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.

I bet the Dark Angels have got at least 1 in storage in 40k.

Depends if it burns out the occupant as seemingly all but the Boxnaught does.

Truly the boxnaught is bestnaught.

Pop in a new occupant regularly then

 Moopy wrote:
I hold hope that it's Destroyers and not Cataphractii, but I'm good with either.

That must be new Cataphractii. I guess they've redone them with all the options, and they'll probably be bigger too. A bit annoying, as I'd bought enough volkite chargers on eBay to arm my next Cataphractii unit - that turned out to be a waste of money.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

On the four mental stats? I like the concept, but judgement is withheld you gil we know more about the execution. For instance, if CL just isn’t used much compared to LD, we might find ourselves asking what the point was. But, like multi-damage weapons if does open up design space.

Since I just started Night Lords I’m very interested in this.

Hearsay website has been updated.

https://thehorushearsay.com/

We now know which were porky pies. So that’s nice.

HERESY! - Your photo still sucks.

So like I said, every bit of text that didn't have a picture attached was fake.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So like I said, every bit of text that didn't have a picture attached was fake.

Not quite, the Salamander one was true.

It’s still good to know, as we’ve now direct evidence in case anyone is unsure.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Once again GW are selling 30K as "40K but only with Marines."

Wasn't that always the whole point of HH?

Keyword "only".

New edition release with the flagship models for the game in a setting that revolves around the 18 Legions. Like... what else would you expect?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


New edition release with the flagship models for the game in a setting that revolves around the 18 Legions. Like... what else would you expect?

I expect you to read the posts we've made since.

Not being nasty and so don't take this personally, but I am not wasting mine, your's or anyone else's time repeating what's already been said and probably annoying the mods in the process.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So like I said, every bit of text that didn't have a picture attached was fake.

Nope. Many had a bit of truth that was presented the wrong way; a lot of misdirection or word play.

The ones that were outright false they corrected themselves.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

HERESY! - Your photo still sucks.

That was absolutely the best part, though I also liked how they 'confirmed' that every Legion was getting rules (except, you know, the two missing ones).

SamusDrake wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


New edition release with the flagship models for the game in a setting that revolves around the 18 Legions. Like... what else would you expect?

I expect you to read the posts we've made since.

Not being nasty and so don't take this personally, but I am not wasting mine, your's or anyone else's time repeating what's already been said and probably annoying the mods in the process.

The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

Page 348.

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

SamusDrake wrote:

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

The box? Yes. 3rd edition, not really. I'm hopeful that all flavors of dreadnoughts are toned down a bit and having 1 flier isn't a freaking waste that gets shot down immediately with auspex scanners and that I keep +1 to hit with my Imperial Fists bolters.

Otherwise, I'm in camp "HH is a Historical Game catering to old farts like me and a 3 year cycle is dumb as hell."

If you think otherwise, I hope neither side of your pillow is ever cool.

I come from a different camp than most people on this forum.

I am recently getting back into the hobby, and have been interested in all the new stuff coming out.

Before picking up some Custodes, I had zero models from any range for the past 14 years or so.

I tried to learn more about HH locally, but no one plays. I'm hoping this edition change brings in some players, because as it stands now, it's kinda like Aeronautica Imperialis.

Cool models and no players.

It's likely to at a very minimum get a temporary (6-12 month) bump as folks buy into the excitement and get it out of their system.

 Quixote wrote:
because as it stands now, it's kinda like Aeronautica Imperialis.

Cool models and no players.

Naw, GW was smart enough to include some Xenos in Aeronautica Imperialis. HH is dull by comparison.

 kronk wrote:

If you think otherwise, I hope neither side of your pillow is ever cool.

I kind of agree with you, but jeez that’s harsh…

SamusDrake wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

Page 348.

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

I guess you did a roundabout way of speaking to it, but it didn't feel like it addressed it, hence my post. C'est la vie. Not that important really.

Am I looking forward to the new edition? I play Knights. So yes, very much so. Spending all of HH2 with a dysfunctional army wasn't fun. But also it is a good chance to do big time cleanup. It has been a lot of years since 7th ed and they have a lot of games they can learn from, so hopefully they make this a solid edition. We shall see!

 Snord wrote:

 kronk wrote:

If you think otherwise, I hope neither side of your pillow is ever cool.

I kind of agree with you, but jeez that’s harsh…

Wouldn't you want a warm pillow in the North?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

Page 348.

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

I guess you did a roundabout way of speaking to it, but it didn't feel like it addressed it, hence my post. C'est la vie. Not that important really.

