So as I'm sure we all know there is a new edition on the way and I thought I'd drudge up some conversation about it now that we're getting closer to release date. What is everyone expecting for rules changes? Models?
Talk about whatever you want regarding the new edition! Are you happy, sad, pensive? If GW pulls a fast one will you stick it out with the changes or will you keep using the current rules?
I think the thing I'm most worried about is GW scaling up the new minis, we know the new characters are slightly larger. I'm hoping GW has realized the hatred that is caused by scale creep and lays off this time, double hoping this for the sake of those of us who went wild on BaC and BoP! And for those of us who planned on using those kits! And to not leave it on a negative note I am looking forward to HH getting datacards. Love not having to flip through a book to double check weapon stats and the like. Plus it's HH so they ought to make the datacards really awesome looking.
If the rumors around the Reaction System are to be believed, then it will make or break the new HH system.
I just hope they keep Zone Mortalis so I can see if I can get the 40k crowd where I'm moving to into HH as well. (That and it makes managing the huge numbers of 30k stuff I have/plan to get easier)
The reaction system seriously concerns me.
We've seen the core rules and a few of the "unique" ones - and they look bad imo.
It seems like they've taken all the worst "gotcha" strategems in 40k and distilled them into a core rule.
Not so much "gotcha" not because at least you'll see them coming. But in particular is my concern about melee, it seems actually approaching and engaging someone will be excessively different unless there's big changes in places we haven't seen.
I don't like Dreadnoughts moving to Monstrous Creatures either.
The MC rules are really a poor fit for them, I think the walker rules worked will.
It also suggests to me that whoever was writing this new edition didn't understand the system and was reacting to feedback without actually knowing what it meant.
Beyond that it's hard to say much of anything, we just haven't seen anything.
It's good that a lot of other stuff appears to be staying, such as morale and vehicle rules.
I like that they're tightening up the USRs, and the addition of scaling values, such as Shrouded (X) is great as it gives them more flexibility whilst reducing the number of rules they need.
kirotheavenger wrote: The reaction system seriously concerns me.
We've seen the core rules and a few of the "unique" ones - and they look bad imo.
It seems like they've taken all the worst "gotcha" strategems in 40k and distilled them into a core rule.
Not so much "gotcha" not because at least you'll see them coming. But in particular is my concern about melee, it seems actually approaching and engaging someone will be excessively different unless there's big changes in places we haven't seen.
I don't like Dreadnoughts moving to Monstrous Creatures either.
The MC rules are really a poor fit for them, I think the walker rules worked will.
It also suggests to me that whoever was writing this new edition didn't understand the system and was reacting to feedback without actually knowing what it meant.
Beyond that it's hard to say much of anything, we just haven't seen anything.
It's good that a lot of other stuff appears to be staying, such as morale and vehicle rules.
I like that they're tightening up the USRs, and the addition of scaling values, such as Shrouded (X) is great as it gives them more flexibility whilst reducing the number of rules they need.
I have nothing to add to that, it's exactly what I think.
I wish we could have stayed a year or two more with tht current rulesets, but yeah, I mainly hope we'll be able to use all the zone mortalis, campaigns etc rules that are already there
I'm mostly invested in HH 2.0 for the new miniatures of Rogue Trader era Space Marines and their vehicles, but also know that I will have to become permanently invested in the system when Firstborn marines get legended from 40K (if that ever happens..).
From what I have seen, some of the changes in the rules feel like they are addressing old niggls from 7th ed 40K more than from HH 1.0, but I'm not really qualified to make an informed opinion ATM, having never played HH.
I actually want to see the models rescaled. ATM firstborn Marine proportions look bad, so any improvement on the proportions is welcome in my book. Nobody is forced to buy the new models if they'd rather keep on playing with what they already have.
Takled with my main 30K friend and he's kinda meh on the new edition rumors. So we'll either play them or not. Doesn't matter that much to me I just want some new plastic tanks.
I'd rather have something like Apocalypse 30K edition rules for big games instead. we play a 5000 point minimum normally and team games.
Some of the rumors do sound interesting. I like chain bayonets.
tauist wrote: I'm mostly invested in HH 2.0 for the new miniatures of Rogue Trader era Space Marines and their vehicles, but also know that I will have to become permanently invested in the system when Firstborn marines get legended from 40K (if that ever happens..).
From what I have seen, some of the changes in the rules feel like they are addressing old niggls from 7th ed 40K more than from HH 1.0, but I'm not really qualified to make an informed opinion ATM, having never played HH.
I actually want to see the models rescaled. ATM firstborn Marine proportions look bad, so any improvement on the proportions is welcome in my book. Nobody is forced to buy the new models if they'd rather keep on playing with what they already have.
I'm afraid scale creep is a non-starter for me. One cannot simply keep rewarding bad behavior and there are plenty of the old kits still floating around I simply don't need to jump on the bandwagon. I can't comment on the rules too much since I too have never actually played HH and it's been a long time indeed since I played 7th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: The reaction system seriously concerns me.
We've seen the core rules and a few of the "unique" ones - and they look bad imo.
It seems like they've taken all the worst "gotcha" strategems in 40k and distilled them into a core rule.
Not so much "gotcha" not because at least you'll see them coming. But in particular is my concern about melee, it seems actually approaching and engaging someone will be excessively different unless there's big changes in places we haven't seen.
I don't like Dreadnoughts moving to Monstrous Creatures either.
The MC rules are really a poor fit for them, I think the walker rules worked will.
It also suggests to me that whoever was writing this new edition didn't understand the system and was reacting to feedback without actually knowing what it meant.
Beyond that it's hard to say much of anything, we just haven't seen anything.
It's good that a lot of other stuff appears to be staying, such as morale and vehicle rules.
I like that they're tightening up the USRs, and the addition of scaling values, such as Shrouded (X) is great as it gives them more flexibility whilst reducing the number of rules they need.
Ugh, yeah the switch from AV and hull points is not going to sit well with me either. I'm also not a huge fan of stratagems so any move in tht direction will garner some ire from me as well. Oh well, let's hope it's not all doom and gloom and if so, well I have a pdf and and a printer for the expensive FW books and I'm sure I can find a 7th ed rulebook somewhere.
HH has its own rulebook that's different from 7th Ed.
The rumours thus far though do not inspire hope for a resurgent HH in a positive manner. I worry it will drag a lot of the worst parts of the 40k competitive community in and lose the narrative aspect that makes it such a good setting and game.
Not counting the different army composition stuff, the HH rulebook made all of two changes to the 7E rules. Allowing everybody to use grenades in assault and one other change I can't even remember. If there were more than that, they were still so negligible I can't remember what they were.
It still had all of the problems inherent to 7th, and 6th before that, and 5th before that, and so on.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Not counting the different army composition stuff, the HH rulebook made all of two changes to the 7E rules. Allowing everybody to use grenades in assault and one other change I can't even remember. If there were more than that, they were still so negligible I can't remember what they were.
It still had all of the problems inherent to 7th, and 6th before that, and 5th before that, and so on.
iI changed the way the invisibility psychic power worked. ifir it is less abusive in HH than in core 7th.
It removed formations and replaced them with the much more restrictive Rites of War with actual downsides to boot.
It toned down Grav into Graviton, less effective against vehicles and a lot less vs infantry, making it not an obvious "like plasma but super"
It removed the stupid invisiblity psychic power.
It did, of course, inherit a lot of problems.
The slow and unwieldy IgoUgo system as been addressed by Reactions, jury's still out on better or for worse.
The overall poor psychic system seems to have been removed and reverted back to something similar to the 5th edition system - great.
From what we've seen it looks like that's pretty much it. All the other major trippings are there, plus or minus some little things.
Formations were not an inherent part of 7th, they were part of the codexes' individual army construction rules, just like Rites of War were for HH. I did say "not counting army composition stuff".
Graviton was already a part of HH when it came out during 6th and is it's own weapon entirely separate from 40k grav.
I realize I'm not going to convince anybody of anything. I've been playing 40k for 25 years, so I've seen all the changes as they've happened in real time (apart from 1e to 2e). GW has always been bad at writing rules for 40k, and hasn't written a good ruleset yet.
Sure, if you want to define all of 7th's flaws as not a part of 7th than HH really didn't change much of anything.
You don't need to convince me, I wholly agree that GW is bad at writing rules for 40k! I would be surprised if this new HH ruleset is level with my favourites like Starwars Legion or Blood Red Skies.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to have a little bit of hope that they improve things, just a little bit.
*Although from what I've seen I am erring to the side of having been disappointed (albeit not surprised), sadly
Sad that we're all sitting here hoping for not awful rules isn't it?
Such is the life of a GW hobbyist. Really makes you want to slow down and enjoy the collection and modelling aspect of the hobby when you know for a fact the most important thing is for your toys to look cool.
tauist wrote: I'm mostly invested in HH 2.0 for the new miniatures of Rogue Trader era Space Marines and their vehicles, but also know that I will have to become permanently invested in the system when Firstborn marines get legended from 40K (if that ever happens..).
From what I have seen, some of the changes in the rules feel like they are addressing old niggls from 7th ed 40K more than from HH 1.0, but I'm not really qualified to make an informed opinion ATM, having never played HH.
I actually want to see the models rescaled. ATM firstborn Marine proportions look bad, so any improvement on the proportions is welcome in my book. Nobody is forced to buy the new models if they'd rather keep on playing with what they already have.
I'm afraid scale creep is a non-starter for me. One cannot simply keep rewarding bad behavior and there are plenty of the old kits still floating around I simply don't need to jump on the bandwagon. I can't comment on the rules too much since I too have never actually played HH and it's been a long time indeed since I played 7th.
...
I don't see it as bad behaviour myself. I have wanted the coolest possible looking beakie army since the days of RTB-01 plastic kit. The earlier iterations have been getting gradually better, almost to the point of perfection, but the lanky heroic scale has long been the biggest aesthetic holdback. Now this issue is finally being addressed. I think this will be great for anyone into firstborn marines, regardless of favourite armour mark.
I don't see this as a problem for a game such as HH, where the models and units have long been already established. One can easily keep on using the existing infantry and combine it with the new plastic vehicles. I do not foresee any glaring issue of scale mismatch when combining old infantry and new vehicles. If you do not fancy the new scale, you can just vote with your wallet and keep using what you already have collected, just adding the kits that you want.
One person's "they are changing the scale, making my old stuff look incompatible, I hate that!" is anothers "I really applaud GW for revisiting and subtly tweaking their classic miniature designs! I love that!"
Honestly Tauist I've never really had a problem with the old sculpts, at least since the last Tac Squad update anyway. I glue my arms on a bit higher up and call it a day. It's not so much that I'm against making the models look better, but then again beauty is in the eyestalk of the Beholder, but I just hate having my old models invalidated by looking too out of place. Ultimately it won't effect me a lot, I'll either take what I want or stick to the older stuff. Perhaps ten years ago this would have been more of an issue but now I feel like a lot of this type of talk is just a fun way to while away the hours. I will say that they could tweak the models without scaling up though. It's nothing to make Marine arms just a tad shorter.
I mean, I'll probably get a few things just to paint either way. I absolutely detest Primaris but I do enjoy some of the sculpts and look forward to painting them for my wife. Whether that's sheer optimism at having a SO who actually plays board games or not is another matter however.
I want to be hopeful, but I'm also a realist. On one hand I don't particularly mind moving Dreadnaughts to Monstrous Creatures from a rules-convenience standpoint, since their armor facings and weapon facings have never mattered that much by comparison to those of non-walker vehicles, since it gets rid of a type that requires a lot of edge-case call-outs in the rules, and since I don't think they're that thematically different from all the Mechanicum cortex-bot MCs, but on the other hand I, like many people in this thread, fear that this is the thin end of the wedge and they're going to slowly move us over to 9th-standard rules. I don't know if I'm worried about reactions or not; if they're trying to take their cue from stratagems I'm worried, if they're trying to take their cue from Bolt Action and just not considering the impact of taking a system built for alternating activations and porting it wholesale into discrete turns I'm less worried because at least their heart's in the right place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Not counting the different army composition stuff, the HH rulebook made all of two changes to the 7E rules. Allowing everybody to use grenades in assault and one other change I can't even remember. If there were more than that, they were still so negligible I can't remember what they were.
It still had all of the problems inherent to 7th, and 6th before that, and 5th before that, and so on.
The vast majority of the problems of every edition of 40k have been in the army books. Changes to the core rules are often pretty straightforward and reasonable, it's the fact that the army books don't keep up that causes problems. (Flyers: Buffed and made cheaper from their FW stats when they were introduced in 5th as skimmers, never corrected when they turned them back into flyers; 30k's flyers are a lot more in line with the 3e/4e-vintage FW stats. Psykers: Completely reasonable if you're in a one-detachment environment where they can't be easily spammed, except for a couple of loopholes with Biomancy powers not having text for Brotherhood of Psykers use in them. Relics: Permission-use campaign-only in 30k. Superheavies: One per detachment plus the 25% rule keep them much more under control. Hull Points: GW needed to back off on the mid-power spam instead of leaning into it, which they didn't, and give AV/HP buffs to some tanks, which they didn't; 30k's HP/tanks work a lot better. Etc.)
Tannhauser42 wrote: Not counting the different army composition stuff, the HH rulebook made all of two changes to the 7E rules. Allowing everybody to use grenades in assault and one other change I can't even remember. If there were more than that, they were still so negligible I can't remember what they were.
It still had all of the problems inherent to 7th, and 6th before that, and 5th before that, and so on.
Invisibility spell got changed as well I think
But problems were not with core rules but with codexes. Which HH doesn't share.
The legion rules re shuffle has hit some pretty hard, some of the USRs changing are good and the dropping of others is also good, the change from AV to T for dreads is also a good thing since ever since 3rd Dreds have just been bad monstrous creatures, the reaction system I am not a fan of but willing to wait and see what they do with it.
Have Dreads been "bad monstrous creatures" or have MCs been "weirdly good walkers".
IMO Monstrous Creature rules are the problem. - they can soak up repeated impacts from AT guns far in excess of vehicles. On top of that they get a variety of special rules and buffs, notably Smash, just for existing.
Instead of actually fixing the jank that is Monstrous Creatures, they've just made Dreads MCs.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess.
I'm cautiously optimistic, but just barely in the optimistic camp. I trust FW more than GW to not go all out and inflate the Reaction system with 'reaction creep' as the edition goes on the way Stratagems completely dominated the way 40k is played with GOTCHA moments. I expect at launch they'll work out okay, but the problems might start to show in the long term if they can't resist themselves adding more and more increasingly broken/gamey Reactions that come to dominate how it's played.
Dreadnoughts becoming MCs I am not a fan of, when most MCs should've become walkers rather than the other way around. Hopefully the MC rules (which I don't think have been leaked yet?) will put my mind at ease.
Psychic phase being spread out across the others is a change a lot of people wanted and whilst I never had an issue with PP being it's own thing the current implementation was obviously a clunky beast that desperately needed changing and only got away with it's shoddy state because only two legions and Daemons really had any stake in it. It does at least show they seemed to be listening to the (albeit obvious) issues people had with it.
I think I'm being uncharacteristically hopeful mainly because it's not moving to 9th, but also has substantial enough changes that it's not just a quick shrug over the existing rules (which definitely have a lot of issues) and stamping "new edition" on it.
But .. psychic phase used to be spread across the others phases. Are we just going back to 5th ? That's kinda weird.
But I'm more surprised they did it alone, on their own, without having a 30k survey or whatever
kirotheavenger wrote: Have Dreads been "bad monstrous creatures" or have MCs been "weirdly good walkers".
IMO Monstrous Creature rules are the problem. - they can soak up repeated impacts from AT guns far in excess of vehicles. On top of that they get a variety of special rules and buffs, notably Smash, just for existing.
Instead of actually fixing the jank that is Monstrous Creatures, they've just made Dreads MCs.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess.
Most of the USRs on MCs aren't that weird; Fearless is a thing walkers had anyway, for instance, by virtue of being vehicles in that part of their rules and not being subject to morale. Smash is the only one that ever particularly bugged me, and that'd be addressed quite well by just making it 6e Smash (leave in the option for the double-S attack, take out "always AP2"), which would also make choice of melee weapons on Cybernetica bots matter more.
