-term support for the game. More plastics, more characters, more upgrades, more modeling and collecting opportunities.
At least they're not treating it like Age of Sigmar where they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They're clearly keeping some of the fundamentals of 7th edition to keep the game feeling different enough from 40k.
The main thing is that 7th Edition did need to be updated and fixed. Too many people like to think that formations were the only problem with 7th. They were a problem, yes, but they would have been a problem regardless of whatever edition they came out in so they weren't an inherently 7th Edition problem. 7th Edition still had many of the same problems that 6th had, that 5th had before that, and so on. I was very disappointed when they released the "updated" rules for HH and it had all of (I think) two changes to it. They had the opportunity to pick and choose from all of the best rules that had come out from 3rd to 7th, and they blew it.
gorgon wrote: It would have been more surprising to me if GW had taken over HH from FW but left the rules as is to keep the niche-within-a-niche 30K community happy.
This is the price of getting new plastics, etc. GW will want to grow that market, not just sell the new kits to the existing small community. And whether you agree with it or not, there are a lot of potential players/customers who feel that the v7-based HH ruleset is stale.
Hell, even if no one felt that way, we all know that rules churn is how GW sparks interest in new editions of 40K.
This is very true. Many players stopped playing around the 7th edition time. Source? How many people came back for 8th or even 9th that hadn't played in 3+ years. 8th was a huge launch, both because of how many new people it brought in and how many returning people came in.
Advertising 30k as more of 7th isn't going to inspire a lot of people to try the game out. It'll make people that loved 6th and 7th happy, but that's a small and shrinking group of people.
Remember that successful 30k means more long-term support for the game. More plastics, more characters, more upgrades, more modeling and collecting opportunities.
At least they're not treating it like Age of Sigmar where they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They're clearly keeping some of the fundamentals of 7th edition to keep the game feeling different enough from 40k.
This. A mature and nuanced view of whats going on, very refreshing.
gorgon wrote: It would have been more surprising to me if GW had taken over HH from FW but left the rules as is to keep the niche-within-a-niche 30K community happy.
This is the price of getting new plastics, etc. GW will want to grow that market, not just sell the new kits to the existing small community. And whether you agree with it or not, there are a lot of potential players/customers who feel that the v7-based HH ruleset is stale.
Hell, even if no one felt that way, we all know that rules churn is how GW sparks interest in new editions of 40K.
This is very true. Many players stopped playing around the 7th edition time. Source? How many people came back for 8th or even 9th that hadn't played in 3+ years. 8th was a huge launch, both because of how many new people it brought in and how many returning people came in.
Advertising 30k as more of 7th isn't going to inspire a lot of people to try the game out. It'll make people that loved 6th and 7th happy, but that's a small and shrinking group of people.
Yep, and there's a ever-growing group of players who never dealt with 3rd-7th edition concepts. It's been almost 5 years since 8th edition launched. It makes sense that they'd want to tweak some aspects to make the game look more familiar.
Remember that successful 30k means more long-term support for the game. More plastics, more characters, more upgrades, more modeling and collecting opportunities.
At least they're not treating it like Age of Sigmar where they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They're clearly keeping some of the fundamentals of 7th edition to keep the game feeling different enough from 40k.
They are, and honestly...I may give this a shot. Hell, I have a 30K WE army just sitting around boxed up anyway. Bringing in some 8th edition concepts and making some additional unique changes might be up my alley.
I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
He's not wrong though, and it's easy to dismiss anyone who isn't fawning over new stuff. Wanting a new starter and a more affordable inroad into the game and splitting it in two for no real gain seems quite likely. Popular HH models ported to 40k seems like what people want, any who wouldn't want more plastic?
There will always be a chunk of players that don't want to see change.
I am thankful they didn't fully abandon the existing rule base. I already went through GW killing WFB, that was enough.
Realistically, between the players who are happy for some change and then the larger audience likely jumping into the game if GW makes it more accessible, I assume the community will be fine.
There's something to be said for a smaller community who's values are more aligned.
One size fits all often means fits no one.
That doesn't mean to say I think the new rules will be that, I genuinely haven't seen enough to suggest one way or another.
It certainly looks like the worst of 8th isn't coming to HH, although there's a lot of shadows for that to be hiding in still.
So I can't be sure.
Strategems, vehicles being spongey fat infantrymen, and special rules galore mostly.
It does concern me that both the two recent Black Library Characters have special rules galore going on, I'm hoping that's just because they're fancy special characters as opposed to the new normal.
We know Dreadnoughts are joining in the "spongey fat infantrymen" thing, but we know that's just Dreadnoughts and hopefully it's not too bad.
I know I'm usually one of the most cynical around here, but I think them not outright just porting HH into 9th with all but name is probably a good sign that they're not in a hurry to merge the two. GW has shown with things like killing Fantasy they're not against ripping the bandaid off, even if blood was still gushing out of the wound.
I don't think Reactions are too indicative of Stratagems. It would've been easy for them to all but include Stratagems and handwave them away as "just being fluffy additions" with things like "Orbital Bombardment" and "Teleporter Assault" and later giving into just bloating the game with them, but Reactions largely seem to be a separate category of their own. Even in 8th Strats weren't really seen as too negative an addition until they leaned hard into the "GOTCHA!" bloat, where it was more about stacking rerolls and +1 Toughness. The Death Guard codex suffered largely because it was so limited compared to later codexes with regards to Strats but also had some of the fluffier, less 'arcadey' ones.
I do share kirotheavenger's worry that more things going MC is going to result in Spongey Fat Infantrymen. I'd rather they turned most of the non-Daemon MCs into vehicles rather than go the other way around, especially when it's not like Dreadnoughts were bad or anything.
It's hard to take OC too seriously when he's going to buy everything FW churn out anyway.
I was one of the people saying I enjoyed strategems at the start of 8th A cheeky reroll a dice here or there was a nice way to mitigate the swingyness of some rolls, but was nothing major.
Then the codexes started coming out...
I don't think Reactions are going to be like that, but since we've had the core Reaction rules leaked there are some clear problems.
- They don't scale well with game size. At say 1000pts your 1-3 Reactions are going to cover an unit you might want to whenever they might want to. But at 3000pts there's going to be some hard decisions to make. Clearly they balanced them around 3k, but you can't dismiss smaller games like that.
- They seem to make melee really quite difficult to pull off. If you try to approach someone they can just run away. If you try to charge someone they can just blast you at full lethality for free. If you try and charge Space Wolves or Imperial Fists, psyc, they charge you first!
I would have liked to see Reactions being uncapped, but anyone doing them lost their next turn. At the very least they wouldn't be "more stuff" it'd just be "stuff earlier".
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: There will always be a chunk of players that don't want to see change.
I am thankful they didn't fully abandon the existing rule base. I already went through GW killing WFB, that was enough.
Realistically, between the players who are happy for some change and then the larger audience likely jumping into the game if GW makes it more accessible, I assume the community will be fine.
I guess for a lot of people who saw their game nuked from orbit with WHFB, there will always be a sense of nervousness around any new release now or significant rules update. Always a short step away from a new rule that if players wear a laurel while playing (for Ultramarine players) or have a tankard of ale on the tabletop (for Space Wolves), that allows your units to make armour saves.
I can totally forgive the amount of nervousness on forums and in social media groups. It's a shame, because should just be really excited about the prospect of new plastic minis and new players coming into the community as a result of the new release.
kirotheavenger wrote:I don't think Reactions are going to be like that, but since we've had the core Reaction rules leaked there are some clear problems.
- They don't scale well with game size. At say 1000pts your 1-3 Reactions are going to cover an unit you might want to whenever they might want to. But at 3000pts there's going to be some hard decisions to make. Clearly they balanced them around 3k, but you can't dismiss smaller games like that.
- They seem to make melee really quite difficult to pull off. If you try to approach someone they can just run away. If you try to charge someone they can just blast you at full lethality for free. If you try and charge Space Wolves or Imperial Fists, psyc, they charge you first!
I would have liked to see Reactions being uncapped, but anyone doing them lost their next turn. At the very least they wouldn't be "more stuff" it'd just be "stuff earlier".
I'm very interested to see how it's implemented, because those are two legitimate issues, but ones that can be addressed a variety of ways.
From the wording on the reaction system, I expect characters or army archetypes to grant additional reactions in certain phases, so I expect there to be some scaling to the number of reactions an army can perform.
And for melee, as far as I'm concerned that will really be the litmus test for how much design effort and testing they've actually put into the game. Because you're right, a reaction system inherently makes melee a riskier proposition, just like overwatch. Games with reaction mechanics need to be designed to take it into account; it's not something you can layer onto a previously flat IGOUGO ruleset and expect everything to work out.
I also agree with 'do stuff earlier' as a general mechanic- it's an elegant way to get around certain timing issues, and helps provide a sense of 'momentum' where one player can find themselves getting pushed into just reacting to what's happening rather than taking initiative.
Pacific wrote:I guess for a lot of people who saw their game nuked from orbit with WHFB, there will always be a sense of nervousness around any new release now or significant rules update. Always a short step away from a new rule that if players wear a laurel while playing (for Ultramarine players) or have a tankard of ale on the tabletop (for Space Wolves), that allows your units to make armour saves.
I can totally forgive the amount of nervousness on forums and in social media groups. It's a shame, because should just be really excited about the prospect of new plastic minis and new players coming into the community as a result of the new release.
In my area at least, HH is the refuge for people who were dissatisfied with the direction 40K started to go in 8th, so I can completely understand the resistance against a modernized ruleset. That said, it also means that finding like-minded people who don't like the new rules and want to play with the old ones probably won't be too hard if that's what it comes down to.
I know I'm usually one of the most cynical around here, but I think them not outright just porting HH into 9th with all but name is probably a good sign that they're not in a hurry to merge the two.
Going to be honest, I wouldn't be too sad if they decided to take 10th in the direction of these rules and merged them that way.
The main thing that detracts from HH is its marines (and a few friends) pretty much all the time, and the rest of the setting is abandoned. So giving up strats for reactions and whatnot for mainline 40k? I'd be into it.
