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.

Also 4th edition wound allocation rules. And psychic rules.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I think the game would profit from a reimplementation of:
Armorfacings and firing arks.
Templates.
USR's.

I disagree on the ammount of USR's though especially in the context of 30k having quite a few rules for rending PA to differentiate the units and make PA on PA not such a slug, those wouldn't be needed.
I also prefer the new AP system due to its not all or nothing nature.

Armor facings and firing arcs barely work(or matter) in 30k. Templates are dumb. Some USRs are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 arkhanist wrote:
I actually prefer heresy-style AP. We've seen how the new system, combined with the uprating of firepower make decent armour much less meaningful, hence all the special rules and tweaks and wound increases to try and increase survivability of marines et al - as well as the widespread dearth of tanks without an invun.

Thematically the new system makes more sense, but crunchwise the old system made better armour more worthwhile - and tank facing mattering too is nice.

It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+. 30k's AP system kind of works because there's only 2 types of armor save. 2+ and 3+. So every gun is either 'kills terminators', 'kills marines', or 'kills nothing'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Yes, yes and yes again. Bring back weapon skill comparison, bring back an ap system where high armor saves actually matter. Also bring back initiative to 40k for the love of the Emperor and bin the garbage fight first/last we have now. The new reactions seem extremely fun, but most faction specific ones are once per game so you can't spam them like stratagems.

I personally like almost everything about the new heresy rules more than current 40k.

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

ERJAK wrote:
It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+.

That's mostly an artifact of the most common statline in the game having a 3+ save and an AP5 gun. There weren't a lot of things out there that couldn't ignore a 5+ save, but I definitely felt it when my carapace-armored Storm Troopers had double the survivability against common small arms compared to a normal Guardsman.

But here we are in 9th Ed and everyone's got AP out the wazoo, so if you're not a Marine your armor is still useless, and they had to carve out an extremely clunky special rule just to make Marines feel less paper-thin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

I feel like you must have played a completely different game from me. Because my experience of Guardsmen getting charged by Orks sure wasn't Guardsmen auto-winning thanks to higher initiative. The game I played also had elements like terrain, grenades, and initiative-altering weapons that could change up the order of operations in combat.

I'm not wild on the initiative system but 9th has, for me, been far closer to 'why even roll?' as the lethality escalation means that whoever charges first is likely to wipe out their opponent before they can hit back. That was a lot rarer back in the day.

Polling has shifted significantly to the Yes column…

Eldarsif wrote:The only thing I'd want to see from HH into 40k is the Reaction system. Could probably replace quite a few stratagems, plus generic army rules are nice.

Pretty much this. I love reactions, but the whole system of templates and the convoluted hit and wound chart need to stay away from 40k, and imo, should never have been brought back in Heresy. Also, I prefer that everything just has wounds and not hull points and facing rules and such.

"Convoluted wound chart" is never something I thought I'd read. . .

Each step in difference was a point on the die, with an extra grace of 1 on the end. Max 6, min 2. "Convoluted" pffft.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Convoluted wound chart" is never something I thought I'd read. . .

Each step in difference was a point on the die, with an extra grace of 1 on the end. Max 6, min 2. "Convoluted" pffft.

yeah but that exp[ects them to do Math Insectum, how dare a tactial wargame ask us to THINK!

I thought 7th was rubbish because of all the formation nonsense that got out of hand. And allies. And Hull Points.

That last one may be personal bias.

And those things aren't part of HH (well, Hull Points are, sadly), so what would be the problem?

I'd want the Wound Chart put into 40k. And the morale rules, so 40k can actually have morale rules, rather than a lose-more mechanics that ignore all the structures of causing damage by not using strength/AP/damage and bypassing toughness/saves/wounds completely but I've ranted about this dozens of times now so I'll leave it alone for now... and USRs! 40k would sure do with some shrinking/consolidation of its endless bespoke-but-ultimately very similar rules, cutting them down into a tight series of scalable* USRs. Not keep on blast markers coming back, but flamer templates were fun.


*In the sense of not having Bulky, Very Bulky and Super-Duper Bulky, but a single scalable rule like HH has, where you just have Bulky (X), and "X" = how many slots you take up in a transport. Scalable rules like that are fantastic.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Convoluted wound chart" is never something I thought I'd read. . .

