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.

As a WE player, I'm going to stick up for the Spartan a little. It needs to be very tough or else infantry assault probably dies in 30K just like it did in 7th edition 40K. I think 8th is built to handle the Spartan in a much fairer way, as it can be made to be very tough but still able to be worn down.

But yes, there are many issues inherent to 7th that 30K is stuck with. Don't forget about superheavies and all their magical bonuses.

For me it's doing the opposite. When 7th was the only rules set for 40/30k around, 30k was better than 40k due to being less bloaty. But I find 8th to be MUCH better than the abomination that was 7th. I'll be packing up my HH stuff until/unless FW updates the rules to 8th.

I'm hoping that they do more than reprint the 40k 7th edition rulebook. And I'm certain that some editing and updating of existing the rules will take place, as others have said rules that are superfluous to 30k will be edited out, and 30k special rules will likely be put in (deflagrate, or rad for instance). These guys do have a lot on their plate, but it's easier to play test slightly adjusted core rules to fit into 30k, than play test essentially 18-20 armylists and adjust them to a new edition. I have a lot of hope for FW version of the rules and hope it will keep 30k separate in the long run.

As for 30k and overpowered units, yeah you see some of that but mostly it's at competitive events (LVO) and even then it's not half as bad as what I see the 40k players dealing with wether it's competitive or not. Also at competing events you expect to see the best units over represented and at least in 30k I can plan accordingly. I've personally stopped playing top tier lists, and still have yet to see a Spartan make it to my lines. Do I win every game no, but it's much more fun and intuitive than my 40k games. Also in 30k vs 40k there really is a community pressure to conform in some way to a thematic or fluffy list, at least that's what I've seen in my personal experience. I'm not saying that 30k is the golden ideal for table top gaming, but the community and rules set helps contribute to it being in many ways fairer and more internally balanced (cept for a purposefully broken TSons list... )

I'm a bit torn on that subject. On the one hand, a rulebook with all the irrelevant rules removed (and the Age of Darkness USRs added), updates from FAQs and errata applied and the like is a good thing.

On the other hand, I already have a 7th edition rulebook, and I don't really want another one.

Ideally they'd release this rulebook and also offer a document with the changes from 7th edition to AoD rules.

Forgeworld stated that you won't need to buy the new book if you already own the 7th edition rulebook.

There's going to be little, if anything, changed.

Yeah, they're not going to change much - I imagine just strip out the stuff Heresy doesn't use anyway.

Alan Bligh (RIP!) seemed pretty clear that the intention was to switch to 8ed at some point, but since his loss it looks like FW are aware that it's going to take a lot longer to replace their lead designer and re-write all the red books to 8ed. Hence, this 30k rule book.

If they were planning on changing anything big enough to require rules re-writes in the red books, then they might as well have switched to 8ed. We know they don't have the manpower to do that, so we know nothing big can change.

In answer to the OP, I think there might be the odd 7ed die-hard who bolsters the heresy players, but given what happened once everyone actually figured out what AoS was like, I imagine more people will just start playing more 40k again - I will!

I was very disappointed by the news that it's staying with 7ed, thought I understand why. I'd still expect 8ed 30k, but not for a couple of years.

In the interim, I've been working on some 8ed Heresy documents over at Heresy 30k with some people who feel similar. Most of the unit rules are already gong. To be published, so we're just collecting them together and porting over Legion rules/rites of war etc - ideally finding published 8ed equivalents for everything rather than writing stuff ourselves.

That way we can switch over to 8ed in both systems and never have to play 7ed again!!

If anyone wants to throw ideas into the ring or contribute, the thread is at http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/10142-playing-heresy-in-8th-format/page-6#entry190963

Liquidating my HH stuff to focus on 40k. 8th looks much better. Even if HH migrates to 8th, it's lost its appeal for me.

Ghorgul wrote:
I love how some posters here act like Horus Heresy is somehow perfect and without broken things. Of course it is not as broken as 7th Ed. 40k was, but it does have it's broken things, few of which were mentioned already but I shall mention again, in no particular order:
-Spartan with Armoured Ceramite
-Artificer Armour Champions tanking shots equipped with fist

As if 8th ed wasn't already showing broken things...Not to mention faulty rules that dont' make sense when read as written when you have rule that indicates it does X but actually doesn't.

As long as game tries to have balance by using fixed points in unfixed game enviroment the game is broken by definition. So either you accept you are playing unbalanced game or you don't play.

As for artificier armour what's the problem with that? Only thing it's actually worth is tanking AP3 shots but obviously somebody will direct first AP2 or AP4 or worse against both which AA tanking is seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY bad idea. Especially if the guy is also armed with fist at which point you are moving from realm of bad idea into realm of stupidity.

tneva82 wrote:

As for artificier armour what's the problem with that? Only thing it's actually worth is tanking AP3 shots but obviously somebody will direct first AP2 or AP4 or worse against both which AA tanking is seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY bad idea. Especially if the guy is also armed with fist at which point you are moving from realm of bad idea into realm of stupidity.

