but than you don't need single model machanics and detailed rules for which model uses which specific power weapon
or in other words, you are better off using Epic rules with 28mm models
playing battles with armies, but at the same time having skirmish like details with RPG elements does not work well together (and kills the immersion for a lot of people)
kodos wrote: but than you don't need single model machanics and detailed rules for which model uses which specific power weapon
or in other words, you are better off using Epic rules with 28mm models
So someone pointed out the ruin rules are messed up, like 7th ed's ruin rules. 6th edition had 4 pages of ruin rules, in there was stuff like what unit types could and could not move on to the upper levels of ruins. This was absent entirely in 7th edition, and it would seem absent entirely in HH 2.0.
This isn't a small thing, as ruins are basically just difficult terrain, so in many ways its actually easier for vehicles to move on to ruin tops. And also them being jus difficult means models just phase right through ruin walls, and aren't even slowed when running through them.
Crablezworth wrote: So someone pointed out the ruin rules are messed up, like 7th ed's ruin rules. 6th edition had 4 pages of ruin rules, in there was stuff like what unit types could and could not move on to the upper levels of ruins. This was absent entirely in 7th edition, and it would seem absent entirely in HH 2.0.
This isn't a small thing, as ruins are basically just difficult terrain, so in many ways its actually easier for vehicles to move on to ruin tops. And also them being jus difficult means models just phase right through ruin walls, and aren't even slowed when running through them.
Im reading them now, whats missing from it? seems pretty clear to me.
Ruins are meant to be representative, so there really is nothing wrong with moving through that wall. As for vehicles ontop of buildings, this once more is a case of you need to self regulate.
HH is about thematic and dramatic combat, focusing more on the story/action being told, and having an understanding of RAI vs RAW.
Everyone knows, that the RAI, are that a tracked vehicle cant just magically float up a building and sit there. People who do this stuff are the kinda WAAC people that are not healthy for the hobby, so dont let them, its ok to be a turd about that kinda thing.
Crablezworth wrote: So someone pointed out the ruin rules are messed up, like 7th ed's ruin rules. 6th edition had 4 pages of ruin rules, in there was stuff like what unit types could and could not move on to the upper levels of ruins. This was absent entirely in 7th edition, and it would seem absent entirely in HH 2.0.
This isn't a small thing, as ruins are basically just difficult terrain, so in many ways its actually easier for vehicles to move on to ruin tops. And also them being jus difficult means models just phase right through ruin walls, and aren't even slowed when running through them.
Im reading them now, whats missing from it? seems pretty clear to me.
Ruins are meant to be representative, so there really is nothing wrong with moving through that wall. As for vehicles ontop of buildings, this once more is a case of you need to self regulate.
HH is about thematic and dramatic combat, focusing more on the story/action being told, and having an understanding of RAI vs RAW.
Everyone knows, that the RAI, are that a tracked vehicle cant just magically float up a building and sit there. People who do this stuff are the kinda WAAC people that are not healthy for the hobby, so dont let them, its ok to be a turd about that kinda thing.
AdmiralRon wrote: I hope that's an oversight that gets FAQ'd, because that's kind of egregious.
It was/is a problem in 30k now without using something aproximating the 6th ed ruin rules. Just unfortunate that for all the areas to ignore in 30k terrain wasn't one of them.
3k is the standard for most events but there are certain game types that play to smaller point levels. Zone Mortalis for example sits nicely at about 1 to 1.5k points and there is the Victory is Vengeance subgame that is a HH version of Kill Team.
3k allows people to get in a large number of units and take the more specialised, expensive, or LoW units that might not work as well at lower points costs. Indeed LoW are specifically restricted to 25% of the total army cost meaning you won't see them in games under 2k points unless the event/your group allows the Leviathan Force Org.
I recommend going in blocks of 1k. Get your basic stuff down first (i.e. generic units rather than Legion specifics) for an understanding of the rules and how your army plays.
The biggest mistake our group made was starting off at 2.5 to 3k games every single week with 2 or 3 players per side. Games would take way too long and a lot of people just dropped off because the buy-in was too high.
Honestly, what I fear for most in this new edition is the tone of the game changing. Most of what I see with heresy is fun narrative fluffily themed lists. Due to the mass influx of players I think some of the modern Uber comp 40k tone will bleed over, and with all the new players you don’t have to worry about being a WAAChole cause you won’t be out of players to fight if you pull out the 3 max squads of siege tyrants.
Hopefully blasts and scatter will drive away the worst of the lot but keep the good peeps.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Honestly, what I fear for most in this new edition is the tone of the game changing. Most of what I see with heresy is fun narrative fluffily themed lists. Due to the mass influx of players I think some of the modern Uber comp 40k tone will bleed over, and with all the new players you don’t have to worry about being a WAAChole cause you won’t be out of players to fight if you pull out the 3 max squads of siege tyrants.
I'd be more worried about the purists TBH. It's easier to discuss not playing tournament-style games than it is dealing with some of the absolute roasters that have spent the last 6 months raging that MkVI is getting a plastic kit. Whatever happens next they're only going to get worse.
I really hope 40k's uber competitive element doesn't come over in droves. That's a giant reason why I'm bailing on 40k for HH.
It's plausible that for the first few months it's a problem but overtime they'll trickle out.
Especially if HH isn't getting giant tourney support in the same way 40k does. But who knows. It'll probably also vary region to region.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Honestly, what I fear for most in this new edition is the tone of the game changing. Most of what I see with heresy is fun narrative fluffily themed lists. Due to the mass influx of players I think some of the modern Uber comp 40k tone will bleed over, and with all the new players you don’t have to worry about being a WAAChole cause you won’t be out of players to fight if you pull out the 3 max squads of siege tyrants.
I'd be more worried about the purists TBH. It's easier to discuss not playing tournament-style games than it is dealing with some of the absolute roasters that have spent the last 6 months raging that MkVI is getting a plastic kit. Whatever happens next they're only going to get worse.
If I’m going to be honest, I think it’s fine HH has Grogs. It is by nature a historical game with most the details explained out. On the topic of mk6 part of the fun of Horus heresy for me and I think others is that you’d see mixed amounts of different types of armor, themed for their legions by looking into the fluff (yea I know that the legions would have a ton of mk6 but it’s just that the fluff and theme of an iron warriors list is going to use mk3). It’s fun seeing the individual personalities put into Horus heresy armies, I feel like it’s massively bigger than the space marine armies I see in 40k. Now it’s just going to be 80 mk6 guys, every group of 5 the same pose. It removes part of the higher tier of effort and modeling capability I’ve come to expect from 30k.
Well, i get flamed for this, but. This is an example of where gate keeping is a healthy thing.
HH generally is considered a more fluffy style game, where you are playing dramatic and thematic battles of the Horus Heresy. If you want to keep it that way. you have to gate keep. And gate keeping does not mean, random sperg moments and being an out right spiteful person.
Gate keeping in a healthy sense is operating under a mentality of "Hey....we dont do that here in Horus heresy" mentality to carefully guide people into what your local group, and what HH as a whole is about.
If someone comes in trying to be a massive WAAC type player that 40k has become very common with, you just politly guide them into the "Hey....we dont do that kinda thing here." mentality. Push for more fluffy armies, you can do things like playfully jabbing at their hyper tuned lists by just doing off handed comments like if you are about to play a game with them.
"Ehhh yeah i guess i can loose a game really quick."
This is not mean, this is not spiteful, but it casually gets the message across that your opponent is playing a kinda cheesy net list.
This is the kinda gatekeeping that helps prevent the things you are talking about, and what you said you dont want to happen.
Hobbies are like a flower garden, they are really fun to have, and very enjoyable, and even more enjoyable to share with others and invite them in. But the reason a gate exists and why it needs to be kept it to prevent the animals from running in and ripping the garden up.
I'm personally going to shoot for a mixture, though I won't lie that a bulk of my tacs will be MKVI just because jumping into this game with the box is a great way to get A TON of tacs.
But I still have plans to scoop up some MKIV and MKIII since those are my two favorite patterns.
Gate keeping in a healthy sense is operating under a mentality of "Hey....we dont do that here in Horus heresy" mentality to carefully guide people into what your local group,
100% agree with this. It's like introducing a new player to your DND group. You want to make it clear what the expectations are, how the group operates, the game tone etc
but you also don't want to be a complete prick about it, because that's just pathetic.
The competitive element was always there when 30k was at it's peak for support and popularity. When 30k lost that, the competitive people moved away.
As long as there are tournaments, prizes, or just a lot of people playing, there will be people who only care about the win.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The competitive element was always there when 30k was at it's peak for support and popularity. When 30k lost that, the competitive people moved away.
As long as there are tournaments, prizes, or just a lot of people playing, there will be people who only care about the win.
I agree with you here, but compared to what current 40k is, even HH at its peak would have seemed like a walk in the park.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: If I’m going to be honest, I think it’s fine HH has Grogs. It is by nature a historical game with most the details explained out. On the topic of mk6 part of the fun of Horus heresy for me and I think others is that you’d see mixed amounts of different types of armor, themed for their legions by looking into the fluff (yea I know that the legions would have a ton of mk6 but it’s just that the fluff and theme of an iron warriors list is going to use mk3). It’s fun seeing the individual personalities put into Horus heresy armies, I feel like it’s massively bigger than the space marine armies I see in 40k. Now it’s just going to be 80 mk6 guys, every group of 5 the same pose. It removes part of the higher tier of effort and modeling capability I’ve come to expect from 30k.
Did you complain that HH was getting diluted when Calth and Prospero were released as well? When every single person was running Pride of the Legion lists because that's what you got in the Calth and Prospero boxes did you complain the game was being ruined? Because if not then sorry my guy but that's just hypocrisy. You can't expect new players to be as knowledgeable or as invested in a system that is brand new to them as an established player. I also think you are vastly underestimating the ability for even minor conversions through the use of the various upgrade kits GW has put out for the First Founding Chapters for 40k that fit 100% with the armour patterns that are currently available.
As for the peeps talking about gatekeeping, informing people that your group doesn't like to play tournament-style games isn't gatekeeping. If you actively bar someone from playing with your group because they do like tournament play, that is gatekeeping. The biggest thing people in the HH community need to do now is calm down on the "Muh Accuracy" front because there is going to be an influx of people who don't know about the time period or the game and will be asking if they can try out HH with their 40k Marine armies. When Calth dropped I suggested to my group that we should do some Great Crusade-style games vs various Xenos or human factions to allow people to actually get into the game and have time to build up Heresy-era forces.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: If I’m going to be honest, I think it’s fine HH has Grogs. It is by nature a historical game with most the details explained out. On the topic of mk6 part of the fun of Horus heresy for me and I think others is that you’d see mixed amounts of different types of armor, themed for their legions by looking into the fluff (yea I know that the legions would have a ton of mk6 but it’s just that the fluff and theme of an iron warriors list is going to use mk3). It’s fun seeing the individual personalities put into Horus heresy armies, I feel like it’s massively bigger than the space marine armies I see in 40k. Now it’s just going to be 80 mk6 guys, every group of 5 the same pose. It removes part of the higher tier of effort and modeling capability I’ve come to expect from 30k.
Did you complain that HH was getting diluted when Calth and Prospero were released as well? When every single person was running Pride of the Legion lists because that's what you got in the Calth and Prospero boxes did you complain the game was being ruined? Because if not then sorry my guy but that's just hypocrisy. You can't expect new players to be as knowledgeable or as invested in a system that is brand new to them as an established player. I also think you are vastly underestimating the ability for even minor conversions through the use of the various upgrade kits GW has put out for the First Founding Chapters for 40k that fit 100% with the armour patterns that are currently available.
As for the peeps talking about gatekeeping, informing people that your group doesn't like to play tournament-style games isn't gatekeeping. If you actively bar someone from playing with your group because they do like tournament play, that is gatekeeping. The biggest thing people in the HH community need to do now is calm down on the "Muh Accuracy" front because there is going to be an influx of people who don't know about the time period or the game and will be asking if they can try out HH with their 40k Marine armies. When Calth dropped I suggested to my group that we should do some Great Crusade-style games vs various Xenos or human factions to allow people to actually get into the game and have time to build up Heresy-era forces.
No its still considered gate keeping.
Remember we operate now in a time when if you put up any sort of barrier of entry to the hobby/game, its instantly called gate keeping.
Wanting players to have painting armies that match their legions? Gatekeeping
Wanting people to use the actual model for the unit rather then a stand in? gate keeping
Telling someone we dont play with netlists that stomp every one? Gate keeping.
As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.
Again, you might disagree and say its not gate keeping, and to a degree i even agree with you, suggestion someone try and follow even the most base lore accuracy is not really gate keeping, but in the hobby world now, like i said anything that is any barrier of entry no matter how small is considered gatekeeping.
I kid you not, i actually got told i was gate keeping because i told some one to read the rules for 40k and their codex before i played with them. We live in a world where asking someone to understand the rules of the game they are about to play is gate keeping.
The people who cry "gatekeeping" are always the people getting told they're not wanted.
Some players in my local community recently asked about what the HH crowd thought of their planned armies. They were asking about stuff like using Primaris models, or using their 40k Deathguard/World Eaters straight in 30k.