I know I'm usually one of the most cynical around here, but I think them not outright just porting HH into 9th with all but name is probably a good sign that they're not in a hurry to merge the two.
Going to be honest, I wouldn't be too sad if they decided to take 10th in the direction of these rules and merged them that way.
The main thing that detracts from HH is its marines (and a few friends) pretty much all the time, and the rest of the setting is abandoned. So giving up strats for reactions and whatnot for mainline 40k? I'd be into it.
Lol, this again.
You're basically saying that the main thing that detracts from HH is the HH itself. If we wanted to play 40k, we would be playing 40k.
I know I'm usually one of the most cynical around here, but I think them not outright just porting HH into 9th with all but name is probably a good sign that they're not in a hurry to merge the two.
Going to be honest, I wouldn't be too sad if they decided to take 10th in the direction of these rules and merged them that way.
The main thing that detracts from HH is its marines (and a few friends) pretty much all the time, and the rest of the setting is abandoned. So giving up strats for reactions and whatnot for mainline 40k? I'd be into it.
At the time of the Hersey it was basically only Marines and Imperial units (guard/mechanicus). The great crusade was basically over with the major xenos races reeling from the battles against the Emperor's Finest. People complaining about not having enough variety of races are wanting to play in the wrong setting. The Hersey is about the Marines and their Primarchs slugging it out with each other and the Mechanicus having it's own civil war and taking sides. Though Alpharius would like you to believe that it's all the fault of some Xenos plot, all the variety is in which flavor of Marine you play. Back then there was even more difference between how the flavors played.
I could see them making a supplement later to use different Xenos in the game and make it a crusade era campaign, but that's not the focus of HH.
HH is exactly that, a refuge for people who did not like direction 40k went with 8-9. HH's rules are so good that they overcome it's limited setting and actually work as a balancing mechanic, one of the single best aspects is problem units are everyone's problem in most cases when it comes to marines because most factions have access to said units. If you can't beat'm, join'm is basically built right into the game. Being able to balance obnoxiousness at least with the ability to mirror itself is one of the best things about 30k. Not to mention the slight variation in stats from faction to faction means it easier and expected for both sides to know the rules/stats pretty much by heart. The amount of usr's can border in ridiculous when you get into mechanicum ic's but the detail is amazing and modelling opportunies for wargear inspiring. Everything about the direction of 40k went in comparison is a valid reason for concern. It's fair to point out again and again that if the problem was mc's and flying mc's being abstract health bars of wtf, the solution surely wasn't to make other units similar and introduce stupid D3 wounds crap.
What I like about 30k is it's incredibly straight forward to document (battle reports) I can value there being one less phase (psychic) but if that comes at the cost of a bunch of reactions it's one step forward several steps back. One of the nice things about a decidedly longer game was that your opponent or you could grab drinks, have a smoke or use the facilities during their movement phase assuming you had nothing you intended to intercept with and someone was there to witness difficult/dangerous or scatter for deep strike. There's still plenty of interaction in the other phases without the reaction stuff. And as stated, it doesn't scale well. I'd add again it also throws a nail in larger games or games with more players per side.
Right now it feels like "we fixed this for you" more than a convincing tale of "we've genuinely put a lot of thought time and gaming into this.".
I know I'm usually one of the most cynical around here, but I think them not outright just porting HH into 9th with all but name is probably a good sign that they're not in a hurry to merge the two.
Going to be honest, I wouldn't be too sad if they decided to take 10th in the direction of these rules and merged them that way.
The main thing that detracts from HH is its marines (and a few friends) pretty much all the time, and the rest of the setting is abandoned. So giving up strats for reactions and whatnot for mainline 40k? I'd be into it.
Lol, this again.
You're basically saying that the main thing that detracts from HH is the HH itself. If we wanted to play 40k, we would be playing 40k.
I am, yes. But not in a way that affects you.
I'm saying the best path forward for mainline 40k is swapping over to rules like this over the current direction. HH can stick to its civil war.
After watching a stream by Winters SEO and Liam Dempsey, I'm really wondering what GW's long term plan is for this.
On the one hand, they seem adamant to give everything it's own bespoke ruleset. Warcry rules are very different from AoS. Kill Team is very different from 40k which is very different from Apocalypse, and now 30k is going to be very different from all of those things as well. Aeronautica and Titanicus share a scale, but nothing else, and every single one of these games has specific measuring sticks or tools or special bases or symbols or dice that can't be used for their other games. Across all of their games, only Necromunda, 30k, and Titanicus use the old templates, but aside from that don't share much else in rules.
This can make entering the Warhammer hobby very, very frustrating for new people. If they want to use their models in any of the other games that GW is putting out, they have to buy and learn a whole new ruleset, and many of these games are so bloated with books that that's an incredible investment all on its own.
On the other hand, it does allow people that prefer one ruleset over another to lean more towards that aspect of the hobby. Love the rules for Warcry but hate Kill Team? Well, it's a good thing the two don't share a rule system then. If more of these games shared more rules, it'd be easier to bounce from one game to another, but people would be less inclined to buy all of the extra books that GW is putting out.
The main note that Winters and Liam were pointing at was how GW's share price has dropped by 1/3rd over the past few months. Obviously there's a lot involved in that when you look at world events that could be impacting a physical product business like GW, but there's also the fact that people are eschewing 40k for other game systems.
30k could be huge. I remember during a convention one of the developers said "in 2 years, everyone will be playing 30k". Now, this was 4 years ago, but those were still bold words, implying that 30k would be MUCH easier to get into for many hobbyists and attract a larger crowd.
In order to make 30k accessible, they're already doing a big part of that, by making a ton of things plastic. In fact, IMO, many more things should be plastic, especially now that all of FW's prices went up yet again. 115USD for a set of Contekar Night Lords Terminators... that's just shy of DOUBLE the price for some regular Chaos Terminators. But, plastic marines, tanks, more plastic characters and other things will help the situation greatly.
The next issue then is the rules. Once again, GW will likely ask us to buy 4-5 different books to play the game. A core rulebook, rules for loyalists, rules for traitors, rules for 'everything else' (custodes, knights, auxilia, etc), and then some sort of matched play magazine for points values or something.
Whatever your opinion on the rules changes that are being reported currently is, here's the brass tacks:
If GW wants 30k to be successful, and have 'everyone' playing it, it needs to be a tight ruleset that doesn't take a week of intensive training and meditation in order to get the hang of. The game should not ask you to keep track of 4 different objective points values and should be cutting out a lot of the extra bloat that the 7th edition core rules suffered from. That's what 8th edition 40k did so well: it cut out a lot of the crap and refocused everything down into Indexes that were really quite well balanced, if bland.
If they make 30k somehow more complicated, it's going to be DOA. You'll have plenty of people buying the big box sets, because the savings on plastic 30k models will be great I'm sure, but if the rules are pants, somehow harder to get into, and the books are overpriced, then your long-term growth wont go anywhere and the people that like 30k as is will simply take all those shiny new models and use them in their current game.
I don't think we will be seeing much xenos featured in HH. I might be alone in thinking this, but I've always thought that GW wants to keep Necromunda and Horus Heresy distinctive from 40K by mainly featuring HUMANS. It presents an alternative viewpoint for the 40K world which might appeal more to players who are not into "Alien of the month" type of scifi. It feels grittier, more realistic.
drbored wrote: After watching a stream by Winters SEO and Liam Dempsey, I'm really wondering what GW's long term plan is for this.
On the one hand, they seem adamant to give everything it's own bespoke ruleset. Warcry rules are very different from AoS. Kill Team is very different from 40k which is very different from Apocalypse, and now 30k is going to be very different from all of those things as well. Aeronautica and Titanicus share a scale, but nothing else, and every single one of these games has specific measuring sticks or tools or special bases or symbols or dice that can't be used for their other games. Across all of their games, only Necromunda, 30k, and Titanicus use the old templates, but aside from that don't share much else in rules.
This can make entering the Warhammer hobby very, very frustrating for new people. If they want to use their models in any of the other games that GW is putting out, they have to buy and learn a whole new ruleset, and many of these games are so bloated with books that that's an incredible investment all on its own.
On the other hand, it does allow people that prefer one ruleset over another to lean more towards that aspect of the hobby. Love the rules for Warcry but hate Kill Team? Well, it's a good thing the two don't share a rule system then. If more of these games shared more rules, it'd be easier to bounce from one game to another, but people would be less inclined to buy all of the extra books that GW is putting out.
The main note that Winters and Liam were pointing at was how GW's share price has dropped by 1/3rd over the past few months. Obviously there's a lot involved in that when you look at world events that could be impacting a physical product business like GW, but there's also the fact that people are eschewing 40k for other game systems.
30k could be huge. I remember during a convention one of the developers said "in 2 years, everyone will be playing 30k". Now, this was 4 years ago, but those were still bold words, implying that 30k would be MUCH easier to get into for many hobbyists and attract a larger crowd.
In order to make 30k accessible, they're already doing a big part of that, by making a ton of things plastic. In fact, IMO, many more things should be plastic, especially now that all of FW's prices went up yet again. 115USD for a set of Contekar Night Lords Terminators... that's just shy of DOUBLE the price for some regular Chaos Terminators. But, plastic marines, tanks, more plastic characters and other things will help the situation greatly.
The next issue then is the rules. Once again, GW will likely ask us to buy 4-5 different books to play the game. A core rulebook, rules for loyalists, rules for traitors, rules for 'everything else' (custodes, knights, auxilia, etc), and then some sort of matched play magazine for points values or something.
Whatever your opinion on the rules changes that are being reported currently is, here's the brass tacks:
If GW wants 30k to be successful, and have 'everyone' playing it, it needs to be a tight ruleset that doesn't take a week of intensive training and meditation in order to get the hang of. The game should not ask you to keep track of 4 different objective points values and should be cutting out a lot of the extra bloat that the 7th edition core rules suffered from. That's what 8th edition 40k did so well: it cut out a lot of the crap and refocused everything down into Indexes that were really quite well balanced, if bland.