I agree with you partially, and the AA sergeant thing is more borderline case of imbalance, and not really felt by many shooty lists anyway as normal and phosphex blasts quite handily circumvent the AA tanking. This handily circled back to the other imbalanced thing mentioned.

In the case of high strength with AP 4 or worse weaponry being widely available one would orientate the AA guy in proper manner, towards the AP3 weaponry. And still in some cases tanking AP 4 or worse can be justified depending on the volume of fire coming, for example if this means that your squad is statistically likely to be wiped out. The jump from Sv 3+ to Sv 2+ means your chances go up +50%, and if you get lucky one can tank quite high number of shots with 2+ Sv. Also points you use before the game, then in the match you make decisions based on board state. If your AA-Fist sergeant is far away from all melee threats, I don't see any problem using it to tank the shots even at the price of losing the fist. I could even get lucky and lose no one. Point of the basic squads is anyway to just survive and hold objective.

What I don't like in 2+ Sv is the dynamic it forces on Squad leaders and melee in general - basically only combo is to have AA + Fist if you expect the squad do melee. This also gives you (very limited!) anti-Dread capability Other options are then just AA or bare. But how many people don't really buy AA with the price it is at? I skimmed quickly through local tournament 30k lists (from Warhead) and general trend seemed to be that AA sergeants are in most lists, and Top 5+some lists had always AA on sergeants where it could be taken. Also curiously in the Model Expo HH tournament 2 top placing list had AA on sergeants, and one or more vindicators. I wonder why that is? Maybe because vindicator can handle the too prevalent 2+ Sv very well and also circumvents tanking by being a blast weapon.
At current level I feel like it forces people to blast weapons and secondly it actually helps shooty lists more than melee lists as the AA sergeant can tie down opposing sergeants too reliably in many cases. Why would anyone get AP 3 weapon for dedicated melee units sergeant? How many lightning claws do you see people using? None, because they are useless when faced by Terminators, and hilariously lightning claw sergeant is instagibbed hard by opposing AA+Fist. Also lightning claw is same price as fist, for what, to strike at initiative? With the amount of 2+ saves going around currently all the AP 3 melee weapons are unuseable for sergeants and work only as squad upgrades. And I might add even the they are questionable with the amount of Pride of the Legion lists going around.
Note that this is not a problem in 8th edition because AP is a modifier instead of True False setting, the whole armor save rule is more flexible in 8th edition.

Anyway, the 2+ Sv is more personal case to me as I play Night Lords army. Although I have seen other people to complain about 2+ Sv on every sergeant. All the rules push one to do melee oriented lists and then there is cool melee weapon Nostraman Chainglaive with AP 3 with Rending. Equipping Sergeants with this is ill-advised though with the prevalence of AA and AA+Fist. Statistically if NL sergeant has outnumbering bonus and charge, he has exactly the same chance to gib the AA+Fist sergeant as vice-versa, only bonus is that he goes first at initiative. This is 1st Turn. If the fight goes to 2nd turn, Fist will have statistically better chances even though it's going last. As hilarious sidenote, even Night Lords special character Sevatar is notoriusly easily instagibbed by squad sergeant with AA+Fist, mostly because sevatars ability to finish him is mostly based on getting the rend.
I am truly happy the game designers had the decency to give Konrad Curze's lighting claws AP 2, had they left them AP 3 as normal lightning claws the result would have been maybe the worst primarch in whole ruleset

Also 3.5 Chaos Codex used to have ability to equip every champion with 2+ Sv, and this was generally used to tank as many shots as possible. This case of course is not comparable to 30k where both sides can have it. But clearly this 2+ Sv tanking was recognized problematic by GW as it was then swiftly removed and not seen since then in CSM codices. Although back then power weapons were power weapons and didnt have AP values, one could only have invulnerable saves against them.

I might add a fun tidbit that Artificer Armor in general doesn't seem to be modelled WYSIWYG by people.

we cant look at codex changes and assume "GW thought them to "problematic" so they changed it." Point in case: resurection protocols: were fine in 5th, broken in 7th, and now in 8th are even more silly. The top list at LVO for 30k had AA armour, but was an infantry heavy IF list with minimal tanks IIRC. I took 7th with literally no tanks and no Artificer in my list. 30k is more fluid with list building than "Lol, AA is everywhere, ergo AA is OP" Also, how would YOU model AA? extra colours?


