Switch Theme:

Horus Heresy 2.0 - Thoughts so far  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

Sat down and talked about the leaks for HH 2.0, it's mostly discussion and commentary, wouldn't look to this to be informed, it's mostly about what has changed between editions and demonstrating that with models/terrain, like changes to movement and so on. I forgot to plug in the battery charger so we was scrambling between like 3 batteries all under like 30-40% power so I kept having to check to see if we were still recording, camera doesn't make a noise if the battery is what causes the recording to stop and external monitor was elsewhere. Anyway, pretty loose discussion, we're hoping to do some more as more things materialize. In both our cases, we're a bit burned out on alternating activation, been playing AT mostly, so the reactions stuff really didn't sit well, it seemed initially contained but quickly proved to be much more ingrained in the rules. It seems difficult to extricate from the rules, unlike in adeptus titanicus where we could just agree to not use stratagems or limit them. We recently got back to playing 30k 1.0 and what felt like a breath of fresh air was, our turns were our own.

There can be a lot of decision paralysis in games with alternating activations and gotcha mechanics like stratagems. What's refreshing about playing a good old fashioned turn based game again in terms of 30k is, the movement phase is your movement phase, the shooting phase you can again take as it comes and target what you want and maybe even change your mind as you go based on your success and failures in terms of hits/misses, combat phase even feels like you're in the driver seat, you can actually decide the order of everything and what units if any you wish to attempt to assault. None of this is contingent on constantly alternating with your opponent to counter the action you just took. Alternating activation can be great and very enjoyable, but decision paralysis and weird interactions can lead to forgetting where you're at, in adeptus titanicus for example something like a machine spirit getting angry can lead to a whole bunch of sorta extra attacks or damage or a series of bizarre occurrence that can often sorta exist outside of time, because you often sorta resolve it all then get right back to alternating activation, it feels like time dilation sometimes, it can get a bit confusing picking up where you were. The reactions in HH 2.0 start at 2 per phase and there are some limits, but quickly you realize wargear, characters and warlord traits can expand on these limits. In addition, special reactions seem to be part of every legion, meaning just like stratagems there will be a lot of them to contend with and have to commit to memory. And much like the "muh bespoke" laziness of special rules where one usr or reaction might do, some reaction for legios might just be a better version of an existing reaction or functionally identical but more movement value. The counter play basically seems like more stuff causes pinning and pinned units can't use strats/react.

Why the introductions of reactions really get away from itself quickly is you have wargear like say augery scanners that will give intercepts that don't count towards the total reactions you can do in an opponents phase and intercepting doesn't seem to have any downside unlike the current edition, then you have stuff like "the last unit you moved ended with x of my unit, so now i can move away x or advance x or shoot your unit ect. So your turn is no longer your own and decision paralysis will be high or people are going to get very anal about measuring, especially if you end perhaps one inch further than intended triggering a potential reaction, some of us play tired, and all of a sudden trigger a huge string of reactions from your opponent. The other issue is how to scale something like this for games with multiple players or mega battles. How would a 2v2 work realistically if you can grind down and disrupt your opponents turn twice as much as normal, and the same on your turn. I mean that's one thing on an 8x4, but how big can you go, mega battles tend to be at times on longer board like 12x4 ect, so like two long lines clashing, even if you tried to limit reactions how would the accounting of it all even be possible to all participants? These were complex enough to play in a reasonable time in 1.0. "Sorry steve, you can't evade anymore, we ran out of the concept of trying to actively not get shot" and evade means basically everything can do crappier jink now, but not too many! (ugh) This is meant to replace like going to ground, but I'm not sure why you'd do that or need to limit how many units go to ground, going to ground in hh 1.0 is basically self pinning your own unit, and it's often done out of desperation, like just trying to not get shot off an objective. This hybrid choice also sees stuff like treaded vehicles basically being able to jink/evade/go to ground, whatever you wanna call it.

