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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 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.

Well now I disagree! Gimme some Heavy Infantry Line Skirmish Support Terminators, stat! It's just more change for the sake of change, heaven forbid the new edition doesn't "move the game forward". This will end up like 7-9th Ed 40k with a bunch of progressively worse changes until the whole thing is completely unrecognizable. This new HH edition is just the tip of the iceberg.

 Hairesy wrote:
It's just more change for the sake of change, heaven forbid the new edition doesn't "move the game forward". This will end up like 7-9th Ed 40k with a bunch of progressively worse changes until the whole thing is completely unrecognizable. This new HH edition is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's a change from special rules and unit types to something that is basically the same. Pre-8th you could tell a Psyker was a Psyker because it had the Psyker special rule, 8th onward the unit will have the Psyker keyword. Certain rules would interact with certain special rules, for example, a Warlord Trait that gave buffs vs Psykers, the same thing is happening now just with different words.
Is it a bit excessive with line and skirmish when all that's needed is something like Support Squad? Very probably but lets not overreact to what is only a slight change in language.

Nemesis Bolters, huh? So that's how you are going to deal with unwanted Reactions from your enemy

I don't like how HH 2.0 is legending lots of units, but maybe this also means there will be new stuff coming to replace it..

In a worst case scenario, just take the new plastics and go hard on the old 30k/40k editions

 Gert wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
It's just more change for the sake of change, heaven forbid the new edition doesn't "move the game forward". This will end up like 7-9th Ed 40k with a bunch of progressively worse changes until the whole thing is completely unrecognizable. This new HH edition is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's a change from special rules and unit types to something that is basically the same. Pre-8th you could tell a Psyker was a Psyker because it had the Psyker special rule, 8th onward the unit will have the Psyker keyword. Certain rules would interact with certain special rules, for example, a Warlord Trait that gave buffs vs Psykers, the same thing is happening now just with different words.
Is it a bit excessive with line and skirmish when all that's needed is something like Support Squad? Very probably but lets not overreact to what is only a slight change in language.

The problem with moving away towards conventions (unit types) and towards bespoke movement stats is you get silly stuff like the sabre tank moving faster than a land speeder. When a rules writer actually has to interface with existing conventions in terms of unit types it reigns in some of the sillier whims the marketing boys might want to whip up.

Nemesis Bolters actually look really mean - Sniper is always 'precision shots' now, and without Lookout Sir that means you can fairly reliably snipe out models you don't like with S5 and Rending 5+.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The problem with moving away towards conventions (unit types) and towards bespoke movement stats is you get silly stuff like the sabre tank moving faster than a land speeder. When a rules writer actually has to interface with existing conventions in terms of unit types it reigns in some of the sillier whims the marketing boys might want to whip up.

Keywords and individual movement values together are not a given thing. You could very easily do something like "Units with the <Infantry> Keyword may move 6 inches" or "Units with the ><Fly> Keyword may move 12 inches". And in general, the old values are still present.
Keywords have always been a thing in GW games it's now just worded differently.

 Gert wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The problem with moving away towards conventions (unit types) and towards bespoke movement stats is you get silly stuff like the sabre tank moving faster than a land speeder. When a rules writer actually has to interface with existing conventions in terms of unit types it reigns in some of the sillier whims the marketing boys might want to whip up.

Keywords and individual movement values together are not a given thing. You could very easily do something like "Units with the <Infantry> Keyword may move 6 inches" or "Units with the ><Fly> Keyword may move 12 inches". And in general, the old values are still present.
Keywords have always been a thing in GW games it's now just worded differently.

Notice how you don't address the valid issue, a tank moving faster than a skimmer.

which is by itself not a problem, main feature of a skimmer is to ignore rough terrain and not being faster on open ground

but the difference between tracked vehicles, skimmers and flyers is something the keywords have already solved in 3rd edition

 Crablezworth wrote:
Notice how you don't address the valid issue, a tank moving faster than a skimmer.

Ok, here's me addressing it. I think these documents are fake and you are being pulled in because you want an excuse to hate GW.
Is this very specific thing a problem? Sure. Is the wider change to individual movement values a problem? No, because the majority of units will see no change.

Actually the majority of foot sloggers have gone up to 7" move

That said, I agree that moving to individual move stats isn't a problem. It gives a little bit more flexibility in rules.

 kodos wrote:
which is by itself not a problem, main feature of a skimmer is to ignore rough terrain and not being faster on open ground

but the difference between tracked vehicles, skimmers and flyers is something the keywords have already solved in 3rd edition

It's literally called a land SPEEDER




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Actually the majority of foot sloggers have gone up to 7" move

That said, I agree that moving to individual move stats isn't a problem. It gives a little bit more flexibility in rules.

