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.

 tauist wrote:
I see the Reactions similar to how "Decisive Move/Shoot/Fight" was in KT18. It was hardly game breaking. I expect the same from these reactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hairesy wrote:
Kill Team, now there is a perfect example of what GW can do with a good idea.

I remember playing TONS of KT with those old tournament rules. I've played one game of it since GW made it a product. I would definitely play to old tourney rules again, I would not waste time on new KT.

What are you talking about? KT21 RULES! I love that game, well worth a try. Or are you talking about KT18?

Um... Maybe? I was referring to Kill Team, I have no idea what KT19 is... Old and out of touch, you see.

"Kill Team" doesn't tell us much, I've personally played 4 distinct versions of "Kill Team" released by GW.

KT19 is Kill Team 2019 (the release year), it's probably the one you're talking about because it's notable as being the first version of Killteam that was standalone and distinct from WH40k.

KT21 is Kill Team 2021, it's notable because it's the first version of Killteam that is truly it's own game, KT19 was still trying to follow 40k mechanics as closely as they good. KT21 has thrown that completely out the window and just used what works for a skirmish game. And it shows, it works well.
KT19 really suffered from being the worst of both worlds between a skirmish ruleset and 40k ruleset imo.

Yeah, I think the original KT was just a set of rules they used in a tournament once at Warhammer World or something. They ended up putting the rules online and that is what turned into KT19-21 or whatever the heck. It was very much based on the 40k rules at the time.

Anyway to bring it back around, I don't think 30k needs a big rules change. I'm going to be happy playing with the current, soon to be old rules. Anyway, I think this has changed collecting plan for HH, anyone else? I was thinking it might be worth it to grab some of the new stuff. I think I'm going to stick with the older Mk6 armour and just grab some Deimos pattern tanks. Probably Rhinos.

The impending release has changed my collecting plans.

The coming boxset hasn't - I'm not interested in Mk.VI at all (certainly not for large squads) and I've already got enough other stuff to use.

When I heard boxnaughts were squatted I put my plans to buy another on hold. Then I decided they're too cool, GW can just feth themselves, I'll just run funny shaped Contemptors.

The biggest impact it has had is that I was going to convert some Locutarus, but apparently all units without models are getting squatted, so I've hung fire on that.
For the same reason I've avoided assembling the Nemesis Destroyers I have sat in pieces.

 Hairesy wrote:
Yeah, I think the original KT was just a set of rules they used in a tournament once at Warhammer World or something. They ended up putting the rules online and that is what turned into KT19-21 or whatever the heck. It was very much based on the 40k rules at the time.

The Original Kill Team rules were in the back o 4th Edi 40k Rulebook

If that list of removed units is true then HH 2.0 will be DOA for a lot of people IMO, including me and likely my gaming group. I don't want to believe it but with what I'm seeing with the CSM Codex and this, I'm losing a lot of hope for continuing both 40k and HH.

TBH I suspect they'll do Legends for all the missing units.
That's why Legends were invented - to boil the frog so they don't lose people by squatting stuff.

 kirotheavenger wrote:


When I heard boxnaughts were squatted

Nail, coffin. I'll find me some 90s Rhinos now, either that or an Ebay salvage and some 3d printed armour panels. How does one squat the boxnaught? That's just criminal. I've made dome topped Predator turrets before, I can do it again. Ugh! Incensed! The Nerd Rage boileth over!

Oh wait, is that just a rumour or... ??

Just a "rumour" for now, essentially Boxnaughts are conspicuously absent from any of the playtesting documents, whereas every other unit is included (although some units, like Contemptor Mortis, are now upgrades rather than distinct).
So it seems there's pretty good authority that they're gone, and it seems in keeping with GW's recent "no model no rules" crusade since they don't see a HH branded Boxnaught.

HH 2.0 changed all my collecting plans as soon as the first photos leaked almost a year ago. I stopped buying Space Marines immediately, and have been waiting for the box release until I will buy any more.

This decision to hold off purchases is looking like its going to pay off big time for me, with all the classic vehicles getting a rerelease in plastic and all that.

