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.

Hey guys/gals.

I have played/collected 40k minis off and on since the original Rogue Trader release. I'll admit up front that I have never been interested in competitive games- my 40k gaming has always been quite casual and played at home amongst friends...

Just confused tho as to why there needed to be a HH rules release when there were already 9e rules available at the time of HH launch, and now that we are about to get a 10e ruleset, it just seems baffling to me why GW would want to maintain two separate rule systems that are both effectively covering the same "space"? (even if there is a 10,000 year difference in the history/timeline itself?

In other words, why couldn't GW have set things up so that the HH models could have simply been used with 9e or the upcoming 10e rules?

There's not been a reason given but the easiest guess is that since the two systems are entirely different it means you can't use a HH army for 40k or a 40k army for HH, at least not easily, requiring you to buy more things.

But not being part of the same ruleset of 40k means that HH is free to try it's own things when it comes to rules and it isn't tied to the blindingly painful release schedule and rules churn.

Maybe gw actually recognizes that some people prefer the 3rd-7th style rules to the 8th-10th style rules, and HH is a way to market a game to them? I know that's why I moved to HH.

Long story short?

Horus Heresy launched approx 10 years ago. At the time, it shared the base game system with 40K.

Rather than the Codex system, the army rules were spread across 9 or 10 quite expensive books. Each introduced new missions, new generic units, the odd new faction, and tended to cover specific Legions.

Since its start, it didn’t really change with 40K. Formations, the bane of 7th Ed, never came across. 8th was such a large departure, for HH to follow suit would’ve been poorly received, because many players had copies of every expansion book.

And so, not having inherited the flaws of 7th Ed? HH stayed as it was. That not pissing off customers with evidently deep pockets was also very likely a driving factor.

HH 2nd Ed is a refinement of everything that came before. Not to say “therefore an improvement”, just refinement with various FAQs now part of the main rules, and some stats tweaked and adjusted. Notably high AP weapons are significantly rarer.

It’s also a good deal more accessible. No need to buy so many books, a decent number of popular if not outright essential units now in plastic.

On a very simple level: not everyone liked 8e/9e rules, and by making a different game for different people GW has supported a community of people that would otherwise have just quit rather than saying (metaphorically) "you must like 8e/9e or pike off!".

Ahhhh... that all makes more sense now. Especially just knowing how new editions of 40k in the past have seemed to cause some issues with some players.

I haven't bought the HH Box set but would love to get it at some point, too. But plan on getting the 10e launch box first, since I have some other 40k minis already at the moment... looking forward to the reveal this coming weekend.

Thanks for all the replies!

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Maybe gw actually recognizes that some people prefer the 3rd-7th style rules to the 8th-10th style rules, and HH is a way to market a game to them? I know that's why I moved to HH.

That sums it up for me too. I find the design choices in the earlier editions more fun, specifically how units are built. Lots of little tweaks you can do to loadouts for that little bit of flavour. Characters, in particular centurions have a huge amount of loudouts. Hell you can even do a shooty character by taking the consul that lets you take a master crafted heavy weapon.

Throw in how some legions let you change out weapons to faction specific ones and you can have even more flavourful fun. Though, sometimes that list isn't as big as it could be. As an example I'd love if voltkite weapons could be swapped out for Kakophoni weapons on my 3rd legion. Maybe they will keep adding with various campaign books? But that can be a slippery slope of power creep.

Overall, I like the rules for the new edition. I would like some tweaks to be made, like allowing units to charge at units different from the ones they shot at and allowing vehicles to shoot at different targets. The current rules make the shooting feel stiff and on-rails.

The biggest gripe about the new edition is how the rules are organized in the book, with me having to flip back and forth from unit profiles to weapon profiles since weapon stats aren't shown on unit profiles. The 40k format for this is much better imo.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Overall, I like the rules for the new edition. I would like some tweaks to be made, like allowing units to charge at units different from the ones they shot at and allowing vehicles to shoot at different targets. The current rules make the shooting feel stiff and on-rails.

The biggest gripe about the new edition is how the rules are organized in the book, with me having to flip back and forth from unit profiles to weapon profiles since weapon stats aren't shown on unit profiles. The 40k format for this is much better imo.

Agreed on the layout of the rules!

I am enjoying Horus Heresy, even though I had not really loved 6th Ed 40K and stepped out for 7th.

My main gripe about HH is that the rules writers seemed to have the goal of making the game as impenetrable as possible. The unit pages in the books have lots of empty space, points lists and layers upon layers of USRs which are then spread out across multiple sections/books. Lots more flipping through the books in HH than in 8th or 9th Ed 40K.

There are also some real balance problems. You have to self-regulate to a greater degree than in 40K - which says a lot. I've played in two tourneys and it can get real rough.

