SirDonlad wrote: Examine the case of the Minotaur Artillery Battery.
Or look at what they did to the poor Macharius. It used to be a proper heavy tank, not quite as well armed as a Baneblade but carrying a legitimate big gun and protected by AV 14. Now it's nerfed to AV 13, the former 7" blast battle cannon is now a twin-linked AP4 small blast with 24" range. For 600 ***ING POINTS. WTF is this trash and why does GW think it's acceptable to publish such stupid rules?
Or look at what they did to the poor Macharius. It used to be a proper heavy tank, not quite as well armed as a Baneblade but carrying a legitimate big gun and protected by AV 14. Now it's nerfed to AV 13, the former 7" blast battle cannon is now a twin-linked AP4 small blast with 24" range. For 600 ***ING POINTS. WTF is this trash and why does GW think it's acceptable to publish such stupid rules?
I can't...
why?!?
i mean; at least it's still super-heavy?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/04 22:49:03
A super heavy with all of 6 hull points. A Spartan has more firepower, more armor, huge transport capability, is faster, all for 250 points less.
I think at this point that the unit entries team either goofed really hard or what we see in the legendaries/legacies (whatever) PDF is actually unfinished.
I can see how a corporate entity might grab an unfinished unit list (or one which was supposed to have someone go over it again at a later point); not notice things wrong and everyone else to be essentially a 'yes man' all the way to release.
That said, i can also see someone pointing out that they don't actually have to bother writing the unit entries if they just hand out a blank slate and only change things when 'the community' suggests to.
Like i said before the PDF defitily has some winners and some losers, the Macharius is one of the losers, same goes for the tsons special snipers.
But there are some big big winners in there, the Fulminators, and box naughts for example are defiantly bringing home the gold. Havocs are bringing home a silver for sure as well.
Feels like GW showing their hand, so to speak.
Like they want it to become a sea of infantry with dreadnoughts scattered all over the place like some of the early Adeptus Titanicus artwork.
You know the ones - with a lone predator with every weapon firing in a different direction and a single landspeeder flying overhead - that sort of thing
I'm currently chuckling at people saying 'look out sir' is gone while the new rules say the player being shot at gets to choose who takes a wound.
So nothing has changed apart from you don't have to actually say 'look out sir' or roll a dice anymore - you just choose what shots go on whom.
I think you misread or misremembered the LoS rule.
Before you could tank the hits on the character, then pass the unsaved wounds off to the unit with "look out sir"
Now whatever model you choose to take the wound on is the one that must take the save. No more "take it on my artificer armor, but remove a power armor guy" situation.
I'm currently chuckling at people saying 'look out sir' is gone while the new rules say the player being shot at gets to choose who takes a wound.
So nothing has changed apart from you don't have to actually say 'look out sir' or roll a dice anymore - you just choose what shots go on whom.
I think you misread or misremembered the LoS rule.
Before you could tank the hits on the character, then pass the unsaved wounds off to the unit with "look out sir"
Now whatever model you choose to take the wound on is the one that must take the save. No more "take it on my artificer armor, but remove a power armor guy" situation.
Thats also a misinterpretation. You could not do that, and if someone was, im like 99% sure you were being played lol. If a model took a save they had to take the wound as well if they failed, you could not pass it off.
Look Out Sir was just a way to counter precision shots or snipers so that you could not effectivity pick off characters from a squad.
With that removed it now made snipers SUPER viable in HH 2.0
I'm currently chuckling at people saying 'look out sir' is gone while the new rules say the player being shot at gets to choose who takes a wound.
So nothing has changed apart from you don't have to actually say 'look out sir' or roll a dice anymore - you just choose what shots go on whom.
I think you misread or misremembered the LoS rule.
Before you could tank the hits on the character, then pass the unsaved wounds off to the unit with "look out sir"
Now whatever model you choose to take the wound on is the one that must take the save. No more "take it on my artificer armor, but remove a power armor guy" situation.
Thats also a misinterpretation. You could not do that, and if someone was, im like 99% sure you were being played lol. If a model took a save they had to take the wound as well if they failed, you could not pass it off.
Look Out Sir was just a way to counter precision shots or snipers so that you could not effectivity pick off characters from a squad.
With that removed it now made snipers SUPER viable in HH 2.0
If thats the case, than whats the complaint? Seems like the removal of LoS is a net positive to the game by enabling sniper type weapons.
I'm currently chuckling at people saying 'look out sir' is gone while the new rules say the player being shot at gets to choose who takes a wound.
So nothing has changed apart from you don't have to actually say 'look out sir' or roll a dice anymore - you just choose what shots go on whom.
I think you misread or misremembered the LoS rule.
Before you could tank the hits on the character, then pass the unsaved wounds off to the unit with "look out sir"
Now whatever model you choose to take the wound on is the one that must take the save. No more "take it on my artificer armor, but remove a power armor guy" situation.
Thats also a misinterpretation. You could not do that, and if someone was, im like 99% sure you were being played lol. If a model took a save they had to take the wound as well if they failed, you could not pass it off.
Look Out Sir was just a way to counter precision shots or snipers so that you could not effectivity pick off characters from a squad.
With that removed it now made snipers SUPER viable in HH 2.0
It is, there is literally no down side to removing lookout sir.
If thats the case, than whats the complaint? Seems like the removal of LoS is a net positive to the game by enabling sniper type weapons.
I'm currently chuckling at people saying 'look out sir' is gone while the new rules say the player being shot at gets to choose who takes a wound.
So nothing has changed apart from you don't have to actually say 'look out sir' or roll a dice anymore - you just choose what shots go on whom.
I think you misread or misremembered the LoS rule.
Before you could tank the hits on the character, then pass the unsaved wounds off to the unit with "look out sir"
Now whatever model you choose to take the wound on is the one that must take the save. No more "take it on my artificer armor, but remove a power armor guy" situation.
I don't think you can use the save of a character then pass the wound off to another model because the save comes after the wound roll and LoS was about moving the targeted model away from being 'the closest model'
The point of annoyance i was getting at was the way you'd see a 2+ save sarge tanking all the higher AP suff and marines would be flinging themselves in the way as soon as an AP2 or AP1 weapon was incoming.
In 2.0 the controlling player chooses who takes the wound, so all the high AP shots are automatically applied to the sarge or whomever else happens to have a 2+, while any lascannons or artillery will be taking out the padding first.
Spoiler:
edit: sorry totally forgot that artillery is AP4 now
just whatever you do don't click the videos. And if you do, make sure you watch only a few seconds, give it a dislike, and DON'T COMMENT.
Commenting, good or bad, helps their algorithm.
It's part of why they make such idiotic videos that are obviously wrong or stir up dissent -- they know you'll hate watch so you can make a "well akshully" comment. That actually HELPS them.
I watched the outer circle videos regarding the pdf. I also watched other youtubers discussing the same content. All came to the same conclusion:
Some units were deliberately nerfed to nudge people into using models presented in the core books. I don´t understand what the problem about this revelation is all about.
Strg Alt wrote: Some units were deliberately nerfed to nudge people into using models presented in the core books. I don´t understand what the problem about this revelation is all about.
They used to encourage you to use niche or rare units by having interesting rules and reasonable points costs (arvus lighter, anvillus drop pod, triaros, LR achillies)
Not saying they got it right all the time though; they messed up royal with thanatars - particularly the Sollex Pattern Lascannon on the Calix variant.
A very bad commentator for world of warcraft who thinks he has his finger on the pulse of the community but really has it up his own bum.
The outter circle is that same kinda person IMO.
Ah, that makes it clearer ^^
Automatically Appended Next Post: So... you can't give chainswords to tactical marines anymore, right? just to veterans?
That puts a crimp on my units, as the Mk IIIs had chainswords in the sprues and looked cool...
I'm pretty sure chainswords are a +5 ppm option for Tacticals.
D'oh, I apparently hovered around it as it was indented like the other options, and for some reason it's different from the bayonets... honestly, there's no rhyme or reason to how they put stuff on the list >_>
Nothing about the general AP changes?
Nothing about the scrubbing of unique special rules and profiles for units?
Nothing about the disconnect between the three books?
There was too much AP2 spam in HH 1. Medusas especially where just stupidly good and Plasma was just a default choice for special weapons.
The cutting of a bunch of units isn't a problem for me as much as I thought it would be, mostly because almost everything got added back in anyway. Havocs going from (again) insanely good to just good is fine IMO. I like the Iron Warriors rules and Hammer of Olympia is actually something I'm using now.
I haven't noticed a huge disconnect. Out group seems to be doing just fine with our Legions.
I never heard anyone complain about the amount of AP2 that was available; it was the strength 10 and therefore 'instant death' nature of the medusa and it's free phosphex sheels, that did, but never the fact units had AP2.
Same with the quad-mortar - nobody complained about the AP3 but they did complain about the four small blasts per model in the unit along with phosphex crawling death rule.
I guess you didn't bother to kitbash units which didn't have an official model.
Wut? I said that it was good that the Malcador chassis vehicles have all been brought to the same level. Its not my fault you didn't know the chassis hasn't been used as Superheavy for ages.
Just stop.
You admitted yourself that you don't actually know when earlier in the thread.
i went and checked out my books and found that the malcador is actually STILL super-heavy for the solar auxillia; they just get to take them as ordinary units without using up their lord of war slot.
In fact do you not remember when super-heavies were expanded and FW literally said that the reason their profiles were better in 30k was because they knew how to maintain them properly back then?
The malcador become a 'fast' super-heavy; remember that?
Gert wrote: What mechanic is this? Sorry if I missed it but our group isn't actively looking for ways to break the system.
The claim is that 'look out sir' was removed because of how ridiculous it was to have marines jumping out of cover to take a bullet for their sarge like they're defending a hoop in the last seconds - but in 2.0 the player who owns the unit being shot chooses which model takes which wound without saying anything or even rolling a dice to see if successful or not.
It's literally what you do every combat and your group didn't see that coming?!?
Bruh, when I played four years ago the ONLY complaint I ever heard was about the absolute rampant amount of AP2 in the game, which TRIPPLED when AdMech came out and had it nearly army wide. Phosphex galore, especially on guard or Deathguard. Artificer armor and Terminators were mostly worthless and rarely made their target because there were always a million plasma guns waiting in the wind.
It sounds like your gaming circle had just had a fairly serious meta-swing at that point as a response to terminator/artificer saturation.
People complain the most about AP2 because it was the first threshold which could ignore artificer armour and terminator armour.
These models tend to be the most expensive points wise.
Therefore the player doesn't remember the countless saves they made with them; just the moments when the plasma team in a drop pod ace them in a single round, or the three medusas hit every model in the squad with every template, or a myrmidon team with photon thrusters got line of sight or the quad mortars got upgraded to phosphex but still used four small blasts.
Those are all highly memorable moments for multiple reasons but the AP is a distraction.
I could get salty at my thanatars getting system32 deleted by a single spartan assault tank but was it really the AP2 that clicked delete or the psychic powers which made sure they hit and wounded or me not having a cover save?
Problem was my opponent decided he wanted it removed and used the rules to leverage the odds as he's supposed to.
As a side note it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the opposing player to whittle a terminator blob away with AP3 or worse weaponry.
That said, if they knew you were committed to walking them across the board, maybe they'd go for it? scenario style?
That said, if they knew you were committed to walking them across the board, maybe they'd go for it? scenario style?
I have a feeling this is why they reduced the amount of AP2. Not because of the complaints, but because the reduced amount made Terminators and Dreadnought feel like they do in the fluff where they stride through masses of firepower undaunted.
I have a feeling this is why they reduced the amount of AP2. Not because of the complaints, but because the reduced amount made Terminators and Dreadnought feel like they do in the fluff where they stride through masses of firepower undaunted.
Yeah i think you're spot on there.
edit: i realized i made a comment about dreadnoughts and MC status which was me cross-thinking from another forum entirely so i deleted it but crabblesworth saw it and replied before the deed was done.
So i felt i needed to re-add something here to explain the sudden random detraction into MC status discussion..
The only issue i have with armour facings for dreadnoughts is the sudden death aspect of rolling on the damage chart which is what drive my sympathy toward dreadnoughts as MCs.
i'd have preferred them to look into allowing dreadnoughts to join a squad and gain a cover save from them rather than nerfing weapon AP to encourage the 'dreads among marines' aesthetic
SirDonlad wrote: The only issue i have with armour facings for dreadnoughts is the sudden death aspect of rolling on the damage chart which is what drive my sympathy toward dreadnoughts as MCs.
i'd have preferred them to look into allowing dreadnoughts to join a squad and gain a cover save from them rather than nerfing weapon AP to encourage the 'dreads among marines' aesthetic
Dreads are fine in 1.0 imo, they "were" fine before 2.0, you could still flank them at range and generally speaking get more for your money in terms of lower armour and inv were generally 5+ ish with some exception, unlike mc's and fmc's which were the worst aspect of 1.0 because of the 360 vision and few downsides/mitigations one could do to them, unlike vehicles that could be suppressed/immobilized/outmaneuvered.
I really do feel like the only truly trouble unit types in 1.0 were the mc's/fmc's and really only popped up for mechanicum/allies and deamons of the ruinstorm, imo they went the opposite direction I would have with 2.0, Side note I also don't like the change to terminators because the 2 wound ones in 1.0 at least feel "special" or somehow distinguished by that stat, not going to say all 2 wound termies were created equal in 1.0, but it least felt substantial and elite. Now its just feels like 1 step on the way to 8th ed style problems.
Also on the AP2 front, I feel like people in either editions should come to terms with an acceptable standard for cover/terrain/los blocking because none of the changes ultimately matter much on planet bowling ball.
A simple suggestion would have been to suggest people play with more 4+ cover instead of completely rendering the AP of so many weapons to the point of futility. It feels like someone in play test didn't like a unit of termies getting removed by a lucky vindicator shot and now the game balance in terms of AP has to suck on account of it. Another win for 1.0 honestly.
I would trade a point of toughness off Mechanicum MCs apart from vorax and arlatax so long as they got a couple of extra wounds instead.
So vorax and arlatax stay T6 W4
domitar, castellax, vultarax to T6 W6
Thanatar to T7 W6
SirDonlad wrote: I would trade a point of toughness off Mechanicum MCs apart from vorax and arlatax so long as they got a couple of extra wounds instead.
So vorax and arlatax stay T6 W4
domitar, castellax, vultarax to T6 W6
Thanatar to T7 W6
I feel like thanatar can just be a vehicle with a decent inv save and armour facings. It's the 360 vision/fire arc that's a bit much. I just think MC's and FMC's don't have enough downsides, either need more or can just fold into infantry with elevated stats. It's obviously less of an issue in 30k than it was in 40k.
Will be interesting to see what changed with mechanicum, not optimistic.
So getting back to the little info we have on the mechanicum thus far; it's been my personal opinion that the ordo distinctions are being binned in favour of a generic HQ and Ordo headcannon like they are some 'non-marine variant' legion rules.
Behold the only official info we have...
Spoiler:
But to a Reductor player thats got a lot of info already.
deleted units - the 'Ordo Reductor artillery tank' is missing, as is the 'Ordo Reductor Minotaur Battery' (now available to anyone in the pdf) and so is the 'Magos Reductor' as well as standard pattern indentured Imperial Knights. The venerable 'Macrocarid Explorator' is similarly absent along with all three flyer options (primaris lightning, avenger strike fighter and arvus orbital lighter), Archmagos Inar Satarael and Archmagos Draykavac. We also know from playtest leaks that the Thanatar Cynis has been deleted; the Thanatar profiles have been integrated but the Cynis' weapon option is gone.
Weird Naming - Calleb decima is awesome and he has a double profile like ravenguard primarch; to those who have forgotten or didn't care he had an upgrade which would alter his profile to represent him after the Isstvan 3 atrocity called 'decima invictus' - the key point of this was it didn't allow you to take it for his alternative unit choice variant where you could represent the Ordo Reductor at their most desperate and scrappy. The great point of that was it allowed you to take a single heavy support choice with the 'tank' type from the legion marine unit list; this was big because it was the only way an Ordo Reductor force could use a Landraider Achillies and was the only mechanicum faction to be able to.
strange additions - still not found any answers to what a 'Arcuitor Magisterium' is but i'm guessing they are the ham-fisted inclusion of the 40k unit 'electro-preists' since they're an elite unit type in 40k too. In the playtest rules were 'kharax seige automata' which seem to match the setup of the 40k kastelan robot
Spoiler:
page numbering - so each new section in an HH book get a single page dedicated to a symbol and the title to the section. this can be seen in the page numbering for the ordinatus where the unit has a single page but there is a missing page between the ordinatus aktaeus entry and the start of the appendicies.. this makes for.. 5 pages dedicated to using warlords of the mechanicum 1 page for Calleb Decima 1 page for Magos Dominus 1 page for Magos Dominus on abeyant double page spreads for both Archmagos and Archmagos on abeyant
The appendices section will likely have a title page for each sub-section leaving.. 4 pages to explain cyberthurgy 3 pages for 'orders of high techno arcana' 8 pages of mechanicum special rules 4 pages of 'persona schizmata' 8 pages of divisio tactica titan legions 15 pages of divisio tactica questoris household
i believe that the appendices section is largely fluff because i don't believe GW would entertain telling players to consult the last editions books for fluff - naturally a bunch of it will be weapon profiles, special rules and unique equipment but i think the divisio tactica are just sections on using an allied force of IK or Titans alongside the mechanicum as allies and a bunch of fluff about how they worked alongside each other and whom.
The reveal of the contents of the mechanicum book is going to be a pivotal moment but i have many doubts and not a lot of faith in the poor sod which had to throw away all Alan Blighs work.
I've never actually played the Tabletop for a few reasons, I'm a Lorehammer fan and recently decided to look into spreading my collection out from just the 30k-40k Black Library novels to also include the codexes and rulebooks. I bought the 6th edition big rulebook after someone recommended it for the lore, also bought both Dark Eldar and Homunculus Covens codexes as they are by far my favorite race/faction after the VIIIth legion and their primogeniture.
Being that 30k is probably my favorite time period I'm wondering what everyone that either owns or has read the new 2.0 core rulebook and both Libre books thinks of them from a lore perspective? Is it like the 6th edition rulebook heavy with lore and indepth information on the various factions and their military doctrines/tactics? Would it be worth the price for a Lorehammer nerd to collect and learn from?
Sevetar_VIII wrote: I've never actually played the Tabletop for a few reasons, I'm a Lorehammer fan and recently decided to look into spreading my collection out from just the 30k-40k Black Library novels to also include the codexes and rulebooks. I bought the 6th edition big rulebook after someone recommended it for the lore, also bought both Dark Eldar and Homunculus Covens codexes as they are by far my favorite race/faction after the VIIIth legion and their primogeniture.
Being that 30k is probably my favorite time period I'm wondering what everyone that either owns or has read the new 2.0 core rulebook and both Libre books thinks of them from a lore perspective? Is it like the 6th edition rulebook heavy with lore and indepth information on the various factions and their military doctrines/tactics? Would it be worth the price for a Lorehammer nerd to collect and learn from?
IMO not really.
The Liber books are very crunch heavy. Each legion has a little unit fluff and a general explanation of who they are plus 4 pages of color illustrations with unit and vehicle markings.
The 2.0 core book starts with about 100 pages of fluff but it's mostly the broad strokes of the Heresy and introductions to each legion. Nothing that would set the world on fire. If you could find one cheap enough from someone who bought multiple Age of Darkness boxes it might be worth it.
The Liber books are very crunch heavy. Each legion has a little unit fluff and a general explanation of who they are plus 4 pages of color illustrations with unit and vehicle markings.
The 2.0 core book starts with about 100 pages of fluff but it's mostly the broad strokes of the Heresy and introductions to each legion. Nothing that would set the world on fire. If you could find one cheap enough from someone who bought multiple Age of Darkness boxes it might be worth it.
I think ScarletRose pretty much nails it. They are chunky books but it is almost all rules and army lists.