As to the durability question I think the problem was that GW didn't really get MC stats. Compare a 7e Riptide (T6, 6W, 2+/5++ with the option to boost to a 3++, access to a FNP upgrade, ~200-220pts depending on loadout) to a Thanatar (T8, 4W, 2+/5++, 6++ in melee, can be repaired, 275-300pts depending on loadout). The Riptide can soak an incredible amount of anti-tank fire because it's got the 6W and you can only take one off at a time, and because the 3++ lets it disregard a lot of incoming fire, so you need high-volume AP2 like grav-guns to do anything to it. The Thanatar is protected far more by its Toughness against lower-power anti-heavy-infantry type guns like plasma, but it's quite a lot squishier against the kind of actual anti-tank (melta, lascannons, that sort of thing) that didn't see a lot of play in 7th because it didn't have a lot of good targets, because it doesn't have that 3++ to fall back on, or the FNP, and only has 4W. I'm a little concerned by the leaked Contemptor's 6W, but if they resist the temptation to give it a 2+ armor save I think it'll probably be all right.
So I've just read up the reaction rules, yuck. More pointless rules bloat in an attempt to fabricate novelty. Oh well, it's not like I was excited about new HH. And those Beakies look to be Primaris sized too. Such a shame.
Do you think that if some events are being hold with the current rulesets, there will be attendance ? Could be interesting, as Horus Heresy is more expensive and with a smaller, less divided player base, maybe they are less willing to switch to a downgraded ruleset
godardc wrote: Do you think that if some events are being hold with the current rulesets, there will be attendance ? Could be interesting, as Horus Heresy is more expensive and with a smaller, less divided player base, maybe they are less willing to switch to a downgraded ruleset
I'm keeping my old rulebooks for that very purpose.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't want to start a flame war here with this sentiment, but it seems as though HH players are more open to playing the, soon to be old but now current, rules if the new ones don't pan out.
At minimum, I'll have both sets so I can stay flexible, and with multiple armies (Seriously, I can't stop finding deals on eBay for Mk III and IV Marines!), I can teach new people how to play either ruleset.
Reactions sounds like command abilities AOS got and it didn't break the game there to move d6" after enemy move etc. Unleash hell was somewhat of a problem with certain units but those got some nerfs anyway and range from 9" to 6" actually nerfed it quite a bit. We are down to it not being issue except with some specific units(which are problematic more of due to other issues).
godardc wrote: But .. psychic phase used to be spread across the others phases. Are we just going back to 5th ? That's kinda weird.
weired, but in a good way
and by looking at how similar the Action/Reaction system is to what was around as houserules during 5th to improve the gameplay, it makes sense
Hairesy wrote: So I've just read up the reaction rules, yuck. More pointless rules bloat in an attempt to fabricate novelty. Oh well, it's not like I was excited about new HH. And those Beakies look to be Primaris sized too. Such a shame.
The NuBeakies are not Primaris sized, they just have longer thighs than the old ones. So slightly taller, but nothing ridiculous.
Compare this guy to the older Praetor sculpts and you'll get the idea
Reactions can be ok, just to break up the half hour one player stands around rolling saves.
8th/9th have gone crazy with auras, strategims, unit special rules, and random unique objectives to the point that I feel like you are really playing a children's card game with some ancillary models on the table. Every primaris unit has a host of special rules. The damage output has gotten so ridiculous that they have to put extra rules in to prevent single turn eliminations of huge knights and other big models.
Hairesy wrote: So I've just read up the reaction rules, yuck. More pointless rules bloat in an attempt to fabricate novelty. Oh well, it's not like I was excited about new HH. And those Beakies look to be Primaris sized too. Such a shame.
The NuBeakies are not Primaris sized, they just have longer thighs than the old ones. So slightly taller, but nothing ridiculous.
Compare this guy to the older Praetor sculpts and you'll get the idea
I'll fully admit that my suspicions were enflamed by prejudice. Still I feel with scale creep it's almost a matter of free speech proportions where one has to be an absolutist, perhaps just short of forming a direct action group or it's just a slippery slope straight into corporate communism. They're building camps for firstborn marine models and pretty soon we'll have to turn in our old editions and be forced to play 9th Ed reeducation matches. Which I might just go for just to get a couple games in!
Hairesy wrote: So I've just read up the reaction rules, yuck. More pointless rules bloat in an attempt to fabricate novelty. Oh well, it's not like I was excited about new HH. And those Beakies look to be Primaris sized too. Such a shame.
The NuBeakies are not Primaris sized, they just have longer thighs than the old ones. So slightly taller, but nothing ridiculous.
Compare this guy to the older Praetor sculpts and you'll get the idea
I'll fully admit that my suspicions were enflamed by prejudice. Still I feel with scale creep it's almost a matter of free speech proportions where one has to be an absolutist, perhaps just short of forming a direct action group or it's just a slippery slope straight into corporate communism. They're building camps for firstborn marine models and pretty soon we'll have to turn in our old editions and be forced to play 9th Ed reeducation matches. Which I might just go for just to get a couple games in!
This is a very, very odd take. How did you come to this conclusion?
Hairesy wrote: So I've just read up the reaction rules, yuck. More pointless rules bloat in an attempt to fabricate novelty. Oh well, it's not like I was excited about new HH. And those Beakies look to be Primaris sized too. Such a shame.
The NuBeakies are not Primaris sized, they just have longer thighs than the old ones. So slightly taller, but nothing ridiculous.
Compare this guy to the older Praetor sculpts and you'll get the idea
I'll fully admit that my suspicions were enflamed by prejudice. Still I feel with scale creep it's almost a matter of free speech proportions where one has to be an absolutist, perhaps just short of forming a direct action group or it's just a slippery slope straight into corporate communism. They're building camps for firstborn marine models and pretty soon we'll have to turn in our old editions and be forced to play 9th Ed reeducation matches. Which I might just go for just to get a couple games in!
This is a very, very odd take. How did you come to this conclusion?
Let me get the doll so I can show you where GW touched me...
I enjoy playing HH, and am looking forward to 3 HH events at AdeptiCon this weekend. But I would really prefer a reboot. 8th edition style, where everything units, armies, etc, got an update on release and more detailed codecies came later. If that’s even needed.
Bring everything up to 9th edition or wait until next year’s 10th edition and be done with it.
I enjoy playing HH, and am looking forward to 3 HH events at AdeptiCon this weekend. But I would really prefer a reboot. 8th edition style, where everything units, armies, etc, got an update on release and more detailed codecies came later. If that’s even needed.
Bring everything up to 9th edition or wait until next year’s 10th edition and be done with it.
Keeping up with 2 living rule sets sucks.
You don't like the fact that 40k and 30k have different rulesets ? Are you playing both games or using your 30k army in 40k ?
Hairesy wrote: So I've just read up the reaction rules, yuck. More pointless rules bloat in an attempt to fabricate novelty. Oh well, it's not like I was excited about new HH. And those Beakies look to be Primaris sized too. Such a shame.
The NuBeakies are not Primaris sized, they just have longer thighs than the old ones. So slightly taller, but nothing ridiculous.
Compare this guy to the older Praetor sculpts and you'll get the idea
I'll fully admit that my suspicions were enflamed by prejudice. Still I feel with scale creep it's almost a matter of free speech proportions where one has to be an absolutist, perhaps just short of forming a direct action group or it's just a slippery slope straight into corporate communism. They're building camps for firstborn marine models and pretty soon we'll have to turn in our old editions and be forced to play 9th Ed reeducation matches. Which I might just go for just to get a couple games in!
After looking at the new proportions I cannot unsee them, and when I look a model with the old proportions, I cannot fool myself into thinking I prefer the old proportions. Tis a bitter feeling, but a sobering one.
If you take a look at my build log here on Dakka, you'll se that I've wasted quite a bit of money on the old proportioned models. I should be pissed, right? I do admit being annoyed by it, but I also aknowledge that by cutting my losses and re-investing into the new proportioned models I will end up having an ever better looking army in the end.
You know what I'm actually planning to play with my army once its complete? 1st or 2nd Edition 40K. I can just disregard any and all new rules, it's not going to affect the way I want to play in the slightest. I'm into oldhammer, but not into the old models anymore - Heretical, I know
If HH 2.0 turns out to be a ruleset I enjoy, I will make sure my army will also be fieldable in some capacity for games of those. If I knew people who are playing HH 1.0, I could even play my army with those rules. Rules are forever, just like the minis. You find what you love and stick to it.
Find what you love and stick with it. Wise words, especially considering the price of GW these days!
I have a Primaris army, I won't lie. It's my wife's army, but let's not kid ourselves, I'll be painting it and making decisions about what to add. So I can see full well the differences, and to be honest I prefer the older sculpts. I got into this mess at the tail end of 5th and played until 7th got ridiculous, I mostly quit because I moved away from my group, but the way GW conducts itself did not inspire me to find another. So I'm not exactly pining for tiny Terminators here, lol! I look at those old 80s sculpts and wonder what all the fuss was about, but here is the thing. GW didn't just scale up Marines, they virtually squatted them in favour of a silly new army. If GW had simply upscaled Marines I'd probably have not batted an eye, my collection has seen a fair amount of rotation so that's nothing new to me. In fact everything I own right now is only about three years old! I sold out to fund a big move and only recently got back into it. The plain truth is, I want to play Space Marines, not Primaris. Splitting hairs for some I'm sure but it's got a lot more to do with it than just the awful lore. The kits are going monopose and I just hate that, and the rules are moving away from customization and towards set piece list building. I used to love sitting down with my codex and finangling points and wargear. These days its a simple case of add meta choices until you get to your points limit and I despise it. I don't want the exact same Helblasters as everyone else, I want Heavy Bolter Devastators in Razorbacks, dammit!
So, all that aside I did notice something that gives me hope. My Mk3 Marines are slightly larger than my OG Marines. Not by much, but its noticeable. And it does seem to be in the thighs (where all the good bulk ought to be!) so that is something for me to consider. So I will wait until the product drops and wait for the size comparisons and make my choice then. If it's negligible then I'll give GW just a tiny bit more of my money. As for rules, I think I'm fairly done with updating books. I'll be looking for a 7th edition rulebook to play HH and I'll likely move my 40K games back to that too. It's really just my wife and I playing anyway, so what does it matter? I have caught the 6mm bug anyway so aside from a very few select additions to my forces I'll be moving towards Epic 30/40K. I'm hoping the wife won't notice that the models shrank but the armies got much much larger!
Pretty much the only thing I would love to see from the new era rules is datacards with all the wargear and USRs on them. But I suppose even that can be had for 7th with some time and effort at the printers.
Also worth a mention, a fellow in the Epic thread in specialist games has been playing 40K rules with 6mm models and that actually looks like a ton of fun. Would be a great way to scale up the points level without breaking the bank or requiring a massive table. I think he was even using 7th Ed rules too, with a few modifiers. Might be a great fit for 30K too since then you can get that feeling of actual Legions facing off.
I am not sure how he took care of that aspect of it since it looked like he had his minis on Epic bases, perhaps dice to show remained models? That is actually a good question and I'm interested to know the answer. Or perhaps they were just treating stands as multiwound models, I'm not sure. Looked quite fun though.
Has anyone thought about the possibility of monstrous creatures changing? I’m not a fan of dreadnoughts changing to MC’s but what if walkers and MC rules are sort of merged to make something new?
The majority of MC’s in heresy are mechanicum (so robots of a sort) what if the MC rules are changed to have facings like a walker and some of the other walker traits?
I honestly think 'vehicle' rules would suit MCs perfectly fine. Aren't they both heavily armoured shells with squishy bits inside? Just because one has the squishy bits directly connected to the armour and/or uses muscles instead of pistons shouldn't dramatically change anything.
Facings and damage tables all logically apply to MCs.
I enjoy playing HH, and am looking forward to 3 HH events at AdeptiCon this weekend. But I would really prefer a reboot. 8th edition style, where everything units, armies, etc, got an update on release and more detailed codecies came later. If that’s even needed.
Bring everything up to 9th edition or wait until next year’s 10th edition and be done with it.
Keeping up with 2 living rule sets sucks.
You don't like the fact that 40k and 30k have different rulesets ? Are you playing both games or using your 30k army in 40k ?
I play both games and get crap confused. I am not using the same army for both, no. Too many ineligible load outs for 40k in my Heresy army.
It doesn’t matter now. Today’s announcement is that it will be based mainly on 7th with some changes. So be it. I will just have to deal.
But... Haven't you be playing any other games ? I used to play LSDA, Warhammer and 40k. Now I'm playing a bit of HH and 40k. They are two different games, with two different rulesets.
It's like if you were playing infinity and Malestrom Edge, would you ask for the two games systems to have the same rules ?
Or maybe it's because you see HH as an add-on of Warhammer 40k ?
Genuine question here !
I can't speak for Kronk, but I don't see a real reason for 30k and 40k to have different rule sets, especially since they're so similar. Remembering similar but distinct rules is harder than remembering rules for completely different systems.
Two different games having two different rulesets, that's how I see it. And by having different rulesets we got more opportunities to have at least one good rulesets
What did you think about the voice of Horus in the trailer ? Lots of people speaking about that in the internet
I believe it was a bit too much personally, but not bad at all
godardc wrote: Two different games having two different rulesets, that's how I see it. And by having different rulesets we got more opportunities to have at least one good rulesets
What did you think about the voice of Horus in the trailer ? Lots of people speaking about that in the internet
I believe it was a bit too much personally, but not bad at all
You're not wrong on either count.
On the voice acting I felt, yeah, a bit amateurish/overdone. I get that they're going for late-Heresy, chaos-Horus, but feel they didn't stick the landing on making what he was saying reasonably persuasive (even heroic) and visually juxtaposing it by means of contrast. I know they have the writers. Angron's (of all people...) speech in (I think) Betrayal..?
The fact that they're different rulesets is half the point really. If you want to play HH battles in 40k you already can, you might need to houserule the unique units (although a lot fly close enough to existing units anyway).
I took it twice, got Raven Guard both times, as I just couldn't feel a better way to answer except for one case, using jump packs vs speeders. Answered differently on this one question, but got Raven Guard. Excited for that.
About HH 2.0, the rules, and what to do with 40K play going forward, Tauist says it for me:
tauist wrote: Not a fan of Primaris either. I'm from the Rogue Trader era, Mk VI power armour and Indomitus Terminator armour = Space Marines in my world.
Sticking with 7th edition 40K & 30K might not be a bad idea actually. Lots of synergy benefits there I'd imagine.
I'm still hoping the HH 2.0 rules will be more like 7th edition than 8th/9th..
kirotheavenger wrote: I think tracking individual men is too much for 6mm on a large scale, you really do want to be lumping squads of infantry into one "base".
But the concept is certainly sound. I think 15mm would be a great scale for 40k.
Let's just say, you are not the only one who has thought that
I took it twice, got Raven Guard both times, as I just couldn't feel a better way to answer except for one case, using jump packs vs speeders. Answered differently on this one question, but got Raven Guard. Excited for that.
Wow. I got Ultramarines. Guess which legion I'm working on now? Ultramarines.
I took it twice, got Raven Guard both times, as I just couldn't feel a better way to answer except for one case, using jump packs vs speeders. Answered differently on this one question, but got Raven Guard. Excited for that.
Wow. I got Ultramarines. Guess which legion I'm working on now? Ultramarines.
Does this mean I have to change my army I'm working on? I'm working on RG but got Night Lords. I knew we were the baddies, but not that bad! Well I can't change now, it's too late to turn back and I can't deny who I am... Oh wait, maybe I see how I got NL...
For some reason it gave me Death Guard. I don't really care much for the death Guard. I prefer dark Angels. er.. I mean First Legion. as in Pre Caliban First Legion. More interesting more mysterious.
Can't figure out why it would spit out Death Guard. Oh well.
Sons of Horus for me, which I like. They were going to be my Legion for the Chain of Command mod I was building towards, but then the rumors of a new box and modified scale came out and I put a hold on it.
And I got Blood Angel ! Not bad at all, always liked them
Have you seen the leaks so far ? Not a lot of changes, a small raise in points costs, and fewer ap2 / ap2 at initiative, otherwise looks pretty much the same
Some weird reactions tough
I took it twice, got Raven Guard both times, as I just couldn't feel a better way to answer except for one case, using jump packs vs speeders. Answered differently on this one question, but got Raven Guard. Excited for that.
Wow. I got Ultramarines. Guess which legion I'm working on now? Ultramarines.
Does this mean I have to change my army I'm working on? I'm working on RG but got Night Lords. I knew we were the baddies, but not that bad! Well I can't change now, it's too late to turn back and I can't deny who I am... Oh wait, maybe I see how I got NL...
Style of engagement could be quite similar, as I was figuring I might end up night lords too… I think that if I had answered the first question about how to take the fortified bunker using jump troops to assault rather than how I did answer, then night lords might have been my result also.
