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.

Nobody said it was a mark of shame though. Some people only play with painted models or don't like to proxy, there's nothing shameful about that it's just personal preference.

 Gert wrote:
Nobody said it was a mark of shame though. Some people only play with painted models or don't like to proxy, there's nothing shameful about that it's just personal preference.

Mark of shame on gw's part I take it.

I definitely prefer to play with WYSIWG models. Armless guys don't do it for me, 30k sits on a shelf until I have my army at least built.

 SirDonlad wrote:
If only there were some way of playing with a model that doesn't have the right armament physically represented.

It's not this - literally if a spartan with 10 lascannons cannot kill a SINGLE Contemptor, you know there is an error somewhere, and it's not the spartan.

If 4 dreads can push the balance all to hell in a 2500pts game, the all dread lists must be awful.

Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.

 Gert wrote:
Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.

They literally used shorter game length with pure progressive scoring. Kind of a completely different game from the kill-point fest of up to 7 turns that most of the core missions offer.

Very different variables to determine success, and disingenuous to try and pass one off as the other

All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.

Toofast wrote:
All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.

So like war?


The alamo with progressive scoring isn't a good indication of the end result. It'd also be a bti rich of the mexican forces to accuse the other side of "camping".

Oh I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with that. It helps that you don't have anything with Line and 48" movement here.

Less Parking lot. more MEQ/TEQ unit.

Toofast wrote:
All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.

The main issue with the core missions is that in addition to being able to contest the objectives last turn, is that they almost all oddly incentivize kill points.

I had a game playing the progressive scoring mission a couple weeks back; we ended up scoring more points through the secondary killing related objectives than the primary lol. The objectives being no-mans, scoring at the start of the turn, and contesting make for a pretty low amount of primary points unless you infiltrate onto all of them. And I guess you can just win off turn 1 with that alone if you go first and they don't manage to contest them/shoot you off.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

Toofast wrote:
All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.

The main issue with the core missions is that in addition to being able to contest the objectives last turn, is that they almost all oddly incentivize kill points.

I had a game playing the progressive scoring mission a couple weeks back; we ended up scoring more points through the secondary killing related objectives than the primary lol. The objectives being no-mans, scoring at the start of the turn, and contesting make for a pretty low amount of primary points unless you infiltrate onto all of them. And I guess you can just win off turn 1 with that alone if you go first and they don't manage to contest them/shoot you off.

I have run into this as well and it makes it very odd to deal with the objective.
Truth be told i had this conversation with a buddy of mine i play with. HH2.0 gives me big BIG AoS 1.0 vibes, which with the rumor that it was written by the AoS team kinda makes sense.
It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.

Akin to AoS 1.0, there are a lot of head scratching with missions, just like AoS 1.0, and there is a seemingly lacking depth to rule clarification and what if situations once more very akin to AoS, and mostly centered around pysker powers i have found, along with some potential game breaking things involving melee and being able to basically throw a sacrifical model at a charging enemy unit and get out of combat automatically with out needing to regroup.

I wouldn't let the AoS team design the maze on the back of a cereal box.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
HH2.0 gives me big BIG AoS 1.0 vibes, which with the rumor that it was written by the AoS team kinda makes sense.

It may have been, the team lead taking credit is this guy https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6912815019076255744/

"Incredibly proud to have developed the new edition of the Horus Heresy game system, and congrats to all the team at Games Workshop who worked alongside me on this. What a fantastic announce trailer!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.

Why did consumers just have to pay for this if 1.0 just needed some fixing and instead we got this... which needs fixing?




I dunno, personally progressive scoring/kill points just isn't good. It's not good for balance and it isn't a good indication of anything.

3-5 objectives, allowed to be placed by both players, with really basic secondaries that come nowhere close in vp count just works best imo. Basically old school crusade, 3-5 objectives, works really well.

Toofast wrote:
I wouldn't let the AoS team design the maze on the back of a cereal box.

That's funny. Every time I look at the 40k rules and current 30k rules, I think to myself "I wish the AoS team worked on this. They have a much better grasp on what they're trying to do and how to execute it."

Which would be even more funny if it IS the AoS team. If so, they should stick to AoS. I'd guess, if that were the case, that they were somewhat constrained by having to stick to a semblance of the 1.0 rules and weren't allowed to flex enough to make it work.

Not sure where your "rumour" is from, but it isn't the AOS team doing heresy (and 2.00 wasn't written by the AOS team at any point)

Hopefully the FAQ comes sooner than later 😬

I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.

They literally used shorter game length with pure progressive scoring. Kind of a completely different game from the kill-point fest of up to 7 turns that most of the core missions offer.

Very different variables to determine success, and disingenuous to try and pass one off as the other

Dreadnoughts are eminently killable if you build for it. The issue of dreadnought spam isn't in top competition, but because they are a skew, casual players aren't normally prepared for that.

 Rihgu wrote:

Toofast wrote:
I wouldn't let the AoS team design the maze on the back of a cereal box.