If they make 30k somehow more complicated, it's going to be DOA. You'll have plenty of people buying the big box sets, because the savings on plastic 30k models will be great I'm sure, but if the rules are pants, somehow harder to get into, and the books are overpriced, then your long-term growth wont go anywhere and the people that like 30k as is will simply take all those shiny new models and use them in their current game.
Maybe it's me but, as much as I can appreciate all the diverse offerings in terms of games gw now makes, the amount of time I can realistically put aside has never increased accordingly. I think I'd rather people were more realistic with their free time and what they choose to invest it into game-wise. I'd rather be all in on one or two gw games than pretend to balance attention span/modelling and gaming time for a handful of games. But in terms of investment, I've seen dudes lug plastic cases full with HH books and something about that always seemed to underline investment and time well spent. Players who could only focus on playing during their holidays or the odd weekend could show up with a painted army and have very little to have to catch up on, really not so for 40k. 30k and AT aren't perfect but there's much less turmoil and churn.
30k has a pretty tight ruleset IMO, it maybe just needs love on the matched play and terrain rules side of things. But that didn't necessarily need to come from GW. Everyone wants plastics, if they make an army somewhat an affordable prospect and not just make in a fomo fest in terms of sales but make it clear they're actually going to support the starter, I don't think it really matters what people are playing with the plastics of they sell well and continue to do so. You know what helped get people into the game long before 8th? Assault on black reach. The only silver lining here is the new plastics, everything else just seems like why bother.
New "disintegrator" rifles, pistols, and combi-weapons mostly available to centurions and seeker sgts
Rotor cannons are Assault now with Pinning and Shell Shock (1), apparently causing -1Ld to the subsequent Pinning check
Nemesis Bolter, 72" Heavy 1, Sniper, maybe replacing sniper rifles for Legions
Thunder hammers are now Sunder instead of concussive (HELL yeah)
Dark Angels Warlord trait previously leaked as allowing to select bonuses against certain factions lists "Dark Mechanicum" as one faction
Salamanders no also have -1S to incoming plasma, melta, and volkite. -1" charge/run/sweep is gone, Morale bonus now attached to a legion specific Warlord Trait
Raven Guard split into Hawks/Talons/Falcons that confer different bonuses to different unit types
Iron Hands -1S to incoming shooting now applies to all non-vehicle units (including new MC dreadnoughts), all vehicles get 6+ It Will Not Die and Autosimulacra can increase that to 5+
Iron Hands specific reaction to overwatch at full BS twice with Gets Hot!
Iron Father's get a machinator array instead of a servo arm, have Battle Smith (3+)
Toxiferran flamers are now just Poison and Rending instead of Tainted
Flamestorm cannons are no longer AP3 but have Torrent
Volkite Calivers are Heavy 3
The Kratos is a new heavy tank that has a turret battle cannon/melta cannon/volkite turret with 4 weapons across the turret and sponsons, mostly autocannons, heavy bolters, and volkite culverins
All terminators now have two wounds!
Cataphractii and Tartaros are split into different unit profiles
Primarchs and Fortifications have their own Force Org slot
Primarchs can be taken 1 per primary detachment but count towards LoW points
Allied detachments are larger
Destroyer squads split into "Assault" and "Mortis" units
Despoiler squads return and Scout Squads added to tactical and Recon Squads as troops choices
Termites are now universal DT's like rhinos for most things (oh boy)
Most vehicles are now squadrons, including Deredeo talons, Sikarans, Whirlwinds (including Scorpius), all Sicaran variants, predators (in up to 5), Cerberus, and Typhons
Proteus Land Raider has been split into "Carrier" and "Exploratory" variants (presumably just making a different unit entry for the explorator web upgrade)
Space Wolves are getting a "Grey Hunter" unit
All weapons have been rebalanced to be viable (lets see how that goes)
Weapon S can go above 10, but is capped at S10 for wounding but "true" value is used for armor pen and ID Twinlinked is more or less being replaced with Gravis ala 40k (double shots)
Autocannons and variants now have Rending
Astartes Shotguns have concussive
Demo cannons are AP3 but have rules to increase them above S10 for ID and armor pen
Heavy Bolters are now Heavy 4
Combi-weapons split into "magna" and "minor" types, and both halves of the weapon can be fired at once. "Magna" are melta, plasma, and disintegrator and are one shot, all other variants are not one shot (prettyuch just a cleanup of what we already knew)
Lascannons have Sunder
Gravis blast weapons just use 5" blast instead of 3" (again phasing out twin linked)
Plasma are AP4 Breach (4+), essentially 4+ Rending
Lascutters now also have an 8" S10 AP1 Armorbane shot as well as the melee attack
Speaking of melee, combat blades, chainswords, bayonets, and chain bayonets all have different profiles
Combat blades are base profile
Bayonets are +1S Two Handed
Chainswords have Shred
Chain Bayonets are +1S Two Handed Shred
(Kinda unnecessary imo but I'm not gonna complain about it)
New Charnable weapons, "tabre and stave"
Force stave and power lance have "Reach", whatever that does
Power swords are AP3 Rending, Power Mauls are +2S AP3, Axes remain unchanged
Lightning Claws have Rending, and pairing them gives +2A instead of +1A
tauist wrote: I don't think we will be seeing much xenos featured in HH. I might be alone in thinking this, but I've always thought that GW wants to keep Necromunda and Horus Heresy distinctive from 40K by mainly featuring HUMANS. It presents an alternative viewpoint for the 40K world which might appeal more to players who are not into "Alien of the month" type of scifi. It feels grittier, more realistic.
Might be able to make some xenos work but definitely not needed at all and the already weirder factions like deamons of the ruinstorm and mechanicum have some pretty broken stuff already, not a lot of trust to make xenos stuff that works or feels balanced. I really wish necromunda had a dirt simple matched play game with an extensive build list, I get that it's probably a good game provided you can get a campaign going, it seems impossible to make work outside of a campaign. To drbored's point about needing a lot of books, its definitely guilty of that. Then you get kill team which is just sorta wtf, especially for a game that should be like wargear 101 it seems weird and rigid.
I also really like the greater similitude in playing Horus Heresy.
I never feel like we're playing the same armies - we've always picked units which are noticeably different, our faction abilities are different, we play them different, etc etc.
But I also always feel like I know what's up. I know what that Contemptor Dreadnought does, I know what those Terminators do, etc etc.
Contrast that to 40k where armies don't really feel any more different to me (durable melee unit is durable melee unit) but I do feel like I have no idea what's going on.
The feth does a haemonculi do? I can't even spell it! Too late, turns out it murders me.
I also agree with the sentiment that GW wants each game to be distinct, which I like. If all games were the same, sure you could flit between games as it took your fancy, but what would be the point if they were just reskins with minor adjustments?
So I don't fear them adding xenos to 30k.
New "disintegrator" rifles, pistols, and combi-weapons mostly available to centurions and seeker sgts
Rotor cannons are Assault now with Pinning and Shell Shock (1), apparently causing -1Ld to the subsequent Pinning check
Nemesis Bolter, 72" Heavy 1, Sniper, maybe replacing sniper rifles for Legions
Thunder hammers are now Sunder instead of concussive (HELL yeah)
Dark Angels Warlord trait previously leaked as allowing to select bonuses against certain factions lists "Dark Mechanicum" as one faction
Salamanders no also have -1S to incoming plasma, melta, and volkite. -1" charge/run/sweep is gone, Morale bonus now attached to a legion specific Warlord Trait
Raven Guard split into Hawks/Talons/Falcons that confer different bonuses to different unit types
Iron Hands -1S to incoming shooting now applies to all non-vehicle units (including new MC dreadnoughts), all vehicles get 6+ It Will Not Die and Autosimulacra can increase that to 5+
Iron Hands specific reaction to overwatch at full BS twice with Gets Hot!
Iron Father's get a machinator array instead of a servo arm, have Battle Smith (3+)
Toxiferran flamers are now just Poison and Rending instead of Tainted
Flamestorm cannons are no longer AP3 but have Torrent
Volkite Calivers are Heavy 3
The Kratos is a new heavy tank that has a turret battle cannon/melta cannon/volkite turret with 4 weapons across the turret and sponsons, mostly autocannons, heavy bolters, and volkite culverins
All terminators now have two wounds!
Cataphractii and Tartaros are split into different unit profiles
Primarchs and Fortifications have their own Force Org slot
Primarchs can be taken 1 per primary detachment but count towards LoW points
Allied detachments are larger
Destroyer squads split into "Assault" and "Mortis" units
Despoiler squads return and Scout Squads added to tactical and Recon Squads as troops choices
Termites are now universal DT's like rhinos for most things (oh boy)
Most vehicles are now squadrons, including Deredeo talons, Sikarans, Whirlwinds (including Scorpius), all Sicaran variants, predators (in up to 5), Cerberus, and Typhons
Proteus Land Raider has been split into "Carrier" and "Exploratory" variants (presumably just making a different unit entry for the explorator web upgrade)
Space Wolves are getting a "Grey Hunter" unit
All weapons have been rebalanced to be viable (lets see how that goes)
Weapon S can go above 10, but is capped at S10 for wounding but "true" value is used for armor pen and ID Twinlinked is more or less being replaced with Gravis ala 40k (double shots)
Autocannons and variants now have Rending
Astartes Shotguns have concussive
Demo cannons are AP3 but have rules to increase them above S10 for ID and armor pen
Heavy Bolters are now Heavy 4
Combi-weapons split into "magna" and "minor" types, and both halves of the weapon can be fired at once. "Magna" are melta, plasma, and disintegrator and are one shot, all other variants are not one shot (prettyuch just a cleanup of what we already knew)
Lascannons have Sunder
Gravis blast weapons just use 5" blast instead of 3" (again phasing out twin linked)
Plasma are AP4 Breach (4+), essentially 4+ Rending
Lascutters now also have an 8" S10 AP1 Armorbane shot as well as the melee attack
Speaking of melee, combat blades, chainswords, bayonets, and chain bayonets all have different profiles
Combat blades are base profile
Bayonets are +1S Two Handed
Chainswords have Shred
Chain Bayonets are +1S Two Handed Shred
(Kinda unnecessary imo but I'm not gonna complain about it)
New Charnable weapons, "tabre and stave"
Force stave and power lance have "Reach", whatever that does
Power swords are AP3 Rending, Power Mauls are +2S AP3, Axes remain unchanged
Lightning Claws have Rending, and pairing them gives +2A instead of +1A
There's a lot to unpack there.
