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.

ERJAK wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Logically though, theres going to be a metric feth-ton of 7th edition codexes sat around and worth less than the price of having them disposed of!

Which again, just creates a situation where neither player has any fun...unless you give the HH player like an extra 200-4000pts depending on which codex you're using.


Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

Hey, well, thats just, like, your opinion man..

Theres no worries on the unit strength front, FW stated a while back that if you were playing 30k with a 40k codex that you couldn't use formations and we have some nasty gak in M31, it just costs lots of points.
Once thats accepted, then keeping the points level above 2500 and an HH army is upper mid-teir i recon.

 SirDonlad wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Logically though, theres going to be a metric feth-ton of 7th edition codexes sat around and worth less than the price of having them disposed of!

Which again, just creates a situation where neither player has any fun...unless you give the HH player like an extra 200-4000pts depending on which codex you're using.


Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

Hey, well, thats just, like, your opinion man..

Theres no worries on the unit strength front, FW stated a while back that if you were playing 30k with a 40k codex that you couldn't use formations and we have some nasty gak in M31, it just costs lots of points.
Once thats accepted, then keeping the points level above 2500 and an HH army is upper mid-teir i recon.

That doesn't seem very fun. That's not a point level many 40k players play at (it's basically apoc.) And those are some pretty harsh restrictions.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Logically though, theres going to be a metric feth-ton of 7th edition codexes sat around and worth less than the price of having them disposed of!

Which again, just creates a situation where neither player has any fun...unless you give the HH player like an extra 200-4000pts depending on which codex you're using.


Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

By extra codexes being lying around?-)

And you are kidding yourself if you think 8th ed won't require one codex receive more points than others to be about equal.

No moreso than HH. Or any other points based game.

ERJAK wrote:

That doesn't seem very fun. That's not a point level many 40k players play at (it's basically apoc.) And those are some pretty harsh restrictions.

Wait, what? Dude, the snowflake rules-bloat of formations was one of the key problems with 7th edition!

I think that the argument over whether adding more points over 1850 extends the game has been done enough in a different thread, but the level i find it noticeably extends the game is 3000+

My typical game is 2000pts so the extra 500 only adds two units and a dusting of extra wargear for the rest of the army.

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think that the argument over whether adding more points over 1850 extends the game has been done enough in a different thread, but the level i find it noticeably extends the game is 3000+

My typical game is 2000pts so the extra 500 only adds two units and a dusting of extra wargear for the rest of the army.

Plus points of HH!=points of 40k in terms of speed. In HH units are a) generally bigger b) more expensive thus resulting in less units per point level=faster. Also generally guys wielding same weapons in squad fastens it up.

1800 pts of 40k can easily be faster than 2500 pts HH. Especially without formations.

And frankly not everything needs to be lightning fast. 2 hours is plenty fast for me. Having taken time to generate unique scenario for every game and unload models I would want game not to be over in 30 minutes anyway Imagine how much time scenario creation would eat up then!

I find HH to be way faster then 7th ed 40k. Everything in HH is just so lethal and everything dies pretty fast.

I've roundly beaten 7th ed 40k armies in a tournament setting without a points crutch lol

What I'm hoping is perhaps this desire for some Xenos players to port over or play with their 30k friends will lend some weight to FW making a Great Crusade supplement to include alien factions to fight!

Sticking with 7th ed rules was a bad idea. It is a bloated overly complicated mess. It's gonna turn people away and make the game less popular. HH needs to be 8th for it to succeed.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sticking with 7th ed rules was a bad idea. It is a bloated overly complicated mess. It's gonna turn people away and make the game less popular. HH needs to be 8th for it to succeed.

That hyperbole though. In my local group 2-3 have started HH DUE to 8th edition. The sky isn't falling and all is well.

 AaronWilson wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sticking with 7th ed rules was a bad idea. It is a bloated overly complicated mess. It's gonna turn people away and make the game less popular. HH needs to be 8th for it to succeed.

That hyperbole though. In my local group 2-3 have started HH DUE to 8th edition. The sky isn't falling and all is well.

Having the same situation here. Now people have a few games of 8th under their belts and not loving it suddenly there looking at how to port their armies over to HH. For the marine / guard players it's easy, the one Nid player not so much.

 Tamereth wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sticking with 7th ed rules was a bad idea. It is a bloated overly complicated mess. It's gonna turn people away and make the game less popular. HH needs to be 8th for it to succeed.

That hyperbole though. In my local group 2-3 have started HH DUE to 8th edition. The sky isn't falling and all is well.

Having the same situation here. Now people have a few games of 8th under their belts and not loving it suddenly there looking at how to port their armies over to HH. For the marine / guard players it's easy, the one Nid player not so much.

