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.

The Rhino being a STC doesn't mean everyone everywhere uses the Rhino.
The Leman Russ is also an STC but it's not the main tank for every Imperial faction.

 Gert wrote:
Books 7-9 are the ones that really matter because they are the only books with rules for Tsons, Wolves, the 2 Angels, Scars, and Talons of the Emperor. They do contain some generic Legion stuff as well but not loads.

That would only matter insofar the rules for these things aren't published in whatever the new rulebook would be?

In that currently every other book up until them has been superceded by the Red Books.
Obviously none of the older books would matter if the new edition changes the rules, now would they?

 blood reaper wrote:

drbored wrote:


The Chaos versions of those just need to go the way of the dodo for 40k. Give us some sort of weird daemon engine transport or some junk. At least then it'll match the way the rest of the army is going.

Whenever someone suggests to dump units (i.e., invalidating peoples models to fit their very narrow and specific view of the lore) I immediately discard their take without a second thought, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

I can understand that. At the end of the day, it's not really any trouble for me if those ancient kits with a cruddy upgrade sprue are kept in circulation, looking worse and worse and worse compared to the modern kits that are released.

It's just a relic of GW's indecision when it comes to Chaos Marines as a faction and of firstborn as a steadily dying model line. I would love it if GW would actually update the rhino-chassis vehicles for all the factions that use them, if for no other reason than to get rid of the awful ancient warped sprues that barely fit together, but since I doubt that's in the cards, the next best thing would be to make some semblance of cohesiveness within the factions that use those vehicles, which is unlikely to happen as well.

So, here we are, and here we will be.

Not a fan of the rumours, instead of fixing monstrous and flying monstrous creatures they mess with dreadnoughts for no reason, great. Also movement stats I can't stand, the unit type system is better and easier on everyone, the bespoke nonsense is not a route to go down. Anything borrowed from 8th just seems like a bad idea. God help us what they'll do to terrain rules.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not a fan of the rumours, instead of fixing monstrous and flying monstrous creatures they mess with dreadnoughts for no reason, great.

""No reason"" besides a gigantic list of issues stated by every sane player since 4th edition, you mean?

Which is even dumber in HH than in 40K, BTW, because you can't even hide behind usual idiotic excuse 'muh lumbering carnifex is totally lithe enough to pee all over these dumb facing rules and fire out of its arse if it wants to' because premier HH MCs, admech stuff, uses the same tech as dreadnoughts and Contemptors are supposed to move with the same ease as your natural body. Both of these having different rules was downright comical but funnily enough this example of garbage rule writing that gaks all over game balance and fluff is somehow OK while different move speeds are a step too far?

Also movement stats I can't stand, the unit type system is better and easier on everyone

Yup, because it totally makes sense destroyers with two pistols move just as fast as devastator marine with huge, unwieldy autocannon and in 100 meter sprint, both would come in dead heat

This argument was stupid in 40K and is even dumber in HH, where vast majority of bodies are MEQ and you need more, not less granularity to differentiate them. Ditto with vehicles, when most are Rhino variants it doesn't make sense empty box moves the same speed as the box with added armour and turret. Abstract unit types make sense when you have too much basic diversity, not almost zero like in HH.

Anything borrowed from 8th just seems like a bad idea

I agree, they shouldn't borrow but just do what Alan wanted in first place, trash the terrible old system and adopt 8th edition wholesale. Rites of war look tailor made for 8th (and frankly, what 40K should do instead of detachment spam). Alas, thanks to people who have 'anything but not modern, good rules, please' blinkers on they will need to delete worst bits of old nonsense piece by piece, instead of finally entering 21st century with a single step. Oh well. Maybe in 10 more years HH will finally lose all that detritus and will appeal to people who don't have rose glasses thicker than a Spartan on...

Really glad the guy above me isn't in charge of game development.

He's not that wrong though, unit types were a mess in 6th/7th Edition and it's good they're being looked at, same with the walker rules that never really worked or compared badly to monsters.
It’s understandable they're doing little steps to evolve the bloated 7e rules, I guess they know they have to be careful with that because of the pretty conservative player group that stayed with 30K.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
He's not that wrong though, unit types were a mess in 6th/7th Edition and it's good they're being looked at, same with the walker rules that never really worked or compared badly to monsters.
It’s understandable they're doing little steps to evolve the bloated 7e rules, I guess they know they have to be careful with that because of the pretty conservative player group that stayed with 30K.