I find the unique profiles for terminators a bit worrying. I also find the salamander legion rules changes a bit odd--making the thing the salamanders are known for (never giving up to the point of being almost suicidal) a warlord trait quality and not something inherent to the legion.
New "disintegrator" rifles, pistols, and combi-weapons mostly available to centurions and seeker sgts
Rotor cannons are Assault now with Pinning and Shell Shock (1), apparently causing -1Ld to the subsequent Pinning check
Nemesis Bolter, 72" Heavy 1, Sniper, maybe replacing sniper rifles for Legions
Thunder hammers are now Sunder instead of concussive (HELL yeah)
Dark Angels Warlord trait previously leaked as allowing to select bonuses against certain factions lists "Dark Mechanicum" as one faction
Salamanders no also have -1S to incoming plasma, melta, and volkite. -1" charge/run/sweep is gone, Morale bonus now attached to a legion specific Warlord Trait
Raven Guard split into Hawks/Talons/Falcons that confer different bonuses to different unit types
Iron Hands -1S to incoming shooting now applies to all non-vehicle units (including new MC dreadnoughts), all vehicles get 6+ It Will Not Die and Autosimulacra can increase that to 5+
Iron Hands specific reaction to overwatch at full BS twice with Gets Hot!
Iron Father's get a machinator array instead of a servo arm, have Battle Smith (3+)
Toxiferran flamers are now just Poison and Rending instead of Tainted
Flamestorm cannons are no longer AP3 but have Torrent
Volkite Calivers are Heavy 3
The Kratos is a new heavy tank that has a turret battle cannon/melta cannon/volkite turret with 4 weapons across the turret and sponsons, mostly autocannons, heavy bolters, and volkite culverins
All terminators now have two wounds!
Cataphractii and Tartaros are split into different unit profiles
Primarchs and Fortifications have their own Force Org slot
Primarchs can be taken 1 per primary detachment but count towards LoW points
Allied detachments are larger
Destroyer squads split into "Assault" and "Mortis" units
Despoiler squads return and Scout Squads added to tactical and Recon Squads as troops choices
Termites are now universal DT's like rhinos for most things (oh boy)
Most vehicles are now squadrons, including Deredeo talons, Sikarans, Whirlwinds (including Scorpius), all Sicaran variants, predators (in up to 5), Cerberus, and Typhons
Proteus Land Raider has been split into "Carrier" and "Exploratory" variants (presumably just making a different unit entry for the explorator web upgrade)
Space Wolves are getting a "Grey Hunter" unit
All weapons have been rebalanced to be viable (lets see how that goes)
Weapon S can go above 10, but is capped at S10 for wounding but "true" value is used for armor pen and ID Twinlinked is more or less being replaced with Gravis ala 40k (double shots)
Autocannons and variants now have Rending
Astartes Shotguns have concussive
Demo cannons are AP3 but have rules to increase them above S10 for ID and armor pen
Heavy Bolters are now Heavy 4
Combi-weapons split into "magna" and "minor" types, and both halves of the weapon can be fired at once. "Magna" are melta, plasma, and disintegrator and are one shot, all other variants are not one shot (prettyuch just a cleanup of what we already knew)
Lascannons have Sunder
Gravis blast weapons just use 5" blast instead of 3" (again phasing out twin linked)
Plasma are AP4 Breach (4+), essentially 4+ Rending
Lascutters now also have an 8" S10 AP1 Armorbane shot as well as the melee attack
Speaking of melee, combat blades, chainswords, bayonets, and chain bayonets all have different profiles
Combat blades are base profile
Bayonets are +1S Two Handed
Chainswords have Shred
Chain Bayonets are +1S Two Handed Shred
(Kinda unnecessary imo but I'm not gonna complain about it)
New Charnable weapons, "tabre and stave"
Force stave and power lance have "Reach", whatever that does
Power swords are AP3 Rending, Power Mauls are +2S AP3, Axes remain unchanged
Lightning Claws have Rending, and pairing them gives +2A instead of +1A
There's a lot to unpack there.
I find the unique profiles for terminators a bit worrying. I also find the salamander legion rules changes a bit odd--making the thing the salamanders are known for (never giving up to the point of being almost suicidal) a warlord trait quality and not something inherent to the legion.
I think it works as a warlord trait. It would mean their leader needs to be a Salamander for it to work. THat means them being part of a crusade group they may not benefit from it. Kind of gives the notion that they may be put in a place where there is some questioning of commands if another warlord is in charge, like "Is this really a cause worth dying for?"
It makes sense when you consider they're adding in the Movement stat back in.
Speculation time; maybe that combined with a potential cleanup of USRs means it makes sense to split the Terminator armours into different profiles. How many units had slow and purposeful, for example. I'm pretty sure it was just Cataphractii but happy to be proved wrong. If it is just 1 unit, why keep a USR for one unit?
Unless you're running Shattered Legions you can only have 2 detachments, 1 core, and 1 allied, so the idea is a bit dumb that the Salamanders lose their core belief as a Legion just because the core detachment is led by an Imperial Fist or an Ultramarine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedmeister wrote: It makes sense when you consider they're adding in the Movement stat back in.
Speculation time; maybe that combined with a potential cleanup of USRs means it makes sense to split the Terminator armours into different profiles. How many units had slow and purposeful, for example. I'm pretty sure it was just Cataphractii but happy to be proved wrong. If it is just 1 unit, why keep a USR for one unit?
Cataphractii don't have Slow and Purposeful, it was removed when the rulest became Age of Darkness. Instead units equipped with Cataphractii cannot make sweeping advances.
Gert wrote: Unless you're running Shattered Legions you can only have 2 detachments, 1 core, and 1 allied, so the idea is a bit dumb that the Salamanders lose their core belief as a Legion just because the core detachment is led by an Imperial Fist or an Ultramarine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedmeister wrote: It makes sense when you consider they're adding in the Movement stat back in.
Speculation time; maybe that combined with a potential cleanup of USRs means it makes sense to split the Terminator armours into different profiles. How many units had slow and purposeful, for example. I'm pretty sure it was just Cataphractii but happy to be proved wrong. If it is just 1 unit, why keep a USR for one unit?
Cataphractii don't have Slow and Purposeful, it was removed when the rulest became Age of Darkness. Instead units equipped with Cataphractii cannot make sweeping advances.
excuse me while I go re-read the rules
For some reason, slow and purposeful is always stuck in my head whenever I see Cataphractii Terminators getting used
Crablezworth wrote: HH is exactly that, a refuge for people who did not like direction 40k went with 8-9.
I think that is well put and something commonly overlooked (both inadvertently as well as purposefully). People who weren't happy with 41k likely also don't want Malibu Astartes now with a new helmet. The flip side of that is of course from the business' perspective in that they want relative interchangeability between their related systems to a large degree.
People who weren't happy with 41k likely also don't want Malibu Astartes now with a new helmet.
Not going to go into the merits of the two systems, but that's a weird, weird assertion.
Most HH players I've met or interacted with are very obsessed with this or that Mark of power armor and will argue vociferously about their chosen preference of Malibu Astartes.
- 40k for people that don't like 40k/preferred the old rules.
- as a 40k "historical" game for people that like that. I do find there is a noticeably different 'zeitgeist' in historicals vs free-form fantasy/sci-fi games (and I'm not talking about the bizarre idea that we're all nazi idealists I hear from people)
Both are very real impressions and I dare say almost every HH player will identify with one or both of those points.
Gert wrote: It used to be a rule they had but it was removed because it was dumb.
It was removed because people would take a cheap character with cataphracti armor and put them in a unit of heavy weapons, conferring SnP to the unit and allowing the unit to move and still shoot their heavy weapons with no penalty.
I'd be pretty down getting on board with the Heresy if they do a decent job with a smaller format of the game (along the lines of Combat Patrol or Zone Mortalis). I'm totally burnt out on 40k with all the constant rules changes, new campaign books that update army lists, etc. As a person who only plays casually, it's just way too much to keep up with (not to mention I don't want to keep buying 50 dollar books that are invalidated 6 months later).
I've always liked the fluff and models, but was generally turn away by nearly everything being resin and the general way to play the game being massive battles.
That's not the rule on the armour being dumb, though - which is what you implied - it's the interaction between the armour providing the rule and how that interacts with independent characters joining units.
That interaction is something you'd hope a new edition would consider looking at, as I'm sure there's a variety of rules that make no sense spreading from an IC to a unit it joins - Bulky, for example.
Crablezworth wrote: HH is exactly that, a refuge for people who did not like direction 40k went with 8-9.
But for this to be a successful launch for GW and push kits the way they want, they need to game to be more than an off ramp for the disgruntled.
Great, so instead of being an off ramp for the disgruntled it can be a tomb for the perennial bandwagon jumpers the second its no longer a priority for gw which is probably 6 months.
Here's a simple theory why gw's stock is down a third, maybe people the amount of free time people who were locked down for two years had is slowly going back to normal levels meaning less hobby/gaming time overall. We can pretend every new game gw makes is forging its own market, but honestly its just splitting the same market IMO. Also what looked initially like a light touch is quickly turning into a "changed seemingly everything" so I'm never going to be in the camp of change is inherently good or needed, esp not with 30k. Hurray for new plastics, silver lining achieved.
Crablezworth wrote: HH is exactly that, a refuge for people who did not like direction 40k went with 8-9.
