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.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
From Stahlys article I find it quite unfortunate that they're sticking to the bloated 7th Edition rules. I had hoped for a reasonable in between 7th and 8th, but I guess they didn't want to alienate the existing playerbase and assume plastic will be good enough to draw in new players despite subpar rules. I do like the reaction mechanic though, seems to add some tactics to that system which is surely needed from my experience with 7th.

8th and 9th editions are somehow not bloated?

9th got the bloat in its Codex rules while with 7th it's in the Core rules. So yes, 9th is very much less bloated than 7th if we look at the core rules. If the HH team got around to make sense out of some of the bloat that's good of course (like people mentioning a reworked WS system that I'd have to look into). And I give the HH team credit for having used the morale rules of 7th properly in HH so far while they never served a purpose in 40K because 90% of the armies ignored them. Keeping the tank rules, unit types, Ap system , IGOUGO, wound allocation from 7th just doesn't sound very appealing to me. But I'll look into batreps and some more reviews before drawing a final conclusion.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
From Stahlys article I find it quite unfortunate that they're sticking to the bloated 7th Edition rules. I had hoped for a reasonable in between 7th and 8th, but I guess they didn't want to alienate the existing playerbase and assume plastic will be good enough to draw in new players despite subpar rules. I do like the reaction mechanic though, seems to add some tactics to that system which is surely needed from my experience with 7th.

8th and 9th editions are somehow not bloated?

9th got the bloat in its Codex rules while with 7th it's in the Core rules. So yes, 9th is very much less bloated than 7th if we look at the core rules. If the HH team got around to make sense out of some of the bloat that's good of course (like people mentioning a reworked WS system that I'd have to look into). And I give the HH team credit for having used the morale rules of 7th properly in HH so far while they never served a purpose in 40K because 90% of the armies ignored them. Keeping the tank rules, unit types, Ap system , IGOUGO, wound allocation from 7th just doesn't sound very appealing to me. But I'll look into batreps and some more reviews before drawing a final conclusion.

7th uses the USR system however you don´t need to know all of them to play a game as your force will only contain a fraction of them. And yes, the melee to-hit-chart and the to-wound-chart had been reworked.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

JWBS wrote:

30K AdMech vehicles and bots are the current gold standard for warhams minis imo. I would welcome plastic HH AdMech.

Plastic Thallax would seem to me to be the most obvious Mechanicum unit to rework first, they were the first back in the day and could be taken by Legion forces from the very start.

Yes, and also, hoverboats out, clockwork crawlers in, plus some Ordinatus. Ordinatus Centurio, Macrocarid and Triaros would be top of my list. Thanatar also very cool (though a pain to build).

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
From Stahlys article I find it quite unfortunate that they're sticking to the bloated 7th Edition rules. I had hoped for a reasonable in between 7th and 8th, but I guess they didn't want to alienate the existing playerbase and assume plastic will be good enough to draw in new players despite subpar rules. I do like the reaction mechanic though, seems to add some tactics to that system which is surely needed from my experience with 7th.

8th and 9th editions are somehow not bloated?

9th got the bloat in its Codex rules while with 7th it's in the Core rules. So yes, 9th is very much less bloated than 7th if we look at the core rules. If the HH team got around to make sense out of some of the bloat that's good of course (like people mentioning a reworked WS system that I'd have to look into). And I give the HH team credit for having used the morale rules of 7th properly in HH so far while they never served a purpose in 40K because 90% of the armies ignored them. Keeping the tank rules, unit types, Ap system , IGOUGO, wound allocation from 7th just doesn't sound very appealing to me. But I'll look into batreps and some more reviews before drawing a final conclusion.

I'm assuming you haven't played heresy 1.00 or 2.00 then?

Once you've got the USRs down you barely need to look at the rulebook, and the benefit of USRs is you don't need to check every datasheet for the exact wording of a rule on a unit. It's very quick and simple. Like you said morale is way better and actually mattes compared to 7th/8/9th, and units running away feels much more "right" than models just evaporating after the unit gets scared. Armour values for vehicles is far more more elegant way of doing things than 9th and for Dreadnaughts and monsters they've given anti tank weapons instant death (which does d3 wounds Vs them) or additional rules (melta rerolls failed wounds at half range against robots and dreads for example) the AP system in 2.00 is quite elegant. The higher AP values are as normal (ie ap6-ap3) but most templates andd things like plasma are Ap4 with a rending value, making It very difficult to hose down models with 3+ or 2+ saves without serious effort.

