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.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I have a hard time with believing people when they say 7th edition core rules were awful, they simply arent.

The fundamental core 7E rules have tons of issues, from missions to unit types, gratuitous tables and random rolling, unnecessary mechanics (challenges) and more. The entire vehicle system for example (why do they need two overlapping kill mechanics...and why do they not get a save if they have wounds? why are vehicles the only units in the game that care about facing but immobile artillery and giant monsters and heavy weapons units do not?). Weapon scaling. The Jink mechanic. Wound allocation.

8E is faaaaaaaaaar from perfect, but as a basic core ruleset for a game really is better than 7E and handles the scale 40k has grown to much better.

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.

These would appear to be something you'd handle in the codex/army book section, not really related to whatever core rules are in use.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I have a hard time with believing people when they say 7th edition core rules were awful, they simply arent.

The fundamental core 7E rules have tons of issues, from missions to unit types, gratuitous tables and random rolling, unnecessary mechanics (challenges) and more. The entire vehicle system for example (why do they need two overlapping kill mechanics...and why do they not get a save if they have wounds? why are vehicles the only units in the game that care about facing but immobile artillery and giant monsters and heavy weapons units do not?). Weapon scaling. The Jink mechanic. Wound allocation.

8E is faaaaaaaaaar from perfect, but as a basic core ruleset for a game really is better than 7E and handles the scale 40k has grown to much better.

You say tomato, I say I would greatly prefer it you accepted my opinion as valid instead of your own.

Some people like the complexity of 7th edition more than 8th. Get over it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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.

These would appear to be something you'd handle in the codex/army book section, not really related to whatever core rules are in use.

Technicalities. They did a fine job with the rules and it doesn't matter how they organized them. If there was a big problem, no one would play the game.

I appreciate actual examples of someone's issues with 7th, Ill give some feedback on those.

Missions: I agree the 40k 7th missions were pretty uninspired, I wasn't considering them however because they have changed for HH and are quite good I would say.

Vehicles: I think vehicles preform well in 7th, they have to be positioned well to be effective. Im assuming the overlapping kill mechanics you're talking about are destroying a vehicle through stripping Hull points or straight up blowing it up. I like this system in 7th because they increased the explode result to a 7+, which requires use of an AP 1 or AP 2 weapon. It adds extra strategic choices to the game, "where should I use my AP weapons, or can I rely on my other weapons to whittle that vehicle down?" Vehicles can be easy targets yes, lacking any saves is a trade off for the many benefits they bring, and you can always try to get them in cover.

Random Rolling: Im a large supporter of the phrase "Random does not equal fun". For choosing Psychic powers, mission types, or warlord traits, our gaming group just chooses rather than rolling randomly.

Unnecessary Mechanics: I do believe Challenges serve a purpose, I feel they were put in place to encourage a more narrative style of game play, although this is not always upheld, challenges have their place. Now Look Out Sir on the other hand should be removed from the rule system, it adds an entire extra layer of dice rolling before saving throws are even made and can be easily abused. To fix this issue, we like to ignore the "take casualties closest to closest rule" instead the owner of the unit taking damage chooses the casualty, however it must be within the range of the firing weapon or weapons. This eliminates the need for Look Out Sir. We do still resolve casualties closest to closest when resolving Overwatch though. (makes sense).

Jink: There's nothing wrong with Jink, in fact if fulfills your complaint for vehicles not having a reliable saving throw, and it is balanced upon the trade off that you will have limited your shooting effectiveness the following turn.

Weapon Scaling: Im confused with this statement.

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

Because with 30k sticking in 7th, I have been unable to get a game in since the 8th edition rulebook came out. I could play against 40k armies before, now I can only play against 30k armies. The small handful of other people in my area that played 30k are in the same spot, so several sold their 30k armies on ebay. Why keep an army around that just sits in a case gathering dust?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 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?

- 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.

This is an excellent point. The people who have quit 30k entirely and sold their armies on ebay are no longer around to vote in those polls. The polls reflect the opinion of the people who stuck with 30k, which means they probably either prefer 7th or don't have a choice anyway. I don't know anyone that still has a 30k army or plays it any more since the change to 8th.

