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.

Honestly I'm both surprised and annoyed that the plastic Mechanicum are as good as they turned out to be, as I'd *almost* managed to put three of my concept armies in the "too expensive, let it go..." bin and now they'd be no more expensive than anything else and I have an itch to do them.

I wasn't the greatest fan of the little tweaks made to the SAux design to get them into plastic, but everything for Mechanicum just hits right, I even love the Zombots.

If someone is maybe a bit iffy about the zombie shambling, maybe try conceptualising their movement less as zombie walking and more the way the peregrine or hawk moves when they're in "hunting mode", ie the lasgun is perfectly still and gyro-locked to the target and the whole of the rest of the body is just shifting around it in small ways to keep it steady.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Unfortunately HH isn't getting GW's best and brightest assigned to its rules writing, so any new edition is at least as likely to get worse than better. From a marketing standpoint, it does make sense to release what is intended as a powerup for Auxilia and Mechanicum, but invalidating expensive hardcovers with something that might end up weaker is a big risk.

If GW's best and brightest are the ones who've been turning out 40K and AoS in recent years, I'd strongly dispute describing that state of affairs as "unfortunate". Keep them well clear, I rather like being able to select wargear.

That said, I won't be buying all those big hardcovers over again after a couple of years for the sake of a few tweaks that they could easily just stick in the Errata PDFs. The current ones look nice enough on my bookshelves to fulfil that role, and everyone I play with are comfortable with, ahem, alternative arrangements for rules procurement so I'll be setting sail if GW are planning to stick HH on a 3 year cycle.

 Gert wrote:
So, one example that can be solved with the old adage of "Don't be a tryhard".

The Shattered Legion rules are way more of a pain in the butt.

In either case, the original point that the book could have done with a few additional rounds of playtesting and proofreading is well proven I think. I wouldn't hold out too much hope of the next one being an improvement tbh except insofar as it probably won't include army building rules that deviate so much from the standard template and so will have less to rooster up - and I'm not being negative incidentally, just encouraging realism, we already know that SGS are obviously either strained for resources, prefer "here you go, sort it out for yourselves" as a publishing strategy, or both based on Nucromunda, AT etc. It just is what it is.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
Can't wait to see the full sprues for these sets.

Already floating about, though you'll have to brave /tg/ to find them. Very impressed with the Thallax.

Ended up getting two(just as well I did since I wanted two multimelta Castellax for my Praevian and the stingy gits only include one of those and one darkfire in each pair) and hopefully can sell the tanks(mostly play ZM and don't really like the design anyway).

chaos0xomega wrote:
I domt think they've been kept in production, I think that's excess stock being transferred between warehouses. The US is being "restocked" from the leftover inventory from the UK and EU etc.

That would suggest they were significantly overproduced/undersold in the UK and EU, which doesn't seem right.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Is it just me, or is that "roadmap" somewhat underwhelming, even just compared to the other three from this preview?

The other three at least actually tell us something specific that's coming out, even if the when is generally limited to 2025.

Indeed. It's literally: There will be models for HH in 2025.
You don't say!

I literally lol'd and exclaimed "it's effing nothing" out loud. What a colossal nothingburger. Same for TOW, utterly pointless.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
FAQ, also can i still run the PDF that first introduced daemonengines for reasonable acces to that strain of cyberthurgy?

Sure. The Arcana is now Æthertek and you miss out two beneficial rules, but the rest is the same - the rite, the weapon and all the Daemon engines.

I have the book, my question is if i can still take the cybertheurgy for any traitor cybertheurgist like the PDF stated one could with a traitor allegiance.

Because without that, this is actually dumb, seeing as daemonengines require more support than bots and yet the availability of the cybertheurgy is down to a single Guy without that access.
Congrats gw, you Made daemonengines even worse somehow

It's a non-Marine release(not that you'd know it from the fluff in the book), so it's as half-bummed as everything else in that vein. On the surface there are lots of cool things, but when you look closer to realize most of them only work together in a small number of limited combinations and there's random splits in the rules that aren't suggested by the fluff - the almost complete lack of overlap between boosting rules for daemon engines(which you're likely to have very few of absent one specific combo of arcana, trait, and list) and the ones for evil robots(which would seem like the ideal "troop choice" for an army that contains daemon engines especially given that one of the few solid bits of mechanicum fluff in the mars book is that the former are a direct outgrowth of experimentation with the latter by Chrom, and he uses both together repeatedly in the course of the narrative) is bonkers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Been reading my Mechanicum rule book, and I see it mentions certain Automata as being developed from (literally) older models, such as the Domitar being a development from the ancient Conqueror design.

