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.

I'm on the fence, picked up the rules and the traitor book, going to have a few games of 3rd and see what my local group does. But, also have old world and killteam as backups. Any new units I make for the 3rd edition are likley to be 3d printed anyway, like a squad of vet tacticals with shotguns for my 3rd legion force.

I don't think i will. I'm full-on stick-in-the-mud and rolling with first edition still.

Its been quite strange watching the back and forth on the new edition as i have memories of the same sort of issues being raised when 2.0 dropped.
(missing unit profiles, missing wargear, loss of unit options, edition not wanted/needed)

There have been good ideas in both 2.0 and 3.0 but the delivery spoiled them.
Reactions in 2.0, enhanced statuses in 3.0.

I had my first game over the weekend. Roughly 2k pts, although we weren't being overly strict about clocking wargear costs.

As I said in the N&R thread, the reaction to the new rules was mostly positive from our group. We generally agreed list building was sort of annoying, but likely one of those thing you'll just end up adapting too through attrition of use. A few of the 'nardier Grogs lamented the lack of RoWs and I think there was a bit of quiet envy directed my way because of the Hexagrammaton based Auxiliary detachments the Dark Angels have available, and while the list building isn't exactly to my taste, it seems fine for the most part.
As far as units themselves go, the greatest gnashing of teeth was over the fixed consul load outs, which I think is entirely understandable and more then a touch justified.
The changes to some reactions was met favourably, with just about everyone agreeing that Return Fire happening after casualties, is exactly what it should have been initially in 2.0. Being able to negate overwatch by getting into base contact in your step up(?) move is a nice touch, and one that I really like, and again what the 2.0 overwatch should have been like. Although I did find the whole remodeled assault phase a bit frustrating and the being able to declare a charge you can't physically make the distance for, just to get a few extra inches of movement seems a bit... gamey? Which, fine you still run the risk of being overwatched, and everyone is allowed to do it so its not like one player has an advantage. But it just didn't sit entirely right with me.

Challenges were a definite post-game talking point. A few of the guys really liked the way they happen now, while a couple thought it was over complicated and pulled the focus away from the rest of the game. We had a classic praetor-off. Terranic Greatsword vs Thunderhammer. The Dark Angels gambit where you drop an attack for... critical strike(?) seems quite good if you roll well on your initiative roll off. And I did manage to knock all but 1 wound off him in one round. The 2nd and 3rd round though did not go my way as I flubbed all my attacks and then my opponent made me pay for it. The Paladin though seems quite nasty in a challenge environment, if you take the slayer of kings Hekatonystika rule. WS7 is nothing to sneeze at. I didn't get to use him in a challenge though as we realised that moritat I tried to challenge couldn't actually fight a challenge because he didn't have a specific rule. Personally, I thought they were definitely more interesting then the old rules. But I still don't exactly like the mechanic itself as a whole.
The one guy who bought a flyer with him was not overly enamored with the new flyer rules, although I don't recall what his actually grievance with them was.

Oddly enough there was very little talk (that I heard at least) about Tactical Statuses. They only popped up twice in my game. One of my units got hit by a heavy flamer squad and got suppressed(?) and another squad had something else happen to them, but they were sitting on an objective and so I wasn't planning on doing anything with afterwards anyway so I think it didn't matter at all.
The Tactical Status mechanic itself seems fine. I like the concept behind it and i think it opens up a breadth of options for weapons that normally wouldn't get taken in favour of other things (i.e- flamers). I just don't see why it needed 4 additional leadership based stats though.

Was everyone taking voxes? Their ability to help clear statuses seems worth the points, and worth the points of taking snipers to pick them off.

In the games I played they seemed to affect vehicles worst, who clear them off at a much slower rate and stacking all three can really hurt a vehicles ability to transport or fire any weapons.

For infantry it seems ideal to slap one on your target then charge them to abuse that initiative 1 as much as anything else.

How was scoring? The whole Line/Vanguard/Support thing?

A friend of mine has got the rulebook and thinks it is worth a shot. And now I think the inclusion of legacy units has walked back my main criticism of the new release.

Now to finish getting 1k points of stuff painted up, so should be good to go by the time 4.0 comes along!

I’m tempted to convert up a Siege Breaker and field a brace of Phosfeckoff equipped Quadlauncher Rapiers.

Because that stuff is nasty. As you flee at least twice when panicked, if I can hit a unit early enough (24” range, so not entirely guaranteed) it may flee off the board, or at least well out of position so it plays little part in the main battle.

cody.d. wrote:Was everyone taking voxes? Their ability to help clear statuses seems worth the points, and worth the points of taking snipers to pick them off.