Am I looking forward to the new edition? I play Knights. So yes, very much so. Spending all of HH2 with a dysfunctional army wasn't fun. But also it is a good chance to do big time cleanup. It has been a lot of years since 7th ed and they have a lot of games they can learn from, so hopefully they make this a solid edition. We shall see!

I agree whole heartedly. Knights felt like they were poorly implemented in HH... where you had odd build restrictions.

I want to see how they fixed the issues (if they did).

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
because as it stands now, it's kinda like Aeronautica Imperialis.

Cool models and no players.

Naw, GW was smart enough to include some Xenos in Aeronautica Imperialis. HH is dull by comparison.

This is coming from someone who appreciates both games: Aeronautica died a quick death and HH is going pretty strong, so maybe xenos didn’t matter much in terms of “smart” decisions.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

Page 348.

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

I guess you did a roundabout way of speaking to it, but it didn't feel like it addressed it, hence my post. C'est la vie. Not that important really.

Am I looking forward to the new edition? I play Knights. So yes, very much so. Spending all of HH2 with a dysfunctional army wasn't fun. But also it is a good chance to do big time cleanup. It has been a lot of years since 7th ed and they have a lot of games they can learn from, so hopefully they make this a solid edition. We shall see!

I agree whole heartedly. Knights felt like they were poorly implemented in HH... where you had odd build restrictions.

I want to see how they fixed the issues (if they did).

I have to disagree on Knights. I played them a lot in 2.0 with a 90% win rate and the restrictions help with the army not being an absolutely broken mess that's unfun to play against in my experience.

Horus Heresy, a game about a human civil war.

Where are the Xenos?

They’re dead, Dave. They’re all Dead.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

Page 348.

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

I guess you did a roundabout way of speaking to it, but it didn't feel like it addressed it, hence my post. C'est la vie. Not that important really.

Am I looking forward to the new edition? I play Knights. So yes, very much so. Spending all of HH2 with a dysfunctional army wasn't fun. But also it is a good chance to do big time cleanup. It has been a lot of years since 7th ed and they have a lot of games they can learn from, so hopefully they make this a solid edition. We shall see!

I agree whole heartedly. Knights felt like they were poorly implemented in HH... where you had odd build restrictions.

I want to see how they fixed the issues (if they did).

I have to disagree on Knights. I played them a lot in 2.0 with a 90% win rate and the restrictions help with the army not being an absolutely broken mess that's unfun to play against in my experience.

I'm more upset about not being able to use the Moriax Armigers.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Am I looking forward to the new edition? I play Knights. So yes, very much so. Spending all of HH2 with a dysfunctional army wasn't fun. But also it is a good chance to do big time cleanup. It has been a lot of years since 7th ed and they have a lot of games they can learn from, so hopefully they make this a solid edition. We shall see!

A fellow Seneschal...

Also interested in what lies ahead. While I'm only running Heresy through AT and a little bit of LI, I'm somewhat curious about 30K. In it's current state its scored some own-goals which have kept me away, but this new edition might bare fruit...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:


I'm more upset about not being able to use the Moriax Armigers.

This was definitely an own-goal. Its a Knight. Full stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:

Naw, GW was smart enough to include some Xenos in Aeronautica Imperialis. HH is dull by comparison.

I hated how they handled the switch to the Heresy era, by only selling the rule book but not even a poster map to friggin play on. There's no point in continuing to sell the game in this state.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


The time you spent typing this reply could have easily quoted a previous message had you addressed what I said or otherwise addressed it in a civil, concise manner. I looked back and didn't see anything, though I could have missed it.

Page 348.

Are you looking forward to the new edition?

I guess you did a roundabout way of speaking to it, but it didn't feel like it addressed it, hence my post. C'est la vie. Not that important really.

Am I looking forward to the new edition? I play Knights. So yes, very much so. Spending all of HH2 with a dysfunctional army wasn't fun. But also it is a good chance to do big time cleanup. It has been a lot of years since 7th ed and they have a lot of games they can learn from, so hopefully they make this a solid edition. We shall see!

I agree whole heartedly. Knights felt like they were poorly implemented in HH... where you had odd build restrictions.

I want to see how they fixed the issues (if they did).

I have to disagree on Knights. I played them a lot in 2.0 with a 90% win rate and the restrictions help with the army not being an absolutely broken mess that's unfun to play against in my experience.

A good player can overcome anything? Maybe your meta is just friendlier to Knights? The broader Knight community tends to agree they are vastly underpowered and need some help.

They were definitely unfun and broken in HH1. Maybe they can figure them out for HH3. Knowing we are getting across-the-board damage stats for weapons really, really opens them up. That a Contemptor had Brutal on their first but a Knight didn't was ridiculous, just as a single example.