I think it comes down to that. Raven Guard suits me tho, I think that the quiz was pretty spot on … enjoyed it!
honestly I'd not put toooo much stock into this poll. I took the poll 3 times and got world eaters, sons of horus and ultramarines. I'm thinking I might actually look into 1k sons when the starter set comes out though. or maybe blood angels... or sons of horus...
Do you think the Horus Heresy will be more accepted in the shops now ? Like an official game of GW, has it should have been since re beginning, or will it remain kinda sidelined ?
I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
Perhaps they will return later in a separate book? I think the launch books are of the "get you by" variety, its quite probable that at least some of the factions will get more in depth rules as the edition matures..
I've always loved the concept of Blackshields, and really hope they will not become squatted
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
No, let's just go nuts now. Formations, cards. The works. Let's bring back Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau and that kooky Emperors Children guy on a bike and make them Primarchs of the Lost Legions. Guess who is Primarch of the Rainbow Warriors? Just guess! Hint, it's not Sherlock.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think tracking individual men is too much for 6mm on a large scale, you really do want to be lumping squads of infantry into one "base".
But the concept is certainly sound. I think 15mm would be a great scale for 40k.
Let's just say, you are not the only one who has thought that
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
No, they can't. You get one reaction per phase, barring any special rules that may grant more.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
I do not agree with you that every burger restaurant should strive to be like McDonalds (the most popular and most profitable). If you truly believe that Warhammer/McDonalds is the best, you really need to try more games and try more burgers. Warhammer got to where it is by good marketing decisions, not by being a good game.
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
Pretty sure the leaked rules have reactions as 1 per phase, so not all of your units will be able to do it all the time. Hence why units will need to be supported.
My experience in the table top hobby has been over 30 years, and not limited to GW systems. Unit interactions if done right are wonderful things that mean that olayers have to think about what they do more carefully. It is another element to consider, so it does make the game more strategic.
Also, the assault phase already has several places where units can act in their opponents turn and the game didn't fall apart.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think tracking individual men is too much for 6mm on a large scale, you really do want to be lumping squads of infantry into one "base".
But the concept is certainly sound. I think 15mm would be a great scale for 40k.
Let's just say, you are not the only one who has thought that
kirotheavenger wrote: I think tracking individual men is too much for 6mm on a large scale, you really do want to be lumping squads of infantry into one "base".
But the concept is certainly sound. I think 15mm would be a great scale for 40k.
Let's just say, you are not the only one who has thought that
kirotheavenger wrote: I think tracking individual men is too much for 6mm on a large scale, you really do want to be lumping squads of infantry into one "base".
But the concept is certainly sound. I think 15mm would be a great scale for 40k.
Let's just say, you are not the only one who has thought that
Spoiler:
They look nice. 3D printed? Source of them?
3d printed upscaled Epic models.
Do you have a link?
Search for "galactic crusaders" on the usual 3d printing sites and you'll find literal dozens of different models.
Hairesy wrote: Sad that we're all sitting here hoping for not awful rules isn't it?
Such is the life of a GW hobbyist. Really makes you want to slow down and enjoy the collection and modelling aspect of the hobby when you know for a fact the most important thing is for your toys to look cool.
After 20 years of playing mostly competitively, that's where I'm at now. I can't keep up with every new army being the OP hotness and some of them getting fixed in 3 months while others dominate for an entire year. I was fine with it in MtG, spending to keep up is part of any hobby involving competition from warhammer to racing RC cars to racing real cars. However when it takes me 6 months to build and paint a proper 2k army for most factions, it's just not worth it. I'm still working on my Black Templars army that I bought when they were released and I refuse to buy anything else until this army is done.
The source on reddit is kind of a known fraudster/bad source of information. Very little of what hes posted in the past (and it seems hes deleted quite a bit of it) has been true, and what has been true can be explained as either piggybacking off of other rumors or reposting them, or just sheer dumb obvious luck (yeah, no gak x super-OP unit is going to get nerfed, etc.)
chaos0xomega wrote: The source on reddit is kind of a known fraudster/bad source of information. Very little of what hes posted in the past (and it seems hes deleted quite a bit of it) has been true, and what has been true can be explained as either piggybacking off of other rumors or reposting them, or just sheer dumb obvious luck (yeah, no gak x super-OP unit is going to get nerfed, etc.)
As I know the rumor apppeared the first time on Discord and 4chan by a different User and got then posted on reddit by this dude.
godardc wrote: Common weapons in tactical squads (so not all bolter ?) ? Kinda suspicious
Why? the mk 3 and mk iv boxes have a pretty clear precident.
case in point the MK IV box includes 10 boltguns, 1 plasma gun 1 flamer, 1 meltagun, 1 missile launcher, and some stuff for a sergant. given the mk II box has a single heavy weapon in the form of a heavy bolter, I'd be willing to bet the MK VI pack will include a Lascannon.
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
I couldn't agree or exalt this more.
For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.
I'll add that if GW wanted to mess with the way the game worked, why not save it for 10th Ed 40K?
It's clear that they don't mind making massive changes in 40K or AoS, but it was also understood that HH stayed with the old rules format for a reason. Did 7th Ed really need reactions? It makes one curious to see what else was changed.
7th Ed rules had plenty of tactical depth and nuance though. Players had lots of list building choices if they were being honest about it and not just chasing meta. Its real failing was formations and intentional power creep. HH reworked that into RoWs and that seems to have been pretty popular with HH players. Power creep was addressed by the fact that everyone was playing Marines and for the most part everyone was using the same list, with flavorful variations. So the idea that now we're adding something for the sake of tactical depth is sort of silly. And having more options does not always increase depth, in fact being forced to deal with a negative situation is what makes games fun. If you can simply react with a tool for everything, then gameplay actually becomes more bland since no one is really forced to deal with any challenges or consequences. If I make a bad move and I'm not punished for it, how am I supposed to learn how to make good moves? Conversely, if I make a good move to counter you, but you can just use more rules to pad your position and negate the effects of my decision, what was the point of making that decision? At that point we might as well not have complex rules and just stack modifiers to apply more damage. Which then begs the question, why isn't 40K a card game?
No, stratagems are the worst part of the game and I hate that they're adding a similar system to HH. It's a gotcha mechanic that causes 40k to function more like a CCG than a tabletop wargame. It also destroys any chance a casual player has to beat an experienced player unless the casual is using Harlequins and the better player is using AM. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to remember all the stratagems for every opposing army, what phase they can be played in, and how to play around them unless you go to tournaments every weekend and play practice games during the week. I might go to a RTT once a month, I have no interest in spending more time learning 40k stratagems than I spent learning conversational Spanish...
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
I couldn't agree or exalt this more.
For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.
I'm not sure if the ability to completely disengage from a game, and go eat a snack/run some errands before it is your turn again is a selling point. I think interaction is a good thing. Active participation is a good thing.
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
I couldn't agree or exalt this more.
For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.
I'm not sure if the ability to completely disengage from a game, and go eat a snack/run some errands before it is your turn again is a selling point. I think interaction is a good thing. Active participation is a good thing.
So is being able to take a pee or buy some beers without completely stopping the game, there are entire movement phases requiring zero rolling or tests, that's also a good thing because the pleyer whose movement phase it is isn't constantly arrested by decision making for fear each time they move a unit they'll trigger some sort of reaction or gotcha.
If if turn based has inherent issues, im not sure how hyper turn based alternating activation helps that at all. I honestly like the simple turn based nature of 30k, And honestly not every game needs to be catered to both sides, when it's not one's turn a good opponent can help check los or look up rules or answer questions, bad ones often distract or try and engage with the person whose turn it is only to distract them and honestly alternating activation games can be a brutal slog if one side is always much slower to make decision that the other.
No, stratagems are the worst part of the game and I hate that they're adding a similar system to HH. It's a gotcha mechanic that causes 40k to function more like a CCG than a tabletop wargame. It also destroys any chance a casual player has to beat an experienced player unless the casual is using Harlequins and the better player is using AM. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to remember all the stratagems for every opposing army, what phase they can be played in, and how to play around them unless you go to tournaments every weekend and play practice games during the week. I might go to a RTT once a month, I have no interest in spending more time learning 40k stratagems than I spent learning conversational Spanish...
100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: I'll add that if GW wanted to mess with the way the game worked, why not save it for 10th Ed 40K?
It's clear that they don't mind making massive changes in 40K or AoS, but it was also understood that HH stayed with the old rules format for a reason. Did 7th Ed really need reactions? It makes one curious to see what else was changed.
I honestly just wish they hadn't touched the rules and just released more plastic. I have faith in their ability to write rules like I have t rust in casino management.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: this is kind of the first time I read that a game will lose on tactical depth if the players are able to make more decisions
and judging the quality of a game by how much profit a company makes is not even close to stupid as it ignores everything around
More/doesn't equal better. "Geez this is the first time I'm hearing expanding the chess board and creating new chess pieces risked ruining a classic game, more is always better" , worse yet having too many options in any one thing from clothing to food actually can arrest decision making.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: 7th Ed rules had plenty of tactical depth and nuance though. Players had lots of list building choices if they were being honest about it and not just chasing meta. Its real failing was formations and intentional power creep. HH reworked that into RoWs and that seems to have been pretty popular with HH players. Power creep was addressed by the fact that everyone was playing Marines and for the most part everyone was using the same list, with flavorful variations. So the idea that now we're adding something for the sake of tactical depth is sort of silly. And having more options does not always increase depth, in fact being forced to deal with a negative situation is what makes games fun. If you can simply react with a tool for everything, then gameplay actually becomes more bland since no one is really forced to deal with any challenges or consequences. If I make a bad move and I'm not punished for it, how am I supposed to learn how to make good moves? Conversely, if I make a good move to counter you, but you can just use more rules to pad your position and negate the effects of my decision, what was the point of making that decision? At that point we might as well not have complex rules and just stack modifiers to apply more damage. Which then begs the question, why isn't 40K a card game?
I couldn't agree more, war seems for more about classifications and concepts than stat fests and constant stat bumping. Like most armour after a point isn't really worth engaging with stuff that just can't hurt it, the tend in 40k was lets reward the idiot by letting lascannons hurt landraiders on enough 6's.
stonehorse wrote: I think the reaction system is going to add a lot of strategic depth to the game, will mean that units have to be supported, and is a nice way to combat the down time between player turns. Really surprised that people are so set against it.
The only concern I have is that Blackshields and Shattered Legions haven't been mentioned, hope they are still a thing as my Marines are painted in my own colour scheme. Would hate to have to strip them and paint in one of the established legions.
No, it's going to take away all the strategic depths. Oh, you advanced too close to me ? Don't worry you can react and flee
Oh, you forgot to take cover ? Don't worry, you can shoot back
Etc
It's the death of strategy, you don't even have to think anymore, your units can always act whatever happens.
Nobody needs to act during his opponent's turn, it has been like this for 30 years and worked so well that 40k is the main wargame in the whole world. Copying games that are objectively less popular and less profitable is kind of weird.
Don't fix what ain't broken
I couldn't agree or exalt this more.
For starters it messes up 2v2 games or larger mega battles. The fact that they've embedded as a core thing and all the factions get their own special nonsense, you also see creep with characters increasing the amount of reactions. It just seems like stratagems by any other name and it's something I don't want in the game. It also complicates shooting a battle report where you just give a turn summary at the end, there's way too much "and then my opponent did this", it starts to destroy the point of a turn based system. What I find refreshing to come back to in 30k from having played AT for so long is, alternating activation is a real mixed bag, where as turn based, outside of perhaps a few key units to move or shoot with, you're pretty free in how you go about your turn, hell in the basement there's enough trust that someone can run upstairs or go to the washroom and trust their opponent when it comes to like difficult/dangerous tests and or scatter. Outside of intercepts, which aren't that common, there's very little interaction outside of rolling/going to ground and or challenges for the other player and that makes things flow pretty well. Constantly layering stuff to keep both sides interested is just needless complication. I sincerely hope the new edition can function without it.
I'm not sure if the ability to completely disengage from a game, and go eat a snack/run some errands before it is your turn again is a selling point. I think interaction is a good thing. Active participation is a good thing.
I agree, people are already loking at this and screaming "OMG stratigums" but the devil is in the details. a once per turn ability to make a handful of once per game reactions it's going to ruin things, it won't automaticly make it better but it might add a new layer of tactics to it. "right so I know this world eaters unit can as a 1 time reaction charge a unit that moves into range of it... if I move this sacrifical unit here I may be able to bait him into charge range of a realy good unit. on the other hand if I move here, I'll earn a point I need but risk having my unit destroyed". personally I see Reactions as GW reacting to the flaws inherant in IGOUGO without doing the scale of re-write nesscary for alternating activation
But what were HH players wanting from GW/FW? Different rules or more accessible models?
I know I'm no HH expert, but it seems to me people were fairly pleased with how HH played but not about the price. I know that is standard fare for the hobby, but when a centerpiece model can be $300+ that definitely puts a limit on interest.
Having reactions in 40k was asked from a lot of people for a very long time now
and no, saying reactions are the same as stratagems
people don't like Stratagems and 9th should get the rant over in the topic for 10th Edition and not act like the changes to HH are the same as for 40k
But it is intresting that how people hyped Overwatch when it came to 40k, and now it is the worst rule ever made although a better version of it is added to HH
so having the choice between 2 reactions now instead of always taking Overwatch because it has no downside and there is no other option anyway
is removing tactical depth
I guess you should go over to the Fantasy Forum or talk to T9A people and tell them that their game has less tactical depth because they have charge reactions
We are not discussing what people wanted for 40K though, what people wanted for that game is irrelevant here. You even say as much in your next sentence.
Why should I go to another forum and complain about a game I don't play? Again, irrelevant to this discussion.
I agree, people are already loking at this and screaming "OMG stratigums" but the devil is in the details. a once per turn ability to make a handful of once per game reactions it's going to ruin things, it won't automaticly make it better but it might add a new layer of tactics to it.
It's going to ruin things because it's not needed and occurring in your opponents turn. My decision making was never slowed by the concern that shooting the wrong target or moving too close to the wrong unit could incur immediate repercussions in my own turn. Going to ground when shot at is very different then moving all of a sudden or any number of stupid gotchas that each legio will get. The main pleasure of playing turn based instead of all the bastardizations of it lately is that my turn is fairly sovereign, it's my turn. There may be some causal links in terms of what to target first but the for the most part I'm in charge of how I go about moving. shooting and assaulting, I don't need micro causality to add depth to that as much as I need someone following me around and trying to make unbearable small talk as I try and just shop for groceries, it adds nothing.
"right so I know this world eaters unit can as a 1 time reaction charge a unit that moves into range of it... if I move this sacrifical unit here I may be able to bait him into charge range of a realy good unit. on the other hand if I move here, I'll earn a point I need but risk having my unit destroyed".
I don't want progressive scoring either, I want end up game scoring. I also don't want to have to consider what action gets me special cookie points my opponent can't take away outside of warlord secondary. I don't want maelstrom of war crap, it does nothing for the game.
personally I see Reactions as GW reacting to the flaws inherant in IGOUGO without doing the scale of re-write nesscary for alternating activation
Personally I don't see igougo as having inherent flaws solves by just doing igougo a couple thousand more times. Alternating activation is terrible, it's the other reason 30k is a refuge from modern terrible rulesets. 30k didn't need GW to save it from it's self, its rules are the primary attraction. If it needed anything from gw and forgeworld it was affordable access to models, they could have easily made a starter without feeling the need to insert themselves into the rules, they want so far as to invalidate a decades worth of books. That doesn't sit well with many.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: Having reactions in 40k was asked from a lot of people for a very long time now
and no, saying reactions are the same as stratagems
people don't like Stratagems and 9th should get the rant over in the topic for 10th Edition and not act like the changes to HH are the same as for 40k
But it is intresting that how people hyped Overwatch when it came to 40k, and now it is the worst rule ever made although a better version of it is added to HH
so having the choice between 2 reactions now instead of always taking Overwatch because it has no downside and there is no other option anyway
is removing tactical depth
I guess you should go over to the Fantasy Forum or talk to T9A people and tell them that their game has less tactical depth because they have charge reactions
No one wanted reactions in 30k, no one who played 30k wanted anything more than more opponents or models that didn't require organ theft to afford.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: But what were HH players wanting from GW/FW? Different rules or more accessible models?
I know I'm no HH expert, but it seems to me people were fairly pleased with how HH played but not about the price. I know that is standard fare for the hobby, but when a centerpiece model can be $300+ that definitely puts a limit on interest.
