I'm posting this on several sites and pages and would like to know which system the dakka dakka players would like.

If you could give your reasons too please.

I personally would say HH should make the jump to 8th. The reason, simply put, is to make it easier on the FW rules writers. As it stands, many HH units are also available in 40k. By bringing HH into 8th edition, it would mean that FW only has to write one set of rules, rather than writing one set then having to translate that unit into a different ruleset while still having it play and work the same.

With only one set of rules to write rather than two, it makes it far less likely that another absolute trainwreck like the FW 8th Indices will happen again.

IMO 7th is the superior ruleset due to it having complexity deeper than a puddle and to my understanding 30k doesn't suffer from the insane power creep balance issues that plagued 40k 7th.

Yeah, hours heresy has a lot more to lose than gain by being ported to 8th. It's already a great system. FW rules writers already wrote all the rules for hours heresy and they work great in 7th...

Hmm. To keep using the system that's vastly superior in terms of rule logic and tactical offerings while beating crap out in terms of being balanced or jump into game that would need serious rewrite to have chance of offering same...Yeah not difficult choice.

This will end up being another 7-8 pages of the HH fanatics complaining about 8th and not really discussing HH at all. I can see Tneva got us started

7th didnt have any more depth than 8th does beyond a few tidbits like armor facing on vehicles (but only some vehicles, depending on the whim of the author, and literally no other units in the game), nothing someone at the level of a battle commander should be concerned with. It had lots of useless complexity however (though so does 8th).

7E was no hallmark to tactical depth, rules simplicity, balance, or anything else, and was just about the nadir of 40k in all such respects. Anything to be salvaged from 7E, that 8th doesnt offer, can in almost all circumstances be better handled by just playing 5th ed. 8E isn't perfect, or indeed anywhere near it, but 7th was...unsalvageable.

HH sticking with 7th is whats keeping me from trying it more, I'd be interested in a more narrowed and focused 40k that cuts some of the variables and has a different setting, but not with 7E rules, especially the *horrifically* bad vehicle rules and the entire concept of HP's.

In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

 Vankraken wrote:
IMO 7th is the superior ruleset due to it having complexity deeper than a puddle and to my understanding 30k doesn't suffer from the insane power creep balance issues that plagued 40k 7th.

7th has zero complexity unless you think micromanaging degree of rotation of tank (so enemy is within half of degree of front arc and is forced to shoot it despite clearly seeing exposed side) or playing hour long game of 'resolve 20 small blasts' is "complexity"

As for power creep, let me just laugh and point to 12 quad mortars. Or lorgar/magnus with invisibility. Or small phosphex blast spam. Or 9 dracosans. Or Scoria. Or psi-titans. Or TS psy-spam. Or... Or... Or...

8th. It's time to let 7th go like the Zimbabwe economy.

I want a 'greatest hits of 3rd-7th' system that takes the underlying basics of that system and cleans out the clutter.

 Irbis wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
IMO 7th is the superior ruleset due to it having complexity deeper than a puddle and to my understanding 30k doesn't suffer from the insane power creep balance issues that plagued 40k 7th.

7th has zero complexity unless you think micromanaging degree of rotation of tank (so enemy is within half of degree of front arc and is forced to shoot it despite clearly seeing exposed side) or playing hour long game of 'resolve 20 small blasts' is "complexity"

As for power creep, let me just laugh and point to 12 quad mortars. Or lorgar/magnus with invisibility. Or small phosphex blast spam. Or 9 dracosans. Or Scoria. Or psi-titans. Or TS psy-spam. Or... Or... Or...

Add in the tediousness of artificer armour tanking, the crap all or nothing AP system (3rd to 7th era), the disjointed superheavy rules, strength D, etc. I was disappointed when they said they'll stick with 7th for now. Will grumble and muddle through until they get 8th sorted and ported.

I used to be a huge fan of 5th-7th but 8th has stolen my gaming heart, Much better and more fun edition in my mind.

I don't play HH myself but several guys at my club do. As far as I am aware they don't want HH to go the way 8th but I can't see GW and FW leaving it as it is ultimately. They will have to convert that variation over to the new rules at some point.

You guys know HH already has a community 8th conversion?

 zedmeister wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
IMO 7th is the superior ruleset due to it having complexity deeper than a puddle and to my understanding 30k doesn't suffer from the insane power creep balance issues that plagued 40k 7th.

7th has zero complexity unless you think micromanaging degree of rotation of tank (so enemy is within half of degree of front arc and is forced to shoot it despite clearly seeing exposed side) or playing hour long game of 'resolve 20 small blasts' is "complexity"

As for power creep, let me just laugh and point to 12 quad mortars. Or lorgar/magnus with invisibility. Or small phosphex blast spam. Or 9 dracosans. Or Scoria. Or psi-titans. Or TS psy-spam. Or... Or... Or...

Add in the tediousness of artificer armour tanking, the crap all or nothing AP system (3rd to 7th era), the disjointed superheavy rules, strength D, etc. I was disappointed when they said they'll stick with 7th for now. Will grumble and muddle through until they get 8th sorted and ported.

In fact, the above examples, both your and mine, aren't even worst offenders. Last HH book has examples that would make even 7th edition Eldar go 'wait, are you sure'? Starting with Russ having ridiculously superior wargear to all the other primarchs (because he was known as the craftsman/scientist, eh?) letting him kill everyone, even Horus, with contemptuous ease. Then you have Magnus, flying, invisible, peeing D-shots on entire enemy army. Finally, there is Custodes tribune, who, with a bunch of cheap upgrades, can be turned into unholy rape machine of death capable of killing primarchs or 20 strong terminator units all by himself. Creep? What's that?

I find amazing the people think HH is in any way balanced. It's not. In fact, it's terribly balanced, and is only saved by two factors - one, that everyone bar small minority in HH is MEQ, forcing a bit level play, and second, the fact that fully kitted out cheese HH army costs as much as dozen 40K armies thanks to need to spend thousands of $ on all the tanks/LOWs you need. So, people only rarely can see just where determined optimizing can take 30K force. But, 'balanced because it's too expensive to break' is kind of hard sell, IMHO.

Thanks for posting this Formosa... I think it is a really big deal.

8th because of the way AP works. In the Horus Heresy novels characters (often captains or higher with great wargear) can shoot bolters at people with power armour and actually punch through. The -1 or -2 AP for things like Special Issue Bolters or relic bolters or whatever would really work well for making the 30k games feel more like the battles in the novel where bolters are effective at killing astartes.

I’d prefer using 8th to fix the glaring problems of 7th - a halfway house if you will. I’ve even started fiddling with the idea:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745210.page

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

a bit subjective, there are those of us who think 8th is the shi---st edition ever made, keeping HH the way it is allows the peeps who like 8th to play 8th adn those of us who loathe 8th to keep our game too.

something occurs to me.

So now HH is sticking to 7th for the time being and we have ... what 3? legions left to get full rules and legion units, that means in the long term if it does shift to 8th, this gives players a real choice, as every force will be available in 7th, and then ported to 8th.

8th with ease. 3rd through 7th was a massively restricted system that required reams of special rules to make anything but the most basic of units work, and not once do I think they got the rules for vehicles and psychers right throughout that period (not entirely sure about the Psykers though). The HH does a decent job of papering over the cracks of a bad system but it's still a bad system, and whilst 8th is far from perfect it is a damn sight better.

That said, I think I'd prefer them to keep it under 7th ed rules until all the armies are out before attempting to shift the whole lot over to 8th.

7th is one of the worst games on the market. I don't understand why anyone would choose to stay in 7th.

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is one of the worst games on the market. I don't understand why anyone would choose to stay in 7th.

Why?

What makes 8th any different ?

What were the biggest issues for you with 7th?

What do you like about 8th?

Cheers.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

a bit subjective, there are those of us who think 8th is the shi---st edition ever made, keeping HH the way it is allows the peeps who like 8th to play 8th adn those of us who loathe 8th to keep our game too.

Except plenty of people who have played both think that 7th is the most doggak fethstick cork-up in the history of ALL wargaming and that 8th, while by no means perfect is significantly more playable(and replaces mindless rules tedium for actual (if relatively shallow) tactical interaction) and even if 30k was their main game before 8th, can't help but look longingly at tables where people still have vehicles alive at the bottom of turn 1.

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is one of the worst games on the market. I don't understand why anyone would choose to stay in 7th.

For a few reasons actually (my opinion with playing 40k so take with some but after playing 8th a few times I can honestly say I miss 7th and going back to playing 7th confirms my feelings on the matter)
-Terrain and cover matters a lot while the same cannot be said of 8th. Its very difficult to meet the requirements for a cover save in 8th and if you have low armor then cover isn't going a thing vs plasma
-Blast Weapons are a much more interesting mechanic that heavily factor in model proximity instead of just being a flat X number of shots (or the far worse d3 or d6 shots garbage)
-Vehicles are more interesting than just being multi wound meat boxes
-USR and unit types help give units more varied mechanics
-The differences between AV and toughness plus how wounding works gives weapons far more defined roles.
-The different weapon types and special rules for weapons also add to the diversity in weapon function and create more niche uses. The changes in 8th resulted in a lot of diverse arsenals having heavy overlap.
-Psychic phase (despite its massive amount of problems) at least has some risk/reward in warp charge usage unlike 8th's "1 in 18 chance to perils"
-Morale (while ignored half the time due to widespread ATSKNF or Fearless) is at least interesting in 7th if a bit underdeveloped
-A bit more decision making as the defender with actions like Jink or Go to Ground but also a bit underdeveloped
-Deep Striking is very risk/reward which allows for some potentially rewarding actions if played risky but still allows you to play with more minimal risk or utilize tools to reduce the risk while deep striking. 8th is just a dull "appear 9" away".
-Usage of reserves allows for more interesting tactics and flexibility instead of 8th where you can only reserve if you can deep strike or do some sort of outflank
-For all the power creep BS that went on as 7th rolled out, formations often times created some very fluffy and interesting game play variety. Seriously go back and look at all the formations that got ignored because of things like Riptide Wing, Skyhammer, Battle Company, Decurion, Aspect Host, etc existed and those ignored formations sometimes had some very fluffy and interesting gameplay mechanics.

7th's main issue is that GW sucks at game balance and ripped out the brakes on the rules bus with the Necron dex (probably to push sales) and kept the pedal floored all the way until 8th landed. 8th got a ton of praise for the index balance (which has some horrid internal balance) but that's because they just broke everything down to children's level complexity and yet faction imbalance, broken mechanics, and BIS unit spam continues on. Its just that now 8th is a much less complex game and frankly more shallow game which to me just feels boring to play win or lose.