Not sure to be honest. I didn't have any, and I don't believe my opponent had any. Not sure about the other tables though.
On the note of snipers. I did take my trusty Vigilator with me, and let me say, that melon-fether is NASTY. NA-STY! He is, in my opinion exactly where he should be. I've always been of the opinion that he should have had a gun that did brutal (2), and while he was good at taking out sergeants, apoths, wargear carriers, etc. last edition, his native 2 damage and ability to boost that up to 3 with a lucky role, makes him very much worth considering. Once people find their feet with the edition I think we'll be seeing them quite a bit. I ganked a librarian with one shot on the first turn and it was great! (Then completely wiffed the 2nd turn shot against a sergeant )
If as you predict, voxes will be the hot item, then I can definitely see a vigilator making it into a lot of lists to counter them.

lord_blackfang wrote:How was scoring? The whole Line/Vanguard/Support thing?

Yeah that adds something of a dynamic element to an old standard. And honestly, even from only a single two turn game, I came to the rapid conclusion I liked it. We had 3 objectives, one 3pter in the middle, two 1pters on opposite quarters. I had a plasma support squad go an jump on the middle objective in my 2nd turn, so gaining the single point. Opponents 2nd turn his grave wardens (i think) came in and pushed me off and claimed the bonus points and in doing so, evened the VP count.
I really liked it as a way of giving non-line units something to do. Also means all hopes not lost if you lose your line units in a VP game. You can eek back a few points with support units or go for a last-ditch steal if you have a vanguard. Maybe a single game is not enough experience to really sing it's praises, but IF my single game was any indication, then it's a system I like.

Pacific wrote:Now to finish getting 1k points of stuff painted up, so should be good to go by the time 4.0 comes along!

I would say 1k/1.5k is a good starting place for the new edition. Especially if you're familiar with first or second edition rules, or any pre-8th edition 40k, as there's enough changed to make starting with a big game quite confusing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’m tempted to convert up a Siege Breaker and field a brace of Phosfeckoff equipped Quadlauncher Rapiers.

I wonder if they'll turn out to be as utterly nasty as they were in 1st edition. They might regain their status of the "I-hate-having-friends" unit.

I wonder if games are going up to 3500 pts to make up for the new character tax.

I checked the last 3k list I used -

Mortarion
Primus Medicae
Grave Wardens
Spartan
3x Boxnaut
Rapier Battery
2x Tacticals
1x TSS in a Rhino
1x Kratos
1x Sicaran

- and I seem to be four detachment unlocks short under basic rules, even accounting for the one Logistical Benefit I can buy. I seem to have lucked out, randomly, and the Death Guard specific detachment combines two unit types I use and gives and extra Logistical Benefit, so by happy coincidence I can cut it down to two unlocks, so for this list I just need to add one do-nothing Centurion or two actually cool Consuls.

Snrub wrote:I wonder if they'll turn out to be as utterly nasty as they were in 1st edition. They might regain their status of the "I-hate-having-friends" unit.

Who knows! The Quadlauncher is kind of, ish, limited by its 24” range. So first turn bye-byes are likely to be fairly rare.

But I would be surprised if they’re seen more often than not. First, to unlock plentiful ranged Phosphex you need the Siege Breaker first. Same with the Arquitor Bombard. And after that “tax” it’s another points investment to get the shells.

And whilst no doubt effective, the Rapiers and Arquitors aren’t exactly tough cookies.

Other than that, you’ve the Leviathan’s Phosphex Discharger. 18” range, and whilst it doesn’t need a Siege Breaker, it is further points spent, and on a pretty rare option for most armies.

And so whilst Phosphex is to be feared, and you can build an army around it, its points and limits your build options. So thankfully I don’t think it’s going to be Fury of the Ancients common!

I noticed a bunch of resin (and a chunk of Alpa Legion) returned to the GW online store.


***

Maybe I'll check out 3rd when the new Zone Mortalis rules come out. The 2nd Edition version was really fun. I can't imagine much has changed for 3.0

ZM may be about to get more challenging, because of the change to heavy weapons moving.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
ZM may be about to get more challenging, because of the change to heavy weapons moving.

Heavy Weapons were less of a thing for our group as we had Necromunda levels of blocking terrain.

The only major difference (besides leaving the big guns at home), will probably be the direct inclusion of non marine armies, with their own special abilities.

I've played 4 games now and my takeaways

1. Things are far more up to random chance/less consistent due to lack of re-rolls. This is good for me, as I almost never used re-rolls beyond twin-linked anyways, and often got chaplain'd or shredded by my main opponents. However, this does mean a lot of stuff goes "weird" more often. Such as Ferrus Manus and Gorgon terminators absolutely plowing over Horus and Justaerin.