Only bit of kit I purchased in anticipation of the HH 2.0 has been a Caestus Assault Ram. I'll use it as a proxy for Stormraven or whatever its called, rule of cool and all that.

Getting rid of the old books, giant list of units that won't be getting rules. I dunno, I'm excited about plastic kits but I can also see just continuing along with normal 30k and not touching 2.0.

Reposting this from the N&R thread:
For those who have not seen it yet, here is a link to an imgur gallery with a lot of leaked rules pages.
https://imgur.com/a/sRSeyzH

Some things I like, some I don't (mostly in regards to missing units). Regardless, set your Doom-O-Meters to 11.

 kodos wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad

Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.

based on what?

Oh, I dunno, maybe the 700 stratagems in 40k... It's not like there's no precedent for rules bloat in GW games, it almost seems like a core feature at this point.

Welp. That sucks.

Toofast wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad

Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.

based on what?

Oh, I dunno, maybe the 700 stratagems in 40k... It's not like there's no precedent for rules bloat in GW games, it almost seems like a core feature at this point.

I think that's the problem, you have wargames/historical games and they're trying to make them into card games. The endless stratagems didn't help Titanicus one bit.

Titanicus is my favorite GW ruleset but we play it without stratagems. Same with Necromunda. I play those games with 2 separate groups of people who both unanimously hate strategy cards because of how gamey they are. If I wanted MtG gameplay, I would just play MtG and skip the countless hours of building/painting models.

 Gert wrote:
Welp. That sucks.

Just read the new leaks?

Yep, plenty of suck.

Gotta love the new Legion Recon RoW. Benefit, you can take Recons and Scouts. Restriction, you must take Recons and Scouts.

 Hairesy wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Welp. That sucks.

Just read the new leaks?

Yep, plenty of suck.

Gotta love the new Legion Recon RoW. Benefit, you can take Recons and Scouts. Restriction, you must take Recons and Scouts.

/gasp/ How awful for your recon section to have recon troops.

Seriously, I don't know what the complaint is supposed to be (especially with the restriction just being on compulsory troops)

 Hairesy wrote:
Gotta love the new Legion Recon RoW. Benefit, you can take Recons and Scouts. Restriction, you must take Recons and Scouts.

It's always been that chief. The Legion Recon Company has Recon Squads as Compulsory Troops and you must take an additional Recon Squad as a Compulsory Troop choice in the detachment.

Voss wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Welp. That sucks.

Just read the new leaks?

Yep, plenty of suck.

Gotta love the new Legion Recon RoW. Benefit, you can take Recons and Scouts. Restriction, you must take Recons and Scouts.

/gasp/ How awful for your recon section to have recon troops.

Seriously, I don't know what the complaint is supposed to be (especially with the restriction just being on compulsory troops)

You're losing Forward Scouts, which gave you Shrouded if you used Scout or Infiltrate. The new version just gives you the first turn/seize reroll. I only mentioned the troops choice thing because I was making a joke about the lack of any real reason to take the RoW now. It's basically just one, maybe two rerolls, for a troops choice limitation. I know they'll probably give RG something more effective as a themed choice, but still. All Legions can do all types of war, some are just better are certain things, so the idea that Recon RoW loses a pretty decent ability for not much gain is pretty disheartening. I was actually planning on using that one, as Gert suggested. Now, what's the point?

The reason you take it is because you want to run a lot of Recon troops without taking a lot of Tacticals first.

Toofast wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
If it's just a single Reaction per legion, that's still not too bad

Sure but we all know there's going to be like 30 of them per legion, with 25 being either useless or relevant once every 50 games while the other 5 are game breaking. You'll still have to know 600 reactions to feel like you know all the rules of the game.

based on what?

Oh, I dunno, maybe the 700 stratagems in 40k... It's not like there's no precedent for rules bloat in GW games, it almost seems like a core feature at this point.

Than you should be glad that this is not 40k and the designer do not plan to copy the current edition although some people request that all games should use the same rules

But 40k is different to HH, AoS, Underworlds, Necromunda etc
Not all GW games are the same

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reason you take it is because you want to run a lot of Recon troops without taking a lot of Tacticals first.