Since the polls were done across 30k and 40k sites and FB pages, no, it’s not a good point, unless you are referring to those people that have left all online presence and games workshop completely, in those cases we can’t know, what we do know and you all keep ignoring is that the majority of primary 30k players want 7th to stay, but the primary 40k players want it to change to allow them to play 8th with their armies, it’s like demanding space hulk change completely to have the same rules as 8th, they are different games, HH and 40k were ALWAYS different games, they just shared a rulebook with heavy adjustments in key areas.

If you bought a 30k army to play 40k I feel for you, but you were warned repeatedly in EVERY black book that came out that they were not intended to be used together.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:


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?

You misunderstand my point. Formation are "meaningless" in that they are red herring, a distraction from the core problems of 7th that have largely existed since 3rd. I've gone into them at least twice in this thread (and been ignored each time).

 Formosa wrote:
Since the polls were done across 30k and 40k sites and FB pages, no, it’s not a good point, unless you are referring to those people that have left all online presence and games workshop completely, in those cases we can’t know, what we do know and you all keep ignoring is that the majority of primary 30k players want 7th to stay, but the primary 40k players want it to change to allow them to play 8th with their armies, it’s like demanding space hulk change completely to have the same rules as 8th, they are different games, HH and 40k were ALWAYS different games, they just shared a rulebook with heavy adjustments in key areas.

If you bought a 30k army to play 40k I feel for you, but you were warned repeatedly in EVERY black book that came out that they were not intended to be used together.

The wishes of the existing community don't matter as a foundation of decision making. The only concern FW and GW have is generating profit. So the corporate overlords will take a look into the future and have a decision to make. Will catering to the existing community have the most room for future growth or will changing things lead to more growth? Stagnation is not typically seen as a way to growth. So FW can try to shake off stagnation and increase the customer base by releasing a bunch of new models. That however requires the expenditure of resources. It's much easier to shake up the ruleset and broaden the customer base for the models to those playing 40k already. Changing the ruleset is a much smaller resource investment.

There's of course another option and that is that FW/GW don't see HH as a source of profit and no longer give a feth about it. That will be the worst option possible as it continues it's slow decay from neglect.

 techsoldaten wrote:


You say tomato, I say I would greatly prefer it you accepted my opinion as valid instead of your own.

Some people like the complexity of 7th edition more than 8th. Get over it.

Well, that post made no attempt to address anything I actually said.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:

I appreciate actual examples of someone's issues with 7th, Ill give some feedback on those.

Missions: I agree the 40k 7th missions were pretty uninspired, I wasn't considering them however because they have changed for HH and are quite good I would say.

I dont have my AoD book on me but I do recall some of the missions being better on that end (along with 7E's most abusive psychic shennanigans getting nerfed in AoD which I did like 7E invisibility was 200% stupid) , though the basic 7E core missions have lots of problems, not the least of which was the Eternal War missions being copy-pasted from 6E without adapting any of them to account for scoring changes, so while in 6E Big Guns and Scouring gave an incentive to hunt HS/FA units, they also got special scoring abilities in 6E, but in 7E everything could score so they just became liabilities

Vehicles: I think vehicles preform well in 7th, they have to be positioned well to be effective. Im assuming the overlapping kill mechanics you're talking about are destroying a vehicle through stripping Hull points or straight up blowing it up. I like this system in 7th because they increased the explode result to a 7+, which requires use of an AP 1 or AP 2 weapon. It adds extra strategic choices to the game, "where should I use my AP weapons, or can I rely on my other weapons to whittle that vehicle down?" Vehicles can be easy targets yes, lacking any saves is a trade off for the many benefits they bring, and you can always try to get them in cover.

The issuss with HP's were big in 7E. Vehicles, unless they had access to Jink or an invul of some sort (or were free), underperformed across the board in 7E on the whole. This was a major bugbear of the edition. Most vehicles were effectively just W2/3 T6/7/8 units with no save, where any hit that exceeded the minimum required to wound would disable them in some way to boot

Unfortunately in practice there was not much depth with HP's, what they did was incentivize spamming multishot weapons that wounded infantry on 2's and could strip HP's, while making actual big dedicated antitank units some of the least effective actual AT components of an army (things like Vanquishers, Railgun Hammerheads, etc) as they lacked the volume to strip HP's while the damage table was too unreliable to rely on for kills, particularly against medium armor where antiinfantry weapons were just as capable and a fraction of the cost. Volume of fire was almost always preferable to quality of fire.