2. Tactical statuses haven't come up in any significant way in any of the 4 games so far.

3. Vanguard is a pathetic rule. Units with vanguard cost more points than equivalently fighty units, but are easily countered by simply walking off of the objective when they enter 12" range. The one time anything came close to scoring Vanguard in any of the four games it was a shooting Knight Questoris that had more than 12" range, but even then it couldn't actually kill a tactical squad on the objective so I just pulled models off of the zone, so if the rest of the unit got smashed it wouldn't count for Vanguard.

4. Sons of Horus rule doesn't play into their lore in any capacity. Why are these tip of the spear fighters, who, to quote first edition, "begin and end wars against enemies that don't even know they're at war", slightly better at shooting with a very slim range of weapons right before a charge? Yeesh. Why do the merciless fighters scoff at weaker opponents when challenged? Shouldn't they duff up the bug, in some sort of merciless way?

5. Prime advantages are mostly garbage. Logistical Benefit, Paragon of Battle and Interdiction Cadre are the only ones I've glanced at, and even then LB is mostly just being lazy in list-building. Master Sergeant is too limited to be of great use, if you could bring it more than once per detachment I think I'd be making nice despoiler sergeants. The Sons of Horus one is, again, very bad. There's 1 way to get an Elite Prime Slot (apex detachment), 2 if you count the Assault Veteran-limited one that comes with Master of Descent, so once per army you can make a justaerin able to accept and make challenges with +1 initiative... whoopy.

6. List building is silly. The new legacies document lets me take a Mortifactor, which opens up 3 contemptor dreadnoughts. Or, I could take a Centurion with Logistical Benefit and get 3 of any type of dreadnought I want! Then again, I'm sacrificing the Paragon of Battle Moritat or Vigilator if I do that (but hey, 2 leviathans is good enough compared to 3 contemptors, right? or I could just use my plentiful Prime Troop slots from Supremacy Cadre to spam all the dreads I want). Similarly, now that Delegatus is a thing, a Delegatus in a Command Slot can unlock the Vanguard Apex detachment for 3 Elites, and Logistical Benefit for a fourth. That's +1 Elite slot over what a Praetor can do, which is quite funny. Starting to think these things weren't super deeply thought through!

Overall, the edition isn't looking bright for me. But hey, I kept playing that garbage in 2.0, I'll probably keep playing it in 3.0.

Oh so the cent gives 2 detachements plus giving them logistical for a 3rd right? Yeah, that does make the mortifactor a little meh. Cause you can also take leviathans or doderos with said centurion, no limit that the mortifactor comes with.

On the other hand, the morties stave slapping 3 status effects on a vehicle with a single tap is kinda nice. A little healing is also handy.

I'm shocked statuses haven't come up though. Even just taking a flamer on rhino's is usually enough to cause at least 1 panic.

If the players are used to thinking of the game in terms of lethality rather than status effects, then they may be skipping fielding status effect based weapons, and thus have so few of them that they have minimal impact on gameplay.

cody.d. wrote:
Oh so the cent gives 2 detachements plus giving them logistical for a 3rd right? Yeah, that does make the mortifactor a little meh. Cause you can also take leviathans or doderos with said centurion, no limit that the mortifactor comes with.

On the other hand, the morties stave slapping 3 status effects on a vehicle with a single tap is kinda nice. A little healing is also handy.

I'm shocked statuses haven't come up though. Even just taking a flamer on rhino's is usually enough to cause at least 1 panic.

Statuses came up in that tests were made, but they were either passed or like, a 1 model unit routed after a combat. The most statuses came up was when I took a bunch of neutron and graviton vs knights and was able to keep 2 models pinned, but they didn't need or want to move anyways. One time a sabre of mine got weapon destroyed turn 1 and spent the game not shooting? but that's an 80 point model anyways.

If the players are used to thinking of the game in terms of lethality rather than status effects, then they may be skipping fielding status effect based weapons, and thus have so few of them that they have minimal impact on gameplay.

As mentioned above, I brought a list geared towards inflicting status effects on vehicles vs a vehicle heavy force and I brought sniper teams against an infantry heavy force, and neither time did tactical statuses feel impactful towards the result of the game.

That sounds asinine...twas the one thing i thought they'd handle better and yet somehow that sounds and looks worse than 2.0 pinning.

At this point, I'm on the fence.

I play 30k, because it's the 40k I recognize. If it isn't that anymore, I don't know what's going to draw me to play it. Especially if it's introducing damage characteristics and behaving more like modern 40k.

 Snrub wrote:
with just about everyone agreeing that Return Fire happening after casualties, is exactly what it should have been initially in 2.0.

But you Return Fire before step 11 that is before casualties. So it works like in 2.0

The relentlessly wordy (albeit in theory thorough) writing makes omissions all the more baffling, especially in a game as narrative as this.

As I saw someone else put it, if you present me with a set of rules for baseball that specifies that animals may not play the game, and then omit dogs from the otherwise thorough list of barred fauna, the omission becomes all the more jarring for it.