As for will staying 7.5th edition sway people? probably not. Having played quite a few games of 8th by this point: It's a simplified ruleset, with a LOT of it's own problems (namely: deathstars are way stronger, clumped-up shooty lists are leagues tougher, knights are silly ATM, "octopus lists" are all the rage, Tau are MORE silly, etc. etc.), however, it's still decent enough. 30k happened to avoid most of the HUGE problems of 7th due to restrictions on list building and the fact that, say, a primarch deathstar was something most armies could end up handling. It would be interesting to see 30k stay at the "more complex" 7th edition as changing to 8th wouldn't really effect all to much balance wise for 30k that a codex update wouldn't. + with the headache inducing list building system that 8th has, I'd hate to see what FW would end up doing.

I don't think rules by itself are more or less balanced, it's most likely that 30k is balanced as most armies are actually using the same pool of units. And this very argument is often used to explain why 30k is more balanced.

And as for your list, I'm sure there are plenty of high performing tournament lists that didn't have every element I claim to be imbalanced. You should consider adding AA to your list, maybe the lack was holding you back. Its value is much more than one additional marine to the squad, which even costs more.
AA is still very good for its price, price should be higher, maybe 15.

I would model AA as heavier armor, even Mark II or III for torso and legs if unit was using Mark IV for example. Then totally different case is if unit has Mk. II or III. Although I don't really see point doing it as no one else does, so I keep on having hidden AAs in squads. Although I'm pretty convinced most players will assume sergeant will have AA so not so hidden I am afraid.

I'm not sure what the resurrection protocols have to do with my claim, has the rule stayed written as the same in different editions, but varied in level of OPness? I'm saying that CSM used to be able to have 2+ Sv on every champion and then it hasnt ever been able to do it again. I didn't play competitively or even very widely during CSM 3.5 codex and the internet wasn't so big back then so I don't know what the true power levels were. But I have heard claims that CSM 3.5 Codex was OP, especially certain builds, like IW lists. That codex allowed to buy veteran skills, so one could have infiltrating plasma chosen with 2+ Sv champ on front tanking the hits. Good times.

Ghorgul wrote:
I don't think rules by itself are more or less balanced, it's most likely that 30k is balanced as most armies are actually using the same pool of units. And this very argument is often used to explain why 30k is more balanced.

And as for your list, I'm sure there are plenty of high performing tournament lists that didn't have every element I claim to be imbalanced. You should consider adding AA to your list, maybe the lack was holding you back. Its value is much more than one additional marine to the squad, which even costs more.
AA is still very good for its price, price should be higher, maybe 15.

I would model AA as heavier armor, even Mark II or III for torso and legs if unit was using Mark IV for example. Then totally different case is if unit has Mk. II or III. Although I don't really see point doing it as no one else does, so I keep on having hidden AAs in squads. Although I'm pretty convinced most players will assume sergeant will have AA so not so hidden I am afraid.

I'm not sure what the resurrection protocols have to do with my claim, has the rule stayed written as the same in different editions, but varied in level of OPness? I'm saying that CSM used to be able to have 2+ Sv on every champion and then it hasnt ever been able to do it again. I didn't play competitively or even very widely during CSM 3.5 codex and the internet wasn't so big back then so I don't know what the true power levels were. But I have heard claims that CSM 3.5 Codex was OP, especially certain builds, like IW lists. That codex allowed to buy veteran skills, so one could have infiltrating plasma chosen with 2+ Sv champ on front tanking the hits. Good times.

I'd still say AA is one of the least bothersome things about it, as AP: 2 isn't exactly rare either

as for the modeling aspect: it's not modled because it's not really something that can be. Artificer armour is finely crafted power armour, that's it. Maybe paint it a bit better, or use your legion upgrade kits to make it stand out, but AA isn't something bulkier or fundamentally different than power armour (point in case, IIRC the non-terminator chapter master models (Pedro, generic chapter masters, etc.) all have artificer armour, and it's only marginally more detailed power armour. that's it.

the RP was brought up against your claim that "GW changed it, so there must be a balance reason" comment. Lord knows that CSM 3.5 was fun

in my case, absolutely yes.

Same. Before, I never really considered moving to 30k. Now I seriously want to play it, Fires Of Cyraxus letting my models be used in 40k be damned.

8th has halved my interest in 40k.

"Shrug" I'll play both and enjoy both.

Ghorgul wrote:
In the case of high strength with AP 4 or worse weaponry being widely available one would orientate the AA guy in proper manner, towards the AP3 weaponry. And still in some cases tanking AP 4 or worse can be justified depending on the volume of fire coming, for example if this means that your squad is statistically likely to be wiped out. The jump from Sv 3+ to Sv 2+ means your chances go up +50%, and if you get lucky one can tank quite high number of shots with 2+ Sv. Also points you use before the game, then in the match you make decisions based on board state. If your AA-Fist sergeant is far away from all melee threats, I don't see any problem using it to tank the shots even at the price of losing the fist. I could even get lucky and lose no one. Point of the basic squads is anyway to just survive and hold objective.