With Dark Mechanicum being promised new toys, I wonder if we might see Loyalist Mechanicum get those older patterns realised, representing the desperation of the hour, and no existing resource going unfielded?

While at first blush that sounds like a cool idea to me since it might lead to the oldschool Jes concept sketches getting models, thinking about it makes me realize it's far more likely to result in Kastellan-styled takes on the original designs since GW seem to have decided that awful design language is now what the Dark Age of Technology looked like, so on reflection I hope not.

 tauist wrote:
Hasnt it been speculated that HH plastics tackle tanks first most of the time, because they want to reduce the amount of resin kit production ASAP? And getting rid of the large resin models first makes the most sense for this

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Tanks are also larger and more expensive, so probably higher margin of return, especially when multiple kits share 75-80% of sprues.

See this logic always struck me as odd, because seeing treadhead armies is quite rare in my experience and most people seem to buy a couple of tanks, and often as their "final" purchases for a planned army. I dunno maybe mech-heavy event/tournament lists are skewing GW's perception, but if I wanted to clear resin stock and make money I'd be rushing to plastic-ify the stuff that most people are buying 10+ boxes of as soon as they start, and that's infantry.

 Snord wrote:
I don't think releasing a slew of tanks during the initial stages of the 2nd edition of the game was a bad idea at all. For many people, the Heresy-era vehicles are big part of the attraction of WH30k, but the fact that they were only available in resin was a major turn-off. I agree that infantry units tend to dominate most lists, but remember that the people who actually play are only part of the customer base, and there are plenty of customers buying the models just to build and paint them. GW probably wanted to tap into that demand - and start to reduce FW's resin vehicle output. The issue was that there was a need for models for other basic units that was not being met; in fact, for a while the only thing they seemed to be releasing was minor variations on existing vehicles (usually only involving a replacement sprue). I would question whether there is actually more money for them in tank kits; I would have thought that a sprue of infantry with 5 poses is unlikely to be any more expensive to get into production than a tank, but infantry kits probably sell in exponentially greater numbers.

Re bolded, that was rather the point; making the tanks in plastic makes sense in absolute terms, but if your potential for production or release slots is very limited then it surely makes *more* sense to transition the units people will be buying most of. That we're apparently going to get a second year of mostly vehicles genuinely boggles the noggin. And as for the collector/painter side, ehhhhh, I don't buy it. Assuming the game has no relevance to that market is one of the key mistakes of the Kirby management era; most of the people buying models but not playing games still use the hypothetical possibility that they might play a game to justify their purchases and so still buy complete armies. The number of people just buying a model to built it, paint it, and put it in a display case like you would with an Airfix or Gunpla kit isn't nonexistent, but I highly doubt it's genuinely significant.

JWBS wrote:
Gamers have always been the secondary market, some people won't accept this because it's not what they do/see, but that's how it is.

If this comical nonsense were true, GW would be a figurine company. If the game didn't exist, the models wouldn't even be made let alone sell in the quantities they do - again, even most "collectors" build *armies*, and in their minds the fact they *could* use the models to play a game is how they justify buying them. This notion that there's a silent army of people out there buying a completely random(from the perspective of the game & IP) selection of individual models purely to paint and put on a shelf and that they're actually the majority of GW's sales was literally the thinking behind all of Kirby's dumb decisions that saw him replaced as CEO.

 Jadenim wrote:
Yeah, much as I enjoyed the tactile experience of using the templates, 40K just works better without them.

Strongly disagree. Quicker or simpler are not synonyms for better, turning template weapons into "just roll more dice" was one of the worst Shrimplification abstractions they introduced with the nustyle rules.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m allergic to Twitter, can anyone offer a potted version?

HH Thursday is a no-go for the second week running, despite previous claims from the Warhammer birb account to the contrary.

A little cheeky IMO talking about two praetors when it's actually functionally one praetor, with a highly-limited-availability alternative pose. Everyone I know IRL saw the banner on WHC and thought we were getting a PA/Termie duo release and ended up disappointed rather than being able to enjoy what is a pretty noice model.

