JesusFreak wrote: Just wondering if there have been any noticeable changes since HH 2.0 dropped in your area?
Mostly referring to army lists here...
A big change in my group has been blokes are now running 3 contemptors and 2 leviathans in virtually every list. I have mixed thoughts on that.
My condolences, sounds like a tough community. I don't think you are isolated in that though, probably see that in a lot of the more competitive communities.
JesusFreak wrote: A big change in my group has been blokes are now running 3 contemptors and 2 leviathans in virtually every list. I have mixed thoughts on that.
Christ... That sounds horrific.
Out of curiosity, where in Oz are you based? I know one of the (admittedly few) local power gamers has added a 2nd Exodus to his list and just about everything that can take Nemesis bolters now has them. But he's in a thankfully small minority.
JesusFreak wrote: Just wondering if there have been any noticeable changes since HH 2.0 dropped in your area?
Mostly referring to army lists here...
A big change in my group has been blokes are now running 3 contemptors and 2 leviathans in virtually every list. I have mixed thoughts on that.
Seems to be zero restraint in your group. This was about to happen with dreadnoughts becoming mcs. How about having a chat with your mates about this TFG-behaviour?
JesusFreak wrote: Just wondering if there have been any noticeable changes since HH 2.0 dropped in your area?
Mostly referring to army lists here...
A big change in my group has been blokes are now running 3 contemptors and 2 leviathans in virtually every list. I have mixed thoughts on that.
I wish I could answer, but no one is playing because nobody can get the models they want for their armies. Lots of building and painting going on, but basically zero games in my hood.
Definitely seeing more Dreadnoughts and conversion beamers, but nothing broken or "here are my three dreadnought talons". Also more heavy weapons squads based on their ability to react, and augury scanners/searchlights are compulsory when available.
I'm thinking 3 dreads, a javelin or two, and some heavy weapon squads with lascannons. Not sure what's wrong with that, I just like dreadnought models and guys with lascannons
JesusFreak wrote: A big change in my group has been blokes are now running 3 contemptors and 2 leviathans in virtually every list. I have mixed thoughts on that.
Christ... That sounds horrific.
Out of curiosity, where in Oz are you based? I know one of the (admittedly few) local power gamers has added a 2nd Exodus to his list and just about everything that can take Nemesis bolters now has them. But he's in a thankfully small minority.
i'm in Brisbane, mate. The guys in my group are...i think its fair to say - rather competitive and play hard.
JesusFreak wrote: i'm in Brisbane, mate. The guys in my group are...i think its fair to say - rather competitive and play hard.
Ah I see, i'm in Melbourne. We have a substantial 30k scene here and for the overwhelming most part, people are happy to play easy going and/or narrative based, barring a few minor exceptions.
Are other game systems equally competitive there or is it just your particular group?
Sadly, we do not have many regular 30K players, however when i do get the odd game in since i own all the 1.0 books i am not switching over. current GW once again destroys everything they touch.
I have a bunch of options but generally ( i play salamanders) i run Cassian Draco, a doredeo, a land raider achillies, a storm eagle, some tactical support troops with volkite weapons, an assault squad, and a techmarine- sometimes i swap a whirlwind scorpius, or a melta cannon predator or a contemptor mortis dread
On a side note, we are a very casual group who play loads of different game systems (on average i bring 6 with me for game night), so we do not use hull points because we all agreed they are dumb.
The meta favours dreadnoughts, terminators stuff that hasn't been rendered terrible in terms of its AP. 1.0 for all it's faults seems to handle itself better as a combined arms turn based wargame. 2.0 is just the sick dream of someone who loves dreads and hates templates
Crablezworth wrote: The meta favours dreadnoughts, terminators stuff that hasn't been rendered terrible in terms of its AP. 1.0 for all it's faults seems to handle itself better as a combined arms turn based wargame. 2.0 is just the sick dream of someone who loves dreads and hates templates
Crablezworth wrote: The meta favours dreadnoughts, terminators stuff that hasn't been rendered terrible in terms of its AP. 1.0 for all it's faults seems to handle itself better as a combined arms turn based wargame. 2.0 is just the sick dream of someone who loves dreads and hates templates
Crablezworth wrote: The meta favours dreadnoughts, terminators stuff that hasn't been rendered terrible in terms of its AP. 1.0 for all it's faults seems to handle itself better as a combined arms turn based wargame. 2.0 is just the sick dream of someone who loves dreads and hates templates
1.0 is dead. 2.0 train choochoo
Doubt.
Damn, I have played the last twenty years 2nd 40K. If GW only knew I played a dead game they would have send their goons to my place in order to set my battle bible on fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: The meta favours dreadnoughts, terminators stuff that hasn't been rendered terrible in terms of its AP. 1.0 for all it's faults seems to handle itself better as a combined arms turn based wargame. 2.0 is just the sick dream of someone who loves dreads and hates templates
Calling it now:
HH 3.0 will turn MBT into monstrous creatures and dreadnoughts regain their vehicle profiles. Then I will drink the salty tears of everybody who heavily invested into a one-trick pony dreadnought force!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Vehicles are hilariously non-viable. You can shut down an entire armored company turn 1 with a heavy support squad and some kheres assault cannons.
It truly is the contemptors and infantry edition.
Or just...give dreadnoughts their vehicle profile back. Then everybody will be happy again.
This thread is about meta changes since 2.0 dropped, not homebrew.
My group plays 30k at NOVA, and as such they play 30k as they'll play it at NOVA (differs per event but usually Zone Mortalis, or Centurion). Even if I suggested that we make up our own houserules, it still wouldn't fly because they wouldn't be able to play NOVA using the ruleset they're familiar with.
AND! If we implemented that houserule, then it would make Contemptors useless, too. Who would be happy? The people running pure infantry?
Certainly wouldn't help the people running vehicles OR contemptors.
Think for one second, please. If you're going to present an idea so sanctimoniously at least make it a good idea.
Calling it now:
HH 3.0 will turn MBT into monstrous creatures and dreadnoughts regain their vehicle profiles. Then I will drink the salty tears of everybody who heavily invested into a one-trick pony dreadnought force!
lol, it really is a weird change tho, like especially seeing as mc's were one of the only sticky parts of 7th/30k and they go the other way on it. A bit like making javelins cavalry for no reason, I've never wanted a javelin to fight in cc ever, Just baffling direction to go.
Rihgu wrote: Vehicles are hilariously non-viable. You can shut down an entire armored company turn 1 with a heavy support squad and some kheres assault cannons.
It truly is the contemptors and infantry edition.
Or just...give dreadnoughts their vehicle profile back. Then everybody will be happy again.
Agreed, they've made dreads better than characters in terms of beat face, people will just do what the points incentivize in many places. Hearing complaints of people running 5 dreads, seems a bit much outside of like iron hands and even then.
Rihgu wrote: This thread is about meta changes since 2.0 dropped, not homebrew.
My group plays 30k at NOVA, and as such they play 30k as they'll play it at NOVA (differs per event but usually Zone Mortalis, or Centurion). Even if I suggested that we make up our own houserules, it still wouldn't fly because they wouldn't be able to play NOVA using the ruleset they're familiar with.
AND! If we implemented that houserule, then it would make Contemptors useless, too. Who would be happy? The people running pure infantry?
Certainly wouldn't help the people running vehicles OR contemptors.
Think for one second, please. If you're going to present an idea so sanctimoniously at least make it a good idea.
What?! You don´t even know what you are talking about. Walkers had vehicle stats since 2nd 40K. Research first before you write such nonsense.
And Contemptors will suck? Maybe SM are the wrong faction for you. I suggest playing Tyranids and you won´t be bothered by any kind of vehicle statline.
Rihgu wrote: This thread is about meta changes since 2.0 dropped, not homebrew.
My group plays 30k at NOVA, and as such they play 30k as they'll play it at NOVA (differs per event but usually Zone Mortalis, or Centurion). Even if I suggested that we make up our own houserules, it still wouldn't fly because they wouldn't be able to play NOVA using the ruleset they're familiar with.
AND! If we implemented that houserule, then it would make Contemptors useless, too. Who would be happy? The people running pure infantry?
Certainly wouldn't help the people running vehicles OR contemptors.
Think for one second, please. If you're going to present an idea so sanctimoniously at least make it a good idea.
What?! You don´t even know what you are talking about. Walkers had vehicle stats since 2nd 40K. Research first before you write such nonsense.
And Contemptors will suck? Maybe SM are the wrong faction for you. I suggest playing Tyranids and you won´t be bothered by any kind of vehicle statline.
I am aware that dreads had vehicle stats before (I have played for a long time myself), but this thread is about how Horus Heresy 2.0 has changed the meta compared to Horus Heresy 1.0. In Horus Heresy 2.0, Contemptors don't have Vehicle stats. Therefore, making Contemptors Vehicles would be a house rule and off topic, and would make the play group's ruleset wholly incompatible with the event most of them play in.
Vehicles are terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0, ergo, making that house rule would make Contemptors terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0. There are no Tyranids in Horus Heresy in 2.0, so this is another laughable suggestion.
You seem like you've stumbled into the wrong thread - are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
JesusFreak wrote: i'm in Brisbane, mate. The guys in my group are...i think its fair to say - rather competitive and play hard.
Ah I see, i'm in Melbourne. We have a substantial 30k scene here and for the overwhelming most part, people are happy to play easy going and/or narrative based, barring a few minor exceptions.
Are other game systems equally competitive there or is it just your particular group?
The blokes i generally play with have blinkers on for 30k only. A couple also play 6th ed Warhammer Fantasy, but not sure how competitive they are as i haven't played them in that system (funny 'cos Fantasy was once my main game). Another guy i game with most regularly, we play current 40k and its just fairly casual/fluffy lists thankfully.
I haven't play HH for a while, but when i watched the group play a 2 v 2 the other weekend, i was really put off by the number of dreads hey - it can't be fun for a newcomer to face!
Just to point out that multiple people ran entirely Dreadnought lists with the RoW at the latest WHW event and none of them won every single game. People will adapt to the changes the new edition has made if they get more than a month and a bit to actually play the game.
