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.

Dudeface 811846 11607989 wrote:

ERJAK clearly stated they don't care about wargear for characters I'm this case, it's pointless you asking as that's a very subjective question anyway. It's a shame that some options have gone, some people will be more bothered than others. Personally I'd rather they threw a bone somewhere for bike lovers but I'd also add that white scars being memed into BIKES!BIKES!BIKES! isn't necessarily great either, they were masters of mounted combat, I.e. mounted on a bike, jetbike, mounted in transports which is the key one people forget.

What do you mean "memed" WS are the biker faction. Just like DA are the terminators faction and BA are the jump pack faction. Telling WS to just use rhinos or what ever the primaris transports are called may just be replaced with telling them to play white painted ultramarines. People don't tell 1ksons or DG players to play CSM or vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:
The interviews with them lay out that they make the game with the intention of everyone just bashing stuff together without terrible amount of structure, and then the actual 40k players start shouting matches because your dudes aren't WYSIWYG or your loadout isn't legal. I don't think it's so much just ease of play as the community has infected itself with a strangely legalistic culture that even the game makers never intended for which creates some of the huge problems 40k suffers from, 10e being gak or not.

Other games don't cost as much. Buying mtg from china, playing skirmish games is nothing , cost wise, comparing to how much a w40k army costs, and the churn of builds is faster, then even that core MtG. You can bet that people will stricktly enforce legality when it takes so much money to build an army, and the more months it takes to build an army, the more serious people get about them. I can imagine that to some people, the price of a w40k army may not matter. But I work now and if I wanted to buy a full w40k or AoS army, I would have to not eat, not pay rent, not buy monthly tram ticket, not buy supplements for 3 months. But even if it was one month, it would still be serious. People like to call w40k a beer and pretzel game, but it is only that, for people who played for 20+ years with multiple armies, who don't have to buy much new stuff to play. I have seen teens try to pick up 10th ed, and got burned worse then most people in 8th and 9th. Those dudes will not return to play the game in the next few years, and stores don't work well with a population of 35+ year olds with full armies and access to 3d printers.

Karol wrote:
I have seen teens try to pick up 10th ed, and got burned worse then most people in 8th and 9th. Those dudes will not return to play the game in the next few years, and stores don't work well with a population of 35+ year olds with full armies and access to 3d printers.

Just curious, how did these teens get burned from trying to pick up 10th? Was it from the Errata/FAQs that made some large changes to the game and/or points or was it something else?

PenitentJake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

Yeah- the only force I could see myself playing in HH is SoS. There is a faction there that I like... but HH lacks so much of the stuff that makes the GW universe what it is to me, that even though there is a faction that I like enough to play, the universe itself is just duller without Xenos, SoB, and the three Ordos of the Inquisition that we love so much.

Death Watch and Grey Knights ARE my marines... Without them, I have very little interest in Marines at all. And it's kinda tough when the whole setting of the game is a war of one set of marines vs another set of marines. There are other factions, sure, but the game isn't ABOUT them, even when you're telling your stories from there point of view.

They may be factions... But their entire involvement in the story is picking a side in someone else's war.

Totally understandable POV Jake. I completely understand why someone would want to avoid HH due to the lack of the factions that they prefer. If HH didn't include the 8th Legion, I wouldn't be interested in it myself. My apologies, I was just trying to do a bit of recruiting, but if it isn't for you, that's fine.

As to everyone else who turned my playful attempt to move Jake to HH and turned it into a multi page fight: this is why I only engage this forum when I'm at least 50% ripped nowadays. Calm down guys, please. I was specifically talking to Jake, no one else. I fully understand why someone wouldn't want to move to a system that doesn't support their preferred faction, again, I wouldn't do it myself. Apologies if my opinion seemed otherwise.

 Wyzilla wrote:
The interviews with them lay out that they make the game with the intention of everyone just bashing stuff together without terrible amount of structure, and then the actual 40k players start shouting matches because your dudes aren't WYSIWYG or your loadout isn't legal. I don't think it's so much just ease of play as the community has infected itself with a strangely legalistic culture that even the game makers never intended for which creates some of the huge problems 40k suffers from, 10e being gak or not.