So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it
The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...
godardc wrote: So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it
The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...
Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.
Yeah, if you don't compare it to HH1.0, it's totally fine, the game works and is challenging, but when you know the roots, when your compare it to its ancestor, it just raises questions, many questions !
Dreadnought being 2+, isn't fair, even if I do love them and bought some just before HH2.0
I need several more HQ although ! So many consuls look interesting and useful, that's exciting
They are sub type heavy, and lost there BS5 when shooting at non antigrav / flying units and got up in points.
So now I can't even use them in a Maru Skara for example, while before they were the perfect mix between a tank and a quick unit, game wise and fluff wise, perfect for supporting this kind of flank attack.
How can the same unit turn from a fast skimmer to a heavy unit ? Idk
lord_blackfang wrote: What's, uh, what's wrong with Javelins? Asking as a new WS player.
They're much slower now, relegated to the same speed as a rhino. For example, a sabre is now more than twice the speed of a javelin, a javelin used to be able to flat out to 36, it can't do that anymore, but a sabre can basically. That and they made it cavalry and gave it wounds for no reason.
lord_blackfang wrote: I am printing Sabres as well but it's beyond silly that its giant volkite is worse than its little volkite.
I'm gonna do a couple with autocannon/multi-melta and see how it goes, but that's in 1.0, that is indeed funny that the top volkite is better in 2.0, oof
Javelins are brilliant. I don't quite get the issue. So they can't move 36 without firing now.. but they can move their full move and fire all their weapons, don't need to line up LoS on weapons, are much tougher and have hit & run.
Thematically I think it's awesome they can fight in melee now with the marines and that they can be swept and overrun, and also fall back. I do find the fact they can't be meltabombed or taken out by a single las hit a bit wierd though
godardc wrote: So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it
The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...
Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.
Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol
godardc wrote: So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it
The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...
Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.
Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol
thats pretty much it. they want infantry termies and dreads to be useful items not something we "Are forced to take to fill slot"
Bobug wrote: I do find the fact they can't be meltabombed or taken out by a single las hit a bit wierd though
I find taking a vehicle with its inherent benefits and downside and making it cavalry and giving it 360 vision for no reason and the ability to fight combat, again for no reason just a terrible set of changes in a direction counter that of a turn based table top war game, again this is indicative of the direction 8-9th ed 40k went. collectible card game that you still need models for basically.
godardc wrote: So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it
The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...
Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.
Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol
And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. Templates with no ap on incredibly expensive vehicles. Dread spam, no thankyou.
godardc wrote: So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it
The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...
Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.
Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol
thats pretty much it. they want infantry termies and dreads to be useful items not something we "Are forced to take to fill slot"
em_en_oh_pee wrote: "And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. "
lmao, ok. No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.
How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?
This sounds pretty accurate for people who consider GW´s printed rules as holy scripture. I will for sure use vehicle stats for dreadnoughts because they are mechanical walkers after all. You can immobilize them and shoot their weapons off. Suddenly they don´t appear as fearsome as Nottingham´s rule trolls want them to be. Jetbikes are not a concern to me as they won´t find a way into my collection as long as they stay in FW resin.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: "And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. "
lmao, ok. No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.
How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?
This sounds pretty accurate for people who consider GW´s printed rules as holy scripture. I will for sure use vehicle stats for dreadnoughts because they are mechanical walkers after all. You can immobilize them and shoot their weapons off. Suddenly they don´t appear as fearsome as Nottingham´s rule trolls want them to be. Jetbikes are not a concern to me as they won´t find a way into my collection as long as they stay in FW resin.
I like dreadnoughts but always hated skew lists with a handful, now they're practically beating you over the head to take them, not just with resiliency but cost. And it's worse all around, a dreadnought should be tough, but not like football player on angel dust tough. What they did to bikes and jetbikes is just sad.
The problem i have with the reactions system is that it's a constantly in effect option for any and every unit.
Personally i don't like stuff which slows things down by adding extra processes that are mandatory (death from the skies).
The reaction system could have been used to give unique differences to certain units instead of the general game mechanic it has turned out to be and that's a loss for the players imo.
SirDonlad wrote: The problem i have with the reactions system is that it's a constantly in effect option for any and every unit.
Personally i don't like stuff which slows things down by adding extra processes that are mandatory (death from the skies).
The reaction system could have been used to give unique differences to certain units instead of the general game mechanic it has turned out to be and that's a loss for the players imo.
Agreed, for me it's the flow, titanicus games are very different depending on the energy levels/focus and decisiveness of both players because it's constantly back and forth like table tennis, this can be a strength and a weakness but it is a specific sort of cadence, one that for example when disrupted can be hard to pick back up. 30k was never that, my turn was always my own. It's flexible that way, it also allows for larger games with multiple members per side, reactions really mess with that too.
I prefer playing the whole game and not being stuck in my turn twiddling my thumbs and rolling saves. I remember Dust Warfare and that system had a similar setup and it was great, so I am happy to see a more tactical game come out of the old IGYG system.
I do think the proliferation of Heavy subtypw should have been increase ap of template weapons by 1 instead of rerolls. Would have also allowed more ap2/3 templates in game balance
Reactions need to be increased in quantity when playing bigger games. Your usual allotment of points is decisive in a 1k game but it´s watered down when armies grow significantly larger.
Strg Alt wrote: Reactions need to be increased in quantity when playing bigger games. Your usual allotment of points is decisive in a 1k game but it´s watered down when armies grow significantly larger.
The baseline is designed around 2000-3000 points. Significantly above that, like 5k+, requires modifications to have an enjoyable game anyway but additional reaction points would go a pretty long way towards keeping it fun.
This is definitely a case of 'be careful what you wish for'
Or in other words - get ready to buy a Mechanicum army because we get to double the reactions we can take just by having our warlord stand out of the way.
SirDonlad wrote: This is definitely a case of 'be careful what you wish for'
Or in other words - get ready to buy a Mechanicum army because we get to double the reactions we can take just by having our warlord stand out of the way.
That and they should probably introduce some very simple over arching limitations, even people who like reactions don't love the immersion breaking of one units reacting 3 times in their turn, interceptor as a baseline should have downsides if its not to be limited at all. This is the stuff that matter too for scaling both sin normal games and in larger 2 v 2 or mega battles. Handing out "more" without any limitations has real ramifications for everyone.
Like they already need to faq core reactions like overwatch before even getting into the weeds.
Crablezworth wrote: That and they should probably introduce some very simple over arching limitations, even people who like reactions don't love the immersion breaking of one units reacting 3 times in their turn
Interesting. I've not seen these complaints with regard to "immersion" being broken thanks to reactions, rather I've seen that people are praising the break up of turns.
interceptor as a baseline should have downsides if its not to be limited at all.
Good news! There is a limitation on Interceptor. Unless a unit has an Augury Scanner, only one unit may use the Interceptor reaction. Problem solved!
This is the stuff that matter too for scaling both sin normal games and in larger 2 v 2 or mega battles. Handing out "more" without any limitations has real ramifications for everyone.
My group has only played 2v2s (with the odd 2v3 where one player gets an extra army rather than extra points to prevent fewer reactions for one team) and we've had no issues whatsoever except for our first game when we didn't realise Advanced Reactions were once per game rather than turn. After that, nada.
As for the removal of limitations on all reactions, it's entirely dedicated to a single WLT per army and at least for the Iron Warriors, it's not the best choice. Maybe you should y'know, play the game and get informed.
Good news! There is a limitation on Interceptor. Unless a unit has an Augury Scanner, only one unit may use the Interceptor reaction. Problem solved! .
And what limits augery scanners? Are YOU sure you played 2.0?
To be fair the ability to spam interceptor isn't a bad thing considering reserves are so much more powerful now.
I think the kneejerk reaction to it may be be because of siege tyrants in particular (coupled with a certain WLT) but the game is still young and
Playstyles take a bit of time to adapt to new rule sets. I don't think people are taking full advantage of pinning yet for one thing. Rotor cannons and quad mortars are CHEAP and the ability to pin people T1 is very much available.
Out of interest how much have you been playing? I've been playing very regularly since the 1st phase playtest rules leaked and we're still finding a lot of things that aren't readily apparent from just reading the rules off the page and analysing stuff. Ie dreadclaws aren't quite as useless as they would seem!
Don't get me wrong the FAQ is going to have to be huge. Another thing that cropped up last week is that sweeping advance for single and multiple combats is different (single combats the loser escapes on a tie, multiple combats loser gets caught on a tie) so there's yet a fair bit to iron out too in that regard. Overall the more my gaming group is playing the more we're enjoying it! It's definitely really fun
Crablezworth wrote: And what limits augery scanners? Are YOU sure you played 2.0?
Points. You could theoretically take Augury Scanners on most Infantry units in your army but unless your opponent is investing heavily in Deepstriking units then it's going to be huge points sink for almost no benefit.
I only keep saying "play the game" because you keep making assertions that are easily disproven with experience in playing the game. I've not denied that some reactions are better than others (*shakes fist at Blood Angels*) but they aren't nearly as bad as you keep making them out to be.
Contemptors and Leviathans seemed like insanely good units initially but now we've adapted to them, they're still good but not nearly as awful as we first thought because we played the game and learned how to counter them.
- The tank is dead. Overpriced. No damage. No survivability in a game where everything else has rending and does more damage.
- Bolters are even more irrelevant than before. Why am I being asked to roll 40 dice to have the two wounds I inflict either be negated by FNP or chip a wound off a veteran?
- Artillery is dead. Why should I pay a premium for AP4 weapons?
- Alpha strike precision massed deep strike that you can assault from is dumb.
- Reactions heavily favour Death Star mentality especially for shooting units.
- 2 wound elite infantry breaks the game if you don’t have a damage system. Why should I waste gambling autocannons when I could use a lascannon and bypass his feel no pain. Why take a power axe when you could just take a power fist? Never mind who falls on the wrong side of the 2 wound divide.
Bobug wrote: To be fair the ability to spam interceptor isn't a bad thing considering reserves are so much more powerful now.
I think the kneejerk reaction to it may be be because of siege tyrants in particular (coupled with a certain WLT) but the game is still young and
Playstyles take a bit of time to adapt to new rule sets. I don't think people are taking full advantage of pinning yet for one thing. Rotor cannons and quad mortars are CHEAP and the ability to pin people T1 is very much available.
Out of interest how much have you been playing? I've been playing very regularly since the 1st phase playtest rules leaked and we're still finding a lot of things that aren't readily apparent from just reading the rules off the page and analysing stuff. Ie dreadclaws aren't quite as useless as they would seem!
Don't get me wrong the FAQ is going to have to be huge. Another thing that cropped up last week is that sweeping advance for single and multiple combats is different (single combats the loser escapes on a tie, multiple combats loser gets caught on a tie) so there's yet a fair bit to iron out too in that regard. Overall the more my gaming group is playing the more we're enjoying it! It's definitely really fun
Two different outcomes on a tie sounds like a printing error.
- The tank is dead. Overpriced. No damage. No survivability in a game where everything else has rending and does more damage.
- Bolters are even more irrelevant than before. Why am I being asked to roll 40 dice to have the two wounds I inflict either be negated by FNP or chip a wound off a veteran?
- Artillery is dead. Why should I pay a premium for AP4 weapons?
- Alpha strike precision massed deep strike that you can assault from is dumb.
- Reactions heavily favour Death Star mentality especially for shooting units.
- 2 wound elite infantry breaks the game if you don’t have a damage system. Why should I waste gambling autocannons when I could use a lascannon and bypass his feel no pain. Why take a power axe when you could just take a power fist? Never mind who falls on the wrong side of the 2 wound divide.
Overpriced tank:
I finally opened for the first time the core rulebook yesterday and the loyalist book in order to write my upcoming unit entries on index cards. Oh boy was I surprised when the Spartan was 485 pts. and the Kratos 470 pts in the end. Meanwhile the Leviathan remained quite cheap with 290 pts. though I barely upgraded it.
Inefficient artillery:
I was also surprised when the large blast from the Kratos battlecannon only featured AP4. The battlecannon in comparison from the LRBT had AP3 way back in 3rd. Guess I will have to tweak the Kratos cannon to AP3 as everything else would make no sense.
The rest:
Yeah it boils down to show some restraint during list writing. Just seeing large terminator squads and dreadnoughts plowing through the battlefield will get old very quickly.
- The tank is dead. Overpriced. No damage. No survivability in a game where everything else has rending and does more damage.
- Bolters are even more irrelevant than before. Why am I being asked to roll 40 dice to have the two wounds I inflict either be negated by FNP or chip a wound off a veteran?
- Artillery is dead. Why should I pay a premium for AP4 weapons?
- Alpha strike precision massed deep strike that you can assault from is dumb.
- Reactions heavily favour Death Star mentality especially for shooting units.
- 2 wound elite infantry breaks the game if you don’t have a damage system. Why should I waste gambling autocannons when I could use a lascannon and bypass his feel no pain. Why take a power axe when you could just take a power fist? Never mind who falls on the wrong side of the 2 wound divide.
I love the Kratos model but see no point in actually taking it for games. Infantry and dreads are the way to go. I'm only running my spartan until I have the models to replace it. No idea when that will be as I'm waiting on tyrant siege termies, IW dread, autocannons, etc to come in stock for the rest of my army. For now my 2500 is just the AoD box and Perty. 20 tacs with bolters, 10 lascannon, 10 missile launchers, las/autocannon dread, terms with lightning claws.
I do agree on Spartans a bit. They're really pricey for what they do. I've found land raiders are still pretty decent for speeding terminators about and providing support but I am playing white scars with them so they're faassstt and I can do the once a game gtfo move.
Also, artillery isn't there to wipe units out. It's to pin things. It's also still pretty cost effective, it just isn't broken like it was in 1.00. medusas making their points back in 1 shot isn't exactly a fun play experience for your opponent. I'm glad it's dead.
Quad mortars are cheap as hell and with shellshock have a really good chance of pinning a unit down. Even barebones they only need to ping off a few tactical marines and they've made their points back.
Also, im interested in how you/your opponents are scoring if everyone is just spamming terminators and dreadnaughts? Can't help but feel this is all kneejerk reactions from reading the rules and not actually playing the game.
Bobug wrote: How are you spending 470 on a kratos?
I do agree on Spartans a bit. They're really pricey for what they do. I've found land raiders are still pretty decent for speeding terminators about and providing support but I am playing white scars with them so they're faassstt and I can do the once a game gtfo move.
Also, artillery isn't there to wipe units out. It's to pin things. It's also still pretty cost effective, it just isn't broken like it was in 1.00. medusas making their points back in 1 shot isn't exactly a fun play experience for your opponent. I'm glad it's dead.
Quad mortars are cheap as hell and with shellshock have a really good chance of pinning a unit down. Even barebones they only need to ping off a few tactical marines and they've made their points back.
Also, im interested in how you/your opponents are scoring if everyone is just spamming terminators and dreadnaughts? Can't help but feel this is all kneejerk reactions from reading the rules and not actually playing the game.
IH Kratos:
Flare shield 50 pts, Armatus Necrotechnika 50 pts and various minor upgrades.
- The tank is dead. Overpriced. No damage. No survivability in a game where everything else has rending and does more damage.
- Bolters are even more irrelevant than before. Why am I being asked to roll 40 dice to have the two wounds I inflict either be negated by FNP or chip a wound off a veteran?
- Artillery is dead. Why should I pay a premium for AP4 weapons?
- Alpha strike precision massed deep strike that you can assault from is dumb.
- Reactions heavily favour Death Star mentality especially for shooting units.
- 2 wound elite infantry breaks the game if you don’t have a damage system. Why should I waste gambling autocannons when I could use a lascannon and bypass his feel no pain. Why take a power axe when you could just take a power fist? Never mind who falls on the wrong side of the 2 wound divide.
Bobug wrote: Also, im interested in how you/your opponents are scoring if everyone is just spamming terminators and dreadnaughts? Can't help but feel this is all kneejerk reactions from reading the rules and not actually playing the game.
Shhhh. Don't say that. You might encourage debate based on actual experience.
Also, artillery isn't there to wipe units out. It's to pin things. It's also still pretty cost effective, it just isn't broken like it was in 1.00. medusas making their points back in 1 shot isn't exactly a fun play experience for your opponent. I'm glad it's dead.
The guy in our group with 3 Medusas was mad. Everyone else was absolutely fine with it because as you said, having chunks of your army deleted every turn isn't fun.
Bobug wrote: Also, im interested in how you/your opponents are scoring if everyone is just spamming terminators and dreadnaughts? Can't help but feel this is all kneejerk reactions from reading the rules and not actually playing the game.
Shhhh. Don't say that. You might encourage debate based on actual experience.
Also, artillery isn't there to wipe units out. It's to pin things. It's also still pretty cost effective, it just isn't broken like it was in 1.00. medusas making their points back in 1 shot isn't exactly a fun play experience for your opponent. I'm glad it's dead.
The guy in our group with 3 Medusas was mad. Everyone else was absolutely fine with it because as you said, having chunks of your army deleted every turn isn't fun.
The only artillery that was really overpowered in old Heresy was the Quad guns and especially with phosphex prior to the FAQ. Mainly due to sheer volume of wounds and the fact that artillery units were very difficult to shift.
That’s not true of basilisks, Medusa and vindicators. They were very light vehicles that might be able to get one of two shots off that could kill a few guys. Before finding themselves swiftly killed by outflanking, deepstriking, planes, etc etc. Without phosphex shells they were very inaccurate.
So all it does is reduce the power of those guns even more than they already were. Also, it’s wrong to apply this logic to super heavy battle tanks like the Typhon and Fellblade. They are meant to be deleting chunks of your line.
Plus the real cheese like feel no pain and artificer sergeants hasn’t gone anywhere and even gotten more prevalent.
It’s really strange because so much of this new plastic heresy range is these new tanks which are so unworkable in the game.
Agree to disagree with regards to Medusas because in my experience they have been nothing but an issue. I do find it funny that you think Large Blasts with a maximum scatter distance of 8" are inaccurate. Unless every single opponent you fight is taking only tiny units or is stringing them along the board, you're going to hit a good chunk of models with each blast, especially in the early game.
I also never said units like the Typhon or Fellblade shouldn't have that kind of firepower so don't put words in my mouth.
As for FNP and AA, it's the same as it was IMO. The majority of my group's lists haven't changed (with the exception of the Tsons player who is now able to play games higher than 2k without borrowing stuff).
Gert wrote: Agree to disagree with regards to Medusas because in my experience they have been nothing but an issue. I do find it funny that you think Large Blasts with a maximum scatter distance of 8" are inaccurate. Unless every single opponent you fight is taking only tiny units or is stringing them along the board, you're going to hit a good chunk of models with each blast, especially in the early game.
I also never said units like the Typhon or Fellblade shouldn't have that kind of firepower so don't put words in my mouth.
As for FNP and AA, it's the same as it was IMO. The majority of my group's lists haven't changed (with the exception of the Tsons player who is now able to play games higher than 2k without borrowing stuff).
Why should a 200-250 point tank killing 3-5 marines a turn be overpowered? Especially because you’ve got cover, invulnerable saves and your own shooting to deal with any stray pie plate. If your infantry column is walking across open ground, they should be taking casualties to shooting.
The max scatter was 12 out of line of sight. Assuming you have a nuncio vox it can be eight or if you’re parked dangerously close with the Vindicators.
Quite easily, you shoot a wall of space marines and the shell goes off the board or ahead of the line or onto that chunk of area terrain models can’t pass. Even then, unless your opponent has pushed his guys shoulder to shoulder you never get more than a handful of guys. Which can easily be achieved by five lascannons. Believe there are far more dangerous things you could put into an army than vindicators and basilisks. I’ve never seen either of those units make their points back, even when they got some good shooting in.
Because the feel no pain is more plentiful and going onto 2 wound infantry. So it’s more obnoxious than before.
I don’t see why it’s reasonable to be paying crazy points to make enemy units roll a pin check, which they’ll probably pass, when those points could just buy the weapons to kill them instead.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Why should a 200-250 point tank killing 3-5 marines a turn be overpowered?
