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.

Are we sure that Saturnine thing up on the left is a Dreadnought?
It looks more like a Knight....

With these weapon profiles and the Statuses Updates this actually sounds and looks like a totally different game merely inspired by old Warhammer 40K rules, whatever GW is saying about it.
Whether that's good or bad we need to see but all the talk of "this is still the game you know and love" looks quite unnecessary and like PR speech when they actually changed the whole thing and made something like a mishmash of HH 2nd and 40K 10th.

I wouldn't be surprised if they change vehicle AV to flat T values. Just like they did with 8th 40k and beyond. I guess v4 will bring us mortal wounds and all those critical damages
To be honest, the more I look into it, the more it feels like they are trying to re-invent a bicycle.

The more i look at it, the more i think ill be sticking to 2nd edition. It should be easy enough to backport rules for saturnine stuff and the handful of new units theyll probably release this edition.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The more i look at it, the more i think ill be sticking to 2nd edition. It should be easy enough to backport rules for saturnine stuff and the handful of new units theyll probably release this edition.

I'd really like a lil old community edition, like below 20 pages of rules changes should cover it.

For Saturnine, Liber Centura is a decent place to start, IIRC they basically went with just W3 and Battle Hardened (1), but of course they didn't anticipate everyone having plasma/disintegrator cannons.

 Gert wrote:
I'm disappointed because having had a proper look, the weapon stuff is not bad rules.

I'm still not convinced on the whole "4 leaderships" thing mind.

But getting dragged back into the 3 year cycle is too much of a cross to carry.

This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

Poor writing makes the game imbalanced, not the frequency of updates. But doing full rewrites instead of polishing what's there will keep it imbalanced.

Will be interresting to see where they take this edition when it comes to models.
Second edition have been the great move to plastic with some more or less "lojal to the original" remakes.

Now, saturnine models is new territory for designing new plastic stuff (they really dont look like the original Sat termie, and even the mk 2 armour looks way more hi-tech than the studded bucket look I would have expected). So after breachers and upscale of terminator patterns, where will they go?
New stuff they pretend was always there, or bringing plastic to the resin legion specific units (all those legendary units that will look incredibly silly next to the upscaled plastic).

Well for one we're still missing literally the entire Fast Attack section except jetbikes. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the statement remained true by the end of 3rd edition, but let's hope.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well…who knows? Were told the intent, but are yet to see the practice.

Also, please define bloat. As a lot of the time, it seems to be used when they mean “here’s a change I don’t like”.

"bloat" implies getting bigger. and that is happening this edition (although i quite like the change to leadership stats; besides the point). so a fair point can be made about bloat in some cases... but this choice is just changing a name. nothing is getting longer or more belaboured because of these changes

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Sure it doesn't, but none of the games that have gone on three-year cycles have left them. Main systems get 3-year cycles, GW considers HH a main system.

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

A new edition rewritten every three years does not a healthier game make. All it does is force people to rebuy £30-40 books every three years and relearn a game that a large number of people might rarely play (as in once a month).
FAQs or clean-ups can do the same thing without also forcing people to relearn the game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

Poor writing makes the game imbalanced, not the frequency of updates. But doing full rewrites instead of polishing what's there will keep it imbalanced.

Frequency of updates can at least lead to corrective action. Poor writing will never go away, because games are complex and GW's approach is too dynamic vs something like Battletech that hasn't really changed in 40 years. If a company is going to try to be dynamic and keep games fresh and new, it needs to have a more regular cycle of updates/FAQs, or the game can stay unhealthy for too long driving away players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
This is the first edition change after a major overhaul. Once does not make a trend. Specialist games seem to be mostly free of that cycle.

Sure it doesn't, but none of the games that have gone on three-year cycles have left them. Main systems get 3-year cycles, GW considers HH a main system.

Even still, it makes for a (theoretically) healthier game. I remember long ago when edition changes didn't come often, Codex updates even less so. It made the game stale and imbalanced.

A new edition rewritten every three years does not a healthier game make. All it does is force people to rebuy £30-40 books every three years and relearn a game that a large number of people might rarely play (as in once a month).
FAQs or clean-ups can do the same thing without also forcing people to relearn the game.