The interaction between "CC autohits rear armor" and HP's, coupled with the nearly universal rear AV10 and no save, also made vehices practically auto-killed by anything making base contact (mitigated a bit by the later grenade FAQ nerf).

Ultimately this made vehicles not only some of the easiest units to kill, but also to disable (since the damage table was still there) and the hardest to use since they were so fragile and had to deal with firing arcs and armor facings. No other units required any sort of positioning in the same way, even units filling the same roles, its why being an MC was considered simply flat out better than being a vehicle in 7E for things like the Iron Circle or Ripdtides.

Random Rolling: Im a large supporter of the phrase "Random does not equal fun". For choosing Psychic powers, mission types, or warlord traits, our gaming group just chooses rather than rolling randomly.

Yeah, choosing is a much better way to handle that, I wish theyd just done that in 7E.

Unnecessary Mechanics: I do believe Challenges serve a purpose, I feel they were put in place to encourage a more narrative style of game play, although this is not always upheld, challenges have their place.

I get that, but mostly it became a minigame of how to either hide or snipe characters and casualties, not really a narrative element.

More to the point however, on tables that may have two companies of infantry and a tank battalion or a lance of Superhavy walkers on the table, where strategic artillery units and are being brought to bear and aircraft are being represented...why are individual contests with blades something we pause the game to concentrate on?

They're just inappropriate to the scale of the game, at least in most cases (a duel between Primarchs...fine, but do we really care about sergeants duking it out?)

Now Look Out Sir on the other hand should be removed from the rule system, it adds an entire extra layer of dice rolling before saving throws are even made and can be easily abused. To fix this issue, we like to ignore the "take casualties closest to closest rule" instead the owner of the unit taking damage chooses the casualty, however it must be within the range of the firing weapon or weapons. This eliminates the need for Look Out Sir. We do still resolve casualties closest to closest when resolving Overwatch though. (makes sense).

Yeah, wound allocation was made very overcomplicated in 7E, owner assigning casualties really does work better in most cases.

Jink: There's nothing wrong with Jink, in fact if fulfills your complaint for vehicles not having a reliable saving throw, and it is balanced upon the trade off that you will have limited your shooting effectiveness the following turn.

Jink absolutely was a help for vehicles to mitigate issues with HP's, but it was only available to *some* vehicles and had wonky effects even there. Among those, it didn't effect passengers (so your transport could be Jinking and evading all over the place, but the contents can shoot out at full unaffected BS). Initially, for the first part of the edition, you could even Jink while immobilized. For the most common Jink reliant vehicles, the snapshot penalty was not a huge deal, as either their passengers could still shoot or they'd have multishot/twinlinked weapons to take the sting out.

Between Skimmer and Non Skimmer vehicles, Jink was the difference between viability and sitting on the shelf. Jink made vehicles functional on an HP battlefield. Jink compared with Smoke Launchers for example was a no brainer. Smoke was only a 5+ instead of a 4+, could only be used once (and in some cases had to be purchased), prevented *all* firing (not just snapshots, also no Advancing) and applied to passengers as well, and had to be declared in advance regardless of what the enemy actually shoots at, instead of only used when the enemy has already declared a target.

With respect to units like Bikes, the forced snapshots often were a minimal tradeoff as units either had twin linked guns to mitigate some of that or tons of shots or both, or were more interested with closing to assault where Jink had no tradeoff. The downside was rarely meaningful enough to require consideration in most cases (particularly with Marine units) and the ability to Jink against Overwatch was especially silly given the supposed tradeoff. The snapshot shooting was rarely enough of a counterbalance to the on-demand, as-necessary 4+ save.

Weapon Scaling: Im confused with this statement.