Next he'll be telling you what all real 30k players wanted was the game be just as bad as 9th and also have maelstorm cards or something because anyone who plays wargaming must secretly want the game to turn even more into the lobe child of a collectible card game with the tactical depth of whack-a-mole.
No, stratagems are the worst part of the game and I hate that they're adding a similar system to HH. It's a gotcha mechanic that causes 40k to function more like a CCG than a tabletop wargame. It also destroys any chance a casual player has to beat an experienced player unless the casual is using Harlequins and the better player is using AM. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to remember all the stratagems for every opposing army, what phase they can be played in, and how to play around them unless you go to tournaments every weekend and play practice games during the week. I might go to a RTT once a month, I have no interest in spending more time learning 40k stratagems than I spent learning conversational Spanish...
100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.
BrianDavion wrote: No one wanted reactions in 30k, no one who played 30k wanted anything more than more opponents or models that didn't require organ theft to afford.
cool that you know all HH players, I guess those here must play something different than
So I had a look at the leaked Reactions rules and, honestly, they aren't really any different than the same kind of reactions that you'd get in historical games. I've had to deal with plenty of rules that allow you some flexibility in your opponent turns, whether it's just lighter units being able to potentially flee from heavier units when charged, or even interrupting your opponents turn to end it early.
The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).
100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.
In my recent Necromunda campaign, we just played without them. We were all learning the game together and agreed to leave them out until we knew the base rules. Once we learned the game and then looked at the stratagem cards, nobody wanted to add them
The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).
The first point eats the second though, the moment I set eyes on the reactions my first thought was "they won't keep it simple or limited, every legions going to get their own" and that proved to be accurate, with each legion getting its own, in addition to that, you have characters that abused the hell out of it and add to the per turn reactions. I could buy the "it's a simple straightforward system that's fairly limited" if it remained limited, simple or straightforward. It quickly throws itself off a cliff. Can we at least agree its implementation doesn't seem to take much into account in terms of size of the game? Can we agree it's probably too much for a low point game and too much of a drag on a very high point on multiple player per side game?
100% agreed, I play this sort of game because I'm a visual guy and the strats are often obnoxious gotchas and nothing more. They might make gaming more compelling for those with more free time to game but for people who are lucky to get 1 or 2 game a month I find they're just annoying. Even in titanicus, all they do is try and make up for lack of content but the game is genuinely more enjoyable without them.
In my recent Necromunda campaign, we just played without them. We were all learning the game together and agreed to leave them out until we knew the base rules. Once we learned the game and then looked at the stratagem cards, nobody wanted to add them
The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).
The first point eats the second though, the moment I set eyes on the reactions my first thought was "they won't keep it simple or limited, every legions going to get their own" and that proved to be accurate, with each legion getting its own, in addition to that, you have characters that abused the hell out of it and add to the per turn reactions. I could buy the "it's a simple straightforward system that's fairly limited" if it remained limited, simple or straightforward. It quickly throws itself off a cliff. Can we at least agree its implementation doesn't seem to take much into account in terms of size of the game? Can we agree it's probably too much for a low point game and too much of a drag on a very high point on multiple player per side game?
Ok, I did write without knowing about the Legion specific Reactions. I'd rather adopt a wait and see approach. If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad, and the Warlord traits seem to add a single Reaction to specific reaction type. As for points values, you're talking about extremes wherein other core aspects of the game may break down due to the assumed size of games when the designers were writing, but that's the same of any rules systems.
I do think it has the chance to get out of hand if the rules designers hand them out like candy.
The leaked reaction rules are straightforward, pretty limited in scope, and have a number of restrictions. If you hand out extra reactions in limited numbers, you can add some more flavor to a Legions (World Eaters might get an extra Advance reaction per enemy turn, Imperial Fists get an extra Hold the Line, Alpha Legion get an extra Withdraw, Raven Guard get an extra Evade, etc).
The first point eats the second though, the moment I set eyes on the reactions my first thought was "they won't keep it simple or limited, every legions going to get their own" and that proved to be accurate, with each legion getting its own, in addition to that, you have characters that abused the hell out of it and add to the per turn reactions. I could buy the "it's a simple straightforward system that's fairly limited" if it remained limited, simple or straightforward. It quickly throws itself off a cliff. Can we at least agree its implementation doesn't seem to take much into account in terms of size of the game? Can we agree it's probably too much for a low point game and too much of a drag on a very high point on multiple player per side game?
Ok, I did write without knowing about the Legion specific Reactions. I'd rather adopt a wait and see approach. If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad, and the Warlord traits seem to add a single Reaction to specific reaction type. As for points values, you're talking about extremes wherein other core aspects of the game may break down due to the assumed size of games when the designers were writing, but that's the same of any rules systems.
I do think it has the chance to get out of hand if the rules designers hand them out like candy.
Wait and see is totally fair, there obviously could be something we're all missing or that hasn't been leaked.
The fear sort of is them handing out reactions like candy, they may not be that difficult to just agree to play without, but it's seemingly more with them being so embedded in each legio's special rules and characters.
Also in terms of game size, if it's still like 1750pts and up at least the reactions probably work ok in the 1750-2500 points range, the concern is just stuff like zone mortalis or lower point games could have issues. On the positive side, hopefully they'll have written a new zone mortalis scenario to take the reactions into account.
Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.
I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.
infinite_array wrote: If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad
Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.
We've already seen some other leaks that showed, iirc, only one special reaction for the Emperor's Children. Basically a countercharge if the EC unit rolls higher than your charge roll.
I've been away since 2018. I found out that a second edition is coming out, apparently with a ton of new plastic models.
It appears from what little has been released by GW that the intention is to move all the basic core units to plastic (Legionaries, Dreadnoughts, tanks, transports, etc.) but what about the specialized units, things like the primarchs and legion specific specail squads al a Justerian Terminators or Deathwing Companions, etc. Will these also get upped into snazzy new plastic kits, or will they remain forever in Resin?
Generic Legion units will be moved to plastic and all Legion specific units will remain as Resin (unless they are built on a plastic unit such as IF Huscarls or DG Mortus Poisoners).
infinite_array wrote: If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad
Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.
based on what?
because each Legion also als 30 different Psionic Disciplins instead of limited access to the base ones?
there is nothing that hints that this will be the case
infinite_array wrote: If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad
Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.
Yeah, probably. If the reactions were a set of universal ones, part of the core rules, I don't think that would be an issue.
But I tend to prefer that all players use the same fething rules to play the same fething game.
Hairesy wrote: Pretty sure the leaked rules said there would be an allotment for reactions, so there will probably be lots.
Yes, and that allotment was specifically one per phase as a baseline.
Now will there be special characters/units/legions that can get extra reaction points? Almost certainly yes, but I also expect them to be limited to specific phases and/or reactions rather than being a blanket bonus across all phases.
Hairesy wrote: Pretty sure the leaked rules said there would be an allotment for reactions, so there will probably be lots.
Yes, and that allotment was specifically one per phase as a baseline.
Now will there be special characters/units/legions that can get extra reaction points? Almost certainly yes, but I also expect them to be limited to specific phases and/or reactions rather than being a blanket bonus across all phases.
One reaction per phase, or one instance of each specific reaction per phase? Because if it's the second, how is that different from stratagems?
Well, unless reactions have no CP cost, of course.
One reaction per phase, of at least a couple to pick from, with (so far) a specific Legion reaction per legion.
So that's a base 3 reactions per opponent turn; 1 Movement, 1 Shooting, 1 Assault.
Warlord traits look like they add specific reactions as well. Take the Imperial Fists leaks. Warlord Trait 1 gives you an additional reaction in any one phase. Trait 2 gives you an additional reaction in the Assault phase. Trait 3 gives you an additional reaction during the shooting phase.
And no costs, you can just do them if the specific criteria are met.
I see the Reactions similar to how "Decisive Move/Shoot/Fight" was in KT18. It was hardly game breaking. I expect the same from these reactions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.
I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.
What are you talking about? KT21 RULES! I love that game, well worth a try. Or are you talking about KT18?
infinite_array wrote: One reaction per phase, of at least a couple to pick from, with (so far) a specific Legion reaction per legion.
So that's a base 3 reactions per opponent turn; 1 Movement, 1 Shooting, 1 Assault.
Warlord traits look like they add specific reactions as well. Take the Imperial Fists leaks. Warlord Trait 1 gives you an additional reaction in any one phase. Trait 2 gives you an additional reaction in the Assault phase. Trait 3 gives you an additional reaction during the shooting phase.
And no costs, you can just do them if the specific criteria are met.
Now expand that out in a 2v2 game, or a 4v4 on 4x12 board. It's just now what I want out of 30k at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: I see the Reactions similar to how "Decisive Move/Shoot/Fight" was in KT18. It was hardly game breaking. I expect the same from these reactions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.
I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.
What are you talking about? KT21 RULES! I love that game, well worth a try. Or are you talking about KT18?
I didn't like KT, really don't see how making 30k more like it would improve the game.
I didn't like KT18 at all, the activation sequence really let the game down.
KT21 is a class game though, it has a lot of modern game mechanics, granted not many other than the broad strokes like alternating activation would be appropriate to port over to 30k.
The comparison of these reactions to the Decisive Actions of KT18 is a good one though. Essentially they were strategems that let you act first in the appropriate sequence (rather than alternating like normal).
There are some major differences though.
Most importantly, they weren't anything "extra". They let you make your normal action marginally earlier than otherwise.
Whereas reactions in 30k are much more significant - they're wholly extra actions and they occur at a very different time to normal.
Also "oh you moved to attack me, lol I'll just shoot you first/move over here instead" is exactly why I hated KT18, it's such bs gameplay every single time I see it.
tauist wrote: I see the Reactions similar to how "Decisive Move/Shoot/Fight" was in KT18. It was hardly game breaking. I expect the same from these reactions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.
I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.
What are you talking about? KT21 RULES! I love that game, well worth a try. Or are you talking about KT18?
Um... Maybe? I was referring to Kill Team, I have no idea what KT19 is... Old and out of touch, you see.
"Kill Team" doesn't tell us much, I've personally played 4 distinct versions of "Kill Team" released by GW.
KT19 is Kill Team 2019 (the release year), it's probably the one you're talking about because it's notable as being the first version of Killteam that was standalone and distinct from WH40k.
KT21 is Kill Team 2021, it's notable because it's the first version of Killteam that is truly it's own game, KT19 was still trying to follow 40k mechanics as closely as they good. KT21 has thrown that completely out the window and just used what works for a skirmish game. And it shows, it works well.
KT19 really suffered from being the worst of both worlds between a skirmish ruleset and 40k ruleset imo.
Yeah, I think the original KT was just a set of rules they used in a tournament once at Warhammer World or something. They ended up putting the rules online and that is what turned into KT19-21 or whatever the heck. It was very much based on the 40k rules at the time.
Anyway to bring it back around, I don't think 30k needs a big rules change. I'm going to be happy playing with the current, soon to be old rules. Anyway, I think this has changed collecting plan for HH, anyone else? I was thinking it might be worth it to grab some of the new stuff. I think I'm going to stick with the older Mk6 armour and just grab some Deimos pattern tanks. Probably Rhinos.
The impending release has changed my collecting plans.
The coming boxset hasn't - I'm not interested in Mk.VI at all (certainly not for large squads) and I've already got enough other stuff to use.
When I heard boxnaughts were squatted I put my plans to buy another on hold. Then I decided they're too cool, GW can just feth themselves, I'll just run funny shaped Contemptors.
The biggest impact it has had is that I was going to convert some Locutarus, but apparently all units without models are getting squatted, so I've hung fire on that.
For the same reason I've avoided assembling the Nemesis Destroyers I have sat in pieces.
Hairesy wrote: Yeah, I think the original KT was just a set of rules they used in a tournament once at Warhammer World or something. They ended up putting the rules online and that is what turned into KT19-21 or whatever the heck. It was very much based on the 40k rules at the time.
The Original Kill Team rules were in the back o 4th Edi 40k Rulebook
If that list of removed units is true then HH 2.0 will be DOA for a lot of people IMO, including me and likely my gaming group. I don't want to believe it but with what I'm seeing with the CSM Codex and this, I'm losing a lot of hope for continuing both 40k and HH.
TBH I suspect they'll do Legends for all the missing units.
That's why Legends were invented - to boil the frog so they don't lose people by squatting stuff.
Nail, coffin. I'll find me some 90s Rhinos now, either that or an Ebay salvage and some 3d printed armour panels. How does one squat the boxnaught? That's just criminal. I've made dome topped Predator turrets before, I can do it again. Ugh! Incensed! The Nerd Rage boileth over!
Just a "rumour" for now, essentially Boxnaughts are conspicuously absent from any of the playtesting documents, whereas every other unit is included (although some units, like Contemptor Mortis, are now upgrades rather than distinct).
So it seems there's pretty good authority that they're gone, and it seems in keeping with GW's recent "no model no rules" crusade since they don't see a HH branded Boxnaught.
HH 2.0 changed all my collecting plans as soon as the first photos leaked almost a year ago. I stopped buying Space Marines immediately, and have been waiting for the box release until I will buy any more.
This decision to hold off purchases is looking like its going to pay off big time for me, with all the classic vehicles getting a rerelease in plastic and all that.
Only bit of kit I purchased in anticipation of the HH 2.0 has been a Caestus Assault Ram. I'll use it as a proxy for Stormraven or whatever its called, rule of cool and all that.
Getting rid of the old books, giant list of units that won't be getting rules. I dunno, I'm excited about plastic kits but I can also see just continuing along with normal 30k and not touching 2.0.
Reposting this from the N&R thread:
For those who have not seen it yet, here is a link to an imgur gallery with a lot of leaked rules pages.
https://imgur.com/a/sRSeyzH
infinite_array wrote: If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad
Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.
based on what?
Oh, I dunno, maybe the 700 stratagems in 40k... It's not like there's no precedent for rules bloat in GW games, it almost seems like a core feature at this point.
infinite_array wrote: If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad
Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.
based on what?
Oh, I dunno, maybe the 700 stratagems in 40k... It's not like there's no precedent for rules bloat in GW games, it almost seems like a core feature at this point.
I think that's the problem, you have wargames/historical games and they're trying to make them into card games. The endless stratagems didn't help Titanicus one bit.
Titanicus is my favorite GW ruleset but we play it without stratagems. Same with Necromunda. I play those games with 2 separate groups of people who both unanimously hate strategy cards because of how gamey they are. If I wanted MtG gameplay, I would just play MtG and skip the countless hours of building/painting models.
Hairesy wrote: Gotta love the new Legion Recon RoW. Benefit, you can take Recons and Scouts. Restriction, you must take Recons and Scouts.
It's always been that chief. The Legion Recon Company has Recon Squads as Compulsory Troops and you must take an additional Recon Squad as a Compulsory Troop choice in the detachment.
Gotta love the new Legion Recon RoW. Benefit, you can take Recons and Scouts. Restriction, you must take Recons and Scouts.
/gasp/ How awful for your recon section to have recon troops.
Seriously, I don't know what the complaint is supposed to be (especially with the restriction just being on compulsory troops)
You're losing Forward Scouts, which gave you Shrouded if you used Scout or Infiltrate. The new version just gives you the first turn/seize reroll. I only mentioned the troops choice thing because I was making a joke about the lack of any real reason to take the RoW now. It's basically just one, maybe two rerolls, for a troops choice limitation. I know they'll probably give RG something more effective as a themed choice, but still. All Legions can do all types of war, some are just better are certain things, so the idea that Recon RoW loses a pretty decent ability for not much gain is pretty disheartening. I was actually planning on using that one, as Gert suggested. Now, what's the point?
infinite_array wrote: If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad
Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.
based on what?
Oh, I dunno, maybe the 700 stratagems in 40k... It's not like there's no precedent for rules bloat in GW games, it almost seems like a core feature at this point.
Than you should be glad that this is not 40k and the designer do not plan to copy the current edition although some people request that all games should use the same rules
But 40k is different to HH, AoS, Underworlds, Necromunda etc
Not all GW games are the same
kirotheavenger wrote: The reason you take it is because you want to run a lot of Recon troops without taking a lot of Tacticals first.
2/6 Troops slots isn't a lot of Tacticals Kiro. The current Recon RoW gives you incentives to use Recon Marines outside of alternate Troop choice, as all RoW do. This new one doesn't do anything that actually benefits the player in any way beyond the first turn, and on top of that the changes to the Recon Marines profile make them worthless since they now don't have an option to take Sniper Rifles. So in this instance, Hairsey is absolutely right to be annoyed.
Two squads of tacticals is still two more than zero.
