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.

And whose nostalgia? Even most Heresy players haven't been born yet the last time Cool was a stat in 40k.

beast_gts wrote:
They've also got the Centurion listed as I1 and the Sergeant as A1, so I'm guessing they're mistakes.

Centurion has been updated to I5 - Tech-Thralls & Sergeant unchanged.

I really hope, with the new stats, a character will get the option to challenge other characters in a battle of wits.
One of them could place 2 goblets in front of eachother and challenge the other to chose one. Just one of them contains lethal poison!

The duel would be fought first with IN, against CL as they debate how likely it would be for the challengee to put the poison close to himself, and what kind of person he might be.

Then a duel of WP against CL for not giving away the secret of the poison while gloating.

Finally a reversed CL against IN to see who is removed from play (best out of 3)

Ofcourse, every primarch will have new rules like "Luck" "Suave" and "Blather" and "Immune to poison" to make the challenge obsolete.

Inconceivable

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do ask how much more complex this actually is?

Sure, at first we’ll find ourselves “wait, do I take that against my Cl or my WP”. At least in the early days.

And we’re yet to find out what a Fail might cause - though that seems to be coming tomorrow.

But they’re all just 2D6, roll lower than stat.

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

It depends how many rules and USR's come off the back of it and the weird variance in some stats (such as why is a Consul more psychically resistant than any old marine). It's more that for the bulk of the game (marines) the stats are so close together so far to not even be worth inventing the system and it's added mental load.

With a game of this size/scale, adding in a couple of marginally different tests isn't a big deal admittedly, but it's the economy of that scale. In Necromunda where they've borrowed it from it's a dozen models a side and the time taken to move them, fire with them etc. will be notably shorter than moving and firing with say 20 tac marines, or 10 rotary cannons etc. making the over added minor faff just one more small sap on time.

 kronk wrote:
This is 3 or 4 new things. Are they going to be the same for most Space Marines? I would hope so, but I don't really know that they are. If so, that's not hard to eventually remember, but it doesn't change that there are 3 new stats and I use them for different checks. When do I roll against each stat? I will guarantee that I will have to read the rule the first several times each game when the check(s) comes up. Why on earth would they add this, which is to me, needless complexity. Nostalgia? No thanks.

We don't know right now how they handle the other rules. I played the older 40k rules too, but HH 2.0 is really a mess regarding special rules with even more special rules, unit sub-types and sub-sub-types etc. . Sorry, but no one played this edition without frequenting the rulebook and Libers every time in the first games.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do ask how much more complex this actually is?

Sure, at first we’ll find ourselves “wait, do I take that against my Cl or my WP”. At least in the early days.

And we’re yet to find out what a Fail might cause - though that seems to be coming tomorrow.

But they’re all just 2D6, roll lower than stat.

If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

More importantly imho, I would much rather have Ld 12 or Cl 12 than faff around with three reference books to figure out what this guy’s specific flavour of fearlessness does.

I wouldn't play 30K for mass battles with Legions Imperialis sitting right next to it.

Saying that, I have previously considered using Rogue Trader as an alternative ruleset to 30K, but haven't been inspired enough to splash out on the models to host a game. Seeing the reintroduction of old stats makes me wonder if GW might be looking to make 30K more accessible as a skirmish-battle size game. They already have Zone Mortalis, but that was tacked on rather than baked into the core rules.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
More importantly imho, I would much rather have Ld 12 or Cl 12 than faff around with three reference books to figure out what this guy’s specific flavour of fearlessness does.

Bold of you to assume GW won't invent 3 flavours of debuff immunity for each new stat

beast_gts wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
They've also got the Centurion listed as I1 and the Sergeant as A1, so I'm guessing they're mistakes.

Centurion has been updated to I5 - Tech-Thralls & Sergeant unchanged.

I think the Sergeant thing may be pointing to the return of the difference between Sergeants and Veteran Sergeants.

SamusDrake wrote:
I wouldn't play 30K for mass battles with Legions Imperialis sitting right next to it.

Saying that, I have previously considered using Rogue Trader as an alternative ruleset to 30K, but haven't been inspired enough to splash out on the models to host a game. Seeing the reintroduction of old stats makes me wonder if GW might be looking to make 30K more accessible as a skirmish-battle size game. They already have Zone Mortalis, but that was tacked on rather than baked into the core rules.

Then they need to encourage smaller games. The only reason 3k became normal is due to the LoW cap. Scrap that in some capacity and it becomes feasible to play smaller games without complaints of lack of primarchs etc.

Its also to give people room to field multiple 20-man squads of marines and still have points for tanks and support.

Remember the good old days, when there were two camps?

1. GW is just going to release a 2.5 Edition of cleaned up rules (Like Necromunda).

2. GW is going to streamline the heck out of the game, and make it like 10th Edition 40k.

Did anyone see this nightmare fuel of rules coming? I sure as hell didnt.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Remember the good old days, when there were two camps?

1. GW is just going to release a 2.5 Edition of cleaned up rules (Like Necromunda).

2. GW is going to streamline the heck out of the game, and make it like 10th Edition 40k.

Did anyone see this nightmare fuel of rules coming? I sure as hell didnt.

Yes. I was hoping they'd do some clean up, wether that was as a 2.5 or 3.0 - but I'm not at all surprised by things getting worse.