WHC's loosey-goosey bantz bruv innit writing style has been scoring a few own-goals recently.

 zedmeister wrote:
Finally! Long over due. He'll be doing a lot of duty as a Raven Guard Prætor

Honestly looking at the little flourishes in his design, he'd actually make a pretty good Praevian - techy-gubbinz on the backpack, that buildout in the centre of the chest could be a Cortex Controller maybe highlighted a bit with a brass-based paintjob. Stick on a bionic-y head and tweak the weapon loadout and you'd have a pretty unique...oh bugger, now I want to do a Raven Guard ZM army with a Praevian leading a unit of Vorax.

RazorEdge wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I read on B&C that there's been some Reddit rumours doing the rounds, where they claim its actually MKIV and that the gun emplacements are rapiers. But everything's still pretty vague either way, Adepticon should solidify things I reckon..

It's from 4chan...

-imgsnip-

So exactly as reliable as whatever Valrak is posting then? He's not Harry, he's a youtuber, so long as people watch the videos accuracy is irrelevant and he clearly posts anything that drops into his inbox that's even vaguely plausible, and he definitely often...let's be charitable and say "significantly extrapolates" from any info he does have. Or are we forgetting the last time we were definitely about to see a new box for Heresy with plastic MK5 and an all-new melee dreadnought chassis?

 cole1114 wrote:
(last I checked literally 99%+)

Is this what you Earthlings refer to as "comedy"?

GrosseSax wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Salamanders vs Iron Warriors, new edition, New Dread type.

All seems consistent with what we knew was coming from Valrak

And plastic MKII?

Shhh, mentioning that is now verboten, just like we're not supposed to bring up plastic MK5 anymore. Everything Valrak says is coming that happens is evidence of his oracular nature, everything he says that doesn't happen was never said - afterall, if it was going to happen, he'd have said it right? And since it didn't, he can't have. Stands to reason, QED.

Oh and three weeks isn't even close to the longest we've gone without a Heresy Thursday, so I'm not sure why people are reading so much into that.

EDIT: Oh and before anyone tries to imply GW wouldn't go to this much effort to troll people online listening to rumours - I trust you're enjoying your Aeronautica Imperialis scale plastic Thunderhawks...

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Consuls are exactly only the resin models they sell. Mostly no options.

Lmao, I'm sorry, what? The 'historical' game based around heavy customization is moving to total NMNR, even losing the character customization? What an incredible mis-step.

Praevians don't even have melee weapons now. Just a pistol.

Chaplains have no special rules at all, they're just Centurions with an extra couple of points in their "mental" stats. And no options.

Gorgon Terminators have no combi-bolters. Tartaros Terminator squads can't take powerfists or chainfists anymore, just default power weapons or swap it for one lighting claw. A third of the Consuls are just gone, and whether your Legion gets a unique unit for your special Consul-esque HQ or just a Prime Benefit that tacks a couple of small benefits onto a generic one is a complete tossup. Multiple Legion specialist units lost all their options, but they added options that aren't in the kits to Lerneans and Justaerin.

It's not even NMNR, it just seems like a ruleset written by a schizophrenic. It's impossible to tell what the mentality behind any given decision is, or if it even was a decision and these are just the worst proof-read GW books ever published and loads of this stuff is mistakes. Even putting aside any issues or bugbears one might have with the core rules(limiting missions to four turns to give you extra time for their godawful action figure slapfight challenge system, for example) and just looking at the Libers 3.0 is legitimately baffling, bonkers, ferret-riding-a-tricycle-tier mental.

 Rihgu wrote:
The only good news so far is new Tartaros model kit incoming. The monkey’s paw bit of it is no power fists, though.

Where's that coming from? Only place I saw mention of nuTartaros was pure speculation/copium based on someone's disbelief that GW could have so royally hooped it without any reason so they must be doing a new kit right? Right? Right.....

Dudeface wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Genuinely quite upsetting reading comments about people who now have armies with 2/3rds are unusable. Absolute despair in some cases of people not knowing what to do.

And the saddest thing (and in some ways this will be a repeat of the death of WHFB those years ago) will be the sundering of communities. Some will use the new rules some will not, some will change games or stop altogether. HH really had such an enviable community of close-knit players and hobbyists - I think that long lifespan of v1 helped a lot with that. And I wonder if GW ever stops to think there is a human cost to social groups when they do these things - WHFB dying actually made a grown man I knew cry, because he knew the days of travel to tournaments with close groups of friends were over - rather than just trying to get everyone to buy an unnecessary set of new rules and their bottom line.

I don't like the rules, but a lot of the "my army is 2/3 unusable" is often largely over dramaticisied.