We can put that to a test relatively soon with The Old World when it hits 3 years. Then we will have a good sample size to work with.

FAQs and clean-ups don't generate sales though and we know that GW's focus is sales. Not that I love that, but I recognize that as a driver of their dynamic model. And I wouldn't call this "re-learning". The jump from 7th to 8th in 40k or from WHFB to AOS was a more significant change than this appears to be, where that was genuinely re-learning. This is just a tweak to very familiar concepts.

battletech is hardly balanced either. It's 'balance' is a lack of force orgs, but everyone knows there are killer mechs and trash mechs, and most tournies these days do availability limits which effectively means you better paint your guys non descript or in the right colors if you wanna win

The older more groggy games just aren't good at balancing. It's gak that embraces new design paradigms with a focus on competition.

But also a balanced competitive game requires regular updates to shift metas and keep the list building exciting or it will die. There's a reason 40k updates so frequently, and that's a legacy of competitive gaming, even if 40k is too hobbled by legacy design to be truly great for it.

ok, so while a 3 year churn is good for competitive gaming, I thought HH was a rivet counter's game, forging the narrative and all that instead?

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
FAQs and clean-ups don't generate sales though and we know that GW's focus is sales. Not that I love that, but I recognize that as a driver of their dynamic model. And I wouldn't call this "re-learning". The jump from 7th to 8th in 40k or from WHFB to AOS was a more significant change than this appears to be, where that was genuinely re-learning. This is just a tweak to very familiar concepts.

A clean-up ruleset would be one similar to the original Age of Darkness ruleset (the red one). It didn't add any new concepts that weren't already in the game, but it did tidy up the bigger issues with balance and fixed some rather problematic items *cough*Invisibility*cough*.

HH did not need a whole new edition only three years in, and just because you know the decision was made to drive sales, that doesn't make it the right thing to do for the system, which is what people here are saying. This isn't the same situation as HH1, which had 6 main books before its clean-up rule set was released.

You can also call it whatever you want, I can't use the books I've had for barely 3 years to play this new edition, so yes, it is learning a new edition. Stats, tactics, synergies, army construction, reactions, all of this needs to be learned anew to match the rules of the new edition. That's time a lot of people won't have. The system didn't need rebuilding from the ground up and it didn't need changes like we've seen thus far to fix some of the issues in HH2 so ultimately there is no reason for this edition to exist beyond "Buy Product" which a large number of players are finding to be a bit of a joke.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I suspect the vehicle damage table might be gone. Note how the article points out that a D6 melta can pop a Predator in one shot through hull points. And note how the lascannon paragraph hints their optimal target are Termies and doesn't mention vehicles at all - possibly because a D2 hit is just a D2 hit with no possibility of causing a bigger effect.

...ugh. I kinda hate that.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

As for the rest? Again, we don’t know a great deal about the overall implementation. It might be awful, it might be great. It might be merely acceptable.

A reasonable response?! Inconceivable in a Horus Heresy thread.

But seriously, I am with you. We have been drip fed very little so far. Folks should be a bit more patient before making sweeping assumptions.

Can anyone remember the last (or any recent) example(s) of a GW rumour/preview displeasing people, other people going WAIT AND SEE, and then the final result mellowing out the disappointed crowd by not being bad as they expected?

Legit question! I can only remember the times people were vindicated, including two examples from this exact same release.

WAIT AND SEE, it might just be a boxed set and not a new edition
WAIT AND SEE, the new edition might be mild revision and not a big shakeup

The weapons preview put the nail in it.
This is not the same game.
It is a new game with similar concepts and a boatload of new ideas and rehashed ideas slapped on top.

Renaming characteristics, breaking apart others, and adding new/old ones is too much to claim its the same game.
The Challenge Phase they mentioned further distances it from the previous incarnation.

Horus Heresy didn't need that.
At this point, there's temptation to go all the way back to the Red book version.

I am so excited by the new edition that I ran out & bought the Liber Mechanicum for HH2ed.
So I now have all the books for all the forces I have any interest in.
Most future models will be things that already have rules, at least for a bit.
Boarding Marines, Fellblade, MkII Assaults, Tarantula, Rapier, etc.
I am sure there is already a profile good to proxy whatever the Mechanicum infantry preview is.