Basically every weapon does only one wound no matter what, the S/T range was capped at 10, and lots of clumping in the middle occurred. As a result, stat ranges for units have to be further confined, weapon effectiveness is wonky without a Damage stat (e.g. a Lascannon can only ever do one wound), and additional mechanics and rules are needed to accommodate that (Destroyer, Instant Death, etc), and we ended up with a outsized heavy emphasis mid-strength multishot weapons over everything else.

Blast weapons and their issues also fit in here. Blast templates are fun in a skirmish game. When dealing with a dozen or more in a company level game, they get exhausting and become prone to issues. They also ran into issues in the 3E-7E paradigm against single targets, where a Demolisher siege cannon shell that could wipe a unit of Centurions, Terminators or Custodes off the table would only ever take 1 HP off a vehicle (barring the low explosion chance) or do 1 wound to a monster.

To put it in perspective, where a 7E Titan cannon may have been a "D" weapon with a Massive Blast template and Ignores Cover, in 8E this can all be accommodated in the basic weapons profile, something like ""Heavy 2D6 S17 AP-5 Damage 2D6". It uses the same weapons profile as any other basic weapon, and achieves the same thing as the 7E weapon by just using bigger numbers, without needing templates or special tables and additional rules.

Random Rolling: Im a large supporter of the phrase "Random does not equal fun". For choosing Psychic powers, mission types, or warlord traits, our gaming group just chooses rather than rolling randomly.

Totally agree regardless of what edition of the rules we're talking here. Nothing better than getting a melee trait on your shooty warlord who needs to avoid close combat.

What confuses me the most is that I'd argue 8th edition is a poor edition when it comes to tournaments and meta-gaming...and is a far superior edition when it comes to narrative and telling a story. 8th has produced far more amusing and notable moments in gaming than previous editions - I'd have to go back to 2nd to get the level of amusement I get out of the game.

Why I find that baffling is that every podcast about HH espouses the hobby and narrative/campaign gaming vs. tournaments (and I listen to "most" of the good HH podcasts..religiously because I like the setting and presenters). When you remove the WAAC/meta-chasing, you'll find that 8th is a very entertaining experience, particularly with like-minded friends. I frequently play CSM vs. other CSM where we field predominantly HH related units (Leviathans, Contemptors, Sicarans, basic marines, etc.). It's good fun and doesn't lack for missing the minor complexities of 7th (which were not tactical or strategic complexitites but band-aids on game mechanics which had been abused for 15 years).

Furthermore...there would be nothing stopping ardent HH fans from simply using templates and vehicles facings in 8th if you so desired. The core rules are much more user-friendly and particularly good at house-ruling. My group doesn't play 40K the way anyone here would recognize it. That's perhaps 8th's largest strength. I see a vast portion of the HH community dedicated to user-made content, from codices to units, to playing Centurion instead of normal scaled games, etc. In my mind HH and 8th would actually fit perfectly.

8th breaks down in tournaments, with meta-chasing, with allies and broken combinations. Much as HH was a streamlined and simplified world for 7th edition, so it would be for 8th. While I miss the complexity of 2nd...I also miss the scale. While I loved the indepth nature of that ruleset (far superior to 3rd etc.) it would be impossible to use at the level/size/scope of a current game of 40K, and 30K. I think in the end I'm just surprised because the "spirit" of 8th...is much more in line with the HH community than the 40K community.

 Formosa wrote:
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.

Yup. The personality fault is called 'arrogance'.

Thankfully, I'm not one of those people that is shy about admitting that I know a subject better than another person either, and I've therefore decided I know the subject better then you. So yes when I say that 8th can handle the granularity that is needed for HH then its a fact, one needs only to look at the current 40k rulebooks to see this is a fact, large chunks of rules from 7ed are add-ons, and not needed to keep the theme and feel of HH as it stands, and any shift would reduce the bloating (as 8th was intended to do). A lot of 40k armies took a cut in sheer volume of rules while retaining their core theme in 8th, there is no reason to assume HH would not take the exact same hit.

Hey look! I've randomly declared I know more than you, therefore all my opinions are facts too! That is TOTALLY how facts work.

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.

