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.

 cole1114 wrote:
Are there any good "8th edition HH" rules online? Or are they all just house rules created for local scenes?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/731421.page

I'm a little late to the party, I was really interested in 30k when I got back into the game w 8th. then I found out that 30k used 7th and I immediately lost interest in the game(while still loving & buying models) but had hope it would make the transition to 8th. I'm still waiting but now with the price hike I'm basically sticking to upgrades & stuff I can use for my 40k Salamanders. I was all set on Legio Cybernetica robots but.....that's not happening. There are only a few local 30k I'm my area and I would totally join them.

I love the lore & the models, they just need to fix how it's executed on the tabletop.

 godardc wrote:
How have the 8th ed house rules of HH resurrected your area ? Do you play against 40k armies and thus needed cross compatibility ?

We play only against HH army, but no one feels like goind back to 7th and playing 2 editions, since almost everyone is first 40k player then HH player.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I'm a little late to the party, I was really interested in 30k when I got back into the game w 8th. then I found out that 30k used 7th and I immediately lost interest in the game(while still loving & buying models) but had hope it would make the transition to 8th. I'm still waiting but now with the price hike I'm basically sticking to upgrades & stuff I can use for my 40k Salamanders. I was all set on Legio Cybernetica robots but.....that's not happening. There are only a few local 30k I'm my area and I would totally join them.

I love the lore & the models, they just need to fix how it's executed on the tabletop.

Have you actually played a game of 30k using 7th edition rules? You'll find that the things most people complain about and consider broken in 7th go away in 30K due to no formations. Everyone is MEQ (except Mechanicum). At that point, most of the issues just... go away. That's not to say it's a perfect system, but neither is 8th. Different flavors for different folks.

When 8th edition rolled out, we had 9 very expensive, leather bound books detailing all but three Legions (missing DA, BA, and White Scars). Those books are the best that GW has ever produced and worth every penny they cost (over US$100 for a rule/fluff book, and the rules are already out dated and require one of the Red Books). There was no way Forge World could convert those books and Legions over to 8th edition without destroying everything they had set up so far. It's already taking FW YEARS to produce ONE book. We would probably still be waiting for 8th edition Legion rules if they converted over, and instead be using PDF "Indexes" that would have destroyed the character of the game. It would have murdered 30K.

For me personally, 8th edition characters are totally underwhelming and lack everything that makes them unique. The granularity of 7th edition rules are washed away in "streamlining" and "simplification" for faster game play and ease of use. There is no flavor in 8th edition soup.

There is no doubt that the Horus Heresy will eventually make the jump to a newer edition. It just might not be 8th, but probably 9th edition.

 Tamwulf wrote:


When 8th edition rolled out, we had 9 very expensive, leather bound books detailing all but three Legions (missing DA, BA, and White Scars). Those books are the best that GW has ever produced and worth every penny they cost (over US$100 for a rule/fluff book, and the rules are already out dated and require one of the Red Books).

Except Inferno, with it numerous glaring issues.

Everyone is MEQ (except Mechanicum)

And the Imperial Milita!

I did play one game of 30k and compared to 8th I found it too boring/needlessly tedious(kinda the reason I stayed away from GW for so long). the faster pace of play and destruction of 8th appeals to me. I would gladly give it a second try but at this point I'd rather just play 40k (where I can find a game every week).

I can echo the hobbyist/collector sentiment, the models and the lore are what drew me back, the game is secondary(prob 3or4th).

More than 50% of my 40k Salamanders are HH, I would just need to get a LOW & a Leviathan to bulk out what's already existing.

Either way I do hope that FW would continue to develop the game and fill out the rest of the legions to get ready for the Siege of Terra(maybe some cool "new" never seen before stuff. Scoria went a long way in showing they still at least kinda "care" about it.

I bought two Calth and a Pospero box to make a 30k army and I sorta have enough infantry for two armies.

I'd love to do Alpha Legion so I can spend time modeling those cool units from other armies to add to my lists but the whole 7th ed rules thing is a real drag when 8th scaled down some superfluous stuff. I never loved the more complex rules that were slowly added to 40k because it felt like they were successively tacked on to sell new kits. I never thought when I started Grey Knights in 3rd edition that I'd one day have to remember hover mode rules for fliers.

