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.

 SirDonlad wrote:
The only issue i have with armour facings for dreadnoughts is the sudden death aspect of rolling on the damage chart which is what drive my sympathy toward dreadnoughts as MCs.

i'd have preferred them to look into allowing dreadnoughts to join a squad and gain a cover save from them rather than nerfing weapon AP to encourage the 'dreads among marines' aesthetic

Dreads are fine in 1.0 imo, they "were" fine before 2.0, you could still flank them at range and generally speaking get more for your money in terms of lower armour and inv were generally 5+ ish with some exception, unlike mc's and fmc's which were the worst aspect of 1.0 because of the 360 vision and few downsides/mitigations one could do to them, unlike vehicles that could be suppressed/immobilized/outmaneuvered.

I really do feel like the only truly trouble unit types in 1.0 were the mc's/fmc's and really only popped up for mechanicum/allies and deamons of the ruinstorm, imo they went the opposite direction I would have with 2.0, Side note I also don't like the change to terminators because the 2 wound ones in 1.0 at least feel "special" or somehow distinguished by that stat, not going to say all 2 wound termies were created equal in 1.0, but it least felt substantial and elite. Now its just feels like 1 step on the way to 8th ed style problems.

Also on the AP2 front, I feel like people in either editions should come to terms with an acceptable standard for cover/terrain/los blocking because none of the changes ultimately matter much on planet bowling ball.

A simple suggestion would have been to suggest people play with more 4+ cover instead of completely rendering the AP of so many weapons to the point of futility. It feels like someone in play test didn't like a unit of termies getting removed by a lucky vindicator shot and now the game balance in terms of AP has to suck on account of it. Another win for 1.0 honestly.

I would trade a point of toughness off Mechanicum MCs apart from vorax and arlatax so long as they got a couple of extra wounds instead.
So vorax and arlatax stay T6 W4
domitar, castellax, vultarax to T6 W6
Thanatar to T7 W6

 SirDonlad wrote:
I would trade a point of toughness off Mechanicum MCs apart from vorax and arlatax so long as they got a couple of extra wounds instead.
So vorax and arlatax stay T6 W4
domitar, castellax, vultarax to T6 W6
Thanatar to T7 W6

I feel like thanatar can just be a vehicle with a decent inv save and armour facings. It's the 360 vision/fire arc that's a bit much. I just think MC's and FMC's don't have enough downsides, either need more or can just fold into infantry with elevated stats. It's obviously less of an issue in 30k than it was in 40k.


Will be interesting to see what changed with mechanicum, not optimistic.

Has there been any word at all when the rest of the plastic upgrade kits announced back in April will be coming?

So getting back to the little info we have on the mechanicum thus far; it's been my personal opinion that the ordo distinctions are being binned in favour of a generic HQ and Ordo headcannon like they are some 'non-marine variant' legion rules.

Behold the only official info we have...


But to a Reductor player thats got a lot of info already.

deleted units - the 'Ordo Reductor artillery tank' is missing, as is the 'Ordo Reductor Minotaur Battery' (now available to anyone in the pdf) and so is the 'Magos Reductor' as well as standard pattern indentured Imperial Knights. The venerable 'Macrocarid Explorator' is similarly absent along with all three flyer options (primaris lightning, avenger strike fighter and arvus orbital lighter), Archmagos Inar Satarael and Archmagos Draykavac. We also know from playtest leaks that the Thanatar Cynis has been deleted; the Thanatar profiles have been integrated but the Cynis' weapon option is gone.

Weird Naming - Calleb decima is awesome and he has a double profile like ravenguard primarch; to those who have forgotten or didn't care he had an upgrade which would alter his profile to represent him after the Isstvan 3 atrocity called 'decima invictus' - the key point of this was it didn't allow you to take it for his alternative unit choice variant where you could represent the Ordo Reductor at their most desperate and scrappy.
The great point of that was it allowed you to take a single heavy support choice with the 'tank' type from the legion marine unit list; this was big because it was the only way an Ordo Reductor force could use a Landraider Achillies and was the only mechanicum faction to be able to.

strange additions - still not found any answers to what a 'Arcuitor Magisterium' is but i'm guessing they are the ham-fisted inclusion of the 40k unit 'electro-preists' since they're an elite unit type in 40k too.
In the playtest rules were 'kharax seige automata' which seem to match the setup of the 40k kastelan robot


page numbering - so each new section in an HH book get a single page dedicated to a symbol and the title to the section. this can be seen in the page numbering for the ordinatus where the unit has a single page but there is a missing page between the ordinatus aktaeus entry and the start of the appendicies..
this makes for..
5 pages dedicated to using warlords of the mechanicum
1 page for Calleb Decima
1 page for Magos Dominus
1 page for Magos Dominus on abeyant
double page spreads for both Archmagos and Archmagos on abeyant

The appendices section will likely have a title page for each sub-section leaving..
4 pages to explain cyberthurgy
3 pages for 'orders of high techno arcana'
8 pages of mechanicum special rules
4 pages of 'persona schizmata'
8 pages of divisio tactica titan legions
15 pages of divisio tactica questoris household


i believe that the appendices section is largely fluff because i don't believe GW would entertain telling players to consult the last editions books for fluff - naturally a bunch of it will be weapon profiles, special rules and unique equipment but i think the divisio tactica are just sections on using an allied force of IK or Titans alongside the mechanicum as allies and a bunch of fluff about how they worked alongside each other and whom.