Everything you posted is anecdotal. Some Heresy tournaments are reporting growth in attendance. There is no other evidence that the game, the sales, the scene is growing. There is lots of evidence of people moving away. We don't know the sum total of all that. To conclude that, because some tournaments are selling out, the scene and game as a whole is growing is conjecture.

You're talking about 40k players 'who don't even play 30k'. But when? People who don't play RIGHT NOW? If they used to play, but now mostly play 40k because of the switch, do you get to discount them too and write them off as just '40k players'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
8th breaks down in tournaments, with meta-chasing, with allies and broken combinations. Much as HH was a streamlined and simplified world for 7th edition, so it would be for 8th. While I miss the complexity of 2nd...I also miss the scale. While I loved the indepth nature of that ruleset (far superior to 3rd etc.) it would be impossible to use at the level/size/scope of a current game of 40K, and 30K. I think in the end I'm just surprised because the "spirit" of 8th...is much more in line with the HH community than the 40K community.

Totally agree. One of the best things about 8ed is the increased amount of 'stuff' the basic infantry model can do, which gives some pretty fluffy in-game events. I also agree that it breaks down when you try and play it competitively. In theory, that shouldn't be a problem in Heresy, because Heresy players are all super-narrative and just love building themed lists to play narrative games.

In practise, from my memory of attending Heresy events, about 20-25% of players are the same competitive arseholes hiding under the narrative excuse. That's why you see so many of certain units and Rites and so few of others. There's a couple of Heresy podcasts that really encourage all of this, complaining about certain lists and people not playing for fun, and then taking the most 'optimal' units and winning every game at an event. Top tip: if you're taking a balanced army to a narrative event, you should probably find you win about half your games.

I would agree that non-fluff competitive players completely exist in 30k/HH events.

25% is probably about the right number to from my experience. Most your games will be decent fun matches if you dont bring the power game list....but then about 25% of your matches will basically suck as you face a total power gamer 30k player even in "narrative" events.

This will often be masquerading as fluffy Solar Auxilia, Iron hands all tanks w/super heavies......or lists with 3 leviathons and a flyer wing of 3 flyers with kraken penetrators to destroy all your armor the turn they arrive.

Stormlord with a ton of heavy weapon marines in the back is another cheese list I have seen.

Seen all of those lists in a fluffy narrative event.

All legal and all played by supposedly fluff/narrative 30k 7th ed players....so to say 30k HH 7th ed doesnt have competitive play issues is a lie.

You could also say anything with a Falchion super heavy is abit on the cheese side as that vehicle is one of the better/best super heavies in 7th ed. So ya 30k 7th ed has alot of issues for anything like fair/balanced play...that well FW will never fix because it takes them a year to do a simple FAQ for their own typo mistakes.

Yup. The personality fault is called 'arrogance'.

You can choose to confuse confidence with arrogance, but thats more about you than me.

Thankfully, I'm not one of those people that is shy about admitting that I know a subject better than another person either, and I've therefore decided I know the subject better then you. So yes when I say that 8th can handle the granularity that is needed for HH then its a fact, one needs only to look at the current 40k rulebooks to see this is a fact, large chunks of rules from 7ed are add-ons, and not needed to keep the theme and feel of HH as it stands, and any shift would reduce the bloating (as 8th was intended to do). A lot of 40k armies took a cut in sheer volume of rules while retaining their core theme in 8th, there is no reason to assume HH would not take the exact same hit.

You can decide that if you like, you would be wrong, but crack on, lack of key rules as pointed out mean that 30k would take a hit, but you know that, hence your terrible attempt at sarcasm.

Hey look! I've randomly declared I know more than you, therefore all my opinions are facts too! That is TOTALLY how facts work.

No random about it, I do know more about the subject than most people, does my confidence in my knowledge offend you, oh well

Everything you posted is anecdotal. Some Heresy tournaments are reporting growth in attendance. There is no other evidence that the game, the sales, the scene is growing. There is lots of evidence of people moving away. We don't know the sum total of all that. To conclude that, because some tournaments are selling out, the scene and game as a whole is growing is conjecture.

No its empirical, many polls across many sites showed a trend, again you dont like it because it doesnt fit your narrative of a declining HH due to staying with 7th, facts and feelings, im sure you know the saying that being said, right now the biggest threat to HH is FW regional pricing.