The max scatter was 12 out of line of sight. Assuming you have a nuncio vox it can be eight or if you’re parked dangerously close with the Vindicators.
In HH 1 Medusas were 155 each, not 200, and certainly not 250. The gun was S10, AP2, Ordnance 1, Barrage, with a Large Blast and 36" range. The only reason the Medusa was bad was if you exclusively shot units not in LoS and rolled high every single time. The average 2d6 roll is 7, which means Medusa blasts are scattering 3" for units within LoS. No armour saves or FNP and it cracks most vehicles with ease.
Quite easily, you shoot a wall of space marines and the shell goes off the board or ahead of the line or onto that chunk of area terrain models can’t pass. Even then, unless your opponent has pushed his guys shoulder to shoulder you never get more than a handful of guys. Which can easily be achieved by five lascannons. Believe there are far more dangerous things you could put into an army than vindicators and basilisks. I’ve never seen either of those units make their points back, even when they got some good shooting in.
Again, Basilisks are bad nobody is denying that. Medusas on the other hand were very very good, which is specifically what I have been talking about. Yes, there are other units you can also take but paying 465 points for 3 very good artillery pieces is really nice. I haven't even begun to talk about the Militia artillery which was so much harder to kill for peanuts points cost.
Because the feel no pain is more plentiful and going onto 2 wound infantry. So it’s more obnoxious than before.
Only certain elite (as in rank, not force org slot) units have 2 Wounds so unless your opponent is exclusively running Pride of the Legion or another variant then it is not nearly as much of an issue.
As a side note, the fact that these elite units have 2 wounds now makes them actually worth using. Terminators are so much better now they don't just die from one Lasgun shot.
Just to add on actually, both the Basilisk and Medusa ignore FNPand cause Instant Death because they are double nearly all Marine units toughness values. Your complaint about 2 Wounds and FNP is utter bogus.
In HH 1 Medusas were 155 each, not 200, and certainly not 250. The gun was S10, AP2, Ordnance 1, Barrage, with a Large Blast and 36" range. The only reason the Medusa was bad was if you exclusively shot units not in LoS and rolled high every single time. The average 2d6 roll is 7, which means Medusa blasts are scattering 3" for units within LoS. No armour saves or FNP and it cracks most vehicles with ease.
in.
Again, Basilisks are bad nobody is denying that. Medusas on the other hand were very very good, which is specifically what I have been talking about. Yes, there are other units you can also take but paying 465 points for 3 very good artillery pieces is really nice. I haven't even begun to talk about the Militia artillery which was so much harder to kill for peanuts points cost.
Because the feel no pain is more plentiful and going onto 2 wound infantry. So it’s more obnoxious than before.
Only certain elite (as in rank, not force org slot) units have 2 Wounds so unless your opponent is exclusively running Pride of the Legion or another variant then it is not nearly as much of an issue.
As a side note, the fact that these elite units have 2 wounds now makes them actually worth using. Terminators are so much better now they don't just die from one Lasgun shot.
Just to add on actually, both the Basilisk and Medusa ignore FNPand cause Instant Death because they are double nearly all Marine units toughness values. Your complaint about 2 Wounds and FNP is utter bogus.
Which is almost as much an entire squad of infantry. Meaning to make its points back it has to kill its own weight in bodies. Also, picking the most powerful artillery gun as proof that all blast weapons across the board needed to be neutered whilst also boosting infantry?
Well given they can’t punch through armour it means they’re unable to kill infantry. If I shoot a thousand points of tanks at power armour space marines, that shouldn’t result in a handful of guys being killed.
Feel no pain and artificer armour is a separate issue because they make already durable infantry tough to kill with supposedly anti infantry and small arms fire. As well as invalidating a ton of melee weapons. Which leaves you with just taking a lascannon squad or your own terminators and melee infantry. It’s just an auto include that makes your units arbitrarily better than if you invested those points elsewhere. If your assault squad gets bracketed by a 50 bolt shells then you should get punished for being in that situation; not get a cheap boost that invalidates what limited damage you actually do. It’s not unfair that Volkite culverins or Sicaran, or vindicators can kill infantry out in the open.
Because even 1 wound infantry is obnoxious with feel no pain and artificer. Never mind doubling the wounds for those elite infantry that always form the actual core of a Horus Heresy army. They’re far from rare and one troop choice for every thousand points is not a troop heavy army as people seem to think.
Personally I don’t think you should get feel no pain unless you’re stationary and out of close combat.
Worth pointing out at this point that the ubiquitous flare shield drops the strength of blast type attacks by 2 so the medusa was actually S8 against anything with one; and a spartan needed a direct hit and a 6 for armour pen to glance it.
Also; the phosphex 'crawling fire' rule was what made them obnoxious because you'd be moving the fleshbane AP2 template 2" for the better every placement
The scatter dice being effectively a 5+ for an optimum hit position doesn't help
Edit: not liking how the whole 'disciplines' thing is looking
Pick one of seven different High Techno-Arcana,
The techno-arcana choice for a magos had six options (archimandrite, malagra, myrmidax, ordinator, lachrimallus and makrotek) but cybernetica is now one of those disciplines..
Gert wrote: Agree to disagree with regards to Medusas because in my experience they have been nothing but an issue. I do find it funny that you think Large Blasts with a maximum scatter distance of 8" are inaccurate. Unless every single opponent you fight is taking only tiny units or is stringing them along the board, you're going to hit a good chunk of models with each blast, especially in the early game.
I also never said units like the Typhon or Fellblade shouldn't have that kind of firepower so don't put words in my mouth.
As for FNP and AA, it's the same as it was IMO. The majority of my group's lists haven't changed (with the exception of the Tsons player who is now able to play games higher than 2k without borrowing stuff).
Not sure about Typhons, but Fellblades are fine. Besides the changes to the Demolisher Cannons (which is more of a "change" than a "nerf", as it's better against some targets, but worse against others), everything got better. Accelerator Cannon gained +1 strength and Exoshock(4), lascannon arrays gained Sunder, and Laser Destroyers gained Exoshock(6) and literally doubled their shots. As a Fellblade owner, I have no complaints, other than the lack of an explanation of just how an Ordnance weapon with Armourbane is supposed to roll for Armour Penetration.
Also, im interested in how you/your opponents are scoring if everyone is just spamming terminators and dreadnaughts? Can't help but feel this is all kneejerk reactions from reading the rules and not actually playing the game.
Fury of the Ancients gives Dreads line. Pride of the Legion gives terminators Line. Legion Standards can give retinue terminators (like Justaerin or command squads) line, legion heralds come with legion standards, etc.
It is extremely easy to get a fully scoring list of dreads and/or terminators.
- The tank is dead. Overpriced. No damage. No survivability in a game where everything else has rending and does more damage.
- Bolters are even more irrelevant than before. Why am I being asked to roll 40 dice to have the two wounds I inflict either be negated by FNP or chip a wound off a veteran?
- Artillery is dead. Why should I pay a premium for AP4 weapons?
- Alpha strike precision massed deep strike that you can assault from is dumb.
- Reactions heavily favour Death Star mentality especially for shooting units.
- 2 wound elite infantry breaks the game if you don’t have a damage system. Why should I waste gambling autocannons when I could use a lascannon and bypass his feel no pain. Why take a power axe when you could just take a power fist? Never mind who falls on the wrong side of the 2 wound divide.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Why should a 200-250 point tank killing 3-5 marines a turn be overpowered?
The max scatter was 12 out of line of sight. Assuming you have a nuncio vox it can be eight or if you’re parked dangerously close with the Vindicators.
In HH 1 Medusas were 155 each, not 200, and certainly not 250. The gun was S10, AP2, Ordnance 1, Barrage, with a Large Blast and 36" range. The only reason the Medusa was bad was if you exclusively shot units not in LoS and rolled high every single time. The average 2d6 roll is 7, which means Medusa blasts are scattering 3" for units within LoS. No armour saves or FNP and it cracks most vehicles with ease.
Quite easily, you shoot a wall of space marines and the shell goes off the board or ahead of the line or onto that chunk of area terrain models can’t pass. Even then, unless your opponent has pushed his guys shoulder to shoulder you never get more than a handful of guys. Which can easily be achieved by five lascannons. Believe there are far more dangerous things you could put into an army than vindicators and basilisks. I’ve never seen either of those units make their points back, even when they got some good shooting in.
Again, Basilisks are bad nobody is denying that. Medusas on the other hand were very very good, which is specifically what I have been talking about. Yes, there are other units you can also take but paying 465 points for 3 very good artillery pieces is really nice. I haven't even begun to talk about the Militia artillery which was so much harder to kill for peanuts points cost.
Because the feel no pain is more plentiful and going onto 2 wound infantry. So it’s more obnoxious than before.
Only certain elite (as in rank, not force org slot) units have 2 Wounds so unless your opponent is exclusively running Pride of the Legion or another variant then it is not nearly as much of an issue.
As a side note, the fact that these elite units have 2 wounds now makes them actually worth using. Terminators are so much better now they don't just die from one Lasgun shot.
Just to add on actually, both the Basilisk and Medusa ignore FNPand cause Instant Death because they are double nearly all Marine units toughness values. Your complaint about 2 Wounds and FNP is utter bogus.
Medusas are 10 armour on 75% of their facings, it takes very little do destroy one at range. Why today, my medusa was killed by a deep striking terminator unit firing combi-plasma, they die to a wet fart. It got 2 shots off before doing so btw, neither of which hit. Look, it's very simple, infantry in the open, power armour or not, aren't going to do well with very powerful explosive or kinetic weaponry. I don't think being in power armour would help much being hit by a sabot or cannister shell even from a modern tank. The majority of the meta is built on 2+ and 3+ armour, most ap values are meaninguless if they're not 3 2 or 1 outside of a few edge case factions that aren't as common as marines in 30k. The medusa works exactly as it should, it seems like this entire 2nd edition is designed to by someone who just doesn't like the idea of any kind of high efficacy shooting, which is why it's worse than 1.0, it's not a combined arms wargame anymore, it's mary sue dreadnought hour featuring termiantors.
Also, im interested in how you/your opponents are scoring if everyone is just spamming terminators and dreadnaughts? Can't help but feel this is all kneejerk reactions from reading the rules and not actually playing the game.
Fury of the Ancients gives Dreads line. Pride of the Legion gives terminators Line. Legion Standards can give retinue terminators (like Justaerin or command squads) line, legion heralds come with legion standards, etc.
It is extremely easy to get a fully scoring list of dreads and/or terminators.
Even outside of having scoring or access to it, you get silly units like tyrant siege terminators, silly in that they're quickly underline for your opponents the less than fun aspects of some reactions for some units, if your army comprises heavily of them, that's a lof 10 missiles coming back at you reactions, enough to maybe make you look at 1.0 again.
Funnily enough, my experience with my opponent's Tyrant Siege Terminators is they're useless. In 4 turns, with reactions etc, they did 1 point of damage to 1 of 4 dreadnoughts I had.
On planet bowling ball (we had just played a 20 minute Zone Mortalis game and had time to burn so we re-wracked on a flat table w/o ZM rules to see how Tyrants would play out. Turns out, not well.)
Crablezworth wrote: it's not a combined arms wargame anymore, it's mary sue dreadnought hour featuring termiantors.
What are you, 12?
I think I'm done here. If you're resorting to that kind of thing for your arguments there's no point in continuing. Enjoy your game that hasn't been updated since 2019.
Crablezworth wrote: it's not a combined arms wargame anymore, it's mary sue dreadnought hour featuring termiantors.
What are you, 12?
I think I'm done here. If you're resorting to that kind of thing for your arguments there's no point in continuing. Enjoy your game that hasn't been updated since 2019.
Gert you've been done in this thread 3 times yet you keep coming back to it and to pretend the energy you bring every time is is somehow roses and sunshine is laughable at best fren.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Funnily enough, my experience with my opponent's Tyrant Siege Terminators is they're useless. In 4 turns, with reactions etc, they did 1 point of damage to 1 of 4 dreadnoughts I had.
On planet bowling ball (we had just played a 20 minute Zone Mortalis game and had time to burn so we re-wracked on a flat table w/o ZM rules to see how Tyrants would play out. Turns out, not well.)
"to one of the 4 dreadnought I had" I feel like we may have figured this one out
We were intentionally stress testing the system, to be fair. My actual lists are far softer, things like squads of 20 SoH reavers with power fists and barebones assault marine squads.
Basically interested in how absolutely miserable the events we signed up for at NOVA are going to be, playing 3 strangers who probably think contemptors and terminators are so super cool.
As soon as I realized how oppressive contemptors were I put the list I've been working on since last NOVA (2019...) away.
It was a Mortifactor with a talon of 3 fist/assault cannon contemptors, a dual volkite contemptor and some tactical squads to fill out troops - no RoW.
Now the same list, or using it as Fury o' the Ancients is just feels bad all around.
Crablezworth wrote: it's not a combined arms wargame anymore, it's mary sue dreadnought hour featuring termiantors.
What are you, 12?
I think I'm done here. If you're resorting to that kind of thing for your arguments there's no point in continuing. Enjoy your game that hasn't been updated since 2019.
I guess some ghostwritten romance novel with Fabio on the cover that came out a week ago is better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, simply by virtue of being updated more recently...
Crablezworth wrote: it's not a combined arms wargame anymore, it's mary sue dreadnought hour featuring termiantors.
What are you, 12?
I think I'm done here. If you're resorting to that kind of thing for your arguments there's no point in continuing. Enjoy your game that hasn't been updated since 2019.
I guess some ghostwritten romance novel with Fabio on the cover that came out a week ago is better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, simply by virtue of being updated more recently...
@stratigo I don't agree about 1.0 being a bad game as I played quite a bit and enjoyed it. However, I played Mechanicum and my friend played Chaos Daemons so we didn't experience the same issues as the people playing marines v marines only.
The balance of HH 1 was pretty bad, not better then the current, plus it Inheritted a lot of issues from 7th like wound allocation and the annoying psychic phase. A few of those remain, cause rolling 30 saves 1 at a time for your sergeant is absolutely bad design that makes the game chuuuuug, but they toned back Death Stars and artillery parking lots, with the cost of overtuning dreadnoughts, but much less of a problem then the whole “you took more then min infantry? Moron” that was the last edition.
But the biggest boon by far is reactions. It makes the reactive turn exciting and adds a lot of tactical thinking into the game
Hey guys, I have an issue with my french version of the rules. My liber says that a Paragon Blade is murderous strike (6+) but battlescribe says it is murderous strike (5+). Is it a flaw in my libers or in battlescribe ?
Thanks !
It probably comes from the assembly instructions in the boxed set. There are unit and weapon profiles in the back, and the paragon blade is Murderous 5+ in that.
Platuan4th wrote: Not yet, but the Legends PDF talks about them being in a future something.
thx 4 the quick reply. Got the starter on th eway. Played 1.0 broken 1Ksons (see gallery). Want to do black shield or loyalist. Something black, but don't dig IH or RG or DA. Maybe BA.
BTW- I need the Horus Heresy Liber Astartes Loyalist Legiones to actual play don't i?
Mixture of, back in my day Dread had no wounds and a disdain for putting stratagems in. The usual stuff.
But closer to home, there’s a lot of enthusiasm and models being built; but almost no desire to play the game itself. I think last game I had was few month back now. I can count on one hand the number of games Ive played and I really don’t have a firm grasp of the rules. I don’t know, everyone seems far too busy to fit in these games and I can only push the point so far.
TBF life gets in the way.
I would recommend taking a look at the HH/Titanicus events FB page, it's always very active with weekenders and the such. The group I've found through that was really welcoming of newcomers and I've been to 3 of their events now with a 4th coming up at the start of December.
Mixture of, back in my day Dread had no wounds and a disdain for putting stratagems in. The usual stuff.
But closer to home, there’s a lot of enthusiasm and models being built; but almost no desire to play the game itself. I think last game I had was few month back now. I can count on one hand the number of games Ive played and I really don’t have a firm grasp of the rules. I don’t know, everyone seems far too busy to fit in these games and I can only push the point so far.
Well, it's not all rose coloured glasses, stratagems being sorta forced into a game that doesn't need it is a continuing problem in more than 30k, plenty of people I know have found the explosion of stratagems in 40k was final nail in the coffin on even trying to keep current with it, they're a problem in adeptus titanicus for the same reason, there are far too many, and many are contetious and massive fun sponges, the latest AT book even sees them introducing a mechanic where both players have a whole hand of stratagem cards. I like wargames, was never a card game fan. 40k already feels like a card game with 200$ models.
The dreadnought issue is a perfect example of 2.0 just not even establishing itself as needed. 30k if it had any issues at a core level was it shared 7th issues with MC's and FMC's, this also didn't matter much outside of daemons of the ruinstorm. 2.0 for some reason decided to change a bunch of unit types in a worse direction. There is arguably a consensus that dreadnoughts were poorly handled in 2.0 and I haven't talked to a single player who hasn't had a strong opinion one way or another on how they are now in 2.0. All of that contributes to 2.0 not being that popular, it competes too much with other games. In my case, no will to learn and pay for a new ruleset that just seems worse. I can play 1.0 without having to open a new book or spend a dime. I think it's easy for everyone to bite off more than they can chew, that doesn't mean plenty of people didn't just leave their starters half built after the initial excitement wore off. Some understandably may still be waiting for their legios specific heads to be released.
There is more wonky stuff in HH 2.0 than just Uber-Dreads. Take the speed of infantry as an example. They have a move score of 7 as opposed to a move score of 4 in 2nd 40K. Couple this with the fact that artillery can´t pound the grunts into oblivion anymore you may just as well run without transports around the board as you
don´t need the speed nor the added protection of an APC.
Strg Alt wrote: There is more wonky stuff in HH 2.0 than just Uber-Dreads. Take the speed of infantry as an example. They have a move score of 7 as opposed to a move score of 4 in 2nd 40K. Couple this with the fact that artillery can´t pound the grunts into oblivion anymore you may just as well run without transports around the board as you
don´t need the speed nor the added protection of an APC.
On the APC point. Can't you move the transport half distance, disembark, move then shoot? For a unit toting rapidfire weapons it effectively doubles their move speed/threat range for the price of 35pts. Yes it's less useful for an assault unit but still a good chunk of speed for a cheap points investment. And lets you use them for mobile LOS blocking. Or use a reaction in the movement phase to plop the rhino in between an assault unit and a squishy infantry unit.
Infantry being Mv7 has benifits for the game too. Pushes it more towards a movement game than just a stand still and shoot one. Firelanes become important, but if you want to move through cover suddenly your movement stat becomes 5 for one to even three phases.
On the APC point. Can't you move the transport half distance, disembark, move then shoot? For a unit toting rapidfire weapons it effectively doubles their move speed/threat range for the price of 35pts. Yes it's less useful for an assault unit but still a good chunk of speed for a cheap points investment. And lets you use them for mobile LOS blocking. Or use a reaction in the movement phase to plop the rhino in between an assault unit and a squishy infantry unit.
Infantry being Mv7 has benifits for the game too. Pushes it more towards a movement game than just a stand still and shoot one. Firelanes become important, but if you want to move through cover suddenly your movement stat becomes 5 for one to even three phases.
Yup, did it with my sunkillers last night(needed to get them in a building).
I like the game overall and there are only a couple things that irk me, but they're easily houseruled.
For me the pros are one part nostaligia and one part the sensation that my choices matter from turn to turn. And a bit of fun maneuvering about, like just running headlong at the enemy or standing in the back won't work in many situations, how you face your tanks making a difference for their output and durability. All very fun to me.
Oh and despite having the same basic toolbox, lots of variety in how you build your list. 2 armies of the same legion may look very, very different depending on the player.
The cons are probably just dreads feeling a little too tough. Too durable for their points.
