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.

As we know, anything on the internet breeds division. The topc of Warhammer rule sets included.

I just ordered the Horus Heresy box set, along with my son and another friend. We are super stoked. But this is what I've noticed more so than other editions:

an even split of people who strongly disliked 7th Edition (and tend to enjoy 9E), and those who love Horus Heresy precisely because it has the 7E foundation.

What are your thoughts on 7th and how it is integrated into 30K? I'm truly curious to hear players' perspective.

7th edition was fine until the angels of death supplement that handed out free upgrades like candy.

Infact 7th ed minus formations and a slight curb on problem psyker powers and it was a fine edition overall

HH 1.0 from the get go is not really 7th ed, it's more like 7.5 or 6.5 because more or less it was 7th Ed with out the BS formations.
HH2.0 Is also a stretch to say 7.0 based because honestly it looks more like 4.5 Ed but with more toys.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
7th edition was fine until the angels of death supplement that handed out free upgrades like candy.

Infact 7th ed minus formations and a slight curb on problem psyker powers and it was a fine edition overall

HH 1.0 from the get go is not really 7th ed, it's more like 7.5 or 6.5 because more or less it was 7th Ed with out the BS formations.
HH2.0 Is also a stretch to say 7.0 based because honestly it looks more like 4.5 Ed but with more toys.

nah 7th had issues before angels of death the necron decurion and the Space Marine gladius from their respective codices where generally worse.

Option 3: All editions have problems; make the most fun you can.

7th was bad because the power balance between the Codexes was absolutely banana's, formations were either broken or rubbish with no real in-between, and summoning was stupidly widespread.
The balance between the Legions, Mechanicum, Auxilia and Militia is a lot better with only Talons of the Emperor being consistently overpowered. Legion Rites of War are generally well balanced as are the Mechanicum subtypes and Militia Provenances. Summoning is restricted currently to just the Esoterist unit and the Word Bearers and its very rare to see it used.
I'm not saying HH is perfect because it isn't but the problems that exist with 7th don't exist with HH and haven't for some time.

I’ll admit, I was a bit skeptical about playing 7th edition (-esque) rules again. But I watched a couple HH battle reports on YouTube and I’m excited again. Though it’s more clunky in some ways than modern 40K, it seems more
granular and thematic without resorting to endless stratagems and special rules. Seeing a squad of space marines running away after failing a morale check brought a smile to my face.

Also, I can’t imagine there will be as many keywords as 7th edition (though we’ll see).

cpugeek13 wrote:


Also, I can’t imagine there will be as many keywords as 7th edition (though we’ll see).

I dont know if its more, but there are a heck of a lot in HH2. And they're spread over core rules and your own rulebook, hunting down the definition of your keywords looks like a bit of a nightmare without an app based on the video reviews I've seen.

I never played 7th before. Should any nonsense rule come my way I will delete it immediately. Found one yesterday in a yT batrep from MWG:

Models in a squad could decide to either "tank" hits with poor AP for the rest of the squad as if they could somehow attract ( ) projectiles like a magnet or avoid them if they had good AP ( ) as if they had a guardian angel sitting on their shoulders. This garbage rule will go the way of the dodo and be replaced with an even distribution of wounds among the squads to better simulate an unit coming under fire.

Note: I don´t mean the "Look out sir" rule but the shenanigans sergeants with artificer armour pull off.

On second thought this atrocity of a rule could have been a very fluffy psychic power for the Thousand Sons:
The model in question strikes a T-pose, chants some gibberish and is now able to attract all bullets for his mates. I would be okay with that.

I think the problem today is that too many people look back at 7E and just remember formations as the only problem, and completely forget the rest of the problems that have been ongoing with 40K. 7E still had the same problems 6E had, that 5E had, etc. Whether it be wound allocation, vehicles (how they moved, shoot, were damaged), walkers v. monstrous creatures, herohammer, psychic rules (not just the powers themselves, but the whole system), assault phase, the AP system, flyer rules, terrain and LOS, and so on. Every edition had various problems with all of these elements, partly caused by 40K trying to be both skirmish-level and mass battle game at the same time.