When they were told that that wouldn't really be appropriate to the setting for X, Y, and Z they kicked up a stink about gatekeeping and how nobody would play 30k if everyone was to bellended about it.
kirotheavenger wrote: The people who cry "gatekeeping" are always the people getting told they're not wanted.
Some players in my local community recently asked about what the HH crowd thought of their planned armies. They were asking about stuff like using Primaris models, or using their 40k Deathguard/World Eaters straight in 30k.
When they were told that that wouldn't really be appropriate to the setting for X, Y, and Z they kicked up a stink about gatekeeping and how nobody would play 30k if everyone was to bellended about it.
Said it before and ill say it many more times. Most of the time, the people who are crying about gatekeeping, are the people the gate was meant to keep out.
Backspacehacker wrote: As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.
I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?
Backspacehacker wrote: As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.
I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?
People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.
kirotheavenger wrote: Some players in my local community recently asked about what the HH crowd thought of their planned armies. They were asking about stuff like using Primaris models, or using their 40k Deathguard/World Eaters straight in 30k.
I mean the Deathguard stuff isn't really a fair situation since the current HH setting stories are where they've been fully corrupted by Nurgle. If I was new to the setting and had just read Warhawk or Buried Dagger, I'd be a little confused as to why it wouldn't be allowed.
But out of curiosity, were these people asking if they could join in to see what the game was like or were they planning entirely new armies based around 40k units and models?
although it is a fictional history, you still play within the fictional historical setting, the outcome of the war is known and it is all about to re-create the different forces during a specific campaign of that war
being not so strict in specific models, like using the older 40k plastic models that look similar or converted armies of 40k plastic (I mean there are people who made Heresy Armies long before the HH was out and the specific details of the armour) to have an easy entry should be ok
(same as in napoleonics people allow 1812 uniforms in 1804 campaigns)
at the same time being strict about the colour scheme the Legions have should not be a problem for the new player (same as in Napoleonics the player knows that red Prussians won't be ok)
while doing a "must use official FW models to to have a demo game with the right armour mark, no early crusade models as we play late heresy here" is gate keeping
My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.
Have you seen this be a consistent issue beyond players testing out the system or is this a made-up problem because I've seen the former but not the latter.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.
What's "not 30k stuff" though? Are we talking things like Centurion suits or Stormtalons? What do you actually mean?
As for the hodgepodge of armour types, guess that means my Iron Warriors and Shattered Legions, and our player groups Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Iron Hands, World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and Night Lords are all not proper HH armies because they don't exclusively use one pattern of Power Armour.
kodos wrote: HH by all means is a historical tabletop
although it is a fictional history, you still play within the fictional historical setting, the outcome of the war is known and it is all about to re-create the different forces during a specific campaign of that war
being not so strict in specific models, like using the older 40k plastic models that look similar or converted armies of 40k plastic (I mean there are people who made Heresy Armies long before the HH was out and the specific details of the armour) to have an easy entry should be ok
(same as in napoleonics people allow 1812 uniforms in 1804 campaigns)
at the same time being strict about the colour scheme the Legions have should not be a problem for the new player (same as in Napoleonics the player knows that red Prussians won't be ok)
while doing a "must use official FW models to to have a demo game with the right armour mark, no early crusade models as we play late heresy here" is gate keeping
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.
Only one of our players has ever used the FW weathering powders and I don't think it's as vital to the feel of the game as you make out.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.
Eh, this is debating painting style, and Truth be told thats dealers choice on style. 'evy metal, table top, grim dark, its all dealers choice on how to do it.
That said, i would say grimdark is the most "Advanced" painting as in order to get it, it requiers a bit more knowledge then your average painter.
As long as they are painted, based, and follow the legion color scheme, its kosher in my book.
The issue with grimdark style painting, and espeically if you are using pigments for weathering, is that kind work is not the kind you wanna be playing with constantly.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.
Only one of our players has ever used the FW weathering powders and I don't think it's as vital to the feel of the game as you make out.
You don’t need weathering powder, but Horus heresy is typically painted in a duller more grungy way that gives it that kinda epic historical battle feel. A stippling method could be really good for doing that type of paintjob with a beginning player.
I don't think the grimdark style is more advanced to do honestly - in fact if you follow the simpler techniques grimdark can get it looking good a lot easier and a lot faster than GW's style of edge highlighting everything.
Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.
But, although I massively prefer the weathered and grimdark style myself, I agree it's up the person.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think the grimdark style is more advanced to do honestly - in fact if you follow the simpler techniques grimdark can get it looking good a lot easier and a lot faster than GW's style of edge highlighting everything.
Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.
But, although I massively prefer the weathered and grimdark style myself, I agree it's up the person.
I know that, you know that, but i would consider it "advanced" simply because you have to step well outside of the wheel house of GW traditional style painting. With things like Oil based paints, use of mineral spirits and wiping away part of where you painted them. ect ect.
To someone whos only worked with acrylics, and water, its a decent step out there in comfort zones.
The point I was going for really is oil paints and weathering powders aren't a necessary part of the grim and weathered look.
It's absolutely achievable with just washes and lightly drybrushing the model.
If GW wanted to encourage this style with tutorials for it, they definitely could.
Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.
I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.
Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.
I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.
Thats kinda what its meant to do, its meant to make them pop really really brightly. Very common in 'evy metal.
Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.
I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.
Edge highlighting as a technique can work.
It picks out and exaggerates detail, it can look good.
It's GW's style of edge highlighting everything that looks so damned cartoony. If it's done on just the upper raised surface, such that it mimicks light in a somewhat realistic way, it can look good.
I'd consider it a supporting technique rather than a default like GW does.
I have to agree with the consensus that edge highlighting is overdone. It also doesn't really make sense. How is light hitting every edge? And in the context of machinery and wargear, well the edges of things wear away faster. If anything edge highlighting should be part of weathering.
So for HH I do think that the weathered style is more appropriate, even for themes that aren't necessarily weather beaten, like say a Siege of Terra army where the troops have maybe had some time to do repairs and get gussied up. My RG are getting the heavy abuse treatment. My wife will get the gaudy 80s style for her 40k UM army though, I figure I do the weathering on everything might as well make the posterboys look like posterboys.
Blanchitsu is normally taken to be it's sub-genre of "grimdark".
The term is a bit meaningless and means different things to different people. As such I try to avoid using the term in and of itself, which is why I tried to clarify the term by using "weathered" as well.
Backspacehacker wrote: As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.
I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?
People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.
Funny, as I actualy prefer (and use) a hodge podge of armor types. It feels more logical, particularly for my army fluff.
I know we're still wading through what is rumor and what is fact, but has there been any news on what will happen in the new edition to Shattered Legions? That is a project I have been interested in doing for quite some time.
Togusa wrote: I know we're still wading through what is rumor and what is fact, but has there been any news on what will happen in the new edition to Shattered Legions? That is a project I have been interested in doing for quite some time.
Still unknown.
Allied chart does not show them, but allied chat also does not show Imperial knights but we know knights exist. so.
Knights fall under Mechanicum. Like how Cults/Militia and Solar Auxilia are both Imperial Army.
The allies chart wouldn't show Shattered Legions anyway as like Blackshields they are army themes rather than factions. It does mean that there is a significant chance that all the current army themes will be axed which means no Blackshields, Shattered Legions, or Armies of Dark Compliance. If of course, this is all real, which IMO it isn't.
Togusa wrote: I know we're still wading through what is rumor and what is fact, but has there been any news on what will happen in the new edition to Shattered Legions? That is a project I have been interested in doing for quite some time.
Still unknown.
Allied chart does not show them, but allied chat also does not show Imperial knights but we know knights exist. so.
That's fair. I was assuming they'd use an edition change to remove less popular elements for balance purposes.
Togusa wrote: That's fair. I was assuming they'd use an edition change to remove less popular elements for balance purposes.
I wouldn't define the army themes as not popular choices, especially not Shattered Legions, and I especially wouldn't assume their removal for "balance".
Togusa wrote: That's fair. I was assuming they'd use an edition change to remove less popular elements for balance purposes.
I wouldn't define the army themes as not popular choices, especially not Shattered Legions, and I especially wouldn't assume their removal for "balance".
Also fair. It sounds like for the time being there just isn't enough information about their place in the new edition.
Maybe White Dwarf; Index Legiones Astartes or something. The did similary stuff for 40k with Exorcists, Emperor's Spears or Fallen Angels and other Armies in the past.
Maybe White Dwarf; Index Legiones Astartes or something. The did similary stuff for 40k with Exorcists, Emperor's Spears or Fallen Angels and other Armies in the past.
Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.
I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.
Last true edge highlight I did I immediately regretted as I felt it took away from, what I felt was (and sill feel is) my best painted model.
For the World Eater I painted immediately after, I started edge highlights but soon transitioned to just doing a whole layer on the upper facing surfaces. Then I smudged Brown and Gunmetal all over with a sponge.
(I really prefer Drybrushing now, specifically Artis Opus' method where you slightly dampen the brush beforehand while basecoating. Gives a super thin all over layer!)
Backspacehacker wrote: As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.
I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?
People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.
Funny, as I actualy prefer (and use) a hodge podge of armor types. It feels more logical, particularly for my army fluff.
Well, since I have a metric ton of Heresy stuff, for my planned armies (currently, may rethink soon):
Ultramarines: Reorganized shortly after Calth, so mix.
Alpha Legion. Hydra Dominatus. Mix.
World Eaters: High rates of attrition. Mix.
*Sons of Horus and Shattered Legions Zone Mortalis Forces: Tybalt Marr sends his best to take out Meduson. Mix.
*Blackshields force (The Sun Kings): Grab and salvage whatever they could, stole from Loyalists and Traitors both. Mix.
*: Unsure whether I will pursue these; they will be dependant upon whether or not Blackshields and/or Shattered Legions will still exist.
Not to quote anyone here, but on the topic of "we should expect people to stick to XYZ armour marks and colour schemes and Legion themes" - we've seen plenty of times in HH how there's nearly always been an exception to the standard rules, and that there's nearly always a way to explain why something is unexpected.
After all, someone fielding black armoured Marines? What Legion would you expect that to be? Dark Angels? Iron Hands? Raven Guard? Nope, Ultramarines.
And regarding gatekeeping, there's nothing wrong with setting a rod for your own back and having your own preferences - it's when you start telling *others* that their way of enjoying things is invalid when you have a problem (and moreover, gatekeeping is usually only the case when it's done pre-emptively).
About this gatekeeping topic. It's going to be a bit of a pickle for me.
I want to build my army 100% according to my aesthetic/fluff vision, born out of being involved with 40K since the 90's, and out of my own personal vision on how a Space Marine force might work "IRL" (yes I know, its a fictional setting..). This will mean that I will be fielding a certain mix of infantry, walkers & vehicles, with armour marks being 99% MkVI & Indomitus TDA, using classic RT-era vehicle patterns for the classics and so on. The exact model composition of squads isn't a concern, I can always group my special & heavy weapon models into separate legion support/heavy squads.
So my pickle is this - My army is about to become legended from current 40K sooner or later. Are you saying that just because I will not be adhering to the generic current HH fluff depiction of my chosen Legion, I am not going to be welcome in 30K either? I find this really hard to comprehend, aren't we talking about a time period of 10,000 years, spanning a vast area of the galaxy, featuring about a demicompany to a company of Marines from a total pool of 100's of thousands?
In my opinion, the setting of Horus Heresy is not exactly as definable as the Napoleonic war era, for example. The time & space scales are vastly different, therefore the expectation of adhering to a few hundred pages of lore at the most, seems smallminded and incomplete.
Backspacehacker wrote: Well, i get flamed for this, but. This is an example of where gate keeping is a healthy thing.
HH generally is considered a more fluffy style game, where you are playing dramatic and thematic battles of the Horus Heresy. If you want to keep it that way. you have to gate keep. And gate keeping does not mean, random sperg moments and being an out right spiteful person.
Gate keeping in a healthy sense is operating under a mentality of "Hey....we dont do that here in Horus heresy" mentality to carefully guide people into what your local group, and what HH as a whole is about.
If someone comes in trying to be a massive WAAC type player that 40k has become very common with, you just politly guide them into the "Hey....we dont do that kinda thing here." mentality. Push for more fluffy armies, you can do things like playfully jabbing at their hyper tuned lists by just doing off handed comments like if you are about to play a game with them.
"Ehhh yeah i guess i can loose a game really quick."
This is not mean, this is not spiteful, but it casually gets the message across that your opponent is playing a kinda cheesy net list.
This is the kinda gatekeeping that helps prevent the things you are talking about, and what you said you dont want to happen.
Hobbies are like a flower garden, they are really fun to have, and very enjoyable, and even more enjoyable to share with others and invite them in. But the reason a gate exists and why it needs to be kept it to prevent the animals from running in and ripping the garden up.
Thats not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is very specifically the act of trying to stop people from entering a space and drive out those who do, based on their identity (i.e. immutable aspects of their being that cannot be changed). What you're describing is more management of expectations. Its not gatekeeping to say "your models need to be WYSIWYG and you can't use your Primaris marines for this" or "this is a fluff-driven game that we try to play casually, can you tone down your list", because the problem here is not the identity of the person, its their approach to engaging with the game (loosely speaking, their "behavior", but labeling it as such is frought with peril and not exactly accurate), and something that can easily be changed and is a strict matter of choice rather than an element of orientation, race/ethnicity, faith, etc.