There are bizarre changes to much loved units like javelins, sabre tanks are now much faster, or at least able to be in terms of overall movement. We had hoped that terrain would be addressed because it was something lacking in 1.0, we often used/borrowed terrain rules from the 6th 40k book because it had detailed rules for ruins and various other types of terrain, as well as an overall recommendation of density and a methodology for players to discuss and agree on terrain before dice roll. The biggest thing was like delineating what could and could not move on or deploy on the upper floors of ruins and how pathing worked, like melting through walls or doors and so on. It was useful because it helped keep say a unit on bikes from being able to assault a unit entirely on the 2nd floor of a ruin, or keep people from placing artillery on top of ruins or sillier stuff like rhinos. Sadly 2.0 basically just says "it's difficult terrain" for the most part. In addition cover saves have basically got worse across the board. I think a range of cover saves is better than pushing them mostly towards 5-6+. We mostly played ruins and most solid cover as 4+ in our games of HH and most low cover (sand bags/fences) as 5+.

I don't want to seem to negative, I'm actually quite happy that we'll be seeing new plastics and hopefully support for some time. What I think I'm more skeptical of is even with the pandemic winding down and gaming getting back to more normalcy/frequency I still don't think that means games/hobbyists will see a marked difference in their free time, if anything with more people perhaps no longer working from home as much, they may also eat into hobby/gaming time in terms of commuting/daily grind being more taxing/stressful. Anyway. what I'm saying is outside of people buying the models just to build and paint, the people intending or perhaps fooling themselves into starting HH 2.0 is I don't know if it will last for all of them, simply because like any new game it will likely come at the expense of less attention paid to other games. Can only play so many wargames regularly. There's a section of gamers likely just going to buy the models for 40k use no matter what. Will they suddenly decide they prefer 30k? I don't think it will hook all of them, the same way AT has a vast but limited appeal, only in that its mono faction and there aren't any xenos, much like 30k with the exception of daemons of the ruinstorm and a few other factions outside of marines, but all generally imperial or traitor. Not quite the same as the amount of factions in 9th in terms of all the xenos factions and variety. I just know it will likely have to in some cases cannibalize from other games to hold it's niche, while its possible to conceive of playing both 40k and 30k, I just think it won't have enough to keep the majority of 40k fans invested, at least in the way they are with 9th. The other concern is gw emulating more and more of 9th ed decision marking to try and bring them in. The last tournament I photographed, the majority of 30k models were being used for 40k.

My interest is to continue playing 30k 1.0 based on the leaks. I'll be very content to have a shiny new plastic spartan and potential other new things if gw releases some cool stuff. But I'm gonna do what I can't help but feel most of the 40k players will do also do, buy the models that are cool and use them for another game than HH 2.0. More videos to come.




This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2022/04/26 14:16:05


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

You touched on one of my issues with reactions - their relation to the real world.

I really dislike any weird 'meta' rules that don't make sense in the real world.

"sorry guys, you can't duck because someone's already used the ducking quota for this moment" just make no sense. Those sorts of rules really rip you out of the battle and remind you it's just a game with silly game-isms.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 kirotheavenger wrote:
You touched on one of my issues with reactions - their relation to the real world.

I really dislike any weird 'meta' rules that don't make sense in the real world.

"sorry guys, you can't duck because someone's already used the ducking quota for this moment" just make no sense. Those sorts of rules really rip you out of the battle and remind you it's just a game with silly game-isms.


It's also the like fetish gw has for alternating activation, which in a way is like saying "turn based has some issues, so we need HYPER turn based". I think just good old turn based is a pretty good system, I don't know why they feel the need to re-invent the wheel on this one,

It reminds me of when they released the maelstrom stuff for 40k, it feels like the maelstrom cards to me "the game isn't exciting enough, we need random missions evey 5 second with random vp allotment" and to your point it feels like the furthest thing from any real world conception of a battle, in the real world objectives of battle don't change every 5 seconds nor are they always interesting or that exciting it's more like "5700 people died defending that hill that's so special we didn't even name it". So it feels like strat-reactions are just a weird stop gap mechanic the marketing boys forced in there.

Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 Crablezworth wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
You touched on one of my issues with reactions - their relation to the real world.

I really dislike any weird 'meta' rules that don't make sense in the real world.

"sorry guys, you can't duck because someone's already used the ducking quota for this moment" just make no sense. Those sorts of rules really rip you out of the battle and remind you it's just a game with silly game-isms.