This doesn't track with the absurdly legalistic manner in which rules are written, the fact that some of those rules-lawyer things actually stem from GW themselves (see: Warhammer World events requiring you update models to the latest base size), or the highly technical, prescriptive nature of wargear and unit options to enforce strict NMNR.

10th Ed is not written as a 'pick up your dudes and go' sort of ruleset. They might claim it is, but it isn't. The most charitable way to interpret it is that they want to make a casual beer-and-pretzels game but instead respond to market demand and now we have Metawatch articles and quarterly balance updates based on tournament results.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 811846 11607989 wrote:

ERJAK clearly stated they don't care about wargear for characters I'm this case, it's pointless you asking as that's a very subjective question anyway. It's a shame that some options have gone, some people will be more bothered than others. Personally I'd rather they threw a bone somewhere for bike lovers but I'd also add that white scars being memed into BIKES!BIKES!BIKES! isn't necessarily great either, they were masters of mounted combat, I.e. mounted on a bike, jetbike, mounted in transports which is the key one people forget.

What do you mean "memed" WS are the biker faction. Just like DA are the terminators faction and BA are the jump pack faction. Telling WS to just use rhinos or what ever the primaris transports are called may just be replaced with telling them to play white painted ultramarines.

They were memed into being the bike faction in 2004 via their Index Astartes WD article.

It listed what units the White Scars used, dictated that all squads & characters had to be either bike mounted or mounted in tranports, assault troops could not remove thier jump packs, shifted bike squads into the Troops Slot on the FoC, and gave extra chapter specific rules for bike units.

Once this happened? Virtually anyone playing WS went all in on ALL BIKES, ALL THE TIME.
Despite the chapter being stated as making use of jump packs, foot units mounted in rhinos/Razorbacks, termies riding in Landraiders, drop pods, speeders, etc....

So near instant meme.

It also completely overshadowed the other SM biker army - the Ravenwing (Dark Angels, 2nd Co.)

Personally I liked the White Scars as a primarily biker army. It gave them a bit more flavor and distinction from some of the other famous chapters, even if it was a bit memey. I liked the idea that there was an entire chapter that trained and specialized in fighting on bikes as a primary doctrine warfighting doctrine, when the majority of their compatriots (Dark Angels included) were primarily infantry based.

@Gadzilla666 - No problem on the attempted recruit; honestly, if I was a bit more financially stable, it actually would have worked! The Kharon Pattern Acquisitor is one of my favourite GW vehicles- it's the creepiest grimdark thing in the range, and if it was plastic I'd already have one whether I planned on playing HH or not.

RE: White Scars

I do clearly remember White Scar speeders and rhinos featuring in armies, mostly in WD articles- Jump packs too.

I like White Scars Bikers... Gives me that Genghis Khan / Mongolian vibe in a way that jump packs, speeders and rhinos don't.

Speaking of Badass Mongolian people on bikes:

Totally agreed on the Kharon. That model is sick!

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 811846 11607989 wrote:

ERJAK clearly stated they don't care about wargear for characters I'm this case, it's pointless you asking as that's a very subjective question anyway. It's a shame that some options have gone, some people will be more bothered than others. Personally I'd rather they threw a bone somewhere for bike lovers but I'd also add that white scars being memed into BIKES!BIKES!BIKES! isn't necessarily great either, they were masters of mounted combat, I.e. mounted on a bike, jetbike, mounted in transports which is the key one people forget.

What do you mean "memed" WS are the biker faction. Just like DA are the terminators faction and BA are the jump pack faction. Telling WS to just use rhinos or what ever the primaris transports are called may just be replaced with telling them to play white painted ultramarines.

They were memed into being the bike faction in 2004 via their Index Astartes WD article.