I would definitely encourage you watch some games and try it if you like the heresy setting. Although based on 7th which did become a ness by the end, heresy is a really good game, far better than 9th in my opinion if you want an immersive game, and 2.0 improves on it on the whole. The only issue is wound allocation being "player picks" so allows some things like the guy with a 2+ tanking all the bolter shots, but I would expect that to be FAQd quite fast

Don’t worry if you don’t especially love the rules, when blood bowl 2016 dropped, they essentially left the game compatible with the living rule book. Four years later, they changed it just enough including adding a new stat that you could either adopt the new edition and potentially get games OR hope that at least someone local would continue using older rules.

Gonna need a whole bunch of the new land raiders. Got a 2nd Ed lamenters army that will need one as well as my heresy armies. Probably my space wolves 40k army as well, such a nostalgic model.

Another size comparison, this time with SB (these guys are huge, I wasn't aware)

 kodos wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I had hoped for a reasonable in between 7th and 8th, but I guess they didn't want to alienate the existing playerbase and assume plastic will be good enough to draw in new players despite subpar rules

you are talking about 40k now?
as 30k has the superior rules since its beginning? a cleaned up 7th edition core, with no codex creep makes the superior game, and by not going the rout of 8th edition but making the necessary changes to the 3rd Edition core people are asking since, well, 3rd Edition (aka make high WS count and not just pay points for something that is not worth it)

hence why a lot of 40k players look into it now, good rules are enough to get new players in, even if it is expensive to start

and I don't think it will take very long until the first 40k "mods" for the Age of Darkness rules come up

I haven't enjoyed 40k since 4th edition and even I'm optimistic about HH2. A solid build of the 3rd edition core, with fairly symmetrical gameplay sounds perfect. The issue with 7th was list building, not mechnics.

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
Did you try cutting the right hand off the flamer instead?

That's not a terrible idea.

which won't help as from the pictures, the distance between the left and right hand on the flamer is too short to fit the distance on the other armours

so you need to cut the left arm on the shoulder were it is glued to the body, to get the whole thing more right to fit the hands
it does not matter which hands you cut off, you need to repose the arms

Read my entire post.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
9th got the bloat in its Codex rules while with 7th it's in the Core rules. So yes, 9th is very much less bloated than 7th if we look at the core rules.

so you have never played 7th 40k or Horus Heresy but assume that because there is more text in the core rules, the system must be more bloated

if we talk about bloat, we mean unnecessary amount of text, that is there to add the illusion of complexity and does nothing for the game
that 7th has all the rules needed for the game in the core and not spread out over different books, does not make it bloated but actually more streamlined than 9th

The fact they they deliberately designed these weapons to only fit MK6, or require extensive cutting is INDEFENSIBLE. If you think this is not the intent you're lying to yourself. Every marine kit since 2013 has followed the same weapon - arm layout and it suddenly changes here? Alongside kits that follow this tried and true method. Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

This is a gak tier marketing tactic. Yup you can cut it, but having to cut and greenstuff a gap that shouldn't even be there in the first place is so fething stupid. They obviously just want you to buy mk6 and not use that nice juicy bits box of special weapons you have stocked up. And people with limited hobby capabilities will not even bother. This also means any future infantry will have the same design.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Compared to 40k lot less bloat and faster to play.

Does that summarise the new HH edition well?

From where I sit, if HH is built to be a game of large armies, I want the rules to be streamlined. Not necessarily simplified, but minimise gotcha moments, multiple rule interactions, rules the interrupt the flow of play, and rules that require too much thinking between actions.

If that describes HH then it makes me more interested. But each to their own I guess.

I have no idea where HH sits on the scale of streamlinedness, I haven't even played a game of 40k in the past few edition changes let alone HH.

Too much thinking between actions?

With the new reaction system you might want to better think twice what to do as the opponent might be able to REACT in some way. Want to shoot an Iron Warriors unit who has pretty good ranged firepower? After you do that they may fire back TWICE. Ouch!