I've always welcomed xenos factions to 30K. Orks, Nids, and Crons aren't game breaking. Eldar need some tweaks, I typically neuter D options. Tau are a no-no. Cause fluff is still a part of why we play the game.

I know they theoretically exist, but never seen in person a 30k player willing to welcome 40k armies on the board. It's led to some very bored 30k players during 8th edition's launch.

I welcome IG, Orks, dark eldar and 40k marines (on a case-by case basis) all without the formations, but with max troop unit numbers doubled etc.

I also prefer my orks with +1T army-wide.

Of coursxe 8th is gonna make it hard to find games of 30k, people are playing the new thing at the min and as they get settled in it i expect people to play both mostly. The actual problem is in recruiting new players to the hobby of warhammer and then getting them involved in 30k. The game they are going to be introduced to is 8th edition 40k and they are either going to enjoy it or not if they do thats great but if you try and then get this new person to play 30k you are essentially teaching them an entirely new game and that is ridiculous, the player base wil be current 30k players and people who dont like 8th and decide heresy is the only way to keep playing. I do not even in the slightest believe this is permament, i expect angelus will be the last true 7th edition book and that is probably due to most of the work already having been done.

 SirDonlad wrote:
I welcome IG, Orks, dark eldar and 40k marines (on a case-by case basis) all without the formations, but with max troop unit numbers doubled etc.

I also prefer my orks with +1T army-wide.

I draw the line at 40K imperium armies. I don't have a problem if a guy wants to proxy is IG for Solar Auxilia, or his Marines for a legion, but I'm not facing grav spam, and the like.

Almost no 30k players in my 'circle'. The gap between 30k and 40k right now basically turns my army into expensive proxies. :(
I also really, really like 8th edition which kind of kills my motivation for HH.

I don't see any 30k players getting ready to jump ship b/c 8th edition rules came out.

If you think about it, part of the reason many people liked 30k in the first place is the fact it's better balanced. I don't think 8th is better than 7th in that regard.

Actually, most people so far think 8th is definitely better balanced than the trainwreck that was 7th.

Show me data about this with a representative sample size or take your spurious claims elsewhere.

8th hasn't been out long enough for anyone to draw meaningful conclusions. The MVP of most of my games has been a Kharbdis Assault Claw, there are definitely flaws to exploit.

 techsoldaten wrote:
8th hasn't been out long enough for anyone to draw meaningful conclusions

A bit of a hypocrite there, given your previous post.

But if you insist on evidence even though you're hypocritically making claims without any, yourself...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731565.page

Out of a sample size of 337 players, 207 (61%) say that 8th is the best rule set to date.

We also have smaller polls, like one that that suggests that 8th is more balanced than 5th (8th won handily at 76% out of 92 votes).

What is not being argued is that 8th is perfect. But you'll find it hard to find a substantial percentage of people who think 7th was balanced at all, never mind better than any other edition.

 djones520 wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sticking with 7th ed rules was a bad idea. It is a bloated overly complicated mess. It's gonna turn people away and make the game less popular. HH needs to be 8th for it to succeed.

That hyperbole though. In my local group 2-3 have started HH DUE to 8th edition. The sky isn't falling and all is well.

Having the same situation here. Now people have a few games of 8th under their belts and not loving it suddenly there looking at how to port their armies over to HH. For the marine / guard players it's easy, the one Nid player not so much.

I've always welcomed xenos factions to 30K. Orks, Nids, and Crons aren't game breaking. Eldar need some tweaks, I typically neuter D options. Tau are a no-no. Cause fluff is still a part of why we play the game.

Just curiosity, why Tyranids and Necrons are viable but Tau not? I can understand Necrons. "A Dinasty just opened 10.000 years before after thousand of mileniums sleeping" but Tyranids didn't reach the galaxy until late 41M

The Hive Fleets that the Imperium knows of didn't appear until then. There's evidence of pre-Imperium Tyranids in the galaxy though.

 Melissia wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
8th hasn't been out long enough for anyone to draw meaningful conclusions

A bit of a hypocrite there, given your previous post.

But if you insist on evidence even though you're hypocritically making claims without any, yourself...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731565.page

Out of a sample size of 337 players, 207 (61%) say that 8th is the best rule set to date.

We also have smaller polls, like one that that suggests that 8th is more balanced than 5th (8th won handily at 76% out of 92 votes).

What is not being argued is that 8th is perfect. But you'll find it hard to find a substantial percentage of people who think 7th was balanced at all, never mind better than any other edition.

Well, my claim was anecdotal, and based on common statements made on this board over the last several years. If you think it's not better balanced then 7th edition 40k, feel free to explain why.