A combination of keeping USRs while also getting rid of dated unit types and disseminating those rules out to the units that should have them would do well.

Honestly the keyword system works decently in 8th and 9th edition, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in 30k as a way to distinguish what units can benefit from what rules.

 Irbis wrote:

I agree, they shouldn't borrow but just do what Alan wanted in first place, trash the terrible old system and adopt 8th edition wholesale. Rites of war look tailor made for 8th (and frankly, what 40K should do instead of detachment spam)

I play HH and while it has issues i wouldnt like it to become 8 or 9 edition. It would be fine to have some streamlining especially in close combat and some unit types. Perhaps vehicle rules. Ohh and psychic phase needs work.

However currently the HH game is tailored in such a way the battle goes up to the last turn and the result is not defined until the last movement and shooting. 8th edition had an opinion that in 2nd turn you knew who would win the whole game.

7th edition is indeed not the best but in HH many of its problems are not so glaring. From what i can see in the community almost everyone wouldnt like it to go the way of current 40k editions. I would even say the people who want it to go this way are the people who dont even play HH.

drbored wrote:
to get rid of the awful ancient warped sprues that barely fit together

GW must be sending all the warped Rhino sprues to the US, because none of my Rhino/Pred/Razorback kits have been like that across four armies. The Impulsor I got in the Black Templar Combat Patrol is the only SM vehicle kit I've had that was warped.

I agree the dichotomy between MCs and Walkers was a problem. But Walkers weren't the problem, MCs were.
It would have been much better to treat MCs as walkers instead. Why should having legs fundementally change how an armour unit operates, are they not both a big heavy armoured shell with important squishy bits on the inside?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree the dichotomy between MCs and Walkers was a problem. But Walkers weren't the problem, MCs were.
It would have been much better to treat MCs as walkers instead. Why should having legs fundementally change how an armour unit operates, are they not both a big heavy armoured shell with important squishy bits on the inside?

100% agree, the only 2 unit types the needed to fix was mc's and flying mc's. And lets's be honest, one the best things about 30k is there aren't many of those, it's basically daemons of the ruinstorm. So I'm baffled as to why they had to mess with walkers/dreads.


Second, the movement stats are just a non-starter for me. Why have any conventions (unit types, usr's) if the designers are going to drop them and make it even more of a stat-fest.


30k is enjoyed because it hasn't gone the route of 8-9th. I'm not sure why we must ruin it for the sake of those who have 9th to play and enjoy.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree the dichotomy between MCs and Walkers was a problem. But Walkers weren't the problem, MCs were.
It would have been much better to treat MCs as walkers instead. Why should having legs fundementally change how an armour unit operates, are they not both a big heavy armoured shell with important squishy bits on the inside?

100% agree, the only 2 unit types the needed to fix was mc's and flying mc's. And lets's be honest, one the best things about 30k is there aren't many of those, it's basically daemons of the ruinstorm. So I'm baffled as to why they had to mess with walkers/dreads.


Second, the movement stats are just a non-starter for me. Why have ant conventions (unit types, usr's) if the designers are going to drop them and make it even more of a stat-fest.


30k is enjoyed because it hasn't gone the route of 8-9th. I'm not sure why we must ruin it for the sake of those who have 9th to play and enjoy.

Castellax are MCs, which makes is especially weird when they're much harder to bring down than Dreadnoughts since there's no chance of Pen'ing them. I'm fine with MC rules staying for Daemons, although I'm not adverse to them being changed up either. The problem is when you arbitrarily have completely different unit types between the same 'type' of unit... if that makes any sense.

I'm not opposed to movement stats. It's more logical for new players to be able to look at a datasheet and see what their movement is.
It's also nice to have some flexibility in movement values. And more logical than adding special rules like "slow and purposeful". IMO special rules shouldn't be used to reflect something that could be done by stats.

It really shouldn't be very complex thing, you should see the same trends in movement anyway. Apparently Legionaries are M7 base, so expect that to be fairly universal.

I don't think heavy weapons teams will be slower, but honestly that sounds really good to me. I'd love there to be more variation in stats.
Play around with initiatives and weapon skill more as well.

Porting HH to the 8th style won't fix anything IMO it will just create new problems.
No system is perfect but despite Irbis' fiery rhetoric, HH is not a bad system with loads of flaws. There are issues but IMO there isn't much that a new "Edition" wouldn't solve if it stuck with the current system and cleaned up the mess of books that haven't been updated properly since 2016. Honestly, new Legion Astartes, Legions in the AoD, Mechanicum, and Crusade Imperialis books that consolidated all the post-2016 releases would be perfect.