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
The fact they they deliberately designed these weapons to only fit MK6, or require extensive cutting is INDEFENSIBLE. If you think this is not the intent you're lying to yourself. Every marine kit since 2013 has followed the same weapon - arm layout and it suddenly changes here? Alongside kits that follow this tried and true method. Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

This is a gak tier marketing tactic. Yup you can cut it, but having to cut and greenstuff a gap that shouldn't even be there in the first place is so fething stupid. They obviously just want you to buy mk6 and not use that nice juicy bits box of special weapons you have stocked up. And people with limited hobby capabilities will not even bother. This also means any future infantry will have the same design.

You can paste mkiii arms onto mkiv / primaris bodies? Just eyeing the various kits, I'd bet money you can't.

JWBS wrote:

You can paste mkiii arms onto mkiv / primaris bodies? Just eyeing the various kits, I'd bet money you can't.

Why couldn't you?

I really don't understand the angst over this. You can put whichever marine arms on pretty much whichever marine body.

It would take some work, ie they aren't compatible, which is his issue (though the claim seems to be that everything up to this point has been compatible, I think is a false claim).

JWBS wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
The fact they they deliberately designed these weapons to only fit MK6, or require extensive cutting is INDEFENSIBLE. If you think this is not the intent you're lying to yourself. Every marine kit since 2013 has followed the same weapon - arm layout and it suddenly changes here? Alongside kits that follow this tried and true method. Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

This is a gak tier marketing tactic. Yup you can cut it, but having to cut and greenstuff a gap that shouldn't even be there in the first place is so fething stupid. They obviously just want you to buy mk6 and not use that nice juicy bits box of special weapons you have stocked up. And people with limited hobby capabilities will not even bother. This also means any future infantry will have the same design.

You can paste mkiii arms onto mkiv / primaris bodies? Just eyeing the various kits, I'd bet money you can't.

Why are you defending GW here? They very easily could have designed the new MK6 arms to match the positioning of the previous standard for the MK3 and MK4 (and basically all original marine sculpts). But they chose not to. In that regard, it's hard to see how this wasn't a decision based in pushing people to the new kits.

I can understand being optimistic about GW and some of the things they do because you like their product and support them. I, on the whole, don't support a lot of how GW does things, but I can still give them credit when they do things well. But I don't understand this compulsive need to defend every single decision they make, when some of them appear to be anti-consumer.

Do people like you have a credit system where they pay you 30 cents every time you make a bad argument in defence of GW online?

Guys! Guys! He's being paid by GW! His perspective is different to mine, ipso facto he's a shill! Look! Over there - there he is!

Rumor I don't believe but want to spread anyway because it's a fun topic for discussion:

from a stranger on discord, who again I do not believe at all
"so gw news, almost all the hh stuff will be available for 40k rules wise over the next few years"

They went on to specify this doesn't include named characters/primarchs, but does include stuff that otherwise hasn't been ported to 40k yet. Including the new special/heavy weapons boxes. And possibly legion specific units, tho they may get a "relic terminator treatment" whatever that means.

Aside from this pretty obviously not being true, I wish it was and I bet other people do too. MAN would I like being able to pop volkite into my CSM squads

JWBS wrote:
Guys! Guys! He's being paid by GW! His perspective is different to mine, ipso facto he's a shill! Look! Over there - there he is!

Yes, there you are.

But do you have a response to the actual topic that was being discussed?

 cole1114 wrote:
Rumor I don't believe but want to spread anyway because it's a fun topic for discussion:

from a stranger on discord, who again I do not believe at all
"so gw news, almost all the hh stuff will be available for 40k rules wise over the next few years"

They went on to specify this doesn't include named characters/primarchs, but does include stuff that otherwise hasn't been ported to 40k yet. Including the new special/heavy weapons boxes. And possibly legion specific units, tho they may get a "relic terminator treatment" whatever that means.

Aside from this pretty obviously not being true, I wish it was and I bet other people do too. MAN would I like being able to pop volkite into my CSM squads

What do you mean? This _is_ true.
Every vehicle so far has had a 'will (or does) have 40k rules' somewhere in the article about it. for example:

You’ll also be able to get rules to use it in your games of Warhammer 40,000, for while Leviathans are rare in the 41st Millennium, some are still knocking around and making a proper nuisance of themselves…

Relic terminators already exist in the loyalist codex, and most of the special/heavy weapons do as well. I don't know if volkite guns and rotor cannons will wander into tactical squads, but obviously meltas, flamers, etc and heavy bolters and missile launchers already exist.
So yes, 'almost all the hh stuff will be available for 40k' is absolutely true.

jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Guys! Guys! He's being paid by GW! His perspective is different to mine, ipso facto he's a shill! Look! Over there - there he is!