It's also the like fetish gw has for alternating activation, which in a way is like saying "turn based has some issues, so we need HYPER turn based". I think just good old turn based is a pretty good system, I don't know why they feel the need to re-invent the wheel on this one,

It reminds me of when they released the maelstrom stuff for 40k, it feels like the maelstrom cards to me "the game isn't exciting enough, we need random missions evey 5 second with random vp allotment" and to your point it feels like the furthest thing from any real world conception of a battle, in the real world objectives of battle don't change every 5 seconds nor are they always interesting or that exciting it's more like "5700 people died defending that hill that's so special we didn't even name it". So it feels like strat-reactions are just a weird stop gap mechanic the marketing boys forced in there.


Yes, because "I'm going to stand here and wait while your entire force maneuvers and then fires off a volley against me and charges into melee with my troops before I take any action of my own" is a *perfect* facsimile of a real world conception of a battle

Some of you guys never cease to amaze me with the immense lack of logical consistency you display in your complaints. On that note - not sure where you get you get the idea that GW has a "fetish" for alternating activation, considering 90% of their games are based on an IGOUGO/turn based rules structure (and the reason why they might want to depart from it is because contrary to your assertion that its a "pretty good system", the biggest, longest running, most consistent complaint about GWs rules is that IGOUGO sucks, is a major contributing factor to the prominence of alpha strike and first turn advantage in the game, and leaves one player standing there twiddling their thumbs for 30 minutes while they watch their opponent pick their army apart).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/26 15:17:39


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in ca
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions






chaos0xomega wrote:
 Crablezworth wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
You touched on one of my issues with reactions - their relation to the real world.

I really dislike any weird 'meta' rules that don't make sense in the real world.

"sorry guys, you can't duck because someone's already used the ducking quota for this moment" just make no sense. Those sorts of rules really rip you out of the battle and remind you it's just a game with silly game-isms.


It's also the like fetish gw has for alternating activation, which in a way is like saying "turn based has some issues, so we need HYPER turn based". I think just good old turn based is a pretty good system, I don't know why they feel the need to re-invent the wheel on this one,

It reminds me of when they released the maelstrom stuff for 40k, it feels like the maelstrom cards to me "the game isn't exciting enough, we need random missions evey 5 second with random vp allotment" and to your point it feels like the furthest thing from any real world conception of a battle, in the real world objectives of battle don't change every 5 seconds nor are they always interesting or that exciting it's more like "5700 people died defending that hill that's so special we didn't even name it". So it feels like strat-reactions are just a weird stop gap mechanic the marketing boys forced in there.


Yes, because "I'm going to stand here and wait while your entire force maneuvers and then fires off a volley against me and charges into melee with my troops before I take any action of my own" is a *perfect* facsimile of a real world conception of a battle

Some of you guys never cease to amaze me with the immense lack of logical consistency you display in your complaints. On that note - not sure where you get you get the idea that GW has a "fetish" for alternating activation, considering 90% of their games are based on an IGOUGO/turn based rules structure (and the reason why they might want to depart from it is because contrary to your assertion that its a "pretty good system", the biggest, longest running, most consistent complaint about GWs rules is that IGOUGO sucks, is a major contributing factor to the prominence of alpha strike and first turn advantage in the game, and leaves one player standing there twiddling their thumbs for 30 minutes while they watch their opponent pick their army apart).


Most "alpha strike" is really just getting shot off the board by direct fire weapons; it's almost always a symptom of gak terrain that doesn't break up LOS or firing lanes. You get better terrain and terrain rules, you get less alpha strike. You can look at 9th edition WTC boards and get a vibe for how there might be a difference between how first turn shooting can be applied:

Spoiler:


WTC



Terrible local tournament




Other than terrain enabling direct fire, the main culprits of alpha strike are barrage and pods in 30k. Both got dialed back significantly. Pods come in turn 2; the strongest barrage is AP3 with rending (and night fight stops it from happening on turn 1 altogether now). They've addressed the alpha strike weakness of IGOUGO 30k, but they've also added in interruption mechanics; some of which can result in you twiddling your thumbs for 30 minutes in your own turn, while your opponent picks apart your deepstriking forces.