Strg Alt wrote: There is more wonky stuff in HH 2.0 than just Uber-Dreads. Take the speed of infantry as an example. They have a move score of 7 as opposed to a move score of 4 in 2nd 40K. Couple this with the fact that artillery can´t pound the grunts into oblivion anymore you may just as well run without transports around the board as you
don´t need the speed nor the added protection of an APC.
The bespoke movement stat stuff again not a fan, I like the integers of 6 inches more.
They previewed the whirlwind scorpius, which in 1.0 is fantastic, but in 2.0 warcom couldn't even get the rules right. but it's like ap4 or something useless. Also rumours of a plastic typhon, but again seems like only something one must have in 1.0.
Strg Alt wrote: There is more wonky stuff in HH 2.0 than just Uber-Dreads. Take the speed of infantry as an example. They have a move score of 7 as opposed to a move score of 4 in 2nd 40K. Couple this with the fact that artillery can´t pound the grunts into oblivion anymore you may just as well run without transports around the board as you
don´t need the speed nor the added protection of an APC.
The bespoke movement stat stuff again not a fan, I like the integers of 6 inches more.
They previewed the whirlwind scorpius, which in 1.0 is fantastic, but in 2.0 warcom couldn't even get the rules right. but it's like ap4 or something useless. Also rumours of a plastic typhon, but again seems like only something one must have in 1.0.
It's AP4 but gets Rending (4+) if it doesn't move, so it's actually decent, I guess? Indirect Large Blast S8 that's AP2 half the time and pins. Sure. It's still a vehicle, so I'm not keen on it, but whatever floats other peoples' boats. It's probably the least useless artillery of the bunch.
When 2.0 first came out and everything had Pinning, I got excited that pinning/suppression/etc would be valuable and powerful. Turns out when half of the real units you're actually facing are Dreadnoughts or Stubborn Terminators, Pinning is exactly as useless as it always was. Sad!
Pinning is really good.. there's plenty of non-dread non terminator units out there. Plus even terminators have a fairly decent chance of getting pinned.
Also re the Scorpius. If anyone thinks Its bad I'm going to assume you haven't played with it. It's a very strong unit and incredibly cost effective to boot.
Hoping for the rest of the sicarans and a vindicator kit soon
Leadership in general needs to be taken into account. Took a unit of skyhunters, lost 2 models then fled off the board over a couple turns. I will be taking at least a centurion with that unit from now on for that ld 9 or 10.
Also, took a retinue jump pack command squad with Eidelon. If you can manage to keep them from getting shot to death they are a fantastic hammer unit, able to bully veterans, terminators with prarters and more. Sure it costs about 500pts but it's a lot of power with line for objective capturing. Also, damn getting the 3rd legion reaction off can turn a combat around.
Also, took a retinue jump pack command squad with Eidelon. If you can manage to keep them from getting shot to death they are a fantastic hammer unit, able to bully veterans, terminators with prarters and more. Sure it costs about 500pts but it's a lot of power with line for objective capturing. Also, damn getting the 3rd legion reaction off can turn a combat around.
A buddy of mine took that for his Blood Angels. Used the current 40k Blood Angel models because the jump packs scream 30k and had them armed with Perdition Blades. Brutal 2 power weapons slaughter other vets pretty quick.
The editions are the same. They both have the same obvious large imbalances, the same need of a faq to fix/clarify broken mechanics, the same back burner feel compared to 40k and aos. They're basically two sides to the same coin, with preference for the minutia being the deciding factor.
Myself, I don't like the semi-realized, reactionary, balance changes. The Scorpius is an example of blasts being weakened, but still viable; the Medusa, arquitor, basilisk, whirlwind, etc...are not. Outriders got consigned to the pit while scimitars excel. I'll always prefer the edition where more of my collection is viable, even though I do have fun playing 2nd.
A buddy of mine took that for his Blood Angels. Used the current 40k Blood Angel models because the jump packs scream 30k and had them armed with Perdition Blades. Brutal 2 power weapons slaughter other vets pretty quick
You can't actually do that. You have to be a character to get a perdition weapon, and command squads thankfully aren't characters.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: The editions are the same. They both have the same obvious large imbalances, the same need of a faq to fix/clarify broken mechanics, the same back burner feel compared to 40k and aos. They're basically two sides to the same coin, with preference for the minutia being the deciding factor.
Myself, I don't like the semi-realized, reactionary, balance changes. The Scorpius is an example of blasts being weakened, but still viable; the Medusa, arquitor, basilisk, whirlwind, etc...are not. Outriders got consigned to the pit while scimitars excel. I'll always prefer the edition where more of my collection is viable, even though I do have fun playing 2nd.
Ya, so far 2nd makes me nostalgic for 1st. Big ole pizza pies of death with nice AP.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: The editions are the same. They both have the same obvious large imbalances, the same need of a faq to fix/clarify broken mechanics, the same back burner feel compared to 40k and aos. They're basically two sides to the same coin, with preference for the minutia being the deciding factor.
Myself, I don't like the semi-realized, reactionary, balance changes. The Scorpius is an example of blasts being weakened, but still viable; the Medusa, arquitor, basilisk, whirlwind, etc...are not. Outriders got consigned to the pit while scimitars excel. I'll always prefer the edition where more of my collection is viable, even though I do have fun playing 2nd.
There are some jank reactions for sure. Angron used the world eaters to charge a unit in the shooting phase and get engaged. I charged a unit of custodes in to try and take him out but they got slaughtered by a lot of murderous strike axes to the face before they got to swing. Angron didn't even allocate any attacks to the unit he charged. (we checked and I couldn't find a single rule that said he had to.) But eventually the chump got cheap shooted by a unit of 3 solar auxilia. So that was worth a good laugh.
Also multple combats frequently work out in the custodes favour, get the unit engaged with a nemisis unit and they can crush another unit with those extra attacks.
Currently I am in a bit of a pickle because, I know the answer is thirty lascannons with augury scanners or ten dreadnoughts. But I’ve more or less tailored all my Legions to be different. My Ultra are like that (not ten dreads admittedly). Sons of Horus is a mixture of tanks and terminator. EC is all about rapid assault from Storm Eagles. Imperial Fist are a short range shooting army with a CC punch. Death Guard it’s similar but more Chem flamers. Basically they don’t all have heavy weapon squads that you wouldn’t want to give a free turn of shooting to.
Basically the way it’s been going is, drop assault comes, clears the chaff and then they can just mob my elite close combat units. Just an overwhelming Alpha strike that can kill 2k in a turn. Like we’re talking, 30 assault marines, ten raptors, ten man command squad with praetor, leviathan and ten terminators from two Dreadclaws. There just isn’t enough firepower to dent the assault. Even if my whole back line fired all their bolters and rotor guns we’re only talking a handful of marines when I need to delete the enemy army or cause so much damage that my Elite units don’t get mobbed.
The recon marines just have the ability to delete my tanks and I feel the only way to move them is to send a deathstar at them. I haven’t even had to deal with a lascannon squads AT firepower because these snipers seem just as dangerous. Like I am not kidding, land raiders gone from a single squad; hull points.
How many of the recon marines is your opponent taking?
10 shots a squad, needing 6s followed by a 3 on a D3 to glance a landraider, like 5 wounds each right? They're more of a threat to characters than tanks honestly.
If all else fails, I guess take a librarian, use the power that gives everyone in range an invul. Should help your tanks last longer. Telekinesis I think, it's a 4++ so great for camping.
cody.d. wrote: How many of the recon marines is your opponent taking?
10 shots a squad, needing 6s followed by a 3 on a D3 to glance a landraider, like 5 wounds each right? They're more of a threat to characters than tanks honestly.
If all else fails, I guess take a librarian, use the power that gives everyone in range an invul. Should help your tanks last longer. Telekinesis I think, it's a 4++ so great for camping.
Ten with a Vigilator. That’s proven enough to take half the hull points off a Kratos. Kill a Sicaran Punisher. Destroy a Land Raider in one turn. Tanks worth near enough as much as the squad. Also, Night Lords.
They rend on a 5 and a 6. Believe me I’ve looked, the math says he should only be able to chip a hull point or two a turn and it shouldn’t be an issue at all.
10 shots. 6 hits. 2 rend. So maybe 1 to 2 hull points. Vigilator probably makes it a firm two. With your Night Lords plus 1 armour pen.
cody.d. wrote: How many of the recon marines is your opponent taking?
10 shots a squad, needing 6s followed by a 3 on a D3 to glance a landraider, like 5 wounds each right? They're more of a threat to characters than tanks honestly.
If all else fails, I guess take a librarian, use the power that gives everyone in range an invul. Should help your tanks last longer. Telekinesis I think, it's a 4++ so great for camping.
Ten with a Vigilator. That’s proven enough to take half the hull points off a Kratos. Kill a Sicaran Punisher. Destroy a Land Raider in one turn. Tanks worth near enough as much as the squad. Also, Night Lords.
They rend on a 5 and a 6.
They still need to roll 6 to wound to get to av 14 though, 5+6+3 is only just tickling 14 with a perfect roll. I would check if your opponents dice are rigged then. They should be doing 1 or 2 wounds to your raiders, tops. If you take flare shields then your raiders can't be hurt at all by them.
Failing that, yeah see if any librarian's powers are helpful to you.
And once you kill 1 mook they no longer outnumber your tank. But yeah, if you find your raiders dying, maybe give a Flare shield a roll. Also makes them immune to str8 which is handy and even lascannons can only glance you. Throw in Telekinesis dome for an invul ontop, and then use the evade reaction on one of them to really piss off your opponent. (Pretty sure that all functions properly.)
Currently I am in a bit of a pickle because, I know the answer is thirty lascannons with augury scanners or ten dreadnoughts. But I’ve more or less tailored all my Legions to be different. My Ultra are like that (not ten dreads admittedly). Sons of Horus is a mixture of tanks and terminator. EC is all about rapid assault from Storm Eagles. Imperial Fist are a short range shooting army with a CC punch. Death Guard it’s similar but more Chem flamers. Basically they don’t all have heavy weapon squads that you wouldn’t want to give a free turn of shooting to.
Basically the way it’s been going is, drop assault comes, clears the chaff and then they can just mob my elite close combat units. Just an overwhelming Alpha strike that can kill 2k in a turn. Like we’re talking, 30 assault marines, ten raptors, ten man command squad with praetor, leviathan and ten terminators from two Dreadclaws. There just isn’t enough firepower to dent the assault. Even if my whole back line fired all their bolters and rotor guns we’re only talking a handful of marines when I need to delete the enemy army or cause so much damage that my Elite units don’t get mobbed.
The recon marines just have the ability to delete my tanks and I feel the only way to move them is to send a deathstar at them. I haven’t even had to deal with a lascannon squads AT firepower because these snipers seem just as dangerous. Like I am not kidding, land raiders gone from a single squad; hull points.
Master of signal screws mass deepstrike straight up. After that it's mass augury scanners in good quality shooting unit. If you're getting pinned a lot maybe a herald or two for the ld buffs. But the master of signal basically does it all on his own without having to say "change your armies to be marginally well rounded and capable" to a player. The bolters and rotor guns kind of say it all.
One big squad of recons? Literally anything with enough shots and range. Jetbikes with heavy bolters or volkite, heavy support squads, fire round rapiers, javelins. They can only react once and are very vulnerable to be return fired. Idk, like a vigilator and 10 recons average about 1.3 hull points to av 13 per volley; they're not really a reliable threat to them, are way better as MSU, and putting vigilators with them are very inefficient. You just seem to get really unlucky.
Oh, a telepathy librarian would also work wonderfully. Great for turning off reactions and or pinning something with ease. Boom, take a ld test with -6 and yer pinned.
And that all comes down to how bad the banestrike bolter is.
Frankly it's absurd that the legion that invented the whole hunter squad (and has a special version of said squad) has probably the worst iteration of said squad simply because the banestrike bolter is pretty garbage.
The only thing headhunters have going for them ATM is that you can use the MM to snipe and or target enemy vehicles. But in this era of dreadnoughts > every other vehicle in existence, why bother with 1 singular MM.
Meanwhile the regular hunters get the special ammo bolter, with more range and better breaching, same precisce shots and killmission instead of beeing more effective against IC charachter blocks.
Both pale however compared to scouts with nemesis boltguns and recon marines, because why count as 2" further away when you can scale that up by +6"
Meanwhile the Headhunter leviathal AL one, moves them to the troop slot same as the hunter one does, has more restrictions? despite them being the "hunter but CQC" schtick?
Meanwhile why field them when i can pick another rite and profit from recon marines being support units but also having frontline? (and also cheaper with nemisis boltguns)
the whole situation for "light" legion infantry is honestly pretty absurd. Probably the same absurd as tactical support squads worse volkite weapon being double the price as the bigger volkite on the heavy support squad...
I think you're perhaps not using headhunters in quite the way they're designed to be used. Headhunters and hunters (i assume hunters are the translated names for seekers and vice versa) fulfill kind of different roles in the game, especially with alpha legion.
Since headhunters are relentless they can fire their boltguns (with a lot more shots than seekers with scorpius) and still charge. Like you mentioned you also have the multi melta which can precision fire. They also have venom spheres and reroll 1s against independent characters and units that contain them. Again, all good stuff. Seekers are more for your generic "I'm going to kill one important model" both units are good but fulfill different roles. Those roles can overlap but they aren't supposed to be a straight up better version of seekers. If seekers fit your style more, then use seekers instead.
As for recons and scouts, again they fulfill a different role. Take the units that you find do what you need them to do. Perhaps the way you want to play them is leaning more towards taking recons or scouts with your alpha legion. Like you say being 8" Further away is always a nice bonus to avoid return fire and offsets some of the fragility encountered by scouts and recons.
The volkite situation is daft. I really don't get that. All I can assume is that they assumed the heavy support slot was more valuable or that tactical support were supposed to have line? As it stands I don't really think I'll see a volkite caliver support squad
Crablezworth wrote: So mr circle has posted part 1 and 2 of looking at where 30k is at 6 months in. Good video.
I haven´t played a game of HH 2.0 either. Looking forward to painting the AoD box between the years in a marathon session. And I will incorporate AA in my games so not sure if reactions would then be necessary at all. Concerning Interceptions there weren´t any issues from battle reports (ca. 10-20) I watched on youtube.
Bobug wrote: I think you're perhaps not using headhunters in quite the way they're designed to be used. Headhunters and hunters (i assume hunters are the translated names for seekers and vice versa) fulfill kind of different roles in the game, especially with alpha legion.
Since headhunters are relentless they can fire their boltguns (with a lot more shots than seekers with scorpius) and still charge. Like you mentioned you also have the multi melta which can precision fire. They also have venom spheres and reroll 1s against independent characters and units that contain them. Again, all good stuff. Seekers are more for your generic "I'm going to kill one important model" both units are good but fulfill different roles. Those roles can overlap but they aren't supposed to be a straight up better version of seekers. If seekers fit your style more, then use seekers instead.
Seekers yeah, .. Well, i mean it could be the case that i am just that daft ( on occaision the unreasonable urge to charge something with bajonetts overwhelms me in 30k just as it did in 40k... blame khornate R&H mindset for that) however :
1. Kill mission, often, is more usefull since it can target a key unit, whilest with headhunters you basically either target a command squad or a deathstar and when you don't see that you basically just paid for nothing.
2. Charging with headhunters is "marginally" more effective than it is with seekers because they come baseline with a powerdagger, however that assumes further that you are within shooting distance for your Headhunters (18") and that you get off the charge... also 3 attacks S3 ap-3 against an elite unit which you want to target with a charachter in it... (most of which are ws 5 so you hit only on 5+ realistically) and then wound only on a 5+ is honestly a bit hillarious. Also if you target a recon squad, which are rather well liked due to nemisisboltrifles being nuts, that means that you require to get within 3" to get more shots than normal kraken boltguns which just perform up to 18 " in that scenario and even melee is only marginally better because you could just slap on melta bombs and chainbajonetts on seekers.
3. Seekers get for 5 pts/ model for the whole squad melta bombs. Headhunters get for 15 one on the sarge equiv.
4. the kraken has an assault profile which is just far better than the banestrike simply because of range. NVM that it also 2 other profiles which especially against mechanicus and auxilia perform quite a bit better.
5. Why bother at all with a kraken or banestrike for that matter, when you can just pick a Nemisis boltgun which breaches twice as many times and allows your recons and scouts to target specific enemy models which is the whole stick of seekers and headhunters, but without getting into the danger zone that is "return fire" be it reaction or otherwise?
As for recons and scouts, again they fulfill a different role. Take the units that you find do what you need them to do. Perhaps the way you want to play them is leaning more towards taking recons or scouts with your alpha legion. Like you say being 8" Further away is always a nice bonus to avoid return fire and offsets some of the fragility encountered by scouts and recons.
so far, my scouts survive at about tripple the rate compared to my headhunters whilest they are often a turn or two completely out of range, simply because range doesn't matter to them, even worse when i compare my recon marines to them, doubly so considering charachter assasination i can do with all these squads aswell as targetting specific equipment.
The volkite situation is daft. I really don't get that. All I can assume is that they assumed the heavy support slot was more valuable or that tactical support were supposed to have line? As it stands I don't really think I'll see a volkite caliver support squad
That one is so bizare to me that i just chose to run my calviers as volkite rifles, those are actually halfway decent, but only because i don't throw 10 pts down the drain when i pick them, instead "only" 2ppm (realistically 1 because bajonet) because support squads pay more for their non fronline existence than normal tacs.
Not Online!!! wrote: :1. Kill mission, often, is more usefull since it can target a key unit, whilest with headhunters you basically either target a command squad or a deathstar and when you don't see that you basically just paid for nothing.
2. Charging with headhunters is "marginally" more effective than it is with seekers because they come baseline with a powerdagger, however that assumes further that you are within shooting distance for your Headhunters (18") and that you get off the charge... also 3 attacks S3 ap-3 against an elite unit which you want to target with a charachter in it... (most of which are ws 5 so you hit only on 5+ realistically) and then wound only on a 5+ is honestly a bit hillarious. Also if you target a recon squad, which are rather well liked due to nemisisboltrifles being nuts, that means that you require to get within 3" to get more shots than normal kraken boltguns which just perform up to 18 " in that scenario and even melee is only marginally better because you could just slap on melta bombs and chainbajonetts on seekers.
3. Seekers get for 5 pts/ model for the whole squad melta bombs. Headhunters get for 15 one on the sarge equiv.
4. the kraken has an assault profile which is just far better than the banestrike simply because of range. NVM that it also 2 other profiles which especially against mechanicus and auxilia perform quite a bit better.
5. Why bother at all with a kraken or banestrike for that matter, when you can just pick a Nemisis boltgun which breaches twice as many times and allows your recons and scouts to target specific enemy models which is the whole stick of seekers and headhunters, but without getting into the danger zone that is "return fire" be it reaction or otherwise?
1 - Marked for Death is fine but you only get the bonus against that specific target. Headhunters getting Preferred Enemy against all Independent Characters means you aren't restricted to a single target.
2 - Having Infiltrate, Scout and Relentless put the Headhunters in a good position in the early game to be able to gun down some enemies and then charge later. Even if you are only targeting heavier elite units, S5 twin-linked guns with Breaching 6+ and Precision 4+ is still very good. You're hitting on 2s re-rolling, wounding on 3s in most (if not all) cases, choosing your targets on a 4+, and ignoring armour on a 6+.
3 - Not sure what the point here is.
4 - Range is much less of a concern when the unit can Infiltrate, get a Scout move and then move and fire with no issues.
5 - Because the Headhunters are cheaper than Recon Marines with Nemesis Bolters and better than Scouts as they have good shooting and acceptable combat. They'll get mulched by a dedicated combat unit but having Power Weapons gives them a considerable edge in combat, even against things like Terminators. Headhunters are not a rear-line unit like Scouts and Recon Marines.
S3 <--- This is the issue. When you stab something and by extention just loose out against the most common W value and AP-3 with breaching on 5s is not something that can give you an edge, especially not against the rather common terminators.
Gert wrote: Compared to not having an extra attack and ap3 with a chance for ap2?
