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.

They could have sold that box for the same price with no book, just a photocopied page of Saturnine stats for 2.0, honestly.

Spend the development time on polishing 2.0 with a free pdf, and end up with a healthy game and player base.

But we have to churn, churn, churn. Bleed out and discard old fools, there's a new one born every minute.

Vorian wrote:

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.

It's just more for the sakes of more. Either it's a bunch of extra tests for extra stats with extra USRs and rules that interact with them, bloating the game and mental load. Or they're a niche nothing burger that didn't need adding.

Ironically these would be better in 40k where there's a greater diversity of profiles. But splitting them out when most of the game will sit on a 7/7/7/7 profile is sort of pointless.

Looks like standard GW mo. "Let's bloat to obscure all the randomness and balance issues. Will it make players spend more time on leafing through rulebooks checking stats and rules than playing? Who cares!?"

Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

Mod edit - there are better ways of expressing yourself, this was not it.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

Cyel wrote:
Looks like standard GW mo. "Let's bloat to obscure all the randomness and balance issues. Will it make players spend more time on leafing through rulebooks checking stats and rules than playing? Who cares!?"

Have you even played 2nd Ed Heresy?

Because thanks to some really poor layout, and no index or contents, flipping around trying to find special rules is the main criticism for accessibility.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

The fondness some of you have for whinging is babyish, pathetic and, honestly, embarassing.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

The problem is rules are GW's weakest area.
And with the 3 year cycle and with many of dakka's userbase being older gamers - you're up against a wall of people who have been through multiple edition changes across multiple different games. Basically people have spotted the patterns in how GW behaves with rules and thus predictions are based not on blind hope (we've all had that) but on tried and tested and repeated rules editions.

It's actually a breath of fresh air when we got the Old World Rules as we have and the original launch edition of the new Necromunda and Warcry.

There is talent there in GW but it gets muddied with underfunding on the rules; too short a timescale; the edition churn and management directives.

 Overread wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

The fondness some of you have for whinging is babyish, pathetic and, honestly, embarassing.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

The problem is rules are GW's weakest area.
And with the 3 year cycle and with many of dakka's userbase being older gamers - you're up against a wall of people who have been through multiple edition changes across multiple different games. Basically people have spotted the patterns in how GW behaves with rules and thus predictions are based not on blind hope (we've all had that) but on tried and tested and repeated rules editions.

It's actually a breath of fresh air when we got the Old World Rules as we have and the original launch edition of the new Necromunda and Warcry.

There is talent there in GW but it gets muddied with underfunding on the rules; too short a timescale; the edition churn and management directives.

I've been playing since the end of Rogue Trader so, despite a gap for university, I've experienced plenty of edition updates.

There is an alarming tendency to doom-monger the future whilst looking back with rose-tinted specs at what has come before. People wanted 2.5 rather than 3.0, me included, but that doesn't mean that 2.0 was perfect. Indeed, the desire to see 2.5 is due to the fact that people know 2.0 has numerous flaws. One of those issues was the over-bundance of special rules, spread across multiple books and without common sense applied as to how to decide which book to look in. Advanced characteristics and a daage stat for weapons are a way to actually streamline the numerous special rules, whilst also doing exactly what the article points out about stats for techmarines, masters of signal and psykers all working in a slightly different way.

People worry at the start of every edition. Some editions make things better, others make them worse. In my experience (which, as I say, is extensive) the problems more commonly come during editions, not at the start. 7th edition, for example, was a great rule set, ruined by so-called "Decurions". 8th edition with its indices was a decent ruleset ruined by introducing too many stratagems.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet. Prophecies of the sky falling in are absurd.

The fondness some of you have for whinging is babyish, pathetic and, honestly, embarassing.

Can we please just discuss the changes in a hopeful way? Cautious, perhaps, but at this stage do we need and can we justify hyperbole like "bloat," "churn" and "nightmare fuel."

Come on now, the entire online warhammer community is known for whinging. Everywhere. About everything.

The HH community is well renowned for a stereotype of "back in my day" rivet counters who are hostile to anything that isn't textbook to the era and demand impeccable hobbling to their standards or you get out.

The point is those are stereotypes and whilst they probably have basis in reality somewhere, there's still a mixture of opinions and experiences to lean on.

You want to be excited about a multitude of extra stats, then feel free to do so. It doesn’t mean everyone has to agree.

Largely any discussion that isn't "GW suck and I hate them so these rules suck", with any real merit or willingness to debate is good discussion imo.

We've at least had some indication that rules indexing is improving - guns have keywords. That means they could be alphabetized rather than sorted by technology type.

Dudeface wrote:
Come on now, the entire online warhammer community is known for whinging. Everywhere. About everything.

The HH community is well renowned for a stereotype of "back in my day" rivet counters who are hostile to anything that isn't textbook to the era and demand impeccable hobbling to their standards or you get out.

The point is those are stereotypes and whilst they probably have basis in reality somewhere, there's still a mixture of opinions and experiences to lean on.

You want to be excited about a multitude of extra stats, then feel free to do so. It doesn’t mean everyone has to agree.

Largely any discussion that isn't "GW suck and I hate them so these rules suck", with any real merit or willingness to debate is good discussion imo.

Honestly, the HH whatsapp groups I am in are a lot better than here. And I avoid anything to do with TOW, so I avoid the worst of the whinging.