I just want them to finish all the Legions before FW converts over to 8th. I'd like to see The Lion and Sanguinius in 7th edition rules before they are stripped bare and made into a pale copy of themselves in 8th like what happened to Guliman.

The major weaknesses of 7th are marginalized or non-existant due to limited detachments, and everything having T4 3+. Yes, there are still some issues, but in my mind, the single biggest thing that broke 7th ed was all the detachments and wonkiness that resulted. With the release of the new Red Rulebook for the Horus Heresy, they have also eliminated the whole invisibility issue and clarified more than a few other rules.

The Horus Heresy is not about the armies. It's about the Primarchs, and, well, in 8th edition, it really feels like characters, especially the big characters, have been distilled down to a "Everything Ultramarine gets +1 to hit while within 12". And, well... that's great and all, but it's not "special". Look at Horus with Worldbreaker and The Warmaster's Talon going to translate into 8th? World Breaker -1 to hit, S+3, AP -3, d3 wounds? And the Claw- How will that work? It'll have to be completely different, and it'll be something like "enemy models are -1 t hit in the fight phase".

8th edition is fun, but the shrinking of the design space and GW's reluctance to give special rules to special characters beyond more CP's and +/- rolls, means the Primarchs will be nowhere near the power level or battlefield presence they have in 7th edition.

This ended up bigger than I thought, but wanted to provide a counterpoint to some of these.

 Vankraken wrote:

-Blast Weapons are a much more interesting mechanic that heavily factor in model proximity instead of just being a flat X number of shots (or the far worse d3 or d6 shots garbage)

There were several problems there. First they had some structural issues in the way they affected different units, they had a massive casualty potential but a very low average damage output, both because of the scatter mechanic and the spread of models, often even a dead on battlecannon shot from a 150+pt tank may only potentially be able to nail 3 or 4 dudes, and that's assuming you hit, before rolling to wound or any saves. Against big monsters and vehicles, blast weapons also consistently underperformed, as they paid lots of points to inflict multiple hits on units, but could only ever inflict a maximum of one hit on something big.

The other problem is that the blast mechanic was tedious to work out, particularly with things like the Wyvern where it's indirect, barrage, twin linked and the battery has 3 hulls and you're trying to align flipping templates dynamically by hand twelve times just to determine how many dice you get to roll. Human measurement error, bias, cheating, perceptions, table scenery, moving models, etc all made this a really awkward mechanic.

Yeah, it had its fun moments. That fades after the first couple of games. The game isn't played at skirmish/RPG scales, leave blast templates to games more suited to them.

-Vehicles are more interesting than just being multi wound meat boxes

And all they did was suffer for it. They got stuck with two overlapping kill mechanics for whatever reason, one essentially making them a 3 wound high T creature with...no save, while the other allowed them to be crippled or disabled or potentially killed on any successful "to-wound" roll that beat the minimum required to hurt it.

Yeah, vehicle facing had some tactical depth. The problem is that at the scale 40k is playing at, that's not something a battle commander should be worried about, and, more to the point, why are vehicles the only units that have to deal with that? Monstrous Creatures never had to deal with facings. Nobody ever complained about not having it on them. Why should a Dreadnought or a Falcon need facings but a Daemon Prince, Wraithlord, or Exocrine did not?

Primarily the only vehicle units that got any competitive play time in 7E fell into one of 3 categories. A: Skimmers/Flyers, that could Jink and generate a 4+ save on demand and often still function relatively well (either through virtue of twin-linked weaponry or being a transport and Jink having no effect on passengers), and also typically had dramatically less differentiation in armor facings than their Imperial counterparts and usually had identical front/side armor, making facing mostly moot for them. B: Discounted/Free/Boosted, stuff like the much bemoaned free drop pods/rhinos or formations that had powerful effects. C: Knights, they got 4+ invul saves, mostly ignored one of the overlapping kill mechanics, were fast and had lots of melee attacks with the ridiculous 7E Destroyer weapon mechanics.

-The differences between AV and toughness plus how wounding works gives weapons far more defined roles.

-The different weapon types and special rules for weapons also add to the diversity in weapon function and create more niche uses. The changes in 8th resulted in a lot of diverse arsenals having heavy overlap.

The fundamental interaction of weapon strength and the HP mechanic proved this concept false, what dominated 7E tables? S5-7 multi-shot weapons, weapons that could wound infantry on 2's and glance light and medium vehicles to death with a couple lucky 6's. Add in things like Jink saves that stress volume of fire over quality with vehicles and the AP "all or nothing" coupled with increasingly present and widespread invul/cover saves in general, and 7E really made specialized heavy AT weapons difficult to justify in most cases (stuff like Hammerhead railguns)

7E was the zenith of the "do it all" weapons.

While GW hasn't gotten it all right, the return of Damage was a good idea, and that has allowed for differentiation in a way not possible before, that works much better than what 7E did. It was way too easy to make something abusively good at killing tanks by upping Strength, now with a Damage stat and a reasonable number of wounds allocated to vehicles, Strength alone has less meaning in regards to direct AT potential.

-A bit more decision making as the defender with actions like Jink or Go to Ground but also a bit underdeveloped

If you didn't get an armor save (which is all the time for a vehicle), you *always* Jinked. Go to Ground was something of a choice, but Jink was...rarely really a choice, it was pretty binary. Smoke Launchers were a choice, still are.

-Deep Striking is very risk/reward which allows for some potentially rewarding actions if played risky but still allows you to play with more minimal risk or utilize tools to reduce the risk while deep striking. 8th is just a dull "appear 9" away".

Hrm, lets be fair, 7E reserves and Deep Strike was pretty lenient, certainly the most risk-free up until 8E, certainly dramatically less risky than 4th or 5th. It also avoids the "you're within a hair's breadth of an inch of my dude, mishap!" sillyness. It does feel a bit dull, and I'd like it to be riskier, but it does play better given how lenient 7E already was.

-Usage of reserves allows for more interesting tactics and flexibility instead of 8th where you can only reserve if you can deep strike or do some sort of outflank

On some level I'd agree with this, but the table requirements of 7E (which didn't exist in 5E) killed most of the actual interesting overarching strategy.

-For all the power creep BS that went on as 7th rolled out, formations often times created some very fluffy and interesting game play variety. Seriously go back and look at all the formations that got ignored because of things like Riptide Wing, Skyhammer, Battle Company, Decurion, Aspect Host, etc existed and those ignored formations sometimes had some very fluffy and interesting gameplay mechanics.

8E's detachment mechanics will let you build structurally almost any concept, you won't get all the free special abilities, but that was not great game design, and you will get CP's to use on rationed special abilities.

7th's main issue is that GW sucks at game balance and ripped out the brakes on the rules bus with the Necron dex (probably to push sales) and kept the pedal floored all the way until 8th landed. 8th got a ton of praise for the index balance (which has some horrid internal balance) but that's because they just broke everything down to children's level complexity and yet faction imbalance, broken mechanics, and BIS unit spam continues on. Its just that now 8th is a much less complex game and frankly more shallow game which to me just feels boring to play win or lose.

8E is a less complex game. It is however, still remarkably complex. That said, I don't think there's a case that can be made that 8E is a less *Deep* game than 7E. 7E had lots of complexity, but little depth, at least of the kind that should be concerning a battle commander of a company sized force (yeah, armor mechanics were kinda interesting, not something the CO needs to be directing. Yeah blast mechanics were visually theatrical with the template and all...but really bad actual mechanics). 40k is not, never has been, and never will be a particularly tactically deep game. The game is a framework to play with pretty toy soldiers.

8th edition. I did not care for 7th editions HP system and the way it handles heavy weapon damage. Getting rid of armor facings is fine with me as I felt like on the scale most 40k games are on that kind of micromanaging is really unnecessary. The fact that the Horus Heresy did not port over to 8th ed killed my interest in the game for a long time.

Also multi-blast template spam, courtesy of quad mortars, can go die in a fire.

YPu should post this in the 30k discussion page as well, otherwise the results could be skewed as most people on the 40k page will only want to talk about 8th edition

 Formosa wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
7th is one of the worst games on the market. I don't understand why anyone would choose to stay in 7th.

Why?

What makes 8th any different ?

What were the biggest issues for you with 7th?

What do you like about 8th?

Cheers.

-7th utilized 6(?) different resolution methods. Along with 3 different charts to reference to understand what was a pass/fail.
WS vs WS (comparative attribute tests)
BS (or target number tests)
Str vs AV with degrees of success
Single dice attribute tests (str test)
2 dice attribute tests (leadership)
scatter dice

-Scatter dice opened the door for ALL KINDS of wonkyness due to human error. A couple degrees off could wildly effect the outcome.

-No control over reserves coming in meant the tactical planning of reserves was left up to chance.

-Formations and worse decurions, pigeon holed armies into prebuilt blocks of units that cut down drastically on army composition variety and options.

-Units immune to damage due to high T made it so a strategy built around taking as many high AV or T units as possible would effectively negate half of an opponents army.

-How many unit types were there? Was the different between jump and jet pack really so significant that it needed to be 2 different things?

-How many PAGES of USRs were there in the core book?

-How many weapon types were there? Was ordinance really necessary?

-Random warlord traits/psychic powers which amounts to book keeping to keep track of those things you didn't pick

-Vehicle damage was book keeping too

-Stop the game for every action to roll a random die on some table for more book keeping.

-The psychic phase. The whole thing. But especially warp charges turning most psykers into batteries to fuel 1 or 2 other models.


What do I like about 8th?

Simplicity. All of that bs is gone.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
YPu should post this in the 30k discussion page as well, otherwise the results could be skewed as most people on the 40k page will only want to talk about 8th edition

Nah I put it here on purpose, based on this and the other forums pages it's confirming that it's 40k players who have an issue with 40k 7th and its issues, not actually 30k 7th, also you are correct in that primarily 30k forums are saying "good" to 7th and primarily 40k forums are saying "bad" to 7th.

People it seems can't differentiate between Horus Herrsy 7th and 40k 7th, I'll keep gathering info and see what happens.

 Formosa wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
YPu should post this in the 30k discussion page as well, otherwise the results could be skewed as most people on the 40k page will only want to talk about 8th edition

Nah I put it here on purpose, based on this and the other forums pages it's confirming that it's 40k players who have an issue with 40k 7th and its issues, not actually 30k 7th, also you are correct in that primarily 30k forums are saying "good" to 7th and primarily 40k forums are saying "bad" to 7th.

People it seems can't differentiate between Horus Herrsy 7th and 40k 7th, I'll keep gathering info and see what happens.

Yeah, one of the things I've noticed is the people clamoring for 8th edition rules in HH don't always play HH.

HH feels so much more tactical then 8th edition. I appreciate the differences and would like to see it remain the same. Not that I am any great fan of 7th edition rules, it's really just the idea that it's a separate game.

