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.

Pretend each marine represents 10 and each vehicle represents 3, now your HH games are real battles or something, yay. Move on.

but than you don't need single model machanics and detailed rules for which model uses which specific power weapon
or in other words, you are better off using Epic rules with 28mm models

playing battles with armies, but at the same time having skirmish like details with RPG elements does not work well together (and kills the immersion for a lot of people)

 kodos wrote:
but than you don't need single model machanics and detailed rules for which model uses which specific power weapon
or in other words, you are better off using Epic rules with 28mm models

Or playing Epic rules with Epic models, too

You could also just win a lottery and purchase 100,000 marines ;D

So someone pointed out the ruin rules are messed up, like 7th ed's ruin rules. 6th edition had 4 pages of ruin rules, in there was stuff like what unit types could and could not move on to the upper levels of ruins. This was absent entirely in 7th edition, and it would seem absent entirely in HH 2.0.

This isn't a small thing, as ruins are basically just difficult terrain, so in many ways its actually easier for vehicles to move on to ruin tops. And also them being jus difficult means models just phase right through ruin walls, and aren't even slowed when running through them.

I hope that's an oversight that gets FAQ'd, because that's kind of egregious.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So someone pointed out the ruin rules are messed up, like 7th ed's ruin rules. 6th edition had 4 pages of ruin rules, in there was stuff like what unit types could and could not move on to the upper levels of ruins. This was absent entirely in 7th edition, and it would seem absent entirely in HH 2.0.

This isn't a small thing, as ruins are basically just difficult terrain, so in many ways its actually easier for vehicles to move on to ruin tops. And also them being jus difficult means models just phase right through ruin walls, and aren't even slowed when running through them.

Im reading them now, whats missing from it? seems pretty clear to me.

Ruins are meant to be representative, so there really is nothing wrong with moving through that wall. As for vehicles ontop of buildings, this once more is a case of you need to self regulate.

HH is about thematic and dramatic combat, focusing more on the story/action being told, and having an understanding of RAI vs RAW.
Everyone knows, that the RAI, are that a tracked vehicle cant just magically float up a building and sit there. People who do this stuff are the kinda WAAC people that are not healthy for the hobby, so dont let them, its ok to be a turd about that kinda thing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So someone pointed out the ruin rules are messed up, like 7th ed's ruin rules. 6th edition had 4 pages of ruin rules, in there was stuff like what unit types could and could not move on to the upper levels of ruins. This was absent entirely in 7th edition, and it would seem absent entirely in HH 2.0.

This isn't a small thing, as ruins are basically just difficult terrain, so in many ways its actually easier for vehicles to move on to ruin tops. And also them being jus difficult means models just phase right through ruin walls, and aren't even slowed when running through them.

Im reading them now, whats missing from it? seems pretty clear to me.

Ruins are meant to be representative, so there really is nothing wrong with moving through that wall. As for vehicles ontop of buildings, this once more is a case of you need to self regulate.

HH is about thematic and dramatic combat, focusing more on the story/action being told, and having an understanding of RAI vs RAW.
Everyone knows, that the RAI, are that a tracked vehicle cant just magically float up a building and sit there. People who do this stuff are the kinda WAAC people that are not healthy for the hobby, so dont let them, its ok to be a turd about that kinda thing.

6th had a lot of terrain rules, 7th, less so. Ruins were the big casualty. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606785.page?fbclid=IwAR3r6P375PTV4nU0hkAXQ8MdiZMuGQFEwkSfx3l_xYqinp16LitIqDpN0FI


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AdmiralRon wrote:
I hope that's an oversight that gets FAQ'd, because that's kind of egregious.

It was/is a problem in 30k now without using something aproximating the 6th ed ruin rules. Just unfortunate that for all the areas to ignore in 30k terrain wasn't one of them.

Sorry to divert us on a tangent, but this just popped into my head: What's the typical/recommended point size for HH? I often see 3k+ batted around.