As long as they are painted, based, and follow the legion color scheme, its kosher in my book.
Blackshields say "hi". What are the 'legion color scheme' for them? They are written very explicitly as having a widely diverse range of apperance, from those who are literal blackshields to those who essentially founded their own pseudo-legions with more distinctive livery, symbols, and traditions, etc.
And then you know you're going to get the lost legion fanclub who make up their own silly cthulhumarines legion or whatever that they are going to counts-as another legion rules wise.
Gatekeeping is just trying to keep people out for any reason. There's not necessarily anything racial about it.
It generally has negative connotations though - with the term almost exclusively used to refer to keeping people out in a way that the speaker thinks they shouldn't.
No one ever says you're gatekeeping if you say it's not appropriate to use a coke can as a drop pod. They do say you're gatekeeping if you say you don't think their Primaris fit into Horus Heresy.
Gatekeeping is very specifically about attempting to ration, control, limit, or prevent access to a hobby or community by directly excluding individuals or groups, or by setting unreachable and unrealistic standards for inclusion that are designed to block or obstruct individuals or groups from entering (especially when those standards are designed in such a way as to prevent specific demographics from being able to meet said criteria). Nobody is ever accused of gatekeeping a hobby if they tell someone who is casually throwing homophobic or racist slurs to leave their gaming club - and theres a reason for that, because its understood that the removal was warranted on the basis that their behavior did not conform to expected behavioral and societal norms - the standard for inclusion here is fairly basic, don't act like an asshat and don't behave in a discriminatory or derogatory manner. Likewise, nobody would be accused of gatekeeping if a TO kicked someone out of a tournament after they showed up and demanded to borrow somebody elses dice, tape measure, rulebooks, and army because they don't own any of their own - the standard for inclusion here is fairly basic as well, make the same minimum buy-in and effort into a commercialized hobby and community that everyone else has made in order to participate in it (while there are definitely discussions to be had with regards to socio-economic access limitations inherent to the games pricing scheme, there are also ways to dramatically reduce the buy-in cost and attain access to both 40k and other games at negligible cost that is affordable to even some of the most impoverished individuals, a good friend managed to start 40k last year after he was rendered both homeless and jobless - not necessarily the wisest use of his limited resources at the time but he managed to make more money than he spent by trading odds and ends for peoples junk minis, refurbing them, and selling the things he didn't need at a profit so he could buy bigger and better lots on eBay, etc.). The reason this isn't defined as gatekeeping is because the standards for inclusion in both cases are realistic, reachable, and attainable by all and are in the interest of fairness to others within the community and hobby.
Telling people "you can't use your Primaris marines" or "please tone down your list" isn't trying to keep anyone out. You're not keeping or forcing anyone out of the hobby space or game community, you're encouraging conformance to fairly reasonable standards and norms and maintaining the common etiquette within the tabletop miniatures hobby space, no different than if you told someone that they can't use their 15mm Flames of War minis to play 40k or if you told someone that you aren't interested in playing their homebrew army of 5 point Leman Russ Battle Tanks. All what they have to do to participate in Horus Heresy is to do the bare minimum of what is expected of a player of any tabletop game - acquire the appropriate materials and follow the community guidelines on gameplay etiquette - if they don't want to do that, they can always find another player or gaming group that will tolerate their approach to the game or find another game to play entirely.
Of course, you can still be *accused* of gatekeeping - but an accusation isn't automatically valid. In reality, the only reason we are having this discussion is because people have a tendency to think in terms of "Space Marines are Space Marines", but thats kinda like saying an Ancient Roman Legionnaire is the same as a WW2 Italian Bersaglieri. They might both be residents of the Italian Peninsula but they clearly are not the same. No reasoable person would attempt to bring their Roman Legionnaires to a game of Bolt Action and insist on the validity of their play, no reasonable person would tolerate someone who attempted to do so. The same standard holds for Horus Heresy and Space Marines. If you were really gatekeeping, instead you would insist that in order for a person to play Horus Heresy they would first need to collect at least 10,000 points of Space Marines from their chosen legion, organized around a pre-approved TO&E or ORBAT selected from a specific campaign or conflict that the legion fought in, and painted using paints that are an exact pantone color match for the official paint scheme and using only the official insignia, markings, and symbols used based on official artwork and documentation sourced from official publications, with no room for customization or artistic embellishment or variation based on personal style. That would certainly meet the criteria of setting an unrealistic standard (if the average game size is 3k points, you have no right to demand people collect 10k points first, you have no right to dictate what people choose to buy and build, you have no right to insist that they collect a fully "fluff accurate" force that conforms to the published description of a unit in a novel or black book vs one which they created for themselves, you have no right to disqualify people for choosing to reinterpret an official color scheme with slightly different shades or tones of color or for painting using the 'Eavy Metal style instead of your preferred grimdark style, or for creating a custom campaign badge, etc. - yeah, some of you guys are cutting it pretty close with your ridiculous insistence that HH minis must be painted in a certain style OR ELSE, good luck enforcing that one at anything other than the most localized level).
Well said, though I will say that I think a better approach to "you can't use primaris marines" is that if they're a new player and that's all they have, play a game with them so they can get the ropes then just make a polite, but firm, statement along the lines of "that was a fun game, you should think about XYZ because it fits a little better."
tauist wrote: I find this really hard to comprehend, aren't we talking about a time period of 10,000 years, spanning a vast area of the galaxy, featuring about a demicompany to a company of Marines from a total pool of 100's of thousands?
Horus Heresy is very specifically a time period of about ~10 years (as it excludes the ~200 year period of the Great Crusade and the ~1000 year period of the Scouring that occurred before and after it). It spans the galaxy in the same way World War 2 spanned the globe - there were events occurring across the globe, but that doesn't mean the Germans were fighting tank battles against the Soviets in South America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmiralRon wrote: Well said, though I will say that I think a better approach to "you can't use primaris marines" is that if they're a new player and that's all they have, play a game with them so they can get the ropes then just make a polite, but firm, statement along the lines of "that was a fun game, you should think about XYZ because it fits a little better."
Agreed. Thats the approach I would take, if the player in question is clearly of the stance "I want to try before I buy" then I'm fine playing a few proxy test battles using their 40k minis. If the player in question is instead of the stance of "I already have this 40k chaos space marine/Primaris/custom post-Codex Astartes chapter and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't just continue to use this same army with no meaningful or reasonable attempt made to try to make them fit within the quasi-historical context of the setting", then they are welcome to that opinion but they will have to find someone else to play with because I will not be participating in a game like that with them. I'm not going to be a gakhole about it, but I'm not going to enable or encourage that behavior either.
EDIT - That being said, if someone were to convert 40k marines into 30k marines and had a good reason for it, like if they built and collected a pre-Heresy type army years before Forgeworld released an official model range, or if they had some neat fluff about how their force are meant to be legion special forces and they got kitted out in early prototype Mk 7 armor, etc. but made a reasonable effort to convert them with period-appropriate chapter badges, colors schemes, weapons, iconography, etc. then I would be cool with it. But my tolerance expires at the point that these decision are motiviated by laziness and/or stinginess. If you're not going to put a minimum level of effort and investment into it then you shouldn't expect to be able to participate - its unfair and disrespectful to those who do put the time investment and monetary effort into attempting to do the setting justice to take the cheap and easy route here.
If we weren't getting a big box, my entry point would probably be using the less chaos mutated torsos from the CSM kits with MK IV helmets arms and packs since you can buy giant lots of those bits on ebay for fairly cheap.
Ok, so it's roughly ten years instead of 10,000.. That still leaves quite a lot of ground to cover spatially and by the numbers of Marines.
If my "Historic" interpretation of the Horus Heresy comes from GW circa 1990, how is it any less valid than the 2022 interpretation? We all know History does not equal truth, and truth is always the first cassualty of any war.
My History interpretation is that the MkVI is THAT Armour of the Heresy and was used wide spread under the 18 Legions. I "grow up" with the IA Books and have bit of a "romantic" view on RT-Era 40k.
In c. 2006 - 2014, I had a Heresy-Era World Eaters Army mixed with what was available at this time.
Now we’ve announced the upcoming edition of the Horus Heresy game, players will be pleased to note that all of the Exemplary Battles units we’ve published in this series will have their profiles updated to work with the new rules – stay tuned for more, but rest assured they will remain usable. In fact, they were all written for the new edition and then reverse-engineered to fit the current one – it’s almost like we had a plan all along…
I have no idea what your interpretation is, I was just clarifying scale. I think if you're talking about building your HH army around RT era depictions of the Heresy then its a valid choice/interpretation as long as its actually, yknow a Horus Heresy era legion and not Blood Ravens that you're trying to count as Blood Angels or whatever and that you're using appropriate Heresy era equipment for it. If current or previous fluff says Mk VI and Indomitus pattern TDA was used during the Heresy, then you're fine. If it doesn't (and never has), then you're not. Simple as.
I understand you are saying its not gate keeping, but i said it before.
We live in the hobby age where any barrier of entry is considered gate keeping by a lot of people in the community now.
If i were to say, "Hey i expect you to bring 30k models to play 30k." i would be called out for gatekeeping because i dont want someone using primaris marines or the baby walker as a dread.
Thats considered gatekeeping.
Hell i was told i gate kept because i told some one i would not play with them until they read the rules for their army.
We live in very strange times where common things to the hobby are now considered gatekeeping.
Gert wrote: If I call a dog a dolphin does it make it a dolphin?
No because a dolphin or a dog are not an idea or a concept. Its a thing.
A dog is a dog a dolphin is a dolphin
What people consider gatekeeping is a subjective matter, and its definition over time has changed. Meanings change.
Ideas that people at one point did not consider as gatekeeping, are now considered gatekeeping tactic, there is nothing really controversial about that. But because what is considered gate keeping has changed, its now lumping a lot of people into it.
Backspacehacker wrote: No because a dolphin or a dog are not an idea or a concept. Its a thing.
A dog is a dog a dolphin is a dolphin
What people consider gatekeeping is a subjective matter, and its definition over time has changed. Meanings change.
Or it's people who have gotten their way all their life and are throwing a hissy fit about not being allowed to do what they want all the time and have just latched onto a buzzword.
An actual instance of HH gatekeeping would be preventing younger fans from joining in your games because they're too young to know why HH is so cool or some other nonsense.
Backspacehacker wrote: No because a dolphin or a dog are not an idea or a concept. Its a thing.
A dog is a dog a dolphin is a dolphin
What people consider gatekeeping is a subjective matter, and its definition over time has changed. Meanings change.
Or it's people who have gotten their way all their life and are throwing a hissy fit about not being allowed to do what they want all the time and have just latched onto a buzzword.
Actual instances of HH gatekeeping would be preventing younger fans from joining in your games because they're too young to know why HH is so cool or some other nonsense.
Effectively yes, that's why near everything is called gate keeping. So in that sense, If I, were to say, "Hey If you wanna play dont bring net lists, and try to have your army lore accurate" any more thats considered gate keeping. When in actuallity, thats just adhering to what the hobby/game is about.
I agree its really not gatekeeping its just asking someone to follow the rules, but if people wanna call me a gatekeeper for that, then im a gate keeper.
Trying to keep someone out for no reason other then "because i said so" is peak stupidity no one wins there.
Backspacehacker wrote: Effectively yes, that's why near everything is called gate keeping. So in that sense, If I, were to say, "Hey If you wanna play dont bring net lists, and try to have your army lore accurate" any more thats considered gate keeping. When in actuallity, thats just adhering to what the hobby/game is about.
I agree its really not gatekeeping its just asking someone to follow the rules, but if people wanna call me a gatekeeper for that, then im a gate keeper.
Trying to keep someone out for no reason other then "because i said so" is peak stupidity no one wins there.
But by agreeing with them and using the term you are giving it a power it doesn't actually have. You're not gatekeeping so don't apply the term to yourself. Do you know the kind of people who use the term to describe themselves? Because it isn't people who don't want Primaris used in a HH game.
Its the vocal minority vs the silent majority situation.
Side note though, think we will get expanded psyker power? right now there are only 6 and only 2 spells in each school right now. Seems pretty light, so hope we see more.
Biomancy, Pyromancy, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Malefic, and Sanctic seems enough. I really don't want to go back to the Angels of Death supplement days with its like 6 more disciplines, one of which made Iron Hands even harder to kill than before.
Oh i can fully agree on the sheer amount of powers that were present in 7th and HH being a bit over the top.
Butwould be nice to maybe have like 1 more for each school. Seems super light right now is all.
There's that word again, "lore accurate". In order to reach a consensus on what this actually means, we would have to first reach a consensus as on what exactly constitutes as "lore".
I always liked 40K because even if lore for it existed, there was also freedom to expand on the existing lore. This seems a concept alien to 30K fans it seems? So only valid things are what GW says. If GW introduces new aspects to existing HH lore, such as new units or formations, vehicle patterns, armour marks or doctrines of fighting, only they are acceptable, all else is discouraged. Its like a big middle finger to creativity, unless the outlet of such creativity falls in line neatly with existing, current (rights reserved for any retcons obvs) GW definitions.