To be fair, I stopped playing 40k 7th not because of the main rules, but because of GWs inability to balance books even slightly.
So I went over to 30k and loved it instead (and still do)


I don't mind the new 40k rules and I like the simplicity, but I feel throwing them at 30k could ruin the entire game.
It lacks the depth in list building which 30k relies on.

I feel an 8th edition 30k could just generate similar lists that have little bearing on actual chapter.

I'm trying not to put my opinion in this thread as I'm just trying to see what everyone else thinks.

But I keep seeing here and other places people use "yeah but 30k is unbalanced too" using essentially book 7 as an example and thudd guns, now here comes the opinion, how often do we actually see these WAAC lists in 30k? I used to see crazy lists in 40k as a matter of course, but 30k seems (to me) to attract almost more of a historical mindset, people play things that look good even if they suck on the tabletop and i rarely saw "this isn't efficient" kind of discussions.

Is this the same as others experiences ?

7th edition had significantly better rules that 8th edition without a doubt. But powercreep is a thing, and always will be. Port to 8th when it gets out of hand a sort of reset on the power levels might do the trick, but honestly, it shouldn't get that far anyways.

 Formosa wrote:
I'm trying not to put my opinion in this thread as I'm just trying to see what everyone else thinks.

But I keep seeing here and other places people use "yeah but 30k is unbalanced too" using essentially book 7 as an example and thudd guns, now here comes the opinion, how often do we actually see these WAAC lists in 30k? I used to see crazy lists in 40k as a matter of course, but 30k seems (to me) to attract almost more of a historical mindset, people play things that look good even if they suck on the tabletop and i rarely saw "this isn't efficient" kind of discussions.

Is this the same as others experiences ?

Not Thudd guns, but Quad Mortars. Those things need... players that use them do not have friends.

There are a lot of issues with Book 7:Inferno. The Thousand Sons can be built in a particular way that is just not fun to play with or against. This has been mitigated in my mind with the recent release of the new Red Rule Book that has taken Invisibility out of the game. Magnus can be made OK, or tooled up OP unkillable, most borken model in the game. It all depends on the player.

Have i seen a lot of these lists? Not really. There is enough balance in 30K between the Legions that a WAAC list can be overcome easily enough by other WAAC lists and the right units. There are options in every army list that will just delete entire units of models. The only list that pisses me off is seeing more than two Quad Mortars with Phospex Shells. That's just being a

The only WAAC lists I've seen always include multiple units of Quad Mortars and artillery. And those players are usually ostracized or not welcome.

My main draw to 30k is that you can take almost any unit in the entire game and it won't hinder your army.

You don't have to run a legion a specific way to make it useable to keep up with other armies.


Yes, quad mortars are insanely strong.
Phosphex being knocked down to AP3 helps alot though straight away.


The issue is, good units will stand out in 30k more so as everything is fairly balanced.
So the second you do get a unit slightly better than normal, it's noticeable.

Also keep in mind that 30k shooting is far more devastating.
Low AP weapons everywhere and in high numbers.




I'll be honest.
I think alot of balance in 30k comes from the sheer lack of psychic powers more than anything.
Until TS got rules, you rarely ever saw them.
There was no spamming invis and rubbish like that.

And TS are strong.
Until they run into a talons list in tournaments.
In which case they pretty much get shut down and face an uphill struggle.
So you can pick a psychic dominant army, but you do risk a hard counter army.

During 7th I really liked heresy. Forge world (until book V or so) Did a really good job of making each legion feel unique, but not over powered. 7th near the end was a contest of who's cheese was mightier. Was it the Gate of infinity buffed Catifracti captain on a bike, who had a 2+ rerollable invulnerably save and 2+ FNP who also granted an entire squad of Grav cannon devastators S&P? Perhaps the pair of wraithknights who got to fire 5 times a turn backed up by a riptide wing? It was a MESS.

8th is better. Just better. Simpler, faster and better balanced. It has it's flaws, but the omission of alot of what people have been calling "tactical complexity" are just things WAAC players used to cheat. (facings, scatter dice, who was REALLY under the blast weapon, stomps ect) Seriously it's not like ether of thees games are meant to be complex. Go back to "The campaign for north Africa" if you need more complexity. I'm just here to have fun.

After 4 years I've abandoned heresy and gone back to 40k. It's just so much better.
All hail the open war cards.

Lots of very interesting points in here people, keep em coming

Voted for 8th, just prefer the rules really.

I can see the point behind completing HH under 7th though so there is a "full set" under those rules, or a slightly modified set of those rules for those who want them - before providing updated lists for the lot to cover what will likely be 9th, or 40th edition of 40k by then.

No one locally plays HH, so wanting to be able to play it under 8th so I can actually find the occasional opponent who is prepared to face some terribly glossy metallic red marines

I mean it seems silly NOT to point out that, unofficially at least, you can play Heresy in 8ed.

We’ve been working on a version of 8ed Heresy since the release of 8ed. It’s had a bit of publicity and a lot of people joining in to tweak, balance and suggest changes.

There’s a general Dakka thread at https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731421.page but the main forums for the project are on Heresy 30k at http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/topic/10639-the-8ed-heresy-project-directory/

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I mean it seems silly NOT to point out that, unofficially at least, you can play Heresy in 8ed.

We’ve been working on a version of 8ed Heresy since the release of 8ed. It’s had a bit of publicity and a lot of people joining in to tweak, balance and suggest changes.

There’s a general Dakka thread at https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731421.page but the main forums for the project are on Heresy 30k at http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/topic/10639-the-8ed-heresy-project-directory/

This is the list I'm using to build my Thousand Sons, and I seriously thank you for the effort thats gone into a very nice unofficial expansion.

Its perhaps the best way to run it, and the fact its still alive indicates GW are not about to break out the flame thrower just yet.

 Jackal wrote:
My main draw to 30k is that you can take almost any unit in the entire game and it won't hinder your army.

You don't have to run a legion a specific way to make it useable to keep up with other armies.


Yes, quad mortars are insanely strong.
Phosphex being knocked down to AP3 helps alot though straight away.


The issue is, good units will stand out in 30k more so as everything is fairly balanced.
So the second you do get a unit slightly better than normal, it's noticeable.

Also keep in mind that 30k shooting is far more devastating.
Low AP weapons everywhere and in high numbers.




I'll be honest.
I think alot of balance in 30k comes from the sheer lack of psychic powers more than anything.
Until TS got rules, you rarely ever saw them.
There was no spamming invis and rubbish like that.

And TS are strong.
Until they run into a talons list in tournaments.
In which case they pretty much get shut down and face an uphill struggle.
So you can pick a psychic dominant army, but you do risk a hard counter army.

Biggest problem I'm seeing with this post and plenty of others in here is people conflating core rules for army rules and vice versa. 30K gets it's list bilding "depth", and game depth, almost entirely via army rules specifically the Rites of War. It's still 7th ed 40K though, but with a slightly different detachment, no formations, and the RoW mechanic, an extremely small change but one that had a profound effect. Well, that and the fact that it's almost exclusively Marine on Marine action. I see no reason why, should the HH switch to 8th ed rules, FW wont limit you to just a Battalion detachment and adapt the current RoW mechanic to the new system. It'll achieve the same thing, only with a better basic game.

Having played my Raven Guard in 7th, HH, and 8th, my views about it are conflicted.

the change from 7th to 8th was OVERALL a big improvement, especially to play speed. However some things did not translate well or were just flat out broken with the change, that would have a major and probably inordinate impact on playing 8e horus heresy either standalone or vs 40k factions.

Ultimately, the system should eventually port to 8th, because it will make it easier for players that have joined since the launch of 8th to get into, understand with less confusion, and enjoy even if there are a limited number of other heresy players in the area. Some may dislike '30k vs 40k', but in some gaming groups that compatibility was important for making a collection of more specialist stuff viable. I would like to see a complete set of rules for 7th Ed HH before the changeover, not just because it will offer those players who like the current ruleset the choice to keep using it, but because it would also allow the FW writers to consider all the legions and their unique natures when transferring the rules.

so my pov as someone who plays a bodies-heavy Raven Guard force on the biggest teething issues of 8th that need to be sorted before HH can be ported without invalidating major playstyles:

Deepstrike mechanics in 8th have a number of fundamental problems, especially the ease of which entire areas can be denied.

Flame template weapons have been poorly translated, and should be something akin to "d3 hits, +d3 per 5 models, max 4d3" or similar. the current flat d6 hits makes some of the weapon class inordinately strong vs single targets, and crap at the actual intended job of clearing large groups.

Blast template weapons have a similar issue, being far more effective against large targets than in 7th.

Many weapons would need to be redesigned entirely in order to still function in the niche they are supposed to inhabit

Vehicle embark/disembark restrictions also change the way several vehicles and army styles work considerably, and may require new wording to several RoW

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

 godardc wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

My area's 30k players mainly used 40k models when I was there. It just helps when 30k models cost the amount they do and Heresy is usually played in larger games than 40k. 40k models let you play as you build the 30k units.

 godardc wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

They're not really different games though, they're just different army sets and one hasn't transitioned to the newest ruleset yet. HH stuff was always built on the core 40k rules and intended to have lots (though obviously not total) crossover with all the other 40k stuff, same game but two different points in time. 40k to HH is not the same thing as 40k to Necromunda or 40k to Deathwatch, which have entirely different mechanics, scales of play, core rules, intended board setups, etc

 Imateria wrote:

Biggest problem I'm seeing with this post and plenty of others in here is people conflating core rules for army rules and vice versa. 30K gets it's list bilding "depth", and game depth, almost entirely via army rules specifically the Rites of War. It's still 7th ed 40K though, but with a slightly different detachment, no formations, and the RoW mechanic, an extremely small change but one that had a profound effect. Well, that and the fact that it's almost exclusively Marine on Marine action. I see no reason why, should the HH switch to 8th ed rules, FW wont limit you to just a Battalion detachment and adapt the current RoW mechanic to the new system. It'll achieve the same thing, only with a better basic game.

Agree with all of this. I was honestly really disappointed that RoW were not a part of 8th with more restrictive detachments.

I like both systems, and am content to have the seperate (though i would love some rules to use my custodes vehicles in 40k).

On a side note, this is a terrible poll, where none of the answers actually directly answer the question, and many of them can be true simultaneously.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

They're not really different games though, they're just different army sets and one hasn't transitioned to the newest ruleset yet. HH stuff was always built on the core 40k rules and intended to have lots (though obviously not total) crossover with all the other 40k stuff, same game but two different points in time. 40k to HH is not the same thing as 40k to Necromunda or 40k to Deathwatch, which have entirely different mechanics, scales of play, core rules, intended board setups, etc

Apologies but the designers notes said that you "could" play crossover games, but it was never designed to and never intended to, they were two different games that shared a rulebook, that it.