Each step in difference was a point on the die, with an extra grace of 1 on the end. Max 6, min 2. "Convoluted" pffft.

yeah but that exp[ects them to do Math Insectum, how dare a tactial wargame ask us to THINK!

Hehe. They gotta do math now! Not even addition but multiplication to determine if S is double T.

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

Full circle would imply that the same people wanting this, also did not want 7th ed style rules.

Many people, MANY people and momentum behind HH is proof that there are a LOT of people who are not happy with the 8th style rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

The irony of this, is that the new HH rules were actually written by the AoS rule writers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the morale rules, so 40k can actually have morale rules, rather than a lose-more mechanics that ignore all the structures of causing damage by not using strength/AP/damage and bypassing toughness/saves/wounds completely but I've ranted about this dozens of times now so I'll leave it alone for now...

I'm actually really excited for HH2.0's changes to morale:
-Marines are generally Ld7, with Ld8 on sergeants,
-More weapons cause pinning checks (and some apply modifiers to those checks),
-More things cause morale modifiers,
-And most importantly, being pinned or falling back precludes you from using the new reaction system.

So put it all together: Marines will be falling back a bit more, they'll be getting pinned a LOT more, and pinning will be a valuable tool to keep a unit from reacting, which can be very powerful (eg overwatch against a charging unit at full BS). Using indirect fire weapons to suppress infantry in preparation for close assault? In my GW game? It's more likely than you think. Certainly very different from the Ld9 ATSKNF stoicism of 3rd-7th.

That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

Have them be immune to the Fear special rule.

Being pinned/suppressed or forced to abandon forward positions by weight of fire and ferocity of an assault isn't necessarily a move motivated by fear - military necessity and a pragmatic recognition of the need to preserve oneself as an instrument of military power can both motivate that. A breakdown in local leadership can also explain that sort of thing as well, and there are more ways for that breakdown to occur than "PANIK" or a pure fear response.

Being scared of giant scary demons/monsters/etc is definitely a human failure though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

Let's go back to 4th edition. ATSKNF = can attempt to regroup when below half strength. Marines still fall back and get pinned by suppressing fire but they're never so broken that they can't rally and get back into the fight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

I'd probably give loyalist Marines a bonus (eg roll 3, drop highest) to rallying- you can pin them with sheer firepower or force them to fall back to cover their wounded, but the instant you ease up they're back in the fight. The old ability to still regroup when under half strength as CadianSgtBob mentioned always struck me as an elegant way to represent Marine tenacity without negating morale altogether, but HH2.0 doesn't appear to have the restriction against regrouping when under half strength.

To me, the only reason to use a special rule like ATSKNF would be to show that Marines handle morale differently from other factions. In a setting containing undead robots, bug aliens, and literal demons that has to be something more than just ignoring or being resistant to morale. Making them still vulnerable to morale, but having the tenacity to keep coming back, has a classically heroic quality.

That said, the 'superhuman, but scrappy underdogs in a universe of horrors' characterization of Marines has been slowly eroded over the past two decades in favor of raw better-than-you power fantasy, so if the goal is to just make them care less about morale, then just give them higher Ld and be done with it.

(From a meta perspective, as much as I like Unit's idea thematically, giving the most popular faction an army-wide ability to ignore Fear would render it largely useless. Ask Night Lords players how they feel about Marines in 9th, for example)

 Gert wrote:

Having a wider spread of systems to choose from where it's not all the exact same set of rules might be inconvenient but at the same time it won't get monotonous and from personal experience switching between games can really help with fatigue. Heck I did it with HH when I got sick of playing the same thing week after week, so I swapped to 40k to give myself a break.

Still not sold on the "why.-would-I-need-this?". I don't see how playing mass battle 40k with templates etc one day & 40k with 9e rules the next would break up the monotony. It's still just 28/32mm mass battle SMs in the 40k universe.
When my circle wants a break from whatever we're playing alot of? We actually switch to completely different games/genres/scales. WWII (FoW for 15mm/Bolt Action - depending upon scale of battle), sometimes Team Yankee, some sort of plane/spaceship game, some sort of navel game, any # of different skirmish lv games, Sigmar/some edition of WHFB, Gaslands, Battletech, some sort of 6mm-15mm Napoleonic's/historical ....