I'm not saying 7E sucked or was a terrible ruleset, I'm just saying it's not the Golden Age of 40K rules that some people make it sound like. Maybe compared to the current state of 9E it might seem like it, though.

7th edition core rules had some issues, but not many. It was mainly the psychic phase and how warp dice generation could be abused and the universal special rules system.

HH 2nd edition doesn't have a psychic phase nor does HH experience the USR issues like 40K because in HH all factions and units are identical across the entire game so a USR system actually works well under this design.

What ultimately made 7th edition 40K so terrible was the codexes; specifically formations and the specialist detachments that were comprised of multiple formations.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I never played 7th before. Should any nonsense rule come my way I will delete it immediately. Found one yesterday in a yT batrep from MWG:

Models in a squad could decide to either "tank" hits with poor AP for the rest of the squad as if they could somehow attract ( ) projectiles like a magnet or avoid them if they had good AP ( ) as if they had a guardian angel sitting on their shoulders. This garbage rule will go the way of the dodo and be replaced with an even distribution of wounds among the squads to better simulate an unit coming under fire.

Note: I don´t mean the "Look out sir" rule but the shenanigans sergeants with artificer armour pull off.

On second thought this atrocity of a rule could have been a very fluffy psychic power for the Thousand Sons:
The model in question strikes a T-pose, chants some gibberish and is now able to attract all bullets for his mates. I would be okay with that.

So you need to do 11 'evenly distributed' unsaved wounds to a unit of 10 W2 models before one dies? It's almost like the rules are like that for a reason and off the cuff ideas like this are stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
7th edition core rules had some issues, but not many. It was mainly the psychic phase and how warp dice generation could be abused and the universal special rules system.

HH 2nd edition doesn't have a psychic phase nor does HH experience the USR issues like 40K because in HH all factions and units are identical across the entire game so a USR system actually works well under this design.

What ultimately made 7th edition 40K so terrible was the codexes; specifically formations and the specialist detachments that were comprised of multiple formations.

The 7th edition core rules had many issues. Horus heresy was already dramatically different than 7th after their mini update is now even more significantly different. It's more different from 7th than 7th was from 6th or than 8th was from 9th.

Some of the core rules are still clunky (the 'all or useless' AP system for example makes AP 4, 5, or 6 even existing entirely superflous in a Marine v Marine game) but with decent codexes and the updates they've made, it looks like it will be a lot of fun.

That doesn't make 7th 40k good in retrospect.

ERJAK wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I never played 7th before. Should any nonsense rule come my way I will delete it immediately. Found one yesterday in a yT batrep from MWG:

Models in a squad could decide to either "tank" hits with poor AP for the rest of the squad as if they could somehow attract ( ) projectiles like a magnet or avoid them if they had good AP ( ) as if they had a guardian angel sitting on their shoulders. This garbage rule will go the way of the dodo and be replaced with an even distribution of wounds among the squads to better simulate an unit coming under fire.

Note: I don´t mean the "Look out sir" rule but the shenanigans sergeants with artificer armour pull off.

On second thought this atrocity of a rule could have been a very fluffy psychic power for the Thousand Sons:
The model in question strikes a T-pose, chants some gibberish and is now able to attract all bullets for his mates. I would be okay with that.

So you need to do 11 'evenly distributed' unsaved wounds to a unit of 10 W2 models before one dies? It's almost like the rules are like that for a reason and off the cuff ideas like this are stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
7th edition core rules had some issues, but not many. It was mainly the psychic phase and how warp dice generation could be abused and the universal special rules system.

HH 2nd edition doesn't have a psychic phase nor does HH experience the USR issues like 40K because in HH all factions and units are identical across the entire game so a USR system actually works well under this design.

What ultimately made 7th edition 40K so terrible was the codexes; specifically formations and the specialist detachments that were comprised of multiple formations.

The 7th edition core rules had many issues. Horus heresy was already dramatically different than 7th after their mini update is now even more significantly different. It's more different from 7th than 7th was from 6th or than 8th was from 9th.

Some of the core rules are still clunky (the 'all or useless' AP system for example makes AP 4, 5, or 6 even existing entirely superflous in a Marine v Marine game) but with decent codexes and the updates they've made, it looks like it will be a lot of fun.

That doesn't make 7th 40k good in retrospect.