I think a lot of people basically treated them as two different settings for one game.

Furthermore the systems being compatible opens up a lot of gaming opportunities, as people with strictly-non-30K armies can participate. Even if there are no rules for Orks or Eldar (I think) in 30K, if the system is compatible you can still play games of your Legion Marines fighting Orks etc.

 Crimson wrote:
I think a lot of people basically treated them as two different settings for one game.

Furthermore the systems being compatible opens up a lot of gaming opportunities, as people with strictly-non-30K armies can participate. Even if there are no rules for Orks or Eldar (I think) in 30K, if the system is compatible you can still play games of your Legion Marines fighting Orks etc.

See this falls down when you consider that these books still exist, nothing is stopping anyone from picking up 7th orks and playing with the legion armies, in fact it would also encourage you to "fix" the ork book for Heresy play, even create some rites for them, it really does come down to which system people prefer, some 8th, some 7th.

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

They're not really different games though, they're just different army sets and one hasn't transitioned to the newest ruleset yet. HH stuff was always built on the core 40k rules and intended to have lots (though obviously not total) crossover with all the other 40k stuff, same game but two different points in time. 40k to HH is not the same thing as 40k to Necromunda or 40k to Deathwatch, which have entirely different mechanics, scales of play, core rules, intended board setups, etc

Apologies but the designers notes said that you "could" play crossover games, but it was never designed to and never intended to, they were two different games that shared a rulebook, that it.

Suret, I'm not saying they intended Solar Auxilia to play against Tau or the like, but they always shared the same core ruleset (we're just looking at a delayed move to the new edition in this case) and game mechanics, and have lots of plastic kits (their best selling core space marine kits primarily) be usable for both settings. All you're really changing is the set of armies you're playing with and some force construction rules, but ultimately you're still playing the same game. If you played 40k, all you needed to do to play HH was learn the new army rules (most of which are based around an expanded concept of the most popular 40k faction anyway), not how to play a new game.

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

They're not really different games though, they're just different army sets and one hasn't transitioned to the newest ruleset yet. HH stuff was always built on the core 40k rules and intended to have lots (though obviously not total) crossover with all the other 40k stuff, same game but two different points in time. 40k to HH is not the same thing as 40k to Necromunda or 40k to Deathwatch, which have entirely different mechanics, scales of play, core rules, intended board setups, etc

Apologies but the designers notes said that you "could" play crossover games, but it was never designed to and never intended to, they were two different games that shared a rulebook, that it.

Sorry but no. That the Horus Heresy is an expansion/supplement (can't remember which but one of those two is the exact word used to describe HH in the red books) that was never intended to be balanced against the core army books of 6th/7th in no way makes it a different game, they use all the same rules with only a few minor changes as mentioned in my previous post. Even the new Age of Darkness book wont change things much. These attempts to argue that they are completely different games are getting laughable, I mean until 6 months ago they used the exact same rule book which guarantees the argument is complete nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Biggest problem I'm seeing with this post and plenty of others in here is people conflating core rules for army rules and vice versa. 30K gets it's list bilding "depth", and game depth, almost entirely via army rules specifically the Rites of War. It's still 7th ed 40K though, but with a slightly different detachment, no formations, and the RoW mechanic, an extremely small change but one that had a profound effect. Well, that and the fact that it's almost exclusively Marine on Marine action. I see no reason why, should the HH switch to 8th ed rules, FW wont limit you to just a Battalion detachment and adapt the current RoW mechanic to the new system. It'll achieve the same thing, only with a better basic game.

Agree with all of this. I was honestly really disappointed that RoW were not a part of 8th with more restrictive detachments.

Yeah, Rites of War is a much better mechanic than "Chapter Tactics for everyone", I think it would have worked really nicely for 8th in general.

I voted for 8th mostly because I'd like a reset not just in the HH but in the player base. Almost ever HH player I met I'd consider snooty if I'm being polite and a worse word if I'm not. The game is really interesting to me as I love the lore but the existing player based turned me away.

 Imateria wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In the future two separate systems will be super confusing to new players.

8e has its flaws, but it has jettisoned a lot of unnecessary baggage that has weighed down the game for ages and overall is the best version of 40K that has ever existed.

What ? These are two different games, how are two different games having different rules confusing ? Are you confused because Deathwatch Overkill and Necromunda have different rules ?
I really feel that the problem are all the non-30k players, who just don't see that these are two different games and want to use their mini in both, like 30k was just a 40k side game, like kill team was, for exemple.

They're not really different games though, they're just different army sets and one hasn't transitioned to the newest ruleset yet. HH stuff was always built on the core 40k rules and intended to have lots (though obviously not total) crossover with all the other 40k stuff, same game but two different points in time. 40k to HH is not the same thing as 40k to Necromunda or 40k to Deathwatch, which have entirely different mechanics, scales of play, core rules, intended board setups, etc

Apologies but the designers notes said that you "could" play crossover games, but it was never designed to and never intended to, they were two different games that shared a rulebook, that it.

Sorry but no. That the Horus Heresy is an expansion/supplement (can't remember which but one of those two is the exact word used to describe HH in the red books) that was never intended to be balanced against the core army books of 6th/7th in no way makes it a different game, they use all the same rules with only a few minor changes as mentioned in my previous post. Even the new Age of Darkness book wont change things much. These attempts to argue that they are completely different games are getting laughable, I mean until 6 months ago they used the exact same rule book which guarantees the argument is complete nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Biggest problem I'm seeing with this post and plenty of others in here is people conflating core rules for army rules and vice versa. 30K gets it's list bilding "depth", and game depth, almost entirely via army rules specifically the Rites of War. It's still 7th ed 40K though, but with a slightly different detachment, no formations, and the RoW mechanic, an extremely small change but one that had a profound effect. Well, that and the fact that it's almost exclusively Marine on Marine action. I see no reason why, should the HH switch to 8th ed rules, FW wont limit you to just a Battalion detachment and adapt the current RoW mechanic to the new system. It'll achieve the same thing, only with a better basic game.

Agree with all of this. I was honestly really disappointed that RoW were not a part of 8th with more restrictive detachments.

Yeah, Rites of War is a much better mechanic than "Chapter Tactics for everyone", I think it would have worked really nicely for 8th in general.

It's a different game that used a common rule set, a rule set that was quite heavily modified when you take into account different allies charts, army comp, lord of war restrictions, weapons rules, unit rules, missions etc.

If we go by your logic then Mordheim is the same game as fantasy 8th, as you know, they share a lot of rules, having different army comp etc. Doesn't matter, logical absurdity I know but so is claiming that HH and 40k were the same game, now it's been officially split up I can understand why some don't like it, but since they were never designed to play together in the first place, I don't really consider that a reason to want it to move to 8th, in the same way I don't want necromunda to be in my 40k games, similar game, not the same game.

7th works great for Horus Heresy, and I want it to stay that way. I barely play 40k right now, almost only Horus Heresy, and mostly because I prefer 7th edition.

Look, I get that 7th was an ungodly mess for 40k, but I don't see the same issues in Horus Heresy. The game is inherently more balanced because of the factions and armies you play. I would say that the main culprit of 40k 7th edition madness were the formations and the overflow of factions and armies to play. Horus Heresy has none of these problems, and the game works great.

Also, I would miss my precious blast templates too much. Feels way too good centering that lovely Medusa pie plate over some unfortunate marines..

Ultimately the point is that swapping army lists and force composition rules does not a whole new game make. HH is a different flavor of 40k, but it's still 40k. It's not like going from 40k to Necromunda or Gorkamorka or BFG or the like. They just haven't updated HH to use 8E rules yet, but that's really not so much a matter of HH being its own game as FW not being on the ball for the release of 8E (which may or may not be their fault).

So over the last day or so the results seem to support that it's primarily 40k players on 40k forums that want the change, I'm seeing the opposite on primarily 30k forums, I'm also speaking to several other people who have done polls on the same subject to merge our results and get a broader picture.

Interestingly I'm also seeing a lot of 30k players ask for 7th to be finished up with every legion and unique unit, so if it moves to 8th it can move as a whole, which is a sentiment I haven't seen even once on dakka, I may update the poll with this option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

secretForge wrote:
I like both systems, and am content to have the seperate (though i would love some rules to use my custodes vehicles in 40k).

On a side note, this is a terrible poll, where none of the answers actually directly answer the question, and many of them can be true simultaneously.

Come to me with solutions, not with problems, if you have an issue with the poll please suggest how to resolve it, "it's terrible" doesn't help anyone, I'm happy to update it with better questions as I plan on a proper poll for the whole community.

 Formosa wrote:
So over the last day or so the results seem to support that it's primarily 40k players on 40k forums that want the change, I'm seeing the opposite on primarily 30k forums, I'm also speaking to several other people who have done polls on the same subject to merge our results and get a broader picture.

Interestingly I'm also seeing a lot of 30k players ask for 7th to be finished up with every legion and unique unit, so if it moves to 8th it can move as a whole, which is a sentiment I haven't seen even once on dakka, I may update the poll with this option.

That shouldn't be a problem, it makes sense that it should be finished up and then updated. If not I can see that being a problem and messing it up trying to port some things into 8th rather than just doing it when it has been completed.

I will wait either way and just continue to build up my 30k Salamanders and use them for 40k8th.

I think after all the rage at the Imperial Armour index’s it’s obvious that FW doesn’t have enough people to try to port HH to 8th at the moment. Especially with all the work they are doing on specialist games.
I’d much rather they carried on finishing the legions and then come up with their own rule set. I don’t think I could stomach a smite phase in HH. Also every time GW main changes something in 8th they’re not going to play test how it will effect HH they will only be interested in 40k. So each chapter approved book could potentially cause major headaches for the 30k player base. I can remember a few arguments with people who tried to incorporate Death from the skies into 30k games.

Kasper Hawser wrote:
I think after all the rage at the Imperial Armour index’s it’s obvious that FW doesn’t have enough people to try to port HH to 8th at the moment. Especially with all the work they are doing on specialist games.
I’d much rather they carried on finishing the legions and then come up with their own rule set. I don’t think I could stomach a smite phase in HH. Also every time GW main changes something in 8th they’re not going to play test how it will effect HH they will only be interested in 40k. So each chapter approved book could potentially cause major headaches for the 30k player base. I can remember a few arguments with people who tried to incorporate Death from the skies into 30k games.

This is more of a reason to collapse FW into regular GW. Or at least the 40k side of it. Stop having 2 studios produce rules for 1 product. 1 studio should be doing it all consistently. HH really is more of a expansion of 7th with a different set of armies then a whole new game. It should be handled by GW.