I'd argue their fetish is for powerful gotcha interruption mechanics, as they usually don't resemble true alternate activation. What they're there for is to give players a chance to do "something cool" in the face of GW's rampant design inflation. You didn't need that kind of mechanic in 5th, but you certainly need it in the face of 9ths lethality. And gak terrain standards.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/26 16:16:31


5,000 Raven Guard
3,000 Night Lords  
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/26 16:28:33


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in ca
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions






chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


There is spacing for larger models, but yes, they're limited in their maneuverability. Seems pretty deliberate imo.

5,000 Raven Guard
3,000 Night Lords  
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


We're mostly in agreement, it looks awful, but we can all sorta see why they do it and what broad effect it has on the game regardless of faction. That's sorta where we're coming from on the 30k front. I feel like we'd agree they could take mosf that terrain, arrange it in a way that at least looks plausible, likely with longer fire lanes cuz roads be like that and you could play 30k and likely limit first turn ability to shoot the opponent of the board whether alpha strike or just a good old typhon.

When we did 30k tournaments, we always just put a big lost block in the dead center and a ruin in every corner and then a smatter of low cover. We had to leave enough room for stuff like knights/baneblade sized super heavies ect. So obviously couldn't do something as dense as wtc. But anyway, all of this is sorta not a consideration in 2.0, terrain is "difficult terrain" for the most part and that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


There is spacing for larger models, but yes, they're limited in their maneuverability. Seems pretty deliberate imo.


Even the introduction of "planet L" terrain meta sorta was birthed by knights from my understanding. I do remember one tournament that had nice boards a prior year only to have the same nice boards the next with giant L's added to them in haste.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/26 16:41:10


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





I feel like this problem is emphasized by smaller tables.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

Yeah smaller tables are a big pita IMO, will be happy whenever GW decides to revise its battleboard size to encourage a return to 6x4 tables

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah smaller tables are a big pita IMO, will be happy whenever GW decides to revise its battleboard size to encourage a return to 6x4 tables

Nothing's stopping you from using a 6x4 is there?

I genuinely do not understand why players adhere so heavily to the "minimum" for things.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

Local event here last weekend, the tables all looked liked that... but to the point about smaller gaming table, more room for cards I guess. I can understand not even bothering to require painting anymore if terrain doesn't even matter. I just don't see the hunger for HH 2.0 if this is the state of 9th. Give it a few years they won't even have ruins or models and it will just be a card game.


I get wanting to standardize boards. 30k isn't exactly even as detailed seemingly as 9th when it comes to terrain rules. This is where 40k 9th edition is at with terrain, granted this isn't every event but this is just an example of a big local tournament. Horus heresy events, not all mind you but past one I've seen the terrain is much less standardized like the wtc/competitive stuff. This might not be an issue for HH 2.0 but I really wouldn't be stoked to play 2.0 on boards like that. Especially to the point about them being smaller than 6x4 just to get more space for sidebars.


https://www.facebook.com/CanHammer




This was a 40k tournment we ran about a decade ago (2012). Much smaller event obviously, we only had like 10 tables, but it was all one long setup with a tiny sidebar and we made it work.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/459136.page



The problem with 2.0 not really having terrain rules and calling ruins simply difficult terrain is you'll see stuff like this

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/04/27 10:12:53


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





Looks to be an alpha legion tank, they’re a tricky bunch. Wouldn’t put it past them to know rhino parkour.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Looks to be an alpha legion tank, they’re a tricky bunch. Wouldn’t put it past them to know rhino parkour.


It was alpharius's fault

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/27 02:42:38


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

40k definitely has a problem with "firepower accessibility", for lack of a good term.

Smaller tables mean there's less space for units to move around one another, less space for units to avoid one another.

Longer weapon ranges (small arms are commonly 30"+ now) mean they can reach further than ever before.

There's much more mobility than before. Your standard unit can move full distance and shoot almost unmolested.
Even heavy weapons can move and fire with almost no penalty.
Assault weapons can advance and fire with minimal penalty.
Many units have rules to advance and fire with any weapon with no penalty!
A lot of terrain has rules such that infantry can just phase through as if it wasn't there.