3k is the standard for most events but there are certain game types that play to smaller point levels. Zone Mortalis for example sits nicely at about 1 to 1.5k points and there is the Victory is Vengeance subgame that is a HH version of Kill Team.
3k allows people to get in a large number of units and take the more specialised, expensive, or LoW units that might not work as well at lower points costs. Indeed LoW are specifically restricted to 25% of the total army cost meaning you won't see them in games under 2k points unless the event/your group allows the Leviathan Force Org.

Awesome, thanks for the quick response. I'm looking forward to start collecting towards 3k.

I recommend going in blocks of 1k. Get your basic stuff down first (i.e. generic units rather than Legion specifics) for an understanding of the rules and how your army plays.
The biggest mistake our group made was starting off at 2.5 to 3k games every single week with 2 or 3 players per side. Games would take way too long and a lot of people just dropped off because the buy-in was too high.

Good point. I'm planning on picking up the starter box when it drops and expand from there.

Honestly, what I fear for most in this new edition is the tone of the game changing. Most of what I see with heresy is fun narrative fluffily themed lists. Due to the mass influx of players I think some of the modern Uber comp 40k tone will bleed over, and with all the new players you don’t have to worry about being a WAAChole cause you won’t be out of players to fight if you pull out the 3 max squads of siege tyrants.
Hopefully blasts and scatter will drive away the worst of the lot but keep the good peeps.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Honestly, what I fear for most in this new edition is the tone of the game changing. Most of what I see with heresy is fun narrative fluffily themed lists. Due to the mass influx of players I think some of the modern Uber comp 40k tone will bleed over, and with all the new players you don’t have to worry about being a WAAChole cause you won’t be out of players to fight if you pull out the 3 max squads of siege tyrants.

I'd be more worried about the purists TBH. It's easier to discuss not playing tournament-style games than it is dealing with some of the absolute roasters that have spent the last 6 months raging that MkVI is getting a plastic kit. Whatever happens next they're only going to get worse.

I really hope 40k's uber competitive element doesn't come over in droves. That's a giant reason why I'm bailing on 40k for HH.
It's plausible that for the first few months it's a problem but overtime they'll trickle out.
Especially if HH isn't getting giant tourney support in the same way 40k does. But who knows. It'll probably also vary region to region.

 Gert wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Honestly, what I fear for most in this new edition is the tone of the game changing. Most of what I see with heresy is fun narrative fluffily themed lists. Due to the mass influx of players I think some of the modern Uber comp 40k tone will bleed over, and with all the new players you don’t have to worry about being a WAAChole cause you won’t be out of players to fight if you pull out the 3 max squads of siege tyrants.

I'd be more worried about the purists TBH. It's easier to discuss not playing tournament-style games than it is dealing with some of the absolute roasters that have spent the last 6 months raging that MkVI is getting a plastic kit. Whatever happens next they're only going to get worse.

If I’m going to be honest, I think it’s fine HH has Grogs. It is by nature a historical game with most the details explained out. On the topic of mk6 part of the fun of Horus heresy for me and I think others is that you’d see mixed amounts of different types of armor, themed for their legions by looking into the fluff (yea I know that the legions would have a ton of mk6 but it’s just that the fluff and theme of an iron warriors list is going to use mk3). It’s fun seeing the individual personalities put into Horus heresy armies, I feel like it’s massively bigger than the space marine armies I see in 40k. Now it’s just going to be 80 mk6 guys, every group of 5 the same pose. It removes part of the higher tier of effort and modeling capability I’ve come to expect from 30k.

Well, i get flamed for this, but. This is an example of where gate keeping is a healthy thing.

HH generally is considered a more fluffy style game, where you are playing dramatic and thematic battles of the Horus Heresy. If you want to keep it that way. you have to gate keep. And gate keeping does not mean, random sperg moments and being an out right spiteful person.

Gate keeping in a healthy sense is operating under a mentality of "Hey....we dont do that here in Horus heresy" mentality to carefully guide people into what your local group, and what HH as a whole is about.
If someone comes in trying to be a massive WAAC type player that 40k has become very common with, you just politly guide them into the "Hey....we dont do that kinda thing here." mentality. Push for more fluffy armies, you can do things like playfully jabbing at their hyper tuned lists by just doing off handed comments like if you are about to play a game with them.
"Ehhh yeah i guess i can loose a game really quick."
This is not mean, this is not spiteful, but it casually gets the message across that your opponent is playing a kinda cheesy net list.