Gert wrote: Just to point out that multiple people ran entirely Dreadnought lists with the RoW at the latest WHW event and none of them won every single game. People will adapt to the changes the new edition has made if they get more than a month and a bit to actually play the game.
It's not so much that they're unbeatable for me/my playgroup. It's more that it's an entirely negative play experience win or lose. It's not fun to play into dreads who have defense against every weapon in the game when every other unit type has a weakness to *something*.
The closest thing the contemptor has to a weakness is plasma and it still takes an ungodly investment (that can be shot first) to do it against one, let alone 3,4, 5, 6, etc.
Except Wraithlords/Eldar Dreadnoughts, which went from vehicle stats to Monstrous Creatures between 2nd and 3rd for reasons.
Eldar Dreadnoughts had vehicle stats in 2nd. They gained the monster stat in 3rd because the devs thought Eldar would turn out way too flimsy otherwise.
Rihgu wrote: This thread is about meta changes since 2.0 dropped, not homebrew.
My group plays 30k at NOVA, and as such they play 30k as they'll play it at NOVA (differs per event but usually Zone Mortalis, or Centurion). Even if I suggested that we make up our own houserules, it still wouldn't fly because they wouldn't be able to play NOVA using the ruleset they're familiar with.
AND! If we implemented that houserule, then it would make Contemptors useless, too. Who would be happy? The people running pure infantry?
Certainly wouldn't help the people running vehicles OR contemptors.
Think for one second, please. If you're going to present an idea so sanctimoniously at least make it a good idea.
What?! You don´t even know what you are talking about. Walkers had vehicle stats since 2nd 40K. Research first before you write such nonsense.
And Contemptors will suck? Maybe SM are the wrong faction for you. I suggest playing Tyranids and you won´t be bothered by any kind of vehicle statline.
I am aware that dreads had vehicle stats before (I have played for a long time myself), but this thread is about how Horus Heresy 2.0 has changed the meta compared to Horus Heresy 1.0. In Horus Heresy 2.0, Contemptors don't have Vehicle stats. Therefore, making Contemptors Vehicles would be a house rule and off topic, and would make the play group's ruleset wholly incompatible with the event most of them play in.
Vehicles are terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0, ergo, making that house rule would make Contemptors terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0. There are no Tyranids in Horus Heresy in 2.0, so this is another laughable suggestion.
You seem like you've stumbled into the wrong thread - are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
Vehicles having vehicle stats is the most normal thing in the world and thus perfectly fine. Funny how people always complain when units are terrible but when they are too good like dreads in HH 2.0 everything is fine. Dreads only got the monster stat treatment because marketing wants to sell a lot of dreads during HH 2.0. It´s not rocket science to figure that one out.
And yes you should definitely play Tyranids as your hatred towards vehicles is way off the charts.
I'm not too concerned about dreads as I'm playing Iron Warriors. Lascannon, missile and autocannon heavy supp/havoc squads, along with 3 of my own dreads, I should be able to wipe them off the table while having more board presence.
Except Wraithlords/Eldar Dreadnoughts, which went from vehicle stats to Monstrous Creatures between 2nd and 3rd for reasons.
Eldar Dreadnoughts had vehicle stats in 2nd. They gained the monster stat in 3rd because the devs thought Eldar would turn out way too flimsy otherwise.
Rihgu wrote: This thread is about meta changes since 2.0 dropped, not homebrew.
My group plays 30k at NOVA, and as such they play 30k as they'll play it at NOVA (differs per event but usually Zone Mortalis, or Centurion). Even if I suggested that we make up our own houserules, it still wouldn't fly because they wouldn't be able to play NOVA using the ruleset they're familiar with.
AND! If we implemented that houserule, then it would make Contemptors useless, too. Who would be happy? The people running pure infantry?
Certainly wouldn't help the people running vehicles OR contemptors.
Think for one second, please. If you're going to present an idea so sanctimoniously at least make it a good idea.
What?! You don´t even know what you are talking about. Walkers had vehicle stats since 2nd 40K. Research first before you write such nonsense.
And Contemptors will suck? Maybe SM are the wrong faction for you. I suggest playing Tyranids and you won´t be bothered by any kind of vehicle statline.
I am aware that dreads had vehicle stats before (I have played for a long time myself), but this thread is about how Horus Heresy 2.0 has changed the meta compared to Horus Heresy 1.0. In Horus Heresy 2.0, Contemptors don't have Vehicle stats. Therefore, making Contemptors Vehicles would be a house rule and off topic, and would make the play group's ruleset wholly incompatible with the event most of them play in.
Vehicles are terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0, ergo, making that house rule would make Contemptors terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0. There are no Tyranids in Horus Heresy in 2.0, so this is another laughable suggestion.
You seem like you've stumbled into the wrong thread - are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
Vehicles having vehicle stats is the most normal thing in the world and thus perfectly fine. Funny how people always complain when units are terrible but when they are too good like dreads in HH 2.0 everything is fine. Dreads only got the monster stat treatment because marketing wants to sell a lot of dreads during HH 2.0. It´s not rocket science to figure that one out.
And yes you should definitely play Tyranids as your hatred towards vehicles is way off the charts.
Walkers play better as monsters then they do vehicles. They're more dynamic and they come on round bases. It was always hard to figure out what direction they are actually facing, especially if any hobby effort went into them at all. And they acted different in combat then any other vehicle too
They're overtuned, but, like, that's not because they shifted from vehicles to monsters, but because they gave them stats too close to 9th edition. They need 1 or 2 less wounds or so.
Rihgu wrote: Vehicles are hilariously non-viable. You can shut down an entire armored company turn 1 with a heavy support squad and some kheres assault cannons.
It truly is the contemptors and infantry edition.
This has always been true of 7th edition based rule sets.
Except Wraithlords/Eldar Dreadnoughts, which went from vehicle stats to Monstrous Creatures between 2nd and 3rd for reasons.
Eldar Dreadnoughts had vehicle stats in 2nd. They gained the monster stat in 3rd because the devs thought Eldar would turn out way too flimsy otherwise.
Rihgu wrote: This thread is about meta changes since 2.0 dropped, not homebrew.
My group plays 30k at NOVA, and as such they play 30k as they'll play it at NOVA (differs per event but usually Zone Mortalis, or Centurion). Even if I suggested that we make up our own houserules, it still wouldn't fly because they wouldn't be able to play NOVA using the ruleset they're familiar with.
AND! If we implemented that houserule, then it would make Contemptors useless, too. Who would be happy? The people running pure infantry?
Certainly wouldn't help the people running vehicles OR contemptors.
Think for one second, please. If you're going to present an idea so sanctimoniously at least make it a good idea.
What?! You don´t even know what you are talking about. Walkers had vehicle stats since 2nd 40K. Research first before you write such nonsense.
And Contemptors will suck? Maybe SM are the wrong faction for you. I suggest playing Tyranids and you won´t be bothered by any kind of vehicle statline.
I am aware that dreads had vehicle stats before (I have played for a long time myself), but this thread is about how Horus Heresy 2.0 has changed the meta compared to Horus Heresy 1.0. In Horus Heresy 2.0, Contemptors don't have Vehicle stats. Therefore, making Contemptors Vehicles would be a house rule and off topic, and would make the play group's ruleset wholly incompatible with the event most of them play in.
Vehicles are terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0, ergo, making that house rule would make Contemptors terrible in Horus Heresy 2.0. There are no Tyranids in Horus Heresy in 2.0, so this is another laughable suggestion.
You seem like you've stumbled into the wrong thread - are you sure I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
Vehicles having vehicle stats is the most normal thing in the world and thus perfectly fine. Funny how people always complain when units are terrible but when they are too good like dreads in HH 2.0 everything is fine. Dreads only got the monster stat treatment because marketing wants to sell a lot of dreads during HH 2.0. It´s not rocket science to figure that one out.
And yes you should definitely play Tyranids as your hatred towards vehicles is way off the charts.
Walkers play better as monsters then they do vehicles. They're more dynamic and they come on round bases. It was always hard to figure out what direction they are actually facing, especially if any hobby effort went into them at all. And they acted different in combat then any other vehicle too
They're overtuned, but, like, that's not because they shifted from vehicles to monsters, but because they gave them stats too close to 9th edition. They need 1 or 2 less wounds or so.
It´s not hard to figure out the facing. You just apply a white line at the base rim to show into which direction the model looks. From there you can easily figure out any kinds of LOS areas your group uses (e.g. 90° or 180°).
Walkers are not living creatures and thus shouldn´t be able to move around freely like ordinary infantry. They are supposed to be cumbersome and sluggish like shown in the first Dawn of War video game. What is really obnoxous is the fact that dreads get a saving throw AND an invulnerable save in comparison to vehicles which get none of those. It´s just immersion breaking to see how weaker armoured walkers shrug off shots without issue while tanks with considerable amount of more armour plating struggle.
If HH 2.0 would be a story walkers would benefit from plot-armour (pun intended).
It´s not hard to figure out the facing. You just apply a white line at the base rim to show into which direction the model looks. From there you can easily figure out any kinds of LOS areas your group uses (e.g. 90° or 180°).
Walkers are not living creatures and thus shouldn´t be able to move around freely like ordinary infantry. They are supposed to be cumbersome and sluggish like shown in the first Dawn of War video game. What is really obnoxous is the fact that dreads get a saving throw AND an invulnerable save in comparison to vehicles which get none of those. It´s just immersion breaking to see how weaker armoured walkers shrug off shots without issue while tanks with considerable amount of more armour plating struggle.
If HH 2.0 would be a story walkers would benefit from plot-armour (pun intended).
Exalted and couldn't agree more, it's the dreadnought mary sue edition and it's obnoxious indeed. Dreadnoughts are exactly as the name implies, slow and ponderous, they're not some anime character or spartan 360 no scoping. You see the same silliness with the change of javelins to "cavalry", they're now apparently all seeing in 360 vision and just as likely to want to get into fisticuffs as shoot something... why a high speed attack craft that hover would want or choose to get into close combat or why anyone thought this was an improvement is beyond me.