It listed what units the White Scars used, dictated that all squads & characters had to be either bike mounted or mounted in tranports, assault troops could not remove thier jump packs, shifted bike squads into the Troops Slot on the FoC, and gave extra chapter specific rules for bike units.

Once this happened? Virtually anyone playing WS went all in on ALL BIKES, ALL THE TIME.
Despite the chapter being stated as making use of jump packs, foot units mounted in rhinos/Razorbacks, termies riding in Landraiders, drop pods, speeders, etc....

So near instant meme.

It also completely overshadowed the other SM biker army - the Ravenwing (Dark Angels, 2nd Co.)

Actually it did not, as an old school dark angels player with a ravenwing army and a copy of all of the index astartes books. the scars make melee themed bike centric army with mechanized support elements. all the special rules-born in the saddle, hit&run, bike mounted veterans, outflank, and counter attack made them good at it, where as the ravenwing could not bring anything other than bikes, attack bikes and land speeder tornados/tempests. their rules also made them a bike centric shooting army-fearless, jink save from shooting, skilled rider, the master of the ravenwing land speeder that improved their shooting via the all seeing eye etc...they could do CC but they did not excel at it.


It provided a completely different style of play.

An 'army' of 100 max possible models vs an army of 1000 in a chapter...

 aphyon wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 811846 11607989 wrote:

ERJAK clearly stated they don't care about wargear for characters I'm this case, it's pointless you asking as that's a very subjective question anyway. It's a shame that some options have gone, some people will be more bothered than others. Personally I'd rather they threw a bone somewhere for bike lovers but I'd also add that white scars being memed into BIKES!BIKES!BIKES! isn't necessarily great either, they were masters of mounted combat, I.e. mounted on a bike, jetbike, mounted in transports which is the key one people forget.

What do you mean "memed" WS are the biker faction. Just like DA are the terminators faction and BA are the jump pack faction. Telling WS to just use rhinos or what ever the primaris transports are called may just be replaced with telling them to play white painted ultramarines.

They were memed into being the bike faction in 2004 via their Index Astartes WD article.

It listed what units the White Scars used, dictated that all squads & characters had to be either bike mounted or mounted in tranports, assault troops could not remove thier jump packs, shifted bike squads into the Troops Slot on the FoC, and gave extra chapter specific rules for bike units.

Once this happened? Virtually anyone playing WS went all in on ALL BIKES, ALL THE TIME.
Despite the chapter being stated as making use of jump packs, foot units mounted in rhinos/Razorbacks, termies riding in Landraiders, drop pods, speeders, etc....

So near instant meme.

It also completely overshadowed the other SM biker army - the Ravenwing (Dark Angels, 2nd Co.)

Actually it did not, as an old school dark angels player with a ravenwing army and a copy of all of the index astartes books. the scars make melee themed bike centric army with mechanized support elements. all the special rules-born in the saddle, hit&run, bike mounted veterans, outflank, and counter attack made them good at it, where as the ravenwing could not bring anything other than bikes, attack bikes and land speeder tornados/tempests. their rules also made them a bike centric shooting army-fearless, jink save from shooting, skilled rider, the master of the ravenwing land speeder that improved their shooting via the all seeing eye etc...they could do CC but they did not excel at it.


It provided a completely different style of play.

Well, as a fellow old-school player with all the same books on thier shelf.....

We will have to just agree that we saw different things.
What I saw WS wise - both in my home area & as I traveled - was virtually all bikes, all the time. The # of non-bike/attack bike WS units I saw used were so few as to not be a factor in this discussion. And I NEVER saw a rhino mounted WS unit IRL.

You know what else I didn't see?
Any new Ravenwing forces being built.
And that's because while you could make a good shooty RW force that was ok-ish come CC, you could make an all bike based WS force that was good at both. So shocker, people built the force that was good at both....

Maybe you saw something different wherever you were at the time?