It literally, objectively isn't. People built theme lists around options that are now just gone. Volkite-armed breacher company? Oopsie-poopsie, gone. A guy I know lovingly converted over a dozen characters for his Fists and now all but one have wildly illegal loadouts. Again, Tartaros Terminator units can't take powerfists, the default melee option provided in the plastic kit since its inception. Even the places that normally *enforce* positivity with moderation like FB groups and the 30k discord are overwhelmingly negative and filled with people upset about how much of their army has been invalidated.

This isn't the usual suspects having a moan and blowing things out of proportion.

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well Thallax are different now.

Min. unit size is 6 with option for 3 more, not Line or Vanguard unit and is counted as Support unit but they can now freely change stock lightning guns to photon, plasma-fusil or multi-melta (so you can now have all multi-melta). And 3+ save.

Also down to 2W in an edition with a lot of D2 guns, so a real glass cannon now.

Dudeface wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Genuinely quite upsetting reading comments about people who now have armies with 2/3rds are unusable. Absolute despair in some cases of people not knowing what to do.

And the saddest thing (and in some ways this will be a repeat of the death of WHFB those years ago) will be the sundering of communities. Some will use the new rules some will not, some will change games or stop altogether. HH really had such an enviable community of close-knit players and hobbyists - I think that long lifespan of v1 helped a lot with that. And I wonder if GW ever stops to think there is a human cost to social groups when they do these things - WHFB dying actually made a grown man I knew cry, because he knew the days of travel to tournaments with close groups of friends were over - rather than just trying to get everyone to buy an unnecessary set of new rules and their bottom line.

I don't like the rules, but a lot of the "my army is 2/3 unusable" is often largely over dramaticisied.

It literally, objectively isn't. People built theme lists around options that are now just gone. Volkite-armed breacher company? Oopsie-poopsie, gone. A guy I know lovingly converted over a dozen characters for his Fists and now all but one have wildly illegal loadouts. Again, Tartaros Terminator units can't take powerfists, the default melee option provided in the plastic kit since its inception. Even the places that normally *enforce* positivity with moderation like FB groups and the 30k discord are overwhelmingly negative and filled with people upset about how much of their army has been invalidated.

This isn't the usual suspects having a moan and blowing things out of proportion.

Is it so hard to use the first models as power weapons? What was it about volkite breachers you loved? They'd still be lovingly painted and assembled as breachers with those guns.

People claim they come to HH because theyre old school 40k players. Changing some loadout for edition changes isn't exactly unusual in old 40k.

Come on man, even if you don't personally care either way failing to grasp why many if not most people are, on this level, is so unlikely it seems feigned.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gert wrote:
That's an extremely reductive take on this Dudeface and I'm surprised at that.

This isn't just about Siege Breakers only having Hammers.
This is about no more mounted characters (sorry White Scars), or no more jump pack characters except Moritats (sorry Raven Guard, World Eaters, and Blood Angels).

This is the nail in the coffin for what was the one hope of Heresy not going the way of 40k and AoS with set character loadouts and no options for units beyond the kit limits.

I accept the loss of jump packs and bikes as a problem. Are they 2/3 of an army though?

Yes? Rite of war armies? The fact that HH armies are literaly built that way?

There is no requirement for a jump pack character to build a jump pack army any more, same for bikes.

That is not the point. point beeing that thematic forces are built that way, and therefore the options are used, were used and now are ilegal. And the HH- community is far more inclined for such thematic forces.

So literally the only thing stopping them now is the absence of 2 wargear entries that I noted was a problem. That is still not the majority of their force invalidated in any way, just the characters which I suspect will be restored before long.

You seem to lean on rites of war, which is a rules based play style, it is irrelevant to the models being invalidated.

This is genuinely farcical sophistry. It's a game, the game has rules, of course the models people use to play the game no longer having the options available is relevant. I mean seriously, just skip to the end and start arguing nothing GW do with the rules ever matters because if it bothers us we can just write "Pravian" and "Tactical Squad" on little bits of cereal packet and play with those

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
It's the question of are people unhappy and looking to vent, or unhappy and looking for solutions?

People are entitled to feel how they want, but at the same time if other people don't feel the same way or are looking for options, that doesn't automatically make them corporate shills like some people claim. It's not a case of "If you aren't with me, you are the enemy"

People reacting negatively to being told "who cares, you could just counts-as your whole army as something different that kinda-sorta-vaguely looks a bit similar if you take your specs off and squint real hard" is hardly Anakin Skywalker speech tier.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Yeah, but at least 2.0 wasn't sold to us as "basically" the same game while being fundamentally different in both unit stats, USR & USR(*), weapon profiles, etc.