Perhaps I'll just be better off avoiding 30K altogether. When 40K legends Firstborn, I can fall back to just playing Rogue Trader with my miniatures.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.
..Until GW rewrites the history and now you have to catch up on what actually happened. Right. You look at this from a timescale of years, I look at it from timescale of decades. The lore of HH has always been a moving target.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.
..Until GW rewrites the history and now you have to catch up on what actually happened. Right. You look at this from a timescale of years, I look at it from timescale of decades. The lore of HH has always been a moving target.
As long as they appear in some scheme that, that army either currently does, or has existed as, at some point in GW lore.
Thats considered lore accurate in my book.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.
..Until GW rewrites the history and now you have to catch up on what actually happened. Right. You look at this from a timescale of years, I look at it from timescale of decades. The lore of HH has always been a moving target.
As long as they appear in some scheme that, that army either currently does, or has existed as, at some point in GW lore.
Thats considered lore accurate in my book.
Yeah but what if the meaning of the word accurate shifts over time and then you have to repaint your army to be politically correct or no one will play you?
This is such a non discussion.
Is it not the consensus that outside of test games overly 40k armies (i.e. full Primaris or obviously post-HH colour schemes) aren't HH armies? What else is there to discuss.
Can we go back to bashing edge highlighting? I'm a recent convert to a more "military modelling" style aesthetic. I think the sort of painting styles covered in books such as this "Sci-Fi FAQ" (considering buying it btw) suit the Horus Heresy much better than the trad. 'Eavy Metal style.
You already had me @ "Legion colourschemes" (Legion BA are not Vermillion but Red) so don't worry, I will not be playing yall
Speaking of lore appropriate colour schemes, I am a bit enamoured with the shiny new beakies and have been wondering how I could use them. One thing I was considering was to go super retro and paint them in garish Rogue Trader era colours.
Crimson wrote: Might not go down so well with the HH crowd?
Just say they're Blackshields (renegade marines). I have some Iron Hands painted very, very dark blue (Incubi Darkness base) and if anyone questions it I just say it's their original Storm Walkers scheme.
Speaking of lore appropriate colour schemes, I am a bit enamoured with the shiny new beakies and have been wondering how I could use them. One thing I was considering was to go super retro and paint them in garish Rogue Trader era colours.
Might not go down so well with the HH crowd?
If it appeared as official GW then i say do it.
If someone showed up with an old school salamander army my only response would be....Nice.
As for edge highlighting, its a style that upclose loose kinda gross, but on table top it looks fine. The whole reason to do it is to make the details of the model pop when you are looking at it from the table..
Thats why the style is so popular because when you are looking at your models from like....3 feet away or more, you can see detail of the model, but up close it looks like dookie.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.
But we don't. We know *some* forces, and what *some* forces did, but we don't know *all* of it.
It's definitely got those historical aspects, sure, but it's also got plenty of flexibility for people who want that too. A big source of people's enjoyment could be "What If" scenarios too - such as "What If Lorgar was actually present at Calth and led a direct attack on Guilliman?" or "What If Horus had to physically bring Angron to heel at Istvaan III". Those aren't things that are "canon", but could well be covered in HH games.
Backspacehacker wrote:As long as they appear in some scheme that, that army either currently does, or has existed as, at some point in GW lore.
Thats considered lore accurate in my book.
Okay, but what happens if we don't know the whole lore, or when GW adds new stuff.
You're saying that if I showed up to you last week with red Raven Guard Terminators, you wouldn't play me, but now you would?
What happens when the lore says that there's plenty of room for alternative colour schemes or non-standard armour designs?
No, ravenguard had terminators why would they not have them?
If thats what the lore now said thats what the lore now said, as long as you are not showing up with things like candle apple red Luna wolves, im talking agregious color variations.
And no i would not NOT play you, i would just give you a whole lot of gak for the color scheme.
If anything lore currently even allows for you to do things like, having old old school sally colors vers their current scheme. Part of the....i guess, meta lore? of HH is that a lot of the information about the heresy is very convoluted and muddied so, showing up with previous schemes would still be kosher because at that point it only adds to the muddyness of the history of the HH.
It was specifically about red Terminators though, which before the EB didn't exist. So if someone showed up with red Raven Guard Terminators prior to the EB, you would have given them gak about it?
If thats what the lore now said thats what the lore now said, as long as you are not showing up with things like candle apple red Luna wolves, im talking agregious color variations.
So you give someone gak for painting their Sons of Horus with a red primary scheme, then a day later a new HH book comes out with a group of SoH that wears red as they are proto-CSM Khorne worshippers, so now it's OK? That's such a dumb way to go about it. You keep making up these things to hate and be afraid of, just stop.
And no i would not NOT play you, i would just give you a whole lot of gak for the color scheme.
Yeah if the color scheme you painted it suddenly became lore friendly, i would be kosher with it because then at that point its lore accurate.
Whats so hard to get about that? If its not, then it is, i dont have a reason to poke fun at it any more.
Im not sure why you dont get that i have been very consistent on what i like and dont like.
If the army was at ever point a lore friendly color scheme that hey thats kosher, welcome aboard, if its not, im gonna poke and prod at you about it not being lore accurate. If suddenly the next day its lore accurate because GW updated, then i dont have a reaosn to poke and prod anymore.
If thats being a prat then sure, im a prat, but around here we call it banter.
Backspacehacker wrote:No, ravenguard had terminators why would they not have them?
Red Terminators.
If thats what the lore now said thats what the lore now said, as long as you are not showing up with things like candle apple red Luna wolves, im talking agregious color variations.
So, like red Raven Guard? Or red White Scars? Or black Ultramarines? Or black Imperial Fists?
What counts as egregious here?
And no i would not NOT play you, i would just give you a whole lot of gak for the color scheme.
But it's canon. It should be giving you gak for how you clearly don't know the Super Important Historical Lore - I suggest you do better research. The Raven Guard absolutely had red Terminators.
If anything lore currently even allows for you to do things like, having old old school sally colors vers their current scheme. Part of the....i guess, meta lore? of HH is that a lot of the information about the heresy is very convoluted and muddied so, showing up with previous schemes would still be kosher because at that point it only adds to the muddyness of the history of the HH.
Exactly - the convoluted and muddiness of the HH "lore" means that anything could be possible, because that "history" is so muddied and messy.
Congratulations - you've explained why any colour scheme could be valid.
Backspacehacker wrote:No, ravenguard had terminators why would they not have them?
Red Terminators.
If thats what the lore now said thats what the lore now said, as long as you are not showing up with things like candle apple red Luna wolves, im talking agregious color variations.
So, like red Raven Guard? Or red White Scars? Or black Ultramarines? Or black Imperial Fists?
What counts as egregious here?
And no i would not NOT play you, i would just give you a whole lot of gak for the color scheme.
But it's canon. It should be giving you gak for how you clearly don't know the Super Important Historical Lore - I suggest you do better research. The Raven Guard absolutely had red Terminators.
If anything lore currently even allows for you to do things like, having old old school sally colors vers their current scheme. Part of the....i guess, meta lore? of HH is that a lot of the information about the heresy is very convoluted and muddied so, showing up with previous schemes would still be kosher because at that point it only adds to the muddyness of the history of the HH.
Exactly - the convoluted and muddiness of the HH "lore" means that anything could be possible, because that "history" is so muddied and messy.
Congratulations - you've explained why any colour scheme could be valid.
Check my post just above yours for my stance.
Could =/= is.
If you painted pink SoH, im gonna make fun and tease you, in good jest, about pink SoH, if suddenly GW comes out and says "Yep there were pink SoH" i dont have a reason to poke and jest any longer.
Backspacehacker wrote: Yeah if the color scheme you painted it suddenly became lore friendly, i would be kosher with it because then at that point its lore accurate.
Whats so hard to get about that? If its not, then it is, i dont have a reason to poke fun at it any more.
Im not sure why you dont get that i have been very consistent on what i like and dont like.
If the army was at ever point a lore friendly color scheme that hey thats kosher, welcome aboard, if its not, im gonna poke and prod at you about it not being lore accurate. If suddenly the next day its lore accurate because GW updated, then i dont have a reaosn to poke and prod anymore.
If thats being a prat then sure, im a prat, but around here we call it banter.
There is a difference between poking fun and giving people gak, they aren't the same thing.
But again, you're making up boogeymen to be annoyed at so...
Backspacehacker wrote: Yeah if the color scheme you painted it suddenly became lore friendly, i would be kosher with it because then at that point its lore accurate.
But you've just said how the lore is convoluted and messy - and evidently, the lore isn't all-encompassing on day one, because otherwise, you'd know about these red Raven Guard Terminators.
It's almost like it's an expansive setting, not a restrictive one.
Whats so hard to get about that?
Because it's absolutely ridiculous that you'd turn someone away at the start of the week for having models painted a certain way, and then by the end of that week, tell them that they're totally fine. It's absurd.
Im not sure why you dont get that i have been very consistent on what i like and dont like.
No, if anything, you're being consistent in inconsistency. You're showcasing to us that you don't have your own standards, you just wait for someone at GW to tell you what's okay (even though those same people at GW have made it very clear that their setting is open to personal interpretation and creativity.)
If the army was at ever point a lore friendly color scheme that hey thats kosher, welcome aboard, if its not, im gonna poke and prod at you about it not being lore accurate. If suddenly the next day its lore accurate because GW updated, then i dont have a reaosn to poke and prod anymore.
Except it's not "prodding and poking", is it? It's pushing people away and ignoring how the setting encourages creativity Why the hell would I ever want to come back and play with you now?
If thats being a prat then sure, im a prat, but around here we call it banter.
Yeah, no. Still being a prat. Sorry, just calling facts.
Backspacehacker wrote: Yeah if the color scheme you painted it suddenly became lore friendly, i would be kosher with it because then at that point its lore accurate.
Whats so hard to get about that? If its not, then it is, i dont have a reason to poke fun at it any more.
Im not sure why you dont get that i have been very consistent on what i like and dont like.
If the army was at ever point a lore friendly color scheme that hey thats kosher, welcome aboard, if its not, im gonna poke and prod at you about it not being lore accurate. If suddenly the next day its lore accurate because GW updated, then i dont have a reaosn to poke and prod anymore.
If thats being a prat then sure, im a prat, but around here we call it banter.
There is a difference between poking fun and giving people gak, they aren't the same thing.
But again, you're making up boogeymen to be annoyed at so...
Then there might be a lost in translation thing going on here.
In burgerland, "Giving someone gak" is the same as jest and banter.
At the end of the day, if someone shows up with a rainbow color scheme and says well it could be a thing, im still gonna gak (jest and pordding over in burgerland) about the color scheme. Im not gonna rip on their painting level or skill, but the scheme itself i will, as everyone in my area acts this way and everone understands its not spiteful or with mal intent.
If suddenly GW comes out and goes "Hey rainbow warriors were in the HH" ill probably give, and expect back, equal levels of gak for said person being a prophet for GW and ask him to paint up something else to see if GW will pick that up.
If anything you are all making a non issue outta somethat that I do, and everyone in my community does, over the way we interact with other players. I just dont get it hoenstly.
Two weeks ago, the Raven Guard didn't have red Terminators according to you. Hell, you STILL didn't know until just now. I guess you're really not in a position to be talking about the canon, I guess.
If you painted pink SoH, im gonna make fun and tease you, in good jest, about pink SoH, if suddenly GW comes out and says "Yep there were pink SoH" i dont have a reason to poke and jest any longer.
But why? What is there to make fun of? Sounds like you're just looking for excuses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: In burgerland, "Giving someone gak" is the same as jest and banter.
And "banter" when someone doesn't want it is just being an insensitive prat.
Banter and jest only work when all parties agree that it is.
Two weeks ago, the Raven Guard didn't have red Terminators according to you. Hell, you STILL didn't know until just now. I guess you're really not in a position to be talking about the canon, I guess.
If you painted pink SoH, im gonna make fun and tease you, in good jest, about pink SoH, if suddenly GW comes out and says "Yep there were pink SoH" i dont have a reason to poke and jest any longer.
But why? What is there to make fun of? Sounds like you're just looking for excuses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: In burgerland, "Giving someone gak" is the same as jest and banter.
And "banter" when someone doesn't want it is just being an insensitive prat.
Banter and jest only work when all parties agree that it is.
Because i dont stay glued to every single announcement that GW makes, especially if its over social media because i dont use it.
When i find out about something does not really have anything to do with the conversation.
Because at no point did they have pink SoH and i would think it would be silly, to go that far out there with them.
Then i guess....deal with it? If im a dick im a dick, but tahts how we operate over here.
Backspacehacker wrote:If anything you are all making a non issue outta somethat that I do, and everyone in my community does, over the way we interact with other players. I just dont get it hoenstly.
You know what I think is the real case of "making a non-issue" out of? Ripping into people over the colour scheme of their little plastic and resin toys and saying you wouldn't play with them over it. I don't get it honestly.
So - still wanna play with these red Raven Guard Terminators?
Backspacehacker wrote:If anything you are all making a non issue outta somethat that I do, and everyone in my community does, over the way we interact with other players. I just dont get it hoenstly.
