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.

 Sotahullu wrote:
It was not the visions of future that drove Konrad mad, it was reading too much doomposting here.

When can we expect an Imperial Assassin to show up and finish us off?

...Honestly, are the new rules bad, or just different than what was expected/wanted?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
It was not the visions of future that drove Konrad mad, it was reading too much doomposting here.

When can we expect an Imperial Assassin to show up and finish us off?

...Honestly, are the new rules bad, or just different than what was expected/wanted?

I think most of us were expecting a tweak here, a number change there, and maybe a new fluffy addition for a more narrative feel.

Definitely not a rework for the sake of a rework. I enjoy FOCs, but this seems overdone.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
...Honestly, are the new rules bad, or just different than what was expected/wanted?

This is a significant amount of change for the game, a change that many (including myself) believe is completely unnecessary and adds nothing of value or substance.

The significant difference between the changes from 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd is the relatively small amount of time between them. For context, I went through 6 years of high school and 5 years of higher education (give or take a few months) before HH1 swapped to HH2. By this point, all the Legions had rules, the Primarchs had models, a mid-edition rules cleanup had occurred, and we even had the first plastic HH models. I had gone from Emperor's Children, to Iron Warriors, to Cults & Militia, to Ruinstorm Daemons, back to Iron Warriors, and had just started a Shattered Legions project when the news of HH2 rolled out.
Ultimately, the game was old, and a refresh at that point IMO was welcome.
There were still weird choices with HH2, but that is par for the course with any edition change; nobody likes everything.

This is different. HH2 isn't old; there have been numerous model updates, but not nearly enough new units for the various factions to warrant a redo of the army books. An FAQ or a rules cleanup was all that was needed to fix some of the more prevalent issues with the system and to give a balance tweak.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
It was not the visions of future that drove Konrad mad, it was reading too much doomposting here.

When can we expect an Imperial Assassin to show up and finish us off?

...Honestly, are the new rules bad, or just different than what was expected/wanted?

I was all in on a new edition a month ago, I wasn't super bothered but my friends were and I liked the older 40k rules well enough.

The saturnine box looked amazing, so far so good. Then we get the preview and the already heavy rules set that's been forcibly adapted to handle swarms of marines, gets bogged down with more bolt on stats for arbitrary faff imo.

Whole sections of the game continue this trend of complexity for the sakes of it to appeal to "crunch" lovers. The best bits are the tactical status that clearly dont need 4 stats the vehicle damage changes. The rest is just word salad changes for the sakes of adding more stuff to me.

As a result I cancelled my register of interest, I have no want to play a game that's like joining a book club at this stage.

Welcome to modern GW.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
...Honestly, are the new rules bad, or just different than what was expected/wanted?

well, it is a new game and in that way at best a sidegrade instead of an upgrade
because if you change to much any past experience in balancing and design is meaningless and you start again from scratch but also for the players
so it will take the next 6-12 months to figure the game out so we can tell what is good or bad and what need to be changed so a balance update in 12-18 months will make it a game but by that time we are already thru half of its lifetime and of 4th isn't an update but again a new instead we are starting from scratch again

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
It was not the visions of future that drove Konrad mad, it was reading too much doomposting here.

When can we expect an Imperial Assassin to show up and finish us off?

...Honestly, are the new rules bad, or just different than what was expected/wanted?

Well, apparently it takes 6 pages to tell you how to do a Challenge.... That's not good. And that's just one bit of the game.

 Snord wrote:
As with WH40k, the move away from a 'restrictive' FOC might satisfy the players who just want their favourite toys on the table, but it leads to s**t looking armies.

What leads to gak looking armies are WAAAC spammers. If you want a good looking army, you need an army following logical, realistic composition, which FOC was utterly gak in delivering. Really, all it did (along with its cousin, Rule of 3, which for some reason is still bashed by HOC simps despite being utterly identical in practice, go figure) was to try and limit spam a little (in which it mostly failed, thanks to talons/squadrons/etc) but producing anything like viable army, it did not.

Picture, if you will, Iwo Jima movie, in which US marines army consists of 3 guns, 3 sherman tanks, 3 trucks, and 3 Texas class battleships. Oh, and 20 compulsory dudes. And 4 star general commanding the above, because he can punch 4 japanese soldiers in a minute instead of just 3 (but no staff, he just stands alone in the middle and shouts). Which part of it, pray tell, sounds realistic in any way?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
no more Dreadnought Talons. Its literally 1 Dreadnought per HQ taken, and they can be one-shotted by a regular meltagun. I hope nobody bought a lot of Dreadnoughts last edition for some reason.

I like how doomposters act like a meltagun could never oneshot a dread (or, for that matter, stuff like Land Raiders or Spartans, etc) for literal decades. Inconceivable, eh?

Also, thanks for QED how utterly garbage HOC was at doing one job it had.

And who pray tell were these people mass spamming the things (besides WAAAC thatguys, that is) because most HH groups I am aware of and see had very strict limits and taking more than 1-2 was seen as asking for it? Or was the legendary etiquette and self restraint (something something narrative) of HH players just a myth?

after having time to think about the new FOC, my conclusion is that i'll need to see it in practice and how they handle it in the rules (ie. legion/faction specific ones) before i can really judge it, but i don't dislike it. reminds me a bit of what AOS did for 4th edition

 Irbis wrote:

I like how doomposters act like a meltagun could never oneshot a dread (or, for that matter, stuff like Land Raiders or Spartans, etc) for literal decades. Inconceivable, eh?

There was a damage roll involved, as I'm sure you're aware.