All this combines to mean it's fairly easy to get your firepower on whereever it wants to be. You really do need lots of solid L shaped buildings to have any hope of hiding.
This is part of what leads to the insane lethality of 40k, it's almost never I'm in a position to choose either manoeuvring where I want or shooting what I want, often I can do both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think IgoUgo works very poorly for large scale games that 30k tends towards - there's just far too much downtime where I'm sat down doing nothing but getting kicked in the dick.
Then it's my time to kick my opponent in the dick for 45 minutes.

IgoUgo also leads to the issues above - Alternating Activation games often limit was an individual unit can do more, because there's more interaction between units you don't need units to be able to yeet themselves across the map.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/27 09:02:29


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 kirotheavenger wrote:
40k definitely has a problem with "firepower accessibility", for lack of a good term.

Smaller tables mean there's less space for units to move around one another, less space for units to avoid one another.

Longer weapon ranges (small arms are commonly 30"+ now) mean they can reach further than ever before.

There's much more mobility than before. Your standard unit can move full distance and shoot almost unmolested.
Even heavy weapons can move and fire with almost no penalty.
Assault weapons can advance and fire with minimal penalty.
Many units have rules to advance and fire with any weapon with no penalty!
A lot of terrain has rules such that infantry can just phase through as if it wasn't there.

All this combines to mean it's fairly easy to get your firepower on whereever it wants to be. You really do need lots of solid L shaped buildings to have any hope of hiding.
This is part of what leads to the insane lethality of 40k, it's almost never I'm in a position to choose either manoeuvring where I want or shooting what I want, often I can do both.


5-7 felt right, it felt like a combined arms ww2 game with space aliens and monsters and sci fi stuff, but the prevailing logics were very world war 2 ish imo. Like vehicles, facings, armour getting weaker the more you flank, small arms being useless against most vehicles because, well, that's how most small arms are against a tank. This logic existed across factions, an eldar tank might be thousands of years more advanced than an imperial one but the prevailing logic was still roughly the same "maybe if we shoot it in the rear it will be easier to make it go boom". The sci fi element was the fact that it was a skimmer. Vehicles whole purpose compared to infantry in game was they, unlike footsloggers could move and fire weapons and heavy weapons. Walkers, again, were all about slow prodigious advance in squadrons while being able to fire their heavy weapons but also being able in some cases to mix it in up in close combat. Most factions had walkers because they could also go places/fit place easier that larger tanks and other vehicles might get immobilized in or simply unable to traverse. All the context to all the unit types basically went away and we got a system that pretends to be deep but it's actually designed far more to benefit the silo'd workforce and schizophrenic release schedule at gw than to be a superior experience to prior editions or even enjoyable to people who remember how far the game has fallen. It feels like a card games with models. I still remember in 8th seeing a flyer assault a bunker and just feeling like "how is anyone ok with is?". Quit 40k not long after for 30k because it was the only one left with that sorta game engine of prior 40k editions so to speak.

This was what our tables at our event looked like a decade ago, I guess that'd be 5th ed. We literally previewed all 10 tables like a week prior to the event and set them up identically to he photos. We'd have massive big los blockers to help speed up play, but still have a few more open boards where it was more hills/trees and fewer los blockers. Burt there was insane verticality and certainly not phasing through walls for infantry. I guess if there's less of a stomach for this in 9th around here, I doubt the HH events will look any better, hopefully they'll still be on 6x4's.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/457149.page





 kirotheavenger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think IgoUgo works very poorly for large scale games that 30k tends towards - there's just far too much downtime where I'm sat down doing nothing but getting kicked in the dick.
Then it's my time to kick my opponent in the dick for 45 minutes.

IgoUgo also leads to the issues above - Alternating Activation games often limit was an individual unit can do more, because there's more interaction between units you don't need units to be able to yeet themselves across the map.



In fairness even mega battles have their limits. I'd much rather play a 2v2 on an 8x4 at like 4000-5000pts per side than spend all weekend playing 4 turns. 30k seems to work ok for something like that provided there's proper planning and communications and enough time set aside.