I voted for 8th: I just prefer the rules
I read FW books HH 1-4, so I know a bit of the HH rules and I played 7th and 8th 40K.

What would the HH gain from 8th ed rules in my eyes?
1. CC phase in 8th is much more complex than 7th. It is more fun, more tactically deep and more controllable for the player.
2. Tanks actually feel like tanks in 8th. Tanks are mobile gun platforms that actually are quite durable in 8th. HH didn't have the problem as much as 7th 40K, where a Rhino-tank died faster than the Space Marine it wanted to protect. HH has several layers of tank protection like armoured ceramite, so the point of fast dieing tanks is not as bad, but there are still the horrible movement and transport rules of 7th, making any tank with more than one weapon pretty clumsy.

3. The psychic phase: Again, not as important in HH due to only 3 of the 24 factions or so actually rely on psykers as far as I know. But still the psychic phase in 7th was very bad, so bad that I always hesitated to use any sorcerers with my CSM. One die role before the game could decide if your sorcerer was worth 70points or 250points. Choosing psychic powers is one big advantage of 8th and the whole psychic phase is much more straightforward than the 7th system, where you had one psyker and all the others were on battery duty and trying to deny a psychick power was usually pointless and never successful.

4. The ap system. In 7th it was all or nothing, meaning that usually any Ap4+ weapon was useless and any AP3- weapon was ace. There were outliers like assault cannon, autocannon and eldar trickery, but on the whole in 8th every weapon feels useful, which could be a big plus for HH as well.

5. Movement rules/ unit types
The mess of 7th with all the unit types (don't get me started on jet/jump pack differences...) has been solved in 8th with the simplest solution imaginable: the movement value. I love it.

What would HH lose in my eyes with 8th?
1. Initiative: Especially Emperors Children do a lot with that value and the respective rules in 8th of the Eldar and Slaanesh daemons don't impress me.

2. Morale:
The morale phase in 8th is easy and fast, but also rather shallow and rarely important. I liked the 7th ed. morale rules, in 40K they never came into play due to 90% of the armies being ld 10 or fearless. 8th 40K has a similar trend.
The HH used the morale phase impressively.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately the point is that swapping army lists and force composition rules does not a whole new game make. HH is a different flavor of 40k, but it's still 40k. It's not like going from 40k to Necromunda or Gorkamorka or BFG or the like. They just haven't updated HH to use 8E rules yet, but that's really not so much a matter of HH being its own game as FW not being on the ball for the release of 8E (which may or may not be their fault).

They just released a 30k rulebook didn't they?

Actually since the Horus Heresy rule book was released it is considered a different game that uses different rules, even says as much in the rulebook itself. Just because it is based off an older edition of 40k does not make it the same game, otherwise shadow war would and should be considered the same game as 40k 2nd and clearly due to what “some” people are should be updated to be the same as 8th edition, Age of sigmar is clearly fantasy 9th edition and not it’s own game and halo 2 is clearly the same game as halo 5 so should be updated to be exactly the same.

AoS is in no way Fantasy 9th. It's its own game that is very clear. The two games have completely different rules, playstyles, armies and backgrounds.

pm713 wrote:
AoS is in no way Fantasy 9th. It's its own game that is very clear. The two games have completely different rules, playstyles, armies and backgrounds.

Exactly my point. However “most” of the armies are the same, and the background is the same, aos’s story is a continuation of the old world for example every time they mention the world that was.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
AoS is in no way Fantasy 9th. It's its own game that is very clear. The two games have completely different rules, playstyles, armies and backgrounds.

Exactly my point. However “most” of the armies are the same, and the background is the same, aos’s story is a continuation of the old world for example every time they mention the world that was.

It's hardly a continuation when almost everyone dies. Like having 40k with Emps, Khaine and Chaos.

Most armies got changed so they're different e.g. Wanderers.

pm713 wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
AoS is in no way Fantasy 9th. It's its own game that is very clear. The two games have completely different rules, playstyles, armies and backgrounds.

Exactly my point. However “most” of the armies are the same, and the background is the same, aos’s story is a continuation of the old world for example every time they mention the world that was.

It's hardly a continuation when almost everyone dies. Like having 40k with Emps, Khaine and Chaos.

Most armies got changed so they're different e.g. Wanderers.

You mean like how a lot of people died between the heresy and 40k current and most of the armies changed e.g no more legions they is now chapters and chaos warbands? And yet you still want to say that heresy and 40k are the same thing?

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately the point is that swapping army lists and force composition rules does not a whole new game make. HH is a different flavor of 40k, but it's still 40k. It's not like going from 40k to Necromunda or Gorkamorka or BFG or the like. They just haven't updated HH to use 8E rules yet, but that's really not so much a matter of HH being its own game as FW not being on the ball for the release of 8E (which may or may not be their fault).

They just released a 30k rulebook didn't they?

I was under the impression it's a recollection of the existing rules and FAQ's into a single book isn't it? I haven't seen it, I think it only started shipping like thursday or something. Is it something more than that?

It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that. I can't understand why different games should have the same rulesets. At least, now the ones who enjoy 7th (revised) have their game, and the ones who enjoy 8th have their game.

Lots of these pols kicking about at the moment

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

Link? Always provide proof when making claims like that

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

Link? Always provide proof when making claims like that

Here.

Sorry, did mean to post it but I forgot to actually paste the url.
The various other answers on the AMA mention the resource issue FW is having.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
AoS is in no way Fantasy 9th. It's its own game that is very clear. The two games have completely different rules, playstyles, armies and backgrounds.

Exactly my point. However “most” of the armies are the same, and the background is the same, aos’s story is a continuation of the old world for example every time they mention the world that was.

It's hardly a continuation when almost everyone dies. Like having 40k with Emps, Khaine and Chaos.

Most armies got changed so they're different e.g. Wanderers.

You mean like how a lot of people died between the heresy and 40k current and most of the armies changed e.g no more legions they is now chapters and chaos warbands? And yet you still want to say that heresy and 40k are the same thing?

The scale is completely different. Legions got smaller. Fantasy armies vanished. Dark Eldar changed. Fantasy factions were removed.

40k and 30k are different but very similar. 30k is largely focused on Marine V Marine but uses rules that are incredibly similar to 7th. AoS is focused on loose units and is pretty simple. Fantasy was focused on ranked units and was very complicated. They are not the same thing.

 Formosa wrote:
So over the last day or so the results seem to support that it's primarily 40k players on 40k forums that want the change, I'm seeing the opposite on primarily 30k forums, I'm also speaking to several other people who have done polls on the same subject to merge our results and get a broader picture.

Interestingly I'm also seeing a lot of 30k players ask for 7th to be finished up with every legion and unique unit, so if it moves to 8th it can move as a whole, which is a sentiment I haven't seen even once on dakka, I may update the poll with this option.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. Me and at least two other people have said in this very thread that we'd like to see HH finish in 7th before switching to 8th.

 Imateria wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
So over the last day or so the results seem to support that it's primarily 40k players on 40k forums that want the change, I'm seeing the opposite on primarily 30k forums, I'm also speaking to several other people who have done polls on the same subject to merge our results and get a broader picture.

Interestingly I'm also seeing a lot of 30k players ask for 7th to be finished up with every legion and unique unit, so if it moves to 8th it can move as a whole, which is a sentiment I haven't seen even once on dakka, I may update the poll with this option.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. Me and at least two other people have said in this very thread that we'd like to see HH finish in 7th before switching to 8th.

I actually said that 30K needs to finish in 7th and then move over to 8th as a whole in my post on the first page. The OP wasn't around back in March 2017 when 8th was announced. If he went back and searched this forum, he would find a very long, and sometimes heated debate about 30K and which rules edition.

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

While I dont fully agree with Godardc, I think you are also missing the mark here. 1) it is not '"elitist" to prefer your setting and rules instead of a "upgrade" to a ruleset you dont like. and 2) the loss of playerbase would happen if they did move to 8th. Those of you who like 8th will still be buying and playing 8th, those of us who think 8th is garbage, will not move, so changing HH to 8th is what will cause us to leave. They have your money anyhow.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

ah ok, that makes way more sense, it's a resource issue forcing a lag rather than an intentional decision to split HH off. Wish theyd make use of the community efforts in that regard, but that does shed light on the issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

ah ok, that makes way more sense, it's a resource issue forcing a lag rather than an intentional decision to split HH off. Wish theyd make use of the community efforts in that regard, but that does shed light on the issue.

(deleted) wrong person

thekingofkings wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

While I dont fully agree with Godardc, I think you are also missing the mark here. 1) it is not '"elitist" to prefer your setting and rules instead of a "upgrade" to a ruleset you dont like. and 2) the loss of playerbase would happen if they did move to 8th. Those of you who like 8th will still be buying and playing 8th, those of us who think 8th is garbage, will not move, so changing HH to 8th is what will cause us to leave. They have your money anyhow.

More importantly, is the amount of people who would "leave" because they don't like 8th > the amount of people they would GAIN because they switched to 8th.

Now compare 40ks sales from 7th to 8th. I think if GW has any understanding of even basic math they are wringing their hands and waiting to move 30k to 8th. It's only going to boost sales.

Harsh but true, the loss of the few of you who prefer 7th is meaningless compared to the growth from the influx of 8th.

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

ah ok, that makes way more sense, it's a resource issue forcing a lag rather than an intentional decision to split HH off. Wish theyd make use of the community efforts in that regard, but that does shed light on the issue.

haha you need to learn what comprehension means, sure I should have re read the thread so you can call me forgetful, but it's not lack of comprehension

He says, while quoting the wrong person.

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

That would of course have meant HH would be stick with the crappy dumpster fire of 8th ed with less tactics and less balance than HH has. So far out of all editions related to 40k universum HH is by far most balanced game out there. And 8th ed is joke in terms of balance.

FW not going to 8th ed was best thing ever for HH player's to actually have balanced rules that makes sense.

HH is basically 7th ed with all the problems fixed as anybody who has actually tried it would know it. But of course if you just use 40k codexes in it you don't see it because you aren't then playing 30k but 40k with the broken formations etc. But you know what? HH doesn't have formations so that problem was fixed. Basically everything players complained about 7th HH doesn't have it. But of course if you play it with 40k rules you don't see it.

I don't understand. If everyone agrees that 7th is a dumbster fire but the HH version of 7th edition is fine... then why they don't assume that, even if they believe 8th is a gak-show, the HH version will be much better, more tactical and balanced?

Now, I'll say. I have no problem with HH sticking to 7th edition. Enough of that bolter-porn fantasy has leaked to proper 40k.