I mean you're massively oversimplifying 40k but k. You do you man.
That being said, I assume you're also against the Old World because why would we need that when Aos exists right? Or any variant historical game because they're all just humans fighting humans. Who needs a game set during the dominion of Rome AND a game set during the Norse invasions of Britain because they're both just games about dudes with Swords fighting each other.
I mean having multiple GW systems to choose from is just dumb because nobody could ever only play GW games because that might be the only thing that can be played in their area.

Actually, if GW retconned the last few years, back to pre formation freebies, saying that it was a bubble from when fantasy was obliterated but somehow the bubbles had been re unified and the Old World returns plus new stuff since introduced and the same with 40K, with restartes and astartes both marines again as if GW simply updated the old model range, and rules misadventures corrected with HH’s crunchy new rules style, they could fix a lot of broke imho. One way to go would be to offer customizable modes of play, from basic simple to adding elements like realistic terrain and morale interactions, reaction dynamics, and so on. Alongside this, GW may offer three ways to pay for upgrades etc, being CP type, points per wargear or power level so that people who want to buy their cards can do that and those who want a wargame can use points instead. Game play should be easy to coordinate, as players stipulate which mods they want to use as they plan their games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

Have them be immune to the Fear special rule.

Being pinned/suppressed or forced to abandon forward positions by weight of fire and ferocity of an assault isn't necessarily a move motivated by fear - military necessity and a pragmatic recognition of the need to preserve oneself as an instrument of military power can both motivate that. A breakdown in local leadership can also explain that sort of thing as well, and there are more ways for that breakdown to occur than "PANIK" or a pure fear response.

Being scared of giant scary demons/monsters/etc is definitely a human failure though.

The name gives it away, doesn’t it?

ERJAK wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Yes, yes and yes again. Bring back weapon skill comparison, bring back an ap system where high armor saves actually matter. Also bring back initiative to 40k for the love of the Emperor and bin the garbage fight first/last we have now. The new reactions seem extremely fun, but most faction specific ones are once per game so you can't spam them like stratagems.

I personally like almost everything about the new heresy rules more than current 40k.

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

Well that's....just wrong. First of in heresy combat is inherently less lethal than 40k partly because of the comparison charts. If a unit has more WS than you, you hit on 5+ and there are not a lot of re-rolls in heresy as opposed to 40k where every faction gets them up the wazoo. Secondly the scenario you are describing is just 40k right now....the game is so lethal that whatever combat unit gets the charge off wins...or you can make a unit fight last and it dies.

Face it, the current fight first/last system in 40k is neither more streamlined, nor is it more balanced. Having initiative in the statline offers GW another balance lever that does not require a million extra special rules and offers more granularity and faction differentiation (classic squishy but fast eldar vs tough but slow orks).

Also spreadsheet wars? Are you joking? How hard is a comparison chart to remember in practice, honestly? If you have more you hit on 3s, same you hit on 4s, less you hit on 5s with fringe cases being able to hit on 6s and 2s when the difference is big enough. You make it sound waay more complicated than it actually would be in practice.

Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

And add an extra stat on the datasheet?? theres no room for that , it would confuse players way too much. Instead we should stick it on a stratagem somewhere for simplicity


/s

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

And add an extra stat on the datasheet?? theres no room for that , it would confuse players way too much. Instead we should stick it on a stratagem somewhere for simplicity


/s

Good point and we should also make sure we let peole know that this thing fights first, but not actually first first it fights only first if this other units fight first is not listed.

I'm intrigued that GW is finally attempting to create a 'reaction phase', something we've used for some time. It still looks like a less than optimal implementation, however. It seems the ability to react is relegated to 1 unit per phase only (though wargear or special rules allows up to 3). Instead of individual units reacting to enemy action, a player must choose which unit can react, much like a stratagem that allows only one vehicle to pop smoke. Overall however, this is a move in the right direction.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

And add an extra stat on the datasheet?? theres no room for that , it would confuse players way too much. Instead we should stick it on a stratagem somewhere for simplicity


/s

Yeah you can't confuse players like that. More stratagems it is.