This is the kinda gatekeeping that helps prevent the things you are talking about, and what you said you dont want to happen.

Hobbies are like a flower garden, they are really fun to have, and very enjoyable, and even more enjoyable to share with others and invite them in. But the reason a gate exists and why it needs to be kept it to prevent the animals from running in and ripping the garden up.

I'm personally going to shoot for a mixture, though I won't lie that a bulk of my tacs will be MKVI just because jumping into this game with the box is a great way to get A TON of tacs.
But I still have plans to scoop up some MKIV and MKIII since those are my two favorite patterns.

EDIT:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Gate keeping in a healthy sense is operating under a mentality of "Hey....we dont do that here in Horus heresy" mentality to carefully guide people into what your local group,

100% agree with this. It's like introducing a new player to your DND group. You want to make it clear what the expectations are, how the group operates, the game tone etc
but you also don't want to be a complete prick about it, because that's just pathetic.

The competitive element was always there when 30k was at it's peak for support and popularity. When 30k lost that, the competitive people moved away.
As long as there are tournaments, prizes, or just a lot of people playing, there will be people who only care about the win.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The competitive element was always there when 30k was at it's peak for support and popularity. When 30k lost that, the competitive people moved away.
As long as there are tournaments, prizes, or just a lot of people playing, there will be people who only care about the win.

I agree with you here, but compared to what current 40k is, even HH at its peak would have seemed like a walk in the park.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If I’m going to be honest, I think it’s fine HH has Grogs. It is by nature a historical game with most the details explained out. On the topic of mk6 part of the fun of Horus heresy for me and I think others is that you’d see mixed amounts of different types of armor, themed for their legions by looking into the fluff (yea I know that the legions would have a ton of mk6 but it’s just that the fluff and theme of an iron warriors list is going to use mk3). It’s fun seeing the individual personalities put into Horus heresy armies, I feel like it’s massively bigger than the space marine armies I see in 40k. Now it’s just going to be 80 mk6 guys, every group of 5 the same pose. It removes part of the higher tier of effort and modeling capability I’ve come to expect from 30k.

Did you complain that HH was getting diluted when Calth and Prospero were released as well? When every single person was running Pride of the Legion lists because that's what you got in the Calth and Prospero boxes did you complain the game was being ruined? Because if not then sorry my guy but that's just hypocrisy. You can't expect new players to be as knowledgeable or as invested in a system that is brand new to them as an established player. I also think you are vastly underestimating the ability for even minor conversions through the use of the various upgrade kits GW has put out for the First Founding Chapters for 40k that fit 100% with the armour patterns that are currently available.


As for the peeps talking about gatekeeping, informing people that your group doesn't like to play tournament-style games isn't gatekeeping. If you actively bar someone from playing with your group because they do like tournament play, that is gatekeeping. The biggest thing people in the HH community need to do now is calm down on the "Muh Accuracy" front because there is going to be an influx of people who don't know about the time period or the game and will be asking if they can try out HH with their 40k Marine armies. When Calth dropped I suggested to my group that we should do some Great Crusade-style games vs various Xenos or human factions to allow people to actually get into the game and have time to build up Heresy-era forces.

 Gert wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If I’m going to be honest, I think it’s fine HH has Grogs. It is by nature a historical game with most the details explained out. On the topic of mk6 part of the fun of Horus heresy for me and I think others is that you’d see mixed amounts of different types of armor, themed for their legions by looking into the fluff (yea I know that the legions would have a ton of mk6 but it’s just that the fluff and theme of an iron warriors list is going to use mk3). It’s fun seeing the individual personalities put into Horus heresy armies, I feel like it’s massively bigger than the space marine armies I see in 40k. Now it’s just going to be 80 mk6 guys, every group of 5 the same pose. It removes part of the higher tier of effort and modeling capability I’ve come to expect from 30k.