You're talking about 40k players 'who don't even play 30k'. But when? People who don't play RIGHT NOW? If they used to play, but now mostly play 40k because of the switch, do you get to discount them too and write them off as just '40k players'?

this poll was several months ago, so it would not be "now" it had options to cover this issue, 40k players were covered by people who had never played HH and had no intention to play 30k but still wanted the rules to change.

Totally agree. One of the best things about 8ed is the increased amount of 'stuff' the basic infantry model can do, which gives some pretty fluffy in-game events. I also agree that it breaks down when you try and play it competitively. In theory, that shouldn't be a problem in Heresy, because Heresy players are all super-narrative and just love building themed lists to play narrative games.

more sarcasm, but not untrue, HH players "generally" play more to narrative than competitive, thats one of the draws of the game, and just like 40k you get the douche bags taking advantage of that (again "generally", #notall competitive), 7th/8th are both terrible for competitive games, although 8th is getting better.

In practise, from my memory of attending Heresy events, about 20-25% of players are the same competitive arseholes hiding under the narrative excuse. That's why you see so many of certain units and Rites and so few of others. There's a couple of Heresy podcasts that really encourage all of this, complaining about certain lists and people not playing for fun, and then taking the most 'optimal' units and winning every game at an event. Top tip: if you're taking a balanced army to a narrative event, you should probably find you win about half your games.

now who is using anecdotes

just to put it in perspective you are talking about 1 or 2 people at an event, "20-25%" makes it sound like a lot of people, its not and yes there are a couple of podcasts that encourage this, but there are even more that rail against this kind of thing, a casual perusal of you tube, itunes, general internet podcasts/videos will show you this.

Taking a balanced army to a narrative event and winning half your games..... yes..... whats wrong with this? its a narrative event, its about the story, not winning (though its great when you do), if that is annoying you then i think you need to find another event to go to, you may prefer competitive events maybe?

 Formosa wrote:

Yup. The personality fault is called 'arrogance'.

You can choose to confuse confidence with arrogance, but thats more about you than me....No random about it, I do know more about the subject than most people, does my confidence in my knowledge offend you, oh well

Misplaced confidence is arrogance. As I said, you're wrong and I'm right so it's misplaced. I know this because 'I'm confident'.

Unless, of course, we're talking about subjective opinions here?

 Formosa wrote:
more sarcasm, but not untrue, HH players "generally" play more to narrative than competitive, thats one of the draws of the game, and just like 40k you get the douche bags taking advantage of that (again "generally", #notall competitive), 7th/8th are both terrible for competitive games, although 8th is getting better.

just to put it in perspective you are talking about 1 or 2 people at an event, "20-25%" makes it sound like a lot of people, its not and yes there are a couple of podcasts that encourage this, but there are even more that rail against this kind of thing, a casual perusal of you tube, itunes, general internet podcasts/videos will show you this.

Taking a balanced army to a narrative event and winning half your games..... yes..... whats wrong with this? its a narrative event, its about the story, not winning (though its great when you do), if that is annoying you then i think you need to find another event to go to, you may prefer competitive events maybe?

Yup. Generally, both Heresy and 40k players aren't 'competitive'. But there are a proportion that are. My argument is that, in my experience, the proportions are roughly the same, except the Heresy players deny it more. I've been to Heresy tournaments with 50/60+ people. That's not '1 or 2'.

And I think you misread my second point. Taking a balanced army to a narrative event and winning 50/50 is probably about right. Taking your army to a Heresy event, taking all the best models, winning the vast majority of your games (except when up against other 'definitely not competitive honest guv' lists) and then claiming to be a narrative player who hates the evil, competitive 40k scene is what I'm talking about.

Misplaced confidence is arrogance. As I said, you're wrong and I'm right so it's misplaced. I know this because 'I'm confident'.

Unless, of course, we're talking about subjective opinions here?

I thought it was pretty obvious we were talking about subjective opinions, the one time I mentioned objective opinion was this

"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."

If I didnt make that clear then thats my fault.