Nope. Tanking stuff is still stupid. And your corner case of W2 models is easily dealt with. Just apply the old rule of having to remove wounded models first as we don´t want to have the Nob biker debacle from 5th again. Speeds up play too. Watching those fellas roll separate dice for the tanking guy hurt on so many levels.

Remember that this is a fine tuning of 7th edition rules (yes there are additions such as reactions) rather than the wholesale complete turnover that GW tends to do.

The base ruleset has been used for about a decade and glaring problems are glaring and fixed accordingly.

Also with all initial forces starting from the same point there is limited scope for wild swings (Imperial fists and their bolter rule being an obvious exception).

 Strg Alt wrote:
I never played 7th before. Should any nonsense rule come my way I will delete it immediately. Found one yesterday in a yT batrep from MWG:

Models in a squad could decide to either "tank" hits with poor AP for the rest of the squad as if they could somehow attract ( ) projectiles like a magnet or avoid them if they had good AP ( ) as if they had a guardian angel sitting on their shoulders. This garbage rule will go the way of the dodo and be replaced with an even distribution of wounds among the squads to better simulate an unit coming under fire.

Note: I don´t mean the "Look out sir" rule but the shenanigans sergeants with artificer armour pull off.

On second thought this atrocity of a rule could have been a very fluffy psychic power for the Thousand Sons:
The model in question strikes a T-pose, chants some gibberish and is now able to attract all bullets for his mates. I would be okay with that.

Well this issue is same for 40k 8 and 9.

After they went away from nearest model gets allocated it's been there.

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Remember that this is a fine tuning of 7th edition rules (yes there are additions such as reactions) rather than the wholesale complete turnover that GW tends to do.

The base ruleset has been used for about a decade and glaring problems are glaring and fixed accordingly.

Also with all initial forces starting from the same point there is limited scope for wild swings (Imperial fists and their bolter rule being an obvious exception).

At least all the WAAC players will need to paint yellow. This shall be punishment enough.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
As we know, anything on the internet breeds division. The topc of Warhammer rule sets included.

I just ordered the Horus Heresy box set, along with my son and another friend. We are super stoked. But this is what I've noticed more so than other editions:

an even split of people who strongly disliked 7th Edition (and tend to enjoy 9E), and those who love Horus Heresy precisely because it has the 7E foundation.

What are your thoughts on 7th and how it is integrated into 30K? I'm truly curious to hear players' perspective.

Well personally, my biggest bugbear with 7th (before the codex problem) was that it was
a) launched so soon after 6th
b) basically amounted a handful of pages of errata and that was it. Except...
c) it also ported over what was probably the most exploitable magic system ever used in WFB and made no attempt to fix it.

Without the 7th edition army books, or the magic system AND with years of errata and fine-tuning for 7th itself and HH 1.0, using 7th as a baseline for HH2 bothers me a heck of a lot less than than 7th itself did.
It feels like they put the work in this time, rather than rush out some errata with a fat 'new book fee' attached. (not that the book prices are good, just that it looks like they put more effort into them, which feels less bad)

7th had it's issues. For myself the biggest issue was right from the launch. The Ork codex was super under powered and just bad for the entire edition. I am/was a long time Ork player. That said playing against a Legions list the game play seemed so much better than playing against a 40K army. Mostly that meant I stood a reasonable chance to win. And win or not the game was a lot more fun for me than against other 40K armies. Part of that comes down to who I was playing both games with but also the rules. Orks just felt better under those conditions to me. I would agree that that doesn't make it a game of "30K" because I fielded Xenos, in a few games while I was building my Legion. The only etra strangeness was army building and as the Legions have set ways to build their lists Orks, as I played them, were more open to what was available in 40K as far as army structures. This wasn't a huge problem because we played anywhere from 5000 to 10000 points per player. Over all the AoD rules were cleaned up just a bit from 7th ,at the time, and not too bad.
AoD was good, 8th was , to me, better than 7th and 9th but I don't feel 8th was really that much better than AoD being that my favorite edition so far has been 4th. So make of that what you will.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Remember that this is a fine tuning of 7th edition rules (yes there are additions such as reactions) rather than the wholesale complete turnover that GW tends to do.