That's why you take it - you might not find it particularly helpful but it's there.
Clearly the rite got nerfed, but I don't think it's entirely pointless by any means.
I don't see anything about not taking sniper rifles. They just got renamed to Nemesis Bolters.
72", Heavy 1, S5, AP5, Rending (5+), Sniper, Pinning - that's a sniper rifle by another name.
kirotheavenger wrote: Two squads of tacticals is still two more than zero.
That's why you take it - you might not find it particularly helpful but it's there.
Clearly the rite got nerfed, but I don't think it's entirely pointless by any means.
I don't see anything about not taking sniper rifles. They just got renamed to Nemesis Bolters.
72", Heavy 1, S5, AP5, Rending (5+), Sniper, Pinning - that's a sniper rifle by another name.
I mean, I would take it if I liked Recon Marines and wanted a RoW that gave buffs to those units, which the current one does. Tacticals don't weigh in on this because I don't care about Tacticals, I care about Recon Marines and a stealth-focused army, which this RoW helps with because it importantly doesn't just benefit Recon Marines but rather all units with Scout and Infiltrate meaning Vigilators and Legion specific variants of Recon Marines and Vigilators, such as Mor Deythan and the Saboteur. It also gives the re-roll for roll off and seizing.
The new one gives you a re-roll and Seekers as non-compulsory Troops with no benefits to the compulsory units of Recon Marine nor any other stealth unit generic or unique.
You tell me why Hairsey shouldn't be annoyed that a good RoW that fits with the character of their army while also giving it buffs, has been replaced with something utterly worthless in comparison.
I never said there's no course for annoyance - in fact I explicitly stated I agreed it had been nerfed.
I simply answered the question "why would you ever take this" - the answer is because you want to run Recon marines are troops without bothering with Tactical marines first.
This would be the basis of a strong recon/stealth themed army, even without specific buffs otherwise.
You and I have very different definitions of the word "strong". The army theme is stealth, so of course, it makes sense that the RoW wouldn't actually benefit the stealth units it forces you to take.
The wider issue with all of these RoW is that they're going from something that gives you a theme with restrictions but benefits if you play into that theme, to a theme with restrictions.
Than you should be glad that this is not 40k and the designer do not plan to copy the current edition although some people request that all games should use the same rules
But 40k is different to HH, AoS, Underworlds, Necromunda etc
Not all GW games are the same
I'm just concerned because 40k, Necromunda, and Titanicus, the 3 GW games I play, have been infected by way too many tactics cards to the point where I feel like I'm playing MtG if I use them
kirotheavenger wrote: Two squads of tacticals is still two more than zero.
That's why you take it - you might not find it particularly helpful but it's there.
Clearly the rite got nerfed, but I don't think it's entirely pointless by any means.
I don't see anything about not taking sniper rifles. They just got renamed to Nemesis Bolters.
72", Heavy 1, S5, AP5, Rending (5+), Sniper, Pinning - that's a sniper rifle by another name.
Can't let anything have a name that can't be copyrighted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also unsure of splitting Scouts and Recons up, seems like Recon armour could have added +1 Move and granted MtC in a bullet point in the Recon Squad section as well as its other bonuses/limitations.
Also what's this keyword baloney like "line" and "skirmish"? Are we linking stuff to keywords again? God damn it GW, enough!
Also what's this keyword baloney like "line" and "skirmish"? Are we linking stuff to keywords again? God damn it GW, enough!
I agree. We should also do away with Heavy, Assault, Infantry, Vehicle, Skimmer, and so on. /s
Keywords have always been around.
Well now I disagree! Gimme some Heavy Infantry Line Skirmish Support Terminators, stat! It's just more change for the sake of change, heaven forbid the new edition doesn't "move the game forward". This will end up like 7-9th Ed 40k with a bunch of progressively worse changes until the whole thing is completely unrecognizable. This new HH edition is just the tip of the iceberg.
Hairesy wrote: It's just more change for the sake of change, heaven forbid the new edition doesn't "move the game forward". This will end up like 7-9th Ed 40k with a bunch of progressively worse changes until the whole thing is completely unrecognizable. This new HH edition is just the tip of the iceberg.
It's a change from special rules and unit types to something that is basically the same. Pre-8th you could tell a Psyker was a Psyker because it had the Psyker special rule, 8th onward the unit will have the Psyker keyword. Certain rules would interact with certain special rules, for example, a Warlord Trait that gave buffs vs Psykers, the same thing is happening now just with different words.
Is it a bit excessive with line and skirmish when all that's needed is something like Support Squad? Very probably but lets not overreact to what is only a slight change in language.
Hairesy wrote: It's just more change for the sake of change, heaven forbid the new edition doesn't "move the game forward". This will end up like 7-9th Ed 40k with a bunch of progressively worse changes until the whole thing is completely unrecognizable. This new HH edition is just the tip of the iceberg.
It's a change from special rules and unit types to something that is basically the same. Pre-8th you could tell a Psyker was a Psyker because it had the Psyker special rule, 8th onward the unit will have the Psyker keyword. Certain rules would interact with certain special rules, for example, a Warlord Trait that gave buffs vs Psykers, the same thing is happening now just with different words.
Is it a bit excessive with line and skirmish when all that's needed is something like Support Squad? Very probably but lets not overreact to what is only a slight change in language.
The problem with moving away towards conventions (unit types) and towards bespoke movement stats is you get silly stuff like the sabre tank moving faster than a land speeder. When a rules writer actually has to interface with existing conventions in terms of unit types it reigns in some of the sillier whims the marketing boys might want to whip up.
Nemesis Bolters actually look really mean - Sniper is always 'precision shots' now, and without Lookout Sir that means you can fairly reliably snipe out models you don't like with S5 and Rending 5+.
Crablezworth wrote: The problem with moving away towards conventions (unit types) and towards bespoke movement stats is you get silly stuff like the sabre tank moving faster than a land speeder. When a rules writer actually has to interface with existing conventions in terms of unit types it reigns in some of the sillier whims the marketing boys might want to whip up.
Keywords and individual movement values together are not a given thing. You could very easily do something like "Units with the <Infantry> Keyword may move 6 inches" or "Units with the ><Fly> Keyword may move 12 inches". And in general, the old values are still present.
Keywords have always been a thing in GW games it's now just worded differently.
Crablezworth wrote: The problem with moving away towards conventions (unit types) and towards bespoke movement stats is you get silly stuff like the sabre tank moving faster than a land speeder. When a rules writer actually has to interface with existing conventions in terms of unit types it reigns in some of the sillier whims the marketing boys might want to whip up.
Keywords and individual movement values together are not a given thing. You could very easily do something like "Units with the <Infantry> Keyword may move 6 inches" or "Units with the ><Fly> Keyword may move 12 inches". And in general, the old values are still present.
Keywords have always been a thing in GW games it's now just worded differently.
Notice how you don't address the valid issue, a tank moving faster than a skimmer.
Crablezworth wrote: Notice how you don't address the valid issue, a tank moving faster than a skimmer.
Ok, here's me addressing it. I think these documents are fake and you are being pulled in because you want an excuse to hate GW.
Is this very specific thing a problem? Sure. Is the wider change to individual movement values a problem? No, because the majority of units will see no change.
Crablezworth wrote: Notice how you don't address the valid issue, a tank moving faster than a skimmer.
Ok, here's me addressing it. I think these documents are fake and you are being pulled in because you want an excuse to hate GW.
Is this very specific thing a problem? Sure. Is the wider change to individual movement values a problem? No, because the majority of units will see no change.
And if they're real it's an admission I'm right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: you are being pulled in because you want an excuse to hate GW.
I'll just infer you can't help yourself but defend multimillion dollar corporations.
I'll just infer you can't help yourself but defend multimillion dollar corporations.
You've jumped on this and latched on, making a fair few posts about how much you hate GW. I'm not inferring anything and I've also made it clear if these rumours are true I'm not buying into the new edition and that I don't like a lot of the decisions that have been made in these leaks if they are true. But sure go off because I called you out.
Apologies if I've lost the source for this argument, but the tank you're arguing about as being faster than a Land Speeder, does it have the Fast keyword? If not, then in practice it won't be as fast as the Speeder as it will need to move slower to be able to use it's weapons. If it does have Fast, forget I said anything.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Apologies if I've lost the source for this argument, but the tank you're arguing about as being faster than a Land Speeder, does it have the Fast keyword? If not, then in practice it won't be as fast as the Speeder as it will need to move slower to be able to use it's weapons. If it does have Fast, forget I said anything.
Fast vehicle movement 18
the speeder is... cavalry for some reason and moves 14
The tank can also literally move 36 inches by going flat out.
For the first time, since knights dropped at the end of 7th. I actually have hype for HH 2.0. Rules look really solid, only a few outliers in terms of balance, and not on the side of being OP, but being under performing.
They adopted many of the changes i had been saying 40k needs, IE the implementation of a lot more <rule><x> style rules like breaching 4 for example.
MEQ and TEQ now viable after AP2 pie plates and AP3 templates being cut back dramatically, terminators going to 2 wounds, cutting of the phsyker phase, flavor for days.
Backspacehacker wrote: For the first time, since knights dropped at the end of 7th. I actually have hype for HH 2.0. Rules look really solid, only a few outliers in terms of balance, and not on the side of being OP, but being under performing.
They adopted many of the changes i had been saying 40k needs, IE the implementation of a lot more <rule><x> style rules like breaching 4 for example.
MEQ and TEQ now viable after AP2 pie plates and AP3 templates being cut back dramatically, terminators going to 2 wounds, cutting of the phsyker phase, flavor for days.
Im pretty damn hyped for this.
For me, its gonna be T sons, and my knights.
I wish I could share in your enthusiasm, for it's only strengthened my adoration for the current HH ruleset.
Backspacehacker wrote: For the first time, since knights dropped at the end of 7th. I actually have hype for HH 2.0. Rules look really solid, only a few outliers in terms of balance, and not on the side of being OP, but being under performing.
They adopted many of the changes i had been saying 40k needs, IE the implementation of a lot more <rule><x> style rules like breaching 4 for example.
MEQ and TEQ now viable after AP2 pie plates and AP3 templates being cut back dramatically, terminators going to 2 wounds, cutting of the phsyker phase, flavor for days.
Im pretty damn hyped for this.
For me, its gonna be T sons, and my knights.
I wish I could share in your enthusiasm, for it's only strengthened my adoration for the current HH ruleset.
Tbh, those seem like good changes, but I worry about:
1/ loosing the balance (between units and legions)
2/ stupid stuff like the speeder being slower than a tracked tank
3/ the loss of a lot of well crafted fluffy rules / flavor rules for the legions
4/ a shitton of new units for new players instead of focussing of what we already had / have been waiting for so long
5/ changes for the sake of changes
6/ reactions (now confirmed you can have several in a single phase, at least 2)
If this had been a single faq / patch / HH 2.0 bis,
I wouldn't have paid attention. I would have been even happy. But I'm worrying of the big changes and all that a new edition can bring
godardc wrote: Tbh, those seem like good changes, but I worry about:
1/ loosing the balance (between units and legions)
2/ stupid stuff like the speeder being slower than a tracked tank
3/ the loss of a lot of well crafted fluffy rules / flavor rules for the legions
4/ a shitton of new units for new players instead of focussing of what we already had / have been waiting for so long
5/ changes for the sake of changes
6/ reactions (now confirmed you can have several in a single phase, at least 2)
If this had been a single faq / patch / HH 2.0 bis,
I wouldn't have paid attention. I would have been even happy. But I'm worrying of the big changes and all that a new edition can bring
Im gonna go off on a limb and guess you have not seen the leaks, but i can tell you from seeing all the leaks so far.
1. so far on paper most legions seem pretty balanced the only looser so far (Only really seen loyalists) are UM, and RG, not by bad margines just by being super meh.
2. i have not see from any of the leaked profiles this being the case to my own knowledge. Then again i did not remember every single movement so.
3. There are not so far, most of the RoW are still there, slightly changed, but still there.
4. There is actually less units then before, the core, and legion specific units are still there, but i did not see like the really odd ones out that no one ran.
5. have not see anything that was a "change for changes" sake situation yet, almost everything i have seen has been ultimately for a better reason, and most things are remaining the same. The biggest changes being reactions, reduction in AP2 and 3 across the board, and removal of psyker phase.
6. You get 1 base per phase, you can only get a second one based on a WL trait, and to my knowlege you can use auspecs which give you shooting reactions for free, up to 3.
Again these however are still phase three so, subject to change .
I can say so far, most everything i have seen has been for the better.
4. There is actually less units then before, the core, and legion specific units are still there, but i did not see like the really odd ones out that no one ran.
.
Locutarus Storm Squads and Fulmintarii Terminator Squads are gone from the Ultras and I knew a couple people that played them, the Iron Hands Characters that arent Ferrus are gone, Raven Guard characters are gone, a White Scar Character is gone + their special Scout Squad, Salamanders special Characters are gone. All of which are things I've seen people working on, or heard about/seen used in games.
Then theres the Exemplary Battles Units, which would probably be easiest to update.
So the loss of specials to both Ultra and RG are definitely 2 things i totally acknowledge and why i said that outta all the legions leaked those two are the weakest because they are just MEH now.
As far as white scars and salamanders, while they lost those characters they also gained a LOT in terms of their units, like white scars basically all getting hit and run and outflank on bikes, and jet bikes being really cheap now as well. So kinda trade off there, but i do totally acknowledge the bummer of not having those units.
But in the grand scheme of things i feel like most changes are better, missing units can easily come back in later once they balance out what we have, which im totally fine with it going that way.
Yeah Im much less opposed to it that I was when it first started getting leaked, but theres things I still question, like losing the units (or options for Reavers and Palatine Blades at least as far as the 1.0 test).
Also for the Scars lets not forget the buffs to the Saygar Mazan Rite, everything Infantry getting a 5+ FNP and not counting towards VP when killed.
And i feel like overall everything thats changed honestly has been for a better reason than not.
I expect that we will see missing units/characters return as GW puts out the new "Black books" which i suspect will come along with plastic FW bits as well.
So looking through alpha legion, I can now steal 3 units, take another legions special reaction, have a warlord and their squad get another legion trait, lerneans squads all get their own additional legion trait, and alpharius can make 3 units infiltrate, with another 3 redeploying.
Hydra goddamn dominatus.
Yeah from the 1.0 leaks for traitors (all ive seen on them) Alphas look pretty good.
Taking it back to the Raven Guard, Decapitation Strike should probably get an update before they release the book. One chunk of it is entirely about Deep Striking, but the Rite doesnt give units access to Drop Pods.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: Yeah from the 1.0 leaks for traitors (all ive seen on them) Alphas look pretty good.
Taking it back to the Raven Guard, Decapitation Strike should probably get an update before they release the book. One chunk of it is entirely about Deep Striking, but the Rite doesnt give units access to Drop Pods.
One that i thought was really scary that for some reason everyone is sleeping on, is the change to crimson guard.
Rather then just termies getting deep strike, crimson guard lets you deep strike up to 6 units that have infantry, and on top of that, you can charge AND deep strike with in 1 inch.
So im already seeing the memes coming about of deep striking 10 man blade cults 1" away from something with force on their weapons letting them swing with S8 ap3 power swords, possibly S10 if they have biomancy on them, or dropping in a Support squad all armed with the Tsons aether plasma which has force, so now its a squad of 10 assault 2 S10, AP4, Rending(6) (which i suspect in phase three turned into branching 4) plasma guns.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I hadnt seen the stuff for the 1ksons, or I just skipped over it. That sounds very brutal, very brutal.
Oh im excited, granted interceptor is really good now, so you will have to eat that, which i think a lot of people are going to learn very quickly the importance of taking Auspex scanners to get free intercepts, but there is a lot of wombo combos that a lot of the legions can do.
Right now outta all of them shown/seen, UM and RG seem to be the most....meh, option out there. but still plenty to come, we have not seen any of the knight rules either which im interested, all we know so far is that knights cant perform reactions against infantry. only other super heavies, which idk how i feel about that, i think thats going to make them super super weak.
Yeah, i really hope, and from the looks of what they are keeping with marines i think they will, keep the pilot system for the knight. Though with all the guts to AP in the game, which is for the better, im wondering how nights will be since all their AP is probably gonna be sitting on AP4 with breaching and rending
Huh, didn’t see crimson guard. Does that mean I could deepstrike in a max unit of lerneans with my warlord with the one trait to mix up iron hands/sons of Horus, whichever ones are the -1 strength and -1 strength to shooting anyways, to have a unit of lerneans (already very strong), at basically -2 strength against em in combat?, it’s 65 points per PF lerneans but they’re ws5 and have it will not die.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Huh, didn’t see crimson guard. Does that mean I could deepstrike in a max unit of lerneans with my warlord with the one trait to mix up iron hands/sons of Horus, whichever ones are the -1 strength and -1 strength to shooting anyways, to have a unit of lerneans (already very strong), at basically -2 strength against em in combat?, it’s 65 points per PF lerneans but they’re ws5 and have it will not die.