Yup. Generally, both Heresy and 40k players aren't 'competitive'. But there are a proportion that are. My argument is that, in my experience, the proportions are roughly the same, except the Heresy players deny it more. I've been to Heresy tournaments with 50/60+ people. That's not '1 or 2'.

In narrative tournaments, yep its usually 1 or 2 and usually the same blokes you see elsewhere, if you go to a competitive tournament then expect the 50+ you mentioned, were you at the GW tourney at warhammer world where the player was dennied the win due to bringing a warhound and putting it on a skyshield, the T.O. decided it was against the spirit of the tourney and the 2nd place guy won instead, if you bring a douche list to a friendly event, well then its up to the TO to enforce the spirit of the event and if you dont win because of it then its on you. (not specific you btw)

And I think you misread my second point. Taking a balanced army to a narrative event and winning 50/50 is probably about right. Taking your army to a Heresy event, taking all the best models, winning the vast majority of your games (except when up against other 'definitely not competitive honest guv' lists) and then claiming to be a narrative player who hates the evil, competitive 40k scene is what I'm talking about.

I know one of those players very well, doesnt matter what game he plays, he always tries to game the system to his advantage, we were playing a DND game with my american mates and I warned him that they dont tolerate min maxers, he took a min max character and kept trying to game the system, argue with the GM etc. and was asked to leave in the end.

these people exist and have their place, when i want a balls to the wall competitive game i play him.

like i said in the previous reply though its down to the TO/GM to sort this issue out, in local communities its somewhat easier though, dont play them.

Formosa- think you need to get out more...its a lot more than 1 or 2 players at the 30k events I've been to. I mean unless your going to an event with 10 or less players all the time lol.

You can walk around when people have their armies on display and just go yep several total competitive a-hole lists in the narrative event.

 Elbows wrote:
(...)
Why I find that baffling is that every podcast about HH espouses the hobby and narrative/campaign gaming vs. tournaments (and I listen to "most" of the good HH podcasts..religiously because I like the setting and presenters). When you remove the WAAC/meta-chasing, you'll find that 8th is a very entertaining experience, particularly with like-minded friends.
(...)
Furthermore...there would be nothing stopping ardent HH fans from simply using templates and vehicles facings in 8th if you so desired. The core rules are much more user-friendly and particularly good at house-ruling.
(...)
I think in the end I'm just surprised because the "spirit" of 8th...is much more in line with the HH community than the 40K community.

Apologies for the trimming; the quotes are getting long in this thread.

I’m glad it’s working for you and I agree that the 8th edition rules are a good base on which to add extra rules. That makes me think that if GW told FW to change HH to 8th, they could add a layer on top of it that would give me the added complexity I’m looking for.

That said, I have personally not found 8th 40k to be very satisfying. I think it’s mostly about the movement phase - I feel like it’s more straightforward, more railroaded. There are fewer choices to make because it’s more permissive about moving before shooting certain weapons, or splitting fire, or shooting units that you aren’t going to get into combat with. There’s less advantage to getting around the flanks of a typical vehicle (though 40k’s always under-emphasized flanking compared to pre-GW wargames or the old Specialist Games). I’m not happy with how cover works, and I think the return to 2nd-edition style save modifiers has reduced the paper-scissors-rock system that rewarded getting the right unit to the right place at the right time (broken codexes aside, this made Craftworld Eldar pretty fun to play during 3rd-7th because they took it to the extreme). And, purely a personal thing, I think the way command points are used feel very gimmicky and gamey.

But I maintain that FW had more important reasons to keep the old rules: available manpower, independence from the 40k studio (not having to react to FAQs that break certain 30k armies and take a year and a half for FW to react to), and letting FW give all the legions/factions rules under one system before moving on.

I genuinely don't think they'll pass up the opportunity to sell you another rulebook. The most likely outcome is both systems merge to 9th edition but don't expect it to look a whole lot different than 8th.

Carlisimo wrote:

I’m glad it’s working for you and I agree that the 8th edition rules are a good base on which to add extra rules. That makes me think that if GW told FW to change HH to 8th, they could add a layer on top of it that would give me the added complexity I’m looking for.