The reveal of the contents of the mechanicum book is going to be a pivotal moment but i have many doubts and not a lot of faith in the poor sod which had to throw away all Alan Blighs work.

Actually, feth that guy; he deserves it.

I've never actually played the Tabletop for a few reasons, I'm a Lorehammer fan and recently decided to look into spreading my collection out from just the 30k-40k Black Library novels to also include the codexes and rulebooks. I bought the 6th edition big rulebook after someone recommended it for the lore, also bought both Dark Eldar and Homunculus Covens codexes as they are by far my favorite race/faction after the VIIIth legion and their primogeniture.

Being that 30k is probably my favorite time period I'm wondering what everyone that either owns or has read the new 2.0 core rulebook and both Libre books thinks of them from a lore perspective? Is it like the 6th edition rulebook heavy with lore and indepth information on the various factions and their military doctrines/tactics? Would it be worth the price for a Lorehammer nerd to collect and learn from?

 Sevetar_VIII wrote:
I've never actually played the Tabletop for a few reasons, I'm a Lorehammer fan and recently decided to look into spreading my collection out from just the 30k-40k Black Library novels to also include the codexes and rulebooks. I bought the 6th edition big rulebook after someone recommended it for the lore, also bought both Dark Eldar and Homunculus Covens codexes as they are by far my favorite race/faction after the VIIIth legion and their primogeniture.

Being that 30k is probably my favorite time period I'm wondering what everyone that either owns or has read the new 2.0 core rulebook and both Libre books thinks of them from a lore perspective? Is it like the 6th edition rulebook heavy with lore and indepth information on the various factions and their military doctrines/tactics? Would it be worth the price for a Lorehammer nerd to collect and learn from?

IMO not really.

The Liber books are very crunch heavy. Each legion has a little unit fluff and a general explanation of who they are plus 4 pages of color illustrations with unit and vehicle markings.

The 2.0 core book starts with about 100 pages of fluff but it's mostly the broad strokes of the Heresy and introductions to each legion. Nothing that would set the world on fire. If you could find one cheap enough from someone who bought multiple Age of Darkness boxes it might be worth it.

 ScarletRose wrote:
IMO not really.

The Liber books are very crunch heavy. Each legion has a little unit fluff and a general explanation of who they are plus 4 pages of color illustrations with unit and vehicle markings.

The 2.0 core book starts with about 100 pages of fluff but it's mostly the broad strokes of the Heresy and introductions to each legion. Nothing that would set the world on fire. If you could find one cheap enough from someone who bought multiple Age of Darkness boxes it might be worth it.

I think ScarletRose pretty much nails it. They are chunky books but it is almost all rules and army lists.

I'd expect most of the fluff to be relegated to the previously released books(black & BL)or the upcoming final seige books.

So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it

The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...

 godardc wrote:
So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it

The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...

Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.

Yeah, if you don't compare it to HH1.0, it's totally fine, the game works and is challenging, but when you know the roots, when your compare it to its ancestor, it just raises questions, many questions !
Dreadnought being 2+, isn't fair, even if I do love them and bought some just before HH2.0

I need several more HQ although ! So many consuls look interesting and useful, that's exciting

What's, uh, what's wrong with Javelins? Asking as a new WS player.

They are sub type heavy, and lost there BS5 when shooting at non antigrav / flying units and got up in points.
So now I can't even use them in a Maru Skara for example, while before they were the perfect mix between a tank and a quick unit, game wise and fluff wise, perfect for supporting this kind of flank attack.
How can the same unit turn from a fast skimmer to a heavy unit ? Idk

 lord_blackfang wrote:
What's, uh, what's wrong with Javelins? Asking as a new WS player.

They're much slower now, relegated to the same speed as a rhino. For example, a sabre is now more than twice the speed of a javelin, a javelin used to be able to flat out to 36, it can't do that anymore, but a sabre can basically. That and they made it cavalry and gave it wounds for no reason.

I am printing Sabres as well but it's beyond silly that its giant volkite is worse than its little volkite.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am printing Sabres as well but it's beyond silly that its giant volkite is worse than its little volkite.

I'm gonna do a couple with autocannon/multi-melta and see how it goes, but that's in 1.0, that is indeed funny that the top volkite is better in 2.0, oof

Javelins are brilliant. I don't quite get the issue. So they can't move 36 without firing now.. but they can move their full move and fire all their weapons, don't need to line up LoS on weapons, are much tougher and have hit & run.