Yes, there you are.

But do you have a response to the actual topic that was being discussed?

jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

I can understand being optimistic about GW and some of the things they do because you like their product and support them. I, on the whole, don't support a lot of how GW does things, but I can still give them credit when they do things well. But I don't understand this compulsive need to defend every single decision they make, when some of them appear to be anti-consumer.

Do people like you have a credit system where they pay you 30 cents every time you make a bad argument in defence of GW online?

lol wtf are you even talking about?
I'm gonna briefly skim my posts from this month and see where I've not liked what they've done. Okay, I'm back -

Here I talk about their cringe social media -
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/5040/784280.page#11369763

Here I say I like their AT terrain but it's too expensive
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/11400/716640.page

Here I say their fiction is hit or miss (mostly garbage imo but truly I cba to spend too much time on this so I'm not going to dig my own history for quotes)
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1020/804751.page#11360821

Yes, incredibly disappointing, but I have views on stuff ranging from positive through indifferent all the way to negative. But yeah now I think about it, I suppose you're right. I'm very upset that the new arms don't fit the old models. Any other view would be bizarre, disgusting, bordering on derranged. They're not paying me guys, I swear! I'm actually very angry about this important complication, and I'll continue to be angry about everything else they do going forward, I promise!

JWBS wrote:
It would take some work, ie they aren't compatible, which is his issue (though the claim seems to be that everything up to this point has been compatible, I think is a false claim).

It is a false claim as some of the Primaris kits already have split hands, even split fingers between the hands e.g. Reivers. Sure we’ve had similar approaches but the “fits this kit only” thing is in no way new.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JWBS wrote:
It would take some work, ie they aren't compatible, which is his issue (though the claim seems to be that everything up to this point has been compatible, I think is a false claim).

It is a false claim as some of the Primaris kits already have split hands, even split fingers between the hands e.g. Reivers. Sure we’ve had similar approaches but the “fits this kit only” thing is in no way new.

Indeed. Personally I don't care at all, these days I tend to build models as supplied, taking into account the cross compaitbility and conversion potential, and concentrate my hobby efforts mainly on painting. My life is comfortable, and even so, the fact that I can't stick my mk2 arms on my mk6 bodies doesn't even come close to scraping my top 100 list of things to be worried about. Some might disagree with this perspective, but again, I don't care, they can accept my outlook or they can seethe that I don't agree with them. Really really don't care.

[The £0.20 has been transferred to your paypal account. See you at next month's meeting, and please remember to delete this part of the message when you post your response on Dakkadakka. Regards, James Workshop]

Welp, I got my first day preorder in for the core box and some extras. First time I've ever jumped in like this.

I'm gonna paint them Flesh Tearers (one of the original first founding chapters of course), buy a couple of Land Raider Proteus boxes and play only by 2nd edition rules.

This post is only a joke insofar as I end up finding it impossible to find people to play Rogue Trader rules with.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It is a false claim as some of the Primaris kits already have split hands, even split fingers between the hands e.g. Reivers. Sure we’ve had similar approaches but the “fits this kit only” thing is in no way new.

This is completely missing the point and obfuscating the issue for the sake of god knows what. With the way 40k has been designed after 7th edition, it doesn't matter that primaris can't interchange arms/weapons, because each units available load out is limited to what comes on its respective sprues.

MK3, MK4 and MK6 are all interchangeable in the army list when it comes to support squads and heavy support squads. They all use the same equipment and fulfill comparable roles in the list. FW's previous approach reflected this. It would thus be logical for them to continue this way unless the new non-inclusive design approach satisfied some much bigger issue that supplanted interchangeability.

I challenge you to come up with a reasonable reason to abandon an existing inclusive design logic that would make these new weapon sprues backwards compatible. Do they look massively improved? Maybe a little, but not to the degree that makes it worth giving up modularity.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
I challenge you to come up with a reasonable reason to abandon an existing inclusive design logic that would make these new weapon sprues backwards compatible. Do they look massively improved? Maybe a little, but not to the degree that makes it worth giving up modularity.