165 pts headhunters into 175 basic claw tartaros terminators.
Yes, 3 attacks even against normal tartaros terminators pretty much bounce off, i tried. because in essence that means about 7 dudes (with perfect positioning) with 3 and +1 attack ergo 22 hits on normal tartaros terminators 50 % --> 11 hits wounding on 5s so about 4 wounds that are breaching but there will be a 5++ so you will kill about 1 terminator
meanwhile the humble claw terminators (because claws will be the most common terminators you see due to box contents, unless you face elite terminators which will just turn that into a far worse situation for the headhunters) will be 4 left ergo 8-9 attacks hitting 50% so 4,5 wounding on 4 but reroll so atleast 3 wounds.... and nothing to save their asses.
Trust me, headhunters don't want to go into melee, most certainly not with terminators. The occaisional support squad or scouts , yeah sure, but even the most basic terminator that isn't even kitted out for melee propperly will shake them off and later outnumber them due to mass...
mind, my personal experience was 5 headhunters into 5 tartaros in a small game so predictably the result was even worse....
To be fair aren't those actually pretty decent numbers considering you're putting a fast, flexible ranged assassin unit with melee options against a dedicated tough melee unit?
I reckon it'll be interesting to see things are in a year's time once everyone has had a bit more time to play with the more specialist units like headhunters.
I suppose as alpha legion you have so many specialist units to choose from it might take a while ?
Bobug wrote: To be fair aren't those actually pretty decent numbers considering you're putting a fast, flexible ranged assassin unit with melee options against a dedicated tough melee unit?
I reckon it'll be interesting to see things are in a year's time once everyone has had a bit more time to play with the more specialist units like headhunters.
I suppose as alpha legion you have so many specialist units to choose from it might take a while ?
what melee options? they each got a shiv with a battery and told to stab the literal walking tank
Hey let's not slag off those sweet, sweet battery shivs ?
Also I wonder if perceptions are different if you're mainly playing single one-off games or events where you're playing 4-6 games with the same list over a weekend against different opponents. I have found that units that might do bugger all one game are absolutely vital in another game due to the mission or the opponent
Bobug wrote: Hey let's not slag off those sweet, sweet battery shivs ?
Also I wonder if perceptions are different if you're mainly playing single one-off games or events where you're playing 4-6 games with the same list over a weekend against different opponents. I have found that units that might do bugger all one game are absolutely vital in another game due to the mission or the opponent
switch it up, mostly 1-2 games if i do play.
It's not that headhunters are bad, it's just more aggrivating that even in the niche cases were you expect them to be better than "normal" assasin units they seem to lack that Mmph, unless you spam combi weapons which they just get cheaper... for reasons that are unknown to me.
Crablezworth wrote: So mr circle has posted part 1 and 2 of looking at where 30k is at 6 months in. Good video.
Mr Circle was one of the first Youtubers I came across when trying to get a handle on WH30k earlier this year. His passion for the game is very evident, and he is clearly very knowledgeable (he seems to be pretty good on the modelling side too). But he often comes across as sneering and resentful. It's as if any deviation from what he personally thinks is the way it should be done must be the result of either incompetence or some kind of nefarious plot on the part of GW. All of that baggage gets in the way of enjoying the useful information that he provides. So I didn't manage to get through these latest updates he's done - life is too short to absorb so much of someone else's angst.
My view of HH 2.0 so far is that it's been quite well supported. They cranked out a lot of quite substantial plastic kits in a very short period - I can't think of another time when they produced so many 'new' vehicles so quickly.
The flow has slowed down to more of a trickle recently, but it's actually a relief not to be deluged with new releases and rules changes (I still have plenty of stuff to build). I hope that they continue to fill out the Marine range with plastics - Assault Marines, jetbikes, speeders and a few more tank variants - then move onto another faction. As for the rules, there will need to be a thorough FAQ soon and some revisions. Some of the legion special rules need fine-tuning, and they'll need to make bikes better if they want to sell plenty of plastic kits).
TBF, though snord, Predator, Rhino and scorpious all share the same baseline and we know that GW uses computers nowadays for design, making those trivial adaptations.
The proteus and spartan also seem to share quite a bit in components.
the cataphractii were an old plastic kit.
The tartarosi are new afaik
Remaining MK 6 Marines and some special and heavy weapons aswell as the new Contemptor and plastic leviathan.
But a lot of those things are boxes split artificially in 2 f.e. the contemptor and leviathan both easily could have had all options in them.
Same for the predator.
Personally i think it would be best if GW would release the "Seeker" equivalent in plastic aswell as the combi weapons sprue ontop of a jumppack squad. And especially we need the Terminator weapons...
That'd be 2 marine full kits (seekers and jumptroops) 2-3 add in kits (depends if you split ranged terminator from melee terminator and or split melee options for terminators.)
That way i rekon most holes would be filled and a lot of legion units could be converted.
My question is, what will gw plasitfy in regards to solar auxilia and militia?
Militia may well could be a tie in with a 40k rerelease of R&H style faction? GW could point you torwards the cult leader box from the CSM boxset and or to the traitorguard KT for traitor aligned cults militia whilest recomending guard equivs for loyalist side?
Not Online!!! wrote: 165 pts headhunters into 175 basic claw tartaros terminators.
Yes, 3 attacks even against normal tartaros terminators pretty much bounce off, i tried. because in essence that means about 7 dudes (with perfect positioning) with 3 and +1 attack ergo 22 hits on normal tartaros terminators 50 % --> 11 hits wounding on 5s so about 4 wounds that are breaching but there will be a 5++ so you will kill about 1 terminator
meanwhile the humble claw terminators (because claws will be the most common terminators you see due to box contents, unless you face elite terminators which will just turn that into a far worse situation for the headhunters) will be 4 left ergo 8-9 attacks hitting 50% so 4,5 wounding on 4 but reroll so atleast 3 wounds.... and nothing to save their asses.
Trust me, headhunters don't want to go into melee, most certainly not with terminators. The occaisional support squad or scouts , yeah sure, but even the most basic terminator that isn't even kitted out for melee propperly will shake them off and later outnumber them due to mass...
mind, my personal experience was 5 headhunters into 5 tartaros in a small game so predictably the result was even worse....
I never said Headhunters should be wanting to get into melee as their first choice but having good weapons and then having acceptable combat means that they aren't a bad unit. Only using the combat stats for what is primarly a shooting unit is a bit silly. I clearly said the melee option was a bonus over other units like Seekers or Scouts rather than the primary use.
Basically, to sum up Circle's videos: "the game is in dire need of a very large errata/faq/balance patch".
As a Custodes player, I also find it funny that I rather not shoot, unless it's some pansy placeholder tacticals. Because why shoot in hopes to cause a few wounds and lose more in return. And then even more in opponent's next turn
CragHack wrote: Basically, to sum up Circle's videos: "the game is in dire need of a very large errata/faq/balance patch".
As a Custodes player, I also find it funny that I rather not shoot, unless it's some pansy placeholder tacticals. Because why shoot in hopes to cause a few wounds and lose more in return. And then even more in opponent's next turn
I don't even agree with him, no amount of errata or faq saves where the games is at, the problems are at the core sadly.
*Nerf Brutal 3
*Nerf Return fire to snapshots and make it so that it's provoked or must be done at the nearest unit.
*Nerf Lascannons (make them more expensive, can keep sunder, whatever)
*Work on internal balance so there's actually a point to consider taking Y vs N, not putting Y on shelf and forgetting that it exists as such.
For starters.
RELEASE A fething PDF WITH ALL THE USRS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN ONE PLACE!!1!one
CragHack wrote: *Nerf Brutal 3
*Nerf Return fire to snapshots and make it so that it's provoked or must be done at the nearest unit.
*Nerf Lascannons (make them more expensive, can keep sunder, whatever)
*Work on internal balance so there's actually a point to consider taking Y vs N, not putting Y on shelf and forgetting that it exists as such.
For starters.
RELEASE A fething PDF WITH ALL THE USRS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN ONE PLACE!!1!one
Why brutal?
Right now it's one of the things keeping custodes and dreads from completly stomping over the competition, which they already do.
Reactions need in general a look at aswell.
Agreed on the PDF though, that is severly needed at this stage.
CragHack wrote: *Nerf Brutal 3
*Nerf Return fire to snapshots and make it so that it's provoked or must be done at the nearest unit.
*Nerf Lascannons (make them more expensive, can keep sunder, whatever)
*Work on internal balance so there's actually a point to consider taking Y vs N, not putting Y on shelf and forgetting that it exists as such.
For starters.
RELEASE A fething PDF WITH ALL THE USRS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN ONE PLACE!!1!one
Why brutal?
Right now it's one of the things keeping custodes and dreads from completly stomping over the competition, which they already do.
Reactions need in general a look at aswell.
Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.
Tartaros were released a year or two Cataphractii. They're not new.
Hu, all the more reasons for gw to get on with it.
I also hope that we will see for militia and auxilia plastified 20 blocks in kits, else we will lack community variety.
CragHack wrote: *Nerf Brutal 3
*Nerf Return fire to snapshots and make it so that it's provoked or must be done at the nearest unit.
*Nerf Lascannons (make them more expensive, can keep sunder, whatever)
*Work on internal balance so there's actually a point to consider taking Y vs N, not putting Y on shelf and forgetting that it exists as such.
For starters.
RELEASE A fething PDF WITH ALL THE USRS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN ONE PLACE!!1!one
Why brutal?
Right now it's one of the things keeping custodes and dreads from completly stomping over the competition, which they already do.
Reactions need in general a look at aswell.
Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.
Yeah, fair, meaning that gw first gw would need to take a look at custodes aswell i guess.
Frankly in hindsight gw should also recheck translations and weapon stats first..
Yeah. That's why I've also said they need to look at internal balance seriously. Take Custodes book, for example. Only really good units are Guardians, Hataeron, Achillus with 2x fists, Tribune/Valdor and maybe Caladius Arachnus. Rest are either meh or absolute trash.
Or maybe take Knights book and compare Porphyrion and Asterius. Or Acheron with basic Questoris Knight
Rihgu wrote: Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.
I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.
Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.
While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.
Rihgu wrote: Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.
I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.
Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.
While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.
It is true that dreads have way higher durability than they should. Compare them to a similarly costed infantry or vehicle unit. The vehicle takes some hull points and they could be ineffective for a turn. The infantry unit takes wounds and they start losing guns and combat weapons. Unless a dread happens to take a concussive shot it's functioning at full capacity till that final wound.
A shaken equivalent would be nice if they took a wound. Drop their bs and ws to 4 for a turn or something. Evens the playing field a bit but still lets the dread stomp around. Maybe dreads should be SV3 instead? Let basic infantry units do some more damage?
Though I have found that a unit with phoenix rapiers will one shot a dread fairly nicely. Rending+murderous 6+ does that I guess.
Rihgu wrote: Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.
I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.
Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.
While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.
It is true that dreads have way higher durability than they should. Compare them to a similarly costed infantry or vehicle unit. The vehicle takes some hull points and they could be ineffective for a turn. The infantry unit takes wounds and they start losing guns and combat weapons. Unless a dread happens to take a concussive shot it's functioning at full capacity till that final wound.
A shaken equivalent would be nice if they took a wound. Drop their bs and ws to 4 for a turn or something. Evens the playing field a bit but still lets the dread stomp around. Maybe dreads should be SV3 instead? Let basic infantry units do some more damage?
Though I have found that a unit with phoenix rapiers will one shot a dread fairly nicely. Rending+murderous 6+ does that I guess.
That;s really it, they should never have made them monstrous creatures.
Rihgu wrote: Dreads are one of the few units that have access to Brutal 3, and is one of the reasons why they're stomping over the competition.
I think the bigger problem is them not being vehicles for the purposes of rules. It makes little sense that the type of weaponry that can potentially 1 shot a LR or spartan can only knock 1-3 wounds off a dread.
Keeping Brutal 3 would still make them hurt up close, but making them easier to take down would reduce a great deal of the frustration that comes from them being las sponges. Maybe their ID roll could be d6 rather than d3. It still keeps them resilient, but there's more chance of a lascannon going straight through them the way they do vehicles. Increase the points cost of lascannons as well perhaps.
While it would be an indirect buff to other infantry I think most people would be happier with that than every 3k list including at least 2-3 contemptors, usually because you expect everyone else to bringing them too.
It is true that dreads have way higher durability than they should. Compare them to a similarly costed infantry or vehicle unit. The vehicle takes some hull points and they could be ineffective for a turn. The infantry unit takes wounds and they start losing guns and combat weapons. Unless a dread happens to take a concussive shot it's functioning at full capacity till that final wound.
A shaken equivalent would be nice if they took a wound. Drop their bs and ws to 4 for a turn or something. Evens the playing field a bit but still lets the dread stomp around. Maybe dreads should be SV3 instead? Let basic infantry units do some more damage?
Though I have found that a unit with phoenix rapiers will one shot a dread fairly nicely. Rending+murderous 6+ does that I guess.
That;s really it, they should never have made them monstrous creatures.
Or, if insisting on doing so, making plasma and AC and krak nades and meltas not only breaching but also add a conditional brutal to them. Not brutal 3 but maybee 2?
That would also go a long way against Terminators and other SV 2+
That's just a race to the bottom really, this is like 8th ed all over again and idiocy of everything having ap modifiers and variable damage. It's terrible game design, and that's not just opinion, 8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.
Crablezworth wrote: 8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.
Love seeing this description repeated around. Like one person said it offhandedly a few years ago and crowds have latched onto it. What does it even mean? Are you saying it's "more like a card game" than 7e? If so, how much more like a card game? 1% more? 10% more? Is it more like a card game than a turn based combined arms wargame? This is objectively untrue, as it's a turn based combined arms wargame without any mandatory cards (yes you can buy stratagem cards but they are not required nor do they even aid the gameplay that much). Do card games not need cards?
Giving plasma Brutal 2 if it breaches is fine, and even a good idea. It's VASTLY different than giving it d3 damage or whatever 8th did for it that you're complaining about. I don't even see a logical course to connect these two thoughts. "If you give plasma brutal 2 when it breaches, that's just ap modifiers and variable damage all over again!". I kinda see "variable damage" if I squint.
I guess in design they wanted dreads to act like big chonky infantry. Which makes sense from a design point, they are in that weird place where they don't act like vehicles, titans or any other catagory. But they are a bit overtuned.
Perhaps a tweak to their save, or even just one or two wounds off their statline would do the trick? At the moment it feels like they are in their own little space when it comes to interactions. To deal with dreads easily you need a dread with a powerfist or a tonne of rending/breaching. Most anti tank and anti infantry just don't cut it with the combo of toughness, save, invul and instant death immunity. Hmm, actually, I wonder if it would tone them down if you could instant death them, representing poking it in the fleshy bits that let it function and shutting the whole thing down leaving an inert shell. The instant death rule isn't suuuuuper common after all, in ranged at least.
If you spam dreads it feels like it would be hard to answer the threat without list tailoring, which is unhealthy for the game meta.
It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.
cody.d. wrote: It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.
It'd also double their vulnerability to small arms fire. Well, the T7 ones, at least.
cody.d. wrote: It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.
It'd also double their vulnerability to small arms fire. Well, the T7 ones, at least.
Sorry, what do you mean by the T7 ones? Still need a 6 to wound em regardless.
cody.d. wrote: It would allow mid tier anti tank do some work on them, Missile launchers, auto cannons, even the heavy voltkite guns. Lets the toughness and wounds give them durability rather than the 2+ save.
It'd also double their vulnerability to small arms fire. Well, the T7 ones, at least.
Sorry, what do you mean by the T7 ones? Still need a 6 to wound em regardless.
T8 models are immune to (most) small arms fire.
T7 aren't.
A 2+ save lets 1/6 wounds through.
A 3+ save lets 2/6 wounds through.
The fact that the atomantic deflector negates Instant Death I think is a big part of the problem with contemptors that is oft over looked. It means you can't rely on Melta Bombs, which are the one readily available ID dealing piece of wargear that everyone can access. Every squad sergeant can take them and in the past they were your back up plan for unexpected encounters with dreads/tanks. Now at best you're going to deal 3 wounds to it, and that's AFTER you've survived a full round of combat with the bloody thing.
There are only 4 types of basic wargear that deal Instant Death, distintegrators, paragon blades, aforementioned melta bombs and the contemptors own chainfist. There's no real reason I can see for the atomantic deflector granting immunity to Instant Death outside of some arbitrary reason to negate melta bombs, as ID dealing weapons just aren't that common to need the defense against it.
Even then, if you choose to equip your sergent with a meltabomb (which you may not have the points for) it's not a sure kill, it could also not come up in game. Still gotta hit, wound and fail that invul so it's not an auto win button if your opponent has a dread and you have a meltabomb.
Yeah i'd be pretty okay with automatic deflectors losing instant death immunity. Also means Prators have a chance of killing a dread rather than getting their face caved in ya know?
Yeah I think even a Knights Cenobium squad with Terranic Greatswords statistically loses 2 out of 5 guys in 1 round of combat with a melee contemptor, although they will put it down in the same combat.
It's just a shame apothecaries can't take terminator armour. Might get your elite termies to last a bit longer against them.
Dreadnoughts should be vulnerable to all of the various rules that hurt vehicles. Make Sunder reroll wounds against them, make Exoshock work on them, and allow Armourbane to cause Instant Death to them. If melta bombs can do it, then all melta weapons should be able to.
Crablezworth wrote: 8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.
Love seeing this description repeated around. Like one person said it offhandedly a few years ago and crowds have latched onto it. What does it even mean? Are you saying it's "more like a card game" than 7e? If so, how much more like a card game? 1% more? 10% more? Is it more like a card game than a turn based combined arms wargame? This is objectively untrue, as it's a turn based combined arms wargame without any mandatory cards (yes you can buy stratagem cards but they are not required nor do they even aid the gameplay that much). Do card games not need cards?
Giving plasma Brutal 2 if it breaches is fine, and even a good idea. It's VASTLY different than giving it d3 damage or whatever 8th did for it that you're complaining about. I don't even see a logical course to connect these two thoughts. "If you give plasma brutal 2 when it breaches, that's just ap modifiers and variable damage all over again!". I kinda see "variable damage" if I squint.
I don't think the card game comparison fits well on horus hearsy but in 9th edition its not a bad comparison. Most players are comparing it to magic the gathering and in mtg you win by playing card combos often setting up cards in your normal play phase and finishing the combo with a "surprise' instant.
9th edition 40k with its emphasis on auras and strategems to get results feels a lot like this. In old 40k you won by positioning your troops correctly and maneuvering the right units and weapons into position to bring enough disparity of force to destroy the opponent's units more efficiently, much as real armies might do. (Cynical aside, much of classic 40k was played on crimanly under terrianed boards and so it was more of a set up in right deployment and screw that whole movment part.)
In 9th you are usually destroying the opponent's units thru setting up combos of a unit an aura and a stragam (which gamplay wise function almost exactly like magic the gatherings instants) this combo play is what makes the game feel like mtg to many players. Whether that's an apt comparison or just an over used complaint is a matter of debate but its not one that came out of nowhere, the similarity of core gamplay loop is there even if the base systems are quite different.
Crablezworth wrote: 8-9 has been objectively a worse turn based combined arms wargame, it's more like a card game.
Love seeing this description repeated around. Like one person said it offhandedly a few years ago and crowds have latched onto it. What does it even mean? Are you saying it's "more like a card game" than 7e? If so, how much more like a card game? 1% more? 10% more? Is it more like a card game than a turn based combined arms wargame? This is objectively untrue, as it's a turn based combined arms wargame without any mandatory cards (yes you can buy stratagem cards but they are not required nor do they even aid the gameplay that much). Do card games not need cards?
Giving plasma Brutal 2 if it breaches is fine, and even a good idea. It's VASTLY different than giving it d3 damage or whatever 8th did for it that you're complaining about. I don't even see a logical course to connect these two thoughts. "If you give plasma brutal 2 when it breaches, that's just ap modifiers and variable damage all over again!". I kinda see "variable damage" if I squint.