No, crimson guard is Tsons only RoW, restrictions are no allies allowed, have to have either magnus or a preator.
I expect the traitor stuff will be getting toned down.
They're all phase 1 and generally substantially more powerful than the stuff seen in phase 3.
So it seems likely they've toned the crazy down over time.
kirotheavenger wrote: I expect the traitor stuff will be getting toned down.
They're all phase 1 and generally substantially more powerful than the stuff seen in phase 3.
So it seems likely they've toned the crazy down over time.
Now this i fully expect tbh.
Taking crimson guard for example, i expect it to be, "Only terminators get deep strike" rather then just 6 units with infantry get it. I also expect their plasma to be breaching 4, rather then rending 6.
I think phase 1 gives us a good idea where they are headed.
kirotheavenger wrote: Alpha Legion are a "we're the best bits of everyone else, plus our own awesome stuff".
Which doesn't fit right with me. I get they're the clandestine sleeper agent type shtique, but there's a limit imo.
I think a cool gimmick for them, and granted this is going to be like, some early 40k era type rules.
If they could pay for a character that can be inserted into your enemies unit, and you select which unit at the start of the game, write it down on a piece of paper, then any time that unit ends its movement phase near something you can make a reaction to sabatoge either that unit or a unit its near to either do damage or cause something like crew stunned, and you have to pass a ld check to do it, then like an initiative check to see if you stay in cover, and your opponent has to guess which unit has the spy in it. at the end of each turn, and if they guess right, it pops out.
I prefered the flexibility they had in approaching the battlefield in HH1e, with the old Mutable Tactics and with Rewards of Treason being something they needed a RoW for.
I look at the Alpha Legion changes from a different perspective: I can get a taste of how other Legions play to see if I should continue collecting them.
ShatteredBlade wrote: I'm planning on playing it. Starting to rejoin the Warhammer community after a long hiatus.
same, with the combo of covid killing my ability to play games in my area, and my general distain for 9th, i basically did not do anything for 2 years, and now that HH is coming back with what are basically 7.5 ed rules, it kicked my desires into over drive to get back into it again, painting, hobbing and playing like never before.
ShatteredBlade wrote: I'm planning on playing it. Starting to rejoin the Warhammer community after a long hiatus.
same, with the combo of covid killing my ability to play games in my area, and my general distain for 9th, i basically did not do anything for 2 years, and now that HH is coming back with what are basically 7.5 ed rules, it kicked my desires into over drive to get back into it again, painting, hobbing and playing like never before.
Same here! I hopped to a few stores around here trying to find Vallejo Gunship Green. No luck.
Dug through the leaks and that idea of running the 3rd Company rite of war to pick Kakophoni as troop options has me sold on Emperor's Children. Looking forward to getting started with 30k. It's a shame MKVI armor isn't appropriate for them (as far as I can tell digging through the disparate lore sources).
Well on the one hand I'm never a fan of retcons but, on the other hand, some of my earliest Warhammer memories pre-playing were beakie marines. Also the new box seems like an insanely good deal in terms of the amount of tacs you get, so I guess I'll just roll with it.
AdmiralRon wrote: Was it not fairly rare, even in the waning days of the heresy? Or is that outdated lore?
By the late stages (12-14.M31) it had become widespread so there's no reason for it to not be used. In fact the reason a lot of CSM armour is similar (albeit heavily corrupted) to MkVI is because that's what many of the Traitors were equipped with after they fled Terra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: There is a new edition afoot, not even the Siege of Terra is retcon-proof.
Show me where it said MkVI wasn't prevalent in the Legions prior to the advancement of the HH timeline into the later stages of the conflict that are coinciding with the new edition.
In brief, the OG lore said that Mk.VI was the predominant mark.
Then when HH became it's own game and they fleshed it all out a lot more, they established Mk.VI as a rare and somewhat specialised armour.
Now they've gone back to and even expanded upon the idea that Mk.VI is everywhere and the most common.
Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification everyone! This setting runs so deep and for so many years that it can be hard for me to keep the information straight sometimes.
A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
In brief, the OG lore said that Mk.VI was the predominant mark.
Then when HH became it's own game and they fleshed it all out a lot more, they established Mk.VI as a rare and somewhat specialised armour.
Now they've gone back to and even expanded upon the idea that Mk.VI is everywhere and the most common.
If anything it just confirms what i said before, they are just molding mionor lore bits like this to help push new things.
HOWEVER, you can look at it another way, in that one of the big points of 40k is that information has always been chaotic and skewed, so minior lore bits like this being changed back and forth actually itself is canonically true, sorta like....meta lore? i guess?
Just like how the duel between the emperor and horus bounced back and forth between being on his flag ship vs being in a bunker.
AdmiralRon wrote: Was it not fairly rare, even in the waning days of the heresy? Or is that outdated lore?
By the late stages (12-14.M31) it had become widespread so there's no reason for it to not be used. In fact the reason a lot of CSM armour is similar (albeit heavily corrupted) to MkVI is because that's what many of the Traitors were equipped with after they fled Terra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hairesy wrote: There is a new edition afoot, not even the Siege of Terra is retcon-proof.
Show me where it said MkVI wasn't prevalent in the Legions prior to the advancement of the HH timeline into the later stages of the conflict that are coinciding with the new edition.
I was joking about things getting retconned that we normally take for granted. I don't really know what the story is with Mk6, people say it's the original PA from Rogue Trader, that was before my time.
Gert wrote: A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
Gert wrote: A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
The models may be yours, the setting isn't, and this is disrespectful. That's exactly the kind of behavior we don't need in 30k. But apparently with this new edition, we are going to get plenty of that
What I may actually end of doing is picking up the new MK VIs for a Raven Guard army and then just using MK IV and V for Emperor's Children. I've got the disposable income for two armies so, to quote Bilbo, "after all, why shouldn't I?"
40k lore has always been driven by what GW whats to do from a modelling and/or gameplay perspective.
"hey this is a cool idea for a model, hey everyone this model exists in lore" has always been how it's worked.
My army works much the same way! If it's within the realms of plausibility (which is deliberately very broad in 30k/40k) then have at it.
It's that recently they're getting clammed in by the internet - that throw away commend they wrote in 2004 doesn't disappear anymore.
Plus the community has grown larger, more dedicated, and more invested.
I think it's absolutely fair that people would be annoyed at GW retconning stuff like this.
I don't like that GW has made this retcon now, but it is what it is.
But I won't be frothing at the mouth about it, because in the grand scheme of things it's pretty minor.
The vibe I've been picking up from other forums is that at the very least your army should be fluffed around Siege era heresy
if you are dead set on using a majority of beakies and aren't playing RG or Alpha.
Seems like a fair compromise, given the historic nature of HH, but different strokes.
edit: Sorry for the page stretching posts. I'm still dusting off the cobwebs. It's been about 10 years since I've used a proper forum.
kirotheavenger wrote: 40k lore has always been driven by what GW whats to do from a modelling and/or gameplay perspective.
"hey this is a cool idea for a model, hey everyone this model exists in lore" has always been how it's worked.
My army works much the same way! If it's within the realms of plausibility (which is deliberately very broad in 30k/40k) then have at it.
It's that recently they're getting clammed in by the internet - that throw away commend they wrote in 2004 doesn't disappear anymore.
Plus the community has grown larger, more dedicated, and more invested.
I think it's absolutely fair that people would be annoyed at GW retconning stuff like this.
I don't like that GW has made this retcon now, but it is what it is.
But I won't be frothing at the mouth about it, because in the grand scheme of things it's pretty minor.
My thing is, i dont mind new lore, i just dont want invalidation of old lore. I hate that so much.
And right now, nothing canonically would make running full, anything not beakie, non canonical so, thats fine by me.
kirotheavenger wrote: 40k lore has always been driven by what GW whats to do from a modelling and/or gameplay perspective.
"hey this is a cool idea for a model, hey everyone this model exists in lore" has always been how it's worked.
My army works much the same way! If it's within the realms of plausibility (which is deliberately very broad in 30k/40k) then have at it.
It's that recently they're getting clammed in by the internet - that throw away commend they wrote in 2004 doesn't disappear anymore.
Plus the community has grown larger, more dedicated, and more invested.
I think it's absolutely fair that people would be annoyed at GW retconning stuff like this.
I don't like that GW has made this retcon now, but it is what it is.
But I won't be frothing at the mouth about it, because in the grand scheme of things it's pretty minor.
It's pretty minor, but perhaps less so for 30k people because there is un-arguably a historical aspect to it and players are tend to be more focused and obsessed about the details. With that said I agree mk6 is a pretty minor issue, I'm far more concerned with the new edition's rules being a poor replacement for the current HH rules, which honestly didn't need much love.
godardc wrote: The models may be yours, the setting isn't, and this is disrespectful. That's exactly the kind of behavior we don't need in 30k. But apparently with this new edition, we are going to get plenty of that
If you're going to refuse to play someone who has MkVI models in their army then you're the one in the wrong.
Gert wrote: A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
The models may be yours, the setting isn't, and this is disrespectful. That's exactly the kind of behavior we don't need in 30k. But apparently with this new edition, we are going to get plenty of that
The setting isn't yours, either, and the creators say mk6 is fine and widespread.
AdmiralRon wrote: The vibe I've been picking up from other forums is that at the very least your army should be fluffed around Siege era heresy
if you are dead set on using a majority of beakies and aren't playing RG or Alpha.
Seems like a fair compromise, given the historic nature of HH, but different strokes.
If you genuinely meet someone who refuses to play a game because you have MkVI Marines in your army then they aren't worth playing. The elitism in the HH communities is pathetic and often worse than 40k but it gets a pass because of "Muh Accuracy". The utter irony is people will laud those who make truescale models using Deathguard or through 3rd party companies but those same people kick up a huge fuss because GW decided that the 5th plastic Heresy armour should be MkVI.
Backspacehacker wrote: Fluff wise, running an army of full Mk 2, 3 ,4 5, and even 6 is still 100% valid in the fluff. Even in late heresy era.
It's not like the armies that people can field are anything so big that would invalidate any kind of lore about amounts of armour models in a legion, let alone in all legions anyway.
"Why yes, these guys are part of the contingent that was issued the newer armor even though it was not widespread among the legion due to attrition and logistic stuff/field testing/they found a cache/etc.).
Backspacehacker wrote: Fluff wise, running an army of full Mk 2, 3 ,4 5, and even 6 is still 100% valid in the fluff. Even in late heresy era.
It's not like the armies that people can field are anything so big that would invalidate any kind of lore about amounts of armour models in a legion, let alone in all legions anyway.
"Why yes, these guys are part of the contingent that was issued the newer armor even though it was not widespread among the legion due to attrition and logistic stuff/field testing/they found a cache/etc.).
Well that and you just had armies that favored specific armor patterns, Like IW had a big thing for Mk3, same with salis iirc.
You had T sons who were big on mk 4.
Plus canonically legions are like 100k+ space marines so its not unreasnable that a few squads that you run, or even a chapter within the legion would be full non mk 6.
Gert wrote: A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
The models may be yours, the setting isn't, and this is disrespectful. That's exactly the kind of behavior we don't need in 30k. But apparently with this new edition, we are going to get plenty of that
The setting isn't yours, either, and the creators say mk6 is fine and widespread.
I think this is the first time in a long time I've hit that "Exalt" button. This is a mic drop statement right here.
Anybody else remember the old Larry Leadhead comics making fun of the people who would argue over the correct number of buttons on a Napoleonic uniform and such?
That's much the same as arguing over whether your army of just 50 marines, out of a legion of 100,000+, can all have the same armor.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anybody else remember the old Larry Leadhead comics making fun of the people who would argue over the correct number of buttons on a Napoleonic uniform and such?
That's much the same as arguing over whether your army of just 50 marines, out of a legion of 100,000+, can all have the same armor.
No but I remember one called Fabulous Freddy and the Furry Freak Bros, or something like that. One time Freddy got beat up by a bunch of hicks, but when he lands on the ground his stash in his pocket busts open and the contents blow in his face. Then he rages out and beats the tar out of the hicks, presumably empowered by the contents of his stash. Hilarity ensues when he has to explain to his furry freak brothers what happened to the stash.
Anyway, what else are we supposed to talk about? I'd rather have a chat about the number of the various patterns of armour in a given army than say... Well there is tons, but bickering over game lore is fun and safe for everyone. I'd rather hear about some gak you made up as to why your World Eaters army is using beakies only instead of just "that's the kit I bought".
Nope, you said to get off your lawn. Well guess what, you're not the only one who thinks a great deal of the care and maintenance of a lawn! Why back in my day...
Backspacehacker wrote: Fluff wise, running an army of full Mk 2, 3 ,4 5, and even 6 is still 100% valid in the fluff. Even in late heresy era.
It's not like the armies that people can field are anything so big that would invalidate any kind of lore about amounts of armour models in a legion, let alone in all legions anyway.
"Why yes, these guys are part of the contingent that was issued the newer armor even though it was not widespread among the legion due to attrition and logistic stuff/field testing/they found a cache/etc.).
Well that and you just had armies that favored specific armor patterns, Like IW had a big thing for Mk3, same with salis iirc.
You had T sons who were big on mk 4.
Plus canonically legions are like 100k+ space marines so its not unreasnable that a few squads that you run, or even a chapter within the legion would be full non mk 6.
That's what I mean, yes. Even if canonically a legion fields almost none of a specific design, well... a full 30k army of them wouldn't be an issue, honestly.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anybody else remember the old Larry Leadhead comics making fun of the people who would argue over the correct number of buttons on a Napoleonic uniform and such?
That's much the same as arguing over whether your army of just 50 marines, out of a legion of 100,000+, can all have the same armor.
No but I remember one called Fabulous Freddy and the Furry Freak Bros, or something like that. One time Freddy got beat up by a bunch of hicks, but when he lands on the ground his stash in his pocket busts open and the contents blow in his face. Then he rages out and beats the tar out of the hicks, presumably empowered by the contents of his stash. Hilarity ensues when he has to explain to his furry freak brothers what happened to the stash.
Anyway, what else are we supposed to talk about? I'd rather have a chat about the number of the various patterns of armour in a given army than say... Well there is tons, but bickering over game lore is fun and safe for everyone. I'd rather hear about some gak you made up as to why your World Eaters army is using beakies only instead of just "that's the kit I bought".
Nope, the only new piece there is the Son of Horus and the Raven Guard. Every other Marine there is from previous Black Books.
The EC and DG are from Betrayal IIRC.
The Salamander, Iron Warrior, Dark Angel, Alpha Legionary, White Scar, Blood Angel, Iron Hand, and World Eater are all from Retribution.
The Space Wolf and Thousand Son will be from Inferno, and the Ultramarine will be from Tempest. The Word Bearer could be from Tempest, Massacre, or Extermination, possibly even Malevolence. The Fist will be from Extermination and the Night Lord will likely be from Massacre.
Gert wrote: Nope, the only new piece there is the Son of Horus and the Raven Guard. Every other Marine there is from previous Black Books.
The EC and DG are from Betrayal IIRC.
The Salamander, Iron Warrior, Dark Angel, Alpha Legionary, White Scar, Blood Angel, Iron Hand, and World Eater are all from Retribution.
The Space Wolf and Thousand Son will be from Inferno, and the Ultramarine will be from Tempest. The Word Bearer could be from Tempest, Massacre, or Extermination, possibly even Malevolence. The Fist will be from Extermination and the Night Lord will likely be from Massacre.
This is what I'm talking about. Or would y'all rather talk sportsball or fightpuck or something?
Gert is right, there wasn't a ton of Mk6 until the Siege of Terra. Only my doods have lots BC Raven Guard Reasons. Therefore if you're gonna have a World Eaters army made out of the new Mk6 kit, please make something up about why that is, so we can tell you how many buttons they had on their coats.
Now to get this thread back on track, GW is universally bad and will continue to be bad, even if I am wrong about scale creep. GW will also continue to be bad if I end up buying some of their new models. Squatting Boxnaughts is absolute heresy and should not be tolerated, I would be very wary of people who do not agree whenever they came near my lawn.