But you are spending 20 pts to save in average ONE guy. That's bloody expensive protection. Your squad mates should cost over 20 pts for it to be worth it. You would pay less by having simply extra guy! And lose special weaponry(sargs often have power fist etc) and LD8.

And anybody who thinks "I might get lucky" is not doing it because it's broken but just for gambling. If you are concerned about something being broken you don't consider luck but averages.

and also circumvents tanking by being a blast weapon.

Vindicator doesn't bypass that AA any more than random lascannon.

secretForge wrote:
I, as someone who recently started playing 30k, but also plan on maintaining a 40k force.

It seems to me that while the new 40k will be a quick and fun game, If i want actual tactical and strategic challenges, then 30k looks like its going to provide those more effectively.

After reading the new 40k rules and army construction stuff. I think that 'competitive' 40k will be just as much a spamming cluster F as it was in previous additions, but without many of the nuances of play that set apart adept tactical players from those who thought less deeply about their positioning etc.

I for one can see myself enjoying 30k competition far more than 40k, and I'm wondering if people think that a similar group of people will start to make a transition over from 40k due to its simplification?

I can't imagine that happening. To have an effective Horus Heresy army you need to sink hundreds of pounds into the tanks, transports and planes needed to make the army effective. I have often noticed that I am going into games and being beaten purely because I am playing against people who can afford to buy three flyers, a load of leviathans and tanks. The game brutally penalizes players who sink points into basic troops.

One of the things I like about 8th edition is its stress on troops and basic infantry. I am far too used to setting up 80 infantry only for them to kill a handful of enemy models as my opponent just uses all their tanks, dreadnoughts and quad guns to paste them. I am really disillusioned with the whole Heresy thing because its too dominated by shooting, vehicles and elite close combat units. Its does not take strategy to set up some quad guns and delete a squad a turn with phosphex. Frankly I am starting to give up on the whole thing and seeing it as a massive waste of money since the game is so unenjoyable and not what I thought it was going to be like.

I'd go as far as to say that a friendly game of 5th, 6th or 7th edition in my club was always better than Heresy.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I, as someone who recently started playing 30k, but also plan on maintaining a 40k force.

It seems to me that while the new 40k will be a quick and fun game, If i want actual tactical and strategic challenges, then 30k looks like its going to provide those more effectively.

After reading the new 40k rules and army construction stuff. I think that 'competitive' 40k will be just as much a spamming cluster F as it was in previous additions, but without many of the nuances of play that set apart adept tactical players from those who thought less deeply about their positioning etc.

I for one can see myself enjoying 30k competition far more than 40k, and I'm wondering if people think that a similar group of people will start to make a transition over from 40k due to its simplification?

I can't imagine that happening. To have an effective Horus Heresy army you need to sink hundreds of pounds into the tanks, transports and planes needed to make the army effective. I have often noticed that I am going into games and being beaten purely because I am playing against people who can afford to buy three flyers, a load of leviathans and tanks. The game brutally penalizes players who sink points into basic troops.

One of the things I like about 8th edition is its stress on troops and basic infantry. I am far too used to setting up 80 infantry only for them to kill a handful of enemy models as my opponent just uses all their tanks, dreadnoughts and quad guns to paste them. I am really disillusioned with the whole Heresy thing because its too dominated by shooting, vehicles and elite close combat units. Its does not take strategy to set up some quad guns and delete a squad a turn with phosphex. Frankly I am starting to give up on the whole thing and seeing it as a massive waste of money since the game is so unenjoyable and not what I thought it was going to be like.

I'd go as far as to say that a friendly game of 5th, 6th or 7th edition in my club was always better than Heresy.

Play Solar Auxilia, then you never have to struggle with model to cost ratio because your basic 100pt infantry costs as much as a Super Heavy!

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to cry myself to sleep thinking of how much money has been wasted on resin crack.

40k "stress on troops" is a solid myth.

The new detachments allow you to take minimum troops and spam Elites, Heavy support and fast attack options.

The most recent tournaments were won by 6 Stormravens etc.

I actually find marines HUGELY relavent in 30k. Veterans with sniper rounds, big blobs of bolt gun marines for fury of the legion.

As a world eater, I can't get enough of tactical marines armed with chain axe & bolt pistol, inductii, red butchers etc.

I think Horus Heresy has MUCH more marines on the table then you'll see in 80% of the 40k games.

Scoring units are hugely important to win all bar one scenario in Horus Heresy, they're really key.

As 7th ed is a mess of a game and one of the worst rule sets in history of gaming ill use my heresy stuff for 8th either chaos or imperial.

If fw update hh rules to 8th ill play hh again

As a template lover, among other things, I was overjoyed to hear I can still play "Hazard Stripes & Pie Plates". 8th has encouraged me to play more 30k with some of it'so other changes too...