I don't think the card game comparison fits well on horus hearsy but in 9th edition its not a bad comparison. Most players are comparing it to magic the gathering and in mtg you win by playing card combos often setting up cards in your normal play phase and finishing the combo with a "surprise' instant.
9th edition 40k with its emphasis on auras and strategems to get results feels a lot like this. In old 40k you won by positioning your troops correctly and maneuvering the right units and weapons into position to bring enough disparity of force to destroy the opponent's units more efficiently, much as real armies might do. (Cynical aside, much of classic 40k was played on crimanly under terrianed boards and so it was more of a set up in right deployment and screw that whole movment part.)
In 9th you are usually destroying the opponent's units thru setting up combos of a unit an aura and a stragam (which gamplay wise function almost exactly like magic the gatherings instants) this combo play is what makes the game feel like mtg to many players. Whether that's an apt comparison or just an over used complaint is a matter of debate but its not one that came out of nowhere, the similarity of core gamplay loop is there even if the base systems are quite different.
Adding a character to a unit, which then grants a buff, is much more analogous to card games than an aura which requires on-the-table positioning. Very few card games take positioning into account, and the ones I can actually think of that do are digital card games.
The comparison ends at stratagems being likened to instants/spell cards/whatever, if you ignore that card games usually involve building some sort of deck or otherwise randomize which "cards" you have access to at a given point. Sure, 40k 9th Edition is like a card game which cares about the positioning of your cards on the table and also you have access to every card in your deck at all times and expended cards remain available and basically allll the other design aspects of a card game are thrown out the window to force this desperate analogy to work.
Anyways, to the topic:
Wow. Typhon. Another upgrade sprue for a vehicle. Are they under the impression that this is a "tank game with infantry support pieces"? Give us the infantry, GW.
Wow. Typhon. Another upgrade sprue for a vehicle. Are they under the impression that this is a "tank game with infantry support pieces"? Give us the infantry, GW.
Would that be because both tanks and blasts are badly conceived of in 2.0? The typhon used to have a massive blast, now it's 5 inches. Nice to have plastic for 1.0 tho I guess.
Wow. Typhon. Another upgrade sprue for a vehicle. Are they under the impression that this is a "tank game with infantry support pieces"? Give us the infantry, GW.
Would that be because both tanks and blasts are badly conceived of in 2.0? The typhon used to have a massive blast, now it's 5 inches. Nice to have plastic for 1.0 tho I guess.
Typhon actually has a decent set of rules for its blast. Sure it's only 5", but base AP3 with rending 4+, and Brutal(4) means it's at least a potent cannon. Compared to all the AP4 Rending 5+ stuff we see on every other tank.
It's still a vehicle, and a Lord of War at that, in a game where a single lascannon shot can just remove it from the board.
I have half the idea to play it because Crushing Strength synergizes with Sons of Horus pretty well, but I know I'll never even get a chance to tank shock a unit anyways so what's the point.
Having just played against one, Typhon's are still very good.
As for why it's being released, swapping little bits on the Spartan/Proteus kit to make a Typhon/likely Cerberus is easier than a new kit for Assault Marines. Sucks but it is what it is. Same reason the Deimos Pred and Scorpius are out instead of Assault Marines.
Typhon is a joke for 425 points and a Lord of War slot. You’re buying what is a worse version of a Demolisher cannon from the previous edition.
For that you could get an entire Contemptor talon or 20 lascannons or a Primarch. They’re a massive opportunity cost just to take the cool looking tank.
It would only ever make its points back if your opponent blocked everything up and didn’t take any anti tank to remove 6HP as it slowly rumbles towards you at 10 speed. You’d have to kill fifty marines or twenty terminators for it to be a win.
This is a rare case of Games Workshop not wanting my money. ?
Totalwar1402 wrote: It would only ever make its points back if your opponent blocked everything up and didn’t take any anti tank to remove 6HP as it slowly rumbles towards you at 10 speed. You’d have to kill fifty marines or twenty terminators for it to be a win.
Only if you think in those terms, which neither I nor my opponents do. "Rule of Cool" and "Committing to the Bit" always win out over unit cost or tier listing.
What parts of "Rule of Cool" and "Committing to the Bit" did you misunderstand? If a unit doesn't perform in one game I'm not going to drop it. If it doesn't perform in 10 games then I'll consider it.
Totalwar1402 wrote: It would only ever make its points back if your opponent blocked everything up and didn’t take any anti tank to remove 6HP as it slowly rumbles towards you at 10 speed. You’d have to kill fifty marines or twenty terminators for it to be a win.
Only if you think in those terms, which neither I nor my opponents do. "Rule of Cool" and "Committing to the Bit" always win out over unit cost or tier listing.
Because it isn’t cool.
You’re talking about a battle cannon profile with 24 range. You’re going to have this huge tank killing one or two models a turn. That’s not going to sell the experience.
Unless your mates are lining their units up shoulder to shoulder to let you kill ten guys a turn (which assumes you’re in range BTW) you won’t be doing much with a normal large blast.
There’s rule of cool and there’s actively trying to throw your game by paying 425 points for what is a 150 point weapon. It’s a worse vindicator. Even in a totally casual game it’s too much and you would end up subconsciously compensating to ram it in.
You’re talking about a battle cannon profile with 24 range. You’re going to have this huge tank killing one or two models a turn. That’s not going to sell the experience.
Unless your mates are lining their units up shoulder to shoulder to let you kill ten guys a turn (which assumes you’re in range BTW) you won’t be doing much with a normal large blast.
Unless units are clustered in cover or it's a vehicle or a blob that has just been ejected from a transport. Clusters happen. You are assuming every single unit will be in a line that always prevents Blasts from doing AoE damage which just isn't a reality.
Also with range, unless both you and your opponent outright refuse to move your units and only deploy at the back of a table, the majority of the game should see a Typhon in range.
There’s rule of cool and there’s actively trying to throw your game by paying 425 points for what is a 150 point weapon. It’s a worse vindicator. Even in a totally casual game it’s too much and you would end up subconsciously compensating to ram it in.
My friend likes their Typhon, they use their Typhon. It didn't throw the game because they took it because they still came close to a win by the victory conditions. It nuked a lot of Space Marine and Auxilia infantry and broke a few tanks to boot. But other times it hasn't done much and my friend has won games.
We're talking about a game where we roll dice, nothing is ever set in stone.
You’re talking about a battle cannon profile with 24 range. You’re going to have this huge tank killing one or two models a turn. That’s not going to sell the experience.
Unless your mates are lining their units up shoulder to shoulder to let you kill ten guys a turn (which assumes you’re in range BTW) you won’t be doing much with a normal large blast.
Unless units are clustered in cover or it's a vehicle or a blob that has just been ejected from a transport. Clusters happen. You are assuming every single unit will be in a line that always prevents Blasts from doing AoE damage which just isn't a reality.
Also with range, unless both you and your opponent outright refuse to move your units and only deploy at the back of a table, the majority of the game should see a Typhon in range.
There’s rule of cool and there’s actively trying to throw your game by paying 425 points for what is a 150 point weapon. It’s a worse vindicator. Even in a totally casual game it’s too much and you would end up subconsciously compensating to ram it in.
My friend likes their Typhon, they use their Typhon. It didn't throw the game because they took it because they still came close to a win by the victory conditions. It nuked a lot of Space Marine and Auxilia infantry and broke a few tanks to boot. But other times it hasn't done much and my friend has won games.
We're talking about a game where we roll dice, nothing is ever set in stone.
I will never buy/use a model that I don't like.
If that's how some people enjoy the game, great. But it IS NOT the only way to play and most definitely the opposite of how I want to play.
It’s useless as an anti tank weapon because without AP2 or AP1 you can’t actually one shot a vehicle. You can knock a single hull point off and maybe do some damage on the chart. But a single lascannon can one shot a tank and the number of lascannons you can buy with 425 points is much better since even if you don’t destroy the tank you will hull point it. Even a stock land raider at half the price can have six times the AT potential. This is not a game where you’re degrading vehicle profiles this is a game where tanks are easily deleted and hull pointed out of existence in a single turn. Often not even your opponents turn these days.
Not even touching reactions. You fire that Typhon at a lascannon squad they loses two guys and then kill the tank in your own turn. Typhon doesn’t get reactions or intercept meaning it’s at a further disadvantage since it’s only firing in a max of six turns. Again, you being magically able to be in range and draw line of sight the whole game and not being destroyed in that timespan.
Plus it makes no sense lore wise. A Terminator could crawl into the barrel of the thing. How is a Scorpius rocket as dangerous as the Typhon when it’s got double the range and is a a third to a quarter in value?
Like it’s bordering on false marketing saying it can destroy heavy armour and remove whole squads of space marines. Sure, Guardsmen can kill squads of Space marines if you let them fire at you all day.
I'm going to guess you haven't come up against Gal vorbak, charonites, or custodes yet. ?
It's also brilliant against mechanicum. Instant deaths thallax and ursurax and does 4 wounds with no armour saves on a 2+ with instant with no saves, 4 instead death wounds on a t6 magos on a 2+ instant death against all the automata except domitars and thanatars... And will still take a good chunk off of a domitar maniple.
Also re stuff grouping up. In theory hammer everything is Exactly 2" away from everything else but in the actual game this is pretty rare. Terrain, other units, objective holding, line of sight, combat, falling back, cover and countless other situations lead to units being bunched up and ready for a template. There's a reason templates all got nerfed this edition. Last edition they were way too strong and weren't a particularly enjoyable experience when taken in large numbers.
Plus, how are you only hitting 1-2 models with a 5" template? Just saying I wouldn't be so down on the typhon.
Its definitely not an anti tank weapon for sure. Great against land speeders mind you. I look forward to seeing a few more off them around nuking javelins. EVADE THIS ?
I may pop purchase one and 3d print. Cerberus laser for it too ?
Typhon is also useful against Dreadnoughts, thanks to Brutal (4). And Primarchs I suppose. Both of course barring them passing whatever Invvulnerable save they might be toting. Same goes for any multi-wound infantry, but I’m not yet familiar enough to name names there.
For a 425 point Lord of War I am being generous. If a quarter of my army goes into one unit that unit needs to do more than kill a handful of marines in the one or two turns it gets to fire.
The profile of a demolisher cannon hasn’t changed since 3rd edition. Nobody has ever said that they were overpowered. Nobody ever said Basilisks were overpowered. They have always been able to kill space marines if you landed a lucky shot with these incredibly expensive and vulnerable units. You had easy ways of countering artillery fire such as outflank, deep strike, basically any AT shooting and they are a threat that a smart opponent has to consider how to destroy. If you’re not trying to counter the enemies plan you should be punished for that.
To take a Vindicator. Triple its points cost. Knock a pip of AP off it. Make it a Lord of War so you can only take one of them. That is what has been done here. You’re paying near enough five hundred points for a weaker demolisher cannon.
In 1.0 I saw marine armies walk through Solar Auxilia tank armies where they were putting out ten of those templates a turn at 72 range. It’s very easy to counter large blasts. If you’re an idiot and walk across the battlefield without any supporting fire; you should take losses. You should run the risk that your elite units get focused down.
All this does is remove the ideal units to kill back line heavy support squads and deathstar units. Whilst also being too points inefficient to be worth killing tactical marines. You could buy a jump pack command squad with Praetor and kill twenty tacticals a turn without losing a man. That same Typhon could fire all day and only chip away at the same tactical block.
So, my theory on how to use the bombard. Target elites like termies or other multi would infanty. If you hit roughly 5 models even if they don't rend the target still has to make 4 saves or be instant gibbed. If it does rend then you have to hope you're rolling hot on those invuls.
It's got the stats to be able to paste some stuff and put a dent in anything else. The fact that even this primarch cost model isn't able to wipe out whole units is why I like HH more than 30k atm. Keep the lethality to a moderate level please. Yes, there is that magical moment when you land a direct hit on a dread talon and half health most of them. But I'd be pretty satisfied with killing most of a primarchs bodyguard in one shot, or punishing a combat unit that just charged a sacrificial roadbump.
Having a nuncio vox on the field is essential though. A blast that cost needs some assurance, and some tacticals to bubble wrap it a little.
Also just….look at the beastie! It’s immense! And just One Errata Away From Glory ?
If there is a juicy target it would let you hit them pretty hard. Due to the differences between 2 units firing and one unit firing 2 blasts at once. Yeah you could hit a single unit pretty hard. But it'd have to be a pretty chunky unit to be worth a 900pts investment in dakka.
But what do you think needs to be errataed about it?
cody.d. wrote: So, my theory on how to use the bombard. Target elites like termies or other multi would infanty. If you hit roughly 5 models even if they don't rend the target still has to make 4 saves or be instant gibbed. If it does rend then you have to hope you're rolling hot on those invuls.
It's got the stats to be able to paste some stuff and put a dent in anything else. The fact that even this primarch cost model isn't able to wipe out whole units is why I like HH more than 30k atm. Keep the lethality to a moderate level please. Yes, there is that magical moment when you land a direct hit on a dread talon and half health most of them. But I'd be pretty satisfied with killing most of a primarchs bodyguard in one shot, or punishing a combat unit that just charged a sacrificial roadbump.
Having a nuncio vox on the field is essential though. A blast that cost needs some assurance, and some tacticals to bubble wrap it a little.
Because other units do have the lethality. The games no less lethal than 40k. This is why you can alpha strike and charge from deep strike. Why every other gun got buffed. They’re pushing for shorter games that are over by turn 3.
Instead of a glorified debuffed vindicator I take two heavy weapon squads. Far more firepower. Can genuinely mow down infantry and kill tanks. Better range. Access to reactions.
How about a whole Contemptor talon. Three monstrous creatures with 2 up armour and invulnerable. Each one has the dakka and CC potential to wreck a unit.
Alternatively, just put those points into ten terminators or any other CC unit and have them gleefully kill any tactical squad in the game.
You can delete entire units in Heresy 2.0 it’s just not blasts doing it. If a unit doesn’t have the fire power to kill a tactical squad, for that point cost and at 24 range it is just not worth taking. There’s so many other units that can kill tactical squads so much easier. For 425 points I should be killing a squad a turn if I am only going to get one to two shots off before the thing gets destroyed by AT or charged.
Also just….look at the beastie! It’s immense! And just One Errata Away From Glory ?
If there is a juicy target it would let you hit them pretty hard. Due to the differences between 2 units firing and one unit firing 2 blasts at once. Yeah you could hit a single unit pretty hard. But it'd have to be a pretty chunky unit to be worth a 900pts investment in dakka.
But what do you think needs to be errataed about it?
I can see it being Errata’d to AP2. I’m not advocating for that though!
cody.d. wrote: So, my theory on how to use the bombard. Target elites like termies or other multi would infanty. If you hit roughly 5 models even if they don't rend the target still has to make 4 saves or be instant gibbed. If it does rend then you have to hope you're rolling hot on those invuls.
It's got the stats to be able to paste some stuff and put a dent in anything else. The fact that even this primarch cost model isn't able to wipe out whole units is why I like HH more than 30k atm. Keep the lethality to a moderate level please. Yes, there is that magical moment when you land a direct hit on a dread talon and half health most of them. But I'd be pretty satisfied with killing most of a primarchs bodyguard in one shot, or punishing a combat unit that just charged a sacrificial roadbump.
Having a nuncio vox on the field is essential though. A blast that cost needs some assurance, and some tacticals to bubble wrap it a little.
Because other units do have the lethality. The games no less lethal than 40k. This is why you can alpha strike and charge from deep strike. Why every other gun got buffed. They’re pushing for shorter games that are over by turn 3.
Instead of a glorified debuffed vindicator I take two heavy weapon squads. Far more firepower. Can genuinely mow down infantry and kill tanks. Better range. Access to reactions.
How about a whole Contemptor talon. Three monstrous creatures with 2 up armour and invulnerable. Each one has the dakka and CC potential to wreck a unit.
Alternatively, just put those points into ten terminators or any other CC unit and have them gleefully kill any tactical squad in the game.
You can delete entire units in Heresy 2.0 it’s just not blasts doing it. If a unit doesn’t have the fire power to kill a tactical squad, for that point cost and at 24 range it is just not worth taking. There’s so many other units that can kill tactical squads so much easier. For 425 points I should be killing a squad a turn if I am only going to get one to two shots off before the thing gets destroyed by AT or charged.
I'm not sure if I agree with a few points there.
In my experience most games of 30k tend to last till turn 5. And I think out of the 10 games i've played only one has been a wipe, and it happened last turn. Edit, 2 wipes now sorry, including the game I had last sat 3rd legion vs custodes. I got totally trounced, only killed a few expendable vehicles, a dread or two and lost everything myself due to poor rolling and worse choices. Still ended on the last turn as Valdor and friends poked Fulgrim to death.
A contemptor will often kill a handful of models in a unit yes, but mostly they'll only win combat because of their durability and combat res means they're doing slightly more damage than they're taking. Even a kitted out world eaters dread can potentially do meh damage to a tactical squad. Yes he won't lose to them but he can be held up for a few turns which could be a win for the tac squad, or hell even a 40pt unit of auxilia.
That terminator unit can indeed kill a tac squad. But they have to get there first and a big termie unit would cost what, 2 or 3 times the cost of the unit?
Heavy and special weapons squads are pretty powerful, but also quite squishy and you're inclined to invest in them further with moral buffs. Having that big 300pt unit pinned, falling back or even just wiped out hurts. And they could just wiff too. I'm fond of a ten marine melta squad in a rhino, roughly the cost of a typhon and even they might not kill a tank or dread. They're expensive, and a prime target for fall back reactions to slip out of melta range or hit them
Yes, if you get the right scenarios you can one shot units, but it feels a lot harder, a lot more counterplay than with 40K. Maybe it's because it's usually marine vs marines so if your opponent has that gun then you do to. but I still don't feel the same bad feels as when a tau army just splatters my force.
Side note, a warhound titan will pretty easily clear a unit or two of infantry off the board a turn, but... like it's 750pts so, im not sure if i'm mad.
cody.d. wrote: So, my theory on how to use the bombard. Target elites like termies or other multi would infanty. If you hit roughly 5 models even if they don't rend the target still has to make 4 saves or be instant gibbed. If it does rend then you have to hope you're rolling hot on those invuls.
It's got the stats to be able to paste some stuff and put a dent in anything else. The fact that even this primarch cost model isn't able to wipe out whole units is why I like HH more than 30k atm. Keep the lethality to a moderate level please. Yes, there is that magical moment when you land a direct hit on a dread talon and half health most of them. But I'd be pretty satisfied with killing most of a primarchs bodyguard in one shot, or punishing a combat unit that just charged a sacrificial roadbump.
Having a nuncio vox on the field is essential though. A blast that cost needs some assurance, and some tacticals to bubble wrap it a little.
Because other units do have the lethality. The games no less lethal than 40k. This is why you can alpha strike and charge from deep strike. Why every other gun got buffed. They’re pushing for shorter games that are over by turn 3.
Instead of a glorified debuffed vindicator I take two heavy weapon squads. Far more firepower. Can genuinely mow down infantry and kill tanks. Better range. Access to reactions.
How about a whole Contemptor talon. Three monstrous creatures with 2 up armour and invulnerable. Each one has the dakka and CC potential to wreck a unit.
Alternatively, just put those points into ten terminators or any other CC unit and have them gleefully kill any tactical squad in the game.
You can delete entire units in Heresy 2.0 it’s just not blasts doing it. If a unit doesn’t have the fire power to kill a tactical squad, for that point cost and at 24 range it is just not worth taking. There’s so many other units that can kill tactical squads so much easier. For 425 points I should be killing a squad a turn if I am only going to get one to two shots off before the thing gets destroyed by AT or charged.