The base ruleset has been used for about a decade and glaring problems are glaring and fixed accordingly.

Also with all initial forces starting from the same point there is limited scope for wild swings (Imperial fists and their bolter rule being an obvious exception).

At least all the WAAC players will need to paint yellow. This shall be punishment enough.

It's disheartening to know the legion I picked is the best legion. I'd remind everyone not to judge the Fists on that given they're basicly being set up as the Ultramarines of the Heresy (I'd not be suprised if they try to bring back the averland sunset rattlecans)

It's disheartening to know the legion I picked is the best legion. I'd remind everyone not to judge the Fists on that given they're basicly being set up as the Ultramarines of the Heresy (I'd not be suprised if they try to bring back the averland sunset rattlecans)

The IVth Legion does not agree with your assessment! Aside from the availability of deepstrike all over the place that is.

 Malathrim wrote:

It's disheartening to know the legion I picked is the best legion. I'd remind everyone not to judge the Fists on that given they're basicly being set up as the Ultramarines of the Heresy (I'd not be suprised if they try to bring back the averland sunset rattlecans)

The IVth Legion does not agree with your assessment! Aside from the availability of deepstrike all over the place that is.

Yeah I think it's too early to say what Legions will be best personally.

It's been funny seeing the influencers who paraded up and down for years that 7th was the worst edition ever and if 30k doesn't move to 8th/9th it will die now putting on smiling faces and say how much they always loved AoD.

Like 8th and 9th edition the core of the 7th system was... fine, for a GW ruleset anyway. I'll just echo the mention of things like Formation again. GW really can't help themselves from bloating their ruleset more and more with 'advanced' additions that ultimately leave it a sluggish, horrifically imbalanced, unfun mess by the end of the cycle and then sweep it away with a new edition for people to come back and repeat anew.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Remember that this is a fine tuning of 7th edition rules (yes there are additions such as reactions) rather than the wholesale complete turnover that GW tends to do.

The base ruleset has been used for about a decade and glaring problems are glaring and fixed accordingly.

Also with all initial forces starting from the same point there is limited scope for wild swings (Imperial fists and their bolter rule being an obvious exception).

At least all the WAAC players will need to paint yellow. This shall be punishment enough.

Or just whatever you want. WAAC don't care about colours anyway.

I hated 7th ed. 6th too, I only played a few games of 6th and shelved my army because it left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't remember if I played 7th even once, but the changes and following proliferation of abject stupidity like formations disabused me of the notion that I had any interest in continuing to play 40k and I basically quit the game and sold everything I owned.

Then 8th came along and sucked me right back in.

But anyway, even with my dislike of 7th ed 40k, I still enjoyed Horus Heresy as it was absent many of the worst excesses of the unit design that made 7th ed 40k so unpalatable, and modified just enough of the core 7th ed rules that it felt like an approachable game. After a few years with 8th and 9th (which has again somewhat soured me on the game, mainly by way of the proliferation with unnecessary, convoluted, and complex degrees of rules layering), I am really looking forward to HHs 7th ed 2.0 ruleset, because it looks like it has changed or addressed almost every remaining issue I had with the old ruleset and is bringing back some of the stuff that I miss about older editions of 40k (instant death, "all or nothing" armor/AP system, etc. I'm even excited to have armor facings again, though I'm still of the opinion that its aI don't know about HH2.0 but in some of the previous editions of the poorly implemented system, but its a nice change of pace and addresses some of the issues created with 40k by the removal of the vehicle armor system with certain weapons no longer being as effective, etc.). Best of all the rules layering is nonexistent and I don't need to memorize reams of extra special rules for each ane every subfaction, strategem, etc.

The one immediate downside though is that the return to the all or nothing AP system in a game where 90% of the games are going to be marine v marine (and if not will still feature a lot of 2+/3+ Sv units anyway) means that AP4/5/6 weapons have a lot less value, which kinda renders the all or nothing armor concept useless. In reality, IMO I think 30k would probably have been better served with armor mods (and 40k could/should go back to all or nothing). It also makes me question the value of legion special rules that give certain legions access to different bolter rounds - the ones that trade a disadvantage for AP4 don't really seem like a big benefit, unless suddenly theres a huge and unexpected influx of solar aux and imperial army/militia players, etc.