You know what I think is the real case of "making a non-issue" out of? Ripping into people over the colour scheme of their little plastic and resin toys and saying you wouldn't play with them over it. I don't get it honestly.
So - still wanna play with these red Raven Guard Terminators?
10/10 would play, even if they were pink i would still play you, i would just make sure that every time i would be throwing out one liners like "Going to be shooting the pink panthers," or "Firing at the neon army" if things like that dont bother you then here i come.
Then after drag you outta that store and
Spoiler:
buy a pizza and beer at the pie shop next to use they have a good meat and pepperchinii pizza
Backspacehacker wrote: Because i dont stay glued to every single announcement that GW makes, especially if its over social media because i dont use it.
Gee - doesn't sound like you're *that* dedicated then. Guess you're not really that much of an authority on the 'true historical nature' of 30k then.
And yeah, if that sounds hyperbolic, I guess I'm just matching the absurdity of "I'd give you gak over your models until GW said otherwise, and then you're fine" - it's absolute lunacy.
Because at no point did they have pink SoH and i would think it would be silly, to go that far out there with them.
Why? And why wouldn't they have pink Sons of Horus? Why is that any more ridiculous than black Ultramarines, or black Imperial Fists, or red White Scars, or red Raven Guard, or grey Word Bearers? It's just a colour.
Then i guess....deal with it?
You know, maybe if you're concerned about these allegations of gatekeeping, maybe that's the attitude that people are talking about. You don't really get to kick up a fuss about people being worried about gatekeeping when you make comments like that.
Personally don't really care about "wrong" color schemes for legions, since we've already seen variations in companies across legions *cough*first company SoH*cough*.
What would rub me the wrong way would be taking the 40k successor chapters and insisting they're era accurate. Want to play red RG? Rock on dude.
Calling them Blood Ravens and insisting they existed in the heresy? Slow down cowboy.
Ok so be it?
I have a big group of people i play with and thats just how we all play together, we dont intend to change so thats how its going to be.
We play for fun, we play for accuracy to lore that exists or has existed, we banter and tease, then we drink after.
If someone new comes in we expect them to conform to that, thats all we ask for and all we want.
AdmiralRon wrote: Personally don't really care about "wrong" color schemes for legions, since we've already seen variations in companies across legions *cough*first company SoH*cough*.
What would rub me the wrong way would be taking the 40k successor chapters and insisting they're era accurate. Want to play red RG? Rock on dude.
Calling them Blood Ravens and insisting they existed in the heresy? Slow down cowboy.
Yeah, now that's fair - or hell, even if you took things like a successor Chapter but flavoured it as "yeah, these are *insert Chapter here*, they're still *insert Legion*, but they're later gonna become *Chapter*, and this is the colour scheme they were using on XYZ Campaign".
It's how you can get things like Black Templar iconography and designs in Imperial Fist armies, or Carcharadon designs in a Raven Guard army. More than anything, it just comes down to effort and honesty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: We play for fun, we play for accuracy to lore that exists or has existed
Yeah, but that's the issue - that "accuracy" is a moving target, and it's not even all-encompassing. FW have made it very clear that the Heresy was expansive and massive in scale, and that alternative uniforms and unconventional forces weren't uncommon. If you *want* to be truly accurate to "lore that exists or has existed", then you should be open to personal creativity.
If it's people clearly having no effort or care, that's a different matter, but don't mistake someone going for a non-standard army as someone who doesn't care about the setting.
That's the core of this back and forth. Like I said before, if there wasn't a starter box for me to buy in a few months, my plan would be/was to use CSM for EC but I would put in effort to convert them to be something passable as late heresy.
In fact, I have a few models where I filed off any Eye of Horus or Eight-Point Star iconography on the torsos/legs,
then took MK IV helmets, arms and backpacks that I had laying around from a bits lot I bought years ago. They looked okay.
I've made SM out of CSM before. That old CSM kit actually makes for some nice baroque looking marines once you give em the de-spiking treatment. I may actually go that route if I decide I want to add more bodies to the RG list.
Now that said, knights being your dudes i say go for it.
Part of the reason i like knights is they are the most "Your dude" army out there, im HOPING in 2.0 they are in a nice balance spot where they are not to strong and not to weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: I've made SM out of CSM before. That old CSM kit actually makes for some nice baroque looking marines once you give em the de-spiking treatment. I may actually go that route if I decide I want to add more bodies to the RG list.
Just syaing....making a whole army of the mutated loyal raven guards, i forgot their name from deliverance lost, that would be really cool.
Backspacehacker wrote: Then i guess....deal with it? If im a dick im a dick, but tahts how we operate over here.
You could... choose not to be a dick about it, though? I'd start by considering why you seemingly don't want to.
Again, its just the way we operate as a group of friend, we dicks to each other, its how we push ourselves.
We do it in the gym as well, same thing, we all know its not spiteful or in malice we just are dicks like taht because we use it to push our selves, same thing in painting, and in the game. Except i nthe game we push to keep it what we like, the fluffy armies and thematic/dramatic battles. not tourny style.
Like ok, example here, i know im a bad painter, and we joke about how bad i am at painting, i know its not in malice, and we end up showing each other how to fix speceific problems.
Outside looking in, it looks super hostile, but its really not, its how we are.
Well, glad we could just cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter.
AdmiralRon wrote: Personally don't really care about "wrong" color schemes for legions, since we've already seen variations in companies across legions *cough*first company SoH*cough*.
What would rub me the wrong way would be taking the 40k successor chapters and insisting they're era accurate. Want to play red RG? Rock on dude.
Calling them Blood Ravens and insisting they existed in the heresy? Slow down cowboy.
100% this. The "it has to be official" nonsense ignores the part where GW has been very clear in saying that despite the legions having certain standard colors and symbols, etc. there were all sorts of special snowflake units and subdivisions within them that had their own separate appearances and traditions. Hell, GW has explored a number of these officially (Black Templars within the the Imp Fists, for example) in order to demonstrate what this looks like. The fluff is open ended and exists to allow a framework for people to create their own stuff within it. Want pink SoH? Go for it, its a 100% legitimate (as opposed to "official") approach within the construct of the framework and guidelines GW has provided to us, all you need is the thinnest veneer of fluff to justify it, and nobody has any right to tease or jest about it based on their ill-conceived notions of illegitimacy.
If you want to be a dick and enforce standards of "accuracy", go play historicals, theres not nearly as much room for subjectivity there.
Well, glad we could just cut to the chase and get to the heart of the matter.
AdmiralRon wrote: Personally don't really care about "wrong" color schemes for legions, since we've already seen variations in companies across legions *cough*first company SoH*cough*.
What would rub me the wrong way would be taking the 40k successor chapters and insisting they're era accurate. Want to play red RG? Rock on dude.
Calling them Blood Ravens and insisting they existed in the heresy? Slow down cowboy.
100% this. The "it has to be official" nonsense ignores the part where GW has been very clear in saying that despite the legions having certain standard colors and symbols, etc. there were all sorts of special snowflake units and subdivisions within them that had their own separate appearances and traditions. Hell, GW has explored a number of these officially (Black Templars within the the Imp Fists, for example) in order to demonstrate what this looks like. The fluff is open ended and exists to allow a framework for people to create their own stuff within it. Want pink SoH? Go for it, its a 100% legitimate (as opposed to "official") approach within the construct of the framework and guidelines GW has provided to us, all you need is the thinnest veneer of fluff to justify it, and nobody has any right to tease or jest about it based on their ill-conceived notions of illegitimacy.
If you want to be a dick and enforce standards of "accuracy", go play historicals, theres not nearly as much room for subjectivity there.
I do think there has to be SOME visual tie back to the parent Legion IMO (unless you're doing Blackshields); even just the Legion symbol somewhere would be fine by me.
Using the time I'm writing this, if someone were to paint pastel white, purple, green, and yellow World Eaters, I'd still want to see the World Eaters Legion symbol somewhere, and I'd encourage whoever brought them to have or make up some kind of fluff behind their choice.
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
there are 6 core reactions, 2 for movement, 2 for shooting and 2 for assault phases +1 for each of the legion specific ones
Advance and withdrawer for movement phase
return fire and evade (give 5+ damage mitigation role for shrouded) for shooting
overwatch and hold the line for assault phase
That's great news! As bad as 40k is for marines, I might switch to HH. I used to play it during 7th but had a FW mechanicum army that I regrettably sold to help fund a down payment on my house. Of all the armies I've bought and sold in my life, that one hurts the most.
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
Honestly auspex is going to be more of a concern you will need to worry about if you utilize deep strike.
As said, the reactions really arnt that bad and OP as a lot were fearing. I suspect you will be able to do some pretty cheeky combos, but the importance now of pinning is going to be a big deal since pinning a target stops it from also reacting.
Also you are limited to 3 reactions a phase, a single unit can not perform multiple reactions in a turn(I think its turn and not phase ill need to check again) and right now warlords majority of the warlords only provide an extra reaction in a specific phase.
The most power version of this is a generic warlord trait that gives you an extra reaction a turn to use in any phase, but only on the warlord and unit he is in.
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
Honestly auspex is going to be more of a concern you will need to worry about if you utilize deep strike.
As said, the reactions really arnt that bad and OP as a lot were fearing. I suspect you will be able to do some pretty cheeky combos, but the importance now of pinning is going to be a big deal since pinning a target stops it from also reacting.
Also you are limited to 3 reactions a phase, a single unit can not perform multiple reactions in a turn(I think its turn and not phase ill need to check again) and right now warlords majority of the warlords only provide an extra reaction in a specific phase.
The most power version of this is a generic warlord trait that gives you an extra reaction a turn to use in any phase, but only on the warlord and unit he is in.
Reactions are one per phase so the interceptor that the Augary scanners give is fairly easy to survive especially if you are doing a deep strike assault.
DSA is basically all your DS units go into one reserve roll and come down at the same time, no more being in b2b they just have to be in conherency and can assault on the turn they drop down in addition no more mishaps, if you land on a unit they can re deploy your models anywhere on the table up to 18" away from your drop point, deep strike assault is going to be powerful and units will need wrapping like 40k
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
Honestly auspex is going to be more of a concern you will need to worry about if you utilize deep strike.
As said, the reactions really arnt that bad and OP as a lot were fearing. I suspect you will be able to do some pretty cheeky combos, but the importance now of pinning is going to be a big deal since pinning a target stops it from also reacting.
Also you are limited to 3 reactions a phase, a single unit can not perform multiple reactions in a turn(I think its turn and not phase ill need to check again) and right now warlords majority of the warlords only provide an extra reaction in a specific phase.
The most power version of this is a generic warlord trait that gives you an extra reaction a turn to use in any phase, but only on the warlord and unit he is in.
Reactions are one per phase so the interceptor that the Augary scanners give is fairly easy to survive especially if you are doing a deep strike assault.
DSA is basically all your DS units go into one reserve roll and come down at the same time, no more being in b2b they just have to be in conherency and can assault on the turn they drop down in addition no more mishaps, if you land on a unit they can re deploy your models anywhere on the table up to 18" away from your drop point, deep strike assault is going to be powerful and units will need wrapping like 40k
true but Auspex does NOT consume a reaction point. so you can use the augary 3 times if you bought 3 of them, which can be pretty rough if you consider what it could end up meaning.
Basically positioning is going to be a lot more important this time around with DS.
Also you are allowed to make 3 perphase, not 1 perphase, its 1 reaction per unit per phase.
Im trying to dig through and find the Augery because i was fairly confident that it mentioned it did not take a reaction point.
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
Honestly auspex is going to be more of a concern you will need to worry about if you utilize deep strike.
As said, the reactions really arnt that bad and OP as a lot were fearing. I suspect you will be able to do some pretty cheeky combos, but the importance now of pinning is going to be a big deal since pinning a target stops it from also reacting.
Also you are limited to 3 reactions a phase, a single unit can not perform multiple reactions in a turn(I think its turn and not phase ill need to check again) and right now warlords majority of the warlords only provide an extra reaction in a specific phase.
The most power version of this is a generic warlord trait that gives you an extra reaction a turn to use in any phase, but only on the warlord and unit he is in.
Reactions are one per phase so the interceptor that the Augary scanners give is fairly easy to survive especially if you are doing a deep strike assault.
DSA is basically all your DS units go into one reserve roll and come down at the same time, no more being in b2b they just have to be in conherency and can assault on the turn they drop down in addition no more mishaps, if you land on a unit they can re deploy your models anywhere on the table up to 18" away from your drop point, deep strike assault is going to be powerful and units will need wrapping like 40k
true but Auspex does NOT consume a reaction point. so you can use the augary 3 times if you bought 3 of them, which can be pretty rough if you consider what it could end up meaning.
Basically positioning is going to be a lot more important this time around with DS.
Also you are allowed to make 3 perphase, not 1 perphase, its 1 reaction per unit per phase.
Ohhhh thanks for pointing that out, so each reaction can be used as many times as you have RP left (up to 3 with exception to augary which can exceed it) but each unit can only make one reaction per phase, and yeah Augary does not use a point but does count as a reaction for the amount of reactions the unit can make that phase.