 Lance845 wrote:

Kasper Hawser wrote:
I think after all the rage at the Imperial Armour index’s it’s obvious that FW doesn’t have enough people to try to port HH to 8th at the moment. Especially with all the work they are doing on specialist games.
I’d much rather they carried on finishing the legions and then come up with their own rule set. I don’t think I could stomach a smite phase in HH. Also every time GW main changes something in 8th they’re not going to play test how it will effect HH they will only be interested in 40k. So each chapter approved book could potentially cause major headaches for the 30k player base. I can remember a few arguments with people who tried to incorporate Death from the skies into 30k games.

This is more of a reason to collapse FW into regular GW. Or at least the 40k side of it. Stop having 2 studios produce rules for 1 product. 1 studio should be doing it all consistently. HH really is more of a expansion of 7th with a different set of armies then a whole new game. It should be handled by GW.

Yeah collapse the 40k side of it not the 30k. The black books have great writing in them unlike the rubbish GW main writers churn out.
Everyone will have different opinions but FW took what was considered a risk by GW main with the HH and it’s paid off to take it from them would be an insult. I’m glad that GW main helped people out with affordable troops for people wanting to get into the Horus Heresy but that’s as far as it should go. HH started life as an expansion to 40k now it’s become its own individual game which is great in my opinion. Nobody knows how long 8th will last we could e looking at 9th edition in 3-4 years time FW could waste their time porting everything over for it all to change with them being given no notice it happened to them when 6th changed to 7th it’s a shame they didn’t decide to stick with 6th when it happened last time round.
I’m not going to argue which rule set is better I don’t mind 8th edition I’m glad GW has changed their business model other the last couple of years and talks to customers. But I like Horus Heresy the way it is.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 godardc wrote:
It is the complete rulebook of 7th with the faq into a single book.

Interesting, so they appear to be splitting it off now and sticking to 7E, didn't realize that. Not sure why they're sticking to that, it's the first time FW hasn't gotten on board with an edition change like that. It's curious that Corp is allowing that. It's also curious given that 7E 40k was...from a business & market perspective, about as low as GW ever got.

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

Because until the 7E/8E split they weren't, they were just different army sets, most of which are variations around the most popular 40k army. Basically they changed up a bit of the army construction rules and made a bajillion Space Marine sub-faction army lists, and that was the big difference, they played at the same scales with the same numbers of models and largely the same rules and often entirely swappable model collections. Until that edition change, there was nowhere near as much difference between 40k and 30k as AoS and 8E Fantasy.

From a Reddit AMA done by James Hewitt, the plan was to go to 8th but with FW currently being low on writing staff after both the formation of the Specialist Studio, The Middle Earth Team and the unfortunate passing of Alan Bligh and the already high stack of work FW has on its plate currently they just didn't have the resources for it. Add to that the fact that the plans that were in the works to convert HH to 8th were that of Mr Bligh, and we are here.

They'll probably eventually get around to doing it, but it won't be any time soon.

ah ok, that makes way more sense, it's a resource issue forcing a lag rather than an intentional decision to split HH off. Wish theyd make use of the community efforts in that regard, but that does shed light on the issue.

haha you need to learn what comprehension means, sure I should have re read the thread so you can call me forgetful, but it's not lack of comprehension

He says, while quoting the wrong person.

Weird, it's was definitely the right person when I posted it, my posts from my phone have been doing odd thinks with dakka recently, like cutting off whole chunks of message or double posting absolutely nothing.

tneva82 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

That would of course have meant HH would be stick with the crappy dumpster fire of 8th ed with less tactics and less balance than HH has. So far out of all editions related to 40k universum HH is by far most balanced game out there. And 8th ed is joke in terms of balance.

While 8E is a joke in terms of balance, and 8E is by no means a perfect ruleset, it's leaps and bounds ahead of 7E, all the way down to the core rules. Vehicles, especially nonskimmer vehicles, actually...function, and are viable next to MC's. Bikes dont have gobs of unnecessary special bonus rules that make infantry superfluous. There's none of the sillyness of the abusive Jink mechanic (wanna look at balance? Compare Jink to Smoke Launchers for a laugh). Psychic powers have dramatically less abusive sillyness and dice rolling associated. There's a lot less sillyness of stuff like D weapons (particularly in smaller platforms). There's a fraction of the random rolling and superfluous charts that exist for the sake of rolling more dice. Spamming multishot S6/7 weaponry isnt a magical cure-all. The missions dont have copy-paste issues like 7E forgetting that Heavy Support units were supposed to be a boon in the Big Guns mission (and FA units in Scouring) rather than just a liability because they forgot they changed how scoring worked in the process. With specific regard to the HH and its overwhelming MEQ paradigm, armor and AP is more meaningful than "do I get my 3+ or not", you dont have to worry about gobs of weapons with AP4/5/6/- having what on paper looks like a meangfully differentiated stat ultimately being pointless minutae.

FW not going to 8th ed was best thing ever for HH player's to actually have balanced rules that makes sense.

HH is basically 7th ed with all the problems fixed as anybody who has actually tried it would know it.

except, of course, all the sillyness with HP's, mission issues, random charts on top of more random charts, etc. Even without the rampant codex issues, 7E had a lot of problems at the core. Want to know whats way easier to work through as an actual play mechanism in 8E? A battery of quad launchers. That can take several minutes in 7E, but takes about 30 seconds in 8E, with far fewer issues, inaccuracies, and potential drama.

But of course if you just use 40k codexes in it you don't see it because you aren't then playing 30k but 40k with the broken formations etc. But you know what? HH doesn't have formations so that problem was fixed. Basically everything players complained about 7th HH doesn't have it. But of course if you play it with 40k rules you don't see it.

Do they still have Hull Points, pointless AP stats, etc?

Nothing im noting is codex or 40k specific, 7E had lots of issues with the core fundamental ruleset. 8E is by no means perfect or even great, but 7E is a micromanaged mess that gets hopelessely and ineffectually lost in its own minutae in the process of attempting to patch the 3E ruleset for the 4th time in 15 years, while attempting to incorporate ever larger scales, and fell flat on its face in the attempt. Codex issues alone did not result in 7E being the least successful edition of 40k. Is the HH stuff *better* than the 40k stuff in terms of balance with regards to 7E? Sure, but the 7E core ruleset was still awful, and HH is no perfect paragon of balance either.

 Lance845 wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

While I dont fully agree with Godardc, I think you are also missing the mark here. 1) it is not '"elitist" to prefer your setting and rules instead of a "upgrade" to a ruleset you dont like. and 2) the loss of playerbase would happen if they did move to 8th. Those of you who like 8th will still be buying and playing 8th, those of us who think 8th is garbage, will not move, so changing HH to 8th is what will cause us to leave. They have your money anyhow.

More importantly, is the amount of people who would "leave" because they don't like 8th > the amount of people they would GAIN because they switched to 8th.

Now compare 40ks sales from 7th to 8th. I think if GW has any understanding of even basic math they are wringing their hands and waiting to move 30k to 8th. It's only going to boost sales.

Harsh but true, the loss of the few of you who prefer 7th is meaningless compared to the growth from the influx of 8th.

Are we comparing complete and utter lack of marketing with actual marketing and engagement with the customers? As it seems pretty clear to me that is the main reason 8th is doing so well, it's not the game, it's the outside factors around the game, a lot of people left as they felt ignored and the issues with the game were not being adressed, no faqs etc. Now they seem to be actively trying to assuage people issues to some extent, that. Breeds good will and give the appearance of caring, 8th is the same mess as 7th when it comes to the actual game, the mess just shifted around like it does every edition, but because gw looks like it cares, people are buying it.

As to who would come to 30k and who would leave, well that's uncertain, I would stop playing but still collect bits here and there, just because 8th is not the game I want to play, in the same way as battletech classic and alpha strike, same models, same universe but one game is simply not on the level of complexity and depth I want from my wargames.

If all the polls going around are to be trusted, then it looks like 8th would gut the 30k player base, it would recover eventually I'm sure but it wouldn't be the same semi historical casual games, it would be changed, I have a pretty good idea how but it doesn't help the conversion.

As someone who plays both 30k and 40k:

I prefer 8th edition, immensely.

7th is a mess, even in the Heresy. My Castellax Robots are clearly better and more useful than Contemptor Dreadnoughts, despite explicitly being the same technology, because of the massive spread between Walker and Monstrous Creature rules.

Blasts always made me laugh, because the Baneblade's 10" blast got exactly the same number of hits against an enemy tank as a plasma cannon's 3" blast, while being only marginally more destructive (str 9 vs str 7, all else the same). Why doesn't a Baneblade just have 6 or 8 plasma cannons? Good question.

Armour saves on MCs but not on Vehicles makes me upset a bit too. A Thanatar has a 2+ save, and is immune to Boltguns at T8, while a Dreadnought can die to Boltguns and has no save. Why? At least in 8th one would be T8 2+ and the other would be T7 3+, giving easily comparable durability point-for-point, instead of having one drastically be better than the other "just cause".

etc. etc. Really, there's more reasons 8th is better than 7th than I have time to elucidate them.

7e has not more 'depth' than 8e, it has more pointless measuring, minutiae and micromanaging.

 Crimson wrote:
7e has not more 'depth' than 8e, it has more pointless measuring, minutiae and micromanaging.

Yeah I agree, having to check to see how many d6 shots you get then roll to hit then roll to wound then roll for saves after working out ap and what your final save is, then actually rolling to save.... wait, this is pretty much the same, if not more steps


Automatically Appended Next Post:
eah I agree, having to check to see how many d6 shots you get then roll to hit then roll to wound then roll for saves after working out ap and what your final save is, then actually rolling to save.... wait, this is pretty much the same, if not more steps

 Formosa wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
7e has not more 'depth' than 8e, it has more pointless measuring, minutiae and micromanaging.

Yeah I agree, having to check to see how many d6 shots you get then roll to hit then roll to wound then roll for saves after working out ap and what your final save is, then actually rolling to save.... wait, this is pretty much the same, if not more steps

As opposed to having to place a template (one of potentially 4 depending on the weapon type) and figure optimal placement, roll a scatter die, adjust the template based on the scatter die, then argue over who is or isnt under the template, or if the arrow is pointing left or slightly more forward left, before you even get to wounds?

Thats not even getting into the systemic design issues where such weapons woefully underperformed against single large targets.

8E isn't perfect. The random shots replacement for templates was one of the better changes, even if execution on some.is lacking, the concept and general function is superior, if less cinematic and fidgety.

 Lance845 wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 godardc wrote:

30k is as different from 40k as AOS is from WHFB, noone can deny that.

What?