I think that is well put and something commonly overlooked (both inadvertently as well as purposefully). People who weren't happy with 41k likely also don't want Malibu Astartes now with a new helmet. The flip side of that is of course from the business' perspective in that they want relative interchangeability between their related systems to a large degree.
The malibu astartes reference is the perfect example of the lowly gw fanboy, but not just that, it seems to embody what gw has to offer or thinks it should.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sabotage! wrote: I'd be pretty down getting on board with the Heresy if they do a decent job with a smaller format of the game (along the lines of Combat Patrol or Zone Mortalis). I'm totally burnt out on 40k with all the constant rules changes, new campaign books that update army lists, etc. As a person who only plays casually, it's just way too much to keep up with (not to mention I don't want to keep buying 50 dollar books that are invalidated 6 months later).
I've always liked the fluff and models, but was generally turn away by nearly everything being resin and the general way to play the game being massive battles.
Ya 40k just seems to require way too much week to week attention on the gaming side. The constant pointless churn takes the wargame out of it and makes it feel more like a card game.
That's also something I hadn't considered about the reactions stuff, how it may affect smaller 30k games like zone mortalis stuff.
One of the major things I've noticed when 9th edition came out is that GW's player retention shrank very quickly.
You had a lot of people that enjoyed 8th, liked the direction it was going, but most acknowledged it was getting kinda bloated by the end. So what does 9th do? They ramp up the bloat.
People get into the game, the major starter box set has a board, terrain, a bunch of models of space marines and necrons, and it all is pretty great. New players come into a Warhammer store, they buy that box set, they play with the base rules, and then they go to a discord server or forum or reddit or wherever else to ask 'how do I expand from here' and at this point the answer is invariably:
"You need about 3-5 books and an investment of about a thousand dollars worth of models." And that's setting aside the little spats that always happen, where one person will say "don't buy that it sucks" and another will say "buy it because you think it's cool" and then the first will say "ugh but its rules are terribad" and the other person will say "that's fine, the rules change all the time" and by the time the spat is over, the newbie has already left the channel because they realize it's too much of a headache to stick with and they'll sell their models on ebay and go back to playing video games.
New people are still coming into Warhammer stores. I know, because I see it with my own eyes. The GW manager is always talking about how many starter sets he sells, and how that's a metric that GW really cares about. But you know how often I see those newbies come back? Almost never.
If 40k doesn't change course and make itself more accessible, then it won't matter how good 30k is or isn't. It won't matter if people stick with the 7th ed rules or one-page rules or whatever 2.0 is, because it'll be the same exact niche of people that have been playing and collecting up to this point.
In order to get into 30k at all, more people need to be attracted by 40k.
The irony of all of this is that they have, over the past decade+, made a big deal about their 30k novel series, with some of the best books written on warhammer lore, and yet 30k is a super-niche after-thought of Forgeworld. RIP Bligh, but if you're making a product you can't mourn forever. Either shut the whole thing down and go home or put out the product.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
Do yourself a favor and never listen/watch outer circle. Ever.
9th has a major rules bloat / power creep issue. It’s unfortunate because the base rule set for 9th corrected some of the biggest problems with 8th, but now they’ve gone full crazy town with the codexes and supplements and stratagems. I like stratagems but there’s simply too many imo.
I’m pretty excited for this new HH rule set as I love the idea of reactions adding some involvement. We shall see if they implement it well or poorly, but the idea has merit.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
Do yourself a favor and never listen/watch outer circle. Ever.
They're better than the vapid fanboyism that exists elsewhere.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
Do yourself a favor and never listen/watch outer circle. Ever.
They're better than the vapid fanboyism that exists elsewhere.
I personally don't understand this mentality.
"I like these people because they crap on the thing that I like and keep me grounded in reality, unlike those others that actually -enjoy- the thing that they spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on."
I understand getting your news from multiple sources to see the whole picture, but when it comes to GW stuff there's not really 'news' about a release, just differing opinions. If you can't form and hold your own opinion and must look for validation from angry clickbait youtube talking heads, then maybe the problem isn't the fanboys.
Crablezworth wrote: HH is exactly that, a refuge for people who did not like direction 40k went with 8-9.
But for this to be a successful launch for GW and push kits the way they want, they need to game to be more than an off ramp for the disgruntled.
Great, so instead of being an off ramp for the disgruntled it can be a tomb for the perennial bandwagon jumpers the second its no longer a priority for gw which is probably 6 months.
Here's a simple theory why gw's stock is down a third, maybe people the amount of free time people who were locked down for two years had is slowly going back to normal levels meaning less hobby/gaming time overall. We can pretend every new game gw makes is forging its own market, but honestly its just splitting the same market IMO. Also what looked initially like a light touch is quickly turning into a "changed seemingly everything" so I'm never going to be in the camp of change is inherently good or needed, esp not with 30k. Hurray for new plastics, silver lining achieved.
Well, I'd say new plastics AND new blood, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in the latter.
Crablezworth wrote: HH is exactly that, a refuge for people who did not like direction 40k went with 8-9.
But for this to be a successful launch for GW and push kits the way they want, they need to game to be more than an off ramp for the disgruntled.
Great, so instead of being an off ramp for the disgruntled it can be a tomb for the perennial bandwagon jumpers the second its no longer a priority for gw which is probably 6 months.
Here's a simple theory why gw's stock is down a third, maybe people the amount of free time people who were locked down for two years had is slowly going back to normal levels meaning less hobby/gaming time overall. We can pretend every new game gw makes is forging its own market, but honestly its just splitting the same market IMO. Also what looked initially like a light touch is quickly turning into a "changed seemingly everything" so I'm never going to be in the camp of change is inherently good or needed, esp not with 30k. Hurray for new plastics, silver lining achieved.
Well, I'd say new plastics AND new blood, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in the latter.
I'll believe it when I see it, but it's probably just old blood in between release weekends for 40k or something.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
Do yourself a favor and never listen/watch outer circle. Ever.
They're better than the vapid fanboyism that exists elsewhere.
I personally don't understand this mentality.
"I like these people because they crap on the thing that I like and keep me grounded in reality, unlike those others that actually -enjoy- the thing that they spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on."
I understand getting your news from multiple sources to see the whole picture, but when it comes to GW stuff there's not really 'news' about a release, just differing opinions. If you can't form and hold your own opinion and must look for validation from angry clickbait youtube talking heads, then maybe the problem isn't the fanboys.
That's not even a fair description of outer circle, plenty of non salt mining hobby videos you've elected to ignore.
Pacific wrote: I have 40k 2nd ed. as a back-up if the new rules are a pile of steaming horse dung.
Although I honestly hope for the sake of the community that they make a decent effort to make them playable, there have been too many other communities of GW games split by a poor new release that then leads to people not jumping directly into it, wanting to play with old rules and things like that.
That's certainly a concern.
The Outer Circle said recently that he's seen the new rules and thinks they're a poor mix of 7th and 8th. Granted OC is known being being on the more negative, but his comments match what the snippets that I have seen.
It's concering, I hope they're wrong.
Do yourself a favor and never listen/watch outer circle. Ever.
They're better than the vapid fanboyism that exists elsewhere.
Agreed, every new release should not require universal praise to remain in the group or on the good side of the enforced positivity gatekeepers, some of the best people around are old disgruntled gamers tired of of their lack of enthusiasm for every latest thing being requiring some accusation of rose coloured glasses. It's weird too, everyone seems to acknowledge the full on book fatigue that plagues 9th while telling others the only correct perspective on the new rumored rules is basically thankyou sir may i have some more. Meh, the new plasstic require zero enthusiasm of the rules on my part to continue to come into existence.
Crablezworth wrote: some of the best people around are old disgruntled gamers
In no time or place in all of creation has this ever been true.
Then your own bias is in the way. Some of the best experiences I had (in addition to playing with fellow noobs like myself) were sitting around a table post game munching on snacks and soda listening in to how wacky, crazy, and weird things were back in RT and even 2e back when I was completely new to 40k when they switched to 3rd edition. They were a great source of knowledge (both personal/anecdotal and in game/universe) and I enjoyed hearing about how things used to be even if it came with a spoonful of criticism for 3rd edition frequently.
Crablezworth wrote: some of the best people around are old disgruntled gamers
In no time or place in all of creation has this ever been true.
Then your own bias is in the way. Some of the best experiences I had (in addition to playing with fellow noobs like myself) were sitting around a table post game munching on snacks and soda listening in to how wacky, crazy, and weird things were back in RT and even 2e back when I was completely new to 40k when they switched to 3rd edition. They were a great source of knowledge (both personal/anecdotal and in game/universe) and I enjoyed hearing about how things used to be even if it came with a spoonful of criticism for 3rd edition frequently.
I think your definition of 'disgruntled gamer' is very different than mine...
Listening to a beardy go over 'ye olde days' can be fun, but if I'm playing against a disgruntled gamer, I'm imagining someone that gets upset when the game doesn't go their way and blames GW for making such unbalanced and crappy rules and then goes on a tirade about how awful everything is in their eyes and swears that they'll sell their army soon. I have played against multiple of these people and I can assure you that they are not the 'best people around'.
Casual gamers that want to have a fun narrative experience, whether they're new or they've collected models since the RT days is probably what you're talking about, moreso than the label 'disgruntled gamers'.
But anyway, one way or another we've got months and months still to wait, and it seems like GW isn't going to be forthcoming with any news until they're a month out from release, so here we sit and wait.
tauist wrote: 12 days until Adepticon.. Didn't the rumours say HH 2.0 would be announced then?
Yeah I think so. A couple rumors have also said there'd be a June release.
Local GW manager was told by his bosses effectively "there's no core set release this summer, so glhf", in other words, no new edition for AoS or 40k, and no new Contrast paints to fill the gap either
I suggested that the 30k stuff might be the core set, and he explained that it could be, but it wouldn't be considered a 'core set' because of the niche.
Crablezworth wrote: some of the best people around are old disgruntled gamers
In no time or place in all of creation has this ever been true.