Strg Alt wrote: Walkers are not living creatures and thus shouldn´t be able to move around freely like ordinary infantry. They are supposed to be cumbersome and sluggish like shown in the first Dawn of War video game.
The same could be said of Terminators - cumbersome and sluggish.
What is really obnoxous is the fact that dreads get a saving throw AND an invulnerable save in comparison to vehicles which get none of those.
Invuln makes sense because the Dreads literally have energy shields - but I agree that vehicles should also have armour saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Dreadnoughts are exactly as the name implies, slow and ponderous, they're not some anime character or spartan 360 no scoping.
Rihgu wrote: Vehicles are hilariously non-viable. You can shut down an entire armored company turn 1 with a heavy support squad and some kheres assault cannons.
It truly is the contemptors and infantry edition.
This has always been true of 7th edition based rule sets.
It's somewhat exacerbated by Lascannons having Sunder, loss of Armoured Ceramite, and a few other things. Like in HH 1.0 my friend could bring an armoured company and I could pretty reliably destroy most of his tanks over the course of the game but at least there was a game. It feels like anti-vehicle has been amped up pretty drastically (making lascannons and melta more effective alone probably accounts for that).
And in return, they don't do nearly any damage back, except against other vehicles.
It's sad that tanks are useless because I would love an Iron Warriors parking lot army. However, I would be crazy to do that because an army of havocs or HS squads is so much more efficient. It's much harder to take out 10 guys than it is to blow up a tank with a lascannon shot. I feel like anyone who takes a bunch of tanks against 3x heavy support squads and 2-3 dreads is going to get tabled. I want to play that game just to see what happens.
Strg Alt wrote: Walkers are not living creatures and thus shouldn´t be able to move around freely like ordinary infantry. They are supposed to be cumbersome and sluggish like shown in the first Dawn of War video game.
The same could be said of Terminators - cumbersome and sluggish.
What is really obnoxous is the fact that dreads get a saving throw AND an invulnerable save in comparison to vehicles which get none of those.
Invuln makes sense because the Dreads literally have energy shields - but I agree that vehicles should also have armour saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Dreadnoughts are exactly as the name implies, slow and ponderous, they're not some anime character or spartan 360 no scoping.
Same can be said of Terminators though.
Sure and deciding to arbitrarily buff them too just because gw wants to sell them in boxes of 10 now isn't helping this edition much either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stratigo wrote: Armored ceramite was just the "Oh you brought melta? You're a fething idiot" upgrade.
It still only justified itself on larger vehicles, not exactly stepping over myself to put in on sabres.
Crablezworth wrote: No, it just renders the more elite legios specific two wound terminators less cool, that's all it does. Healthbar 40k is what killed 8th.
Terminators don't go down to a single wound from small arms fire now. That is objectively a good thing and aligns with their background. That very small pool of Legion-specific Terminators that had 2 wounds still has all their unique rules and equipment that made them desirable in the first place.
Terminators have 2 wounds? That's pretty sweet. I'm against normal Space Marines having 2 wounds, like it is in 9th, but Terminators earned that second wound.
And, as much as I do dislike 9th, it is extremely successful, and I think pretending that it's dead is a fool's errand.
It has been successful in pushing me to other games the same way 7th did... I'm playing Infinity, 30k, about to start AoS, did a Necromunda campaign, finishing my Titanicus battlegroup, basically everything but 40k because the 700 stratagems and constant rules churn are just too much to keep up with. I didn't even have my army painted before my chapter approved was invalidated.
Gert wrote: Its not an arbitrary buff when most Termintor units got mulched way too easily. Terminators getting 2 wounds is entirely justified.
No, it just renders the more elite legios specific two wound terminators less cool, that's all it does. Healthbar 40k is what killed 8th.
The most popular moment the game had ever been up to that point killed it, yep. Totally
It sounds more like you are grumpy your parking lot lists don’t stomp any more.
8th 40K most popular? 8th saw the AOSification of 40K. Tanks shooting bullets from antenna straight through multiple terrain pieces at the opposition is one of it´s most infamous features. Coupled with stupid strategem gotcha mechanics turned it into a laughing stock of a tabletop game.
Strg Alt wrote: 8th 40K most popular? 8th saw the AOSification of 40K. Tanks shooting bullets from antenna straight through multiple terrain pieces at the opposition is one of it´s most infamous features. Coupled with stupid strategem gotcha mechanics turned it into a laughing stock of a tabletop game.
And? Just because you personally didn't like it doesn't mean 8th and 9th aren't massively popular games.
Strg Alt wrote: 8th 40K most popular? 8th saw the AOSification of 40K. Tanks shooting bullets from antenna straight through multiple terrain pieces at the opposition is one of it´s most infamous features. Coupled with stupid strategem gotcha mechanics turned it into a laughing stock of a tabletop game.
And? Just because you personally didn't like it doesn't mean 8th and 9th aren't massively popular games.
Same reason why general pop music is most popular, changes constantly and comes & goes in fads-sell to the lowest common denominator and biggest market=$$$$
GW is a model company first (now) that happens to have a game attached by their own admission. they do not care if the game side is popular/good as long as the models sell, given the brand recognition and market share they are selling loads of models even if you don't see it being played much in your area (almost nobody here plays 9th anymore, most of the former big 9th ed players have switched over to other games)
It's just factually incorrect to say 8th was a dead game when all the evidence points to the contrary, and as much as 9th is in a pit of refuse it's still immensely popular.
HH 1 might chug on in smaller communities and individual friend groups but HH 2 has been well received by the wider community and that's not just because of the cheaper entry point.
Interesting fact: MBT of Mechanicum (Krios) has a AP3 large blast with Breaching. So after gimping most of the legion´s blast templates you will have a rough day trying to reach the Martians´ line on foot. People´s fears about the Mechanicum were true as they are able to mass murder marines at range.
Interesting fact: MBT of Mechanicum (Krios) has a AP3 large blast with Breaching. So after gimping most of the legion´s blast templates you will have a rough day trying to reach the Martians´ line on foot. People´s fears about the Mechanicum were true as they are able to mass murder marines at range.
Interesting, I didn't notice that despite reading two different reviews of the Liber Mechanicum. I believe it should have been explicited more, it is indeed quite interesting to see !
Has my meta changed... well, I have opponents now. For 5 years the meta was very small, I mean it was mainly people who could use their 40k army in both 30k and 40k so Knights but really only the plastic knights and Armigers or custodies or militia using cadians. I was the only marine player. So now I have over 10 marine players. Possibly more!!! So I think that may be the best part!!!
Interesting fact: MBT of Mechanicum (Krios) has a AP3 large blast with Breaching. So after gimping most of the legion´s blast templates you will have a rough day trying to reach the Martians´ line on foot. People´s fears about the Mechanicum were true as they are able to mass murder marines at range.
Josh's army was a hard counter for the death guard though.
not sure if they're fully OP or not, or this was just a big mismatch. I mean, that admech army looked kinda optimized anyways.
I'm still waiting for the upgrade sprue for the heavy weapons box with the lascannons and autocannons. I do have a five-man squad of Marines with missile launchers, but that will be just to tide me over or if I'm low on points while making a list.
I am curious about why the rules were written so that the Mhara Gal reduces the strength of any Gal Vorbak or other Corrupted units within six inches. I can understand why they affect psykers, but why would their presence hurt other daemons?
Yeah I need the MM/HF weapons so I feel for anyone in the same boat.
As for Mhara Gal, maybe that their connection to the material plane is so tenuous/unstable that they affect other daemons connections close by as well?
The Mhara Gal's affect on daemons/Corrupted units is explained in the fluff for it's Accursed ability:
A baleful vortex of empyreal forces is centered upon the accursed Mhara Gal, like a moving sinkhole on the face of reality incarnated into its twisted form, and the echoes of this tormenting force drive even its allies away from it in reeling horror. The radiations of fear and horror that the war machine generates are particularly abhorrent to psykers and even daemonkind, who must shun this warp abomination lest the black fire at its core consume thei soul stuff.
So, basically it's very presence can consume a daemon's "soul stuff".
Gadzilla666 wrote: The Mhara Gal's affect on daemons/Corrupted units is explained in the fluff for it's Accursed ability:
A baleful vortex of empyreal forces is centered upon the accursed Mhara Gal, like a moving sinkhole on the face of reality incarnated into its twisted form, and the echoes of this tormenting force drive even its allies away from it in reeling horror. The radiations of fear and horror that the war machine generates are particularly abhorrent to psykers and even daemonkind, who must shun this warp abomination lest the black fire at its core consume thei soul stuff.
So, basically it's very presence can consume a daemon's "soul stuff".
Currently, the meta around my way seems healthy, with about five of us, running Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, Word Barers, Night Lords and the fifth player not decided on a legion yet lol.
Anyway, our lists are mostly low tier, fairly simple TAC lists for us to learn and improve our game, so we have some self imposed limits of sorts where we can do so. Obviously, we will move into refining lists to our own tastes, but it won't be at the expense of other players as such.
For example, our group is the kind of people that agree that three quad mortars with phosphex shells as one choice in a death Guard list ids strong and fluffy. Having nine in a White Scars list is un fluffy WAACbs.
Toofast wrote: Are quad mortars w phosphex still a problem unit?
Not really
Funnily enough, the Heresy Chat group I'm in is currently clowning on a few members who were notorious when playing HH 1.0 on just running mass pie plates of death, with absolutely zero feths given.
When HH 2.0 nerfed this crap into the ground, oh god their bitching reached critical mass until everyone started to say that at best, their 'lists' were nothing more than spam and was dreadfully unfun to play against.
Toofast wrote: Are quad mortars w phosphex still a problem unit?
Not really
Funnily enough, the Heresy Chat group I'm in is currently clowning on a few members who were notorious when playing HH 1.0 on just running mass pie plates of death, with absolutely zero feths given.
When HH 2.0 nerfed this crap into the ground, oh god their bitching reached critical mass until everyone started to say that at best, their 'lists' were nothing more than spam and was dreadfully unfun to play against.