Now a meltagun pen will kill a Dreadnought or a Predator 100% of the time... and an intact Land Raider 0% of the time (it won't even be Shaken).

I also don't think there was any time in all of history that you could deep strike with absolute precision and safety inside Melta range.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

People really need to be realistic when it comes to such things. If you get bored and wander off after the first three lines? Perhaps wargaming isn’t for you.

Please remind the class when the last time you actually played a wargame was.

2024. Thanks for playing.

But seriously, none of these rules are truly verbose. The information is there. The information is clear.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
2024. Thanks for playing.

But seriously, none of these rules are truly verbose. The information is there. The information is clear.

Almost universally you could say all of them with fewer words.

Why does it need 9 lines for FNP?

Dudeface wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
2024. Thanks for playing.

But seriously, none of these rules are truly verbose. The information is there. The information is clear.

Almost universally you could say all of them with fewer words.

In your own time then….


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Why does it need 9 lines for FNP?

Because it clearly explains the mechanic, and when that mechanic might crop up.

In short?

What it does.

When it does.

How it does.

Is there any part of that rule that you find confusing or contradictory?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oooh, Fear is back. That’s nice!

Fear never went away mate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In your own time then….

"Feel No Pain (X) - When a model with this rule takes damage from an unsaved wound, it may make a Feel No Pain damage mitigation roll.
This roll is taken with the value of (X).
Feel No Pain rolls may not be taken against an attack of double or greater Strength than the receiving units Toughness."

I had the pleasure of flipping through the 4th edition rulebook earlier this week. It had 22 USRs in total, and they fit on 2 and a half pages.

We must assume Doc didn't know how they worked since they weren't a quarter of a page each and it is not possible to explain them in less.

That’s nice.

But the question remains.

Which of these rules do you find ambiguous, unclear, or contradictory?

Because that’s the only real question here surely? Do you, or do you not, understand the What, How, and When of a given rule in these image, once you’ve read them?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
That FOC is just the return of 7th ed Decurion type detachments.

I had the same PTSD flashback, especially with the thing at the bottom of the page that states that every Detachment has its own Special Rules for that Detachment.

Yeah, these are a little...odd. I read the article a few times and am still a little confused. Hopefully the rules a more clear in the rulebook.

"You may have noticed in the charts above that some slots have a special border around them, marking them as Prime Slots. For each one of these filled by a unit, you may select one of several Prime Advantages, which do all sorts of things from enhancing the fighting prowess of the squad’s Sergeant to bolstering the unit’s Advanced Characteristics."

I wonder if the Prime Advantages will cost points or will they be free buffs.

Free buff. It’s in the leaked pages. Theres a link a page back if you wish to have a read.

I'll play, but only this once.

A model with this special rule uses up X points of Transport Capacity rather than 1 when it embarks on a model with the Transport sub-type.

I also took The Liberty of cleaning up some of the random Capitalization.

What is even going on in that gakshow, why does it keep referring to itself.

And that's with conforming to current terminology. We can shave it down further using commonly understood wargaming syntax

This model uses up X points of Transport Capacity rather than 1 when it embarks on a Transport.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s nice.

But the question remains.

Which of these rules do you find ambiguous, unclear, or contradictory?

Because that’s the only real question here surely? Do you, or do you not, understand the What, How, and When of a given rule in these image, once you’ve read them?

Perfect example, first of all, why the feth do we need "strike groups", it's a weird concept.

Step 4 & 5:
Models declared engaged make attacks for all melee weapons in order of initiate step.

Starting with the active player, group the attacks based on attacking profile in that initiative step, further splitting the group based on target unit and different pools for the bearers weapon skill. Models joining the units are considered separate units for these rules.

To make these attacks, roll the individual groups to complete a hit roll as explained on page 195 (this is really lazy imo) and keep the results separate. Discard unsuccessful rolls.

Note when attacking a unit with mixed weapon skill, use the majority based on number of physical models ignoring special rules such as bulky.

All hit rolls for a combat at that initiative step must be completed for both players before moving to Step 5: Making a wound test.

Giving 'group of dudes with same weapons' the game term of Strike Group allows future rules to reference such things clearly.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Giving 'group of dudes with same weapons' the game term of Strike Group allows future rules to reference such things clearly.

It's simply telling you to make attacks in initiative order, it doesnt need to be a full a4 page and not include the actual rules for the fething hit roll.

Nothing is gained by that level of sheer character padding.

I suppose if you can propose a hypothetical use that's better than "when the attack model/when this model is attacked" i could be swayed.

I think a "Strike Group" drinking game is in order....

Sheesh.

Written by AI theory looking better by the minute

I agree with MDG about a lot of things, but this isnt one of those times. These are some of the most verbose and inconcise rules Ive seen, and im certain that the AI hypothesis is correct.

Yeesh, that is some dense and unfriendly text.


How many tournaments are going to keep running 2nd ed?

Feels like a programmer writing, not an AI to me.Maybe a bit of Mojo Jojo sure.

Strike Groups? Just a proper noun for what was called dice pools before.

Wordy, but trying to eliminate any ambiguity that some people use to try to break the game.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Feels like a programmer writing, not an AI to me.Maybe a bit of Mojo Jojo sure.

Strike Groups? Just a proper noun for what was called dice pools before.

Wordy, but trying to eliminate any ambiguity that some people use to try to break the game.

I agree. This doesn't feel like ChatGPT (or one of the Omnissiah's pals).

It reads like they bounced the wording off a bunch of obnoxious rules lawyers and D&D min-maxers with the sole instruction, "phrase it so they can't break it."