Models in a squad could decide to either "tank" hits with poor AP for the rest of the squad as if they could somehow attract ( ) projectiles like a magnet or avoid them if they had good AP ( ) as if they had a guardian angel sitting on their shoulders. This garbage rule will go the way of the dodo and be replaced with an even distribution of wounds among the squads to better simulate an unit coming under fire.
Note: I don´t mean the "Look out sir" rule but the shenanigans sergeants with artificer armour pull off.

Yeah, thats not gonna work, chief. Theres a reason why GW did it the way they did, if you want to spend 20 minutes just figuring out the "random wound allocation" of your attacks every turn then have at it, but you're not going to find many people who want to play with you.

I don't know about HH2.0 but in some of the previous editions of the game they addressed this through a rule (IIRC it was called torrent of fire or hail of fire) that allowed the attacking player to allocate 1 wound of their choice out of every x (where x was equal to the number of models in the target unit) to a model of their choice in order to bypass some of the tanking. In other words, if I caused 15 wounds on a target unit of 7 models, I could allocate 2 wounds of my choice to 1-2 models of my choice and force them to eat those hits, then the defending player would allocate the remaining 13 wounds equally, etc. I might be off on the specifics of it as it varied across editions somewhat, but that was the general gist of it. It was a nice compromise and worked smoothly.

HH 2nd edition doesn't have a psychic phase nor does HH experience the USR issues like 40K because in HH all factions and units are identical across the entire game so a USR system actually works well under this design.

*Mechanicum, Custodes, Solar Auxilia, Ruinstorm Daemons, Imperialis Militia & Warp Cults, etc. have entered the chat*

Nope. Tanking stuff is still stupid. And your corner case of W2 models is easily dealt with. Just apply the old rule of having to remove wounded models first as we don´t want to have the Nob biker debacle from 5th again. Speeds up play too. Watching those fellas roll separate dice for the tanking guy hurt on so many levels.

You've never played 7th but suddenly you think you're an expert in 5th edition wound allocation mechanics? Even 5th edition had the "tanking" that you're complaining about. Your "fix" doesn't actually fix anything.

I'm looking forward to playing HH2.0.

I've been following the progression of 9th edition from the start and have already passed the point of stratagem fatique. I am tired of deliberately leaving my armies not battleforged so as to not have to deal with doctrines etc. I'm longing for more simpler times, and HH2.0 feels like it could be a breath of fresh air in that regard. Just wish it had something like Crusade though..

 Arbitrator wrote:
It's been funny seeing the influencers who paraded up and down for years that 7th was the worst edition ever and if 30k doesn't move to 8th/9th it will die now putting on smiling faces and say how much they always loved AoD.

Like 8th and 9th edition the core of the 7th system was... fine, for a GW ruleset anyway. I'll just echo the mention of things like Formation again. GW really can't help themselves from bloating their ruleset more and more with 'advanced' additions that ultimately leave it a sluggish, horrifically imbalanced, unfun mess by the end of the cycle and then sweep it away with a new edition for people to come back and repeat anew.

Uhm, as a consumer I can "freeze" the rules by not buying into the next edition. That´s what I did after 5th 40K. Chances are pretty high that I won´t participate in HH 3.0 although I will stick to playing HH 2.0 as long as I want.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I hated 7th ed. 6th too, I only played a few games of 6th and shelved my army because it left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't remember if I played 7th even once, but the changes and following proliferation of abject stupidity like formations disabused me of the notion that I had any interest in continuing to play 40k and I basically quit the game and sold everything I owned.

Then 8th came along and sucked me right back in.

But anyway, even with my dislike of 7th ed 40k, I still enjoyed Horus Heresy as it was absent many of the worst excesses of the unit design that made 7th ed 40k so unpalatable, and modified just enough of the core 7th ed rules that it felt like an approachable game. After a few years with 8th and 9th (which has again somewhat soured me on the game, mainly by way of the proliferation with unnecessary, convoluted, and complex degrees of rules layering), I am really looking forward to HHs 7th ed 2.0 ruleset, because it looks like it has changed or addressed almost every remaining issue I had with the old ruleset and is bringing back some of the stuff that I miss about older editions of 40k (instant death, "all or nothing" armor/AP system, etc. I'm even excited to have armor facings again, though I'm still of the opinion that its aI don't know about HH2.0 but in some of the previous editions of the poorly implemented system, but its a nice change of pace and addresses some of the issues created with 40k by the removal of the vehicle armor system with certain weapons no longer being as effective, etc.). Best of all the rules layering is nonexistent and I don't need to memorize reams of extra special rules for each ane every subfaction, strategem, etc.