Just as a personal side point:
Nobody, either those who are pro-8th style rules or pro-current style rules, should be invoking Alan Bligh as reasoning for their argument. It's grim.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree the dichotomy between MCs and Walkers was a problem. But Walkers weren't the problem, MCs were.
It would have been much better to treat MCs as walkers instead. Why should having legs fundementally change how an armour unit operates, are they not both a big heavy armoured shell with important squishy bits on the inside?

100% agree, the only 2 unit types the needed to fix was mc's and flying mc's. And lets's be honest, one the best things about 30k is there aren't many of those, it's basically daemons of the ruinstorm. So I'm baffled as to why they had to mess with walkers/dreads.


Second, the movement stats are just a non-starter for me. Why have ant conventions (unit types, usr's) if the designers are going to drop them and make it even more of a stat-fest.


30k is enjoyed because it hasn't gone the route of 8-9th. I'm not sure why we must ruin it for the sake of those who have 9th to play and enjoy.

Castellax are MCs, which makes is especially weird when they're much harder to bring down than Dreadnoughts since there's no chance of Pen'ing them. I'm fine with MC rules staying for Daemons, although I'm not adverse to them being changed up either. The problem is when you arbitrarily have completely different unit types between the same 'type' of unit... if that makes any sense.

Honestly I'd be fine with axing mc's and lying mc's all together. Mechanicum are a cool army but are also host to just as may strong units as daemons of the ruinstorm and for the reasons you describe, they're just much harder to kill than dreadnoughts.

 Gert wrote:

Just as a personal side point:
Nobody, either those who are pro-8th style rules or pro-current style rules, should be invoking Alan Bligh as reasoning for their argument. It's grim.

Except apparently he wanted to go the route of 8th, which is a good thing. Crablez is just acting like a boomer resisting change.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Except apparently he wanted to go the route of 8th, which is a good thing. Crablez is just acting like a boomer resisting change.

Two things:
1 - "Apparently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. You don't know what Bligh said and neither do I. All we have is hearsay.
2 - Using a dead man as justification for the changes you want is grim and frankly disgusting. Have some bloody decency.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I liked 6th/7th more than 8th/9th. It just feels like they are adding too many things to the game. Hence why I liked playing HH - well also the fact that you don't get the rulebook being thrown out every 2 years.

 Duskweaver wrote:

drbored wrote:
to get rid of the awful ancient warped sprues that barely fit together

GW must be sending all the warped Rhino sprues to the US, because none of my Rhino/Pred/Razorback kits have been like that across four armies. The Impulsor I got in the Black Templar Combat Patrol is the only SM vehicle kit I've had that was warped.

It's not terrible, but if you look at the track guards just where the track enters and exits, you will extremely frequently see that people haven't built them flush because the top piece will flex out of alignment with the side pieces if you don't hold it in place while gluing.

 Boringstuff wrote:
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I liked 6th/7th more than 8th/9th. It just feels like they are adding too many things to the game. Hence why I liked playing HH - well also the fact that you don't get the rulebook being thrown out every 2 years.

GW added a ton of dumb stuff to the 6th/7th main game, which never made it to Horus Heresy. No reason the same couldn't happen with 9th.

Keel wrote:

 Boringstuff wrote:
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I liked 6th/7th more than 8th/9th. It just feels like they are adding too many things to the game. Hence why I liked playing HH - well also the fact that you don't get the rulebook being thrown out every 2 years.

GW added a ton of dumb stuff to the 6th/7th main game, which never made it to Horus Heresy. No reason the same couldn't happen with 9th.

That's a big part of the problem.

The thing to keep in mind with these 6th/7th ed versus 8th/9th ed discussions is that the people responsible for the many and varied criticized parts of the former are the same people responsible for the many and varied criticized parts of the latter. 40k during all these editions has been a mess for many of the same reasons, but the audience for the working parts is at least partially different.

People that ask for an injection of 8th ed designs into Horus Heresy may believe that the game is improved by them, but having more parts that they like only improves the game in so far as it improves their tolerance of the bad parts that are also in the system. While at the same time having the opposite effect on people who liked the earlier rules framework.