2.0 was pretty much everything they said it was, on its face.
3.0 is basically a boat that's falling apart and in need of repairs and or being scuttled.

I've seen it said there's apparently a blurb in the book explicitly telling the reader to take their time understanding the new rules because they're a significant change to previous versions which, if right, would make their "basically the same" WarCom marketing even more egregious. Honestly we owe the leaker/s a lot, especially given the way many of the hobby influencers are *still* trying to spin things in a positive/wait-and-see way despite the fact we can read in plain english(well, actually in english that looks like the product of a thousand monkeys at a thousand keyboards prompting chatGPT, but you know what I mean) all the BS - I have no doubt they would have happily sold it as a completely positive situation and thoroughly glossed over all the bad stuff if they'd had a chance and a lot of people would be preordering a nasty surprise.

 Fayric wrote:
If someone think that forum outrage will result in people not buying their products, I think that that someone has not been in the hobby long enough.

If someone thinks this is normal levels, intensity, and reasoning of forum outrage they haven't been in the hobby long enough. When someone like *Valrak* is echoing the basic sentiments of the complainers, it's not just "usual suspects" rawr me hate change griping.

Dudeface wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
I've been going back and forth over whether or not I should buy the Saturnine set. Alchemist Workshop have 300 in stock at the time of writing, so I guess that there's no rush

A day and a half later they are down to 278. 12 sold in a day and a half. Some retailers are going to get burnt by this release.

They have 3 years to sell them, it's not a splash release

That's...not how this works man. It not being a splash release doesn't mean retailers were planning on having the initial wave sat on their shelves for three years, it means they were expecting to *sell out*(or close to it) of the initial wave rapidly - as GW products usually do - and then be able to order more.

ccs wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
And then after a few years they bring it all back and make it all usable again. Sometimes 5, sometimes 15. I do wonder what those people who burned their entire elf army thought then old world came out and turned out to be pretty solid.

I was one of those poor sods who put his Bretonians up for sale.

But I think GW will course correct and put out rules for most of the missing models.

Sure, for general stuff look no further than the Legends PDFs they've told you are coming. And that are going to be game/tourney/event legal!
But yet most of these people are going to keep right on about how they've deleted this or that unit, invalidated their forces, etc etc etc.

You do grasp that to fully restore what was lost they would essentially have to give us a second Liber, right? For free. "Wait for the previews", "wait for the libers", now it's "wait for the Legacies PDF" and no doubt once that turns out to be a wet fart in a quiet room people like yourself will be back with "omg stop overreacting, just wait for the Journal Tacticas to slowly add everything back at your expense you ingrates"

 cole1114 wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
Legacies article just dropped.

We’ve also noticed that some of you are concerned that certain units in your existing armies might not be usable in the new edition

Oh you noticed did you? You picked up on that? Did we actually all complain loud enough that you paid attention to us for a few minutes.

I have a feeling this was cobbled together and pushed out ASAP. As for myself, I’ve cancelled my admittedly small pre order. Think I’ll wait for the dust to settle and to see how things are before I look to pick anything up. I can always grab things 2nd hand if I fancy a few MkIIs

This was announced ages ago, including that everything in it would be legal in all formats...

You'd think they'd have had their tame influencers mention the fact in their embargoed previews that came out well after the leaks did and the community turned into a fireball, rather than writing equivocal attempts to defend the edition in spite of the things people were upset about...

 Fayric wrote:
So how many people would have updated their tartaros for new tartaros anyway, just like you updated your armies with new MKVI armour at HH2, and was about to get new MKII and saturnine for HH3.

Honest question, do many of you have a core army you keep playing over the years without updating the models or circulate in new units that match the meta?

I know this is a wild thought to some of our newer compatriots, but many of us are still playing entire games from decades ago nevermind updating armies to be "on meta". Personally I make armies based on some kind of hook that catches my attention - an idea for a conversion, a fluff blurb that pops into my head, whatever it is - which I expand in a way that feels...intentional. Then I make the army that matches that idea. Then the army is made. When I want a different experience, I make a different army, or pull out an old one that offers that experience in whatever context. The idea of just endlessly buying New Stuff for a single army and rotating things in and out based on whatever the tournament kids are spamming that month feels totally alien to how I hobby, it sounds more like the experience of a videogame to me and if I wanted that I'd just play a videogame.