2/6 Troops slots isn't a lot of Tacticals Kiro. The current Recon RoW gives you incentives to use Recon Marines outside of alternate Troop choice, as all RoW do. This new one doesn't do anything that actually benefits the player in any way beyond the first turn, and on top of that the changes to the Recon Marines profile make them worthless since they now don't have an option to take Sniper Rifles. So in this instance, Hairsey is absolutely right to be annoyed.

Two squads of tacticals is still two more than zero.
That's why you take it - you might not find it particularly helpful but it's there.
Clearly the rite got nerfed, but I don't think it's entirely pointless by any means.

I don't see anything about not taking sniper rifles. They just got renamed to Nemesis Bolters.
72", Heavy 1, S5, AP5, Rending (5+), Sniper, Pinning - that's a sniper rifle by another name.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Two squads of tacticals is still two more than zero.
That's why you take it - you might not find it particularly helpful but it's there.
Clearly the rite got nerfed, but I don't think it's entirely pointless by any means.

I don't see anything about not taking sniper rifles. They just got renamed to Nemesis Bolters.
72", Heavy 1, S5, AP5, Rending (5+), Sniper, Pinning - that's a sniper rifle by another name.

I mean, I would take it if I liked Recon Marines and wanted a RoW that gave buffs to those units, which the current one does. Tacticals don't weigh in on this because I don't care about Tacticals, I care about Recon Marines and a stealth-focused army, which this RoW helps with because it importantly doesn't just benefit Recon Marines but rather all units with Scout and Infiltrate meaning Vigilators and Legion specific variants of Recon Marines and Vigilators, such as Mor Deythan and the Saboteur. It also gives the re-roll for roll off and seizing.
The new one gives you a re-roll and Seekers as non-compulsory Troops with no benefits to the compulsory units of Recon Marine nor any other stealth unit generic or unique.
You tell me why Hairsey shouldn't be annoyed that a good RoW that fits with the character of their army while also giving it buffs, has been replaced with something utterly worthless in comparison.

I never said there's no course for annoyance - in fact I explicitly stated I agreed it had been nerfed.

I simply answered the question "why would you ever take this" - the answer is because you want to run Recon marines are troops without bothering with Tactical marines first.
This would be the basis of a strong recon/stealth themed army, even without specific buffs otherwise.

You and I have very different definitions of the word "strong". The army theme is stealth, so of course, it makes sense that the RoW wouldn't actually benefit the stealth units it forces you to take.
The wider issue with all of these RoW is that they're going from something that gives you a theme with restrictions but benefits if you play into that theme, to a theme with restrictions.

 kodos wrote:

Than you should be glad that this is not 40k and the designer do not plan to copy the current edition although some people request that all games should use the same rules

But 40k is different to HH, AoS, Underworlds, Necromunda etc
Not all GW games are the same

I'm just concerned because 40k, Necromunda, and Titanicus, the 3 GW games I play, have been infected by way too many tactics cards to the point where I feel like I'm playing MtG if I use them

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Two squads of tacticals is still two more than zero.
That's why you take it - you might not find it particularly helpful but it's there.
Clearly the rite got nerfed, but I don't think it's entirely pointless by any means.

I don't see anything about not taking sniper rifles. They just got renamed to Nemesis Bolters.
72", Heavy 1, S5, AP5, Rending (5+), Sniper, Pinning - that's a sniper rifle by another name.

Can't let anything have a name that can't be copyrighted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also unsure of splitting Scouts and Recons up, seems like Recon armour could have added +1 Move and granted MtC in a bullet point in the Recon Squad section as well as its other bonuses/limitations.

Also what's this keyword baloney like "line" and "skirmish"? Are we linking stuff to keywords again? God damn it GW, enough!

 Hairesy wrote:


Also what's this keyword baloney like "line" and "skirmish"? Are we linking stuff to keywords again? God damn it GW, enough!

I agree. We should also do away with Heavy, Assault, Infantry, Vehicle, Skimmer, and so on. /s
Keywords have always been around.