Hairesy wrote: Gert is right, there wasn't a ton of Mk6 until the Siege of Terra. Only my doods have lots BC Raven Guard Reasons. Therefore if you're gonna have a World Eaters army made out of the new Mk6 kit, please make something up about why that is, so we can tell you how many buttons they had on their coats.
No no no. I specifically said that in the late Heresy i.e. anything after 10.M31, MkVI was very easily starting to take dominance of the patterns. That post you quoted was only saying where those pieces of art came from. Please do not put words in my mouth when I have spent the better part of the last week detailing why the people whinging about MkVI are wrong.
tauist wrote: The origins of Horus Heresy come from 1st edition Space Marine, a game in 6mm epic scale in which all the marines were MkVI. Get off my lawn.
It is you HH only players who are eating up retconned lore from my days
(Its OK, I'll still play your dudes, regardless of armour Mk)
What I was going to say! Mk6 is the original Horus Heresy mark of armour, thanks to the first Space Marine boxset, as far as I am concerned
So do we think is going to be a 100 marine list edition? Looking at 1.0 lists and it looks like everyone capped out around 40-60 then took a ton of toys,
but I'm seeing people reacting to the leaks saying that's likely to change.
AdmiralRon wrote: So do we think is going to be a 100 marine list edition? Looking at 1.0 lists and it looks like everyone capped out around 40-60 then took a ton of toys,
but I'm seeing people reacting to the leaks saying that's likely to change.
God, I hope so. That's the archetype I ran because to me 30k is all about the ranks and ranks and ranks of marines. My opponents mostly refuse to meet me on an even field, though, and take me down with horrific death machines
tauist wrote: The origins of Horus Heresy come from 1st edition Space Marine, a game in 6mm epic scale in which all the marines were MkVI. Get off my lawn.
It is you HH only players who are eating up retconned lore from my days
(Its OK, I'll still play your dudes, regardless of armour Mk)
What I was going to say! Mk6 is the original Horus Heresy mark of armour, thanks to the first Space Marine boxset, as far as I am concerned
Technically it was the original mark of armor for the HH and 40k. As there was no other.
AdmiralRon wrote: So do we think is going to be a 100 marine list edition? Looking at 1.0 lists and it looks like everyone capped out around 40-60 then took a ton of toys,
but I'm seeing people reacting to the leaks saying that's likely to change.
Its 100% the age of MEQ and TEQ.
With the buffs given they got, in that AP3 and 2 pie plates were greatly reduced, foot soldiers are super strong now, especially TEQ units. All terminators are now 2w, plasma is not a garunted insta gib on TEQ or MEQ for that matter.
Expect legion unique TeQ squads to be all over the field, i for one am super excited to run T sons, Shekmet are going to be really good, and so are blade cult. Combo that with the buffs to Deepstrike its gonna get nastly.
I will say this though as well, the importance of being able to pin a target is going to be huge.
Honestly it seems it's the age of the Dreadnought.
With T7/2+/5++/6W they are almost impossible to bring down with anything that isn't another Contemptor.
Definitely going to have to put a lot of thought into future Night Lords lists... big terror squad units infiltrating in all with chainglaives and volkite is scary. But is it as scary as Sevatar and termies? Or just taking a bunch of despoilers with heavy chainswords?
Alpharius right now is definitely worth it, he can CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDD things into the enemy and I’m really hoping the abilities he confers aren’t locked to infantry.
regarding who wears what armor.. a Space Marine Legion numbered anywhere from 10,000 to 250,000 marines.
Let us assume, that your average army list is going to have 100 Marines on the table top.
That means it's a TINY FRACTION of the Legion. If the bulk of the Legion is mk IV that doesn't mean they can't have a few hundred stuits of mk VI. people need pull their heads out of their rectum and realize "most common armor mark" does not mean "the only armor mark used!"
AdmiralRon wrote: Quite fitting for the master of disguises. What about Fulgrim?
Edit: Jesus Christ my brain quit out on me with this post lmao
Looking at my handy dandy ver 1. Harry tick leak, fulgrim is an absolute duelist as always, but all emp children that can draw los to him can use his leadership value and you can use more reactions.
kirotheavenger wrote: Honestly it seems it's the age of the Dreadnought.
With T7/2+/5++/6W they are almost impossible to bring down with anything that isn't another Contemptor.
This is also good news for me, as I have 4 contemptors (3 assault cannon/dccw, 1 dual volkite) a volkite deredeo and a double grav bombard leviathan to support my troops.
kirotheavenger wrote: Honestly it seems it's the age of the Dreadnought.
With T7/2+/5++/6W they are almost impossible to bring down with anything that isn't another Contemptor.
This is also good news for me, as I have 4 contemptors (3 assault cannon/dccw, 1 dual volkite) a volkite deredeo and a double grav bombard leviathan to support my troops.
Dreadnoughts have always been really good, but they're now broken-good.
It takes something like 15 lascannon shots to bring down a Contemptor, and they're only ~200pts depending. It's silly.
kirotheavenger wrote: I wouldn't base any plans off of traitor leaks specifically, we only really know one thing about those and that's that they're getting nerfed.
kirotheavenger wrote: Honestly it seems it's the age of the Dreadnought.
With T7/2+/5++/6W they are almost impossible to bring down with anything that isn't another Contemptor.
This is also good news for me, as I have 4 contemptors (3 assault cannon/dccw, 1 dual volkite) a volkite deredeo and a double grav bombard leviathan to support my troops.
Dreadnoughts have always been really good, but they're now broken-good.
It takes something like 15 lascannon shots to bring down a Contemptor, and they're only ~200pts depending. It's silly.
What's the math now on a contemptor based on the leaked statline?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Reposting this from the N&R thread:
For those who have not seen it yet, here is a link to an imgur gallery with a lot of leaked rules pages.
https://imgur.com/a/sRSeyzH
So, going by the release schedule rumours, the launch box will be out early July, with the tacticals and Deimos Rhino coming as separate kits in August.
Since I've changed my mind about the launch box, might as well wait until August for my HH plastic fix, just to see if the separate kit happens to differ from the kits included in the Launch box. I've got no need for 40 tacs anyways, and never was that keen on that Spartan either. Deimos Rhino variants and Proteus Land Raider variants is where it's at for me.
I might buy a couple individual beakies from the launch box, just for getting a sense of the new scale/proportions.
Gert wrote: A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
The models may be yours, the setting isn't, and this is disrespectful. That's exactly the kind of behavior we don't need in 30k. But apparently with this new edition, we are going to get plenty of that
The hh games are tiny skirmishes. More like spec op's than battles. Short of viii you can easily justify any mark as legions are so huge that even rare marks are in ample supply for the tiny forces game is played with
Gert wrote: A simple way to look at it is this:
"Shut up these are My Dudes they have the armour that exists at the time, go lick a hedgehog."
That will solve all your HH armour problems
The models may be yours, the setting isn't, and this is disrespectful. That's exactly the kind of behavior we don't need in 30k. But apparently with this new edition, we are going to get plenty of that
The hh games are tiny skirmishes. More like spec op's than battles. Short of viii you can easily justify any mark as legions are so huge that even rare marks are in ample supply for the tiny forces game is played with
And even then, the Mk8 helmet - called a "sarum pattern" existed (hence why kharn has one), and was fairly standard issue amongst the world eaters and allied traitor forces operating alongside them and using their supplies.
tneva82 wrote: The hh games are tiny skirmishes. More like spec op's than battles. Short of viii you can easily justify any mark as legions are so huge that even rare marks are in ample supply for the tiny forces game is played with
That's not actually true though. HH games are usually larger due to the price difference in unit costs compared to 40k.
For 3 similar lists from HH, 7th Ed 40k and 9th Ed 40k we have as follows:
HH - Centurion (50pts), 2x Legion Tacticals of 10 models (250pts) = 300pts
7th - Captain (90pts), 2x Tactical Squads of 10 models (280pts) = 370pts
9th - Captain (85pts), 2x Tactical Squads of 10 models (360pts) = 445pts
Now obviously different rules come into play here. The Legion Tacticals gain access to Fury of the Legion however, the 40k Tacticals all have Combat Squads meaning that the player's zone control is much more effective. Even so, a 145pt difference between HH and 9th Ed 40k is quite significant. I could add a Tactical Support Squad with Volkite Chargers and an Apothecary to my Legion list to equal out with the 9th Ed one, giving me more killing power and some damage reduction for a unit of my choice. Even with the 70pt difference to 7th Ed there a quite a few units I could throw into the list to give me an advantage.
My 3k list is about 60 infantry with a few supporting officers, dreadnoughts and tanks.
That's about a company level engagement (at best) in modern terms - a pretty small skirmish.
You can definitely justify that an mere company is equipped with Mk.VI (or VII late heresy).
Perhaps analagous to someone running a British Commando army in Bolt Action - they were a tiny minority of the British army, but zooming in on a company entirely composed of Commandos is well within the realms of possibility.
kirotheavenger wrote: My 3k list is about 60 infantry with a few supporting officers, dreadnoughts and tanks.
That's about a company level engagement (at best) in modern terms - a pretty small skirmish.
A Demi Company of Astartes plus armour support is not a skirmish.
Define skirmish, it's not exactly a great set piece battle with tens of thousands of Astartes that you see in the books.
Besides, that's all besides the point anyway. The question is: is it reasonable for an entire army on the tabletop to all be using rare equipment?
The answer is yes, because a single small company is a tiny force.
kirotheavenger wrote: Define skirmish, it's not exactly a great set piece battle with tens of thousands of Astartes that you see in the books.
Irregular combat between light troops or outriders e.g. recon forces or cavalry. Just because it's not Isstvan V in scale doesn't mean it's a skirmish and even then if two players are reenacting a scenario such as the Dropsite Massacre or the Calth Muster, they're fighting a snapshot of the wider battle such as the last stand of Ferrus Manus and Clan Avernii or Ventanus' defence of Leptius Numinus.
Besides, that's all besides the point anyway. The question is: is it reasonable for an entire army on the tabletop to all be using rare equipment?
The answer is yes, because a single small company is a tiny force.
Someone said that Heresy games are all tiny battles, which isn't true so that's why I'm being picky. It's true compared to the entire Heresy or events like the Titandeath but they are notable events for a reason.
Haven't the writers across various rulebooks said that actual tabletop battles usually just represent the 'critical point' of an engagement, with a larger battle occurring off-table all around them?
As kiroththevenger says, the actual tabletop clashes are small in fluff terms even at 3000pt+.
That would make sense - it's about the only way you can justify primarchs and such riding with such tiny elements and the extremely confused array of units a player might be bringing in anything approaching realistic terms.
kirotheavenger wrote: They are tiny battles - a company engagement is a tiny battle as far as battles go.
Again compared to the likes of the Dropsite Massacre or the Titandeath yes 60 Marines with a bunch of armour is small. But relative to a skirmish battle it is large. A skirmish is akin to what we see with Victory is Vengeance (the HH version of KT) where a small number of troops are engaged in irregular combat on the fringes of a wider battle.
There is also a distinct difference between skirmish tactics and a skirmish battle. Skirmish tactics were employed by non-line troops, in the ancient world these were slingers or javelineers and in the Napoleonic era, these were troops like the British riflemen or French Voltigeurs (i.e. most of what you see in Sharpe). The advent of modern warfare during and after WW1 meant that line troops were eliminated and all soldiers were trained in skirmish tactics and skirmishing became a way to denote small-scale engagements that were irregular i.e. ambushes or raids.
So an army consisting of a Praetor, two supporting officers, 60 Astartes, 3 Dreadnoughts, and 2 Land Raiders is not a skirmish force and it is not a skirmish battle as the opposing side will have at least an equal number of troops.
Gert, I don't know what point you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing against thin air.
You're going off about HH armies vs 40k armies and skirmish-tactics vs line-tactics. Just why?
I don't share your definition of skirmish, but whether or not a game of 40k is a "skirmish" is irrelevant to the point so I didn't oppose the definition you gave earlier.
I've granted you that these are "battles" not "skirmishes" but it doesn't change a single thing about the point of discussion.
60 Astartes is easily small enough that you could justify them all using rare equipment.
kirotheavenger wrote: Gert, I don't know what point you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing against thin air.
You're going off about HH armies vs 40k armies and skirmish-tactics vs line-tactics. Just why?
I don't share your definition of skirmish, but whether or not a game of 40k is a "skirmish" is irrelevant to the point so I didn't oppose the definition you gave earlier.
I've granted you that these are "battles" not "skirmishes" but it doesn't change a single thing about the point of discussion.
60 Astartes is easily small enough that you could justify them all using rare equipment.
One poster said HH battles were tiny skirmishes. I said no that's not true. You said they are skirmishes and I provided you with the actual definitions of what a skirmisher is and what a skirmish battle is considered to be.
There doesn't need to be justification for anyone using MkVI because as it has been explicitly made clear in this last week, it's always been there and anyone arguing against it is a mushroom brain.
Gert wrote: Someone said that Heresy games are all tiny battles, which isn't true so that's why I'm being picky. It's true compared to the entire Heresy or events like the Titandeath but they are notable events for a reason.
Alright, since it seems you do understand the point that was made just and are just making a point of ignoring it, now we know that I can humour your argument.
How large is a "tiny battle" in your definition - because by my definition ~60 marines + a little support is tiny.
I looked up the size of all the small battles I could think of in WW2 - all of them are multiple times larger than a 3k game of HH.
St Nazaire, Point Du Hoc, Villiers Bocage, St Mere Eglise.
I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!
It is far closer in size to engagements like Brecourt Manor which are explictly remembered as skirmishes.
I also took the liberty of getting the actual dictionary definition of skirmish, rather than Gert's own.
Google wrote:an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
.
40k battles are definitely a short "episode", they're pretty irregular with random units drawn from across their legion, and just 60+support is a small force.
Cambridge wrote:a fight between a small number of soldiers that is usually short and not planned, and happens away from the main area of fighting in a war
Again, I say it's a small group of soldiers, they're definitely short, and you only start to plan minutes before when you see the terrain.
Meriam Webster wrote:a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements
In the schemes of a legion 60+support is definitely a minor fight, and we both agree they're nothing compared to the large movements like Istvaan.
So I'm confident in saying that the battles on the tabletop fit the definition of a Skirmish.
And I certainly don't think you're as vindicated in your position as you seem to think.
kirotheavenger wrote: Alright, since it seems you do understand the point that was made just and are just making a point of ignoring it, now we know that I can humour your argument.
I didn't ignore it, it was a different discussion because I don't see the need to continue the MkVI one yet again.
How large is a "tiny battle" in your definition - because by my definition ~60 marines + a little support is tiny.
I looked up the size of all the small battles I could think of in WW2 - all of them are multiple times larger than a 3k game of HH.
St Nazaire, Point Du Hoc, Villiers Bocage, St Mere Eglise.
I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!
I would define skirmish before battle, which I (and most others) would define as something between 10 and 30 troops at most in the entire engagement, not just on one side. We also have to consider the difference between Astartes and a mortal army like Solar Auxilia or Militia. In a very very crude example, a battle between an Astartes force and a mortal force is more akin to Rorke's Drift i.e. (140ish British regulars vs 3-4k Zulus). Maybe not exactly that of course but it's the same kind of scale of a more militarily and technologically advanced army against a more numerous but inferiorly equipped and trained army. So it might well be you only have 60 Astartes with 3 supporting vehicles and 3 officers but your enemy could have upwards of 120 mortal troops, 10 or more supporting vehicles, and a command cadre of 15 soldiers.
Also, Quora can be useful but it took me no time at all to find battles in WW2 that weren't fought between 1000s of troops.
It is far closer in size to engagements like Brecourt Manor which are explictly remembered as skirmishes.
That was 23 US paras and 60 Wehrmacht soldiers. That's actually a skirmish using skirmisher tactics to overwhelm and confuse a larger enemy force.
I also took the liberty of getting the actual dictionary definition of skirmish, rather than Gert's own.
Google wrote:an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
.
40k battles are definitely a short "episode", they're pretty irregular with random units drawn from across their legion, and just 60+support is a small force.
A couple of things:
- I used that definition as the basis for mine and it is not accurate to your definition.
- Time in 40k games is not a concept that is known, you have no basis but your own opinion to base this point on.
- Where are you getting the idea that every single HH player's army is a collection of random units? Unless we're discussing the Shattered Legions (who are still largely organised by Legion or Company), Blackshields (who are organised by loyalty to individuals) and even in those cases, armies in HH don't just go "Send in these 3 squads from the 88th Company, 5 Dreadnoughts from the 3rd, 9th and 104th and get that dude from the 12th to lead them". In fact, the only time that happened was at Isstvan III and even then Tarvitz and Loken organised their forces into a cohesive structure that was able to resist the Traitors for some time until Horus got mad, sent in the Dies Irae, and then nuked the planet again.