The one immediate downside though is that the return to the all or nothing AP system in a game where 90% of the games are going to be marine v marine (and if not will still feature a lot of 2+/3+ Sv units anyway) means that AP4/5/6 weapons have a lot less value, which kinda renders the all or nothing armor concept useless. In reality, IMO I think 30k would probably have been better served with armor mods (and 40k could/should go back to all or nothing). It also makes me question the value of legion special rules that give certain legions access to different bolter rounds - the ones that trade a disadvantage for AP4 don't really seem like a big benefit, unless suddenly theres a huge and unexpected influx of solar aux and imperial army/militia players, etc.

Models in a squad could decide to either "tank" hits with poor AP for the rest of the squad as if they could somehow attract ( ) projectiles like a magnet or avoid them if they had good AP ( ) as if they had a guardian angel sitting on their shoulders. This garbage rule will go the way of the dodo and be replaced with an even distribution of wounds among the squads to better simulate an unit coming under fire.
Note: I don´t mean the "Look out sir" rule but the shenanigans sergeants with artificer armour pull off.

Yeah, thats not gonna work, chief. Theres a reason why GW did it the way they did, if you want to spend 20 minutes just figuring out the "random wound allocation" of your attacks every turn then have at it, but you're not going to find many people who want to play with you.

I don't know about HH2.0 but in some of the previous editions of the game they addressed this through a rule (IIRC it was called torrent of fire or hail of fire) that allowed the attacking player to allocate 1 wound of their choice out of every x (where x was equal to the number of models in the target unit) to a model of their choice in order to bypass some of the tanking. In other words, if I caused 15 wounds on a target unit of 7 models, I could allocate 2 wounds of my choice to 1-2 models of my choice and force them to eat those hits, then the defending player would allocate the remaining 13 wounds equally, etc. I might be off on the specifics of it as it varied across editions somewhat, but that was the general gist of it. It was a nice compromise and worked smoothly.

HH 2nd edition doesn't have a psychic phase nor does HH experience the USR issues like 40K because in HH all factions and units are identical across the entire game so a USR system actually works well under this design.

*Mechanicum, Custodes, Solar Auxilia, Ruinstorm Daemons, Imperialis Militia & Warp Cults, etc. have entered the chat*

Nope. Tanking stuff is still stupid. And your corner case of W2 models is easily dealt with. Just apply the old rule of having to remove wounded models first as we don´t want to have the Nob biker debacle from 5th again. Speeds up play too. Watching those fellas roll separate dice for the tanking guy hurt on so many levels.

You've never played 7th but suddenly you think you're an expert in 5th edition wound allocation mechanics? Even 5th edition had the "tanking" that you're complaining about. Your "fix" doesn't actually fix anything.

Who says I am looking for people to play HH 30K?

"My fixing won´t fix anything?"
Are you drunk or what?

I think for the most part it's fine, though I don't like the fact that blast templates have come back or the all or nothing ap rules. Remove the templates and use the 8th/9th-style for ap and the game looks very good.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I think for the most part it's fine, though I don't like the fact that blast templates have come back or the all or nothing ap rules. Remove the templates and use the 8th/9th-style for ap and the game looks very good.

Gaming groups will eventually modify the rules as they see fit like they have done in the decades before.

I can already see ancient problems.
The Death Guard have an "any and all" rule...
Anyone remember 3rd edition Vindicares? They "ignored all shooting restrictions" which as written means...
Infinite range, infinite special ammo, infinite shots, no line of sight needed, shooting at multiple targets".
It fits with Mortarions weird teleportation rule. Now Death Guard can move anywhere they want, even base contact or off the board.

Seems to me HH2 is closer to 3rd/4th than 7th, outside Hull Points.