Did you complain that HH was getting diluted when Calth and Prospero were released as well? When every single person was running Pride of the Legion lists because that's what you got in the Calth and Prospero boxes did you complain the game was being ruined? Because if not then sorry my guy but that's just hypocrisy. You can't expect new players to be as knowledgeable or as invested in a system that is brand new to them as an established player. I also think you are vastly underestimating the ability for even minor conversions through the use of the various upgrade kits GW has put out for the First Founding Chapters for 40k that fit 100% with the armour patterns that are currently available.


As for the peeps talking about gatekeeping, informing people that your group doesn't like to play tournament-style games isn't gatekeeping. If you actively bar someone from playing with your group because they do like tournament play, that is gatekeeping. The biggest thing people in the HH community need to do now is calm down on the "Muh Accuracy" front because there is going to be an influx of people who don't know about the time period or the game and will be asking if they can try out HH with their 40k Marine armies. When Calth dropped I suggested to my group that we should do some Great Crusade-style games vs various Xenos or human factions to allow people to actually get into the game and have time to build up Heresy-era forces.

No its still considered gate keeping.
Remember we operate now in a time when if you put up any sort of barrier of entry to the hobby/game, its instantly called gate keeping.
Wanting players to have painting armies that match their legions? Gatekeeping
Wanting people to use the actual model for the unit rather then a stand in? gate keeping
Telling someone we dont play with netlists that stomp every one? Gate keeping.

As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.

Again, you might disagree and say its not gate keeping, and to a degree i even agree with you, suggestion someone try and follow even the most base lore accuracy is not really gate keeping, but in the hobby world now, like i said anything that is any barrier of entry no matter how small is considered gatekeeping.

I kid you not, i actually got told i was gate keeping because i told some one to read the rules for 40k and their codex before i played with them. We live in a world where asking someone to understand the rules of the game they are about to play is gate keeping.

The people who cry "gatekeeping" are always the people getting told they're not wanted.

Some players in my local community recently asked about what the HH crowd thought of their planned armies. They were asking about stuff like using Primaris models, or using their 40k Deathguard/World Eaters straight in 30k.

When they were told that that wouldn't really be appropriate to the setting for X, Y, and Z they kicked up a stink about gatekeeping and how nobody would play 30k if everyone was to bellended about it.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The people who cry "gatekeeping" are always the people getting told they're not wanted.

Some players in my local community recently asked about what the HH crowd thought of their planned armies. They were asking about stuff like using Primaris models, or using their 40k Deathguard/World Eaters straight in 30k.

When they were told that that wouldn't really be appropriate to the setting for X, Y, and Z they kicked up a stink about gatekeeping and how nobody would play 30k if everyone was to bellended about it.

Said it before and ill say it many more times. Most of the time, the people who are crying about gatekeeping, are the people the gate was meant to keep out.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.

I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?

 Gert wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.

I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?

People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Some players in my local community recently asked about what the HH crowd thought of their planned armies. They were asking about stuff like using Primaris models, or using their 40k Deathguard/World Eaters straight in 30k.

I mean the Deathguard stuff isn't really a fair situation since the current HH setting stories are where they've been fully corrupted by Nurgle. If I was new to the setting and had just read Warhawk or Buried Dagger, I'd be a little confused as to why it wouldn't be allowed.
But out of curiosity, were these people asking if they could join in to see what the game was like or were they planning entirely new armies based around 40k units and models?

HH by all means is a historical tabletop

although it is a fictional history, you still play within the fictional historical setting, the outcome of the war is known and it is all about to re-create the different forces during a specific campaign of that war

being not so strict in specific models, like using the older 40k plastic models that look similar or converted armies of 40k plastic (I mean there are people who made Heresy Armies long before the HH was out and the specific details of the armour) to have an easy entry should be ok
(same as in napoleonics people allow 1812 uniforms in 1804 campaigns)
at the same time being strict about the colour scheme the Legions have should not be a problem for the new player (same as in Napoleonics the player knows that red Prussians won't be ok)

while doing a "must use official FW models to to have a demo game with the right armour mark, no early crusade models as we play late heresy here" is gate keeping

My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.