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.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Horus no longer weakens his Brothers in Duels and Russ doesnt make them less accurate in fights.

Which is nice because now Horus won't be the automatic winner of pretty much any primarch fight.

Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?

Rihgu wrote:
Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.

edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol

Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st

With out knowing which are broken for you, I couldnt tell you exactly.

1st is the PDF Cover
2nd is the Primarch Rule description
3rd is vehicle info
4th is Hit/Wound
5th is Battle Smith description
6th is Defensive Weapons
7th is Blast Example Pictures
8th is Shrouded, Sniper, Specialist Weapons
9th is Blind and Bulky
10th is Psyker

chaos0xomega wrote:
Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?

Rihgu wrote:
Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.

edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol

Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st

In 7th, at least, you never got 2+ or 6+ to hit in melee. And you needed 2x+1 WS of your attacker to even be hit on 5. All you needed to do to hit on 3+ was be higher at all.

Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?

Rihgu wrote:
Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.

edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol

Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st

In 7th, at least, you never got 2+ or 6+ to hit in melee. And you needed 2x+1 WS of your attacker to even be hit on 5. All you needed to do to hit on 3+ was be higher at all.

As far back as 3rd, melee to hit only ranged between 3+ and 5+.

So it is confirmed, leaks are leaking...what a shame. Horus Heresy was a great game. Get ready to get mediocrity and unpainted models, guys. Brace yourself, troubled times are coming !
On subject, I'm glad they seem to retain important part of the rules, like armor values. I'm wondering if the current armies books will still be somehow usable, at least at first

More

The reactions feel like what strats should be.

Actually seeing how the core reactions work I totally agree.

For God's sake have you never heard of spoiler tabs?
Side note, very disappointed with this and will have to wait for the full rules but from this, it looks like I won't be continuing with the new Edition. Shame.

Yeah and the fact that you can only use a max of three leaves you with some intersting tactical choices. Especially when you're being charged. Do you use one up to fire overwatch or save it for later? Also allows the main player to second guess and try for multiple charges

This could easily be the best 40K rulebook GW/FW ever put out with taking inspiration from the old and new editions and breaking up IGOUGO. Also, since it's handled by FW it won't be rewritten in three years but rather refined.

Also doing the rounds:




(The text at the bottom is supposed to be for an image below it)

Oh, hey, check out the to-wound chart. Looks like it’s capped at toughness = double Strength +1 is impossible to wound. Not new for HH but definitely welcome in the face of lasguns-ate-my-land-raider.

Still persisting with Hull Points I see...

 zedmeister wrote:
Also doing the rounds:




(The text at the bottom is supposed to be for an image below it)

I want MkIV that looks like that....oops I meant Tartaros...oops...

 Shakalooloo wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Looks like 2 photos went missing/are broken links? What were they?

Rihgu wrote:
Glad they ported over 8th edition's "To Wound" chart for WS comparisons. Although, it might be easier to read/memorize if they formatted it like 8th/9th ed instead of a table.

edit: I now see that the text describes it. Why even add the table lol

Huh? This is basically the same chart they used from 3rd through 7th editions. I would assume 1st/2nd as well but never played those so I wouldn't know.st

In 7th, at least, you never got 2+ or 6+ to hit in melee. And you needed 2x+1 WS of your attacker to even be hit on 5. All you needed to do to hit on 3+ was be higher at all.

As far back as 3rd, melee to hit only ranged between 3+ and 5+.

I didnt mean the numbers specifically (thats why I said "basically the same" rather than "identical"), I meant the style of the chart cross referencing values.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Still persisting with Hull Points I see...

Yeah, was never the biggest fan of hull points, there never felt like there were enough of them and by having a fixed target number to hit you were incentivized to make decisions targeting vehicles based on how long it would take you to cross a magic threshold, rather than the pre-hull point system where attacking vehicles was always fraught with the uncertainty of whether you would manage anything at all.

Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.