Alternating activation just seems to work better in very contained smaller scale games and even then it quickly tips over, that's why AT doesn't scale very well past about 2500, and even then you can end up with a lot of activation disparity, which just leads to the one with most activations having a tail end to every phase where all there activations are sequential anyway. This occurs sorta naturally even with equal activations as one side sorta gets more engine kills, but the game can also start with that huge disparity in activations, and it makes itself felt considering you can often very much focus on a singular target as if it was turn based activation, you basically own the tail end of every phase. We played a few games with multiple units of titan hunter infantry, in some cases it was adding 4 additional activations per combat phase, not to mention having to alternate placing/removing them in the stratagy phase.

Turn based isn't perfect, but some players also expect every single element of their army to be moving shooting and assaulting every turn. Honestly, with good terrain coverage and fairly realistically modelled with fire lanes and big los blockers and ruins ect not to mention a scenario with a fairly limited amount of vp's in play, you can afford to have some units just sit backfield all game holding their sector. Also with healthy amounts of deep strike and outflanking units those backfield unit's patience may ultimately be rewarded if a unit outflanks near them out of nowhere or some termies teleport in front of them. 30k 1.0 for all its faults can work really really well with a very straight forward mission/scenario and a well conceived game board. The problem is a lot of these central things, the third army so its called, often isn't given enough consideration.

HH 2.0 shows signs of what 9th does, pretend to have rules but then have other rules to cancel them out. It's like the illusion of limits or control. Like with 9th where for all the supposed detail the limits seem a bit lack, unit types that were well defined in editions past sorta blend together in 9th. Everything starts to feel like a collection of stats their either fly's or doesn't fly. Now granted HH 2.0 isn't quite that bad, you start to see indications of where things are going. The vehicles are a good example, they show you all these charts and diagrams with sponsons and go into detail on how everything is mounted and its field of fire but for all the appearance of how things used to work, when you actually read it, basically everything split fires and vehicles squadrons are going to be a dumpster fire. It's not all the way to where 40k is at but it's not far off.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/27 10:55:44


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in us
Changing Our Legion's Name






 Crablezworth wrote:


HH 2.0 shows signs of what 9th does, pretend to have rules but then have other rules to cancel them out. It's like the illusion of limits or control. Like with 9th where for all the supposed detail the limits seem a bit lack, unit types that were well defined in editions past sorta blend together in 9th. Everything starts to feel like a collection of stats their either fly's or doesn't fly. Now granted HH 2.0 isn't quite that bad, you start to see indications of where things are going. The vehicles are a good example, they show you all these charts and diagrams with sponsons and go into detail on how everything is mounted and its field of fire but for all the appearance of how things used to work, when you actually read it, basically everything split fires and vehicles squadrons are going to be a dumpster fire. It's not all the way to where 40k is at but it's not far off.


It's almost a mishearing or corruption of the TCG mentality. When Richard Garfield was making his game, his thought process was to make the rules for the game, then every (or nearly every) card has some way to break or work around the rules. 9th is taking this philosophy to the extreme to the point where the rules might as well not exist, especially with things like stratagems. What's the quote? "When everyone's super, no one will be."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/27 13:45:23


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
 Crablezworth wrote:


HH 2.0 shows signs of what 9th does, pretend to have rules but then have other rules to cancel them out. It's like the illusion of limits or control. Like with 9th where for all the supposed detail the limits seem a bit lack, unit types that were well defined in editions past sorta blend together in 9th. Everything starts to feel like a collection of stats their either fly's or doesn't fly. Now granted HH 2.0 isn't quite that bad, you start to see indications of where things are going. The vehicles are a good example, they show you all these charts and diagrams with sponsons and go into detail on how everything is mounted and its field of fire but for all the appearance of how things used to work, when you actually read it, basically everything split fires and vehicles squadrons are going to be a dumpster fire. It's not all the way to where 40k is at but it's not far off.


It's almost a mishearing or corruption of the TCG mentality. When Richard Garfield was making his game, his thought process was to make the rules for the game, then every (or nearly every) card has some way to break or work around the rules. 9th is taking this philosophy to the extreme to the point where the rules might as well not exist, especially with things like stratagems. What's the quote? "When everyone's super, no one will be."