Cambridge wrote:a fight between a small number of soldiers that is usually short and not planned, and happens away from the main area of fighting in a war
Again, I say it's a small group of soldiers, they're definitely short, and you only start to plan minutes before when you see the terrain.
You are confusing real-life planning with in-universe planning and also forgetting that Game =/= Background.
Meriam Webster wrote:a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements
In the schemes of a legion 60+support is definitely a minor fight, and we both agree they're nothing compared to the large movements like Istvaan.
Again, the Istvaan events being in the absolute minority with upwards of 1 million Astartes present.
So I'm confident in saying that the battles on the tabletop fit the definition of a Skirmish.
And I certainly don't think you're as vindicated in your position as you seem to think.
You've made more than a few erroneous assumptions on your part with regard to the passage of time within the game, the fact that the game itself does not always accurately reflect the background, and the constant misuse of exceptional events as common, among others.
I notice that both of those battles are substantially larger than your average 3k game, although exactly how large is hard to say as exact combatant numbers aren't given.
Bear in mind you're not just saying battles can be as small as ~3k points, you're saying ~3k points is normal for a battle.
I would define skirmish before battle, which I (and most others) would define as...
That's just a little presumptuous, any source for that?
It is far closer in size to engagements like Brecourt Manor which are explictly remembered as skirmishes.
That was 23 US paras and 60 Wehrmacht soldiers. That's actually a skirmish using skirmisher tactics to overwhelm and confuse a larger enemy force.
That's literally my point that it's a skirmish, I don't see what point you're trying to make here.
The point is 23/60 guys is far closer to what you see in 3k than the 1-2 battalions a side of guys in the battles you linked above.
you have no basis but your own opinion to base this point on.
Indeed I do - sound familiar? It should because you have but the same basis!
- Where are you getting the idea that every single HH player's army is a collection of random units? Unless we're discussing the Shattered Legions (who are still largely organised by Legion or Company), Blackshields (who are organised by loyalty to individuals) and even in those cases, armies in HH don't just go "Send in these 3 squads from the 88th Company, 5 Dreadnoughts from the 3rd, 9th and 104th and get that dude from the 12th to lead them". In fact, the only time that happened was at Isstvan III and even then Tarvitz and Loken organised their forces into a cohesive structure that was able to resist the Traitors for some time until Horus got mad, sent in the Dies Irae, and then nuked the planet again.
because that's what you commonly see.
Here's some tacticals, couple dreadnoughts, some terminators, Spartan with some of the primarch's personal bodyguard, vindicator and sicaran, grab some Destroyers as well, throw in a scorpius and a Basilisk whilst we're at it.
Cambridge wrote:a fight between a small number of soldiers that is usually short and not planned, and happens away from the main area of fighting in a war
Again, I say it's a small group of soldiers, they're definitely short, and you only start to plan minutes before when you see the terrain.
You are confusing real-life planning with in-universe planning and also forgetting that Game =/= Background.
We're literally talking about the game. If you want to pull out the "background" we established above that a game of 40k might be considered a pivotal moment in a larger battle.
Meriam Webster wrote:a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements
In the schemes of a legion 60+support is definitely a minor fight, and we both agree they're nothing compared to the large movements like Istvaan.
Again, the Istvaan events being in the absolute minority with upwards of 1 million Astartes present.
You're really missing the woods for the trees there ain't ya.
It's not just Istvaan, there's a million examples I could pull from the books and they're all significantly more than 60 marines plus some support.
Actual on the table scalewise HH, and 40k, aren't small engagements but thematically they absolutely are. I'm not sure what's hard to grasp about that?
kirotheavenger wrote: I notice that both of those battles are substantially larger than your average 3k game, although exactly how large is hard to say as exact combatant numbers aren't given.
Those were examples of battles that were smaller than hundreds of thousands of soldiers you seemed to think didn't exist.
Bear in mind you're not just saying battles can be as small as ~3k points, you're saying ~3k points is normal for a battle.
No, I'm saying a 3k game isn't a skirmish, and tangentially yes 3k games are the average for HH since it allows the bells and whistles everyone likes while helping to represent the scale of the conflict.
That's just a little presumptuous, any source for that?
The definitions of skirmish, the discussions I've had with my gaming group, the AoS supplement called Skirmish that focused on about 10 models per player, Kill Team which is specifically billed as the skirmish game of 40k, Infinity being defined as a skirmish game where it seems to focus on about 10-20 miniatures. Do I go on?
The point is 23/60 guys is far closer to what you see in 3k than the 1-2 battalions a side of guys in the battles you linked above.
It's closer to 40k but not necessarily HH, especially at higher point levels.
You seem to be under the impression that I think no HH games can be skirmish level, which is not what I am saying at all. You can do a skirmish size game in HH, the system just doesn't support it well and you would be better using the Victory is Vengeance subgame.
Indeed I do - sound familiar? It should because you have but the same basis!
The difference being the exact point I was referring to is entirely based on opinion, unlike mine which are based on fact and definition.
because that's what you commonly see.
Here's some tacticals, couple dreadnoughts, some terminators, Spartan with some of the primarch's personal bodyguard, vindicator and sicaran, grab some Destroyers as well, throw in a scorpius and a Basilisk whilst we're at it.
So the only things there that would be specifically outside of a Legion Company would be the Primarch and their bodyguard (although not necessarily as they could be an honour guard chosen from veterans of the Company). So no, not random at all.
We're literally talking about the game. If you want to pull out the "background" we established above that a game of 40k might be considered a pivotal moment in a larger battle.
You can't bring up in-universe examples of battles and not expect me to also use the background as a basis for my arguments.
You're really missing the woods for the trees there ain't ya.
It's not just Istvaan, there's a million examples I could pull from the books and they're all significantly more than 60 marines plus some support.
Are they campaigns or individual engagements? Because the latter makes up the former and that is generally what games of HH represent.
I think the point being made is that sure, you can view a tabletop HH game as a tiddly tiny skirmish OR as the vital flash point of a wider engagement, AND BOTH OF THESE ARE VALID.
I remember playing Epic about 20 years ago, and that helped me understand the scale of most 40K games. A one-turn firefight between two small detachments within a larger Epic game is our six-turn game of 40K.
Those were examples of battles that were smaller than hundreds of thousands of soldiers you seemed to think didn't exist.
What on earth gave you the impression I didn't think they exist?
The closest I can think that would give that impression is when I said this...
Kiro wrote:I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!
Emphasis my own. I think that actually makes it clear I do believe smaller battles exist!
Bear in mind you're not just saying battles can be as small as ~3k points, you're saying ~3k points is normal for a battle.
No, I'm saying a 3k game isn't a skirmish, and tangentially yes 3k games are the average for HH since it allows the bells and whistles everyone likes while helping to represent the scale of the conflict.
You didn't just say it wasn't a skirmish, you also said it wasn't a "tiny battle".
That's just a little presumptuous, any source for that?
The definitions of skirmish, the discussions I've had with my gaming group, the AoS supplement called Skirmish that focused on about 10 models per player, Kill Team which is specifically billed as the skirmish game of 40k, Infinity being defined as a skirmish game where it seems to focus on about 10-20 miniatures. Do I go on?
Well for a start I provided three different definitions of Skirmish and not one of them defined it as 20-30 guys tops.
If you're talking about skirmish games that's a very different thing. Skirmish games are where one model if a unit unto themselves, which then shakes out as a dozen or so miniatures in total. A separate concept to skirmishes as a military conflict.
The point is 23/60 guys is far closer to what you see in 3k than the 1-2 battalions a side of guys in the battles you linked above.
It's closer to 40k but not necessarily HH, especially at higher point levels.
You seem to be under the impression that I think no HH games can be skirmish level, which is not what I am saying at all. You can do a skirmish size game in HH, the system just doesn't support it well and you would be better using the Victory is Vengeance subgame.
I get the distinct impression you're not here to have an honest argument. I make a deliberate effort to specify "~3k" and you still respond like I'm saying no HH games can be skirmishes?
If you want to have this discussion read and understand what I say otherwise we're not going anywhere.
Indeed I do - sound familiar? It should because you have but the same basis!
The difference being the exact point I was referring to is entirely based on opinion, unlike mine which are based on fact and definition.
What facts and definitions might that be?
Last I counted I was the only one that's actually provided any definitions, you've just used Gert's own.
And as far as facts go... even the battles you yourself provided are substantially larger than the battles we play at 3k.
because that's what you commonly see.
Here's some tacticals, couple dreadnoughts, some terminators, Spartan with some of the primarch's personal bodyguard, vindicator and sicaran, grab some Destroyers as well, throw in a scorpius and a Basilisk whilst we're at it.
So the only things there that would be specifically outside of a Legion Company would be the Primarch and their bodyguard (although not necessarily as they could be an honour guard chosen from veterans of the Company). So no, not random at all.
No they're pretty random, you don't see many real life companies mixing different specialisms of infantry and multiple different classes and purposes of tank.
You're really missing the woods for the trees there ain't ya.
It's not just Istvaan, there's a million examples I could pull from the books and they're all significantly more than 60 marines plus some support.
Are they campaigns or individual engagements? Because the latter makes up the former and that is generally what games of HH represent.
Yes individual engagements, they all represent [/i]substantially[/i] more than a single ~3k game of HH.
Do you have any examples of major battles in novels that are just ~3k points?
kirotheavenger wrote: What on earth gave you the impression I didn't think they exist?
The closest I can think that would give that impression is when I said this...
Kiro wrote:I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!
Emphasis my own. I think that actually makes it clear I do believe smaller battles exist!
It doesn't, it makes it look like you went on Quora and found stuff that supported your idea that a skirmish is a battle with hundreds of combatants.
You didn't just say it wasn't a skirmish, you also said it wasn't a "tiny battle".
It's not a "tiny battle", it is an average size battle between Demi-Company or greater size formations of Astartes or mortal/Mechanicum equivilants. It would be tiny compared to a campaign with 10k Astartes on each side but there is a significant difference between a campaign and an individual engagement, something you seem unable to understand.
Well for a start I provided three different definitions of Skirmish and not one of them defined it as 20-30 guys tops.
If you're talking about skirmish games that's a very different thing. Skirmish games are where one model if a unit unto themselves, which then shakes out as a dozen or so miniatures in total. A separate concept to skirmishes as a military conflict.
No, it isn't, they are exactly the same thing. If it's a skirmish wargame then how is the definition different from that of the military definition? And again to go back to the definitions where it is specified that a skirmish is a engagement of irregular (which BTW does not mean random but rather units that engage in indirect or asymmetrical warfare) or unpremeditated (as in two forces suddenly coming upon one another by accident) fighting between small or outlying parts of an army. How is the greater part of an Astartes Company with armour support small in any context but the deployment of a huge force such as a full Chapter?
I get the distinct impression you're not here to have an honest argument. I make a deliberate effort to specify "~3k" and you still respond like I'm saying no HH games can be skirmishes?
If you want to have this discussion read and understand what I say otherwise we're not going anywhere.
Quite the opposite, it seems you keep insisting every HH game is a skirmish.
What facts and definitions might that be?
Last I counted I was the only one that's actually provided any definitions, you've just used Gert's own.
And as far as facts go... even the battles you yourself provided are substantially larger than the battles we play at 3k.
You're choosing to ignore the fact that the comment was based on you stating games of HH were within a specific timescale. You made something up and I called it nonsense. The definitions you provided are perfectly fine, you just aren't applying them to HH properly and using your personal opinion as fact whereas I am not.
No they're pretty random, you don't see many real life companies mixing different specialisms of infantry and multiple different classes and purposes of tank.
This isn't real life and you are objectively wrong in this instance. Maybe do some research into the way armies work in HH before you make another utterly wrong statement.
Yes individual engagements, they all represent [/i]substantially[/i] more than a single ~3k game of HH.
Do you have any examples of major battles in novels that are just ~3k points?
Alexis Polux's boarding of the Contrador, Amandus Tyr's boarding of the Iron Blood, the boarding of the Furious Abyss, the Daemonic incursion on the Maccrages Honour, Saul Tarvitz and Lucius's defeat of Charmosian on Istvaan III, Autek Mor's assault on Bodt's spaceport, Ferrus Manus's last stand on Istvaan V, etc.
You seem to not understand the difference between a campaign and an individual engagement within that campaign.
I'm done having this discussion with you. You've made a bunch of claims based on incorrect facts or personal opinions and tbh I'm sick of this.
tauist wrote: The origins of Horus Heresy come from 1st edition Space Marine, a game in 6mm epic scale in which all the marines were MkVI. Get off my lawn.
It is you HH only players who are eating up retconned lore from my days
(Its OK, I'll still play your dudes, regardless of armour Mk)
What I was going to say! Mk6 is the original Horus Heresy mark of armour, thanks to the first Space Marine boxset, as far as I am concerned
Technically it was the original mark of armor for the HH and 40k. As there was no other.
Also the illustrations in Index Astartes Books from c. 2002 gave the impression and implied that the MkVI war the most common armour for most of the legions during the Heresy, except some exceptions (WE had MkV, DG MkIII ect.).
Part of me really wants to do my Ultramarines in the old style with bright red bolters, blue armor, and goblin green bases. I do have the Coat d'Arms Marines Blue paint, but it's just not my style of painting to be quite that bright and clean. And I'm not that good enough to pull it off.
Yeah the old school bright 90s style of painting is really hard to do in a way that doesn't look excessively gaudy. I mean let's face it, it's going to look gaudy but there's certainly a limit
In the "Space Marine '89" style, the UM woud have black Bolter Cases like every other legion alsa has, so I don't see the problem about painting bolter cases red.
Funny that the Death Guard was lighter than the White Scars.
That Illustration is missing the Emperors Children in a pink scheme. As I know other legions weren't listed.
The lore behind Mk.VI has sort of done a yo-yo move.
Come the launch of HH as it's own spin-off game in late 6th I think it was established in the books that Mk.VI was rare.
This contradicted earlier fluff, but that earlier fluff was established in the wild west early days of 40k, a lot of it got changed.
That's why even though it was canon once, people take Mk.VI to be a canonically rare armour and the last retcon (back to the origins as it may be) uncouth.
Another layer of the story that can't go unmentioned is that the original version of MKVI lore was established for far longer than the 2014 retcon has been.
I believe that was done before armour marks were established in the same way that they are now.
It's not necessarily a mistake, rather times have changed.
tneva82 wrote: The hh games are tiny skirmishes. More like spec op's than battles. Short of viii you can easily justify any mark as legions are so huge that even rare marks are in ample supply for the tiny forces game is played with
That's not actually true though. HH games are usually larger due to the price difference in unit costs compared to 40k.
For 3 similar lists from HH, 7th Ed 40k and 9th Ed 40k we have as follows:
HH - Centurion (50pts), 2x Legion Tacticals of 10 models (250pts) = 300pts
7th - Captain (90pts), 2x Tactical Squads of 10 models (280pts) = 370pts
9th - Captain (85pts), 2x Tactical Squads of 10 models (360pts) = 445pts
Now obviously different rules come into play here. The Legion Tacticals gain access to Fury of the Legion however, the 40k Tacticals all have Combat Squads meaning that the player's zone control is much more effective. Even so, a 145pt difference between HH and 9th Ed 40k is quite significant. I could add a Tactical Support Squad with Volkite Chargers and an Apothecary to my Legion list to equal out with the 9th Ed one, giving me more killing power and some damage reduction for a unit of my choice. Even with the 70pt difference to 7th Ed there a quite a few units I could throw into the list to give me an advantage.
Oo gee. Couple dozen guy when actual real battles would be in their thousands. Woooooooooo! SOOOO HUGE! You have 50 marines there! I'M SO IMPRESSED! And then actual battle involves more like 10000 marines and aux stuff. Have fun with your 50 marines.
Seriously do you have any idea of scale of battles? 50 guys would be tiny blip in the battlefield. 200 would be tiny blib.
Get back claiming your HH games represent something actual skirmish rather than spec op when you have 4 digit # of guys on one side.
kirotheavenger wrote: I believe that was done before armour marks were established in the same way that they are now.
It's not necessarily a mistake, rather times have changed.
We had the Marks in the 1st and 2nd Edition, but in the Index Astartes Books (late 3rd Edition) their types are only named as "Crusade Armour", "Corvus Armour" ect. while Bolter types are named as MkI or MkII.