I most certainly did see it differently. this was my 1,850 ravening army circa 3rd/4th



These were the scars armies i was seeing in my area around the same time.

 aphyon wrote:
I most certainly did see it differently. this was my 1,850 ravening army circa 3rd/4th

Spoiler:

Gotta love the land speeder assault cannon spam when 4th edition's rending rules were brutal! (rending on 6's to hit, not to wound like 5th edition).

Does that scars land raider have hussar wings?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Does that scars land raider have hussar wings?

Seems to, looks like the back banner off the kislev mounted guys maybe?

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
The interviews with them lay out that they make the game with the intention of everyone just bashing stuff together without terrible amount of structure, and then the actual 40k players start shouting matches because your dudes aren't WYSIWYG or your loadout isn't legal. I don't think it's so much just ease of play as the community has infected itself with a strangely legalistic culture that even the game makers never intended for which creates some of the huge problems 40k suffers from, 10e being gak or not.

This doesn't track with the absurdly legalistic manner in which rules are written, the fact that some of those rules-lawyer things actually stem from GW themselves (see: Warhammer World events requiring you update models to the latest base size), or the highly technical, prescriptive nature of wargear and unit options to enforce strict NMNR.

10th Ed is not written as a 'pick up your dudes and go' sort of ruleset. They might claim it is, but it isn't. The most charitable way to interpret it is that they want to make a casual beer-and-pretzels game but instead respond to market demand and now we have Metawatch articles and quarterly balance updates based on tournament results.

Yeah, I can't look at the absolute rules mush that is the Tau "For the Greater Good" ability and square that with the game being meant to be simple.

Text in full, in case anyone wants to see for themselves:


This is also one of the reasons they needed to errata in that a unit that had shot was no longer eligible to shoot*, as before that you could just daisy chain all your units by selecting the previous unit you shot with as the observer for the next unit.

*Not that they actually did that, but rather hid the errata in a document that itself states that "While streamlined at its core, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of endless variety, and can involve nuanced circumstances that may give even experienced players pause. This commentary is a living resource of definitions, diagrams and examples intended to clarify some of the game’s finer points and resolve niche questions that might otherwise slow down the pace of battle." Adding an entirely new clause to a rule to determine whether a unit is eligible to shoot is not a clarification, it is the wholesale changing of the rules.

For all the "rules mush" that modern 40k and Age of Sigmar have, I find them much simpler to play than many other games that try to have less wordy/more "naturally worded" rules.

Especially Horus Heresy 2.0, which would really benefit from the "rules mush", as with 40k/AoS at least there are working rules when you get past the wordiness of it (most of the time).

 Rihgu wrote:
For all the "rules mush" that modern 40k and Age of Sigmar have, I find them much simpler to play than many other games that try to have less wordy/more "naturally worded" rules.

Especially Horus Heresy 2.0, which would really benefit from the "rules mush", as with 40k/AoS at least there are working rules when you get past the wordiness of it (most of the time).

HH needs exactly nothing from the current 40k ruleset. I'll accept the complaints about the lack of factions, but there are no 10th edition rules that HH 2.0 needs.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Yeah, I can't look at the absolute rules mush that is the Tau "For the Greater Good" ability and square that with the game being meant to be simple.

the rule is actually super simple, but GW is incapable of not using lawyer-speech when writing rules.
Same with all the secondaries and missions, why do they take up more text than MTG cards for something as simple as

"Xpts per enemy unit killed on an objective"
"Xpts per action in table corners"
"Xpts per friendly unit in your opponent's deployment zone"

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
For all the "rules mush" that modern 40k and Age of Sigmar have, I find them much simpler to play than many other games that try to have less wordy/more "naturally worded" rules.

Especially Horus Heresy 2.0, which would really benefit from the "rules mush", as with 40k/AoS at least there are working rules when you get past the wordiness of it (most of the time).

HH needs exactly nothing from the current 40k ruleset. I'll accept the complaints about the lack of factions, but there are no 10th edition rules that HH 2.0 needs.