Combat seems to have hard limits, even now opening fire on tank or apc with a rifle can't be expected to do much, and worse, likely just calls attention to oneself. Anti-armour weaponry can be man portable, but the quality, efficacy, payload are all over the place, not to mention weight or setup time. That would seem to be why heavy weapons traditionally wouldn't allow for moving and shooting. Snapfiring wasn't the end of the world, be we see the creep from snap firing to you're never told hard no to anything and this is also part of the decision paralysis. If all options always remain possible just diminished its never going to be easy to decide what to do or worse, there will always be obvious choices so its the illusion of depth most of the time. It's nice when mechanics have limits because your decision can be whittled down over the course of a turn. "Oh that target is out of range, guess I'll have to shoot this one" is something you don't see much when most weapons can reach half the board.

Hard limits in 30k help, there may be fewer decisions in the shooting phase if one has gone and moved a lot of stuff that can't move and shoot effectively, you've made your decision so to speak by moving instead of holding still for those units. Maybe some are vehicles so it doesn't matter. THe problem of 9thing it is you get the every last drop problem, if every last lasgun has at least a chance of doing something, you can get a lot of really boring gradient work and everything starts to feel like a big health bar with no real context. This is actually not a great model for how people and machines breakdown or take damage. It also means stuff is just as killy when it's 1 of 10 wounds is left as when it was full health, unlike vehicles in current 30k that for the most part can be suppressed, have their weapons rendered inoperable and even immobilized. 30k also went the smarter way with limits or downsides, like if one was really concerned or had a bad time with being immobilized many vehicles had upgrades/wargear that could help mitigate or fix that. This is still better design than just making everything move an integer but having few real limitations.

30k at least has all the unit types so its not difficult to simply say what can and can't "climb" or end its movement on upper floors even if those rules for terrain themselves are sadly absent. The more unit types get amalgamated modified or take a hit in some way the more it moves towards 9th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/27 18:55:10


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 kirotheavenger wrote:
You touched on one of my issues with reactions - their relation to the real world.

I really dislike any weird 'meta' rules that don't make sense in the real world.

"sorry guys, you can't duck because someone's already used the ducking quota for this moment" just make no sense. Those sorts of rules really rip you out of the battle and remind you it's just a game with silly game-isms.


Go to ground is still in the game isnt it?

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps





United States

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah smaller tables are a big pita IMO, will be happy whenever GW decides to revise its battleboard size to encourage a return to 6x4 tables


No one I know uses the new suggested sizes for tables. 40K or AoS we all around my stomping grounds still use 6X4.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 Backspacehacker wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
You touched on one of my issues with reactions - their relation to the real world.

I really dislike any weird 'meta' rules that don't make sense in the real world.

"sorry guys, you can't duck because someone's already used the ducking quota for this moment" just make no sense. Those sorts of rules really rip you out of the battle and remind you it's just a game with silly game-isms.


Go to ground is still in the game isnt it?


It would seem go to ground/jink are one thing now and it's a reaction called evade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Togusa wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah smaller tables are a big pita IMO, will be happy whenever GW decides to revise its battleboard size to encourage a return to 6x4 tables


No one I know uses the new suggested sizes for tables. 40K or AoS we all around my stomping grounds still use 6X4.


Well given the confirmed contents of the 2.0 starter, 6x4 really does seem like the way to go.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/28 01:19:47


Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Go to ground is still in the game isnt it?

Nope.
As mentioned it's approximately been replaced by a reaction called "evade" - which effectively grants the unit Shrouded (now a 5+++ save similar to Feel No Pain).

Being pinned doesn't result in a cover bonus either, it's just the limited action thing.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:

Go to ground is still in the game isnt it?

Nope.
As mentioned it's approximately been replaced by a reaction called "evade" - which effectively grants the unit Shrouded (now a 5+++ save similar to Feel No Pain).

Being pinned doesn't result in a cover bonus either, it's just the limited action thing.


Hmm idk how i feel about removal of go to ground, TBH might house rule Go to Ground Back into the game and make it so that if you go to ground you cant take reactions until your next shooting phase.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 Backspacehacker wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:

Go to ground is still in the game isnt it?

Nope.
As mentioned it's approximately been replaced by a reaction called "evade" - which effectively grants the unit Shrouded (now a 5+++ save similar to Feel No Pain).