Everyone with eyes sees 30K is mere expansion to 40K, always was, always will be. Only a bunch of die hard elitists (who, between others, diss players using Calth/Prospero models as 'fake' 30Keers) are desperate to "prove" their game is somehow different, so they can then ""prove"" it's better. FW laziness doesn't change that. What FW should have done was releasing Index 30K with trial rules for Legions, then, once the feedback was gathered, released updated Army books. Hell, GW team did 90% of the job for them, they could have just copied stats of SM stuff, come up with missing rules for 30K gear (which would be tiny in number, even Volkite and Contemptors made its way to 40K these days), done. Bunch of diehards wanting rules for ancient, bad system could have been placated with literally 1 page of rules for new stuff at the end of new HH books, everything else should have been made for 8th as not doing so is costing them both money and playerbase...

While I dont fully agree with Godardc, I think you are also missing the mark here. 1) it is not '"elitist" to prefer your setting and rules instead of a "upgrade" to a ruleset you dont like. and 2) the loss of playerbase would happen if they did move to 8th. Those of you who like 8th will still be buying and playing 8th, those of us who think 8th is garbage, will not move, so changing HH to 8th is what will cause us to leave. They have your money anyhow.

More importantly, is the amount of people who would "leave" because they don't like 8th > the amount of people they would GAIN because they switched to 8th.

Now compare 40ks sales from 7th to 8th. I think if GW has any understanding of even basic math they are wringing their hands and waiting to move 30k to 8th. It's only going to boost sales.

Harsh but true, the loss of the few of you who prefer 7th is meaningless compared to the growth from the influx of 8th.

you are wrongfully assuming all those 8th sales are by folks who like it, I bought it and despise it, most of us who hate it, bought it and played it which is how we know we despise it. you are making a bad assumption there. if it aint broke dont break it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
7e has not more 'depth' than 8e, it has more pointless measuring, minutiae and micromanaging.

Yeah I agree, having to check to see how many d6 shots you get then roll to hit then roll to wound then roll for saves after working out ap and what your final save is, then actually rolling to save.... wait, this is pretty much the same, if not more steps

As opposed to having to place a template (one of potentially 4 depending on the weapon type) and figure optimal placement, roll a scatter die, adjust the template based on the scatter die, then argue over who is or isnt under the template, or if the arrow is pointing left or slightly more forward left, before you even get to wounds?

Thats not even getting into the systemic design issues where such weapons woefully underperformed against single large targets.

8E isn't perfect. The random shots replacement for templates was one of the better changes, even if execution on some.is lacking, the concept and general function is superior, if less cinematic and fidgety.

You can ignore my post entirely dude, it cut more than half of it off again and posted it twice... again, I haven't a clue what's going on but it's a bloody annoying bug.

Technology!!!!!!!

The main population of people I see saying "I'd play HH if it was 8th" or "It'd be better if was 8th" are largely people who have never played HH, or people who currently only play 8th ed.

99% of HH players i've asked are thrilled it's still 7th and are hugely happy with the new quality of the book.

I'll be frank. I'm a new player who got in because of the nice simplified rules in the battle primer. warhammer had a reputation for overly complex rules interactions and as much as the 30k stuff looks cool, I remember the long lists of house rules 'to balance the game' that every 5-7th ed tournament had. Why would I want to invest in that? In a rule system that's already become obsolete?

When HH updates to a modern ruleset I'll invest, but until then it's just a bunch of pretty models I won't use.

Locally the popularity of the HH grew in proportion to the unpopularity of 40k. The marine vs marine nature of the HH lead to a lot more of a balanced experience than in 40k. When 8th came out, the HH player base got gutted as people went back to what they really wanted to play all along, 40k. There are about five or so die hards that are still trying to keep it going, but their schedules never line up and things don't happen consistently at all.

I don't think switching to 8th would actually solve the issue. I think the HH player base will continue to decline as it's not very accessible and depends on the weakness of 40k to attract players to the alternative.

I can't see HH attracting many new players now. Like it or not 40k is quite popular again and in general it's much easier to find a game. So imo it was a bad business decision to not move along. Also I don't see how anyone can say HH is fine with Custodes and Thousand Sons OPness from Inferno which has a lot of unanwsered questions regarding many rules.

 AaronWilson wrote:
The main population of people I see saying "I'd play HH if it was 8th" or "It'd be better if was 8th" are largely people who have never played HH, or people who currently only play 8th ed.

99% of HH players i've asked are thrilled it's still 7th and are hugely happy with the new quality of the book.

99% of HH players is still a significantly smaller community then 100% of all 40k players. HH is a niche community within a niche community. If GW can grab 20% of the 40k crowd but loose 50% of the HH crowd they are probably actually still growing the HH community. What your essentially asking for is for the HH community to stagnate where it's at instead of grow. None of the new blood 40k has brought in will want to go back to 7th. None of the clearly large amount of players who ditched 7th for 8th will want to go back to 7th. A good enough chunk of HH players started and damn near completed a project to convert it to 8th. I am sure they would love to have some official support.

By ANY metric the people who want HH to stay 7th are a minority. And it makes NO sense for GW to plan to keep the game stuck in a now outdated rule set for the sake of a minority when they have the clear potential for growth.

Since I've been looking into this heavily for the last week I have to say that the 30k community stagnating is fundamentally untrue, all indicnations I have seen and heard about from reliable people show it's growing and not shrinking, there are several you tube channels that have also been doing research into the subject and back that up with statistics, each individually small but together it builds a consistent picture.

It's also being consistently shown that primarily 40k players want the shift to 8th, and primarily 30k players want 7th to stay, another annoyingly constant trend is 40k players not being able to differentiate between 7th 40k and 7th 30k as they have never actually played it or are being wilfully ignorant.

Also another thing I had not expected but shouldn't be surprised by is people who have played 8th and then jumped to heresy due to preferring it's rules, style and community (several factors).

In short the above post isn't supported by the data and I would encourage him to go and talk to various other communities and research a lot more, as it's simply untrue what he is saying.

 Formosa wrote:
, another annoyingly constant trend is 40k players not being able to differentiate between 7th 40k and 7th 30k as they have never actually played it or are being wilfully ignorant.

What kind of insultingly nonsensical statement is that? 7th Edition 40K and 7th Edition 30K used the same exact rulebook. So the exact same issues with wound allocation, vehicles, the AP system, the disparity between walkers and MCs, superheavies, flyers, close combat, shooting, template interaction with multilevel terrain, etc., were ALL equally present. Just because you see people complaining about formations doesn't mean you can just outright dismiss them as being " willfully ignorant". I'm sorry this poll isn't serving as a confirmation of your beliefs, but you asked the question of THIS community, and you don't get to tell everyone they're wrong just because you don't like the answers.

Personally given there is an unofficial set of lists to play under 8th, which GW haven't squashed, why not just let it continue as is?

Yes I prefer 8th as a set of rules, but frankly if you're playing an involved game against someone who is fun to play against the rules don't actually matter all that much.

Given GW haven't squashed the 8th version they may be happy to keep it as an unofficial alternative until they get round to it

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
, another annoyingly constant trend is 40k players not being able to differentiate between 7th 40k and 7th 30k as they have never actually played it or are being wilfully ignorant.

What kind of insultingly nonsensical statement is that? 7th Edition 40K and 7th Edition 30K used the same exact rulebook. So the exact same issues with wound allocation, vehicles, the AP system, the disparity between walkers and MCs, superheavies, flyers, close combat, shooting, template interaction with multilevel terrain, etc., were ALL equally present. Just because you see people complaining about formations doesn't mean you can just outright dismiss them as being " willfully ignorant". I'm sorry this poll isn't serving as a confirmation of your beliefs, but you asked the question of THIS community, and you don't get to tell everyone they're wrong just because you don't like the answers.

Case in point thank you, they did not use the "same exact rule book" they shared a rule book and then it was slightly modified, later becoming heavily modified to the point that armies behaved very differently, the rest is your opinion (which is fine) as to "issues", the only one I actually agree with was the disparity between vehicles and monstrous creatures, somthing that rarely cropped up in 30k, until mechanicum turned up, and after then was still rare as it was mostly Marine on Marine.

And yes, I do dismiss them as being wilfully ignorant when they constantly cite "formations" etc. As a reason that it should change, in spite of being told repeatedly across many sources, it shows they either haven't played 30k or are just ignoring what others are telling them repeatedly, and yes this poll has confirmed my beliefs, which is primarily 40k players want the change, and I have told no one they are wrong, I've asked open question to get more clarity from some, as I wanted to know what the general consensus was across SEVERAL communities, sites and pages, I have that info now and have a broader idea of what's going on, but please feel free to also take a look across several sites, contact page admins, different sites, you tube channels etc. To confirm for yourself.

 Formosa wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
, another annoyingly constant trend is 40k players not being able to differentiate between 7th 40k and 7th 30k as they have never actually played it or are being wilfully ignorant.

What kind of insultingly nonsensical statement is that? 7th Edition 40K and 7th Edition 30K used the same exact rulebook. So the exact same issues with wound allocation, vehicles, the AP system, the disparity between walkers and MCs, superheavies, flyers, close combat, shooting, template interaction with multilevel terrain, etc., were ALL equally present. Just because you see people complaining about formations doesn't mean you can just outright dismiss them as being " willfully ignorant". I'm sorry this poll isn't serving as a confirmation of your beliefs, but you asked the question of THIS community, and you don't get to tell everyone they're wrong just because you don't like the answers.

Case in point thank you, they did not use the "same exact rule book" they shared a rule book and then it was slightly modified, later becoming heavily modified to the point that armies behaved very differently, the rest is your opinion (which is fine) as to "issues", the only one I actually agree with was the disparity between vehicles and monstrous creatures, somthing that rarely cropped up in 30k, until mechanicum turned up, and after then was still rare as it was mostly Marine on Marine.

And yes, I do dismiss them as being wilfully ignorant when they constantly cite "formations" etc. As a reason that it should change, in spite of being told repeatedly across many sources, it shows they either haven't played 30k or are just ignoring what others are telling them repeatedly, and yes this poll has confirmed my beliefs, which is primarily 40k players want the change, and I have told no one they are wrong, I've asked open question to get more clarity from some, as I wanted to know what the general consensus was across SEVERAL communities, sites and pages, I have that info now and have a broader idea of what's going on, but please feel free to also take a look across several sites, contact page admins, different sites, you tube channels etc. To confirm for yourself.

Useing a different foc, introducing rites of war, changing a psychic power, and adding even more usrs doesnt make it a different game.

Its like saying 3rd edition shadowrun was a different game from core dnd because it had different classes and had rules for guns. The game was exactly the same. They played the same way. They had all the same mechanics. They had all the same highs and lows.

HH ran on 7th. They were same game. They had all the same problems with their core mechanics. They had new armies (kind of) and introduce little tweeks. But HH is 7th. Its why we are talking about it updating to ith. HH would in all likelyhood retain the more restrictive focs. Its armies. Maybe rites of war. Its only the core mechanics that would change.

I feel like people heavily invested in 30k feel encroachment on their comfort zone whenever anyone even mentions upgrading to 8th edition. To me it is silly to write rules for BA, DA and WS based upon the old rules. Those who tenaciously cling to 7th edition should be happy - they have a rulebook now so they can play it forever... however they should not get bent if FW decides to overhaul everything imo.

 Formosa wrote:

It's also being consistently shown that primarily 40k players want the shift to 8th, and primarily 30k players want 7th to stay, another annoyingly constant trend is 40k players not being able to differentiate between 7th 40k and 7th 30k as they have never actually played it or are being wilfully ignorant.

Also another thing I had not expected but shouldn't be surprised by is people who have played 8th and then jumped to heresy due to preferring it's rules, style and community (several factors).

In short the above post isn't supported by the data and I would encourage him to go and talk to various other communities and research a lot more, as it's simply untrue what he is saying.

Surely the above poll in this thread should be seen as PART of the data?

The only other ‘polls’ I’ve seen on this are on Crusade & Heresy - the big HH Facebook group, which consistently come up the other way and generate so much argument they’ve recently been banned from being posted again. However, as various people point out in them:

- Crusade & Heresy has a bit of a hard core of old-time Heresy players with all-resin armies, and those guys tend to fall on the side of 7ed. Some of the elitist/purist comments in the threads were ridiculous - people who wanted to play a Crusade-era vs xenon being told that they aren’t REAL Heresy players and xenon should never face a Heresy army for example.
- It’s a Facebook group asking this question six months after the release of 8ed, and a lot of people who are maybe playing Heresy a bit less (or play both 30k and 40k) might well not be following that group as much as they used to be compared to people who only ever want 7ed.
- It’s not unheard of in the past for some of the big HH podcasts who are very anti-8ed to see these polls and encourage their own fans to come over and vote.

Also, media channels tend to attract people who already agree with them. It’s really interesting that here on Dakka, often seen as a more 40k-heavy forum, the majority of people vote for 8ed and not surprising at all that a similar vote on, say, The Eye Of Horus podcast’s FB page would fall the other way.

I think, realistically, the only vote that matters is going to be with the wallet. If Heresy sales slow down or remain level over the next couple of years as less people migrate over from 40k, then I fully expect them to switch to 8ed. If they keep growing with all the new players eager to try out 7ed then I imagine the rules will stay the same.

With regard to events, I think their good levels of sign-up could also be explained in a few ways - the Sons Of Heresy podcast did great work generating interest in Heresy events throughout last year, for example. However, having been to a fair few UK ones, it is quite common to see the same faces at a lot of those events, and to keep sales high we need to know that those established players who already own armies will spend more in the next few years than all the players who’s Heresy purchases have dropped recently as they got into 40k again AND all the players who prefer Heresy as for modelling and setting but have slowed down because they prefer the 8ed ruleset (like me)!

 Formosa wrote:


Case in point thank you, they did not use the "same exact rule book" they shared a rule book

"same exact rule book" is not the same as "they shared a rule book"?
What the feth?
Tell me, which copy of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook did you use to play Horus Heresy games, one not published by GW? Which rules for shooting did you use? Which rules for close combat did you use? Vehicles? USRs?

You know, when you first started posting about 30K, you were doing your best to get people interested in it, to get people to want to play it. Now, it looks like you're just doing your best to drive people away from it unless they follow your One True Path.

So is 30k still plauged by super strong admech and IG lists?

asides from the outliers i figure marine on marine action really doesnt matter what system its done in.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Case in point thank you, they did not use the "same exact rule book" they shared a rule book

"same exact rule book" is not the same as "they shared a rule book"?
What the feth?
Tell me, which copy of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook did you use to play Horus Heresy games, one not published by GW? Which rules for shooting did you use? Which rules for close combat did you use? Vehicles? USRs?

You know, when you first started posting about 30K, you were doing your best to get people interested in it, to get people to want to play it. Now, it looks like you're just doing your best to drive people away from it unless they follow your One True Path.

No it's not the same and you know it's not the same, you take the 40k rulebook, you apply the changes that heresy made, suddenly it's a different set of rules... shock horror!!!

Or are you trying to tell me, as you have been, that heresy made zero modifications to the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

It's also being consistently shown that primarily 40k players want the shift to 8th, and primarily 30k players want 7th to stay, another annoyingly constant trend is 40k players not being able to differentiate between 7th 40k and 7th 30k as they have never actually played it or are being wilfully ignorant.

Also another thing I had not expected but shouldn't be surprised by is people who have played 8th and then jumped to heresy due to preferring it's rules, style and community (several factors).

In short the above post isn't supported by the data and I would encourage him to go and talk to various other communities and research a lot more, as it's simply untrue what he is saying.

Surely the above poll in this thread should be seen as PART of the data?

The only other ‘polls’ I’ve seen on this are on Crusade & Heresy - the big HH Facebook group, which consistently come up the other way and generate so much argument they’ve recently been banned from being posted again. However, as various people point out in them:

- Crusade & Heresy has a bit of a hard core of old-time Heresy players with all-resin armies, and those guys tend to fall on the side of 7ed. Some of the elitist/purist comments in the threads were ridiculous - people who wanted to play a Crusade-era vs xenon being told that they aren’t REAL Heresy players and xenon should never face a Heresy army for example.
- It’s a Facebook group asking this question six months after the release of 8ed, and a lot of people who are maybe playing Heresy a bit less (or play both 30k and 40k) might well not be following that group as much as they used to be compared to people who only ever want 7ed.
- It’s not unheard of in the past for some of the big HH podcasts who are very anti-8ed to see these polls and encourage their own fans to come over and vote.

Also, media channels tend to attract people who already agree with them. It’s really interesting that here on Dakka, often seen as a more 40k-heavy forum, the majority of people vote for 8ed and not surprising at all that a similar vote on, say, The Eye Of Horus podcast’s FB page would fall the other way.

I think, realistically, the only vote that matters is going to be with the wallet. If Heresy sales slow down or remain level over the next couple of years as less people migrate over from 40k, then I fully expect them to switch to 8ed. If they keep growing with all the new players eager to try out 7ed then I imagine the rules will stay the same.

With regard to events, I think their good levels of sign-up could also be explained in a few ways - the Sons Of Heresy podcast did great work generating interest in Heresy events throughout last year, for example. However, having been to a fair few UK ones, it is quite common to see the same faces at a lot of those events, and to keep sales high we need to know that those established players who already own armies will spend more in the next few years than all the players who’s Heresy purchases have dropped recently as they got into 40k again AND all the players who prefer Heresy as for modelling and setting but have slowed down because they prefer the 8ed ruleset (like me)!

Yes this poll is part of the greater whole being considered, our idea was to wait two weeks with various pols up and then gather all the data, combine it with Ones the you tubers have done and get an idea of what as much of the community as we can thinks.

You raise some good points on the ... purists, and frankly I would rather the game went to 8th than have to deal with hobby nazis like that...

I also agree that the media channels tend to attract people that agree with them, and there will always be an element of bias, but this is a 40k forum primarily and there is an element of bias here too, so with a bit of luck it shouldn't affect the numbers too badly.

If your bouncing around the country at heresy events then you have probably met me, I'm very active in the heresy community (different names on different sites), you've probably seen what I've seen too, heresy players on hold until the rule book dropped, but as I said before I've seen the community get stronger and stronger over the years, I do agree it's quite likely down to increased media and social media presence as well as strong word of mouth, and I agree the next couple of years will be important to the future of heresy.

So... I know I've posted in this thread before.

Yes, 30k changes the rules... but not enough.

There's still a massive disconnect between superheavies and lesser tanks as far as damage resolution (why can a malcador not Explode but a Land Raider Spartan can? The spartan is bigger with thicker armour and only 1 fewer hull point...)

There's still huge dissonance between walkers and MCs (Any of my Cybernetica bots will happily crunch dreadnoughts).

There's still the ridiculousness of armour facings. (Oh, you deepstruck behind my Thanatar while he shuffled through a narrow alleyway? He'll just pirouette like a ballet dancer, blast you with plasma and bolt cannons, and then when the rest of your army shoots him in the back it doesn't even matter. God help you if you're a Vindicator in that situation though).

There's still the fiddlyness of blast templates (I can't quite tell if you hit the Thanatar next to the other Thanatar, did you move it along the axis? Sure, you can have it. Oh, it's nice of you to say you don't think you do but I insist...)

There's still the Independent Character/Closest Model wall problem. (Wow, good thing the Mauler Bolt Cannon is AP3! I'm sure to heavily damage that Tactical Squad with these four Castellaxi with ETAs! Oh, your lead model is your artificer sergeant. Well, I guess I'll be lucky to kill him, maybe, if he actually fails a save and whatever FNP he has easy access to).

There's still the silly Instant Death rule, and even sillier Eternal Warrior (Man, my Decimus got insta-killed by a force weapon. Oh, don't worry, just play Decima Invictus and suddenly he's 100% immune to force weapons all the time.)

I know yo gathering data but you are skewing that data by not posting this in the 30k forum.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
I know yo gathering data but you are skewing that data by not posting this in the 30k forum.

Funnily enough I was told the same thing when I posted over on another site, that site was primarily 30k focused and they said that "your not including the 40k players so this will be skewed"

Formosa wrote:If your bouncing around the country at heresy events then you have probably met me, I'm very active in the heresy community (different names on different sites), you've probably seen what I've seen too, heresy players on hold until the rule book dropped, but as I said before I've seen the community get stronger and stronger over the years, I do agree it's quite likely down to increased media and social media presence as well as strong word of mouth, and I agree the next couple of years will be important to the future of heresy.

Oh very possibly - I'm usually at them with a small trolley holding a giant pink Militia & Cults army!

However, the last I attended was either Warhammer Fest or The London Heresy this year (whichever was second). After that 8ed was released and I have no desire to try and keep 7ed and 8ed in my head at the same time, so I have no plans to be attending any for the foreseeable. I think we're going to try and organise an 8ed Heresy event this year, and at the next London GT I'm signed up for the Necromunda event!

 Formosa wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
I know yo gathering data but you are skewing that data by not posting this in the 30k forum.

Funnily enough I was told the same thing when I posted over on another site, that site was primarily 30k focused and they said that "your not including the 40k players so this will be skewed"

If you're talking about the Crusade and Heresy poll, I believe the comment was more "Those who stopped playing 30k once 8th came out due to preferring the rules likely won't see this post".