I really love the tragedy of the HH and would love to really sink my teeth into an army but I'd much rather play it in 8th edition rules. That's just me, an [over]paying customer.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Have you actually played a game of 30k using 7th edition rules? You'll find that the things most people complain about and consider broken in 7th go away in 30K due to no formations. Everyone is MEQ (except Mechanicum). At that point, most of the issues just... go away. That's not to say it's a perfect system, but neither is 8th.

My issues with 7th have absolutely nothing to do with formations, but with the flaws inherent to the system itself. Wound allocation, character rules, vehicle rules, psychic rules, disparity between monstrous creatures and walkers, terrain rules, etc. When FW published their own rulebook, they had the chance to pick and choose from all the best rules that had been written in the various editions since 3rd...and they didn't.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

Have you actually played a game of 30k using 7th edition rules? You'll find that the things most people complain about and consider broken in 7th go away in 30K due to no formations. Everyone is MEQ (except Mechanicum). At that point, most of the issues just... go away. That's not to say it's a perfect system, but neither is 8th.

My issues with 7th have absolutely nothing to do with formations, but with the flaws inherent to the system itself. Wound allocation, character rules, vehicle rules, psychic rules, disparity between monstrous creatures and walkers, terrain rules, etc. When FW published their own rulebook, they had the chance to pick and choose from all the best rules that had been written in the various editions since 3rd...and they didn't.

Yep. I was really excited to start 30k because I thought it was a given they'd use 8th edition rules.

I know I'm oversimplifying this but I feel like a chunk of the Legion army list I was looking over today could be converted to 8th edition simply by changing the points of the wargear with the help of CTRL+F. It's not like, for example, Sons of Horus unit points need to match 8th edition Dark Eldar, the points of the models just need to match up to other 30k marines. Wargear points really need to change (like combi weapons) but many of the 30k armies manipulate the same special rules like Infiltrate. Once you've altered the Raven Guard entries that deal with Infiltrate you're just a CTRL+F away from fixing Alpha Legion in the same way.

I know that game rules writing must be only just behind nuclear physics in its rigorous testing methodology and complexity but I feel like an 8th edition style 30k index codex shouldn't actually take that long seeing as how 8th edition rules actually shed 7th's complexity rather than add to it. If 8th edition was a chunkier, more complex version of 7th I could understand the difficulty.

One of the big draws to me would be the change to AP and wounds. It seems like there are just a ton of weapons in HH that seem pretty useless because 95% of the models have a 3+ save, using 8th edition's AP changes would really open up my modelling and listbuilding options to more choices in the HH codexes.

HH is hardly clunky or slow. As it is 8th ed turns take longer to play. I have yet to play gw game that is as slow as 8th ed is...It's only saved by being basically 2 turn games and that's not a plus...

And 8th ed AP system also has made power armour and terminator armour pretty much irrelevant. Good idea to have game system supposedly about marine legions only to result anything with 3+ and 2+ as being junk!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Everyone is MEQ (except Mechanicum)

And the Imperial Milita!

And daemons.

tneva82 wrote:
HH is hardly clunky or slow. As it is 8th ed turns take longer to play. I have yet to play gw game that is as slow as 8th ed is...It's only saved by being basically 2 turn games and that's not a plus...

Most everything in 8E should be faster. There's fewer charts to roll on, less table stuff to slow stuff down, movement rates are faster, killing power is greater, even in most cases army lists are smaller than previous editions. Aside from familiarity issues, there's not much that should be slower in 8E than in previous editions.

And 8th ed AP system also has made power armour and terminator armour pretty much irrelevant. Good idea to have game system supposedly about marine legions only to result anything with 3+ and 2+ as being junk!

To be fair, the quantity of AP2/3 weapons in previous editions and the HH ruleset mean that armor saves were ignored entirely pretty often, and it's not like 40k hasn't had ASM's before in previous editions, and they were far less friendly to Marine saves then. Power armor still matters, it just works a bit differently. Instead of it being a "3+ or nothing", it's more likely to be a 4+ or 5+. Most issues with armor saves in 8E are more points related than fundamental functionality issues.

