Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Well, Heavy unit subtype pendulum'd from great to trash (predictable as I just painted up 20 Breachers) apart from that nothing particularly bad about the unit types section.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Updated HH 2.0 rules for the Tarantula
tl;dr: Only shoots as Reactions, never on your turn. Has Augury Scanner for Interceptor and a special shooting reaction at an enemy moving within 48"
It's a bit worrying they value the melta with 9" armourbane range on an immobile unit the same as a lascannon
And in peak GW style, they may exchange their heavy bolters for Two Orias frag missiles, which is a weapon that doesn't exist because it's called an Orias frag launcher.
I'm not normally this negative but by god GW make it easy for me...
Veteran Sergeant wrote:If 40K has Future Rifles, and Future Tanks, and Future Artillery, and Future Airplanes and Future Grenades and Future Bombs, then contextually Future Swords seem somewhat questionable to use, since it means crossing Future Open Space to get Future Shot At.
Polonius wrote:I categorically reject any statement that there is such a thing as too much boob.
Coolyo294 wrote:Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
tl;dr: Only shoots as Reactions, never on your turn. Has Augury Scanner for Interceptor and a special shooting reaction at an enemy moving within 48"
It's a bit worrying they value the melta with 9" armourbane range on an immobile unit the same as a lascannon
And in peak GW style, they may exchange their heavy bolters for Two Orias frag missiles, which is a weapon that doesn't exist because it's called an Orias frag launcher.
I'm not normally this negative but by god GW make it easy for me...
Actually, it's correct, the missiles are one use weapons. Of course, they could have wrote Orias frag launcher with two Orias frag missiles or two Orias frag launchers, but I think the way they wrote it is clear enough.
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Part of my day job involves dealing with accessibility legislation. The paragraph above is an absolute abomination just from an English stand-point, but for people with any number of reading impairments its downright criminal. It's weird. They learned that bullet points exist in 9th and these rules are perfect candidates for using them to shorten the rules and make them easier to parse. The whole bolded paragraph is essentially extraneous and the rest of the rule is barely readable due to the capitalisation and really awkward phrasing, much like all the other HH rules.
The rule itself also feels like it has the potential to overcomplicate things. There are a lot of things that modify and interact with the basic principle of standing in a circle. I can see this being difficult to balance and leading to a lot of the problems the old Troops units had where some were really good while others were pretty bad but were only taken for the Troops designation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/06/27 17:04:39
lord_blackfang wrote: But narrative events, which is what Heresy players predominantly run, usually don't, afaik.
I can only speak to my AdeptiCon experiences, but yes. We don't get the mission packs until the day of the HH event. Sometimes straight from a printer that very morning. *Looking at you, Zac* I can't speak to the Big Blam (the super heavy and Titan nighttime event).
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Part of my day job involves dealing with accessibility legislation. The paragraph above is an absolute abomination just from an English stand-point, but for people with any number of reading impairments its downright criminal. It's weird. They learned that bullet points exist in 9th and these rules are perfect candidates for using them to shorten the rules and make them easier to parse. The whole bolded paragraph is essentially extraneous and the rest of the rule is barely readable due to the capitalisation and really awkward phrasing, much like all the other HH rules.
The rule itself also feels like it has the potential to overcomplicate things. There are a lot of things that modify and interact with the basic principle of standing in a circle. I can see this being difficult to balance and leading to a lot of the problems the old Troops units had where some were really good while others were pretty bad but were only taken for the Troops designation.
I wonder how they solve it in the german translation because that capitalisation of nouns is just normal german writing (aside from the one verb they also capitalise).
lord_blackfang wrote: But narrative events, which is what Heresy players predominantly run, usually don't, afaik.
I can only speak to my AdeptiCon experiences, but yes. We don't get the mission packs until the day of the HH event. Sometimes straight from a printer that very morning. *Looking at you, Zac* I can't speak to the Big Blam (the super heavy and Titan nighttime event).
I surveyed my players and others for my event this weekend. By far the majority preferred to find out the missions on the day.
Though guards may sleep and ships may lay at anchor, our foes know full well that big guns never tire.
Warhammer Community wrote:A Unit of Models with this Special Rule can control Objectives more easily and scores more Victory Points from controlling an Objective.
If a Unit that Controls an Objective includes a majority of Models with the Line (X) Special Rule then, whenever the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for Controlling that Objective, an additional number of Victory Points equal to the value of X are scored.
For example, a Unit of 10 Models, of which the majority have the Line (3) Special Rule, hold an Objective worth 1 Victory Point, when the Controlling Player scores Victory Points for that Objective, they would score a total of 4 Victory Points.
Congratulations GW, in your drive to make terminology and keywords clearer using capitalisation, you've rendered this paragraph almost completely illegible. This is worse than the run-on sentences in the 1st Edition Baron's War ruleset...
Hell, even bolding would be better. Old World doesn't have anything this messy, is this just a modern ruleset issue or is it an outlier in GW rulesets?
Part of my day job involves dealing with accessibility legislation. The paragraph above is an absolute abomination just from an English stand-point, but for people with any number of reading impairments its downright criminal. It's weird. They learned that bullet points exist in 9th and these rules are perfect candidates for using them to shorten the rules and make them easier to parse. The whole bolded paragraph is essentially extraneous and the rest of the rule is barely readable due to the capitalisation and really awkward phrasing, much like all the other HH rules.