Thematically I think it's awesome they can fight in melee now with the marines and that they can be swept and overrun, and also fall back. I do find the fact they can't be meltabombed or taken out by a single las hit a bit wierd though

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it

The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...

Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.

Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it

The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...

Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.

Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol

thats pretty much it. they want infantry termies and dreads to be useful items not something we "Are forced to take to fill slot"

Bobug wrote:
I do find the fact they can't be meltabombed or taken out by a single las hit a bit wierd though

I find taking a vehicle with its inherent benefits and downside and making it cavalry and giving it 360 vision for no reason and the ability to fight combat, again for no reason just a terrible set of changes in a direction counter that of a turn based table top war game, again this is indicative of the direction 8-9th ed 40k went. collectible card game that you still need models for basically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it

The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...

Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.

Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol

And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. Templates with no ap on incredibly expensive vehicles. Dread spam, no thankyou.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, after having read and read again my liber hereticus, I must say I welcome the complexity and depth the book seems to have, but I'm baffled at some loses, some of the things missing or plain and simple changes for no reason at all, for example the javelin that got turned into a slow, BS4 expensive motorcycle, when it used to be an elite, speedy and precise armor killer
Several weird changes like that but overall I'm pretty happy with the quality of the book, wasn't expecting the pictures and small background parts in it

The same thing happened for the collector rulebooks: they kept the same style as the old campaign book, but couldn't get the same size ...

Ya they've changed too many core/fundamental units in poor ways for my taste. All to push the meta towards infantry/termies/dreads, for some reason. I'm with you on the change the javelins, I've got 3 and they're some of my favorite models for HH, they did them so dirty... I mean cavalry? Oof, at least 1.0 works well.

Emphasis on infantry/termies/dreads... so the core stuff that the Legions fought with. lol

thats pretty much it. they want infantry termies and dreads to be useful items not something we "Are forced to take to fill slot"

They were perfectly useful in 1,0.

"And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. "

lmao, ok. No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.

How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
"And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. "

lmao, ok. No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.

How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?

This sounds pretty accurate for people who consider GW´s printed rules as holy scripture. I will for sure use vehicle stats for dreadnoughts because they are mechanical walkers after all. You can immobilize them and shoot their weapons off. Suddenly they don´t appear as fearsome as Nottingham´s rule trolls want them to be. Jetbikes are not a concern to me as they won´t find a way into my collection as long as they stay in FW resin.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.

Introducing hyperbole while complaining about broad strokes.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.

Introducing hyperbole while complaining about broad strokes.

My guy, the second comment was a sarcastic response to someone else's assertion of a broad stroke argument. Swing and a miss.

Great summation of the issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
"And all they had to do was destroy the viability of the rest of the unit types in what used to be a combined arms turn based wargame. "

lmao, ok. No one is using anything but massed infantry and Dreads now. Gotcha.

How about we let the game settle a bit before we make such broad strokes, eh?

This sounds pretty accurate for people who consider GW´s printed rules as holy scripture. I will for sure use vehicle stats for dreadnoughts because they are mechanical walkers after all. You can immobilize them and shoot their weapons off. Suddenly they don´t appear as fearsome as Nottingham´s rule trolls want them to be. Jetbikes are not a concern to me as they won´t find a way into my collection as long as they stay in FW resin.

I like dreadnoughts but always hated skew lists with a handful, now they're practically beating you over the head to take them, not just with resiliency but cost. And it's worse all around, a dreadnought should be tough, but not like football player on angel dust tough. What they did to bikes and jetbikes is just sad.

The problem i have with the reactions system is that it's a constantly in effect option for any and every unit.
Personally i don't like stuff which slows things down by adding extra processes that are mandatory (death from the skies).

The reaction system could have been used to give unique differences to certain units instead of the general game mechanic it has turned out to be and that's a loss for the players imo.

 SirDonlad wrote:
The problem i have with the reactions system is that it's a constantly in effect option for any and every unit.
Personally i don't like stuff which slows things down by adding extra processes that are mandatory (death from the skies).

The reaction system could have been used to give unique differences to certain units instead of the general game mechanic it has turned out to be and that's a loss for the players imo.

Agreed, for me it's the flow, titanicus games are very different depending on the energy levels/focus and decisiveness of both players because it's constantly back and forth like table tennis, this can be a strength and a weakness but it is a specific sort of cadence, one that for example when disrupted can be hard to pick back up. 30k was never that, my turn was always my own. It's flexible that way, it also allows for larger games with multiple members per side, reactions really mess with that too.

I prefer playing the whole game and not being stuck in my turn twiddling my thumbs and rolling saves. I remember Dust Warfare and that system had a similar setup and it was great, so I am happy to see a more tactical game come out of the old IGYG system.

Reaction system has been awesome.

I do think the proliferation of Heavy subtypw should have been increase ap of template weapons by 1 instead of rerolls. Would have also allowed more ap2/3 templates in game balance