Reminds me of 40K formations of the past: Buy X unit in excessive amounts to gain Y boon. Next edition formations went the way of the dodo and all those additional units were only good for collecting dust.
Same will happen with dreadnoughts. Now everyone is eager to build a fury of the ancients list but when HH 3.0 will come along it won´t be a valuable option for sure anymore. So what do we learn? Build a sensible TAC list and you won´t be punished by future rule changes nor do you gain the infamous title of TFG in your local group.
I have a confession to make, I just ordered 2 Contemptors (for a full Talon with my starter box one) to go with (run after) my White Scars. My dumb Rite of War prevents me from having any Heavy Support, including the supposedly super speedy Sicaran, but I can have all the footslogging robots I want because ... honestly I think because the author straight up forgot that Dreadnoughts were a separate unit type from Vehicles.
Gert wrote: Or it's because Contemptors are Elites not Heavy. You could say the same thing about Rapiers or Terminators.
Those are actually forced into Reserve. Contemptors are the only slow thing that inexcplicably isn't penalized that I've noticed and it shifts Chogorian Brotherhood from a "things that can keep up with jetbikes" theme to a "we hate tanks for some reason" theme.
Currently our group is working under a "gentleman's agreement" of no more than TWO dreadnaughts of any kind for a game, unless you specify you want to bring more and your aponent can adjust lists accordingly if required.
This has come about due to our Night Lords player with two contemptors and Leviathans had a dreadfully unfun game against our ultramarine player, and did not want to make anyone "go through that stupid OP gak again". Currently we are wondering how they could tone back dreads, and our best guess is certain ranged weapons gaining brutal (x) if the target has the Dreadnaught rule.
Dr. Mills wrote: Currently our group is working under a "gentleman's agreement" of no more than TWO dreadnaughts of any kind for a game, unless you specify you want to bring more and your aponent can adjust lists accordingly if required.
This has come about due to our Night Lords player with two contemptors and Leviathans had a dreadfully unfun game against our ultramarine player, and did not want to make anyone "go through that stupid OP gak again". Currently we are wondering how they could tone back dreads, and our best guess is certain ranged weapons gaining brutal (x) if the target has the Dreadnaught rule.
Personally, I don't think the issue is with the other weapons, but with the dreads. I'd say either drop them to T/S 6, make them sv +3, W5 or *maybe* all three, but I'd play around with them individually before applying multiple. Do the same with the Leviathan, T/S7, Sv +3, W6.
The Main thing is that buffing other guns will have knock-on effects for other, unrelated units that now having to deal with excess brutal (To be fair, your proposal helps this, but can be clunkier and harder to remember than just dropping dread profiles alone), and hitting things like the FotA RoW simply penalizes players that want to run the RoW. Like, it's good no doubt, but it wouldn't be so oppressive if Dreads weren't so tanky.
Crablezworth wrote: So just to confirm, meta is dread heavy and dreads are broken. 1.0 gettin better by the day
Dreads and Gert confirmed broken.
Me too tbh; the Ordo Reductor are basically headcannon for a mechanicum player now.
Oh, and GW decided i have to buy a box of armigers for every knight if i want to field house Col'Khak (thats £400 tax for all ten)
Going to be sticking with original edition.
I mean just anecdotally, the amount of wip shots of 2-3 contemptors and 1-3 leviathans have been uncanny. I'd chalk it up to release being recent, but that doesn't explain the quantities players are buying, unless they're pretending not to notice they're very strong.
Making armigers their own special case unit type seemed like another veer towards 8-9th ways of doing things. Their ability to still be run down is a bit weird, the points are way off though seeing as dreadnoughts will eat their lunch. I honestly can't complain about the tax, but I also cards on the table think knights as a stand alone faction doesn't fit the game well in terms of balance. Much prefer them relegated to like the single lord of war people might run. I can see why the tax messes with that.
Possibly. I don't think that dreadnoughts are a problem, but lots of dreadnoughts can be, as it's a skew list. Maybe a limit based on points? Similar to LoWs, Primarchs, and units with Master of the Legion?
Crablezworth wrote: So just to confirm, meta is dread heavy and dreads are broken. 1.0 gettin better by the day
Dreads and Gert confirmed broken.
Me too tbh; the Ordo Reductor are basically headcannon for a mechanicum player now.
Oh, and GW decided i have to buy a box of armigers for every knight if i want to field house Col'Khak (thats £400 tax for all ten)
Going to be sticking with original edition.
All knights armies don’t deserve to play normal games
Worth noting that i never had to ask anyone for 30k games using my knights; every game i played with them my opponent wanted a game against them.
Fair point, I would only counter that being able to at least make a list knowing you're facing them would do a lot of warm people to the concept. That wasn't and hasn't been the case at least here, historically.
Possibly. I don't think that dreadnoughts are a problem, but lots of dreadnoughts can be, as it's a skew list. Maybe a limit based on points? Similar to LoWs, Primarchs, and units with Master of the Legion?
I think 1-2. probably not the end of the world, but the list with 4-5, could see how that'd be frustrating, especially if the rest of the list is terminator heavy.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Possibly. I don't think that dreadnoughts are a problem, but lots of dreadnoughts can be, as it's a skew list. Maybe a limit based on points? Similar to LoWs, Primarchs, and units with Master of the Legion?
Honestly, I'm chalking a lot of the complaints up to:
1 - Getting used to the new system compared to either HH 1 or 9th.
2 - Not being able to get the things to kill Dreads because it's not in stock or isn't out yet.
I'd say 2 is the bigger issue right now because the cost factor is now massively mitigated for getting the unit people are having trouble beating and the things to resolve the issue are still largely FW.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Possibly. I don't think that dreadnoughts are a problem, but lots of dreadnoughts can be, as it's a skew list. Maybe a limit based on points? Similar to LoWs, Primarchs, and units with Master of the Legion?
Honestly, I'm chalking a lot of the complaints up to:
1 - Getting used to the new system compared to either HH 1 or 9th.
2 - Not being able to get the things to kill Dreads because it's not in stock or isn't out yet.
I'd say 2 is the bigger issue right now because the cost factor is now massively mitigated for getting the unit people are having trouble beating and the things to resolve the issue are still largely FW.
Yeah, I can see that:
1: HH2.0 leans a lot towards suppressing units, instead of outright destroying them, which is a bit different for many people (especially if they're coming from 9th). However......
2: Most of the stuff capable of efficiently suppressing, let alone killing, dreadnoughts is still in resin, and most of it is out of stock, or doesn't have rules available yet (North America release for Liber Mechanicum when?). Might help once those plastic Predators hit the table with some Neutron Blasters (those were one of the weapons in the kit, right?).
Autocannons aren't available yet either. We're definitely in the growing pains stage of the game and a lot of the issues are very much based around not being able to buy stuff.
SirDonlad wrote: If only there were some way of playing with a model that doesn't have the right armament physically represented.
It's a fair criticism tho, we've already had one thread complaining about people dropping out because of the lag in releases and it was a fair point, I would have thought the weapons packs would be the first things released along side the starter.
Nobody said it was a mark of shame though. Some people only play with painted models or don't like to proxy, there's nothing shameful about that it's just personal preference.
Gert wrote: Nobody said it was a mark of shame though. Some people only play with painted models or don't like to proxy, there's nothing shameful about that it's just personal preference.
SirDonlad wrote: If only there were some way of playing with a model that doesn't have the right armament physically represented.
It's not this - literally if a spartan with 10 lascannons cannot kill a SINGLE Contemptor, you know there is an error somewhere, and it's not the spartan.
If 4 dreads can push the balance all to hell in a 2500pts game, the all dread lists must be awful.
Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.
Gert wrote: Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.
They literally used shorter game length with pure progressive scoring. Kind of a completely different game from the kill-point fest of up to 7 turns that most of the core missions offer.
Very different variables to determine success, and disingenuous to try and pass one off as the other
All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.
Toofast wrote: All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.
So like war?
The alamo with progressive scoring isn't a good indication of the end result. It'd also be a bti rich of the mexican forces to accuse the other side of "camping".
Toofast wrote: All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.
The main issue with the core missions is that in addition to being able to contest the objectives last turn, is that they almost all oddly incentivize kill points.
I had a game playing the progressive scoring mission a couple weeks back; we ended up scoring more points through the secondary killing related objectives than the primary lol. The objectives being no-mans, scoring at the start of the turn, and contesting make for a pretty low amount of primary points unless you infiltrate onto all of them. And I guess you can just win off turn 1 with that alone if you go first and they don't manage to contest them/shoot you off.
Toofast wrote: All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.
The main issue with the core missions is that in addition to being able to contest the objectives last turn, is that they almost all oddly incentivize kill points.
I had a game playing the progressive scoring mission a couple weeks back; we ended up scoring more points through the secondary killing related objectives than the primary lol. The objectives being no-mans, scoring at the start of the turn, and contesting make for a pretty low amount of primary points unless you infiltrate onto all of them. And I guess you can just win off turn 1 with that alone if you go first and they don't manage to contest them/shoot you off.
I have run into this as well and it makes it very odd to deal with the objective.
Truth be told i had this conversation with a buddy of mine i play with. HH2.0 gives me big BIG AoS 1.0 vibes, which with the rumor that it was written by the AoS team kinda makes sense.
It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.
Akin to AoS 1.0, there are a lot of head scratching with missions, just like AoS 1.0, and there is a seemingly lacking depth to rule clarification and what if situations once more very akin to AoS, and mostly centered around pysker powers i have found, along with some potential game breaking things involving melee and being able to basically throw a sacrifical model at a charging enemy unit and get out of combat automatically with out needing to regroup.
"Incredibly proud to have developed the new edition of the Horus Heresy game system, and congrats to all the team at Games Workshop who worked alongside me on this. What a fantastic announce trailer!"
It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.
Why did consumers just have to pay for this if 1.0 just needed some fixing and instead we got this... which needs fixing?
I dunno, personally progressive scoring/kill points just isn't good. It's not good for balance and it isn't a good indication of anything.