Seriously I'd really like to know how GW evaluates their "streamlining" process, because when you compare 9th and the new heresy edition, 9th is definitely NOT easier to get into....while heresy offeres a system without the extreme levels of lethality and (imo) a lot more granularity.
Also I personally think that they did a really good job in representing the different legions in the new heresy rules. Most if not all of the new legion rules really fit into their respective faction in my opinion without feeling useless (like Iron Warriors rerolling wounds against buildings in 40k...).

ccs wrote:
When my circle wants a break from whatever we're playing alot of? We actually switch to completely different games/genres/scales. WWII (FoW for 15mm/Bolt Action - depending upon scale of battle), sometimes Team Yankee, some sort of plane/spaceship game, some sort of navel game, any # of different skirmish lv games, Sigmar/some edition of WHFB, Gaslands, Battletech, some sort of 6mm-15mm Napoleonic's/historical ....

I really don't want to know what sort of game involves gamers playing with each others' navels...

ERJAK wrote:

Armor facings and firing arcs barely work(or matter) in 30k. Templates are dumb. Some USRs are fine.

I play HH since 2017 and started 40k in 2004.
Armour facings and firing arcs work fine.
Templates are fine.
USRs are fine.

ERJAK wrote:

It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+. 30k's AP system kind of works because there's only 2 types of armor save. 2+ and 3+. So every gun is either 'kills terminators', 'kills marines', or 'kills nothing'.

In HH 2.0 they introduced a new rule called Breaching and several weapons received it. If you roll a certain amount to wound you have AP2. For example if you have a Breaching 4+ weapon you have 50% chance to have AP2. This makes weapons with worse AP than AP2 better. Also Autocannons received Rending 6+.
In other words many weapons that were before worse got buffed. Love this Breaching rule.

ERJAK wrote:

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

I dont know about which game youre talking about but certainly not HH. Initiative is fine.
There are some legions or units that benefit from having higher Initiative like Emperors Children. This for example make them different to World Eaters who try to maximise the number of attacks they make.

Cheers.

Glumy wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Armor facings and firing arcs barely work(or matter) in 30k. Templates are dumb. Some USRs are fine.

I play HH since 2017 and started 40k in 2004.
Armour facings and firing arcs work fine.
Templates are fine.
USRs are fine.

ERJAK wrote:

It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+. 30k's AP system kind of works because there's only 2 types of armor save. 2+ and 3+. So every gun is either 'kills terminators', 'kills marines', or 'kills nothing'.

In HH 2.0 they introduced a new rule called Breaching and several weapons received it. If you roll a certain amount to wound you have AP2. For example if you have a Breaching 4+ weapon you have 50% chance to have AP2. This makes weapons with worse AP than AP2 better. Also Autocannons received Rending 6+.
In other words many weapons that were before worse got buffed. Love this Breaching rule.

ERJAK wrote:

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

I dont know about which game youre talking about but certainly not HH. Initiative is fine.
There are some legions or units that benefit from having higher Initiative like Emperors Children. This for example make them different to World Eaters who try to maximise the number of attacks they make.

Cheers.

A lot of the stuff in HH2.0 looks good and for the better, and im with you on Templates, Armor facings, and fireing arcs they all worked fine.
People who say they dont 90% of the time had a problem not with the rule, but with players that would abuse them. Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly.
The problem would always be, someone would find a way to argue about which facing you are hitting or which way its scattering, the common tactic always being rolling the scatter die way the hell away from where the hit was so that you could conveniently shift the direction just enough to not be able to tell.

GW made the vain attempt to remove these things in favor of "Reducing arguments" but all the ended up doing was shifting what people argued about, the same peole that would try and abuse scatter and armor facings just argued over other crap in 9th.

So again, all those rules were fine and im super happy they made a come back in HH 2.0, and if 40k adopts the HH rule set, god willing, then ill go back to playing 40k.

The game has always been ruined by donkey-caves...not gonna change any time soon.

Man so so true. Ended up changing what they argue about… so true,

donkey-caves gonna donkey-cave & dicks gonna be Dicks. Water is wet and so on...