That's not good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Notice how you don't address the valid issue, a tank moving faster than a skimmer.

Ok, here's me addressing it. I think these documents are fake and you are being pulled in because you want an excuse to hate GW.
Is this very specific thing a problem? Sure. Is the wider change to individual movement values a problem? No, because the majority of units will see no change.

And if they're real it's an admission I'm right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
you are being pulled in because you want an excuse to hate GW.

I'll just infer you can't help yourself but defend multimillion dollar corporations.

The leaked documents refer to the Spartan Assault Tank as a "Land Raider Spartan". I call elaborate hoax.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The leaked documents refer to the Spartan Assault Tank as a "Land Raider Spartan". I call elaborate hoax.

Or the marketing team strikes again.

 Crablezworth wrote:
And if they're real it's an admission I'm right.

Ok? Do you want a gold star?

I'll just infer you can't help yourself but defend multimillion dollar corporations.

You've jumped on this and latched on, making a fair few posts about how much you hate GW. I'm not inferring anything and I've also made it clear if these rumours are true I'm not buying into the new edition and that I don't like a lot of the decisions that have been made in these leaks if they are true. But sure go off because I called you out.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It's literally called a land SPEEDER

so your argument is that a Land Speeder should have the fly keyword and count as flyer in game as this is the best fit for the fluff of the vehicle?

 kodos wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
It's literally called a land SPEEDER

so your argument is that a Land Speeder should have the fly keyword and count as flyer in game as this is the best fit for the fluff of the vehicle?

I'm arguing for locked in conventions for unit types like we already have in HH. Precisely to avoid stuff like tanks being faster than skmmers.

Apologies if I've lost the source for this argument, but the tank you're arguing about as being faster than a Land Speeder, does it have the Fast keyword? If not, then in practice it won't be as fast as the Speeder as it will need to move slower to be able to use it's weapons. If it does have Fast, forget I said anything.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Apologies if I've lost the source for this argument, but the tank you're arguing about as being faster than a Land Speeder, does it have the Fast keyword? If not, then in practice it won't be as fast as the Speeder as it will need to move slower to be able to use it's weapons. If it does have Fast, forget I said anything.

Fast vehicle movement 18

the speeder is... cavalry for some reason and moves 14

The tank can also literally move 36 inches by going flat out.

For the first time, since knights dropped at the end of 7th. I actually have hype for HH 2.0. Rules look really solid, only a few outliers in terms of balance, and not on the side of being OP, but being under performing.

They adopted many of the changes i had been saying 40k needs, IE the implementation of a lot more <rule><x> style rules like breaching 4 for example.
MEQ and TEQ now viable after AP2 pie plates and AP3 templates being cut back dramatically, terminators going to 2 wounds, cutting of the phsyker phase, flavor for days.

Im pretty damn hyped for this.

For me, its gonna be T sons, and my knights.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
For the first time, since knights dropped at the end of 7th. I actually have hype for HH 2.0. Rules look really solid, only a few outliers in terms of balance, and not on the side of being OP, but being under performing.

They adopted many of the changes i had been saying 40k needs, IE the implementation of a lot more <rule><x> style rules like breaching 4 for example.
MEQ and TEQ now viable after AP2 pie plates and AP3 templates being cut back dramatically, terminators going to 2 wounds, cutting of the phsyker phase, flavor for days.

Im pretty damn hyped for this.

For me, its gonna be T sons, and my knights.

I wish I could share in your enthusiasm, for it's only strengthened my adoration for the current HH ruleset.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
For the first time, since knights dropped at the end of 7th. I actually have hype for HH 2.0. Rules look really solid, only a few outliers in terms of balance, and not on the side of being OP, but being under performing.

They adopted many of the changes i had been saying 40k needs, IE the implementation of a lot more <rule><x> style rules like breaching 4 for example.
MEQ and TEQ now viable after AP2 pie plates and AP3 templates being cut back dramatically, terminators going to 2 wounds, cutting of the phsyker phase, flavor for days.

Im pretty damn hyped for this.

For me, its gonna be T sons, and my knights.

I wish I could share in your enthusiasm, for it's only strengthened my adoration for the current HH ruleset.

Which parts are you not a fan of?