3-5 objectives, allowed to be placed by both players, with really basic secondaries that come nowhere close in vp count just works best imo. Basically old school crusade, 3-5 objectives, works really well.
Toofast wrote: I wouldn't let the AoS team design the maze on the back of a cereal box.
That's funny. Every time I look at the 40k rules and current 30k rules, I think to myself "I wish the AoS team worked on this. They have a much better grasp on what they're trying to do and how to execute it."
Which would be even more funny if it IS the AoS team. If so, they should stick to AoS. I'd guess, if that were the case, that they were somewhat constrained by having to stick to a semblance of the 1.0 rules and weren't allowed to flex enough to make it work.
Gert wrote: Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.
They literally used shorter game length with pure progressive scoring. Kind of a completely different game from the kill-point fest of up to 7 turns that most of the core missions offer.
Very different variables to determine success, and disingenuous to try and pass one off as the other
Dreadnoughts are eminently killable if you build for it. The issue of dreadnought spam isn't in top competition, but because they are a skew, casual players aren't normally prepared for that.
Toofast wrote: I wouldn't let the AoS team design the maze on the back of a cereal box.
That's funny. Every time I look at the 40k rules and current 30k rules, I think to myself "I wish the AoS team worked on this. They have a much better grasp on what they're trying to do and how to execute it."
Which would be even more funny if it IS the AoS team. If so, they should stick to AoS. I'd guess, if that were the case, that they were somewhat constrained by having to stick to a semblance of the 1.0 rules and weren't allowed to flex enough to make it work.
There's no GW game that I've played that I quit more then AoS. Every single time I think to get back in, nope AoS is just a new mess.
Has there ever been a GW game edition where some unit was not stronger than others and could be spammed to make a strong list? HH 1.0 had other spam and other issues.
Come on, dreads agent an issue among friends taking reasonable numbers of them because they are cool.
They will most likely be nerfed or up-costed soon anyway.
It always sounds black or white on the internet. The game's pretty good, enjoy it (or 1.0 if you prefer that).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back to the topic:
Line! I love line. The Meta now makes Troops very important (which is a great improvement from 1.0 IMHO).
westiebestie wrote: Has there ever been a GW game edition where some unit was not stronger than others and could be spammed to make a strong list? HH 1.0 had other spam and other issues..
It always sounds black or white on the internet. The game's pretty good, enjoy it (or 1.0 if you prefer that).
Well seeing as the meta of 2.0 seems worse in terms of not just what got better, but what got worse. Vehicles are a massive sore point in 2.0. No surprise to see the meta is dread heavy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.
How? 1.0 was just as focused on scoring units. What's different?
Almost my entire playgroup is complaining about how their RoW don't give them enough line when they're running their showstopper units instead of normal troops, compared to previously.
Apparently now, many RoW are 'useless' because they let you take strong units, but don't let you take strong Line units, so there's 'no point'.
westiebestie wrote: Has there ever been a GW game edition where some unit was not stronger than others and could be spammed to make a strong list? HH 1.0 had other spam and other issues..
Name some.
You did not answer my question..
And I believe you know the answer to yours. But I'll throw a couple.
Quad spam is the most generic.
Slow game mechanics e.g. Run
Fixed USRs, e.g. Rending
Look out, sir.
Traditional turn based game, passive in opponent turn
General uselessness of Troops, people taking the Min amount
Now that we have the Surge move I myself also feel that was missing in 1.0.
Line! I love line. The Meta now makes Troops very important (which is a great improvement from 1.0 IMHO).
How? 1.0 was just as focused on scoring units. What's different?
In real games there's a real difference as Legionnaires are cheap & important tactically now, people take a lot more Troops and they are game winners (or losers if you loose them). Heart of the Legion is a good rule too.
It always sounds black or white on the internet. The game's pretty good, enjoy it (or 1.0 if you prefer that).
Well seeing as the meta of 2.0 seems worse in terms of not just what got better, but what got worse. Vehicles are a massive sore point in 2.0. No surprise to see the meta is dread heavy.
I see lots of good changes and few bad ones, overall for me its a big improvement. The balance issues with dreads/vehicles being resilient/weak can be errata'ed.
You make it very clear in a lot of posts you feel the opposite.
Toofast wrote: All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.
The main issue with the core missions is that in addition to being able to contest the objectives last turn, is that they almost all oddly incentivize kill points.
I had a game playing the progressive scoring mission a couple weeks back; we ended up scoring more points through the secondary killing related objectives than the primary lol. The objectives being no-mans, scoring at the start of the turn, and contesting make for a pretty low amount of primary points unless you infiltrate onto all of them. And I guess you can just win off turn 1 with that alone if you go first and they don't manage to contest them/shoot you off.
I have run into this as well and it makes it very odd to deal with the objective.
Truth be told i had this conversation with a buddy of mine i play with. HH2.0 gives me big BIG AoS 1.0 vibes, which with the rumor that it was written by the AoS team kinda makes sense.
It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.
Akin to AoS 1.0, there are a lot of head scratching with missions, just like AoS 1.0, and there is a seemingly lacking depth to rule clarification and what if situations once more very akin to AoS, and mostly centered around pysker powers i have found, along with some potential game breaking things involving melee and being able to basically throw a sacrifical model at a charging enemy unit and get out of combat automatically with out needing to regroup.
The missions have been the same since they were released for tempest back in 2015. The original 5th and 6th edition missions were a lot better balanced.
Gert wrote: Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.
They literally used shorter game length with pure progressive scoring. Kind of a completely different game from the kill-point fest of up to 7 turns that most of the core missions offer.
Very different variables to determine success, and disingenuous to try and pass one off as the other
Dreadnoughts are eminently killable if you build for it. The issue of dreadnought spam isn't in top competition, but because they are a skew, casual players aren't normally prepared for that.
Well...ya. Every skew list dies in a fire to its hard counter in 30k, but that doesn't change the fact that if you don't have that counter you're going to be in trouble the more they skew. I'm not sure what "top competition" is even supposed to mean lol; obviously veterans of competitive 30k groups from the last 10 years are going to have collections that can adapt to changes in strength and discourage skew as a result, but thats in their local areas.Tournamnets haven't really happened yet, and most players don't have the model range to beat any hard skew list right now, dreads or otherwise. And skew lists love tournaments; all it takes is the right matchup to propel yourself to victory, and the odds are good the larger the tournament is. I'll also mention that the nature of skew builds and the logistics of countering them have nothing to do with my post; you can't pretend vastly different mission sets are the same to make a blanket judgement call on a lists strength.
In real games there's a real difference as Legionnaires are cheap & important tactically now, people take a lot more Troops and they are game winners (or losers if you loose them). Heart of the Legion is a good rule too.
This is frankly silly. While tacs, despoilers and assaults are very cheap, and certain legions do get great success with them, they're far from a blanket good unit. Look at all the elite melee units with high attack values, high weapon skill, and Ap3; they just chew right through and pay token respects to the fnp. Even if you pass the stubborn 7 test (you should usually challenge out the seargent to deny leadership), you're now denying your own shooting at the enemy unit, just for them to finish it off and be active in their turn.
You take those units to hold ground and force things into fighting them for the objectives, but you expect them to die to any serious attention.
Dont see whats silly - I did not mean Legionnaires can take or dish out a lot. I meant just the same as what you are saying, you need them to win games and you need to protect them as Elites usually kill them if you let them. They can also do a bit more damage and take a bit more punishment when holding objectives.
So they affect games more directly as well as indirectly.
And since they are better and good value, you are also likely to take more meaning less elite heavy armies with minimum Troop choices in regular games.
Not talking competitive/tournament here, I dont do that and dont see 30k as designed or meant for that..
Racerguy180 wrote: I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.
1.0 was the same refuge from 8th for many.
I really liked 8th(pre marine2.0) and would still play it. 9th was a shitshow from day 0.
Agree fully. 8th (at Index launch) was vastly better than 7th imo. 9th I do not touch.
But I find HH 2.0 to be a big improvement from the core 7th Ed 40k core mechanics and thus HH 1.0 as elaborated above.
I wasn't interested in playing 30k during 8th, 9th dropped and I gave up on 40k to play AT/AI/Necro. 2.0 has piqued my interest(cuz I'm a modeler/painter first) in a way that 1.0 didnt.
westiebestie wrote: Dont see whats silly - I did not mean Legionnaires can take or dish out a lot. I meant just the same as what you are saying, you need them to win games and you need to protect them as Elites usually kill them if you let them. They can also do a bit more damage and take a bit more punishment when holding objectives.
So they affect games more directly as well as indirectly.
And since they are better and good value, you are also likely to take more meaning less elite heavy armies with minimum Troop choices in regular games.
Not talking competitive/tournament here, I dont do that and dont see 30k as designed or meant for that..
But you don't need them; that's the silly part. Various rites allow you to take stuff in troops, and open the way for the more efficient recon squad to score. You can take command squads and Heralds to make elite units score. You can even design lists that play all the kill point aspects and just contest the objectives at the end; only 1 mission punishes lack of scoring.
Sure, you can argue using specific exceptions to dismiss the generic case. You can of course do do RoW lists, but in general lists they have a more solid place now. I like that. Ain't nothing silly about Legionnaires.
Btw making units Troops does not automatically also give them Line, as I am sure you are aware. But some ways exist for sure. The Herald seems a good (and thematic for many legions) choice.
westiebestie wrote: Sure, you can argue using specific exceptions to dismiss the generic case.
Like objective evidence to support a claim?
The point is this idea that 2.0 is drastically different in the scoring department doesn't really hold, scoring and what scored and what ROW did for scoring was just as big in 1.0.
Toofast wrote: AT and Necro are the best games GW makes right now. Necro can get too snowbally but you can usually houserule that out.
Is necro like one game or it depends on the book? There's no like "current all release match play" outside of campaigns is there? AT's matched play seems rarely used, and the cards are cool but a million variables so scoring is all over the place.