The rule itself also feels like it has the potential to overcomplicate things. There are a lot of things that modify and interact with the basic principle of standing in a circle. I can see this being difficult to balance and leading to a lot of the problems the old Troops units had where some were really good while others were pretty bad but were only taken for the Troops designation.
I wonder how they solve it in the german translation because that capitalisation of nouns is just normal german writing (aside from the one verb they also capitalise).
If I were a translator for GW, I'D WRITE THE RULES IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME, EXCEPT FOR THE NAMES OF Special Rules, WHICH NATURALLY Need To Stand Apart FROM THE RULES TEXT.
But I assume they'll bold the names of special rules, and/or use italics to highlight them if neither is already taken by something else. That seems like the least intrusive way to do it. All caps and colored text are an option, but stand out a lot more.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Fayric wrote: The greatest hoax to appeal to nostalgia for horus heresy even when its brand new design, brand new rules and lore they make up as they go along.
Or is it "bringing back" mental stats that were removed from warhammer before the average Heresy player was born
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
Crew sprue is as said before separate. But also really, really cool.
Lots of bits and bobs once can use for converting up character. For instance, I’m currently just a Servo-Arm away from a Forge Lord. And one can easily use it to make that Consul that allows you to field Castellax.
Tempted to get another three, but the Quad Heavy Bolter. Sure I’ll end up with an inordinate “never going to field 12 in a single battle” Rapier Carriers. But it will give me a full suite of them, and plenty bods to make a Seeker Squad.
Favourite random gubbins? Holstered Bolt Guns.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Makes me wonder if they'll keep the Mechanicum forces that can remove terrain.
I keep reading all of these leaks and it feels like the 30K Designers are just digging through the archives, saying, "The fan base loves all these old crunchy rules, why don't we add even more? They'll be so happy if we added all the old rules to the game!"
BorderCountess wrote: Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
Having never played 30k (and not much 9th/10th either) and just skimming the warxom rule posts this all rather looks like the sort of game 5th edition tragics like myself would like? Are there any widely adopted fan rulesets for 40k factions to use the HH rules?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/06/28 23:09:58
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
RustyNumber wrote: Having never played 30k (and not much 9th/10th either) and just skimming the warxom rule posts this all rather looks like the sort of game 5th edition tragics like myself would like? Are there any widely adopted fan rulesets for 40k factions to use the HH rules?
There was an Aussie guy who did army books for Eldar, Orks and I think Necrons for the 1st edition rules. He never updated them for 2nd though. There are PDFs floating about, but I'm not sure where you'd find them.
The team that wrote Panoptica (or whatever its called) did Ork/Eldar rules for 2.0 I believe, but whether or not they're worth using is up to you.
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Damn, that alone is almost enough to make me want to play.
I've been wanting to ask (while realizing it will be impossible to answer until months from now), but:
HH has always been considered the continuation or descendant of the old (3rd-7th) edition 40K rules. Does the new edition still feel that way, or have enough things been changed that it now feels like something else?
Altruizine wrote: HH has always been considered the continuation or descendant of the old (3rd-7th) edition 40K rules. Does the new edition still feel that way, or have enough things been changed that it now feels like something else?
Good question. I think it's fundamentally still the same game, albeit increasingly more fiddly - which is maintaining the development trajectory of 3rd-7th. The gameplay logic is still the same, besides the addition of reactions. It's a wargame, a contest of maneuvering and target selection between two fairly similar forces, and not whatever unholy frankenstein of a CCG and MOBA that modern 40k is.
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
Gert wrote: I've also just realised that the mission is picked before you make your army.
Lmao nice one, rules writers, you've made official GW events impossible unless you're changing your army every single game or have every mission revealed beforehand, defeating the point of a narrative event.
Unless each player can have their own mission instead of both using the same one. Each player could have two very different objectives.
They were very close to getting terrain and LoS spot on, except you must be able to draw LoS without interruptions, so a rhino blocks sight to a lancer.
lord_blackfang wrote: Good question. I think it's fundamentally still the same game, albeit increasingly more fiddly - which is maintaining the development trajectory of 3rd-7th. The gameplay logic is still the same, besides the addition of reactions. It's a wargame, a contest of maneuvering and target selection between two fairly similar forces, and not whatever unholy frankenstein of a CCG and MOBA that modern 40k is.
Nicely summarised
The LoS rules look promising.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
After 17 years, true area terrain rules are back. The whole shebang, I think. Down to blocking LOS further than 3" deep.
Sadly this comes bundled with "entire unit can be mowed down if you have LOS to one guy's elbow"
Makes me wonder if they'll keep the Mechanicum forces that can remove terrain.
I keep reading all of these leaks and it feels like the 30K Designers are just digging through the archives, saying, "The fan base loves all these old crunchy rules, why don't we add even more? They'll be so happy if we added all the old rules to the game!"
I think there's definitely a train of thought here that is "Why is Heresy a different game from 40K?", and a lot of the new changes feel like they're embracing that question.
I can't speak to the Big Blam (the super heavy and Titan nighttime event).