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
there are 6 core reactions, 2 for movement, 2 for shooting and 2 for assault phases +1 for each of the legion specific ones
Advance and withdrawer for movement phase
return fire and evade (give 5+ damage mitigation role for shrouded) for shooting
overwatch and hold the line for assault phase
That's great news! As bad as 40k is for marines, I might switch to HH. I used to play it during 7th but had a FW mechanicum army that I regrettably sold to help fund a down payment on my house. Of all the armies I've bought and sold in my life, that one hurts the most.
Oh man, I just love the look of Mechanicum automata! I've been thinking that if I ever go "soup" with my army, I want to include a small patrol detatchment (or whatever is its equivalent in HH) of SoB with that cool black flying submarine of theirs, and a hefty bunch of Mechanicum Automata to support my IXth Legion main force.
Speaking of reactions, just make sure your armies have a healthy supply of pinning weapons and you'll be fine. I'm thinking of getting me some of that Nemesis Bolter goodness, and at least some pinning weaponry for my walkers & support vehicles.
You can never, no matter what, exceed 3 reactions per phase. So lets say you had some how, 3 reactions points and 3 augery.
If you used interceptor 3 times, even though you still have 3 reactions points you cant spend them because you hit your limit of 3 per phase.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Wouldnt that be unless your Warlord Trait allows you to make an additional reaction in X Phase?
Not at all, every army no matter what, gets 1 reaction point per phase. So no matter what you can make a reaction in each phase every turn.
Warlords give you the ability to make a second. Primarchs provide a +1 reactions to a specific phase, like magnus gives one in the assault phase, i think dorn gives one in the shooting phase.
And the generic warlord trait gives you +1 reaction per turn, that you can use in any phase.
Majority of the time armies are only going to have 1 reaction per phase, with the exception to a specific phase where their warlord gives them an extra, but only in that phase. Out of all the rule leaks, i have not seen a single thing that boosts your reaction points in any phase beyond 2, i also have not seen anything that gives you more then a single phase with 2 reactions in it.
GW seems to be very conservative with reaction points.
And quoting the rules again, you may NEVER exceed 3 reactions in a given phase unless you have a special rule that says you can.
Sorry i got that last part backward you can exceed it only if you ahve a specials rule that says you can.
All this talk about being a part of the lore has given me an idea. I will name my legionnaires as "The Angels Vermillion", a small part of the IXth legion who eventually broke off into the same named chapter during the Second Founding. This explains their nonstandard colourscheme. As for why some their chapter symbols differ from the "right one", they got Mk VI to replenish their ranks and adopted the "new" BA symbol (the one used in 40K) before it became the standard one for the Blood Angels during the Second Founding. Heck, few of their vets (like Brother Furian) still hold on to their MkIV and the HH-era chapter symbol, and the banner their Ancient is toting has the RT era Chapter symbol. It's a mismash of the small details, and depicts the shift in the forces' customs, gradually moving further from the commonly adopted Legion uniforms and symbols..
What's the story about Aquilas? Are they strictly Haram in times of HH? I mean, my resin contemptor even has one..
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Wouldnt that be unless your Warlord Trait allows you to make an additional reaction in X Phase?
Not at all, every army no matter what, gets 1 reaction point per phase. So no matter what you can make a reaction in each phase every turn.
Warlords give you the ability to make a second. Primarchs provide a +1 reactions to a specific phase, like magnus gives one in the assault phase, i think dorn gives one in the shooting phase.
And the generic warlord trait gives you +1 reaction per turn, that you can use in any phase.
Majority of the time armies are only going to have 1 reaction per phase, with the exception to a specific phase where their warlord gives them an extra, but only in that phase. Out of all the rule leaks, i have not seen a single thing that boosts your reaction points in any phase beyond 2, i also have not seen anything that gives you more then a single phase with 2 reactions in it.
GW seems to be very conservative with reaction points.
And quoting the rules again, you may NEVER exceed 3 reactions in a given phase unless you have a special rule that says you can.
Sorry i got that last part backward you can exceed it only if you ahve a specials rule that says you can.
Alright cool, I misread it then when I looked over the rules. I like the limit, removes some of my worries about Reactions.
AdmiralRon wrote: Aquillas is even more kosher in the siege of terra where the imperial forces got to bust out the shiny MKVII armor.
Might be interesting to play into that oddball RT angle by building a unit with MkVI body but with MkVII helmets. IIRC there used to be metal minis like that some time before the official MkVII model design materialized. The way I see it, the timeperiod close to the SoT is going to be my jam anyways.
Ohh snap.. what about the crux terminatus? That only existed post-heresy? Aint no way I'm going to mess with my Space Hulk tribute models..
THere are some exceptions though, like i said interceptor could be really scary vs DS armies.
I recall but im not 100% sure, that the augry grants you the use of interceptor, but also does not consume a point to use it. Which if thats the case, the Augery scanner is going to be an auto take
Deepstrike is *nutty* now.
All of your deepstriking forced arrive at once (so one reserve roll for all of them). When doing so you place down one model and scatter it (rerolls if a Vox has LoS to the drop point, RAW the deepstriking unit can use it's own vox!), once scattered you place the rest of the unit anywhere within coherency. Then, you place the rest of the drop force anywhere within 12", no scatter. Then, every enemy within 6" of a dropped unit needs to take a pinning test. Then they can interceptor if they like. Oh and you can still charge after deepstrike.
That means you can very accurately deepstrike units right on top of the enemy if you bring more than one.
To counter balance this Auguries are a bit nutty as well - they give the unit a free Interceptor that ignores all restrictions like max-3 as well. So spam those everywhere and you can really maul a deepstrike force.
Other than the pinning test caused by thr deepstrike (which is not something you can rely on), there's no way to pin these units first as they'll recover at the end of their turn right before you deepstrike.
Overall this creates a deepstrike dynamic which is very much all in or quits. If you try and deepstrike just 1-2 units they won't benefit from the accuracy of multiple units dropping, and you'll just be giving your opponent free interceptor to kill them.
As a side note - snipers are very much in vogue now. They automatically get to choose their target, there's no Look Out Sir, and they're S5 and Rending (5+). They'll be able fairly effectively snipe out support characters and equipment such as the aforementioned Auguries, Vox, Sergeants, Apothecaries, etc.
From speaking to people who have played the new rules, the signficance of reactions is actually a common thread. It creates a lot of cagey play because often your own actions will hurt you more by giving away free actions than they will help.
Want your melee unit to soften up the enemy before a charge with a little volley? Sike, you've just given them a free shooting phase!
This is particularly bad in smaller point games whee your 1-2 reactions can cover a much greater portion of the battlefield than larger games.
Which sounds like everything I fear reactions would be.
That said, huge pinch of salt on this. The rules that have leaked are phase 1 for Traitors and phase 3 for the core rules and Loyalists. Allegedly there's been 5 playtest phases all up.
We can't say how much has changed since phase 3, but it certainly hasn't stayed the same.
kirotheavenger wrote: Deepstrike is *nutty* now.
All of your deepstriking forced arrive at once (so one reserve roll for all of them). When doing so you place down one model and scatter it (rerolls if a Vox has LoS to the drop point, RAW the deepstriking unit can use it's own vox!), once scattered you place the rest of the unit anywhere within coherency. Then, you place the rest of the drop force anywhere within 12", no scatter. Then, every enemy within 6" of a dropped unit needs to take a pinning test. Then they can interceptor if they like. Oh and you can still charge after deepstrike.
That means you can very accurately deepstrike units right on top of the enemy if you bring more than one.
To counter balance this Auguries are a bit nutty as well - they give the unit a free Interceptor that ignores all restrictions like max-3 as well. So spam those everywhere and you can really maul a deepstrike force.
Other than the pinning test caused by thr deepstrike (which is not something you can rely on), there's no way to pin these units first as they'll recover at the end of their turn right before you deepstrike.
Overall this creates a deepstrike dynamic which is very much all in or quits. If you try and deepstrike just 1-2 units they won't benefit from the accuracy of multiple units dropping, and you'll just be giving your opponent free interceptor to kill them.
As a side note - snipers are very much in vogue now. They automatically get to choose their target, there's no Look Out Sir, and they're S5 and Rending (5+). They'll be able fairly effectively snipe out support characters and equipment such as the aforementioned Auguries, Vox, Sergeants, Apothecaries, etc.
From speaking to people who have played the new rules, the signficance of reactions is actually a common thread. It creates a lot of cagey play because often your own actions will hurt you more by giving away free actions than they will help.
Want your melee unit to soften up the enemy before a charge with a little volley? Sike, you've just given them a free shooting phase!
This is particularly bad in smaller point games whee your 1-2 reactions can cover a much greater portion of the battlefield than larger games.
Which sounds like everything I fear reactions would be.
That said, huge pinch of salt on this. The rules that have leaked are phase 1 for Traitors and phase 3 for the core rules and Loyalists. Allegedly there's been 5 playtest phases all up.
We can't say how much has changed since phase 3, but it certainly hasn't stayed the same.
THis is why im excited to use the crimson guard.
You can start it off with a drop pod coming in, which iirc, i need to check again, drop pods reduce the scatter by half, so you can kick things off with an osiron drop pod, then drop in all your other units from DSR WHICH, Crimson guard gives your arriving units fear, to really help push that pinning test.
And yes, snipers are going to be very much a unit that you are never NOT going to regret taking.
As for assaulting outta deep strike, its cool, and im going to enjoy using it, but i also know its not healthy for the game. Being able to just drop it from deep strike like that then chage is totally insane.
Im excited for Osirons with plasma.
If traitor leaks are true im gonna have fun shooting out S10 plasma and slicing things up with the S14 sword muhahaha.
The traitor leaks are phase 1, vs phase 3 for the loyalists, and allegedly 5 phases in total.
We know the Traitors definitely haven't stayed the same.
They've almost certainly been toned down. Apparently Loyalist phase 1 was similar to traitors, but got reigned in.
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
Have the rules changed a lot, like, invalidating lists and armies or is it just a twerked edition ?
Seeing as the dread have like 6 wounds, is there a way to take them down as "quick" as before or have they become like super indestructible ?
kodos wrote: is it that bad as some thought with the amount of reactions there are?
Have the rules changed a lot, like, invalidating lists and armies or is it just a twerked edition ?
Seeing as the dread have like 6 wounds, is there a way to take them down as "quick" as before or have they become like super indestructible ?
Most armies are still legal.
There are some units which are rather conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps most notable Castafferrum Boxnaughts are gone, as are any legion specific units that don't have official models (Iron Havocs, Fulmentarus, etc).
Dreadnoughts are disgustingly durable now if they keep their playtest 3 stats. Contemptors having T7/2+ means they're all but immune to any small and medium firepower, and 5++/6W means they can shrug off far more AT firepower than any tank can hope to! Of course Leviathons are even worse, IIRC it takes more lascannons to kill a Leviathon than it does many super heavies!
I'm also 99.9% sure that these are playtest and that some things will change come final release.
The question is only what and how much.
Im with you there, personally i think that Phase 3 are more or less going to be the rules, and that phase 4 and 5 were just point tweeks and minor corrections.
I'm also 99.9% sure that these are playtest and that some things will change come final release.
The question is only what and how much.
Im with you there, personally i think that Phase 3 are more or less going to be the rules, and that phase 4 and 5 were just point tweeks and minor corrections.
I agree, I don't expect much to change.
Although I do expect Dreadnought durability to change if there's two braincells to rub together somewhere in the design studio.
tauist wrote: All this talk about being a part of the lore has given me an idea. I will name my legionnaires as "The Angels Vermillion", a small part of the IXth legion who eventually broke off into the same named chapter during the Second Founding. This explains their nonstandard colourscheme. As for why some their chapter symbols differ from the "right one", they got Mk VI to replenish their ranks and adopted the "new" BA symbol (the one used in 40K) before it became the standard one for the Blood Angels during the Second Founding. Heck, few of their vets (like Brother Furian) still hold on to their MkIV and the HH-era chapter symbol, and the banner their Ancient is toting has the RT era Chapter symbol. It's a mismash of the small details, and depicts the shift in the forces' customs, gradually moving further from the commonly adopted Legion uniforms and symbols..
What's the story about Aquilas? Are they strictly Haram in times of HH? I mean, my resin contemptor even has one..
They show up as early as the Drop Site Massacre (according to the book Massacre where Talos has one on and it gets damaged in the fight, so it was likely adopted by the legions sent to censure Horus to show fealty to the Emperor over Horus only for Traitors to wear it because they captured gear with it on or were waiting to turncoat on the loyalists).
Speaking of HH lore, isn't part of the canon of the black books is that they're written by a remembrancer and aren't based on objective information and could even leave information out?
I thought there was a difference between single-headed aquilas and double-headed aquilas? Only Emperor's Children could wear the double-headed aquila... until some point. Maybe when the Heresy broke out?
Rihgu wrote: I thought there was a difference between single-headed aquilas and double-headed aquilas? Only Emperor's Children could wear the double-headed aquila... until some point. Maybe when the Heresy broke out?
The EC have the Aquila Palantine (or was it Palantine Aquila?) which has swept wings instead of the flat wings of the Aquila Imperialis.
Gert wrote: The EC could wear the Palatine Aquila, the one that they wear as their Legion emblem.