 Vaktathi wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
HH is hardly clunky or slow. As it is 8th ed turns take longer to play. I have yet to play gw game that is as slow as 8th ed is...It's only saved by being basically 2 turn games and that's not a plus...

Most everything in 8E should be faster. There's fewer charts to roll on, less table stuff to slow stuff down, movement rates are faster, killing power is greater, even in most cases army lists are smaller than previous editions. Aside from familiarity issues, there's not much that should be slower in 8E than in previous editions.

And 8th ed AP system also has made power armour and terminator armour pretty much irrelevant. Good idea to have game system supposedly about marine legions only to result anything with 3+ and 2+ as being junk!

To be fair, the quantity of AP2/3 weapons in previous editions and the HH ruleset mean that armor saves were ignored entirely pretty often, and it's not like 40k hasn't had ASM's before in previous editions, and they were far less friendly to Marine saves then. Power armor still matters, it just works a bit differently. Instead of it being a "3+ or nothing", it's more likely to be a 4+ or 5+. Most issues with armor saves in 8E are more points related than fundamental functionality issues.

This was my thinking too. In a game where almost every model has a 3+ it means any gun that's not AP3 is sorta useless. I actually prefer 8th's system of armor modifications to that as it enhances listbuilding. Is there any reason to take a heavy bolter in 30k at all?

 Fajita Fan wrote:

This was my thinking too. In a game where almost every model has a 3+ it means any gun that's not AP3 is sorta useless. I actually prefer 8th's system of armor modifications to that as it enhances listbuilding. Is there any reason to take a heavy bolter in 30k at all?

I think there is a lot of weapons in seventh that are pretty useless. It’s because of the way seventh grew out of third by booting on extra rules to a much smaller game.

So, a game of third would maybe involve one predator and one dreadnought and those will be quite big threats. Then you might have the odd lascannon and the odd missile launcher to take care of them. Maybe even a devastator squad! In that situation, exceptions to the normal turn events (for example, the sequence with blast weapons) would only happen occasionally, so the game remained quite quick and, given the lower overall power level, all the basic 40k weapons had solid roles.

As third progressed through to seventh, so many more powerful unit types were added (superheavies, knights, flyers, tons more ‘monstrous creatures’) that the original restrictions of the system became apparent, and suddenly you have structure points, then hull points, or D weapons, or units with tons of USRs because it’s the only way of scaling up from the original 1-10 scale of third. And all that stuff involves exceptions to the normal turn sequence which slows things down.

One of the really big thing I like about 8ed is how a lascannon is a genuinely GOOD anti-tank weapon again. Or that heavy bolters make sense again. And part of that is that, by adding a few columns to the weapon profiles, they can be differentiated better without needing loads of USRs.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

One of the really big thing I like about 8ed is how a lascannon is a genuinely GOOD anti-tank weapon again. Or that heavy bolters make sense again. And part of that is that, by adding a few columns to the weapon profiles, they can be differentiated better without needing loads of USRs.

Perhaps but dont forget because we lost templates many weapons also lost their uniqueness. Battlecannons are nothing more than rapid firing missile launcher.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I'm a little late to the party, I was really interested in 30k when I got back into the game w 8th. then I found out that 30k used 7th and I immediately lost interest in the game(while still loving & buying models) but had hope it would make the transition to 8th. I'm still waiting but now with the price hike I'm basically sticking to upgrades & stuff I can use for my 40k Salamanders. I was all set on Legio Cybernetica robots but.....that's not happening. There are only a few local 30k I'm my area and I would totally join them.

I love the lore & the models, they just need to fix how it's executed on the tabletop.

Have you actually played a game of 30k using 7th edition rules? You'll find that the things most people complain about and consider broken in 7th go away in 30K due to no formations. Everyone is MEQ (except Mechanicum). At that point, most of the issues just... go away. That's not to say it's a perfect system, but neither is 8th. Different flavors for different folks.

That's the important bit. I've played one game of Horus heresy since 8th edition 40k came out (to be fair, I've not played many more games of 40k ), and both my opponent and I came away a little disappointed. The main thing that has always bugged me is the Artificer Armour "exploit". It just doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the setting to me (but YMMV). The actual game was fairly close (despite the enemy's Avenger being utterly unopposed and having free rein to shoot up my army), but we just felt we preferred the basics of 8th edition. 8th seems to do a better job of having characters be commanders or battlefield support rather than having to just be better fighters, for example.

It also seems to me that a lot of the Legion-specific rules, odd bits of equipment (the sonic thingies you can add to Emperor's Children units for example) and special formations could be represented well using 8th edition's Stratagems.

It's not a matter of not wanting to remember more than one set of rules - I play loads of games as it is, so one more is no issue.

I'd hate stratagems to be added into 30k. Your army developed a unique tactic to benefit them but they only remember to use it some of the time. Even worse with equipment, you take a special weapon with you but forget you have it.

But some things do need fixing in 30ks rules like casualties. My friend and I have made the rule that owning player chooses which model takes wounds and it is so much easier than faffing over who is closest to the shooter.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

This was my thinking too. In a game where almost every model has a 3+ it means any gun that's not AP3 is sorta useless. I actually prefer 8th's system of armor modifications to that as it enhances listbuilding. Is there any reason to take a heavy bolter in 30k at all?

Yeah, the return of ASM's and a Damage stat make weapons variety and choices a lot more interesting, and you dont need to totally ignore armor or overwhelm it with stupid numbers of shots to be effective.

Glumy wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

One of the really big thing I like about 8ed is how a lascannon is a genuinely GOOD anti-tank weapon again. Or that heavy bolters make sense again. And part of that is that, by adding a few columns to the weapon profiles, they can be differentiated better without needing loads of USRs.

Perhaps but dont forget because we lost templates many weapons also lost their uniqueness. Battlecannons are nothing more than rapid firing missile launcher.

I'm 100% ok with losing blast templates. While id have probably done the BC a bit differently, overall the weapon is dramatically more functional than it was with a blast template. There's less awkward fiddlyness and arguing, you're not dependent on the physical position of enemy models to try and get hits, there is a far more consistent damage output, and the battlecannon is actually rather capable at engaging tanks and monsters now whereas with the Blast template it was pretty garbage at engaging those kinds of targets.

The Battlecannon is a much more effective weapon in 8E than it ever was in 3E-7E as a result.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Battlecannon is a much more effective weapon in 8E than it ever was in 3E-7E as a result.

I don't think the argument was against its effectiveness, but its uniqueness. Bringing a battlecannon is no different than bringing its point equivalence in missile launchers, while previously the weapons were different enough that their point equivalence in each other still didn't do the same job.

For my part, I still play 30k actively (as does my FLGS). We enjoy having an alternative ruleset than 8th edition. Several of us (myself included) don't wholly embrace Stratagems, and it's pretty much impossible to get away from them in 40k (removing them means Command Points are worthless, which means Detachments lose a lot of impact). But there are those of us who play both systems. Personally, I think it's fine to have two game systems. Let them play differently. Let the people who enjoy one but not the other have their sandbox. It's why I was bummed when 40k rather homogenized itself with AoS. The core mechanics are similar enough that I feel like I'm playing the same game with slight modifications (which I can see as a positive point on one hand, but I'd prefer to have options).

I've watched people just guess with blast templates and I've seen a 2" roll become a 4" move. Just rolling for a number of hits actually introduces the same element of randomness you get from scattering templates without the movement phase geometric machinations people engage in to minimize blast template casualties. Flamer templates were the only ones that really made sense to keep in my opinion.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I've watched people just guess with blast templates and I've seen a 2" roll become a 4" move. Just rolling for a number of hits actually introduces the same element of randomness you get from scattering templates without the movement phase geometric machinations people engage in to minimize blast template casualties. Flamer templates were the only ones that really made sense to keep in my opinion.

Oh, I don't think the system that was (and is now for 30k) perfect by any means. I would love, for example, to introduce armor save modification as opposed to the feast-or-famine AP system it has now. Old Warhammer Fantasy's strength-based armor modifications were cleanest implementation, imo.

I do enjoy having movement and positioning be a factor in the game, which makes blasts and templates interesting to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one to remember offering a tempting unit clump with a 2+ save optimally placed to soak the damage. Random shot count is a poor replacement imo, at least in its current iteration. Something along the lines of D3 shots per 5 models in the target unit, on the other hand, seems better. More targets = higher chance of hitting for such weapons just seems intuitive.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

I don't think the argument was against its effectiveness, but its uniqueness. Bringing a battlecannon is no different than bringing its point equivalence in missile launchers, while previously the weapons were different enough that their point equivalence in each other still didn't do the same job.

Yes, exactly. Getting a nice Vindicator shot against some densely packed unit is also quite spectacular. If someone doesnt like blasts there are weapons that use normal shooting rules. I think there are like 9 Lemar Russ turrets - is everyone of them using now standard hit -> wound -> save?

Im also for a new edition for HH not because 8th edition might be such a wonderful better edition but going 8th (or some unification of 7th and 8th) ensures that more people will play HH.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I've watched people just guess with blast templates and I've seen a 2" roll become a 4" move. Just rolling for a number of hits actually introduces the same element of randomness you get from scattering templates without the movement phase geometric machinations people engage in to minimize blast template casualties. Flamer templates were the only ones that really made sense to keep in my opinion.

Oh, I don't think the system that was (and is now for 30k) perfect by any means. I would love, for example, to introduce armor save modification as opposed to the feast-or-famine AP system it has now. Old Warhammer Fantasy's strength-based armor modifications were cleanest implementation, imo.

I do enjoy having movement and positioning be a factor in the game, which makes blasts and templates interesting to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one to remember offering a tempting unit clump with a 2+ save optimally placed to soak the damage. Random shot count is a poor replacement imo, at least in its current iteration. Something along the lines of D3 shots per 5 models in the target unit, on the other hand, seems better. More targets = higher chance of hitting for such weapons just seems intuitive.

Some sort of scaling would work, but there should also be a cap based on the weapon type. I mean even with blaqst markers, you can only fit seven Space marines under the 3" blast marker at most, whether there's ten or 20 Marines in the target unit. Make blast weapons of type <parent type> Blast x (e.g. Heavy Blast 2 for a frag missile), where Blast x is the maximum number of D3 you can roll.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Battlecannon is a much more effective weapon in 8E than it ever was in 3E-7E as a result.

I don't think the argument was against its effectiveness, but its uniqueness. Bringing a battlecannon is no different than bringing its point equivalence in missile launchers, while previously the weapons were different enough that their point equivalence in each other still didn't do the same job.

I agree that there's some 'uniqueness' lost, but as with so many things in the change, you have balance the costs and the benefits of that system.

Realistically, you go through a whole charade of plastic markers, special dice, tape measures, agreeing with your opponent which way it moves because parallax, etc. And the end result is mostly the same...between 3-5 people hit. And in Heresy, that all becomes irrelevant anyway when all the hits are soaked by your Artificer sergeant who might be nowhere near the actual template! I agree that this sequence of events makes blast weapons 'unique', but realistically everyone just spends time spacing their models out, you go through the motions, and get pretty much the same result - a random number of hits, usually in a given range. (And, of course, there are tons of blast weapons, so it's not that unique!).

In 3ed you'd only be firing one or two of these weapons a turn, so having a weird exception sequence for Blast weapons made sense. But when you're playing Heresy armies with 5-20 of these firing each turn it's a clunky way of determining random hits!

I think the current best 8ed way of representing this is actually the Demolisher rules - if the target unit has above X models, increase the number of shots'. I think that mechanics should have been the replacement for Blast weapons in general.


.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Realistically, you go through a whole charade of plastic markers, special dice, tape measures, agreeing with your opponent which way it moves because parallax, etc. And the end result is mostly the same...between 3-5 people hit.

Its much more than this. If you are a player that plays against stuff like barrage templates you have to make sure you deploy accordingly. Not pack units in one place but try to spread them. Same if you want to deep strike units that are forced to be densly packed together - you have to take into account any lurking Vindicators, Flamers, etc.

In 8th edition spreading your units works only to push deep striking units away from your lines or in some cases like surrounding transports. Pushing away deep striking units is quite fun and forces the player to think (which i like) but surrounding transports you also had in 7th edition.

Also in a game where you mostly play Marines vs Marines and the whole story has a vibe of being a historical conflict its better to have more "unique" weapon rules than less.

Glumy wrote:
Its much more than this. If you are a player that plays against stuff like barrage templates you have to make sure you deploy accordingly. Not pack units in one place but try to spread them. Same if you want to deep strike units that are forced to be densly packed together - you have to take into account any lurking Vindicators, Flamers, etc..

In my experience playing hordes through most of 7ed (including Heresy), this mostly translated into asking if the other player has blasts, and if he says yes, just making sure all your units were spread out all the time! Occasionally you'd be playing someone without blasts and flamer templates and you could bunch units together, but most of the time you just always make sure models in units are 2" apart. I even had a load of 2" apart movement trays for that exact reason (and enough models to spread out to deny DS even in 7ed).

So, unless you're playing a new player, I don't think it really added much in the way of tactical choice. Everyone always spreads out if they can.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

In my experience playing hordes through most of 7ed (including Heresy), this mostly translated into asking if the other player has blasts, and if he says yes, just making sure all your units were spread out all the time!

Ofcourse but because you are doing it all the time doesnt convince me we should get rid of it. You still have some tacticals decisions during deployment and movement phase because of it.

I wrote a point about randomness before somewhere that its actually good (mostly if you play the same person over and over again). Its actually fun to have sometime your deep striking unit scatter 12 in random direction or perhaps your Vindicator striking point blank with his demolisher shot hitting your Terminators or something else. In 8th edition you dont have this. You always deep strike 9 inches away from the enemy and your Vindicator will never strike your own units. Yes, i know it makes the 8th edition (perhaps) more competition friendly (your units usually do what you tell them to and if not you have a reroll for 1 CP) but i believe this random effect is why there are people still playing 2nd edition where driverless vehicles drive into other vehicles with both going boom!

So if you play the same person (usually a close friend) and dont take different units all the time the game stagnates quite a lot. You use similar tactics and units do what they should do over and over again. I think i am more after the random effect to spice things up.

I would rather HH play with the 8th edition rules but the army books have more special rules to differentiate the weapons and armies. There's nothing to say that the demolisher in HH needs the same rules as a 40k demolisher which has been more of a beer and pretzels game since 3rd edition anyway.

I would actually prefer the HH armies NOT be balanced to fight other 40k armies with the 8th edition rules to make the conflict feel different. That means things like deepstriking could change, like a teleporter homer could say "Use the main 40k rules for deepstriking" but otherwise HH armies could have their own deepstrike rule.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I would rather HH play with the 8th edition rules but the army books have more special rules to differentiate the weapons and armies. There's nothing to say that the demolisher in HH needs the same rules as a 40k demolisher which has been more of a beer and pretzels game since 3rd edition anyway.

I would actually prefer the HH armies NOT be balanced to fight other 40k armies with the 8th edition rules to make the conflict feel different. That means things like deepstriking could change, like a teleporter homer could say "Use the main 40k rules for deepstriking" but otherwise HH armies could have their own deepstrike rule.

They could, but one of the draws of it in 7th was I could play against my friends with it when I couldn't find a HH game, now I can't.

Sir Heckington wrote:
They could, but one of the draws of it in 7th was I could play against my friends with it when I couldn't find a HH game, now I can't.

I see this a lot.

While it's true that not all the units are fieldable in 40k, I haven't had too many problems playing my 30k army as their equivalent chapter/legion in 40k. A marine is a marine is a marine. Mingle some heavy and special weapons in, you have 40k tac squads. Outriders are still Bikes. Terminators are still terminators (cataphractii and tartaros are still options in 40k), consuls and praetors can become lieutenants and captains. Etc.