Yeah, keep that fethed up 40k crap outta 30k!!!!!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Yeah, I can't look at the absolute rules mush that is the Tau "For the Greater Good" ability and square that with the game being meant to be simple.

the rule is actually super simple, but GW is incapable of not using lawyer-speech when writing rules.
Same with all the secondaries and missions, why do they take up more text than MTG cards for something as simple as

"Xpts per enemy unit killed on an objective"
"Xpts per action in table corners"
"Xpts per friendly unit in your opponent's deployment zone"

It is simple, and I have rewritten it myself before to make it a lot clearer, but the way they word it makes it almost impossible to parse on first reading as they are constantly changing between which units they are talking about. Like, second paragraph. First line introduces one unit, then the second introduces another unit. The third sentence then begins with "This unit..." which of those two units does it mean? Normal english would say that it refers to the second unit as that is the most recently defined possibility that "This unit" could refer to, but nope, it actually means the first unit. If I walked up to you and said "This is Greg. This is Dave. He's a doctor." Which of Greg or Dave is the doctor?

They could have written it clearly while also writing it more concisely.

I feel like the modern hyper-verbose rules are, ironically, the result of them trying to be clearer. Like, the way most of the core rules are written in 10th seems like an attempt to avoid vague wording/unclear rules by spelling everything out in painful detail.

Remember all the FAQs of yester-year that were basically just there to clear up ambiguous wording?

But then you sometimes get things like FtGG where the kept the wordy tone of the other rules but forgot to also make the spelled-out rules readable.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
The interviews with them lay out that they make the game with the intention of everyone just bashing stuff together without terrible amount of structure, and then the actual 40k players start shouting matches because your dudes aren't WYSIWYG or your loadout isn't legal. I don't think it's so much just ease of play as the community has infected itself with a strangely legalistic culture that even the game makers never intended for which creates some of the huge problems 40k suffers from, 10e being gak or not.

This doesn't track with the absurdly legalistic manner in which rules are written, the fact that some of those rules-lawyer things actually stem from GW themselves (see: Warhammer World events requiring you update models to the latest base size), or the highly technical, prescriptive nature of wargear and unit options to enforce strict NMNR.

10th Ed is not written as a 'pick up your dudes and go' sort of ruleset. They might claim it is, but it isn't. The most charitable way to interpret it is that they want to make a casual beer-and-pretzels game but instead respond to market demand and now we have Metawatch articles and quarterly balance updates based on tournament results.

Yeah, I can't look at the absolute rules mush that is the Tau "For the Greater Good" ability and square that with the game being meant to be simple.

Text in full, in case anyone wants to see for themselves:

Spoiler:

If your Army Faction is T’au Empire, then in your Shooting phase units from your army can work in pairs to help each other target specific enemy units. When they do this, one unit is the Observer unit and the other is their Guided unit. The enemy they are targeting is called their Spotted unit.

Each time you select this unit to shoot, if it is not an Observer unit, it can use this ability. If it does, select one other friendly unit with this ability that is also eligible to shoot (excluding Fortification, Battleshocked and Observer units). Until the end of the phase, this unit is considered a Guided unit, and that friendly unit is considered an Observer unit. Then select one enemy unit that is visible to both your units to be their Spotted unit.

Until the end of the phase:
■ Each time a model in a Guided unit makes an attack that targets their Spotted unit, improve the Ballistic Skill characteristic of the attack by 1 and, if their Observer unit has the Markerlight keyword, the attack has the [IGNORES COVER] ability.

■ Each time a model in a Guided unit makes an attack that does not target their Spotted unit, worsen the Ballistic Skill characteristic of the attack by 1.

This is also one of the reasons they needed to errata in that a unit that had shot was no longer eligible to shoot*, as before that you could just daisy chain all your units by selecting the previous unit you shot with as the observer for the next unit.

*Not that they actually did that, but rather hid the errata in a document that itself states that "While streamlined at its core, Warhammer 40,000 is a game of endless variety, and can involve nuanced circumstances that may give even experienced players pause. This commentary is a living resource of definitions, diagrams and examples intended to clarify some of the game’s finer points and resolve niche questions that might otherwise slow down the pace of battle." Adding an entirely new clause to a rule to determine whether a unit is eligible to shoot is not a clarification, it is the wholesale changing of the rules.