That's funny. Every time I look at the 40k rules and current 30k rules, I think to myself "I wish the AoS team worked on this. They have a much better grasp on what they're trying to do and how to execute it."

Which would be even more funny if it IS the AoS team. If so, they should stick to AoS. I'd guess, if that were the case, that they were somewhat constrained by having to stick to a semblance of the 1.0 rules and weren't allowed to flex enough to make it work.

There's no GW game that I've played that I quit more then AoS. Every single time I think to get back in, nope AoS is just a new mess.

Has there ever been a GW game edition where some unit was not stronger than others and could be spammed to make a strong list? HH 1.0 had other spam and other issues.

Come on, dreads agent an issue among friends taking reasonable numbers of them because they are cool.

They will most likely be nerfed or up-costed soon anyway.

It always sounds black or white on the internet. The game's pretty good, enjoy it (or 1.0 if you prefer that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the topic:

Line! I love line. The Meta now makes Troops very important (which is a great improvement from 1.0 IMHO).

 westiebestie wrote:
Has there ever been a GW game edition where some unit was not stronger than others and could be spammed to make a strong list? HH 1.0 had other spam and other issues..

Name some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:


Line! I love line. The Meta now makes Troops very important (which is a great improvement from 1.0 IMHO).

How? 1.0 was just as focused on scoring units. What's different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:


It always sounds black or white on the internet. The game's pretty good, enjoy it (or 1.0 if you prefer that).

Well seeing as the meta of 2.0 seems worse in terms of not just what got better, but what got worse. Vehicles are a massive sore point in 2.0. No surprise to see the meta is dread heavy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.

1.0 was the same refuge from 8th for many.

How? 1.0 was just as focused on scoring units. What's different?

Almost my entire playgroup is complaining about how their RoW don't give them enough line when they're running their showstopper units instead of normal troops, compared to previously.

Apparently now, many RoW are 'useless' because they let you take strong units, but don't let you take strong Line units, so there's 'no point'.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 westiebestie wrote:
Has there ever been a GW game edition where some unit was not stronger than others and could be spammed to make a strong list? HH 1.0 had other spam and other issues..

Name some.

You did not answer my question..

And I believe you know the answer to yours. But I'll throw a couple.

Quad spam is the most generic.

Slow game mechanics e.g. Run
Fixed USRs, e.g. Rending
Look out, sir.
Traditional turn based game, passive in opponent turn
General uselessness of Troops, people taking the Min amount

Now that we have the Surge move I myself also feel that was missing in 1.0.

 Crablezworth wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:


Line! I love line. The Meta now makes Troops very important (which is a great improvement from 1.0 IMHO).

How? 1.0 was just as focused on scoring units. What's different?

In real games there's a real difference as Legionnaires are cheap & important tactically now, people take a lot more Troops and they are game winners (or losers if you loose them). Heart of the Legion is a good rule too.

 Crablezworth wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:


It always sounds black or white on the internet. The game's pretty good, enjoy it (or 1.0 if you prefer that).

Well seeing as the meta of 2.0 seems worse in terms of not just what got better, but what got worse. Vehicles are a massive sore point in 2.0. No surprise to see the meta is dread heavy.

I see lots of good changes and few bad ones, overall for me its a big improvement. The balance issues with dreads/vehicles being resilient/weak can be errata'ed.

You make it very clear in a lot of posts you feel the opposite.

Crablezworth wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.

1.0 was the same refuge from 8th for many.

I really liked 8th(pre marine2.0) and would still play it. 9th was a shitshow from day 0.

I play the game to tell a story, not to play a game. 30k does that for me now

Racerguy180 wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.

1.0 was the same refuge from 8th for many.

I really liked 8th(pre marine2.0) and would still play it. 9th was a shitshow from day 0.

Agree fully. 8th (at Index launch) was vastly better than 7th imo. 9th I do not touch.

But I find HH 2.0 to be a big improvement from the core 7th Ed 40k core mechanics and thus HH 1.0 as elaborated above.

Backspacehacker wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

Toofast wrote:
All but one of the current missions uses endgame scoring, which heavily favors armies like 7th eldar where you just kill everything and then run onto objectives on the final turn if you haven't tabled the guy yet.

The main issue with the core missions is that in addition to being able to contest the objectives last turn, is that they almost all oddly incentivize kill points.

I had a game playing the progressive scoring mission a couple weeks back; we ended up scoring more points through the secondary killing related objectives than the primary lol. The objectives being no-mans, scoring at the start of the turn, and contesting make for a pretty low amount of primary points unless you infiltrate onto all of them. And I guess you can just win off turn 1 with that alone if you go first and they don't manage to contest them/shoot you off.

I have run into this as well and it makes it very odd to deal with the objective.
Truth be told i had this conversation with a buddy of mine i play with. HH2.0 gives me big BIG AoS 1.0 vibes, which with the rumor that it was written by the AoS team kinda makes sense.
It feels like AoS 1.0 in the sense that, the structure of a good game is there, its just a skeleton right now and has no meat on its bones, and needs some fixing.