Then your own bias is in the way. Some of the best experiences I had (in addition to playing with fellow noobs like myself) were sitting around a table post game munching on snacks and soda listening in to how wacky, crazy, and weird things were back in RT and even 2e back when I was completely new to 40k when they switched to 3rd edition. They were a great source of knowledge (both personal/anecdotal and in game/universe) and I enjoyed hearing about how things used to be even if it came with a spoonful of criticism for 3rd edition frequently.
I think your definition of 'disgruntled gamer' is very different than mine...
Listening to a beardy go over 'ye olde days' can be fun, but if I'm playing against a disgruntled gamer, I'm imagining someone that gets upset when the game doesn't go their way and blames GW for making such unbalanced and crappy rules and then goes on a tirade about how awful everything is in their eyes and swears that they'll sell their army soon. I have played against multiple of these people and I can assure you that they are not the 'best people around'.
Casual gamers that want to have a fun narrative experience, whether they're new or they've collected models since the RT days is probably what you're talking about, moreso than the label 'disgruntled gamers'.
But anyway, one way or another we've got months and months still to wait, and it seems like GW isn't going to be forthcoming with any news until they're a month out from release, so here we sit and wait.
And casual gamers being anyone who agrees with your preference's on gaming? Would I be in the totally disgruntled camp? I thought this hobby was for everyone?
Some of the best people to be around are also gruntled players, it’s almost as if your level of gruntledness about a miniatures game has no real bearing on your quality as a person.
ImAGeek wrote: Some of the best people to be around are also gruntled players, it’s almost as if your level of gruntledness about a miniatures game has no real bearing on your quality as a person.
Sure, but if that gruntled nature is rendered disgruntled by others not sharing 100% said gruntled perspective on all things related to their game or hobby of preference, said content and gruntled nature seems fragile. I totally understand not wanting to be subsumed in negativity and hot takes, but I don't get pretending to exist in a world where everyone is always in total agreement all the time either. There is plenty to be gruntled about, like cool miniatures, nice paintjobs and wonderful photography of both, maybe I don't want fresh blood, maybe just dedicated blood, perhaps someone who doesn't jump at the first lack of praise or mistake every scar as a chip on one's shoulder.
GW offers ample reasons for one to be gruntled, or disgruntled, at any one time.
I hope they announce something at adepticon, waiting till the summer seems like a slog.
- 40k for people that don't like 40k/preferred the old rules.
- as a 40k "historical" game for people that like that. I do find there is a noticeably different 'zeitgeist' in historicals vs free-form fantasy/sci-fi games (and I'm not talking about the bizarre idea that we're all nazi idealists I hear from people)
Both are very real impressions and I dare say almost every HH player will identify with one or both of those points.
I would add to those two people that like a port in the storm from constant new edition/codex updates found in mainline 40k. You can have an army or rulebook, come back to the game in 6 months and the chances are it will still be usable. You won't get someone dump some latest codex army on the table, with rules you have never heard of, and wipe it off the board.
It's also possible they're being repackaged.
GW's books come in plastic shrinkwrap, and the UK is implementing a tax on disposable plastic packaging. They may be 'reboxing' to remove the shrinkwrap and save the tax.
It would be strange for them to pull extant campaign books entirely from 40k.
I doubt that's the case for the 30k books though, they're almost certainly giving way to 2.0.
Sabotage! wrote: (not to mention I don't want to keep buying 50 dollar books that are invalidated 6 months later).
Buy new campaign book for $60, fall in love with one of the armies, spend your limited disposable income buying a $500 army, spend your limited free time every week to build/paint said army, rock up the store with your shiny new bois 6 months later to play a game, realize everyone is playing the new campaign book that came out last week while you were finishing up your old campaign army...
What a great system, I can see why these books sell like margaritas in Cancun during spring break.
Sabotage! wrote: (not to mention I don't want to keep buying 50 dollar books that are invalidated 6 months later).
Buy new campaign book for $60, fall in love with one of the armies, spend your limited disposable income buying a $500 army, spend your limited free time every week to build/paint said army, rock up the store with your shiny new bois 6 months later to play a game, realize everyone is playing the new campaign book that came out last week while you were finishing up your old campaign army...
What a great system, I can see why these books sell like margaritas in Cancun during spring break.
Yeah I'm not sure I'm up for the churn in 30k. Hope it doesn't come to that.
Sabotage! wrote: (not to mention I don't want to keep buying 50 dollar books that are invalidated 6 months later).
Buy new campaign book for $60, fall in love with one of the armies, spend your limited disposable income buying a $500 army, spend your limited free time every week to build/paint said army, rock up the store with your shiny new bois 6 months later to play a game, realize everyone is playing the new campaign book that came out last week while you were finishing up your old campaign army...
What a great system, I can see why these books sell like margaritas in Cancun during spring break.
Yeah I'm not sure I'm up for the churn in 30k. Hope it doesn't come to that.
It won't because it's still handled by FWs specialist games. Lotr got a new, unified edition, too. They also put out something plastic every now and then for that game. There are campaign books but these are exactly that, proper narrative content mostly with some legendary legions that allow different playstyles or help lacking armies. If you're not playing GWs main games you're actually lucky because many of GW's most problematic decisions don't apply. Aside from pricing...
Sabotage! wrote: (not to mention I don't want to keep buying 50 dollar books that are invalidated 6 months later).
Buy new campaign book for $60, fall in love with one of the armies, spend your limited disposable income buying a $500 army, spend your limited free time every week to build/paint said army, rock up the store with your shiny new bois 6 months later to play a game, realize everyone is playing the new campaign book that came out last week while you were finishing up your old campaign army...
What a great system, I can see why these books sell like margaritas in Cancun during spring break.
Yeah I'm not sure I'm up for the churn in 30k. Hope it doesn't come to that.
It won't because it's still handled by FWs specialist games. Lotr got a new, unified edition, too. They also put out something plastic every now and then for that game. There are campaign books but these are exactly that, proper narrative content mostly with some legendary legions that allow different playstyles or help lacking armies. If you're not playing GWs main games you're actually lucky because many of GW's most problematic decisions don't apply. Aside from pricing...
I play Titanicus and Necromunda and my complaints about too many books also apply there. I have like 9 books for Titanicus where my entire army is 7 models. It's the same with necromunda, you need like 3 kits to have everything useful for your gang but the rules are split up into 12 different books. Aeronautica is the only game that isn't like that and that's only because the books they do put out barely sell and they don't think the market for that game could handle 10 more.
It won't because it's still handled by FWs specialist games. Lotr got a new, unified edition, too. They also put out something plastic every now and then for that game. There are campaign books but these are exactly that, proper narrative content mostly with some legendary legions that allow different playstyles or help lacking armies. If you're not playing GWs main games you're actually lucky because many of GW's most problematic decisions don't apply. Aside from pricing...
Lotr supplements are optional same way as 40k supplements. Sure rohan plaler doesn't have to buy rohan at war or gondor at war..,but he will be ad disadvantage over rohan player who does.
40k players don't have to buy supplements either if power disadvantage doesn't bother.
kirotheavenger wrote: It's also possible they're being repackaged.
GW's books come in plastic shrinkwrap, and the UK is implementing a tax on disposable plastic packaging. They may be 'reboxing' to remove the shrinkwrap and save the tax.
It would be strange for them to pull extant campaign books entirely from 40k.
I doubt that's the case for the 30k books though, they're almost certainly giving way to 2.0.
If they are just getting rid of the shrink wrap how do you think they are going to secure the download codes? I don’t know if a scratch off would cost more than the tax. Plus the tax was probably included in the last price increase.
Emperor’s Children get a "Sun Killer Squad" (heavy weapons), and White Scars get "Dark Sons of Death Squad" (jump).
So we now have:
UM Nemesis Destroyer Squad - Themed Destroyers DG Mortus Poisoner Squad - Themed Destroyers WE Red Hand Destroyer Assault Squad - Themed Destroyers WS Dark Sons of Death Squad - Themed Destroyers IW Dominator Cohort - Themed Terminators (Cataphractii) IF Huscarl Squad - Themed Terminators (Cataphractii) NL Atramentar Squad - Themed Terminators (Tartaros / Contekar?) DA Inner Circle Knights Cenobium (Order of the Broken Claws) - New variant EC Sun Killer Squad - Heavy Weapon / Support Squad
And Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Iron Hands, Thousand Sons, Sons of Horus, Word Bearers, Salamanders, Raven Guard & Alpha Legion don't have new units yet.
kirotheavenger wrote: The "power armour through the ages" also had an interestingly 30k bend. Again, seems attention is now starting to officially shift towards HH a bit.
More likely just a case of there being more artwork for the Legions than Chapters, the only things I can think of are from IA: Badab and they aren't nearly as fancy as the ones in the article. Flash over substance and all that.
The Sunkiller squad is mind-blowingly overpowered.
5 Sun Killers with Lascannons, bolt pistol, Chainsword (uh, why?), ballistic skill 5 (2+ to hit), and they IGNORE COVER if they didn't move the turn before (with their stock 48" weaponry). 250 Points
5 Heavy Support Marines with Lascannons..... 235 Points.
15 Points? Thats how much ballistic skill 5, a Chainsword, and ignores cover is worth? Sign me the feth up. That's monstrously under-costed. And they can be taken in squads up to 20 strong. You could take 60 of these guys in a list for 2,550 Points and absolutely table anyone in like 3 turns. Deploy, never move, ignore armor and cover the entire game. Just throw an Augury scanner on them and no infiltrators within 18", and you get 20 Lascannon shots with interceptor for any deep-strikers.
Uh yeah. I deploy them in a building, then I never move because my 20 man lascannon squad can shoot the entire width of the battlefield. Why would you need to move them?
If you deploy a unit of them in the center of your deployment on a 6' x 4' table they have the entire table in range.
Uh yeah. I deploy them in a building, then I never move because my 20 man lascannon squad can shoot the entire width of the battlefield. Why would you need to move them?
If you deploy a unit of them in the center of your deployment on a 6' x 4' table they have the entire table in range.
What kind of fool agrees to play in a planet bowling ball where you have nice building to deploy and he has nothing to hide behind?