Yup. The Aquila Imperialis being worn in wide adoption seems to be something when Horus's betrayal was exposed.
Looking at older lore it seems it used to be that there was just one kind of Aquila (which exists on older marks of armour in GW's "Armour Through the Ages" set) but FW made a distinction between the EC one and modern aquila which previously was widely adopted when MkVII armour was adopted.
Basically this shows how malleable the HH lore has been and how muddled the "modern" 40k understanding of what happened has become as we learn more new things as time goes on.
On a different note: I've seen the new Praetors described as "baroque" and honestly I am all for that. Then again when I imagine 40k I usually do so with the dramatic lighting of a Dutch Baroque painting so I am on board for such a thing.
That said I feel that in other paint styles those models will work better for people. Kind of like how seeing non-'Eavy Metal Primaris lead to people warming up to the models when they're not painted in such a way to draw attention to every small detail on the model.
Looking at Lexicanum and the 40k wiki, only the EC were allowed to wear the the Palatine aquilia (apparently that was the old name), or aka the imperial eagal, loud and proud on their chests, while none of the other legions were not. This was done in honor of the sacrifice of the 16th cohort of the EC, who died alongside the custodes while a wounded Big E escaped. The difference between the palatine aquila and the post HH one being the palatine aquila was blindfolded one side.
It was apparently only until after the HH it was officially handed out to all loyalists, though during the war it became a way to identify allegiances. The half-eagle wing on the EC shoulders is the legion's symbol, which they wore in conjunction with the aquila.
There's a few things that do effectively d3 damage - most notably the Brutal USR (very rare though), Destroyer weapon type, and Dreadnoughts ignore Instant Death, instead suffering D3 wounds.
But no, there's no damage characteristic seen as yet.
There was a main Battle between Sons of Horus and Ultramarines during the Horus Heresy in the RT-Era Fluff, does someone know or remember which battle this was?
godardc wrote: Do we expect maybe the 1d6 damage thing to be ported to HH 2.0 ? Maybe only against vehicles / dreadnought etc thanks to a keyword maybe?
Nope as mentioned the onlythings so far that we see that do a Dx damage are
Brutal D3
and Destroyer.
Which im 100% ok with, random damage values honestly suck, they are a horrible unbalanced features that are way to random. A weapon having a swing in damage from 1 to 6 is far to insane.
The only way i personally would tolerate is would be if there was a floor to the damage. Example being d6 damage but rolls of 1 and 2 are doubled.
It's shield does work in melee.
Massed fire isn't really practical either, you need several hundred shots from even stuff like heavy bolters or volkite.
I really hope Dreadnoughts get nerfed, they really are absurd.
It's exactly the same problem you used to have with the likes of Riptides in 7th edition, except now we don't have Riptides and 7th Grav to fight them with!
kirotheavenger wrote: It's shield does work in melee.
Massed fire isn't really practical either, you need several hundred shots from even stuff like heavy bolters or volkite.
I really hope Dreadnoughts get nerfed, they really are absurd.
It's exactly the same problem you used to have with the likes of Riptides in 7th edition, except now we don't have Riptides and 7th Grav to fight them with!
Honestly all that would need to be done is just remove the ability to not get instant deathed or just have it be a hard "You take 3 wounds rather then 1"
Instant Deathing a Dreadnought would be silly though - Murderous Strike is more common now as well.
A flat 3 wounds would be better.
But really the main problem is T7/2+ makes it more or less immune to anything but actual AT guns, combined with the fact that 5++/6W means it can shrug off even actual AT guns 'till the cows come home.
Leviathons in particular can shrug off more melta and lascannons than some super heavies!
The best choice, really, would just be to make them flipping vehicles.
Walkers worked just fine - it was always Monsters that were borked.
Failing that, reducing them to 3+ with like 4W would be better.
Being very very VERY hopeful, i would say 250, as this is in line with the discount off of the MSRP of the models in B@C
Being realistic, its probably going to be about 300 or 350
Being Highly pessimistic, 400 possibly, which would still end up being a 50% off MSRP.
godardc wrote: 350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away
BAC was 30 Tacs, 5 termies, 2 HQs and a dread. this launch box has all that and then tosses in a Spartan.
godardc wrote: 350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away
BAC was 30 Tacs, 5 termies, 2 HQs and a dread. this launch box has all that and then tosses in a Spartan.
godardc wrote: 350 ? That would be huge for a starter boxe. How much were BaC and Prospero ? There were less stuff in it but I believe it shouldn't be too far away
BAC was 30 Tacs, 5 termies, 2 HQs and a dread. this launch box has all that and then tosses in a Spartan.
rumor being 40 tacs and 10 terms actually.
right, which means you'relooking at, effectively, 3 more kits.
kirotheavenger wrote: BaC/BoP were £90/$150, but that's £90 in 2016. You're looking at at least £120 for the same now.
Yeah I definitely see an increase in price with this boxe, obviously but around 350 looks ... Unsustainable. But indeed, Titanucs launch boxe was pretty expensive, was it 240 ?
Maybe they can get the price somehow acceptable by not tossing a game in it, unlike BaC and Prospero
I think the idea behind the "launch" box is that this is everything one person will need to create their full army and get playing. Rulebook(s), dice, templates, piles of models, everything you need to start playing today! Whether or not it's really worth it will depend on exactly what all comes in it and what the final price will be. Until GW announces it and confirms the complete contents, the rumored contents can still change a bit right up until the box itself goes to the printers and the contents are printed on it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I think the idea behind the "launch" box is that this is everything one person will need to create their full army and get playing. Rulebook(s), dice, templates, piles of models, everything you need to start playing today! Whether or not it's really worth it will depend on exactly what all comes in it and what the final price will be. Until GW announces it and confirms the complete contents, the rumored contents can still change a bit right up until the box itself goes to the printers and the contents are printed on it.
I mean if it clocks in at 300, and you were someone who wanted a spartan? hell yeah it is.
After two Macharius' and the monstrosity that was the resin Spartan, I'll take losing the *thunk* factor. It's always the best looking FW kits that make you lose your soul.
The scale on those MKVIs doesn't seem as outrageous as people were making it out to be. If you have any mini-marines they'll probably look a little goofy next to them, but nothing like the mini to primaris scale jump.
AdmiralRon wrote: The scale on those MKVIs doesn't seem as outrageous as people were making it out to be. If you have any mini-marines they'll probably look a little goofy next to them, but nothing like the mini to primaris scale jump.
Honestly anyone guessing scale before seeing the model in hand is just shooting in the dark.
Either way next to that cataphractii it looks totally fine.
So I bought the fafnir rann model yesterday and got it built up, thinking not only will it look great in my new fists 30k force, but it might also give me aan ideaa of the scale creep as its a relatively new model.
So if this is anything to go on, I might not want to buy too many more mk3 marines (even though I prefer mk3 to mk6)
LazzurusMan wrote: So I bought the fafnir rann model yesterday and got it built up, thinking not only will it look great in my new fists 30k force, but it might also give me aan ideaa of the scale creep as its a relatively new model.
So if this is anything to go on, I might not want to buy too many more mk3 marines (even though I prefer mk3 to mk6)
It's not so much the size, its the new proportions. Just makes the old models look orrible, it's hard to unsee it.
So if this is anything to go on, I might not want to buy too many more mk3 marines (even though I prefer mk3 to mk6)
That's a great image to use. It appears to be the thighs that the length has been added to. I wonder about using additional plastic to lengthen them a bit on the IIIs?
So if this is anything to go on, I might not want to buy too many more mk3 marines (even though I prefer mk3 to mk6)
That's a great image to use. It appears to be the thighs that the length has been added to. I wonder about using additional plastic to lengthen them a bit on the IIIs?
A friend of mine suggested I put a thin piece of plasticard in the waist joint to make them taller. I might try that with my next 10 (I somehow managed to order two lots of imp fist mk3 pads and cba to contact fw on a bank holiday to cancel the second order) and see how weird they look being taller with the same lenth arms and legs.
Iron Hands, Dark Angels, and Raven Guard all look like the same paint job.
The Blood Angels and White Scars wear it surprisingly well.
Space Wolves look a bit weird with just the beakie helm; I'd honestly be tempted to mix in some 40k bits into this one.
Salamanders wear it ok. I'd probably save those for basic marines and use Mk II, III, or IV for the Sergeants and Characters. Only way I'd do whole units in Mk VI would be if I painted them in the Rogue Trader colors.
Onto the Traitors:
Sons of Horus and Alpha Legion look good, no surprises there.
I already painted a Mk VI World Eater so I already knew that works. Studio model could use some dirtying up though.
Night Lords look BOMB in Mk VI. I don't think I could bring myself to use any other armor mark for them, though I would try to paint a skull on the helm.
Very surprised at how well the Emperor's Children, Word Bearers, and Death Guard look in Mk VI.
Thousand Sons just look...off...to me. I'm sorry, but they look better in Mks II-IV.
Undecided on the Iron Warriors. I think it's mostly the hazard stripe, because the rest of the scheme looks fine, and I'd even say it would work for a Firstborn Silver Skulls force. Maybe these could be Seekers or just throw away troops?
Regardless, none of these are bad enough for me to refuse games, that's for sure.
I'm really excited to see what people do with these on release because they look really nice. The Alpha Legion model especially. You can see which ones got the most effort which is a bit annoying. The Dark Angel has absolutely nothing to show it is actually a Dark Angel.
So what's going on with Contemptors, it looks like we're keeping the resin ones with legion iconography, but all of the weapons are totally gone from the Forgeworld webstore.
Togusa wrote: So what's going on with Contemptors, it looks like we're keeping the resin ones with legion iconography, but all of the weapons are totally gone from the Forgeworld webstore.
Maybe weapons arm kits similar to the ones they previewed for the power armour marines? Also could just see another multi part kit to fill out what's missing.
Togusa wrote: So what's going on with Contemptors, it looks like we're keeping the resin ones with legion iconography, but all of the weapons are totally gone from the Forgeworld webstore.
Maybe weapons arm kits similar to the ones they previewed for the power armour marines? Also could just see another multi part kit to fill out what's missing.
I highly suspect this is going to be the case. We are going to be getting plastic weaponry for the new dread, while legion specific are going to be resin still
IMO, i suspect that GW is going to go down this path for all of heresy:
-drop HH2.0
-support "Entry level" HH by providing plastic contemptor, plastic marines, plastic kits for new tank, spartain, possibly sicarin, and the rhino chassis
-Push an "intermediate" level of the game by either pushing resin upgrade kits things like T sons blade cult and Sehkmet. Things that are not full resin models but resin parts for plastic models. These might end up in plastic
-Push an "Advanced" level that uses their full resin kits like primarchs, special vehicles fighters things like that.
I can see GW moving a lot of kits into plastic, but i dont think they can possibly move the whole FW line into plastic.
Togusa wrote: So what's going on with Contemptors, it looks like we're keeping the resin ones with legion iconography, but all of the weapons are totally gone from the Forgeworld webstore.
Maybe weapons arm kits similar to the ones they previewed for the power armour marines? Also could just see another multi part kit to fill out what's missing.
I highly suspect this is going to be the case. We are going to be getting plastic weaponry for the new dread, while legion specific are going to be resin still
IMO, i suspect that GW is going to go down this path for all of heresy:
-drop HH2.0
-support "Entry level" HH by providing plastic contemptor, plastic marines, plastic kits for new tank, spartain, possibly sicarin, and the rhino chassis
-Push an "intermediate" level of the game by either pushing resin upgrade kits things like T sons blade cult and Sehkmet. Things that are not full resin models but resin parts for plastic models. These might end up in plastic
-Push an "Advanced" level that uses their full resin kits like primarchs, special vehicles fighters things like that.
I can see GW moving a lot of kits into plastic, but i dont think they can possibly move the whole FW line into plastic.
In my eyes Plastic primarchs are when, not if.
If 2.0 grows the hobby and brings in a fresh new generation, I am willing to bet that most if not almost all of them will rebuke working with Resin. Especially if they've come from 40K/AoS.
On that note, I've already seen two local HH players quite and sell their armies because they feel that not keeping the hobby segregated by having a higher cost and harder level of entry is "polluting" the game. The way people overreact to things never ceases to amaze me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: With the Heavy and Special weapons being made as plastic box sets I would put money on Contemptor weapons being in the same boat.
That would be nice. I wonder if there is a wave 2 of reveals for the release we haven't yet seen?
That would be nice. I wonder if there is a wave 2 of reveals for the release we haven't yet seen?
Add-ons to the Deimos Rhino kit seem obvious, whether they sell Predators and etc as their own boxes or just extra sprues, it would be hilariously dumb not to do it.
And that aside, this feels like a much more 'all-in' project than any they've done in a while. Maybe its just the number of 40k and AoS 'updates' that are just a book and model for the sake of selling a book, but this whole project feels absolutely massive by comparison.
While im not saying it wont happen, i would just be highly skeptical of plastic Primarchs. Those models cost a LOT to manufacture and i dont think you can use the dies for those resin injection molds on plastic.
Vehicles i can see being a lot easier to bring over into the plastic line of things, but the primarcs have a LOT of little bits and pieces im not sure can easily be put onto a spur for injection models. I might be wrong, but i would almost bet i would be cheaper just to design a new primarc model sculpt then trying to port the current ones into plastic.