I. Dont reaally arree with most off your points here. Of the many games of heresy v2 I've played I think maybe about three have endedd in a tabling. Abd it's normal to play 5 turns
You're welcome to take your heavy support marines instead. Thankfully the game is designed where you have choice and different units achieve different tasks.. typhons are more effective against T5/t6 multiwound models than heavy support squads are and are vulnerable to different things. I'm not sure what the point youre trying to make is
Or take your talon 3 bare bones dreads for 525points. If that's what works for you then ideal.
When a dread wins a combat it’s quite likely to then run the unit down. That’s a unit kill. 300 point tactical squad gone. Twenty models dead. Three of them hitting a line, that’s sixty marines dead in one turn. Assuming they don’t fire and don’t then roll into other units.
In comparison your 425 point nerfed Demolisher cannon is going to be chipping away 4 to 5 guys until the enemy decides to lascannon or power fist it. Assuming it wasn’t destroyed crossing the board or by deep striking squads.
You say heavy weapons teams are squishy but so is a 6HP AV14 vehicle. Bolters aren’t killing your guys. Those twenty lascannon that can kill those heavy weapon teams will horrifically overkill a Typhon. It’s far more likely just a few rending shots will take the vehicle out. Plus having reactions means you’re giving free turns to the player. Or it just gets charged by Terminators and power fisted.
For the Typhon to be effective it has to be within 24. You can’t just sit at the back line lobbing shells and they don’t even do that much because it’s a just a standard AP3 blast. If you have ten terminators within 24 then you’re in that squads threat range. Plus, it’s a lot harder to shift ten terminators than it is a Typhon.
I know, it’s ridiculous that a Terminator squad is three times the cost of the unit. Imagine if your gun couldn’t even kill the unit and cost three times the amount. This is a 425 point tank.
A 750 point unit should be able to delete your canon fodder troop choices. It’s a Titan. But two Typhons that cost more would be lucky to kill ten tacticals with 24?
Again, false marketing. This tank is being sold as doom on tracks. But it’s been nerfed into oblivion and is far weaker at killing infantry.
Totalwar1402 wrote: It’s useless as an anti tank weapon because without AP2 or AP1 you can’t actually one shot a vehicle. You can knock a single hull point off and maybe do some damage on the chart. But a single lascannon can one shot a tank and the number of lascannons you can buy with 425 points is much better since even if you don’t destroy the tank you will hull point it. Even a stock land raider at half the price can have six times the AT potential. This is not a game where you’re degrading vehicle profiles this is a game where tanks are easily deleted and hull pointed out of existence in a single turn. Often not even your opponents turn these days.
6 on the damage table is a wreck, so it can, and being S12 means it penetrates things like Spartans and Land Raiders on a 2+.
Not even touching reactions. You fire that Typhon at a lascannon squad they loses two guys and then kill the tank in your own turn. Typhon doesn’t get reactions or intercept meaning it’s at a further disadvantage since it’s only firing in a max of six turns. Again, you being magically able to be in range and draw line of sight the whole game and not being destroyed in that timespan.
Deliberately targeting a unit that will delete you with Return Fire is bad tactics. Also, "magically" being in range means not being at the back of your deployment zone for the whole game and your opponent never leaving theirs. Again that's bad tactics. I also never said it had to survive the whole game.
Like it’s bordering on false marketing saying it can destroy heavy armour and remove whole squads of space marines. Sure, Guardsmen can kill squads of Space marines if you let them fire at you all day.
It can remove who Marine squads because I've literally seen it done. It can kill armour, just not as reliably as Lascannons but pretty much nothing can beat Lascannons in terms of AT right now. Have you tried using one in a game? Maybe if you did then you'd have some experience and not just statistics.
I'd also like to point out on the Marketing front. It's GW. GW overhypes literally every single release ever. That's what marketing is.
I’ve got a fair few armies so I’ll got with the Imperial Fist list I used few months back. That army does have a Typhon in the collection but I wouldn’t use it and I didn’t take their Vindicators either. Waste of space.
Dorn
Ten Cata with shields
Mixture of chain and power fists
Ten Cata with two assault cannons.
Mixture of chain and power fists
Praetor with paragon blade and shield
Teleport beacons
Sigismund, 9 templar in a Land raider with lascannons
Rapier battery with shatter shells
Leviathan with storm cannon and siege drill
Twenty tactical marines with chain bayonet. Serg with power fist.
2 squads of fifteen Breachers. Serg with thunder hammer
Heavy weapon squad with heavy bolters
Was for a Primarch fight off. Went badly.
More usual list would be something like Death Guard which I am still building up.
Praetor with scythe
5 Deathshroud
Spartan (this has now been replaced with a Proteus now I have the model)
2 lots of fifteen tacticals with chain bayonets. Power fist sergeants. Apothecaries in squads.
1 Contemptor with assault cannon and power fist (who pretty much took an entire flank by himself)
Heavy weapon squad with autocannons ten guys.
In general though I am dropping tanks and artillery entirely from the armies since they don’t do the job of killing the enemy infantry and are very squishy. I tend to take too many expensive troop choices which are dead weight. Lots of units just end up being gunned down and pouring bolter fire into things just to shrug it off. Or close combat where the enemy have WS5 2 up save and FNP.
Totalwar1402 wrote: For a 425 point Lord of War I am being generous. If a quarter of my army goes into one unit that unit needs to do more than kill a handful of marines in the one or two turns it gets to fire.
Spoiler:
The profile of a demolisher cannon hasn’t changed since 3rd edition. Nobody has ever said that they were overpowered. Nobody ever said Basilisks were overpowered. They have always been able to kill space marines if you landed a lucky shot with these incredibly expensive and vulnerable units. You had easy ways of countering artillery fire such as outflank, deep strike, basically any AT shooting and they are a threat that a smart opponent has to consider how to destroy. If you’re not trying to counter the enemies plan you should be punished for that.
To take a Vindicator. Triple its points cost. Knock a pip of AP off it. Make it a Lord of War so you can only take one of them. That is what has been done here. You’re paying near enough five hundred points for a weaker demolisher cannon.
In 1.0 I saw marine armies walk through Solar Auxilia tank armies where they were putting out ten of those templates a turn at 72 range. It’s very easy to counter large blasts. If you’re an idiot and walk across the battlefield without any supporting fire; you should take losses. You should run the risk that your elite units get focused down.
All this does is remove the ideal units to kill back line heavy support squads and deathstar units. Whilst also being too points inefficient to be worth killing tactical marines. You could buy a jump pack command squad with Praetor and kill twenty tacticals a turn without losing a man. That same Typhon could fire all day and only chip away at the same tactical block.
Herein lies your problem, running LOW @ 2k is asking for problems like this.
3k min for LOW, it really is where they belong. I'd rather play 3k over 2k any day
A 1 in 6 chance as opposed to the 1 in 3 a lascannon gets.
Lascannons aren’t rare weapons. It’s a common weapon mounted to most vehicles, dreads and available to a core unit. That is a standard. If you want your Dreadhammer to be a 425 point AT gun then it should be a lot better than a single lascannon.
A Typhon should be able to kill a Heavy Weapon squad in one shot if it’s managed to cross the board and get into range. It’s not reasonable for an incredibly powerful shooting unit to get free turns of shooting. The alternative is to not shoot the squad at all in which case you might as well not bring the tank. A heavy weapon squad is precisely the sort of target you want an AP3 blast to kill.
With that range and its mediocre firepower you would have to survive a significant chunk of the game to get your points back. When in reality, your opponent can destroy your 425 tank with a single shot or easily hull point it in a turn or two.
Yes, a Battle cannon used to be able to kill ten marines if an opponent obliged you by blobbing up. But that Russ wasn’t a 425 point Lord of War and killing ten marines isn’t impressive for a 425 point model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: [quo
Herein lies your problem, running LOW @ 2k is asking for problems like this.
3k min for LOW, it really is where they belong. I'd rather play 3k over 2k any day
I only take LOW in 4K plus games and even then it’s usually only for big events. Once a year type deal. Like I haven’t used my Fellblade in five years or something like that.
So they’ve essentially made the Typhon unusable because it’s a 425 point AP3 Demolisher canon. That’s meant to be the centerpiece unit for the Imperial Fist army I’ve got and they nerfed it into oblivion.
If you want to use the typhon as anti tank you shoulda taken the cerbarus. The Typhon is an anti elite paster in my opinion. But if it scatters it's unlikely to be totally useless.
That and you're a fair bit more durable than a vindicator. AC14 plus flare shields does help against str9 and str8.
Now, what is the miniumum cost you'd expect to be able to clear out a tac squad?
cody.d. wrote: If you want to use the typhon as anti tank you shoulda taken the cerbarus. The Typhon is an anti elite paster in my opinion. But if it scatters it's unlikely to be totally useless.
That and you're a fair bit more durable than a vindicator. AC14 plus flare shields does help against str9 and str8.
Now, what is the miniumum cost you'd expect to be able to clear out a tac squad?
With the Typhon you got it for the huge pie plate to clear out hordes of power armour. That is what you want it for. The gimmick is that you rumble the doom tank forward and it fires point blank; allowing you to shovel away enemy cannon fodder if they don’t destroy it.
AV14 can easily be knocked out. Be clear here, I’ve not even went up against armies with ten lascannons and these tanks/artillery are unusable. If close combat armies with trivial AT can deal with all tank armies then they won’t survive an actual shooting army. Just a smattering of rending and a few power fists deals with these tanks very handily. They’re not tough.
For a unit that has to get within point blank range to fire, is mounted on a slow moving and very squishy tank? 250 points. That’s in line with a Contemptor or Terminator squad that can do the same thing. It’s only going to fire twice in a game on average so that’s ten marines a turn. This means on a typical game it will make its points back and on a good game can go past that. If it survives and you let it carry on firing that’s your opponent losing the game. As I said, modest AT can kill that tank. Few sniper rifles and a leviathan storm cannon; things junk.
The idea being that your opponent has ample time to destroy the tank before it can fire or take it out once it’s moved within threat range. If he can’t do that it’s because he’s losing the game.
For 425 points, either it should have a monster template that ignores cover. Goodbye apothecary squads. Alternatively it’s there to put a shell into a deathstar as an alternative to getting your own melee death stack.
cody.d. wrote: If you want to use the typhon as anti tank you shoulda taken the cerbarus. The Typhon is an anti elite paster in my opinion. But if it scatters it's unlikely to be totally useless.
That and you're a fair bit more durable than a vindicator. AC14 plus flare shields does help against str9 and str8.
Now, what is the miniumum cost you'd expect to be able to clear out a tac squad?
With the Typhon you got it for the huge pie plate to clear out hordes of power armour. That is what you want it for. The gimmick is that you rumble the doom tank forward and it fires point blank; allowing you to shovel away enemy cannon fodder if they don’t destroy it.
AV14 can easily be knocked out. Be clear here, I’ve not even went up against armies with ten lascannons and these tanks/artillery are unusable. If close combat armies with trivial AT can deal with all tank armies then they won’t survive an actual shooting army. Just a smattering of rending and a few power fists deals with these tanks very handily. They’re not tough.
For a unit that has to get within point blank range to fire, is mounted on a slow moving and very squishy tank? 250 points. That’s in line with a Contemptor or Terminator squad that can do the same thing. It’s only going to fire twice in a game on average so that’s ten marines a turn. This means on a typical game it will make its points back and on a good game can go past that. If it survives and you let it carry on firing that’s your opponent losing the game. As I said, modest AT can kill that tank. Few sniper rifles and a leviathan storm cannon; things junk.
The idea being that your opponent has ample time to destroy the tank before it can fire or take it out once it’s moved within threat range. If he can’t do that it’s because he’s losing the game.
For 425 points, either it should have a monster template that ignores cover. Goodbye apothecary squads. Alternatively it’s there to put a shell into a deathstar as an alternative to getting your own melee death stack.
If you're trying to kill base line infantry with it all of the profile you're using is the large blast, the AP and a str above 6. At that point you may as well just take a plasma pred.
To get your moneys worth you need to leverage that brutal 4 and the ability to instant death T6 or lower. Even if a termie takes a ap 3 hit from it it's still got to roll 4 saves and pass every one or be removed. You kill veterans or legion specific units and it is much more likley to make an impact.
Yes unsupported it's going to get drawn up in combat and killed, but you could say that for every unit that shoots better than it punches.
If you're trying to kill base line infantry with it all of the profile you're using is the large blast, the AP and a str above 6. At that point you may as well just take a plasma pred.
To get your moneys worth you need to leverage that brutal 4 and the ability to instant death T6 or lower. Even if a termie takes a ap 3 hit from it it's still got to roll 4 saves and pass every one or be removed. You kill veterans or legion specific units and it is much more likley to make an impact.
Yes unsupported it's going to get drawn up in combat and killed, but you could say that for every unit that shoots better than it punches.
Which is why it should have the bigger template. So you can kill more infantry in one shot. If a Predator does the same thing for half the price then the Typhon is double what it should be. Hell the Scorpius is a 120 points and has double the range. Is brutal worth 300 points and having half range?
The Terminator gets to reroll his armour. He isn’t failing that save. Brutal only means he’s likely going to fail that invulnerable save on your tends. But you’re hitting so few models it won’t matter. You’re still having to get a perfect hit, half what you hit actually matters and then he still gets a decent invulnerable to resist. Say you hit 4 guys. Only half will rend. So we are talking two terminators for a 425 point of shooting. Lascannons can kill terminators.
You’re fighting marines most of the time. Being str12 is a gimmick. Much rather be str 10 with AP2 than have three different AT special rules on the pie plate I want to kill infantry with.
Because things like heavy weapon squads are firing every turn and can sit back. I have to drive the Typhon towards units that can kill it easily. You say “unsupported” what does that even mean. If my support can kill then ten terminators or assault squad, well I ll just take the support and not bother with the Typhon.
For me 425 points should be an enough to decisively change the battle and form a key part of your armies killing power. It shouldn’t be “oh it can instant kill Thallax” and gimmicky rules that aren’t what it should be about. Dropping a pie template on the enemy infantry at point blank range.
Again I know what a Demolisher canon does. It’s not worth 425 plus points and that’s with an AP2 blast.
Even the 625 point Fellblade doesn’t get a large AP2 blast. So they’re obviously are trying to disincentivise taking these units and force the gameplay to be infantry focused. Only when you get to things like Titans have they finally relented and been like “well it is a Titan. It probably should be able to kill a Terminator.” ?
I don’t know what the writers were thinking. We’re going to release this tank in plastic but we’ll make it weaker than a normal Demolisher cannon and so overcosted you’re playing with a handicap.
Well when I refer to support I generally mean cheap infantry meant to block advances, charge incoming assault units to tie them up or fulfill slots the unit they're supporting cant.
An example would be a tank or heavy weapon squadron. Good killing power but not overly sturdy or does not want to be charged. A good way to deal with them would be for the opponent to throw a melta squad at them, or move a sky hunters unit in and charge them to tie them up or grind them down.
A squad of tactical marines would be useful standing a few inches away from the tank, either to stop a melta squad getting in half range by moving in the way or wrapping around the heavy weapons to keep them from getting charged. Part of the reason I like 30K over 40K is that you can't just shoot at one unit then charge another. You gotta commit and weigh options.
I'm kinda okay with massive blasts being rare. Especially for short ranged weapons which may cause the template to overlap onto your own units. Pretty sure you still can't fire a blast if it covers your models. Could be wrong tough.
Funny thing is, won't a titan struggle to kill a dread? That's something that makes me grumble. The game has a kinda rock paper scissors feel. Except it's infantry, tank, dreadnaught.
So you want to waste another 250 points on tacticals to babysit the short ranged Typhon so it can kill two to five models a turn? If I wanted to waste 250 point I could turn the Typhon into a Fellblade and quadrupole the range with a now 7 blast.
Reactions mean heavy weapon squads aren’t vulnerable. If you shoot them you’re giving the opponent a free turn of ten lascannons.
The game isn’t rock paper scissors. Tanks are just weak and over costed. Artillery is overcosted and has been deliberately nerfed into oblivion. Basic troops are pointless objective tokens. There’s nothing balanced about it.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Typhon is a joke for 425 points and a Lord of War slot. You’re buying what is a worse version of a Demolisher cannon from the previous edition.
For that you could get an entire Contemptor talon or 20 lascannons or a Primarch. They’re a massive opportunity cost just to take the cool looking tank.
It would only ever make its points back if your opponent blocked everything up and didn’t take any anti tank to remove 6HP as it slowly rumbles towards you at 10 speed. You’d have to kill fifty marines or twenty terminators for it to be a win.
This is a rare case of Games Workshop not wanting my money. ?
Not just Typhons, any unit. Anything that excels in one phase but is weak is another wants babysitting. Besides, the whole point of tacticals is to be bullet and charge catchers, for as cheap as 100 if you don't want to spend extra points on them. They rarely do much in the way of heavy lifting outside of objective holding.
And there are several ways to get around reactions, pinning tests and psychic powers that turn off reactions with all the ease of a ld9 test. It's the reason I prefer a telepathy librarian over any others, it's a useful toolbox.
If tanks are so weak no one would take them, the meta would swing to anti infantry. Then people would lack the anti tank weaponry in their list building and tank spam list would become stronger until it swung back. It's the nature of having an armour value over a wound count honestly.
cody.d. wrote: Not just Typhons, any unit. Anything that excels in one phase but is weak is another wants babysitting. Besides, the whole point of tacticals is to be bullet and charge catchers, for as cheap as 100 if you don't want to spend extra points on them. They rarely do much in the way of heavy lifting outside of objective holding.
And there are several ways to get around reactions, pinning tests and psychic powers that turn off reactions with all the ease of a ld9 test. It's the reason I prefer a telepathy librarian over any others, it's a useful toolbox.
If tanks are so weak no one would take them, the meta would swing to anti infantry. Then people would lack the anti tank weaponry in their list building and tank spam list would become stronger until it swung back. It's the nature of having an armour value over a wound count honestly.
TBF, the issue to me is, that between heavily neutered blasts on certain tanks (rip SA and their BC's) that the often alternative contemptor is just the better more durable choice.
Tapping into brutal and heavy firepower for often cheaper than a pred? NVM being virtually imune against one-shots and having a ++ whilest the pred has excaclty AV 13 to protect.
And on that note, the one savong grace so far i found is that the HH crowd IS far less competitve where i am, however once can clearly see a picture when game after game the contemptor you field outperforms 2 predators.
one core issue of the neutered blasts especially on artillery is, that SA basically got castrated output wise, meanwhile unlike marines which got undeniably a durability boost from the weakening of AP and Blast APSA got nothing. And there are now a lot of AP4 blasts out there, ontop of having rules that lead to piling your units up.
Then there is also the fact that specials and heavies tac squads have weapons options that are internal completly out of balance points wise aswell, cue specials with volkite calviers being more expensive than heavies with the far superior calverin.
It creates the perfect storm so to speak, ontop of that we also have custodes which are bluntly put highly problematic due to certain units and
On something like the Typhon, Lascannons seem pretty much essential. Without them, a single Weapon Destroyed, and there goes your Dreadhammer. Same for the Cerberus. But, being S9 and therefore not Defensive, the Lascannons can soak Weapon Destroyeds.
Which in turn, renders Bombard somewhat moot, as sans Defensive weapons, I’m just not getting the benefit.
Upside of course is a 10 point upgrade on a 425 point tank is hardly breaking then points bank. And it’s not like Lascannon suck.
It would be prudent for the active HH community to begin working on their own rule system just like the 9th Age crowd did. Sure it would take some time but the results would be better than the embarrassing stuff GW peddles to us.
True. But they’re still useful to have, especially on a pretty resilient chassis.
It’s something I think might affect Predators more. Turret Weapons aren’t especially cheap, but adding Lascannon slows them down if you’re keen on super efficiency.
However this is a non-game experience based, entirely hypothetical opinion. And for from unique to the examples I offered. I just feel that on something as already expensive as a Typhon or Cerebus they’re less an upgrade and more a form of compulsory insurance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On weapon profiles in general, I’m pretty happy.
Nothing seems to be a One Size Kills All overall. To continue the theme of the current conversation, the Dreadhammer is a good example.