I dunno, we somehow managed to play big WHFB games back in the day and those let you do a reaction to every single charge. I suspect most people will manage fine.

I'm just happy to see so many scalable (X) rules.

They're learnding!

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.

I dunno, we somehow managed to play big WHFB games back in the day and those let you do a reaction to every single charge. I suspect most people will manage fine.

I suspect people will buy the plastic models and play 40k with them as always.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Not new for HH but definitely welcome in the face of lasguns-ate-my-land-raider.

How to say you're math illiterate without actually saying it: the quote

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Still persisting with Hull Points I see...

Yup. I can't wait to see a single plasma pistol shot blowing up Land Raider (because stuff like tank hunter or rending or one of the other 4758375 "universal" special rules was cheesed on top of it) again. Though, weird how stuff that actually happens, unlike 4chan strawork lasgun gak, is never mentioned by HH elitists in such comparisons, funny that

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.

Dunno. Rules are　quite simple. Guess most just utilize elementary school lessons and play?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Still persisting with Hull Points I see...

Yeah, was never the biggest fan of hull points, there never felt like there were enough of them...

That's my one big issue with hull points. They could have been a great consolation prize for people like me who can't roll well on the damage table to save their life, but instead of being an inefficient way of removing a vehicle through brute force eventually, they became the opposite and made vehicles far too susceptible to damage from the ever increasing number of multi-shot mid-strength weapons that were added with every edition. Hull points could have been a far better thing than we got.

I have to admit, I like a lot of what I'm seeing. The reactions mechanic reminds me of "Decisive Move/Fire/Fight" strat from KT18 and it was always an invaluable asset in the game. I see the same for these reactions, will bring a lot of added depth to the IGOUGO.

Also liking the bulky (X).. and pinned. a lot of things seem really on point for me, but admittedly have never played HH so I'm not really giving an educated opinion here

Shock pulse rule updated to affect Dreadnoughts and Mechanicum Automata. I wonder if they're dispensing with the Monstrous Creatures rule altogether

Pinning tests looks to be negatively affected as well

I find it interesting in the Psyker section of the leaks, Daemon is now a unit type, That might be indicative of what's to come for the Dreadnoughts and Automata.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not a fan of reactions at all. For one, how the hell does that work for larger games or multi player per side games. They could have just come out with a new starter set and not messed with things, at least there will be new models, as to how people with hundreds of dollars worth of 30k rulebooks should feel, I'm glad I don't have that big of an investment in the books.

It's possible that there's more to this than a single page or two reveals and that special rules for 3+ player games may be covered in a later page?

Reactions seem cool. Reminds me a bit of some of the tactics you can use in Age of Sigmar 3rd ed, which are generally pretty good and make you really think about how you want to spend those command points.

I'm excited for the new system. It's got some of the old flavor that I miss but pulling things in some new directions, to keep it fresh.

And I'm sure there will be a large community of people that will simply refuse to update to the new system, just like how there's still people playing warhammer fantasy and ADnD and all that...

I'm really starting to warm up to the picture these rules leaks are painting. I always liked armour facings and pie plates, and hated startagems. It kind of sounds like a ruleset which 7th Ed 40K should have become, addressing many of the most griped annoyances such as monsters vs dreads being treated differently and the like.

I was always sure I'd buy the new box just because of the included models, but now I'm thinking the rules are looking appealing to me as well. Looking forward to more leaks!

Just reading reactions... What a disaster. Especially for small games. You have a 500pts assault oriented army ? You want to charge this support unit with heavy weapon with your elite unit that costs half your point ? Well, better play Iron Warrior and shoot them because if you charge them with palatine blades, they are going to shoot you before you hit them ! And be left with no army.
Awful rule. It makes good units even better by allowing them to act even when attacked by range or assault.
Let's see the full rulebook but there isn't a single change that looks good so far. If it ain't broken, don't fix it !
Any news on the big black books by the way ?