I wouldn't say I'm excited about a few extra stats (hardly a multitude) but I'm curious to know more and believe it could work. I'm fine with people who are worried, but there are a bunch of people doing exactly what you say - "GW suck and I hate them so these rules suck." If we get the game and it turns out to be gak, I'll be fine to say so. But we've had a tiny glimpse so far, and the hyperbolic language I highlighted above were all picked from recent posts here.

Well, to do something constructive I checked out the 2.0 community edition (Liber Panoptica) and I still hate that, too. It's hundreds of pages of material that is indexed worse than the actual HH books and adds way too much gak it doesn't need to.

The downside of no page limits is the Liber Panoptica.

 Fifty wrote:
The downside of no page limits is the Liber Panoptica.

Hardly its only downside....

I'm just waiting to see the actual rules interactions before I totally give up on this game. The stuff they've previewed has not filled me with confidence or anything remotely joyous.

Still love the minis and will continue with them sans game if need be.

 Fifty wrote:
Honestly, I barely post here any more, but sticking to Heresy sections of this forum has eliminated the worst of the whinging and doom-mongering that DakkaDakka is literally notorious for. This new edition though, seems to have brought out the absolute worst in this place.

Not even close. That was the dawning of 40k 10e.

 Fifty wrote:
Adding stats in order to eliminate special rules seems fine to me, and even if it isn't, no-one can possibly know yet.

Well, aside from the handful of us that were there the last time these stats existed. Our low expectations are based on experience. MAYBE I'll be surprised. But I doubt it.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ainqvvwt/rules-in-the-age-of-darkness-what-are-tactical-statuses/

Ah yes,

4 stats, with 4 affects, from 4 statuses with new USRs and lots dont make sense. Seemingly you can be afflicted with multiple and need multiple leadership tests against multiple stats each turn.

Doesn’t seem terribly complex to me?

Flame Weapons being able to Route units is something like the sound of, akin to setting individuals alight in 2nd Ed 40K and original Necromunda.

Sounds like tactical status might also impact or outright prevent Reactions, which also sounds nice.

As many can guess, I don't have much faith in GW pulling this off well, but I am actually an enormous fan of suppression in all its forms. It's always the states in between "perfectly fine" and "dead" when models are the most human and relatable. Oh and it makes for good tactics, too.

And snipers locking an enemy into position but flamers making them fall back sounds pretty tasty. The payoff might be worth the mental load here.

It remains to be seen whether we still also have the secret additional forms of suppression like Blinded and Concussed.

Giving weapons more nuance and ways to impact the battlefield beyond raw damage seems like a great move. It feels like a big swing away from the blander direction of the mainline games.

Those rules sound promising, but I still need the whole picture - it's GW after all.

I'd be nice to see standard flamers on the table occasionally. Not a weapon you see a lot. Wonder if Interemptors will be able to Rout with their plasma burners.

What will be really interesting is if they give massed tacticals some version of suppression. I'd love to see squads of say... 15+ tacticals being able to inflict suppression on a rapid fire. And an even greater effect if you Fury of the Legion. Because nothing says "gak, hit the deck!" like 60 bolter rounds coming your way. Same goes for Heavy Bolter squads. 30+ heavy bolter shots should definitely be able to keep heads down.
It might also give certain consuls like the Armistos a new lease on life if he can dole out Tactical Statuses. Given he's the heavy weapon expert consul, it's make thematic sense.

Yeah, I agree. Proof is in the pudding of course, but weapons having implementation beyond simple Kill Power sounds good for variety and challenge.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Giving weapons more nuance and ways to impact the battlefield beyond raw damage seems like a great move. It feels like a big swing away from the blander direction of the mainline games.

Agreed and it also means that you've got way more variety in how your units perform on the table. 40K and AoS have both felt more bland weapon wise as GW has stripped out choices and options; but also filled them with things like more mortal wounds at which point most weapons are purely running on damage alone.


The big risk with the HH is if it ends up relying on you checking multiple pages to make these new systems work. Or worse if they end up being scattershot over several books.
If its something that can be referenced quickly and easily that makes a massive difference.

Someone needs to make a pdf HH: Datasheet edition

 Overread wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Giving weapons more nuance and ways to impact the battlefield beyond raw damage seems like a great move. It feels like a big swing away from the blander direction of the mainline games.

Agreed and it also means that you've got way more variety in how your units perform on the table. 40K and AoS have both felt more bland weapon wise as GW has stripped out choices and options; but also filled them with things like more mortal wounds at which point most weapons are purely running on damage alone.


The big risk with the HH is if it ends up relying on you checking multiple pages to make these new systems work. Or worse if they end up being scattershot over several books.
If its something that can be referenced quickly and easily that makes a massive difference.

That is the concern for me - conceptually I'm ok with it, whether GW can do it reasonably in a manner that isn't faff for faffs sakes? Who knows

I expect even if GW fails to make these easy to navigate, the community will pick up the slack with various cheat sheets. They usually do. So as long as the rules work well, should be good. I'm excited for the level of granularity I've seen so far. Definitely going to make HH feel very different from AOS and 40k.

There is always Wahapedia.

Does everyone not just use a list builder like New Recruit and print out your army sheets at this point? I'm currently focusing on TOW and looking back at HH, I'd never play either out of the army books on the table.

Always pen and paper for me.

OLD FARTS UNITE!

I like having paper printouts as well, but I'll print my list from a builder. GW rulebooks are terrible for actually playing at the table across the board.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Does everyone not just use a list builder like New Recruit and print out your army sheets at this point? I'm currently focusing on TOW and looking back at HH, I'd never play either out of the army books on the table.

It depends how many pages of reference I want I guess, usually I just use an app.