Necro isn't really meant to be played in a 1 game, pickup game format. It really only shines as a game in campaigns where you level up and buy equipment for your dudes to make them yours. Nobody really uses the cards for AT because they printed like 100 of each set so they went OOS immediately and never returned. It's a much better system for pickup games, the campaigns are just narrative missions with special rules for the battlefield based on what type of planet you're fighting on.
Toofast wrote: Necro isn't really meant to be played in a 1 game, pickup game format. It really only shines as a game in campaigns where you level up and buy equipment for your dudes to make them yours. Nobody really uses the cards for AT because they printed like 100 of each set so they went OOS immediately and never returned. It's a much better system for pickup games, the campaigns are just narrative missions with special rules for the battlefield based on what type of planet you're fighting on.
Yeah that's my only frustration with necromunda, the models and setting are awesome.
For AT, I meant the open engine war cards, which are neat resource but really random.
It's just a shame that kill team was all weird and rigid this time in terms of teams, necromunda has so many cool parts/accesories. even if a lot are keyed, still really cool from a wysiwyg perspective, just wish it had like a straight up match play list for evert faction with all the gear/point costs. The campaign stuff im sure is awesome but its a big ask for a lot of players who can only play sporadically. That's one thing 30k has going for it, you can play like once a month or every other month and it still works pretty well for 1 off match play.
"Incredibly proud to have developed the new edition of the Horus Heresy game system, and congrats to all the team at Games Workshop who worked alongside me on this. What a fantastic announce trailer!"
It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.
Why did consumers just have to pay for this if 1.0 just needed some fixing and instead we got this... which needs fixing?
I dunno, personally progressive scoring/kill points just isn't good. It's not good for balance and it isn't a good indication of anything.
3-5 objectives, allowed to be placed by both players, with really basic secondaries that come nowhere close in vp count just works best imo. Basically old school crusade, 3-5 objectives, works really well.
Ahhh so the same guy who wrote book 9 crusade.... it's all starting to make sense now.
The one thing I am thankful for is knowing GW's track record at least they finished 1.0 off and didn't leave it 3/4 done like they have done to many systems before this. Now you can see the quality drops in books 7-9 but hey with some house rules you can fix it up to be playable at least.
It's a pretty decent book. Far better written than book 7 too..
Its kinda small though since they cut out dark mechanicum (which still didnt get rules in the mech release?!?) And the campaign system in it was the most lackluster. Background and legion rules were extensive, full of options and fun.
Crablezworth wrote: It's just a shame that kill team was all weird and rigid this time in terms of teams, necromunda has so many cool parts/accesories. even if a lot are keyed, still really cool from a wysiwyg perspective, just wish it had like a straight up match play list for evert faction with all the gear/point costs. The campaign stuff im sure is awesome but its a big ask for a lot of players who can only play sporadically. That's one thing 30k has going for it, you can play like once a month or every other month and it still works pretty well for 1 off match play.
I've had some of the most fun in wargaming in Necromunda campaigns but they always fizzle out after 5-6 rounds. It's never worth it for the people who get stomped and fall behind to keep playing until the end. I always use Van Saar with plasma, ocular implants, and a couple ambots to infil on objectives along with the big FW mech when I get the credits for it. Playing against tooled up corpse grinder/ogre teams is a blast. I wish they would give some of the other teams some stuff to compete with those builds. I feel bad when playing against palanites...
30k is perfect for the older, once a month gamer like me. There aren't 700 stratagems to remember like 40k, and most guys are S/T4, armor values of tanks are easy to remember because I've been playing since 3rd, so that will be my main game. I'm just waiting for weapon packs release and FW models to be in stock.
Crablezworth wrote: It's just a shame that kill team was all weird and rigid this time in terms of teams, necromunda has so many cool parts/accesories. even if a lot are keyed, still really cool from a wysiwyg perspective, just wish it had like a straight up match play list for evert faction with all the gear/point costs. The campaign stuff im sure is awesome but its a big ask for a lot of players who can only play sporadically. That's one thing 30k has going for it, you can play like once a month or every other month and it still works pretty well for 1 off match play.
I've had some of the most fun in wargaming in Necromunda campaigns but they always fizzle out after 5-6 rounds. It's never worth it for the people who get stomped and fall behind to keep playing until the end. I always use Van Saar with plasma, ocular implants, and a couple ambots to infil on objectives along with the big FW mech when I get the credits for it. Playing against tooled up corpse grinder/ogre teams is a blast. I wish they would give some of the other teams some stuff to compete with those builds. I feel bad when playing against palanites...
30k is perfect for the older, once a month gamer like me. There aren't 700 stratagems to remember like 40k, and most guys are S/T4, armor values of tanks are easy to remember because I've been playing since 3rd, so that will be my main game. I'm just waiting for weapon packs release and FW models to be in stock.
Ya I feel like the campaign stuff would be awesome if it was possible but I feel like outside of very popular clubs or tight friend groups it's very hard to make it work for too long. As you said after 5-6 rounds its fizzles out.
Couldn't agree more on 30k and not having to remember 700 strats, way easier to just pickup and play.
Three games in and I am definitely thinking about list building very differently:
- Probably taking all tanks out. I think they’re that overpriced and wet noodle.
- More Contemptor and terminators. Don’t bother with Spartans, don’t need them.
- Get heavy weapon squads in.
- Make sure everything has intercept to prevent you being alpha striked.
- Don’t think I’ll bother with artillery. Real shame as I have quad guns for fists and a Bombard for my Death Guard but they don’t serve any function beyond being overpriced bricks.
Three games in and I am definitely thinking about list building very differently:
- Probably taking all tanks out. I think they’re that overpriced and wet noodle.
- More Contemptor and terminators. Don’t bother with Spartans, don’t need them.
- Get heavy weapon squads in.
- Make sure everything has intercept to prevent you being alpha striked.
- Don’t think I’ll bother with artillery. Real shame as I have quad guns for fists and a Bombard for my Death Guard but they don’t serve any function beyond being overpriced bricks.
Yeah that all sounds about right, shame for combined arms and diversity of unit types, just wait till you see that javelins can't even move over friendly or enemy models... le sigh
Three games in and I am definitely thinking about list building very differently:
- Probably taking all tanks out. I think they’re that overpriced and wet noodle.
- More Contemptor and terminators. Don’t bother with Spartans, don’t need them.
- Get heavy weapon squads in.
- Make sure everything has intercept to prevent you being alpha striked.
- Don’t think I’ll bother with artillery. Real shame as I have quad guns for fists and a Bombard for my Death Guard but they don’t serve any function beyond being overpriced bricks.
Yeah that all sounds about right, shame for combined arms and diversity of unit types, just wait till you see that javelins can't even move over friendly or enemy models... le sigh
I know, to be honest I had such a bad time that I am not all that keen to play again. It really took the wind out my sails having spent all that time getting a Kratos and 20 Mark VI painted just for them to get deleted. It’s really silly that you’re asked to roll and work out hundreds of dice just to maybe clip a wound whilst your units get deleted in an alpha strike. With you losing tanks in your turn against an army that doesn’t have a single dedicated AT gun. Just exploiting the rend rule to hull point tanks. No I really wasn’t a fan.
Genuinely, I don’t know what the Devs thought. I was going to get a second Kratos and three Predators but have zero reason to now. There’s other things I’d rather be painting and I know I won’t use them in games.
Snrub wrote: Out of interest, what was your list and what was your opponents list?
Sons of Horus
Abaddon
10 Justarean with 6 axes and 4 chainfist. 2 multi melta
2 squads of 15 tactical marines with power fist sergeants
10 man Rotor gun squad in rhino
10 man Veteran squad in rhino with power fist serg and chain bayonet bolters
Gatling Sicaran with bolter sponsons
Sicaran with las sponsons
Kratos with battle cannon, extra shells and a flare shield. Had all the lascannons with a multi melta
All the vehicles had search lights
Night Lords - Bit unsure on some of the details
Praetor with ten man command squad with jump packs. Various close combat weapons. With apothecary.
Twenty assault marines with apothecary
Ten raptors with apothecary
Leviathan with siege cannon and fist
Xiphon
Ten recon marines with the Vigilator
Tactical squad in back line
Mission was objective either end but this had no relevance on the battle and was ignored.
So I shot my army at the recon squad which did nothing. The recon marines took out the Gatling tank. Leviathan half the hull points of the Kratos with shooting. Then an alpha strike killed a rhino, the Sicaran and the Kratos. Abaddon landed after this and killed the assault squad. All the rest of the army bounced off the apothecary units with their bolters/rotor guns despite everything being able to fury and rapid fire. Raptors and command squad then slaughtered the tacticals/support squad/rhino. Abaddon killed the command squad, the praetor and the leviathan dread.
So basically I had one unit doing stuff and the rest was being forced to throw point masses of dice to watch armour/apothecary saves get passed. It just was not a very fun game as there’s not a lot you can do if somebody dumps 40 marines in front of you and all your shooting bounces off them.
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
Aren’t their weapons S4?
So you’d need a 6 on die and a 3 on the Rending d3 to glance it.
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
Yeah snipers are strength 5 now and Night Lords get plus 1 strength when they “outnumber” a tank. So it’s str 6 rending at that point. If you roll a 6 to trigger rend you then get a D3 so it’s quite easy to hull point vehicles even at the front armour.
Abaddon did have ten terminators with him. But yeah, I really wasn’t fussed by that point because I wanted it to be more about the tanks.
Mission was objective either end but this had no relevance on the battle and was ignored.
Not saying this would fix an imbalanced matchup/edition but I find 3-5 objectives works best for balance, Not saying it'd fix the game you had one iota but, at least on the 4 or 5 objective games, board control can still make a difference. Like even if you get smashed hard by deep strke/alpha strike with a the right terrain density in terms of los you might be able to still queak out a tie or close loss. It seems most of the missions in 2.0 aren't much better than the ones in 1.0
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
Yeah snipers are strength 5 now and Night Lords get plus 1 strength when they “outnumber” a tank. So it’s str 6 rending at that point. If you roll a 6 to trigger rend you then get a D3 so it’s quite easy to hull point vehicles even at the front armour.
Abaddon did have ten terminators with him. But yeah, I really wasn’t fussed by that point because I wanted it to be more about the tanks.