Your strategy only works against idiot that lets you load up board in your favour.
Opponent puts unit behind terrain THAT BLOCKS LOS and bang your lascannons uselessly.
Or heaven forbid...please don't tell me you think ignore cover means ignore LOS? Holy...
Uh yeah. I deploy them in a building, then I never move because my 20 man lascannon squad can shoot the entire width of the battlefield. Why would you need to move them?
If you deploy a unit of them in the center of your deployment on a 6' x 4' table they have the entire table in range.
What kind of fool agrees to play in a planet bowling ball where you have nice building to deploy and he has nothing to hide behind?
Your strategy only works against idiot that lets you load up board in your favour.
Opponent puts unit behind terrain THAT BLOCKS LOS and bang your lascannons uselessly.
Or heaven forbid...please don't tell me you think ignore cover means ignore LOS? Holy...
Who would be that stupid to think that? It is not uncommon to have a building or two or three in or near your deployment zone. Are terrain pieces only supposed to go in the center 2 feet of a table? On top of this, they have a built in rule to allow them to deploy in cover with a fortification that doesn't take up the force org slot.
Putting them in cover is by no means a necessity with this unit. Deploy them in a lane where you can see a unit and vaporize it turn one. Unless the entire board is walled off by an impenetrable line of LOS blocking terrain this unit is gonna be super powerful ignoring cover.
I agree with this take. They're way under priced for what you get--15 points for extra rules and better ballistic skill. This is further compounded by the reality that, for some incredibly bizarre reason, additional sunkillers cost the exact same price as additional lascannon heavy support marines, despite being infinitely better.
They're still just dudes in power armor. If they go first, they'll get to kill something that maybe is worth the same points they are. And then the opponent blows them off the board in response.
Plus, they're a shooty unit in an army whose rules generally promote assault. Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.
What unit is going to need 20 lascannons shot into it? The unit doesn't have split fire so taking 3 units of 20 means you'll be killing 3 enemy units a turn with roughly 15 cannons of overkill per unit.
"Precision Fire
Sun Killers elevated the use of their chosen weaponry to an art form and were able to direct their fire with exacting precision. No
camouflage, nor cover, could offer their targets protection from their perfectly timed and unerringly accurate shots.
An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
So this is already causing confusion, people think it means the sun killers shooting attacks only get no cover usr if they themselves have not moved. I understand thinking that because of how poorly worded the rules are, but that is not my reading of it. Simply put, a shorter wording if that were the case would not have even required mentioning the target unit at all, it could literally say "if this unit does not move in the preceding movement phase its shooting attacks may use the no cover usr". It's referring to the target not having moved, not the attacking unit, otherwise why mention the target at all?
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.
It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?
If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.
It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?
If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".
The quoted rule is pretty poorly written. The that in question is operating as a relative pronoun, which, reading it explicitly as its written, would refer to the noun preceding it, a model with this special rule. If you try to read into their possible intent, this doesn't make sense. But grammatically, that's how it should be read.
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.
It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?
If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".
If we're reading it that way, the enemy unit has never moved in the preceding movement phase, because the preceding movement phase was your own.
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
It's pretty obvious that when a model gets damaged by an attack made by a model with this special rule that has not moved in the preceding movement phase, it doesn't get a cover save.
It's one run-on sentence, "that" refers to the target unit not the unit making the attack. As I said, if it was simply the unit is granted no cover usr to its shooting attacks if it didn't/doesn't move, why does it even need to mention the target?
If it works as I say, it makes sense, it means there's a functional difference with them targetting say a skimmer that has not moved and one that has, as jinking wouldn't help a skimmer that did not move because it having moved or not is the sole criteria for applying the no cover usr to the attack. Your interpretation is basically "yall won't get no cover usr to ur shooting if you move and snap fire, which is totally what you would do with 48inch ranged man portable shoulder fire heavy weapon you take in packs of 5".
If we're reading it that way, the enemy unit has never moved in the preceding movement phase, because the preceding movement phase was your own.
It's refference "the preceding movement phase" in lieu of preceding turn as a whole because a unit can have moved in more than just the preceding movement phase (moving again in the prior shooting phase or being forced to move at the end of the prior assault phase), just like if you're intercepting a newly arrived target unit, it couldn't have had moved in preceding movement phase. It's terribly worded, but if your interpretation is correct, I humbly ask why economy of words was not used to simply say "this unit may apply the no cover usr to its shooting attacks but not snap fire attacks" or simply "if it does not move". And again, as a limitation its certainly bizarre if you are correct, because as I've mentioned before, it's not exactly tempting to move infantry mounted heavy weapons with long ranges that can already be deployed in very advantageous positions and snap fire them unless out of bare necessity and if that's literally the only time their shooting doesn't get the no cover usr's it's very bizarre.
Again, I read it as, it's the difference between fast units that can jink actually getting to or not, and it's fair, it always seemed stupid to be able to jink on the spot without moving an inch.
So, it's my movement phase, my land speeder moves 12". I do my shooting and my combat phase.
My enemy takes their turn, they do their movement phase, and in their shooting phase target my Land speeder with their Sun Killers, and I Jink.
Did my land speeder move in the preceding movement phase? The only possible answer to this question is: No. Because I don't have any rules that let me move in my enemy's movement phase!
If your interpretation requires this many mental gymnastics to do anything, it most likely isn't the right interpretation. ESPECIALLY when it completely works out of the box without any gymnastics.
You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.
Its pretty bleeding obvious it's referring to the Sunkillers remaining stationary themselves.
Why is it written so poorly?
I have to guess it was typed it 5 minutes by the company intern just to smash out the datasheet, not someone who understood 30k and the various it already has existing they could have leant on.
The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!
You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.
Well, they can be wrong, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: Its pretty bleeding obvious it's referring to the Sunkillers remaining stationary themselves.
Why is it written so poorly?
I have to guess it was typed it 5 minutes by the company intern just to smash out the datasheet, not someone who understood 30k and the various it already has existing they could have leant on.
The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!
It's already putting the cart before the horse reference the target unit having to already have suffered not just a hit but the result of said hit, exemplified by suffering a wound, glancing or penetrating hit as a result of the shooting attack. That already seems both incredibly specific and tangential if the only thing that matters is that the unit making the shooting attack has not also moved. Again if it works how you'd interpret it, why is the target relevant at all? But more specifically, why is not simply referencing hitting said target unit with a shooting attack, why does it matter if it specifically causes a wound, glancing hit or penetrating hit?
kirotheavenger wrote: The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!
TBF, there's no reason it wasn't the regular team. The HH books are hardly perfect.
kirotheavenger wrote: The name itself is confusing, being very similar to the existing "precision shot/strike" which has a completely different effect!
TBF, there's no reason it wasn't the regular team. The HH books are hardly perfect.
There's a lot of head scratching for sure. It gets to be a bit much when wargear is also just a collection of usr's in one thing just like the list of special rules for units. I doesn't feel very unified.
Also @Ringhu no hard feelings, I'm honestly trying to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of RAI, because if your interpretation is correct, can we both at least agree it's not common to want or choose to move dudes with heavy weapons who would then be relegated to snap firing? Like outside of sheer necessity? Also, what's with it not just being about a hit in general, but having to cause a wound or a glance or a pen? Why does it need any of that to function?
I want my interpretation to be the correct one simply because it would mean there's actually some thought put into the poorly worded rule, as opposed to just a really long sentence to say you get no cover except for snap fires.
You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.
You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.
Well, they can be wrong, too.
Again, grammatically, not really.
Why is:
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack"
At all relevant to having or not having the no cover usr for a unit's shooting attacks if it moves or not? Why mention that part at all?
Tannhauser42 wrote: They're still just dudes in power armor. If they go first, they'll get to kill something that maybe is worth the same points they are. And then the opponent blows them off the board in response.
Plus, they're a shooty unit in an army whose rules generally promote assault. Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.
I mean, maybe some sort of legion who can steal another legion exclusive unit and end up infiltrating them and giving some massive buffs through their primarch could use em.
You are the only person I've seen interpret it this way, everybody else I've seen discussing this has immediately interpreted it as the firing unit having not moved. That includes not only my play group and online discussion in multiple communities.
Well, they can be wrong, too.
Again, grammatically, not really.
Why is:
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack"
At all relevant to having or not having the no cover usr for a unit's shooting attacks if it moves or not? Why mention that part at all?
Why does having redundant text make you have to invent new grammatical interpretations and infer meaning instead of just taking the redundant text and taking the rule at value?
Tannhauser42 wrote: They're still just dudes in power armor. If they go first, they'll get to kill something that maybe is worth the same points they are. And then the opponent blows them off the board in response.
Plus, they're a shooty unit in an army whose rules generally promote assault. Emperor's Children players generally aren't building gunline armies.
I mean, maybe some sort of legion who can steal another legion exclusive unit and end up infiltrating them and giving some massive buffs through their primarch could use em.
In which case they're still just dudes in power armor that will get to kill one thing that may or may not be worth their points before they get blown off the table.
Gert wrote: They're fine but they ain't Iron Havocs. Who's taking these over the objectively better AT unit?
Presumably EC players, who don't have access to IW units. Although, my friend who plays AL has mentioned repainting his Iron Havocs, so there must be something there?
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack"
At all relevant to having or not having the no cover usr for a unit's shooting attacks if it moves or not? Why mention that part at all?
"An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves."
The "made by a model with this special rule that has not moved..." is a supplementary relative clause applying to the "Shooting Attack."
-edit- I'm not defending their bad writing. I'm just disagreeing with how you're reading it. It's a terrible sentence, we can all agree on that.
Rihgu wrote: Presumably EC players, who don't have access to IW units. Although, my friend who plays AL has mentioned repainting his Iron Havocs, so there must be something there?
It could not have been more obvious I was referring to the AL Rite.
Rihgu wrote: Presumably EC players, who don't have access to IW units. Although, my friend who plays AL has mentioned repainting his Iron Havocs, so there must be something there?
It could not have been more obvious I was referring to the AL Rite.