That writing would deserve a famous pesci clip.

when they "fixed "FtGG instead of it being in the rules commentary all they needed was an errata to add a third bullet stateing that a unit which has shot is not "eligible to shoot" for the remainder of that shooting phase.

when I saw a rules "commentary" document, to me thats designers fluff about why they wrote what they did, it shouldn't be "rule book: part 2 the bits we cut out"

A huge problem with how the current rules are written is that GW seems to think that merely by adopting some weird pseudo-legalese layout and verbiage they'll create a more streamlined and clearer game. I'm convinced they don't actually understand why they should be doing it - it's just how most other games work so they've copied it.

For example, they list out the sequence for shooting, but fail to write rules that hook into that sequence properly, or end up with the sequence not making sense because they haven't actually thought about how it works, they've merely decided it had to be written in a certain way. They've managed to get the worst of both worlds. It's wordy, convoluted and often still unclear even once you've gone to the hassle of parsing it.

so a little update regarding jumping to 5th due to my mate wanting to play it.

The good:

Lots of options for customisation
a clean set of rules as its all out and available
plenty of character, tone and artwork make this edition ooze theme.

The Bad:
Wound allocation rules are just bad and open to abuse.

balance is all over the place, the later codex's are very powerful while the early ones are usually bad, Chaos marines especially are pretty bad in 5th from what we are seeing.

redundant options, while plenty of options is good, too many is bad, some books just verge over to bad, for me the Tyranid codex hits the sweet spot for amount of options to redundant ones, even if the options are not as powerful as others.

Is it fun, absolutely, it seems to play better than 10th in terms of speed and flow but that is likely down to how familiar it is compared to things such as HH 1.0, there is also the added bonus that it will be easy to slot in newer units to 5th due to the USR system, we are going to add the new Necron and Tyranid units for our next game.

 Formosa wrote:

for me the Tyranid codex hits the sweet spot for amount of options to redundant ones, even if the options are not as powerful as others.

4th or 5th Tyranid codex? I have heard about people using the 4th one for their 5th ed games, it is rare to hear anyone praise the 5th one (because it sucked so much).

 Formosa wrote:

balance is all over the place, the later codex's are very powerful while the early ones are usually bad, Chaos marines especially are pretty bad in 5th from what we are seeing.

Because CSM didn't get a 5th edition book. They had one that came out almost a year prior to 5th edition launching. It had some decent builds (twin lash princes and oblits), but was extremely bland compared to the 3.5 dex. The sixth edition CSM book was essentially codex Heldrake. I think there are some fan dexes for CSM that will give you a better experience in 5th.

 Tyran wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

for me the Tyranid codex hits the sweet spot for amount of options to redundant ones, even if the options are not as powerful as others.

4th or 5th Tyranid codex? I have heard about people using the 4th one for their 5th ed games, it is rare to hear anyone praise the 5th one (because it sucked so much).

I remember enjoying games with the 5th edition one. Iirc, that was where they dropped some of the biomorph customization (weapons with strength based on the model strength, maybe bonded exoskeleton, etc.), but wasn't that also where they introduced the tervigon, hive guard, venomthropes. and maybe the mawloc/trygon? Of course, I mostly ran 'stealer spam at the time, so maybe I'm misremembering.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I remember enjoying games with the 5th edition one. Iirc, that was where they dropped some of the biomorph customization (weapons with strength based on the model strength, maybe bonded exoskeleton, etc.), but wasn't that also where they introduced the tervigon, hive guard, venomthropes. and maybe the mawloc/trygon? Of course, I mostly ran 'stealer spam at the time, so maybe I'm misremembering.

No, you're correct. The 5th edition book introduced the trygons, mawlocs, hive guard, mycetic spore pods, tervigons etc. It also nuked the carnifex to oblivion.