GW want you to buy new models?

 stahly wrote:
I have tried out whether the new Special & Heavy Weapon Upgrade sets fit the old MkIII and MkIV models. The answer: not really

Here is my review: https://taleofpainters.com/2022/06/review-legiones-astartes-special-heavy-weapon-upgrade-set/

So if each non-shoulder fired special weapon is locked to one set of arms i wonder how big of a pain in the ass it would be to magnetize it all.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

I challenge you to come up with a reasonable reason to abandon an existing inclusive design logic that would make these new weapon sprues backwards compatible. Do they look massively improved? Maybe a little, but not to the degree that makes it worth giving up modularity.

You've hit on the reason right there in your post, though. The reason is that GW's current design focus is on models that look good straight from the sprue, rather than modularity. I would suspect that for most models being sculpted right now, potential modularity is only considered if and where it doesn't take time away from just getting the model finished and tooled for production.

Whether or not that's a 'reasonable' reason is going to come down to personal preference.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
The fact they they deliberately designed these weapons to only fit MK6, or require extensive cutting is INDEFENSIBLE. If you think this is not the intent you're lying to yourself. Every marine kit since 2013 has followed the same weapon - arm layout and it suddenly changes here? Alongside kits that follow this tried and true method. Yeah that makes a ton of sense.

This is a gak tier marketing tactic. Yup you can cut it, but having to cut and greenstuff a gap that shouldn't even be there in the first place is so fething stupid. They obviously just want you to buy mk6 and not use that nice juicy bits box of special weapons you have stocked up. And people with limited hobby capabilities will not even bother. This also means any future infantry will have the same design.

The MkVI models are clearly larger than the MkIII and MkIV to bring them in line with current CSM. This means their arms are bigger. In addition they don't have the wrist protectors the MkIII and MkIV have that help guide the hand in place when gluing the model together, which means they had to make adjustments to how the hands and arms meet. Further more the company has moved away from the "gun floating in a roughly U shaped left hand" design since the MkIV came out allowing for hands that look like they're more naturally holding the weapons. Pairing this all up together means that the was going to be a design shift to make the bolters work with MkVI that was different than Mks III and IV. That carried over to the special and heavy weapons which were likely designed later to match specific sets of arms to ensure they basically just drop right into place.

Basically: things changed like they always do and as such the MkIII and IV aren't as out of the box compatible with the MkVI weapon options. Now, hopefully GW sees the response from the community as a reason to give us MkIII and IV special and heavy weapons kits or has them coming in a later wave of releases like the missing shoulder pads and head options for the other legions.

I get people aren't happy (I mean it's Dakka, I've never seen people around here have a 100% postive response rate to anything) but can we tone the hyperbole with claims that it's "indefensible" when clearly this came out of trying to standardize the model scales that started with the updated CSM and Primaris lines and has carried over into Sisters and Eldar? Yes, it's bleeding into HH too, but I see this update to make models feel like they're in scale representations over everyone being 1" tall regardless of actual height a positive thing even if it causes wrinkles along the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

I challenge you to come up with a reasonable reason to abandon an existing inclusive design logic that would make these new weapon sprues backwards compatible. Do they look massively improved? Maybe a little, but not to the degree that makes it worth giving up modularity.

You've hit on the reason right there in your post, though. The reason is that GW's current design focus is on models that look good straight from the sprue, rather than modularity. I would suspect that for most models being sculpted right now, potential modularity is only considered if and where it doesn't take time away from just getting the model finished and tooled for production.

Whether or not that's a 'reasonable' reason is going to come down to personal preference.

Pretty much this. GW has shown in recent years that they're trying to lower the bar to getting a nice looking model out of the box that looks in scale relative to other models in the setting and natural in how it's positioned which has cut down on the ease in which people can convert things. As someone who likes a good kitbash myself I can respect the pain that it brings, but the "no reason to do this" crowd really is just assuming that GW isn't trying to make it easier to people who don't want to kitbash to have nice looking models that aren't all gaking their pants.

Whereas some of us don't think that the two things are mutually exclusive. Moreover, we don't think it should be reflected in the increasingly-restrictive rules.