That would be nice. I wonder if there is a wave 2 of reveals for the release we haven't yet seen?
Add-ons to the Deimos Rhino kit seem obvious, whether they sell Predators and etc as their own boxes or just extra sprues, it would be hilariously dumb not to do it.
And that aside, this feels like a much more 'all-in' project than any they've done in a while. Maybe its just the number of 40k and AoS 'updates' that are just a book and model for the sake of selling a book, but this whole project feels absolutely massive by comparison.
I do agree that we will be seeing Deimos patterns very very soon for rhinos, since its such a logical step. IIRC the leaks even said this was gonna be the case along with plastic versions of legion specific items/units like plastic Sehkmet bits and what not.
I also agree this whole HH project feels a LOT bigger then "Hey lets just shift this into plastic." The way its being handled thus far, to me at least, seems almost like a passion project for someone high up in the company.
I dont think i can recall when we had such leaks and evidence that armies were being tested as much as they were/are. With us seeing phase 1 traitor, phase 3 loyalists, and it being rumored there were a total of 5 test phases for the game. The rules in general seem far more inline with previous rule sets, which flies in the face of the current GW systems. Its a weird way, this greatly feels to me similar to pathfinder coming into existence. DnD moved into 5th ed, and people wanted the old systems back, so along came pathfinder to restore 3.5e.
Feels like HH 2.0 is kinda doing the same thing.
Definitely think there are a lot of eggs in this basket.
Voss wrote: Add-ons to the Deimos Rhino kit seem obvious, whether they sell Predators and etc as their own boxes or just extra sprues, it would be hilariously dumb not to do it.
And that aside, this feels like a much more 'all-in' project than any they've done in a while. Maybe its just the number of 40k and AoS 'updates' that are just a book and model for the sake of selling a book, but this whole project feels absolutely massive by comparison.
I think it's more a case of a pretty blank slate game, sort of like AoS 1. AoS 1 got Stormcast, Bloodbound, Arcanites, Fyreslayers, Kharadron, Sylvaneth, Everchosen, and Ironjawz as mostly entirely new factions so the releases there are more similar to what we're seeing with HH. AoS 2 was similar for Nighthaunt, Gloomspite, Ossiarchs, Sons of Behemat, Lumineth and Idoneth.
Voss wrote: Add-ons to the Deimos Rhino kit seem obvious, whether they sell Predators and etc as their own boxes or just extra sprues, it would be hilariously dumb not to do it.
And that aside, this feels like a much more 'all-in' project than any they've done in a while. Maybe its just the number of 40k and AoS 'updates' that are just a book and model for the sake of selling a book, but this whole project feels absolutely massive by comparison.
I think it's more a case of a pretty blank slate game, sort of like AoS 1. AoS 1 got Stormcast, Bloodbound, Arcanites, Fyreslayers, Kharadron, Sylvaneth, Everchosen, and Ironjawz as mostly entirely new factions so the releases there are more similar to what we're seeing with HH. AoS 2 was similar for Nighthaunt, Gloomspite, Ossiarchs, Sons of Behemat, Lumineth and Idoneth.
Hey. ill be honest here, i would not be upset 1 bit if HH 2.0 starts out with just marines, then mechanicum, guard, and custodes but then later on includes orks and eldar tossed in there.
Backspacehacker wrote: While im not saying it wont happen, i would just be highly skeptical of plastic Primarchs. Those models cost a LOT to manufacture and i dont think you can use the dies for those resin injection molds on plastic.
Vehicles i can see being a lot easier to bring over into the plastic line of things, but the primarcs have a LOT of little bits and pieces im not sure can easily be put onto a spur for injection models. I might be wrong, but i would almost bet i would be cheaper just to design a new primarc model sculpt then trying to port the current ones into plastic.
Definitely. Resin casting is more like metal casting than plastic. If that transition were possible, we would have never gotten finecast.
I don't think its a matter of cheaper, just not physically possible
I also don't think it would be worth it.
Common units (tacticals, assaults, rhinos, etc): absolutely
Legion specific : maybe, depending on how many people could be expected to buy -you're effectively dividing the player base into one-eighteenth segments, after all (and probably not evenly)
Unique: yeah... probably not. Especially not at the Primarch Price Point.
That would be nice. I wonder if there is a wave 2 of reveals for the release we haven't yet seen?
Add-ons to the Deimos Rhino kit seem obvious, whether they sell Predators and etc as their own boxes or just extra sprues, it would be hilariously dumb not to do it.
And that aside, this feels like a much more 'all-in' project than any they've done in a while. Maybe its just the number of 40k and AoS 'updates' that are just a book and model for the sake of selling a book, but this whole project feels absolutely massive by comparison.
I do agree that we will be seeing Deimos patterns very very soon for rhinos, since its such a logical step. IIRC the leaks even said this was gonna be the case along with plastic versions of legion specific items/units like plastic Sehkmet bits and what not.
I also agree this whole HH project feels a LOT bigger then "Hey lets just shift this into plastic." The way its being handled thus far, to me at least, seems almost like a passion project for someone high up in the company.
I dont think i can recall when we had such leaks and evidence that armies were being tested as much as they were/are. With us seeing phase 1 traitor, phase 3 loyalists, and it being rumored there were a total of 5 test phases for the game. The rules in general seem far more inline with previous rule sets, which flies in the face of the current GW systems. Its a weird way, this greatly feels to me similar to pathfinder coming into existence. DnD moved into 5th ed, and people wanted the old systems back, so along came pathfinder to restore 3.5e.
Feels like HH 2.0 is kinda doing the same thing.
Definitely think there are a lot of eggs in this basket.
If the 'marines as a majority percentage of overall sales of 40k which is the majority percentage of overall sales of the company' persistent rumors are true, then those eggs aren't that risky.
Especially with the mk6 (and the deimos) being a nostalgia button mash for 40k players which will generate its own sales. And the special & heavy weapon boxes will make marine enthusiasts wet themselves. There is a _lot_ of redundant sales protection to this release, with just enough non-40k compatible stuff to be interesting in its own right (and which will generate a demand for 40k rules).
The trick to the Pathfinder comparison is GW is keeping it in house and isn't burning their bridges the way WotC did (when 4e launched, they stupidly did a lot of 'this is the best edition ever, if you liked older editions you're a fool' marketing. That went over poorly.). They're also focusing on genuine excitement & enthusiasm by staffers. Faking that is usually pretty obvious (I remember an 8th edition video or two that look liked some of the old guard had been put on camera at spearpoint). In that regard it feels like a passion project for the company, not just one person high up.
And thats why i said i feel like this is almost more of a passion project from someone higher up, not saying its JUST that one person, but that one person is acting as the voice of a lot of people in the company. Sort of like how Pathfinder was the voice of all the people that wanted 3.5e over 5th.
Like someone high on the baord/company is not a fan of how 9th and AoS are run as a game, and managed to get this project green lit to be made, and all those people who felt the same way are pumped about it as well.
Backspacehacker wrote: And thats why i said i feel like this is almost more of a passion project from someone higher up, not saying its JUST that one person, but that one person is acting as the voice of a lot of people in the company. Sort of like how Pathfinder was the voice of all the people that wanted 3.5e over 5th.
Like someone high on the baord/company is not a fan of how 9th and AoS are run as a game, and managed to get this project green lit to be made, and all those people who felt the same way are pumped about it as well.
Ah, I see. I tend to think of the board and upper company levels to be completely devoid of interest in the games, but that's admittedly some bias talking.
To answer your Primarch question, my Guilliman will be on the scenic base. Not the full size one, just the smaller one for HH games. But I will use the full-size one for 40K to match the "correct" base size that 40K Guilliman uses (I'm not using the plastic model).
As far as black book content, who knows? My personal suspicion is that some of the early Heresy characters that die in early battles (like Istvaan), may not be in the launch rules, especially if they still don't have a model yet. I feel like GW may want to initially focus on the latter stages of the Heresy, as that's where the current fiction releases are at. Maybe in future we'll get an Istvaan campaign book or something.
When did their prices jump that high, most of the Primarchs are like 150$ now! That's absolutely insane!
There was a price increase earlier this year. The big one, though, was FW just creating a separate US-based webstore to somehow make it "easier" for us to buy from them, but it was also at a price higher than current exchange rates. For example, I assume you're talking about the Iron Warriors terminators, which, when using the price on the UK website and current exchange rates, should be $93.
So Andy Hoare weighed in on the Palantine Aquila over on Instagram:
So based on that, I'm going to say it's this:
While this is likely the Emperor's personal Aquila as the lighting bolts were the early symbol of the Imperium and I could see him pairing the two symbols to represent himself.
When did their prices jump that high, most of the Primarchs are like 150$ now! That's absolutely insane!
There was a price increase earlier this year.
The big one, though, was FW just creating a separate US-based webstore to somehow make it "easier" for us to buy from them, but it was also at a price higher than current exchange rates. For example, I assume you're talking about the Iron Warriors terminators, which, when using the price on the UK website and current exchange rates, should be $93.
Yeah. That's just absolutely unacceptable. I'll have to make them myself.
What's even more egregious is that the quality of the sculpts for most of the Legion Terminators is frankly just mediocre. Some of the stuff, like the Emperors Children terminators, are great (but god, those spears!) but like the Alpha Legion termies are just crap. You might as well, as other posters have said, convert it yourself.
blood reaper wrote: What's even more egregious is that the quality of the sculpts for most of the Legion Terminators is frankly just mediocre. Some of the stuff, like the Emperors Children terminators, are great (but god, those spears!) but like the Alpha Legion termies are just crap. You might as well, as other posters have said, convert it yourself.
I will probably 3D *REDACTED WRONGTINK TOPIC* them and wait to see if Legion specific units get ported into plastic.
And for the record, If they did port literally the entire game into plastic over a few years, I'd very much be willing to give them money for not 1, not 2, but as many as 4 legions worth of stuff.
Hairesy wrote: Sad that we're all sitting here hoping for not awful rules isn't it?
Such is the life of a GW hobbyist. Really makes you want to slow down and enjoy the collection and modelling aspect of the hobby when you know for a fact the most important thing is for your toys to look cool.
I dunno, I really like what I see so far. It's only a peek in the window for now, but it looks good and fun to me.
blood reaper wrote: What's even more egregious is that the quality of the sculpts for most of the Legion Terminators is frankly just mediocre. Some of the stuff, like the Emperors Children terminators, are great (but god, those spears!) but like the Alpha Legion termies are just crap. You might as well, as other posters have said, convert it yourself.
I will probably 3D *REDACTED WRONGTINK TOPIC* them and wait to see if Legion specific units get ported into plastic.
And for the record, If they did port literally the entire game into plastic over a few years, I'd very much be willing to give them money for not 1, not 2, but as many as 4 legions worth of stuff.
Honestly a lot of the Forge World Terminators, for better or worse, are so close to the standard kits that 3d printing individual components for them seems like an entirely viable approach.
The different between like, Alpha Legion terminators and standard terminators are what, the shoulder pads, torsos and heads? The torsos are barely visible, so really it's just the heads and shoulder pads.
The same goes for their 'Headhunters' - all you really need are the banestrike bolters. Is anyone seriously going to demand you pay £70+ for those torsos, heads, and shoulderpads? Anyone who does is insane!
I have noticed that the legions which were added into the game over the last couple of years have a lot more in the way of unique characters, unique units and so on as compared to a lot of the earliest legions. Specifically the Iron Warriors have no unique characters as compared to the Blood Angles or the Scars.
I hope they plan on revisiting some of the older legions soon.
Togusa wrote: I have noticed that the legions which were added into the game over the last couple of years have a lot more in the way of unique characters, unique units and so on as compared to a lot of the earliest legions. Specifically the Iron Warriors have no unique characters as compared to the Blood Angles or the Scars.
I hope they plan on revisiting some of the older legions soon.
It strikes me that a logical thing to do would be to release rules and Mini's for the Iron Warriors trident of Forrix, Falk and Kroegar.
Togusa wrote: I have noticed that the legions which were added into the game over the last couple of years have a lot more in the way of unique characters, unique units and so on as compared to a lot of the earliest legions. Specifically the Iron Warriors have no unique characters as compared to the Blood Angles or the Scars.
I hope they plan on revisiting some of the older legions soon.
It strikes me that a logical thing to do would be to release rules and Mini's for the Iron Warriors trident of Forrix, Falk and Kroegar.
Togusa wrote: I have noticed that the legions which were added into the game over the last couple of years have a lot more in the way of unique characters, unique units and so on as compared to a lot of the earliest legions. Specifically the Iron Warriors have no unique characters as compared to the Blood Angles or the Scars.
I hope they plan on revisiting some of the older legions soon.
It strikes me that a logical thing to do would be to release rules and Mini's for the Iron Warriors trident of Forrix, Falk and Kroegar.
Forrix would be great!
yeah, one of the problems the Iron warriors had was, a lack of detailed commanders aside from the Primarch, McNeil fixed that. I think all three of them would be great. Forrix would be the classic "first captain" Falk could make for a good "half way to chaos already" HQ type. and Kroegar would give the iron warriors a fun melee beatstick