I think the main issue is that I am not sure who all this is for. 30k is way too dense a game to ever appeal to casuals proper (honestly even 40k in its modern streamlined form remains real messy at times), and grognards don't need to be told explicitly what exactly a tape measure is, because they didn't make a habit of trying to TFG their games that way. And besides, if your opponent needs a dictionary definition of a tape measure in the rulebook in order to not be TFG about it... Maybe you should be playing someone else? I don't think that addendum is going to make them a pleasant experience all of a sudden.

I am trying to think of who wants this incredibly complex ruleset but also wanted warlord traits/RoW (particularly gameplay-interactive RoW like the Night Lords mass-character biker clans) gone and I am kind of coming up short. That doesn't mean no one will have fun playing 3.0, absolutely not, but so much just seems unexplained.

Another headscratcher of mine being dreadnoughts. They were OP in 2.0 but seem perfectly reasonable in 3.0 due to having their stats nerfed and multi damage being proliferated. So why did they also remove talons -and- make their detachment one model? That's not necessary in a world where dreadnoughts are not oppressive and tanks are 4 to a detachment.

The cynic in me says the limit on Dreads is to make you buy new stuff. They didn't necessarily push Dreads on purpose in 2.0, but they are aware that munchkins (plus Doc) bought loads, and GW now want them to fill those points with new purchases, not with a balanced Dread army.

The rules are wordy, no disputing that. But once I’ve read and digested a given rule? I’m more likely than not to understand what it does, and when it does.

There are oddities which I’m hoping we can collect in the TFG FAQ thread. But so far, and whilst I make no claim they’re the only ones, we’ve two.

The main “but what does it actually do” is the Medic! reaction. And that’s because it doesn’t say what a passed Recovery Test actually does.

The multiple damage thing is taking a cue from 10th Ed 40K. But it’s fairly modest for the most part. Sure I can field a unit of 10 Lascannons, but that’s really points intensive. Melta tends to have really solid Dam stat, even before you’re close enough for the Trait bonus, but outside of stationary Multimelta, really big tanks (AV14) are still pretty resilient.

I’ve got my first game scheduled for 27 August, and I’ll of course report back with how I found it. Whilst I’m expecting a fair amount of flipping back and forth, how much it slows down that first game remains to be seen, let alone whether I’m still seeing slowdowns a few games in.

A friend of mine has jumped in with both feet, in an attempt to be supportive I have bought a bunch of stuff!

As a general rule I give a game 2-3 solid goes to check whether I enjoy it or not. If we have given the game a good run and are still struggling, we have already agreed we will switch to OPR. Although that might be too much the other way (what is HH1.0 like?! )

The excessive verbosity and granularityof Legions Imperialis really put me off the game - GW have been at this lark for a long time now, and especially as this game isn't aimed at power-gamers, but veterans who know how to hold a tape measure (as Ashiraya says above), a more succinct rule-writing style would have probably sufficed. But, I will reserve judgement until I've got the book and have had a chance to digest it.

HH1 is 6th/7th 40k. It has problems like any edition, most of which are based on Thousand Sons and Custodes being fairly abusable.

Having had players for both armies in our group, a middle ground is easy enough to find where people still get fun armies without being maniacally brutal in composition.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The cynic in me says the limit on Dreads is to make you buy new stuff. They didn't necessarily push Dreads on purpose in 2.0, but they are aware that munchkins (plus Doc) bought loads, and GW now want them to fill those points with new purchases, not with a balanced Dread army.

Thank you for the exception. My Dreadnought fetish is well known, and unrepentant

On paper they do seem a bit better balanced these days. Still resilient to a decent amount of weapons, but easier to take down due to multiple damage. Particularly Melta, which can do nasty things to Dreadnoughts.

Still a huge FOIP to come though. My first game I’m fielding a Leviathan, mostly to give Phosphex a spin at the same time as seeing how Dreadnoughts do. One prediction is Phosphex Equipped Leviathans may still be nightmares, because anyone trying to get clever with a Meltagun has to get in range of the old Phosphex first, which is a risky proposition.

Yes, Phospex is insane and Levi is probably its sturdiest platform (albeit also with fewest shots per point)

My personal tally IIRC is 4 Contemptors (incl. FW WS one) 4 Doritos 2 Levis 2 Saturnines.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The cynic in me says the limit on Dreads is to make you buy new stuff. They didn't necessarily push Dreads on purpose in 2.0, but they are aware that munchkins (plus Doc) bought loads, and GW now want them to fill those points with new purchases, not with a balanced Dread army.

There definitely is some suspicious pushing. Centurions for example are incredibly pushed in 3.0 and were rarely used in prior editions.

The new army building also encourages taking a lot of one thing, and makes it onerous to go wide with a little bit of everything, which will also push players to get stuff to make their lists legal again.