Beyond GW's ability to keep their game design in check you have the question of whether it's desirable to move the game's rules design away from what the existing fan base is familiar with and probably likes, to something that appeals to an at least partially different audience. If you like the game design that builds on the 3rd ed 40k framework, there's no reason to look forward to a new edition that promises to go in the direction of 8th ed instead of fixing issues inside the existing framework. The game is not likely to be better for it. Just different.

 Geifer wrote:


Beyond GW's ability to keep their game design in check you have the question of whether it's desirable to move the game's rules design away from what the existing fan base is familiar with and probably likes, to something that appeals to an at least partially different audience. If you like the game design that builds on the 3rd ed 40k framework, there's no reason to look forward to a new edition that promises to go in the direction of 8th ed instead of fixing issues inside the existing framework. The game is not likely to be better for it. Just different.

I'm not going to defend 8th/9th, but keeping the game in 7th because the "existing fanbase" likes it is just circular logic. What about the fan base that left because they don't like the rules?

Keel wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Beyond GW's ability to keep their game design in check you have the question of whether it's desirable to move the game's rules design away from what the existing fan base is familiar with and probably likes, to something that appeals to an at least partially different audience. If you like the game design that builds on the 3rd ed 40k framework, there's no reason to look forward to a new edition that promises to go in the direction of 8th ed instead of fixing issues inside the existing framework. The game is not likely to be better for it. Just different.

I'm not going to defend 8th/9th, but keeping the game in 7th because the "existing fanbase" likes it is just circular logic. What about the fan base that left because they don't like the rules?

Your statement would only make sense if the HH game had earlier editions which didnt use 7th ed 40K rules as their starting point. How can someone have left if they were never on board in the first place?

Heresy definitely gets a lot of traction as "40k for people that don't like 40k", the fact that it's the old rules is particularly useful for that.

I don't think blending those concepts with some of the newer ones is necessarily a bad idea. 8th definitely did have some good ideas.
Only time will tell if they've taken the good concepts and used them well, or if they've taken the bad concepts and used them poorly.

Going all in on 9th rules would definitely be a mistake IMO. People that like 9th are quite happily playing 40k already.

 tauist wrote:

Keel wrote:

 Geifer wrote:


Beyond GW's ability to keep their game design in check you have the question of whether it's desirable to move the game's rules design away from what the existing fan base is familiar with and probably likes, to something that appeals to an at least partially different audience. If you like the game design that builds on the 3rd ed 40k framework, there's no reason to look forward to a new edition that promises to go in the direction of 8th ed instead of fixing issues inside the existing framework. The game is not likely to be better for it. Just different.

I'm not going to defend 8th/9th, but keeping the game in 7th because the "existing fanbase" likes it is just circular logic. What about the fan base that left because they don't like the rules?

Your statement would only make sense if the HH game had earlier editions which didnt use 7th ed 40K rules as their starting point. How can someone have left if they were never on board in the first place?

It makes as much sense for both sides of the argument. I "play" HH because I like the lore, models, and overall army design, not because I love 7th edition. But I primarily use my HH models for 40k, because that's what my friends play. I liked it better when I were able to use the Legion army list to play them.

Keel wrote:
It makes as much sense for both sides of the argument. I "play" HH because I like the lore, models, and overall army design, not because I love 7th edition. But I primarily use my HH models for 40k, because that's what my friends play. I liked it better when I were able to use the Legion army list to play them.

So GW should inconvenience all the people who enjoy the actual heresy game so that you can use your heresy army in 40k games?
Huh?

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

Keel wrote:
It makes as much sense for both sides of the argument. I "play" HH because I like the lore, models, and overall army design, not because I love 7th edition. But I primarily use my HH models for 40k, because that's what my friends play. I liked it better when I were able to use the Legion army list to play them.

So GW should inconvenience all the people who enjoy the actual heresy game so that you can use your heresy army in 40k games?
Huh?

Yes, the great inconvenience of ongoing support. Such a hassle.

If people prefer no support and 7th edition, they can keep playing just like they always did.

Keel wrote:
Yes, the great inconvenience of ongoing support. Such a hassle.

If people prefer no support and 7th edition, they can keep playing just like they always did.

Yet the very thread you're posting in contains rumours indicating upcoming support for the game, to say nothing of the ongoing support for the game in black books and FAQs.

 tauist wrote:

Your statement would only make sense if the HH game had earlier editions which didnt use 7th ed 40K rules as their starting point. How can someone have left if they were never on board in the first place?

HH started with 6th Edition.