It can knock many things for six, and certainly won’t have trouble damaging vehicles, but it’s not gonna be detonating a vehicle.
I’m completely fine with that. If it had AP2, it would be just too ubiquitous, which I don’t see as a bad thing. After all, if I want to squish Tanks at range? I’ll take its variant.
Likewise the much maligned Battlecannon. Whilst the range is frankly bizarre and you won’t find any attempt at justification/rationale from me? Not having a common AP3 Pie Plate Launcher feels right for Heresy, given we’re not only talking Predominantly Space Marines, but often fair sized squads of Space Marines.
Mind you, I’m a fully paid up member of the Sad Old Git Society, and so am heavily informed by my earlier impressions of 40K. And hence the maxim on the arming of Titans being a compromise.
Sure we’re not talking about Titans here (well, I’m not any way) but I feel it should be something the game includes across the board. If a given tank or specific weapon is just One Size Kills All? Its a flaw in game design, just as “but why would I ever field Heavy Bolters when I can take Autocannon” is also a flaw. Albeit one I’ve embraced because I love the Autocannon model. And even then, the relatively humble Autocannon is still a bit In Between unless taken across a Squad.
About the only weapons I’m particularly not fond of? Heavy Bolters (see above, but also consider the plethora of Bolters I’ll be taking anyway) and most Plasma weapons. Yes Plasma has Breaching 4+. But for their cost, AP4 and Gets Hot just feels a bit anaemic. Exception of course made for any Plasma Weapon which doesn’t have Gets Hot.
That’s not to say those weapons are objectively bad, just they don’t suit my tactical and risk appetite.
Strg Alt wrote: It would be prudent for the active HH community to begin working on their own rule system just like the 9th Age crowd did. Sure it would take some time but the results would be better than the embarrassing stuff GW peddles to us.
Considering the active HH community has taken to HH 2 and it's a minority that is insisting on the new edition being rubbish, I think we'll be fine. I've yet to meet someone IRL that actually thinks HH 1 is better than HH 2 and the Crusade & Heresy FB group isn't filled with the level of negativity that would be expected if the community actually didn't like the new edition.
The majority of complaints have been that GW has been bad with a model release schedule and bad with the Legacies PDF schedules.
Strg Alt wrote: It would be prudent for the active HH community to begin working on their own rule system just like the 9th Age crowd did. Sure it would take some time but the results would be better than the embarrassing stuff GW peddles to us.
Strg Alt wrote: It would be prudent for the active HH community to begin working on their own rule system just like the 9th Age crowd did. Sure it would take some time but the results would be better than the embarrassing stuff GW peddles to us.
They have it already, HH 1.0
Ahm, no. HH 1.0 was still written by GW implying a sales-driven ruleset with units outperforming others by the nature of "meta" nonsense. You would need a clean slate and start from scratch. Complacency doesn´t improve matters it only makes things worse.
Rihgu wrote: You don't what understand what "meta" is if you think a fan ruleset won't have "meta nonsense".
White Knighting for Gee-Dubbs has been out of fashion a LOOOOONG time ago.
Who's white knighting for Gee-Dubbs? I'm simply advocating for knowing what words mean. It applies to every ruleset ever made from any company or person.
Rihgu wrote: You don't what understand what "meta" is if you think a fan ruleset won't have "meta nonsense".
White Knighting for Gee-Dubbs has been out of fashion a LOOOOONG time ago.
That's not white knighting for GW.
No game is without a meta. A well-built and well-balanced game will have a healthier one, but that's not the same as not having one.
Example given earlier in the the thread, why take a typhon when you can take several dreads instead given the points. And that's really it, the meta of 2nd isn't healthy because even with the clear imbalance when it comes to dreads and termies, the points are also inflated for units that got universally worse like vehicles. This affects the meta because after enough games its difficult for players to forget what they've learned in terms of what performs well and what performs poorly, its pretty easy for just about everyone who loves their super heavies to put them back on the shelf and reach for units that perform much better for the cost.
HH 1.0 isn't perfect, but it's much much better than HH 2.0, I wouldn't say the factions are perfectly balanced, but playing HH 1.0 in a predominantly marine meta is at least a start, custodes, mechanicum and daemons of the ruinstorm will all do very well but there are reasons for that and a lot of them almost foreshadow HH 2.0, those armies contain mc's or a high wound character units with a lot of resilience and also the point costs for some stuff was out of wack as well. Still, most marine and marine felt pretty balanced, and it was also pretty rare to see stuff like mc's outside of allies.
2.0's biggest failure was to turn dreadnoughts into mc's, make termies more resilient and then make template weapons worse across the board. That's a far more egregious change to try and sell bodies than anything in 1.0.
For someone interested in overall points efficiency, it’s a consideration.
For someone interested in just fielding what they think looks cool, it isn’t.
And that’s ultimately the truth of any game meta. If you’re playing for aesthetic or literally just to see what you can do? The meta isn’t a concern.
I do stress this isn’t to be taken as a “sToP pLaYiNg WrOnG” post. Because it’s not, and shouldn’t be taken that way.
The meta is there whether one builds to it or not though. People playing rule of cool in 1.0 vs 2.0 are gonna have a better time. Case in point you can go the other way and be "wack as hell" running as many dreadnoughts as possible while falling back on rule of cool or "It's a total coincidence" my dreadnought heavy force keeps winning. Better game and more balanced meta lifts all ships IMO.
My skepticism for meta gaming comes from people seriously crunching numbers, and taking even the slimmest of allegedly favourable choices - but often failing to factor in Not Playing Against A Similarly Influenced Army.
For my money, Dreadnoughts should be Monstrous Creatures, not vehicles. And I’m planning a Fury of the Ancients because I bloody love Dreadnoughts as a concept. Plus as a Sad Old Git, I’ve waited bloody ages to have an all Contemptor Army. Ever since I properly got started on 2nd Ed Epic, where the Contemptor aesthetic debuted. To the point I was mildly disappointed when 2nd Ed brought the new Dreadnought, and they went for the Not As Cool But Admittedly Still Kind Of Cool box Dreadnought look.
My skepticism for meta gaming comes from people seriously crunching numbers, and taking even the slimmest of allegedly favourable choices - but often failing to factor in Not Playing Against A Similarly Influenced Army.
For my money, Dreadnoughts should be Monstrous Creatures, not vehicles. And I’m planning a Fury of the Ancients because I bloody love Dreadnoughts as a concept. Plus as a Sad Old Git, I’ve waited bloody ages to have an all Contemptor Army. Ever since I properly got started on 2nd Ed Epic, where the Contemptor aesthetic debuted. To the point I was mildly disappointed when 2nd Ed brought the new Dreadnought, and they went for the Not As Cool But Admittedly Still Kind Of Cool box Dreadnought look.
Can we agree that just conceptually not being able to one shot a dreadnought but being able to one shot a 400+ point tank isn't a good thing for a combined arms war game? I can meet halfway on dreads and say vehicle rules didn't encapsulate them fully, a good example is none of the rules modelled dreadnoughts ability to turn at the waste, but in making them mc's and giving them armour saves on top of invul saves, it's just gone too far. Example, most beatface characters/hq models were more or less on par point for point with dreads in 1.0, now its no contest, when you see how much a character ends up costing next to the cost of dreads its one more thing pushing the meta that way and even if you bite the bullet you end up being heavily incentivized to ensure you have a weapon with brutal. We can all butt heads on point costs of any one unit needing to be a bit higher or lower but can we agree that even for people who aren't that concerned with unit costs would still suffer if random units had their points altered up or down by 50%. Some of the big tanks in the pdf's the points really are staggeringly inflated for such mediocre units. The costing problem is also compounded by the fact that people like to play big games, so if points really are out of whack like 40-50% on very expensive units, it gets out of hand fast in terms of game balance, again two people having a great attitude about that and still enjoying rolling dice doth not make it any less of an s-show in terms of game. And it extra sucks when you can look back at their HH 1.0 rules and they're fantastic. I had just finished painting a friend's shadowsword as the pdf's came out and it was like "ya 1,0 sounds good" after that.
To one shot a tank, you need an Anti-Tank weapon. And it’s not especially likely unless I’ve left my tank where it can be easily shot at. And it means I do have to worry about where my tanks are.
And in a way, such a vulnerability means all tank lists (such as my nascent Iron Wing) are far from insurmountable, even when my opponent isn’t loaded for that particular bear.
I’ll freely admit I’m perhaps being naive and possibly unrealistic, but if I’ve put something in my list on the expectation or requirement it does serious heavy lifting, it’s not the game system’s fault if I’ve not considered the drawbacks, and planned accordingly.
There’s also an odd thought process for stuff like the Typhon, where it’s seen as flawed because all your opponent needs to do is spread their troops out, with the presupposition that’s always going to be possible, and done perfectly every time.
I’m probably being unfair on folk here, but most of the alleged drawbacks only really kick in if your area is heavy on the meta. And not everywhere is.
But remember. None of this is “sToP pLaYiNg It WrOnG” intent. I mean, if your area is meta heavy, and your preference is closer to my own of “take what tickles my fancy, worry about tactics later” then you’re less likely to have a good time. And that sucks,
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: it’s not the game system’s fault if I’ve not considered the drawbacks, and planned accordingly.
Yes but the game systems flaws are there in the background waiting to be discovered regardles of one taking notice because the problem is at a unit type level not any one problem unit per se, if a whole unit type gets better its one thing, but what has happened in addition to dreads getting a big buff is so too have terminators both directly and indirectly with the big changes to blast size and ap across the board, but also whole unit types have gotten worse like bikes losing toughness or skimmers that can no longer skim over friendly or enemy models like the javelin, those too are other things that make whole unit types better point for point than others. There are core functional problems that are really hard to ignore over time for a game the is supposed to be combined arms. They could have dealt with high ap large blast weapons by upping cover saves, but they've gone the other way on cover saves too sadly.
Like put it another way, the sin of 8th edition was homogenizing units types so far into absurdity to where you basically have 2, units that fly and units that don't. 30k 2nd ed thankfully didn't go quite that far, but it did really upset the apple cart in terms of unit type balance that is really pronounced. It's costing them too I would argue, in the push to sell more infantry with blasts/tanks getting nerfed badly, they may have sold more termies and tacs but people aren't exactly reaching for the tanks as much as they would have in 1.0. Either way its great to get so many plastic tanks, but I do feel bad for people with super heavies or armies that tended to be built around them like auxillia. 2.0 has really been unfair to them.
Here’s where I come up against my lack of modern gaming experience, as I simply don’t have sufficient frame of reference to offer a meaningful response.
Hopefully getting to roll some bones come the New Year though!
Play your fury of the ancients list mad doc. In the real world people aren't too worried about lots of dreads. They're definitely a bit too strong but it's not a big deal and you'll find at events everyone has a fun time and the game is really enjoyable to play. You might get a jokey comment or two but noone is really going to complain if you want to run fury of the ancients.
Remember v1 has some hideous things like custodes and thousand sons being hilariously over powered, the glaivez and the irronfire rite of war. All of which were far worse even to the point of being completely unfun to play against, yet the game was still good, and v2 only improves from this.
Also just regarding the whole "noone taking tanks" I'm not seeing that. There's a lot of tanks being played at all the v2 events I've been to. There's also a lot more variation in what people are bringing. Youre seeing the majority of the legiones astartes list being used.
Infact I took armoured breakthrough to my last event and it performed well all weekend while not being oppressive like it was in v1.
Tldr. Play what you like and don't worry too much. Play your dread army sand fulfill your dream. My mate has done the exact same thing he started building his fury of the ancients last edition when it was crap and now suddenly that's been turned on its head power wise. Next edition it might suck again. Who cares
If you are super worried. Heresy isn't a competitive game like 40k. There's no prizes for winning. So if you and your opponent thing it's going to be unbalanced. Give them some free meltabombs or deliberately pick a mission that makes things seem like an even battle.for both sides
That's not super true. People will largely be nice about it, especially at a paid event, and won't want to throw away games but the one dude who brought a FotA list has now sold it because he was told by the EOs that it was widely considered a really brutal list. It was unfortunate that he couldn't tone it down or swap armies but he himself admitted he hadn't expected the list to be so good nor other players to actively shun it.
There is definitely a social contract out on the FotA RoW to heavily suggest that players don't abuse it at best or entirely avoid it at worst.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Here’s where I come up against my lack of modern gaming experience, as I simply don’t have sufficient frame of reference to offer a meaningful response.
Hopefully getting to roll some bones come the New Year though!
Well this thread is now like half a year old so been tracking 2nd edition since the leaks then release but I try and give examples. My perspective even before any rumour of second was I personally didn't want or need a new HH edition, and people mostly wanted it for obvious reasons, plastic models and hopefully more opponents. There's nothing wrong with wanting either, I want both as well but didn't NEED either, still enjoying the plastics very much as they work just as well for either edition. The response to pretty valid global criticisms (notice I've tried to leave out reactions and focus just on changes to units types) though are often character assassination or just blanket statement that 2.0 is better or fixed something without saying specifically what it improved, which other than the psychic phase, I don't think there's much consensus anything else was "fixed".
Hope you get to roll them bones in the new year
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: That's not super true. People will largely be nice about it, especially at a paid event, and won't want to throw away games but the one dude who brought a FotA list has now sold it because he was told by the EOs that it was widely considered a really brutal list. It was unfortunate that he couldn't tone it down or swap armies but he himself admitted he hadn't expected the list to be so good nor other players to actively shun it.
There is definitely a social contract out on the FotA RoW to heavily suggest that players don't abuse it at best or entirely avoid it at worst.
Right so rule of cool and the best of intentions still eventually have to deal with reality and truth. Dreadnoughts are too strong for the points paid across the board.
Crablezworth wrote: Right so rule of cool and the best of intentions still eventually have to deal with reality and truth. Dreadnoughts are too strong for the points paid across the board.
Not what I said at all. Dreadnoughts are good. Fury of the Ancients means they are very good. But even in HH 1, a guy running FotA Iron Hands with 7 Contemptors, 4 Leviathans, and a Deredeo would still be a nasty list. Most other players at this event brought two or three Dreadnoughts and they were perfectly reasonable to deal with, I killed two Space Wolves Contempters with Bolters (technically because they took the last wound off, shut up it counts). There were far more oppressive units such as Phalanx Warder blobs, Gorgon Terminators (until met with the fury of ramming speed Rhinos), or Pyroclasts. One of the Imperial Fists lists was downright cruel and had zero Dreadnoughts.
So when the issue of Dreadnoughts being good faced the reality of an event, 39 out of 40 players didn't heavily invest in Dreadnoughts but instead took largely themed lists that still proved to be tough as nails.
So when the issue of Dreadnoughts being good faced the reality of an event, 39 out of 40 players didn't heavily invest in Dreadnoughts but instead took largely themed lists that still proved to be tough as nails.
You just said most people had 2-3 dreadnoughts. That's not a light investment.
So when the issue of Dreadnoughts being good faced the reality of an event, 39 out of 40 players didn't heavily invest in Dreadnoughts but instead took largely themed lists that still proved to be tough as nails.
You just said most people had 2-3 dreadnoughts. That's not a light investment.
Crablezworth wrote: You just said most people had 2-3 dreadnoughts. That's not a light investment.
Between 400 and 600 possible of a 3k list is light. In terms of money, 2-3 Dreadnought variants is cheaper than 12.
All of which conveniently skirts around the fact that reality has shown that in a narrative/casual environment players self regulated on the topic of Dreadnoughts.
Crablezworth wrote: You just said most people had 2-3 dreadnoughts. That's not a light investment.
Between 400 and 600 possible of a 3k list is light. In terms of money, 2-3 Dreadnought variants is cheaper than 12.
All of which conveniently skirts around the fact that reality has shown that in a narrative/casual environment players self regulated on the topic of Dreadnoughts.
Even there, i own one contemptor that just oupterform my preds... i don't think a dreadnought should be more durable than a predator and at the same time be more dangerous, nvm that a predator squadron is far less flexible than a contemptor talon which allows them to be separated.
In 7th and HH 1 Walkers sucked so much GW and FW started to make new released walkers monstrous creatures (Mechanicum says hello). Little strange to see some people arguing for a return to that state.
I'd suggest to wait for an FAQ. FW is not that fast with FaQs but when they come they're usually reasonable fixes I'd say (going from lotr experience that is).
Also, people claim that HH usually is played by laid back people so even Phosphex launchers were okay... If that's true then dreads will be fine as well .
Sgt. Cortez wrote: In 7th and HH 1 Walkers sucked so much GW and FW started to make new released walkers monstrous creatures (Mechanicum says hello). Little strange to see some people arguing for a return to that state.
I'd suggest to wait for an FAQ. FW is not that fast with FaQs but when they come they're usually reasonable fixes I'd say (going from lotr experience that is).
Also, people claim that HH usually is played by laid back people so even Phosphex launchers were okay... If that's true then dreads will be fine as well .
tbf there are two things that could happen and fix the current state:
A: contemptors get a price hike or lose immunity to getting one shot by AT or alternatively AT get's a brutal type against "dreadnought" type units.
B: Vehicle squadrons like Preds are allowed to split up like dreadnought talons.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: In 7th and HH 1 Walkers sucked so much GW and FW started to make new released walkers monstrous creatures (Mechanicum says hello). Little strange to see some people arguing for a return to that state. I'd suggest to wait for an FAQ. FW is not that fast with FaQs but when they come they're usually reasonable fixes I'd say (going from lotr experience that is). Also, people claim that HH usually is played by laid back people so even Phosphex launchers were okay... If that's true then dreads will be fine as well .
Mechanicum robots were priced well apart from the castellax Nobody liked facing the Legio Cybernetica because of the castellax troops and their unique buffs.
To argue 'the merchanicum had MCs' is invalid in this context because it was the legio cybernetica which made them OP. My Ordo Reductor straight up has limits on how many you can take and demanded my compulsory troops were Thallax (as any good adept would choose)
Marine forces could get a squad of robots tops, IF you used the right HQ...
And vehicles should always have been able to split squadrons after the game starts.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: In 7th and HH 1 Walkers sucked so much GW and FW started to make new released walkers monstrous creatures (Mechanicum says hello). Little strange to see some people arguing for a return to that state.
I'd suggest to wait for an FAQ. FW is not that fast with FaQs but when they come they're usually reasonable fixes I'd say (going from lotr experience that is).
Also, people claim that HH usually is played by laid back people so even Phosphex launchers were okay... If that's true then dreads will be fine as well .
tbf there are two things that could happen and fix the current state:
A: contemptors get a price hike or lose immunity to getting one shot by AT or alternatively AT get's a brutal type against "dreadnought" type units.
B: Vehicle squadrons like Preds are allowed to split up like dreadnought talons.
The price hike would be the easiest fix, but I prefer letting AT weapons hit them harder. Let Armourbane cause ID, and Sunder reroll wounds.
As for B, I'd go the other way: force all of the various "Talon" units to function as one unit. You'd have to give them similar restrictions on what guns they can shoot in Reactions as vehicles though. Otherwise, nobody would want to shoot/charge them.
Crablezworth wrote: You just said most people had 2-3 dreadnoughts. That's not a light investment.
Between 400 and 600 possible of a 3k list is light. In terms of money, 2-3 Dreadnought variants is cheaper than 12.
All of which conveniently skirts around the fact that reality has shown that in a narrative/casual environment players self regulated on the topic of Dreadnoughts.
By taking 3 of them? Having 17% of your list being dreadnoughts doesn't sound like regulation.
Crablezworth wrote: By taking 3 of them? Having 17% of your list being dreadnoughts doesn't sound like regulation.
Once again skirting the actual point which is that Dreadnoughts weren't a problem at an actual event with 40 players all taking largely varied and themed lists. In fact aside from some difficult opposing lists (which is bound to happen at some point) I never felt that I had lost the game by turn 2, something I can't say for the last event that was a send-off for HH 1, nor many of the games I played in HH 1.
.