This might be probably the best solution - optional advanced rules. In this way you could play vs 8th edition 40k armies and it would satisfy (more or less) current 7th edition Horus Heresy fans.

The fact that there's an imagined problem in the first place is asinine.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
The fact that there's an imagined problem in the first place is asinine.

Imagined problem? The problem of not being able to find anyone that plays 30k since 40k switched to 8th is not imaginary for me.

 Toofast wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
The fact that there's an imagined problem in the first place is asinine.

Imagined problem? The problem of not being able to find anyone that plays 30k since 40k switched to 8th is not imaginary for me.

But how can that be? HH is thriving and going strong as others claim ...you must be making this up!

Horus Heresy is more or less dead where I live. Perhaps a few players who might be playing in their own home, but otherwise it is dead. The few who were playing were multi-using their models for 40k and 30k and after the rule switch that has kinda died. To be fair it's a small pool of people so the more multi-system you can use your models the better you are off finding a game.

Only half the player base could use their armies in both games anyway. I have an Emperor’s Children army; not much use for that in a 40k game.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Only half the player base could use their armies in both games anyway. I have an Emperor’s Children army; not much use for that in a 40k game.

Depends how many Kakophani you have, right? I actually have some Palatine Blades and Phoenix Terminators I use in my 40k EC army (as Chosen and Terminators).

Honestly, I think it's just how you set up your army. I use my Heresy Word Bearers army as CSM without much trouble - Terminators are Terminators, Marines are Marines, Characters are still characters, Gal Vorbak are Possessed, my vehicles just become 'Hellforged' versions, it's pretty self-explanatory.

agreed is some crossover...but a lot of special units for various legions have no equivalent in 40k right now.

Different weapon load outs an such allowed so if you built the unit for 30k its now pretty much unusable in 40k If you are trying to play WYSIWYG

Not to mention equipment esp for Chaos characters in 40k is much different from whats allowed on characters in 30k...no relic blades...and no thunderhammers at current. Volkite pretty much not allowed on anything but loyalist marines and super limited...just tartaros I think.

chaos45 wrote:
agreed is some crossover...but a lot of special units for various legions have no equivalent in 40k right now.

Different weapon load outs an such allowed so if you built the unit for 30k its now pretty much unusable in 40k If you are trying to play WYSIWYG

Not to mention equipment esp for Chaos characters in 40k is much different from whats allowed on characters in 30k...no relic blades...and no thunderhammers at current. Volkite pretty much not allowed on anything but loyalist marines and super limited...just tartaros I think.

Like I said, it depends how you build your army.

I know some people like to build it as a 'set' force and then, yeah, you'll have problems using it in 40k. But I tend to think of an army as a collection of models, and use a new list each time I play. In 30k, I might have a few big tactical squads, a plasma support squad and a missile launcher HS squad. In 40k that might become a few CSM squads with plasma and missile launchers in each (just as an example). My Gal Vorbak are fine as possessed, but I probably won't take my rotor cannon squad or jet bikes.

I'm not saying you can perfectly port the exact same army build over with all the same unit loadouts - I'm saying you can use 90% of the models in a WYSIWYG 40k army without a problem.

Y'know this whole argument of 'can't use my Heresy army in 8th' is rubbish right?
The models are the same, your tactical marines in Heresy will still be tactical/'normal' chaos marines in 8th. Your terminators may suffer depending on loadout, but tanks? Rules for them in 8th. Dreadnought? Rules for them in 8th.

What are you missing - Rites and named characters? Everything else can be converted.

I'm sorry but that excuse is frankly terrible now. The complaint there is people don't want to play different rule sets, or be restricted from using certain cheesy options in a format/system/setting they weren't designed for.

Almost all the unique units are different from 40k units.

As well as boarding marines-yes you can say they are combat shields or storm shields but those units in 40k are very different from 30k....esp when it comes to weapons allowed.

Also is 2 entire 30k armies with no rules in 40k- Solar Auxilia and Mechanicum.

So yes there is a lot that does not have 8th edition rules.

Personally I just like the 8th edition ruleset over 6th and 7th. 6th and 7th are just utter gak in my opinion and have little to nothing to add of value.