I think some of this teeth-gnashing is a bit premature. I am prepared to wait and see whether these additional stats are as cumbersome as many seem to think they are. And after all, Heresy players tend to argue that it's a better game precisely because it's more granular than WH40k. It still does not look to me as though this is a major re-work of the game, and that was my greatest concern. If they haven't effed-up the army lists, and (as seems to be the case) vehicles still work essentially as they did, then it seems to me that we may have come through mostly unscathed.

 Snord wrote:
I think some of this teeth-gnashing is a bit premature. I am prepared to wait and see whether these additional stats are as cumbersome as many seem to think they are.

Well, they were a bit cumbersome the last time they were in the game so I doubt they'll be any better here 30+ years on.

I'm with Snord. I'll see how the new rules are, and if they suck I'll play 2.0 with Panoptica PDF that actually fixes the game. I feel alot of the Heresy community will do this if this is the case. And if this is a 3 year new edition cycle I believe the community will just straight up not buy into that. Nobody wants that.

I'm not unhappy with what I've seen so far. Hopefully they show a nice array of weapons later this week

Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

ccs wrote:
Well, they were a bit cumbersome the last time they were in the game so I doubt they'll be any better here 30+ years on.

True enough, but Rogue Trader was cumbersome from every angle. The HH rules are ultimately based on 3rd Edition, which was a far more streamlined rule set. Maybe (maybe) adding a few additional stats won't make any material difference to the flow of the game. I'm trying to be positive here, in the face of the reality that we have a new edition of HH before most players wanted it.

All in the execution.

I like the concept of different mental stats. It adds design space for greater difference in unit reliability.

But it all depends on what failing a given test means - and how often that might come up.

For instance? Tech-Thralls have CL12, WP4, INT4. But thus far, we don’t know what that actually means for them.

We’re told WP is for psychic shenanigans - but not exactly how. Nor do we currently have any idea what psychic powers are going to look like here.

We don’t know how often an INT test is going to come up. Or CL for that matter.

Vorian wrote:
Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

That the majority of the game (marines) are mostly the same number across the board for all these stats. There will be instances of minor variance. There are largely all thing sthat could have been tested against the LD stat as was, or a rule that existed in isolation rather than having to be on every profile.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

Is it adding time to your game instead of reducing it, though? I'd say yes.

Was there any grievances that HH games were too fast?

I think its a great addition to stop one stat handling so many different situations that may occur in the new edition.

so Intelligence sounds like it will be used for possibly mission objectives and other things, if we still just used straight LD on that then all kinds of things you wouldn't expect to know how to do it are amazing.

I like the ability to distinguish a units ability and resistance vs falling back, pinning, psychic attack and objective/repair work that isn't one stat fits all. also stops debuffs to said Ld just screwing over a random stat (Psykers blowing up at night more)

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If that’s adding significant time to your game? I dunno what to say.

Is it adding time to your game instead of reducing it, though? I'd say yes.

Was there any grievances that HH games were too fast?

Well, we don’t know right now. But a WP, CL or INT test we know work the same as LD. Roll 2d6, aiming for equal to or lower than your stat. That’s not adding much time at all.

Now, if they’re frequent checks? Sure. But those saying it might make the difference between completing a game in 2 hours and not? I feel that’s a bit of a stretch. And apologies for being a phallus? A flaw of the tournament system which inflicts hard time limits on a game not designed for hard time limits.

Even in Necromunda 4 is too many, tho there I don't begrudge Intelligence, in a sci-fi gang of 10 you definitely want to know who hacks terminals and fixes guns the quickest just as much as who punches the hardest. Here you really don't need a stat for that, because it's a specialist job and the specialist can have the ability to do it and everyone else can suck the same at it with no need to gum up the already long statline. Same with Willpower.

The other two COULD be fine as "ability to give and follow orders" and "determination and bravery" but they're not, they're this weird overlapping and contradicting mishmash. And honestly if you remove all the morale stuff from Leadership you might as well also make Leadership a specialist ability of HQs and now you're back to a single morale stat. Wow it's almost as if GW had a thought out reason for removing these stats 30 years ago but doesn't have a thought out reason for bringing them back, just filler for filler's sake.

Again, we don’t know that.

INT could be used for Objective Scoring for instance. In which case, it would absolutely matter and factor into army building. To continue with Tech-Thralls, it may turn out they’re suited to camping on certain objectives. But any which involve my currently hypothetical INT test may be ones for the Thallaxi to go after.

I know I’m probably sounding like a bore right now, but seriously. It’s all going to be in the execution, and we’re far from having sufficient info or experience to make any kind of judgement.

Dudeface wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Are people saying they don't want things like suppression, vehicle fixing and psychic testing at all - or that looking up a different number to do the test is going to be very time consuming?

I just can't follow where all this extra faff is coming from

That the majority of the game (marines) are mostly the same number across the board for all these stats. There will be instances of minor variance. There are largely all thing sthat could have been tested against the LD stat as was, or a rule that existed in isolation rather than having to be on every profile.

So, what's the problem? This seems pretty minor.

If the changes are minor and don't actually change anything of substance, then the changes didn't need to be made but the Corporate Wheel decided 3 year cycles are what print money so 3 year cycle it is.

 Gert wrote:
If the changes are minor and don't actually change anything of substance, then the changes didn't need to be made but the Corporate Wheel decided 3 year cycles are what print money so 3 year cycle it is.

I mean, that's pretty much a given, because, you know... corporations wanna corporate. And the writing's on the wall already about that, GW has lighted the sky with their intentions about this.

Still, they could probably have sold it anyways with almost no changes whatsoever, if nothing else because the rules are inside a big box full of new minis, so hopefully the design team has also a say.

So far the hints don't fill me with joy, but eh.