Being pinned doesn't result in a cover bonus either, it's just the limited action thing.


Hmm idk how i feel about removal of go to ground, TBH might house rule Go to Ground Back into the game and make it so that if you go to ground you cant take reactions until your next shooting phase.


Why not just play 1.0? It seems much better tbh.

Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






 Crablezworth wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:

Go to ground is still in the game isnt it?

Nope.
As mentioned it's approximately been replaced by a reaction called "evade" - which effectively grants the unit Shrouded (now a 5+++ save similar to Feel No Pain).

Being pinned doesn't result in a cover bonus either, it's just the limited action thing.


Hmm idk how i feel about removal of go to ground, TBH might house rule Go to Ground Back into the game and make it so that if you go to ground you cant take reactions until your next shooting phase.


Why not just play 1.0? It seems much better tbh.


Because the changes in 2.0 seem more interesting and balanced across the board.
-Changes to challenges
-Pysker changes
-MEQ and TEQ being the new hotness
-Parking lots are not as appealing
-Dread changes make them good
-AP rebalance and cut back on AP2 and AP 3 templates

The only thing so far im skeptical on or interested to see how they are balanced are reactions, which so far is not that big of an issue, if all those positives come at the cost of no more go to ground? Eh, thats not that big of as loss.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

Great new video on reactions from the outer circle, our video gets some love from down under.



Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


This happens when you don´t take efforts into building roads too for your city. I wouldn´t say it´s intentional malice on part of the tournament people just a lack of awareness.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

 Strg Alt wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


This happens when you don´t take efforts into building roads too for your city. I wouldn´t say it´s intentional malice on part of the tournament people just a lack of awareness.


It's also sorta sad to have to build tables to accommodate the silliest models like super heavies and knights. We had to to accommodate for them in 30k and it sorta made the tables worse overall imo.

Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in us
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Kalamazoo

 Crablezworth wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


This happens when you don´t take efforts into building roads too for your city. I wouldn´t say it´s intentional malice on part of the tournament people just a lack of awareness.


It's also sorta sad to have to build tables to accommodate the silliest models like super heavies and knights. We had to to accommodate for them in 30k and it sorta made the tables worse overall imo.


Having lost some games in a tourny due to terrain constraining larger models, including one where I couldn't deploy all my tanks because the board was filled with a gigantic train yard, I feel that there needs to be a good compromise between terrain making the battles interesting and getting in the way.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

Durandal wrote:
 Crablezworth wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
That WTC terrain is an awful real world conception of a battle, did the terrain organizer never hear of urban planning? Corners of ruined buildings just haphazardly and randomly scattered around without deference to the actual layout of where buildings would stand - a couple of them look like they have parks growing right through where the continuation of their walls should be, etc. What a travesty! (In all seriousness though, terrain of that level of density might be good in terms of neutering first turn advantage and alpha strike but you're basically screwed if you wanted to show up to the game with a Baneblade (or I assume a Knight) - there are basically entire sections of the table that larger models would have limited or no means of accessing because of how tightly spaced everything is preventing you from actually physically placing models there).


This happens when you don´t take efforts into building roads too for your city. I wouldn´t say it´s intentional malice on part of the tournament people just a lack of awareness.


It's also sorta sad to have to build tables to accommodate the silliest models like super heavies and knights. We had to to accommodate for them in 30k and it sorta made the tables worse overall imo.


Having lost some games in a tourny due to terrain constraining larger models, including one where I couldn't deploy all my tanks because the board was filled with a gigantic train yard, I feel that there needs to be a good compromise between terrain making the battles interesting and getting in the way.


Agreed, but I also think something as expansive as HH in terms of army buildings also needs containing for an event, like model limits for time and also limiting some of the larger models like super heavies/knights. I think the reality too is no battlefield is going to satisfy the person with 15 tanks in their list other than an open field, but I think that's what I would stress in terms of creating a meta with some outright limits and other stuff more incentivized by terrain placement/density/type. I honestly feel the game works best with combined arms. I don't have a lot of sympathy for armies that are all one unit type that expect to function in every scenario on every board.

Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer 30K
Go to: