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.

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Why cant people just leave 8th with 40k and 7th with HH? Both rulesets work for their respective games, leave it be.

And then I can never find games of HH, but if I can play with 40k players, I can at least use those models.

This problem would be the reverse for many people. My play group is entirely 30k. My solution is not playing or buying 40k.

If you have a group of players that only want to play 30k 7th ed then play 30k 7th ed...the rules for most of the legions are done and well the rules in effect haven't changed in years.

To me many of the 7th edition rules are total garbage and when FW had a chance to fix them they basically did nothing but reprint the 7th edition rule book and try to sell it again to people.

The way psykers work is much better and more fair in 8th edition because the other side can attempt to dispell if they have a psyker in range.....as well wounds/toughness for vehicles is a much better effect IMO than certain vehicle armies being impossible to beat if you dont bring lots of heavy wpns in 30k 7th ed.

I would even say doing away with templates is a huge rules change for the better...no debating on template movement/placement....esp with quad mortars....or wpns with lots of template shots.

To me there is virtually nothing in 7th Ed that is better than 8th as far as play goes. Even the vehicle shooting rules are more or less better.....because you have to realize the game uses an abstract space system....a 28mm miniature only shooting 24" is a game system of abstracting the distance. So to me vehicles being able to shoot if a part of the vehicle can see makes sense because the games distance and space measurements are abstract meaning the vehicles just occupies that approx space in the theoretical battlefield. Many, if not most games use this concept now.

To get a realistic measurements for range and space occupation in a wargame you really have to got back to playing like 1:285 or 1:300 size miniatures.

Eh, there are some people who say that 7th is more complex (I use the word “bloated” myself) and therefore it’s more grownup. I just don’t think “complex” is necessarily better.

The great thing about the HH moves on to the newer rules is that 7th Ed diehards who love holding templates over models and rolling dice can still do it! You can keep the old books, old lists, and all of the mechanics you love while at the same time hopefully growing the game with the newer ruleset.

That would mean a dead rule set without any further official improvements. I'm glad they stated HH is staying 7th.
And I could say exactly the same to those who want HH to turn 8th: why don't you just play this unofficial conversion to 8th and be happy about it?

For the same reason I like that companies keep designing new cell phones, TVs, cars, game rules, etc. Carburetors are more complex to maintain daily than fuel injectors and many people prefer them but we should all be glad the industry moved on.

 CragHack wrote:
That would mean a dead rule set without any further official improvements. I'm glad they stated HH is staying 7th.
And I could say exactly the same to those who want HH to turn 8th: why don't you just play this unofficial conversion to 8th and be happy about it?

Because it's not official, and therefore players are less likely to want to use it. I have to convince people to play with me. It's the same as if I created my entire own ruleset for 40k, I'd have to convince people that my ruleset is good enough to play, if FW just released an 8th HH version, it'd be good.

Then again, FW cant balance gak and it'd probably be a terrible mess.

You might like 7th, but well its a bad ruleset. It's bloated, its rules lead to unnecessary arguments. Does 8th have issues? For sure, tons, but its better, it just needs refining and some changes.

Sir Heckington wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
That would mean a dead rule set without any further official improvements. I'm glad they stated HH is staying 7th.
And I could say exactly the same to those who want HH to turn 8th: why don't you just play this unofficial conversion to 8th and be happy about it?

Because it's not official, and therefore players are less likely to want to use it. I have to convince people to play with me. It's the same as if I created my entire own ruleset for 40k, I'd have to convince people that my ruleset is good enough to play, if FW just released an 8th HH version, it'd be good.

Then again, FW cant balance gak and it'd probably be a terrible mess.

You might like 7th, but well its a bad ruleset. It's bloated, its rules lead to unnecessary arguments. Does 8th have issues? For sure, tons, but its better, it just needs refining and some changes.

Yep it’s not official but that’s your hang up, I’ve been using house rules for decades and so has nearly everyone I know, as long as the rules are good, people generally don’t care.... generally.

Yep FW has had issues with balance but on the whole they have been better than the main studio, polished turd is still a turd though.

8th is not better, it’s different, 7th has glaring issues and so does 8th, both having utterly terrible psychic phases springs to mind, 8ths homogeneous nature also removing a lot of the flavour and now everything is “samey”, no cover rules worth a damn, movement phase being a complete joke due to shooting being king, but that’s getting better, deep strike is laughable as it’s so accurate now that zero thought is required, 8th did well in certain areas and went too far in others, it’s a bad rule set for heresy, with 7th being only slightly better.

Try to look at both sets of rules objectively and then apply heresy to them, if your being honest you will see that 8ths overly simplistic rules do not fit well, so much would be lost for little to no gain as has happened with every single 40k army that shifted over.

 Formosa wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
That would mean a dead rule set without any further official improvements. I'm glad they stated HH is staying 7th.
And I could say exactly the same to those who want HH to turn 8th: why don't you just play this unofficial conversion to 8th and be happy about it?

Because it's not official, and therefore players are less likely to want to use it. I have to convince people to play with me. It's the same as if I created my entire own ruleset for 40k, I'd have to convince people that my ruleset is good enough to play, if FW just released an 8th HH version, it'd be good.

Then again, FW cant balance gak and it'd probably be a terrible mess.

You might like 7th, but well its a bad ruleset. It's bloated, its rules lead to unnecessary arguments. Does 8th have issues? For sure, tons, but its better, it just needs refining and some changes.

Yep it’s not official but that’s your hang up, I’ve been using house rules for decades and so has nearly everyone I know, as long as the rules are good, people generally don’t care.... generally.

Yep FW has had issues with balance but on the whole they have been better than the main studio, polished turd is still a turd though.

8th is not better, it’s different, 7th has glaring issues and so does 8th, both having utterly terrible psychic phases springs to mind, 8ths homogeneous nature also removing a lot of the flavour and now everything is “samey”, no cover rules worth a damn, movement phase being a complete joke due to shooting being king, but that’s getting better, deep strike is laughable as it’s so accurate now that zero thought is required, 8th did well in certain areas and went too far in others, it’s a bad rule set for heresy, with 7th being only slightly better.

Try to look at both sets of rules objectively and then apply heresy to them, if your being honest you will see that 8ths overly simplistic rules do not fit well, so much would be lost for little to no gain as has happened with every single 40k army that shifted over.

FW isn't better, my Renegades and heretics book proves exactly that.


7th's issues are issues with the core rules. 8th's are more easily fixed. CA just showed more cover rules, melee needs to become more effective, yes, but almost every edition has had that issue.

Deepstrike is terrible in both 7th and 8th. 7th had random deepstrike, which is something that shouldn't be random, ever. 8th just gives you the ability to point somewhere and fire, and its terrible.

Heresy can be applied to 8th with the same exact depth through the use of interesting and unique tactics for each legion. That is where 8th falls short the most. The army customization is abysmal.

For example, Iron hands legion tactics could be:

6+ FNP, No penalty to moving and firing heavy weapons, +1 to all rolls made for repair.
Before an IRON HANDS unit advances, charges, or falls back, it must make a LD test. (2d6>LD)

That creates an interesting army, and when you factor in things like unique units, weapons and Ferrus, you can get an army that would play vastly different than any other. It'd keep the 'flavour' of the HH, while using the 8th ruleset.

The flavour has been lost through the loss of things such as formations. (which are coming back) 8th edition as a core is simpler, and better for HH than 7th will ever be. 7th is killing HH, that's what its doing.

Sir Heckington wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
That would mean a dead rule set without any further official improvements. I'm glad they stated HH is staying 7th.
And I could say exactly the same to those who want HH to turn 8th: why don't you just play this unofficial conversion to 8th and be happy about it?

Because it's not official, and therefore players are less likely to want to use it. I have to convince people to play with me. It's the same as if I created my entire own ruleset for 40k, I'd have to convince people that my ruleset is good enough to play, if FW just released an 8th HH version, it'd be good.

Then again, FW cant balance gak and it'd probably be a terrible mess.

You might like 7th, but well its a bad ruleset. It's bloated, its rules lead to unnecessary arguments. Does 8th have issues? For sure, tons, but its better, it just needs refining and some changes.

So if FW moved HH to 8th, many 7th fans would feel the same how you feel now - they, most likely, would not want to play an unsupported setting any more. And, since probably many HH players dislike 8th for what it is (I mean, that's a general trend from what I've heard), they would be left with no other options (but to play a dead setting or more to a setting they dislike), while supporters of 8th would have both settings. Even though you can use the majority of HH units right now in your 8th games So why not make it even?

Regarding "bad ruleset". Well, that's just like your opinion, man I love it. And quite a few 7th players loved it too, but they just quit overall, because Heresy is too expensive for them and they don't want to play 8th and 7th is dead for them. And, trust me, I've seen a lot of arguing going on 8th edition games too. Maybe even more, to be honest.

 CragHack wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 CragHack wrote:
That would mean a dead rule set without any further official improvements. I'm glad they stated HH is staying 7th.
And I could say exactly the same to those who want HH to turn 8th: why don't you just play this unofficial conversion to 8th and be happy about it?

Because it's not official, and therefore players are less likely to want to use it. I have to convince people to play with me. It's the same as if I created my entire own ruleset for 40k, I'd have to convince people that my ruleset is good enough to play, if FW just released an 8th HH version, it'd be good.

Then again, FW cant balance gak and it'd probably be a terrible mess.

You might like 7th, but well its a bad ruleset. It's bloated, its rules lead to unnecessary arguments. Does 8th have issues? For sure, tons, but its better, it just needs refining and some changes.

So if FW moved HH to 8th, many 7th fans would feel the same how you feel now - they, most likely, would not want to play an unsupported setting any more. And, since probably many HH players dislike 8th for what it is (I mean, that's a general trend from what I've heard), they would be left with no other options (but to play a dead setting or more to a setting they dislike), while supporters of 8th would have both settings. Even though you can use the majority of HH units right now in your 8th games So why not make it even?

Regarding "bad ruleset". Well, that's just like your opinion, man I love it. And quite a few 7th players loved it too, but they just quit overall, because Heresy is too expensive for them and they don't want to play 8th and 7th is dead for them. And, trust me, I've seen a lot of arguing going on 8th edition games too. Maybe even more, to be honest.

There isn't anything to argue about that you couldn't argue about in 7th. But what I wish they would do is finish 7th HH, I'm fine with letting you guys have the options to play that way. Get the final primarchs out, and heck even support it with occasional FAQs (After all the legions get their stuff not much else major is needed), then they can work on 8th HH. I want as many people to be able to enjoy it as possible. Is this a pipe dream? Yes, yes it is. Forgeworld can hardly support one functioning ruleset.

FW isn't better, my Renegades and heretics book proves exactly that.

They were fine when they came out, a bit weak if anything, time has not been kind to them and they are still quite weak, one unit got spammed badly at the start of 8th, but got nerfed into oblivion, so meh, lets see over the years how many units GW main has screwed up.... if you have a week

7th's issues are issues with the core rules. 8th's are more easily fixed. CA just showed more cover rules, melee needs to become more effective, yes, but almost every edition has had that issue.

8th is much easier to fix because GW gives a damn now, thats not a core rule issue its a apathy one, if were playing "what if" then 7th would have been a perfect ruleset if it had had chapter approved.

Deepstrike is terrible in both 7th and 8th. 7th had random deepstrike, which is something that shouldn't be random, ever. 8th just gives you the ability to point somewhere and fire, and its terrible.

Risk/Reward is why 7th DS was better, the reserves roll was the main issue, I dont think it was needed in addition to risky DS, but I lived with it.

Heresy can be applied to 8th with the same exact depth through the use of interesting and unique tactics for each legion. That is where 8th falls short the most. The army customization is abysmal.

No it cant, its clearly apparent a lot of the rules are totally incompatible, removal of key stat lines and over simplifying of the rules has created this issue, you would end up with Emperors children basically being identical to the chaos marine counterparts with the same rules.

For example, Iron hands legion tactics could be:

6+ FNP, No penalty to moving and firing heavy weapons, +1 to all rolls made for repair.
Before an IRON HANDS unit advances, charges, or falls back, it must make a LD test. (2d6>LD)

and that is nothing like the -1 to str of enemy shooting, now does it buff high AV/Toughness vehicles and is pretty much identical to the 40k counterpart.

That creates an interesting army, and when you factor in things like unique units, weapons and Ferrus, you can get an army that would play vastly different than any other. It'd keep the 'flavour' of the HH, while using the 8th ruleset.

No it creates an army that functions the same as its 40k counterpart and has lost a lot of its flavour

The flavour has been lost through the loss of things such as formations. (which are coming back) 8th edition as a core is simpler, and better for HH than 7th will ever be. 7th is killing HH, that's what its doing.

every metric I have seen shows HH is growing we have more people coming to HH tournaments and nights than ever before, You tubers have also done polls across the board and show this to be the case, HH is growing, not dieing, that is what the non 30k players keep saying and its wrong.

Formations are the thing that ruined 7th 40k, wanting them back is crazy on all kinds of levels.

8th edition at its core is not simpler, its different, the rules are spread out all over the place, making armies for a normal game means you have to jump to several points in a codex, rather than having them right there on the sheet, there is 3 ways of playing the game, each worse than the last and only one really gets played, you have several rules that are basically the same but have different names to add to confusion (7th did this too but nowhere near as bad), every character is basically the same.

8th cannot handle 30k properly, it would become a shadow of its former self just like 8th 40k has become

Agree to disagree then. It's clear we both have differing views on the matter. Good luck to you with HH, and wherever they go with it, I only hope that it stays alive.

 Formosa wrote:
No it cant, its clearly apparent a lot of the rules are totally incompatible, removal of key stat lines and over simplifying of the rules has created this issue, you would end up with Emperors children basically being identical to the chaos marine counterparts with the same rules.

Legion rules can be made unique with tricky and fluffy stratagems. I do not trust FW to balance it well though.

Formations are the thing that ruined 7th 40k, wanting them back is crazy on all kinds of levels.

Yeah formations were kind of bad. They can be done right if they bring some small buffs and fluffy options not giving you huuuuge benefits.

8th cannot handle 30k properly, it would become a shadow of its former self just like 8th 40k has become

It can, it can as i already said with fluffy and nice stratagems. Stratagems is what gives character to the armies in 8th edition if we like it or not.

In the end i only want to play HH. It doesnt really matter to me if it is 7th or 8th. I had the most fun with the game during 4th edition when i started playing 40k so i could play this ancient edition even.

Glumy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
No it cant, its clearly apparent a lot of the rules are totally incompatible, removal of key stat lines and over simplifying of the rules has created this issue, you would end up with Emperors children basically being identical to the chaos marine counterparts with the same rules.

Legion rules can be made unique with tricky and fluffy stratagems. I do not trust FW to balance it well though.

Formations are the thing that ruined 7th 40k, wanting them back is crazy on all kinds of levels.

Yeah formations were kind of bad. They can be done right if they bring some small buffs and fluffy options not giving you huuuuge benefits.

8th cannot handle 30k properly, it would become a shadow of its former self just like 8th 40k has become

It can, it can as i already said with fluffy and nice stratagems. Stratagems is what gives character to the armies in 8th edition if we like it or not.

In the end i only want to play HH. It doesnt really matter to me if it is 7th or 8th. I had the most fun with the game during 4th edition when i started playing 40k so i could play this ancient edition even.

Ah, there’s the problem, stratagems are boring and uninspired but I do agree that FW likely won’t be able to do them justice, neither with GW based on all the books out so far, there are a lot of stratagems that should just be unit special rules, although they did do well by rolling the dakka dakka strat into normal ork rules so there is a silver lining I suppose.

Take iron hands as an example, currently you have the biggest ability -1 to enemy shooting str, this is across the entire army, it affects everything from making units more durable right up to raising the ID threshold, a very powerful ability and shows quite well how tough they are, much better than 6+++ FNP they have in 8th.

So if this was a strat it would have to be maximum 1cp, at the very least half incoming damage AND be -1 str to enemy shooting, What about emperors children, there is no I to buff and show their speed, so you get movement bonus and always strike first, well not they are pretty much the same as the 40k ones, so what’s the point, the list goes on, 8th lacks the granularity to handle all 18 legions and their special rules/units, some would be easier than other of course though.

Initiative could be represented by changes to pile in, like enemies can only pile in 1" and EC get extra pile in distance.

No one is saying 8th is perfect, I think the most realistic thing is that HH and 40k both move to 9th ed at the same time. It lets them both sell more rulebooks, more chapter approved, more indices, more codices, etc.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Initiative could be represented by changes to pile in, like enemies can only pile in 1" and EC get extra pile in distance.

No one is saying 8th is perfect, I think the most realistic thing is that HH and 40k both move to 9th ed at the same time. It lets them both sell more rulebooks, more chapter approved, more indices, more codices, etc.

People are saying that though dude, thankfully not here really but when someone says "its better in every way" they are wilfully ignoring its shortcomings, they are doing this as they are generally 40k players that bought or want to buy a HH army to play 40k and hey.. its their money, who am I to deny them this, but on the flip side why are they to try and push for something the actual 30k players dont want, I know I will be accused of using a "no true scotsman" fallacy but they are not actual 30k players so why should we listen to their opinion?

When doing my polls and seeing others that have been done by you tubers, it was disheartened to find out that a large majority of people calling for a change in HH HAD NOT EVER PLAYED IT, they just look at the mess of 7th 40k and assume its the exact same thing with the same issues, this is pretty much why I push back against these people, they are demanding we change to suit their needs when they are not even part of the community.

with all that being said though, your right, it will likely change over around 9th, its also possible that the HH rulebook really is HH 1st ed and they will continue to work with that ruleset and refine it (please for the love of god sort out the psy phase... and 8ths too.. it also sucks), but I find that unlikely.

As I said before in an ideal world they would take the good stuff from 8th and make a hybrid ruleset, but thats asking far too much of GW/FW.

 Formosa wrote:

People are saying that though dude, thankfully not here really but when someone says "its better in every way" they are wilfully ignoring its shortcomings, they are doing this as they are generally 40k players that bought or want to buy a HH army to play 40k and hey.. its their money, who am I to deny them this, but on the flip side why are they to try and push for something the actual 30k players dont want, I know I will be accused of using a "no true scotsman" fallacy but they are not actual 30k players so why should we listen to their opinion?

A few points, watching the last few pages:

- There aren't many people saying that 8ed is 'better in every way'. There are a lot of people saying it's better, because they've played both and think it's better. Nobody is suggesting it's perfect.

- When you criticise elements of 8ed you tend to do it in absolutes, like there's no argument. You say 'X is just boring', 'X is the wrong way to do this', 'X is less interesting'. These might be your opinions, but they're not fact. There are loads of people who disagree and find, say, chapter differences in 40k 8ed absolutely fine. You might have different opinion, but you're not 'right'.

- I know anecdotal evidence says that, in areas with a lots of concentrated people and good transport, Heresy tournaments are still very popular. The UK is ok, the Bay Area is fine, massive hobby events still have more Heresy tournaments than ever. But anecdotal evidence also speaks of loads of people putting down 30k either because they live in small towns and the scene has gone, because their club moved over to 8ed, because they simply prefer 8ed and felt let down when FW changed it's mind, or because they used to play their 40k opponents. It's 18 months later so those people won't be posting on Heresy forums and threads nearly as much - I know my Heresy interaction has gone down despite it being my favourite setting. To say those people aren't 'true' Heresy players is a bit insulting, and to say 'polls on forums still mostly frequented by people who like 7ed more show that people like 7ed more' is a bit silly. FW should listen to their opinion because it's a large group of gamers saying they would play Heresy and buy Heresy if that change was made. They have to weigh that against how many customers they think they'd lose by switching to 8ed, and how many new players they'd attract.


.

FW/GW at this point care about growth of sales/profit, not the satisfaction of people who’ve already invested thousands in the hobby. They are not going to stay with 7th because polls have indicated that HH players like their current rulebook, they will want to sell you a new rulebook and make the game more attractive to newer players. Plastic MK3 and MK4 were the beginning of that (and hooked me) so they will look for ways to attract more people.

- There aren't many people saying that 8ed is 'better in every way'. There are a lot of people saying it's better, because they've played both and think it's better. Nobody is suggesting it's perfect.

I already pointed that out, so were in agreement here.

- When you criticise elements of 8ed you tend to do it in absolutes, like there's no argument. You say 'X is just boring', 'X is the wrong way to do this', 'X is less interesting'. These might be your opinions, but they're not fact. There are loads of people who disagree and find, say, chapter differences in 40k 8ed absolutely fine. You might have different opinion, but you're not 'right'.

Thats because I am right, I am not one of those people that is shy about admitting that I know a subject better than another person, call it a personality fault if you want. So yes when I say that 8th cannot handle the granularity that is needed for HH then its a fact, one needs only to look at the respective rulebooks to see this is a fact, large chunks of rules that are needed to keep the theme and feel of HH as it stand now simply do not exist within 8th, any shift would reduce the rules as 8th was intended to do, a lot of 40k armies took a hit in theme due to 8th, there is no reason to assume HH would not take the exact same hit.

I understand I am being very matter of fact about this but thats the way I am, again, call it a personality fault if you like.

- I know anecdotal evidence says that, in areas with a lots of concentrated people and good transport, Heresy tournaments are still very popular. The UK is ok, the Bay Area is fine, massive hobby events still have more Heresy tournaments than ever. But anecdotal evidence also speaks of loads of people putting down 30k either because they live in small towns and the scene has gone, because their club moved over to 8ed, because they simply prefer 8ed and felt let down when FW changed it's mind, or because they used to play their 40k opponents. It's 18 months later so those people won't be posting on Heresy forums and threads nearly as much - I know my Heresy interaction has gone down despite it being my favourite setting. To say those people aren't 'true' Heresy players is a bit insulting, and to say 'polls on forums still mostly frequented by people who like 7ed more show that people like 7ed more' is a bit silly. FW should listen to their opinion because it's a large group of gamers saying they would play Heresy and buy Heresy if that change was made. They have to weigh that against how many customers they think they'd lose by switching to 8ed, and how many new players they'd attract.

Everything I stated was factual, you may not like or agree with it but that does not matter, as for the "true heresy players" comment.

"why are they to try and push for something the actual 30k players dont want, I know I will be accused of using a "no true scotsman" fallacy but they are not actual 30k players so why should we listen to their opinion?"

I am reposting it as you clearly need to read it again, its very clear I am talking about 40k players that dont even play HH, so again, why should we be forced to change to suit people who dont even play the game, so given that HH is growing then it seems FW made the right choice by not switching, as before I do still fully expect a change to come in the future though.

To be fair I think the opinion “I’m not investing hundreds in a HH army until they use an updated ruleset” is a totally valid opinion in a thread that asks opinions about the future of the HH system.

It’s totally fair for you to like the armybooks and rulebooks you’ve already purchased. It’s totally fair to enjoy 7th with its myriad of problems and be resistant to 8th with its issues like granularity between models.

On my shelf I have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, two 6ths, and two 7th Ed rulebooks. There were things I liked and didn’t like about each edition but long ago I accepted that all of GW’s rules have built in obsolescence. HH *will* move on and many people like me won’t invest further until they move on whether anyone likes it or not.

Mine is just one opinion of many out there.

What does 8E lack for in terms of granularity of rules to make HH lack that 7E has? There's a lot less special rules to memorize, but more stats available to better detail interactions.

The return of ASM's and Damage from 2E to 8E, and the allowance of stats above 10, has made units and weapons dramatically more varied and useful without needing gobs of special rules. The return of a movement stat means units can be differentiated to a much greater degree in terms of speed and not need distinct unit category types to do so.

I'm at a loss as to what in the 8E core rules prevents such granularity, unless one was just *really* into wound allocation minigames and challenges, which is not something I would consider a highlight of the 7E rules.

I always push back on the idea that 8E has less special rules to memorize than 7E. It's the same. Possibly more. They're simply not in one place, and now you're in a situation where identical rules go by two or more names across different units. Heck, any save-after-the-save mechanic is still often referred to as FNP because... well, it is.

USRs, in my opinion, are not a bad thing. Exceptions to them, and/or writing them without modularity in mind, is the problem.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
I always push back on the idea that 8E has less special rules to memorize than 7E. It's the same. Possibly more. They're simply not in one place, and now you're in a situation where identical rules go by two or more names across different units. Heck, any save-after-the-save mechanic is still often referred to as FNP because... well, it is.

USRs, in my opinion, are not a bad thing. Exceptions to them, and/or writing them without modularity in mind, is the problem.

I don’t think USRs were necessarily problem before, I rather liked having a consistent list of rules that units could borrow from.

 Formosa wrote:
[
I am reposting it as you clearly need to read it again, its very clear I am talking about 40k players that dont even play HH, so again, why should we be forced to change to suit people who dont even play the game, so given that HH is growing then it seems FW made the right choice by not switching, as before I do still fully expect a change to come in the future though.

"HH is growing" is counterfactual in terms of model availability, player count, online presence, and mindshare. What exactly is it growing?

TzeentchNet wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
[
I am reposting it as you clearly need to read it again, its very clear I am talking about 40k players that dont even play HH, so again, why should we be forced to change to suit people who dont even play the game, so given that HH is growing then it seems FW made the right choice by not switching, as before I do still fully expect a change to come in the future though.

"HH is growing" is counterfactual in terms of model availability, player count, online presence, and mindshare. What exactly is it growing?

Certainly not Mk2 marines, or the entire Renegades line.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
I always push back on the idea that 8E has less special rules to memorize than 7E. It's the same. Possibly more. They're simply not in one place, and now you're in a situation where identical rules go by two or more names across different units. Heck, any save-after-the-save mechanic is still often referred to as FNP because... well, it is.

USRs, in my opinion, are not a bad thing. Exceptions to them, and/or writing them without modularity in mind, is the problem.

I don’t think USRs were necessarily problem before, I rather liked having a consistent list of rules that units could borrow from.

Yes, the USR argument makes no sense to me. People think having hundreds of different rules spread across every codex making it near impossible for people to be aware of everything is a better, cleaner, system then having 4 pages of rules that everyone draws from, that has one single place that we can all go to, in order to reference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.facebook.com/ForgeWorldUK/posts/2465105970173335?comment_id=2470696302947635¬if_id=1543916942345664¬if_t=comment_mention

Hope that link works, but for what seems the Umpteenth time, we have FW declaring that the game will not move onto 8th, and a clear majority of posters in complete agreement with them over it.

yes a faceboook posting from a year ago basically after 8th edition just launched is proof that HH in 7th edition is superior....

I would disagree.

In the end money will talk and BS FB comments will walk. Only FW and GW knows what the sales have been and my guess is that will fully dictate what they will do.

I know I for one wont buy any 7th ed HH products...and if its a unit/model only useable in 7th ed HH I wont buy it either.

I have a hard time with believing people when they say 7th edition core rules were awful, they simply arent. There are some faults yes, but the glaring reason 7th edition was not well received was due to codex creep and the ludicrous formation and detachments that totally wrecked any semblance of balance and fair play. 7th was not able to handle these crazy new implementations by GW, so they switched to an edition (8th) that could better make use of these "extra" rules and sell whole detachments of models at a time.

As for the granularity that some are talking about, statistics such as initiative, toughness, and a myriad of special rules unique to HH provide the various legions with the quirks that they need to keep them at an arms length from each other in similarity. Otherwise it would very much be 18 cases of "the marines are green so they can re-roll ones" or "these marines are dark blue so they're scary." I understand 8th has differences between Space Marine chapters, but they are on no way close to level that the HH differentiates the Legions.

8th works for what it is intended for, as does 7th with Horus Heresy. There is no need to swap HH over to 8th when it would not benefit the system as a whole.

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, the USR argument makes no sense to me. People think having hundreds of different rules spread across every codex making it near impossible for people to be aware of everything is a better, cleaner, system then having 4 pages of rules that everyone draws from, that has one single place that we can all go to, in order to reference?

Remind me again, which edition are you talking about here? Because i don't see a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I have a hard time with believing people when they say 7th edition core rules were awful, they simply arent. There are some faults yes, but the glaring reason 7th edition was not well received was due to codex creep and the ludicrous formation and detachments that totally wrecked any semblance of balance and fair play. 7th was not able to handle these crazy new implementations by GW, so they switched to an edition (8th) that could better make use of these "extra" rules and sell whole detachments of models at a time.

How many editions of 40K have you played? Formations are a red herring, they're meaningless. The problems in 7th were the same problems 6th had and 5th before that, pretty much going all the way back to 3rd.

I've played since late 4th. Formation and detachments are not meaningless, they left a bad taste in many people's mouths in 7th edition. They became the focus of play and army builds be it a tournament or a friendly game. If you honestly think formations and detachments didn't impact the game on a large scale Id have to ask you a more specific version of the question you asked me, did you even play 7th?