Tbh, those seem like good changes, but I worry about:

1/ loosing the balance (between units and legions)
2/ stupid stuff like the speeder being slower than a tracked tank
3/ the loss of a lot of well crafted fluffy rules / flavor rules for the legions
4/ a shitton of new units for new players instead of focussing of what we already had / have been waiting for so long
5/ changes for the sake of changes
6/ reactions (now confirmed you can have several in a single phase, at least 2)

If this had been a single faq / patch / HH 2.0 bis,
I wouldn't have paid attention. I would have been even happy. But I'm worrying of the big changes and all that a new edition can bring

 godardc wrote:
Tbh, those seem like good changes, but I worry about:

1/ loosing the balance (between units and legions)
2/ stupid stuff like the speeder being slower than a tracked tank
3/ the loss of a lot of well crafted fluffy rules / flavor rules for the legions
4/ a shitton of new units for new players instead of focussing of what we already had / have been waiting for so long
5/ changes for the sake of changes
6/ reactions (now confirmed you can have several in a single phase, at least 2)

If this had been a single faq / patch / HH 2.0 bis,
I wouldn't have paid attention. I would have been even happy. But I'm worrying of the big changes and all that a new edition can bring

Im gonna go off on a limb and guess you have not seen the leaks, but i can tell you from seeing all the leaks so far.

1. so far on paper most legions seem pretty balanced the only looser so far (Only really seen loyalists) are UM, and RG, not by bad margines just by being super meh.
2. i have not see from any of the leaked profiles this being the case to my own knowledge. Then again i did not remember every single movement so.
3. There are not so far, most of the RoW are still there, slightly changed, but still there.
4. There is actually less units then before, the core, and legion specific units are still there, but i did not see like the really odd ones out that no one ran.
5. have not see anything that was a "change for changes" sake situation yet, almost everything i have seen has been ultimately for a better reason, and most things are remaining the same. The biggest changes being reactions, reduction in AP2 and 3 across the board, and removal of psyker phase.
6. You get 1 base per phase, you can only get a second one based on a WL trait, and to my knowlege you can use auspecs which give you shooting reactions for free, up to 3.

Again these however are still phase three so, subject to change .

I can say so far, most everything i have seen has been for the better.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

4. There is actually less units then before, the core, and legion specific units are still there, but i did not see like the really odd ones out that no one ran.
.

Locutarus Storm Squads and Fulmintarii Terminator Squads are gone from the Ultras and I knew a couple people that played them, the Iron Hands Characters that arent Ferrus are gone, Raven Guard characters are gone, a White Scar Character is gone + their special Scout Squad, Salamanders special Characters are gone. All of which are things I've seen people working on, or heard about/seen used in games.

Then theres the Exemplary Battles Units, which would probably be easiest to update.

So the loss of specials to both Ultra and RG are definitely 2 things i totally acknowledge and why i said that outta all the legions leaked those two are the weakest because they are just MEH now.

As far as white scars and salamanders, while they lost those characters they also gained a LOT in terms of their units, like white scars basically all getting hit and run and outflank on bikes, and jet bikes being really cheap now as well. So kinda trade off there, but i do totally acknowledge the bummer of not having those units.

But in the grand scheme of things i feel like most changes are better, missing units can easily come back in later once they balance out what we have, which im totally fine with it going that way.

Yeah Im much less opposed to it that I was when it first started getting leaked, but theres things I still question, like losing the units (or options for Reavers and Palatine Blades at least as far as the 1.0 test).

Also for the Scars lets not forget the buffs to the Saygar Mazan Rite, everything Infantry getting a 5+ FNP and not counting towards VP when killed.

So some losses and some gains.

And i feel like overall everything thats changed honestly has been for a better reason than not.

I expect that we will see missing units/characters return as GW puts out the new "Black books" which i suspect will come along with plastic FW bits as well.

So looking through alpha legion, I can now steal 3 units, take another legions special reaction, have a warlord and their squad get another legion trait, lerneans squads all get their own additional legion trait, and alpharius can make 3 units infiltrate, with another 3 redeploying.
Hydra goddamn dominatus.

Yeah from the 1.0 leaks for traitors (all ive seen on them) Alphas look pretty good.

Taking it back to the Raven Guard, Decapitation Strike should probably get an update before they release the book. One chunk of it is entirely about Deep Striking, but the Rite doesnt give units access to Drop Pods.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Yeah from the 1.0 leaks for traitors (all ive seen on them) Alphas look pretty good.

Taking it back to the Raven Guard, Decapitation Strike should probably get an update before they release the book. One chunk of it is entirely about Deep Striking, but the Rite doesnt give units access to Drop Pods.

One that i thought was really scary that for some reason everyone is sleeping on, is the change to crimson guard.
Rather then just termies getting deep strike, crimson guard lets you deep strike up to 6 units that have infantry, and on top of that, you can charge AND deep strike with in 1 inch.

So im already seeing the memes coming about of deep striking 10 man blade cults 1" away from something with force on their weapons letting them swing with S8 ap3 power swords, possibly S10 if they have biomancy on them, or dropping in a Support squad all armed with the Tsons aether plasma which has force, so now its a squad of 10 assault 2 S10, AP4, Rending(6) (which i suspect in phase three turned into branching 4) plasma guns.