Ugh, add to that they nerfed so many of the vehicles it just seems like they don't know what they're doing anymore. Dual kheres dreads were and are pretty damn broken in 1,0, but at least you can kill them with a lot of stuff, possible to 1 shot them.
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
Yeah snipers are strength 5 now and Night Lords get plus 1 strength when they “outnumber” a tank. So it’s str 6 rending at that point. If you roll a 6 to trigger rend you then get a D3 so it’s quite easy to hull point vehicles even at the front armour.
Abaddon did have ten terminators with him. But yeah, I really wasn’t fussed by that point because I wanted it to be more about the tanks.
It's +1 to wound/penetrate armor, not +1S. I only point it out because if S5 can't wound it normally it doesn't bump the attack up to be able to wound it.
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
No, it shouldn't be. And it would be an easy fix. Just replace Rending(5) with Breaching(5). That would be equally useful for popping infantry characters (the thing that sniper rifles are supposed to do) while preventing them from punching heavy armour. Why they gave them Rending instead of Breaching is beyond me.
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
No, it shouldn't be. And it would be an easy fix. Just replace Rending(5) with Breaching(5). That would be equally useful for popping infantry characters (the thing that sniper rifles are supposed to do) while preventing them from punching heavy armour. Why they gave them Rending instead of Breaching is beyond me.
IIRC the intent waaaay back was them sniping through gaps to hit things like the engine, fuel tanks, sensitive equipment or through vision slits.
godardc wrote: Abaddon sounds like a beast, but what a shame for your tanks. Like, the recon squad insta killing a AV13 tanks shouldn't be possible, what a shame
No, it shouldn't be. And it would be an easy fix. Just replace Rending(5) with Breaching(5). That would be equally useful for popping infantry characters (the thing that sniper rifles are supposed to do) while preventing them from punching heavy armour. Why they gave them Rending instead of Breaching is beyond me.
IIRC the intent waaaay back was them sniping through gaps to hit things like the engine, fuel tanks, sensitive equipment or through vision slits.
I think you're confusing sniper rifles with melee against vehicles. Sniper rifles used to be S(X), with (X) always equalling the toughness of the target (which meant that they always wounded on a 4+). For Armour Penetration rolls, they got a single D6, which meant that they couldn't do much against vehicles.
Snrub wrote: Out of interest, what was your list and what was your opponents list?
Sons of Horus
Abaddon
10 Justarean with 6 axes and 4 chainfist. 2 multi melta
2 squads of 15 tactical marines with power fist sergeants
10 man Rotor gun squad in rhino
10 man Veteran squad in rhino with power fist serg and chain bayonet bolters
Gatling Sicaran with bolter sponsons
Sicaran with las sponsons
Kratos with battle cannon, extra shells and a flare shield. Had all the lascannons with a multi melta
All the vehicles had search lights
Night Lords - Bit unsure on some of the details
Praetor with ten man command squad with jump packs. Various close combat weapons. With apothecary.
Twenty assault marines with apothecary
Ten raptors with apothecary
Leviathan with siege cannon and fist
Xiphon
Ten recon marines with the Vigilator
Tactical squad in back line
Mission was objective either end but this had no relevance on the battle and was ignored.
So I shot my army at the recon squad which did nothing. The recon marines took out the Gatling tank. Leviathan half the hull points of the Kratos with shooting. Then an alpha strike killed a rhino, the Sicaran and the Kratos. Abaddon landed after this and killed the assault squad. All the rest of the army bounced off the apothecary units with their bolters/rotor guns despite everything being able to fury and rapid fire. Raptors and command squad then slaughtered the tacticals/support squad/rhino. Abaddon killed the command squad, the praetor and the leviathan dread.
So basically I had one unit doing stuff and the rest was being forced to throw point masses of dice to watch armour/apothecary saves get passed. It just was not a very fun game as there’s not a lot you can do if somebody dumps 40 marines in front of you and all your shooting bounces off them.
Maybe it´s time to go back to 2nd in regards to Apothecary work. Back then your medic could help a SINGLE, adjacent model to it´s feet again (regaining one wound). Helping everybody, everywhere all the time doesn´t sound like a learned profession but rather like magic.
Considering Asartes physiology he might not be yelling them but rather checking their life signs and then yelling at them to not be so dramatic and that they're fine.
Maybe it´s time to go back to 2nd in regards to Apothecary work. Back then your medic could help a SINGLE, adjacent model to it´s feet again (regaining one wound). Helping everybody, everywhere all the time doesn´t sound like a learned profession but rather like magic.
i liked that notion ash came up with against a militia list which had robot medicae orderlies; he made a joke about bear mace formula painkillers.
One of the models was basicly a barrel with legs and a sensor array so i can totally see a robot being nothing but a drum of bear-mace morphine and an attachable locomotor array and sprinkler setup.
Broken leg? coated in foamed morphine.
blast damage? coated in foamed morphine.
severed limbs? coated in foamed morphine.
head missing? coated in foamed morphine.
assaulting the enemy? coated in foamed morphine.
papercut? coated in foamed morphine.
bug in your eye? coated in foamed morphine.
a hair in your food? coated in foamed morphine.
bad case of 'the mondays'? coated in foamed morphine.
"Is there anything this robot can't coat in foamed morphine?!?" - Levvy Seargent H.Conrad
Praetor with ten man command squad with jump packs. Various close combat weapons. With apothecary.
Now while i'm sure it wasn't the make or break of the game, this unit I think is illegal. Command squads can only have 9 bodies (+ the praetor/centurion) and can't have an apothecary attached due to the fact that it contains an Independent character (The praetor).
Retinue wrote:A legion Command Squad... [snip] ...may only be selected as part of a detachment that includes at least one model with the Master of the Legion special rule. A unit selected in this manner is considered a "retinue squad" and the model with the Master of the Legion special rule is referred to as the retinue squads leader for the purposes of this special rule. [snip]
The retinue squad does not use up a Force Org slot and is considered part of the same unit as the model selected as its leader. The retinue squad must be deployed with the model selected as it's Leader deployed as part of the unit and the Leader may not voluntarily leave the retinue squad during play. [snip]
So yeah, a Primus Medicae could join the squad, but a regular apoth can not. Also means you can't attach a techmarine and use them as a suicide-melta squad.
ClockworkZion wrote: Does the IC need to deploy with their command squad? Because if not you can have an apothecary as part of the squad and attach the IC after.
Their command squad yes, they count as part of it. If it's just a veteran squad, no, they deploy into it.
Retinue wrote:A legion Command Squad... [snip] ...may only be selected as part of a detachment that includes at least one model with the Master of the Legion special rule. A unit selected in this manner is considered a "retinue squad" and the model with the Master of the Legion special rule is referred to as the retinue squads leader for the purposes of this special rule. [snip]
The retinue squad does not use up a Force Org slot and is considered part of the same unit as the model selected as its leader. The retinue squad must be deployed with the model selected as it's Leader deployed as part of the unit and the Leader may not voluntarily leave the retinue squad during play. [snip]
So yeah, a Primus Medicae could join the squad, but a regular apoth can not. Also means you can't attach a techmarine and use them as a suicide-melta squad.
Thanks, I was at work at the time and couldn't check it so I wasn't 100% sure on the situation.
Okay, so the meta seems to be termies and dreadnaughts, Leviathans being fairly popular too.
Meltas can take care of both the former, but sort of struggle against a leviathan. Do peeps have any tips for dealing with the big chunky murder dreads? Outside of dozen's of lascannons I suppose. Haywire seems nice, but it's tricky to bring enough to really chew through a dreads wounds, let along several of the buggers.
I mean, 3s to hit, 3s to wound then 5++ to get through. Pushing that up to 4s to found makes it feel a little meh though.
But yeah, throwing brutal (3) at a dread is good for getting rid of the blasted things. Especially as 3rd legion where I get to strike first on the charge. Though my main opponent does run UM so it hurts when he has the combat logos on and you need 5s to hit.
In theory thunder hammers on cataphracti would be okay, use the 4++ to take the hits well enough then hit back with brutal (2) wounds on the invul.
But not many weapon rules work well against dreads. Spam Rending maybe? But then you're fishing for 6s.
At the moment there's no real foolproof way of removing dreads. Other Dreads is the easiest way with the brutal (3), but as it stands quantity seems to be the prevailing means of dealing with them. Throw enough plasma/rending/thunderhammer dice and they do go down.
It's hard to even tarpit them effectively what with them being so damn effective in melee, even with only one fist.
Honestly, they need to be bumped up by about 20-30 points and either not be immune to instant death or have their S/T/I all dropped by 1. Taking double wounds from anti-tank weapons would be a solution too (lascannons/meltas/etc).
If you knew all it'd take was a plucky sergeant with a melta bomb, then they wouldn't be nearly as scary in melee as they are. Still effective, yes, but at least manageable.
Alternatively, if they were Initiative 3, then you'd at least have a whole initiative round to damage them before they struck back.
Snrub wrote: At the moment there's no real foolproof way of removing dreads. Other Dreads is the easiest way with the brutal (3), but as it stands quantity seems to be the prevailing means of dealing with them. Throw enough plasma/rending/thunderhammer dice and they do go down.
It's hard to even tarpit them effectively what with them being so damn effective in melee, even with only one fist.
Honestly, they need to be bumped up by about 20-30 points and either not be immune to instant death or have their S/T/I all dropped by 1. Taking double wounds from anti-tank weapons would be a solution too (lascannons/meltas/etc).
If you knew all it'd take was a plucky sergeant with a melta bomb, then they wouldn't be nearly as scary in melee as they are. Still effective, yes, but at least manageable.
Alternatively, if they were Initiative 3, then you'd at least have a whole initiative round to damage them before they struck back.
Lasannons are not vastly more expensive in relation to rocket launchers. So ten dudes with lascannons coupled with a consul which buffs their accuracy would be a solution.
Just let Sunder and Ordnance weapons reroll failed wounds against dreadnoughts etc, and let all Armourbane weapons cause ID, same as melta bombs. If you're guys can get within 6" of that dread with their meltaguns, let it eat D3 damage a pop.