Akin to AoS 1.0, there are a lot of head scratching with missions, just like AoS 1.0, and there is a seemingly lacking depth to rule clarification and what if situations once more very akin to AoS, and mostly centered around pysker powers i have found, along with some potential game breaking things involving melee and being able to basically throw a sacrifical model at a charging enemy unit and get out of combat automatically with out needing to regroup.

The missions have been the same since they were released for tempest back in 2015. The original 5th and 6th edition missions were a lot better balanced.

stratigo wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Just as a side, multiple people ran all dread lists at the new edition event in WHW. None of them came close to winning and I saw no complaints regarding those players.

They literally used shorter game length with pure progressive scoring. Kind of a completely different game from the kill-point fest of up to 7 turns that most of the core missions offer.

Very different variables to determine success, and disingenuous to try and pass one off as the other

Dreadnoughts are eminently killable if you build for it. The issue of dreadnought spam isn't in top competition, but because they are a skew, casual players aren't normally prepared for that.

Well...ya. Every skew list dies in a fire to its hard counter in 30k, but that doesn't change the fact that if you don't have that counter you're going to be in trouble the more they skew. I'm not sure what "top competition" is even supposed to mean lol; obviously veterans of competitive 30k groups from the last 10 years are going to have collections that can adapt to changes in strength and discourage skew as a result, but thats in their local areas.Tournamnets haven't really happened yet, and most players don't have the model range to beat any hard skew list right now, dreads or otherwise. And skew lists love tournaments; all it takes is the right matchup to propel yourself to victory, and the odds are good the larger the tournament is. I'll also mention that the nature of skew builds and the logistics of countering them have nothing to do with my post; you can't pretend vastly different mission sets are the same to make a blanket judgement call on a lists strength.

In real games there's a real difference as Legionnaires are cheap & important tactically now, people take a lot more Troops and they are game winners (or losers if you loose them). Heart of the Legion is a good rule too.

This is frankly silly. While tacs, despoilers and assaults are very cheap, and certain legions do get great success with them, they're far from a blanket good unit. Look at all the elite melee units with high attack values, high weapon skill, and Ap3; they just chew right through and pay token respects to the fnp. Even if you pass the stubborn 7 test (you should usually challenge out the seargent to deny leadership), you're now denying your own shooting at the enemy unit, just for them to finish it off and be active in their turn.

You take those units to hold ground and force things into fighting them for the objectives, but you expect them to die to any serious attention.

Dont see whats silly - I did not mean Legionnaires can take or dish out a lot. I meant just the same as what you are saying, you need them to win games and you need to protect them as Elites usually kill them if you let them. They can also do a bit more damage and take a bit more punishment when holding objectives.

So they affect games more directly as well as indirectly.

And since they are better and good value, you are also likely to take more meaning less elite heavy armies with minimum Troop choices in regular games.

Not talking competitive/tournament here, I dont do that and dont see 30k as designed or meant for that..

westiebestie wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I had my first game of 30k 2.0 and (altho a learning game) I prefer it significantly more than current 40k.

1.0 was the same refuge from 8th for many.

I really liked 8th(pre marine2.0) and would still play it. 9th was a shitshow from day 0.

Agree fully. 8th (at Index launch) was vastly better than 7th imo. 9th I do not touch.

But I find HH 2.0 to be a big improvement from the core 7th Ed 40k core mechanics and thus HH 1.0 as elaborated above.

I wasn't interested in playing 30k during 8th, 9th dropped and I gave up on 40k to play AT/AI/Necro. 2.0 has piqued my interest(cuz I'm a modeler/painter first) in a way that 1.0 didnt.

 westiebestie wrote:
Dont see whats silly - I did not mean Legionnaires can take or dish out a lot. I meant just the same as what you are saying, you need them to win games and you need to protect them as Elites usually kill them if you let them. They can also do a bit more damage and take a bit more punishment when holding objectives.

So they affect games more directly as well as indirectly.

And since they are better and good value, you are also likely to take more meaning less elite heavy armies with minimum Troop choices in regular games.

Not talking competitive/tournament here, I dont do that and dont see 30k as designed or meant for that..

But you don't need them; that's the silly part. Various rites allow you to take stuff in troops, and open the way for the more efficient recon squad to score. You can take command squads and Heralds to make elite units score. You can even design lists that play all the kill point aspects and just contest the objectives at the end; only 1 mission punishes lack of scoring.

Sure, you can argue using specific exceptions to dismiss the generic case. You can of course do do RoW lists, but in general lists they have a more solid place now. I like that. Ain't nothing silly about Legionnaires.

Btw making units Troops does not automatically also give them Line, as I am sure you are aware. But some ways exist for sure. The Herald seems a good (and thematic for many legions) choice.

 westiebestie wrote:
Sure, you can argue using specific exceptions to dismiss the generic case.

Like objective evidence to support a claim?



The point is this idea that 2.0 is drastically different in the scoring department doesn't really hold, scoring and what scored and what ROW did for scoring was just as big in 1.0.

I have like 5 scoring units most of the time.