The rules treadmill can die in a fire.
I'm done with it.
Now the clock starts for an all plastic Storm Eagle/ Fire Raptor kit...

stratigo wrote:
battletech is hardly balanced either. It's 'balance' is a lack of force orgs, but everyone knows there are killer mechs and trash mechs, and most tournies these days do availability limits which effectively means you better paint your guys non descript or in the right colors if you wanna win

The older more groggy games just aren't good at balancing. It's gak that embraces new design paradigms with a focus on competition.

But also a balanced competitive game requires regular updates to shift metas and keep the list building exciting or it will die. There's a reason 40k updates so frequently, and that's a legacy of competitive gaming, even if 40k is too hobbled by legacy design to be truly great for it.

I used Battletech more as an example of a non-dynamic ruleset than about balance. It is a mostly narrative game, so the balance isn't perfect when the lore of some Mechs is that they actually suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
FAQs and clean-ups don't generate sales though and we know that GW's focus is sales. Not that I love that, but I recognize that as a driver of their dynamic model. And I wouldn't call this "re-learning". The jump from 7th to 8th in 40k or from WHFB to AOS was a more significant change than this appears to be, where that was genuinely re-learning. This is just a tweak to very familiar concepts.

A clean-up ruleset would be one similar to the original Age of Darkness ruleset (the red one). It didn't add any new concepts that weren't already in the game, but it did tidy up the bigger issues with balance and fixed some rather problematic items *cough*Invisibility*cough*.

HH did not need a whole new edition only three years in, and just because you know the decision was made to drive sales, that doesn't make it the right thing to do for the system, which is what people here are saying. This isn't the same situation as HH1, which had 6 main books before its clean-up rule set was released.

You can also call it whatever you want, I can't use the books I've had for barely 3 years to play this new edition, so yes, it is learning a new edition. Stats, tactics, synergies, army construction, reactions, all of this needs to be learned anew to match the rules of the new edition. That's time a lot of people won't have. The system didn't need rebuilding from the ground up and it didn't need changes like we've seen thus far to fix some of the issues in HH2 so ultimately there is no reason for this edition to exist beyond "Buy Product" which a large number of players are finding to be a bit of a joke.

Yeah, plenty of valid criticism there. But alas, until we aren't in a for-profit world, the "buy product" thing is the real driver behind everything. And not one I excuse, but one I understand. And to a degree we have to play along or the game itself dies.

Also, isn't the idea of learning new strats, tactics, synergies, and all that fun? I think it is. Games get stale. Not every edition or new idea is going to be a winner, but we shouldn't lament change when it comes along just because sometimes things aren't perfect. Basically, at that point, why play at all? If it isn't fun, keep playing the edition you love.

Sorry, rambling now, but I am just perplexed by all the endless negativity and doom & gloom.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Also, isn't the idea of learning new strats, tactics, synergies, and all that fun? I think it is. Games get stale. Not every edition or new idea is going to be a winner, but we shouldn't lament change when it comes along just because sometimes things aren't perfect. Basically, at that point, why play at all?

Again, this isn't about change being bad, it's about the pace. I don't mind the weapon rules from today, I just don't think they're so drastically needed that it had to be implemented right now. An FAQ and 2 more years of HH2 would have been fine enough. Five years is long enough to allow for the rules to settle and an FAQ to poke more holes that can be addressed with a new edition.

I too found myself eying up the HH2 Libers I don’t have, complete the set and sit the churn out.
No cheap ones on eBay yet……

How long has MKVI been $84? MKIII are $79. Did they just restock them and increase the price? They were just out of stock a couple days ago

So kind of dumb question and probably in the we do not know area, but with Melta, is the Melta (X) the range, or the damage number? Their example uses 6 for both the range and the damage, so I have no clue if melta is a fixed range/half range as it always has been, in which case the X is the damage, or if it always multiplies damage by 2, in which case the X is range. They specifically call out doubling the damage 3 up to 6, but I'm unsure if that is because this specific example just lined up that way or not...

 skrulnik wrote:
The weapons preview put the nail in it.
This is not the same game.
It is a new game with similar concepts and a boatload of new ideas and rehashed ideas slapped on top.