Regarding Recon Squad against Vehicles.
The +1 (Night Lords) only applies if the Recon Squad outnumbers the target. A vehicle always counts as 10 models and a Recon Squad can not have more than 10 models, so it will not apply. Even if it would do so, the trigger value of special rules is always the unmodified dice roll. So rending would still apply on a 5+, not a 4+.
10 shots hitting at 3s are 6.6, Armour is 13 strength is 5, so you will have to get an 8 for a glance and a 9 for a pen. So you need a 5 and a 3 or a 6 and a 2 or 3.
A wound roll of 5 will be rolled on 1.1 shots and a third of those will be followed by a 3. That's 0.367 glances
A 6 will be rolled on 1.1 shots as well. Wether you get a 2 or 3 in the second roll doesn't matter (regarding kills), because the original shot has no DS 1 or 2 (rending does not change AP against vehicles).
So it's .7333. Add them together you will get an statistical 1.1 wounds on the Sicaran.
Inflicting 4 wounds might happen, but seems to be unlikely. And the Sicaran still has the option to evade. For me it sounds more likely that rules were applied wrongly or the dice rolling was really lucks than that the Sicaran could be expected to be killed by a Recon Squad.
brumbaer wrote: Regarding Recon Squad against Vehicles. The +1 (Night Lords) only applies if the Recon Squad outnumbers the target. A vehicle always counts as 10 models and a Recon Squad can not have more than 10 models, so it will not apply.
I posted the same thing, then edited when I noticed the list specifies "with the Vigilator", meaning the squad was at 11 models, not 10.
Sorry haven't seen that the calculation was done before.
Anyway.
Preysight cancels night fight, but I assumed hitting on 3s already.
If you get the Bonus +1 for outnumbering.
if you roll a 4 it turns to a 5, but you do not get Rend. So you will have strength 10, which doesn't do anything.
The 5 turns to 6 and you get rend, thats 0.73 wounds.
The 6 turns to 7 and you get rend, that's 1.1 Wounds.
So you get an average of 1.83. Sorry that's not correct because 11 man shooting. It would be 1.83*1.1 = 2.01. So it would be 2 in average.
85 points + 5 * 12 + 10 * 10 = 245 Points for the Squad
Vigilator 105 points. 60 + 35 + 10.
So 350 points killing 190 points, thanks to good rolling. That's not so off, as the op made it sound.
And vigilator and squad could easily be more expensive (the sicaran as well).
Please note I agree that tanks die too easily and should be able to fire back in the same way as dreadnoughts (no preference which way, just the same) and treating squadrons and talons in the same way. Plus the usual dreadnought rant.
I think tanks get a lot of power from how their weapons interact. Usually you have to fire all your weapons at a single target, but can fire defensive at the closest infantry and sponsons at a different target providing they can't see the tanks main target.
I decided to get a bit cheeky and use a divination librarian to give my kratos precision shots 5+ lets you shoot a bunch of volkite at up to 3 units. (assuming measuring to the closest isn't done for each individual weapon, which would feel a little too gamey) I was able to pop some apothecaries and sergeants who didn't happen to be wearing artificer armour from different squads at once.
But yes, something needs to be changed with dreads. Im not sure what though, maybe a -1 to stats when below a certain threshhold? But at that point they're just regular 40K rules huh? I kinda wish they were just vehicles like in the old days.
Maybe give Dreadnoughts and Automata their own explosion chart. The only way you can get an explodes result is via AP1 or AP2. The rest can destroy weapons, slow movement, do extra hull points, etc. Normal 6 does an extra hull point.
I've just bought my Liber mechanicum to start converting over to HH2. My army doesn't quite work at the moment though and wondering about if I can get some help to fix it.
I used to take an Arvus Lighter and a Vengeance Weapons battery but these are not options in our book - how could I take them without using allies?
Check the PDF update for mechanicum, main rulebook and legiones astartes. I believe the rules for the arvus are in the mechanicum pdf and the weapon battery are in one of those 3 (they might possibly also be in the main rulebook under another name)
boyd wrote: Maybe give Dreadnoughts and Automata their own explosion chart. The only way you can get an explodes result is via AP1 or AP2. The rest can destroy weapons, slow movement, do extra hull points, etc. Normal 6 does an extra hull point.
I think the most elegant solution would be to give them a 3+ save.
Dreads are supposed to be extremely tough, but this is well represented by their high toughness, but their armor is overkill. As it stands dreads are functionally more resilient to AP weapons than vehicles, because the combination of huge wound pool and invul save means that they don't care about lascannons. The problem is that they're also virtually immune to small and medium arms fire via toughness and their 2+ save. Given a dreadnaught is more articulate than a land raider they'd surely have more fiddly little bits to land a lucky shot on, so a 3+ would go a long way towards making them more balanced and also being fluff friendly rather than just an arbitrary nerf.
Alternatively I think a reduction in wounds (probably cutting them by 40-50%, rounded up) would work, as would buff ID (make it an automatic 3 wounds, as opposed to d3 wounds). But I also feel these are less elegant and more heavy-handed solutions.
boyd wrote: Maybe give Dreadnoughts and Automata their own explosion chart. The only way you can get an explodes result is via AP1 or AP2. The rest can destroy weapons, slow movement, do extra hull points, etc. Normal 6 does an extra hull point.
I think the most elegant solution would be to give them a 3+ save.
Dreads are supposed to be extremely tough, but this is well represented by their high toughness, but their armor is overkill. As it stands dreads are functionally more resilient to AP weapons than vehicles, because the combination of huge wound pool and invul save means that they don't care about lascannons. The problem is that they're also virtually immune to small and medium arms fire via toughness and their 2+ save. Given a dreadnaught is more articulate than a land raider they'd surely have more fiddly little bits to land a lucky shot on, so a 3+ would go a long way towards making them more balanced and also being fluff friendly rather than just an arbitrary nerf.
Alternatively I think a reduction in wounds (probably cutting them by 40-50%, rounded up) would work, as would buff ID (make it an automatic 3 wounds, as opposed to d3 wounds). But I also feel these are less elegant and more heavy-handed solutions.
boyd wrote: Maybe give Dreadnoughts and Automata their own explosion chart. The only way you can get an explodes result is via AP1 or AP2. The rest can destroy weapons, slow movement, do extra hull points, etc. Normal 6 does an extra hull point.
I think the most elegant solution would be to give them a 3+ save.
Fluff-wise I don't think it makes sense to have Dreadnoughts get 3+ as long as Terminators have 2+.
If i was trying to make dread and troop armies a thing again here is how i would do it instead of making dreads MCs
If a force doesn't use a rite of war they get 2 benefits 1. if the compulsory troop slots are filled with full strength tactical squads then further troop slots filled with tactical squads are half price excluding any purchased transport vehicles 2. dreadnoughts can join an infantry unit of 6 models or greater - if unit cohesion lines can be drawn around a joined dreadnoughts base without touching it; that dreadnought will gain a 4+cover save. (the dread can be targeted seperately from the unit it has joined)
so no rhino-spam but a solid reason to take multiple tac units again, and ensuring they will be pocked with dreadnoughts too
Anyone who played against Mech or Daemons last edition would tell you why making dreads into MCs was a terrible idea, but it seems they missed the memo. Making contemptors 3+ would help reduce the AP2 arms race the game has already become.
Arbitrator wrote: Anyone who played against Mech or Daemons last edition would tell you why making dreads into MCs was a terrible idea, but it seems they missed the memo. Making contemptors 3+ would help reduce the AP2 arms race the game has already become.
Ya, it's a big part of what made daemons of the ruinstorm a bit of a drag to fight, fmc's and mc's need work, and they're just not good representations for dreads, its so baffling. The armour save change might be a simple enough fix, but why even play 2.0? 1.0 is just better IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: Everything should just be there to support Tacticals.
Combined arms def makes for a better experience, all bike or all tank armies just seem lame. Too skewed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirDonlad wrote: Just had a moment here as my brain flashed me back to 1993-94 and the huge irritation about having to take two tactical squads in the new edition.
In our defense back then we were very young and quite naive.
SirDonlad wrote: Just had a moment here as my brain flashed me back to 1993-94 and the huge irritation about having to take two tactical squads in the new edition.
In our defense back then we were very young and quite naive.
Love me some FOC
93-94 would have been 2nd, which didn't have a FoC. You're thinking 3rd, which was in '98.
SirDonlad wrote: Just had a moment here as my brain flashed me back to 1993-94 and the huge irritation about having to take two tactical squads in the new edition.
In our defense back then we were very young and quite naive.
Love me some FOC
93-94 would have been 2nd, which didn't have a FoC. You're thinking 3rd, which was in '98.
feth, yes you're right.
It was herohammer with the 3/4 same faction army rule
Bobug wrote: Imagine thinking tactical squads aren't good
I am a new player to 30k with this edition and I love my two twenty-marine tactical blobs (been playing at 1500 points) each with an apothecary. I desire at least one or two more, moving to 2000 points. They are absolutely amazing.
Bobug wrote: Imagine thinking tactical squads aren't good
I am a new player to 30k with this edition and I love my two twenty-marine tactical blobs (been playing at 1500 points) each with an apothecary. I desire at least one or two more, moving to 2000 points. They are absolutely amazing.
In 1st ed rhinos only held 10 models so apothecaries always lost out, but now that they hold 12, so if you split the blobs you could also try'm mechanized if you got the rhinos.
Bobug wrote: Imagine thinking tactical squads aren't good
I am a new player to 30k with this edition and I love my two twenty-marine tactical blobs (been playing at 1500 points) each with an apothecary. I desire at least one or two more, moving to 2000 points. They are absolutely amazing.
In 1st ed rhinos only held 10 models so apothecaries always lost out, but now that they hold 12, so if you split the blobs you could also try'm mechanized if you got the rhinos.
I am not sure I want to buy and paint that many rhinos plus the 7" movement on marines has been pretty great at getting them across the table very quickly.
The rhinos I do have for my Salamanders hold flamer support squads currently haha