You could have quoted somebody referring to the AL Rite, which would have made it more obvious that you were replying to that context. As it stands, you very easily could have been replying to the topic of the Sun Killers in general.
But yea, I also covered that in that my AL playing friend sees something in this beyond what Iron Havocs provide for him.
But what? Havocs have the same BS, Hardened Armour, Tank Hunters, and permanent -1 to Cover Saves for 10pts more than Sunkillers. As an AT unit, the Havocs are just better. The free fortification slot isn't worth it because the save gained from hiding behind an Aegis is worse than the armour the Marines have base.
For EC, sure a good ranged AT unit but for Coils of the Hydra? Nah, Havocs are flat a better choice.
I should imagine they chose to phrase it as they did because your opponent makes the cover saves, they felt the need to direct the rule at them and then phrase it from their perspective.
Perhaps because GW has commanded them to use the same "legalese" writing that 40k has moved towards.
But if we thought the 40k team was bad at writing in legalese, the 30k is evidently a lot worse! They've always had a very colloquial phrasing to their rules (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!)
kirotheavenger wrote: I should imagine they chose to phrase it as they did because your opponent makes the cover saves, they felt the need to direct the rule at them and then phrase it from their perspective.
Perhaps because GW has commanded them to use the same "legalese" writing that 40k has moved towards.
But if we thought the 40k team was bad at writing in legalese, the 30k is evidently a lot worse! They've always had a very colloquial phrasing to their rules (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!)
The other interpretation of the rule is the unit never again can make any cover saves once wounded/glanced/penned.
kirotheavenger wrote: Which is also a ridiculous interpretation that's clearly not intended.
I actually think the language is clear that "cannot take cover saves" applies to the hit suffered, and it never says it's a permanent buff.
It's a poorly worded rule. I think this is causing people to deliberately misread it to emphasise how badly written it is.
Right but not to beat a dead horse entirely but, it says suffered wound/glance/pen it does not say hit, that's the other problem for anyone who wants a clean no one will hate me interpretation of the rule, there really isn't one.
Example: hits target, wounds target, target goes to make a cover save "wow dude you can't" actually he can because he has not yet suffered a wound/glance/pen from the unit attacking.
I used "hit" because it was shorter, but you're right it says "suffers a wound/glance/pen" - functionally there is no difference for the point I was making.
It never says it's permanent, so the suggestion that it only applies to the given attack is clear.
He has suffered a wound - wounds are taken before saves.
Not to be confused with an "unsaved wound" which is what you're left with after saves.
It's quite confusing that they use "wounds" to refer to two distinctly different steps of the combat resolution step, but that's not actually an issue here.
Does it have to though? Pure logic, can a unit that has already suffered a wound or glance/pen from this unit take a cover save? The answer is no, forever.
like 20 man tac squad, you shoot it and kill 2 turn 1, that unit, can now no longer ever take cover saves.
""An enemy model that suffers a Wound, Penetrating Hit or Glancing Hit inflicted by a Shooting Attack, made by a model with this
special rule that has not moved in the preceding Movement phase, may not take cover saves.""
It certainly is concerning if this is the level of rules writing we can expect for HH2.0.
However, I'm not too worried. It's more likely that the actual qualified designers are off working on 2.0, and they've either given the exemplary battles off to some poor intern, or otherwise have just hashed it in five minutes before home time on a Friday.
None of the leaked rules look like this. Which means discussing it even in that light is pretty pointless.
Adepticon's a big event where they usually do show things. There's a high chance it gets shown there.
Especially considering they really didn't do anything for GAMA, which is out of the ordinary.
Cause GW would still bullgaking us 1 Day before pre orders go live.
lol, if they'd told you what it was back when the leak happened it would be vampirates all over again with every other week being "THIS HAS GOTTA BE IT!".
Yodhrin wrote: Are there any more daemon princes that might get a model?
Angron and Fulgrim were both ascended by the Siege but they will be kept for 40k so don't expect to see them in a HH reveal.
Most of the Daemons that could get models were only around at the endpoint of the Heresy, which is kind of the idea seeing as until then it could still be seen as just a civil war. The Siege is where it is fully revealed that most of the Traitor Legions are in the thrall of the Dark Gods with 3 Daemon Primarchs, Horus as a "living" conduit for the Gods, the Death Guard fully corrupted into Plague Marines and the rest starting to take the next step into sorcery, Daemonology and wider Chaos powers.
The 9th edition of 40K and the 3rd edition of AoS were both announced in May of their release years. So if 30k 2nd edition is going to fill the same spot, it’s too early to announce it. I would love some more praetors though! Or the return of some discontinued kits. Or maybe an Arlatax model for Mechanicum.
"confirmed". just people chasing clout hoping to get lucky. We do this same song and dance every time one of the previews pops up "I have it under good authority that this time the preview will be for that thing we've all be waiting for, trust me, I have a really reliable source".
I hope that's not real. It's just a Primaris beaky, and the beaky helm does not fit well with the Primaris gorget, looks lame as hell to me (someone that loves beakies), plus there's no other HH design elements like the backpack, rimless shoulders etc etc, literally just a Primaris with a beaky hat.
"The Belisarian Age". Sticking a Mk. VI helmet on a Primaris is made more effective at riling up people if you throw in a reference to the Sigmarization of Horus Heresy. Bit heavy-handed, but hey, the things you do to get people to freak out, eh?
JWBS wrote: I hope that's not real. It's just a Primaris beaky, and the beaky helm does not fit well with the Primaris gorget, looks lame as hell to me (someone that loves beakies), plus there's no other HH design elements like the backpack, rimless shoulders etc etc, literally just a Primaris with a beaky hat.
Models may not choose to make a Cover Save, but may still make applicable Armour or Invulnerable saves, against Wounds,
Glancing Hits or Penetrating Hits inflicted by attacks made with this special rule. Attacks made as Snap Shots gain no benefit
from this special rule, and saves are taken against them as per the standard rules.
Models may not choose to make a Cover Save, but may still make applicable Armour or Invulnerable saves, against Wounds,
Glancing Hits or Penetrating Hits inflicted by attacks made with this special rule. Attacks made as Snap Shots gain no benefit
from this special rule, and saves are taken against them as per the standard rules.
Crablezworth?
So they could have literally wrote:Shooting attacks but not snap shots made by this unit have the no cover special rule.
Apologies for reading too much into the paragraph long run-on sentence and thinking they were actually trying to do something interesting with all that wasted space.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: So the unit just has Ignores Cover but with a catch. Wow. Very good.
Weird how even the clarification can't find itself communicating with any sense of brevity.
So, from the article (not mentioned in the stream)
The Praetors are some of the first kits moving to plastic, making the game more approachable than ever before. If you’re a fan of the lore or the Horus Heresy series from Black Library, but you’re not so familiar with advanced resin kits, this is the edition of the game you’ve been waiting for. Both miniatures will be in the launch set for the new edition, on which we’ll have more details coming very soon…
So... thoughts? Doom? Jubilation?
The implications there...
Voss wrote: So, from the article (not mentioned in the stream)
The Praetors are some of the first kits moving to plastic, making the game more approachable than ever before. If you’re a fan of the lore or the Horus Heresy series from Black Library, but you’re not so familiar with advanced resin kits, this is the edition of the game you’ve been waiting for. Both miniatures will be in the launch set for the new edition, on which we’ll have more details coming very soon…
So... thoughts? Doom? Jubilation?
The implications there...
The praetor previewed needs work but is ok, just very busy and lots of frilly stuff and the axe is way too big. Plastic is good, especially core plastic. The mk6 armour looks a bit leggy. Hopefully the box is affordable. The rules look bad.
Plastic stuff = more people likely to play the game which in turn = greater attention from GW with regards to events and releases. What really matters is the state of the new rules. It's already caused a rift in the HH internet communities and that rift will only grow.
Gert wrote: What really matters is the state of the new rules. It's already caused a rift in the HH internet communities and that rift will only grow.
Well at least the plastic will work for both, only silver lining really.
This made me laugh a bit, the designers need a less a is more approach imo, there's a delicate balance between "this is a character/leader model, it should look distinguished in some way" and "lets just put as much fiddly stuff all over as possible, people love having to hack stuff off models to show millimeters of actual armour plate". I think the praetor will look great after the hobby knife and head swap.
Whichever mark of armour had chainmail. C'mon now, 30k players have never been pedantic enough to care about silly little details like power armour mark, that's impossible
That trailer was So a couple of things I noticed. The new plastic Praetor is in the trailer at the parade/muster scene. But also the IF that gets gutted by Horus looks like an alternate build with a different back banner, power sword and mk6 helmet.
The Sicarans in the trailer look like they have a dozer blade and a new turret with a similar style to the Deimos pattern Predator. Fingers crossed for a plastic kit.
Whichever mark of armour had chainmail. C'mon now, 30k players have never been pedantic enough to care about silly little details like power armour mark, that's impossible
Whichever mark of armour had chainmail. C'mon now, 30k players have never been pedantic enough to care about silly little details like power armour mark, that's impossible
GoatboyBeta wrote: the IF that gets gutted by Horus looks like an alternate build with a different back banner, power sword and mk6 helmet.
Going back and looking at the leaked pics, the IF character looks to be quite different from this SoH guy. So maybe two Praetor kits?
He looks to be facing off vs the newly revealed SoH praetor, and is different. I'd expect a consul/ captain model than a second praetor if they both co e I the same box. Calth came with a praetor in TDA and a chaplain.
How did they get Christian Bale to do his Batman voice for the narration, though?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: Is the MkVI marine pictured at the same scale as the rest of the heresy line?
He seems big.
With any luck, they will fit in with Primaris.
With luck? HH marines are supposed to be 7 foot. Not 8 foot equalling custodians...Custodes are supposed to be taller than marines yet you want to break the fluff just like that?
Love the new Praetor model. Bold new direction for Horus Heresy & Firstborn Marines in general. Very John Blanche. Can't wait to see what else will make the jump in plastic.
excuse me while I go re-read the rules 
[/img]