Your claim is made about a game that's been out for a couple weeks using a sample size of 337 players. GW is a company that does over $125 mil in revenue annually. That sample size is, what, 0.001% of the actual market?

Forgive me for being skeptical of boisterous claims about a new ruleset, which is about to change with the release of Codexes and where few people have tried the rules in more than a couple games. I am sure that balance will be maintained. GW has such a good record in that department.

That said, I still don't see anyone clamoring for 8th edition rules in HH. Maybe over time?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The Hive Fleets that the Imperium knows of didn't appear until then. There's evidence of pre-Imperium Tyranids in the galaxy though.

Those where only the Genestealer with Cthulu faces that they find on some moon, no? From Rogue Trader, that they retconed to make them Tyranid vanguard units.

 Galas wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The Hive Fleets that the Imperium knows of didn't appear until then. There's evidence of pre-Imperium Tyranids in the galaxy though.

Those where only the Genestealer with Cthulu faces that they find on some moon, no?

No.

 Melissia wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
8th hasn't been out long enough for anyone to draw meaningful conclusions

A bit of a hypocrite there, given your previous post.

But if you insist on evidence even though you're hypocritically making claims without any, yourself...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731565.page

Out of a sample size of 337 players, 207 (61%) say that 8th is the best rule set to date.

We also have smaller polls, like one that that suggests that 8th is more balanced than 5th (8th won handily at 76% out of 92 votes).

What is not being argued is that 8th is perfect. But you'll find it hard to find a substantial percentage of people who think 7th was balanced at all, never mind better than any other edition.

I've gotta wonder how many of the people who've responded to it have even played a game. I mean a good portion of posts in "Proposed Rules" are from people who admit they haven't played a game yet. Using that poll as anything resembling empirical data is just beyond silly.

 Melissia wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
8th hasn't been out long enough for anyone to draw meaningful conclusions

A bit of a hypocrite there, given your previous post.

But if you insist on evidence even though you're hypocritically making claims without any, yourself...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731565.page

Out of a sample size of 337 players, 207 (61%) say that 8th is the best rule set to date.

We also have smaller polls, like one that that suggests that 8th is more balanced than 5th (8th won handily at 76% out of 92 votes).

What is not being argued is that 8th is perfect. But you'll find it hard to find a substantial percentage of people who think 7th was balanced at all, never mind better than any other edition.

Of course you have to consider they are comparing it to 7th ed 40k. HH is lot different and lot more balanced to 40k 7th ed.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Well, my claim was anecdotal

As was mine, but you still hypocritically demanded evidence even though you have none, yourself, and I provided some. You may not like what I've provided, but the fact is, unlike you, I have something. And you? You have nothing.

Prove your own damn argument. You can't, but try anyway, I will enjoy watching you fail. Freaking calling other people out demanding evidence to back up their opinions, mutter mutter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Of course you have to consider they are comparing it to 7th ed 40k. HH is lot different and lot more balanced to 40k 7th ed.

And yet I was challenged regarding 7th ed, not horus heresy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I've gotta wonder how many of the people who've responded to it have even played a game.

I'm guessing about the same percentage of people played at least one game of 8th in that thread as in the thread about how horus heresy is dead because 8th edition got released.

Could people stop declaring that they know what everybody is thinking please? Its really tired as an argument (as well as being impossible to verify either way)

Only socopaths, psychopaths and the mentally ill think they know what everyone else is thinking.

I havent found the number of games of 30k i play diminish because if youre genuinely into the historical setting of the HH you arent going to 'drop it' ever.
I have seen a lot of people wanting to get more games in before they shout their mouth off though. The current debate at my flgs is "is a quicker game better?".

Give it about 6 months qnd we'll have a proper idea of how people regard 8th - mainly because thats how long i think it will take people to stop trying to give biased opinions to skew the overall trend in opinion as they see it.
L

tneva82 wrote:

Of course you have to consider they are comparing it to 7th ed 40k. HH is lot different and lot more balanced to 40k 7th ed.

Snuh? HH is 7th edition.

Or do your 30k games somehow not have deathstars, invisibility bombs, quad-launchers, knights, etc?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Of course you have to consider they are comparing it to 7th ed 40k. HH is lot different and lot more balanced to 40k 7th ed.

Snuh? HH is 7th edition.

Or do your 30k games somehow not have deathstars, invisibility bombs, quad-launchers, knights, etc?

Formations. The issue with 40K 7th edition was Formations. They flat out broke the game. Without it, 7th is a relatively decent system, hence why we all enjoy 30K so much.

This is not to say that there certainly wasn't ways to improve the rules of 7th with some tweaks, but the core rule system itself was overall fine.