I am OK with the old-school rules about charging what you shot at and restrictions on split-fire, but the Reactions need some work. The Return Fire should either be a first-turn only Reaction or not usable if you shot during the previous turn. It just feels bad the way it is now, even when it works out for me in the game.

Those gripes aside, I like the crunch of the Marine rules. I am in a narrative league right now and I actually enjoy the narrative missions - unlike mainstream 40K. I am playing more HH than 40K right now.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Overall, I like the rules for the new edition. I would like some tweaks to be made, like allowing units to charge at units different from the ones they shot at and allowing vehicles to shoot at different targets. The current rules make the shooting feel stiff and on-rails.

The biggest gripe about the new edition is how the rules are organized in the book, with me having to flip back and forth from unit profiles to weapon profiles since weapon stats aren't shown on unit profiles. The 40k format for this is much better imo.

Agreed on the layout of the rules!

I am enjoying Horus Heresy, even though I had not really loved 6th Ed 40K and stepped out for 7th.

My main gripe about HH is that the rules writers seemed to have the goal of making the game as impenetrable as possible. The unit pages in the books have lots of empty space, points lists and layers upon layers of USRs which are then spread out across multiple sections/books. Lots more flipping through the books in HH than in 8th or 9th Ed 40K.

There are also some real balance problems. You have to self-regulate to a greater degree than in 40K - which says a lot. I've played in two tourneys and it can get real rough.

I am OK with the old-school rules about charging what you shot at and restrictions on split-fire, but the Reactions need some work. The Return Fire should either be a first-turn only Reaction or not usable if you shot during the previous turn. It just feels bad the way it is now, even when it works out for me in the game.

Those gripes aside, I like the crunch of the Marine rules. I am in a narrative league right now and I actually enjoy the narrative missions - unlike mainstream 40K. I am playing more HH than 40K right now.

I definitely agree with you on how byzantine the game feels in how it's presented. There are rules on top of rules on top of rules scattered about, seemingly at random, mixed in with chunks of lore. The organization of the books seems quite poor.

it's mostly a question of layout that is the issue.

F.e. The liber books having their consuls after all the units. Same with the rites of war.

Or the fact that in the liber hereticus there's literally pictures on the pages talking about USR's for the marines.

meanwhile funnily enough the militia pdf has the provenances directly after the commander which is great, ontop of having the unit types infront of the army and even has a refresher for the dreadnought light unit type on the sentinel...

So atleast they are improving.

Agreed on good rules, catastrophic layout.

I especiall enjoy the unalpahebetized items.

Like, you're just supposed to know that a Neutron beam is under Las Weapons, somehow. But a Lascutter is not, it's an Exotic weapon.

Melta bombs are in the wargear section under G for grenade.

i'd love a unit type collection and a USR collection and an equipment collection solely on alphabetical order.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Maybe gw actually recognizes that some people prefer the 3rd-7th style rules to the 8th-10th style rules, and HH is a way to market a game to them? I know that's why I moved to HH.

That was true with 1.0 as a fixed version of 7th ed. but now that they have released HH 2.0 it has more in common with 9th ed rules. Sure glad i still have all the 1.0 books.

The specialist games department is simply not large enough to support the churn and burn of 40K. They followed for 2 editions (6th and 7th) but never made the change to 8th.

Even though I prefer the 8th+ design to 6th/7th design, it's better for the health of the game if its rules aren't killed every three years, so for HH it's a good development they got their own system that can be refined over a long time, similar to lotr.
Personally I would have liked to see Forgeworld have a go at the 8th Edition system as I consider it superior to the 7th Edition framework. And since they were able to even turn the terrible 7th edition rules into a proper game it makes you wonder what they could have done with a better basis .

Rereading my post, I see that it came across more negative than I intended. I am very happy to have jumped into Horus Heresy! When I came out I thought they had lost an opportunity to combine with the current 40K rules, but I think there decision to keep distinct was good. It allows them to focus on the crunch of Legion on Legion warfare that might not work in the 40K paradigm.

Can you imagine 30 stratagems per legion

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can you imagine 30 stratagems per legion

Not to mention Rites of War specific Stratagems, but only for certain units in them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Can you imagine 30 stratagems per legion

Not to mention Rites of War specific Stratagems, but only for certain units in them.

including some that only worked on Tuesdays, but not the second Tuesday of the month obviously, the reasoning for which would be in an unrelated section of a different book and not quite explain what it said it did

and its still a more fun game than 40k, largely because of the players

on the OP: I suspect its a case of having a different set of rules to capture a different set of players, a bit like how AoS and LotR have different rules providing a different spin on "fantasy!" as a battle set