Renaming characteristics, breaking apart others, and adding new/old ones is too much to claim its the same game.
The Challenge Phase they mentioned further distances it from the previous incarnation.

Horus Heresy didn't need that.
At this point, there's temptation to go all the way back to the Red book version.

I am so excited by the new edition that I ran out & bought the Liber Mechanicum for HH2ed.
So I now have all the books for all the forces I have any interest in.
Most future models will be things that already have rules, at least for a bit.
Boarding Marines, Fellblade, MkII Assaults, Tarantula, Rapier, etc.
I am sure there is already a profile good to proxy whatever the Mechanicum infantry preview is.

The rules treadmill can die in a fire.
I'm done with it.
Now the clock starts for an all plastic Storm Eagle/ Fire Raptor kit...

Yes, exactly this. When the news dropped it was HH 3.0, and not a 2.5 “cleanup”, I picked up the 2 Liber (Mechanicus and Imperialis) books I didn’t have, and the Martian Civil War campaign book, to complete my HH2.0 collection, and call it a day. Downloaded their FAQ/errata sheets and all set. I have a stack of stuff to build, I don’t need the Saturnine guys, and in my admittedly small group of garagehammer friends, HH2.0 is enough to keep us going.

Good luck to everyone who wants to deal with the churn, but having come back to 40K at the tail end of 7th, and very enthusiastically adopting 8th Ed, when 10th came round, the burnout hit and I realised that for me, at least, settling on an edition you are happy with - and have like-minded folk to game with - is the way forward.

Hopefully, we’ll see some legion-specific units redone in plastic, and that will scratch my hobby itch going forward.

I wish I could present some compelling arguments to counter the comments above - I want to think that these changes are improvements. But the points made about the lack of necessity for such a major overhaul, particularly so soon after the last edition dropped, are impossible to dispute. Nor can I claim to have much faith in GW’s judgment when it comes to tinkering with their rules - they (IMO) gutted WH40k of most of the features I liked in the course of ‘improving’, and it’s no longer really a war game. And I say that as someone who stayed with that game for 9 editions including RT.

Another issue with churning out editions is that there is even less time for playtesting the changes. We know that this has always been one of GW’s weaknesses, and it’s likely to have been exacerbated by their increased secrecy. These new rules will likely have been locked in several months ago. I just don’t believe that they can have been play-tested with any degree of rigour.

These is one example of a game that started off being regarded as a terrible idea and which proved to be successful, and that’s AoS. Although it seems to have faded somewhat in the face of WtOW’s popularity. So there is still some basis for being less pessimistic about the new edition. I’ve also seen some (cautiously) positive reactions to the changes from some of the YouTube people who focus on HH.

I’m not going to complete my 2nd Edition book collection (I only have the rulebook and the 2 Legion books). I’ll give the new edition a go, although I might skip the boxed set. The qualification to this is that if they eventually invalidate half the models I’ve done I might just bail.

 Fifty wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:
Well, the preview was preponed so I guess they have to stretch their planned content.

anteponed?

I've never seen preponed outside of India, I kind of like the word

 kurhanik wrote:
So kind of dumb question and probably in the we do not know area, but with Melta, is the Melta (X) the range, or the damage number? Their example uses 6 for both the range and the damage, so I have no clue if melta is a fixed range/half range as it always has been, in which case the X is the damage, or if it always multiplies damage by 2, in which case the X is range. They specifically call out doubling the damage 3 up to 6, but I'm unsure if that is because this specific example just lined up that way or not...

I understood the number as saying in what range you get armourbane. And armourbane doubles your damage against vehicles. So I'll assume a heavy melta will be Melta(12) and having a range of 24". It opens up space to have weapons with 18" range and Melta in 12", or 30" range and Melta in 6" or whatever.

Is anyone else feeling like this is slowly looking like modern 40k advanced?

kind of always was

I guess they tried to be more of their own with 2nd Edition and now are going back to what worked before

which makes sense from a sales point of view to catch those who like current 40k and want to fall back to something similar with more lore when the new Edition comes

Dudeface wrote:
Is anyone else feeling like this is slowly looking like modern 40k advanced?

A little bit yea

Maybe it's time each of writes their own edition