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.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
This is exactly it. Hell, I always thought 30k 1st ed's army building and lists were what 40k always should have been from the start. Still remains the Gold standard for army building in my own opinion.

With 3rd edition changing the way we build armies, I just can't get past the first step for making an army.

I've been working on some lists. It's a rather high entry barrier. I don't know why GW succumbed to the idea that armies don't need to be formed around a core of basic troops. That seems to be what was behind the supposedly more flexible 3rd edition list building rules. But what we've ended up with is overly complicated and non-intuitive. The rules don't represent anything that suggests how an army would be put together - they're just an arbitrary and cumbersome mechanism for unlocking units (or, more specifically, getting as many Logistical Benefits as possible).

The HH3.0 army building rules are quite possibly the least intuitive I have ever come across in all of my years wargaming. I had to sit down with the books, a spreadsheet and a strong cup of coffee to crunch my way through it. And then eventually realised it didn't really matter as you can have anything you want anyway providing you are prepared to have the commander minis, making the whole complexity a largely pointless exercise.

I did wonder, in a tinfoil hat moment, if it was done to confound online army builders. But, I see newrecruit have been up to the task and already have one, so if that was the intent it wasn't successful.

HH is indeed breaking new ground in gak list building, but it seems there was an illuminati game designer briefing to engakkify it across the industry. The same is happening in this year's new editions of two of my other main games, Kings of War and Dystopian Wars. Pretty remarkable to happen in Heresy, in a fanttasy rank and flank, and in steampunk naval battles at the same time... but of course all people involved are ex-GW.

 Pacific wrote:
(I) then eventually realised it didn't really matter as you can have anything you want anyway providing you are prepared to have the commander minis, making the whole complexity a largely pointless exercise.

I made this exact criticism before the full rules were even out, nice to see it said by somebody else, had to post a rare comment to say as much!

It really blows my mind that we went from 1 HQ, 2 Troops to build a basic army to needing a 30 minute youtube video explaining how army building works.

Like every time I read about it, my eyes glaze over.

Literally fails at the first step for getting someone into a game.

What do you mean?

Force orgs contain slots. (you already intuitively understand this part, you mentioned 1HQ + 2 Troops. Assuming you understand that Elite and Heavy Support and Fast Attack existed, it's the same concept!) Get 1 force org. Add Hero, unlock new force org. Some hero unlock 2 force org.

It's not rocket science *or* music theory.

Honestly, once you do it a couple times, it's no more complicated than using the Force Org with RoWs that already shifted the Force Orgs around.

 Rihgu wrote:
What do you mean?

Force orgs contain slots. (you already intuitively understand this part, you mentioned 1HQ + 2 Troops. Assuming you understand that Elite and Heavy Support and Fast Attack existed, it's the same concept!) Get 1 force org. Add Hero, unlock new force org. Some hero unlock 2 force org.

It's not rocket science *or* music theory.

Then they could have explained it a whole lot easier than what they have had done. Plus, this way of building overly relies on hero spam, something that isnt as intuitive as just getting 3 heavy or fast attack slots like the normal FOC gives for 1 HQ and 2 troops.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Plus, this way of building overly relies on hero spam

Honestly, not in practice as much as it appears at first glance. It more encourages taking non-specialist characters as the generic characters unlock 2(3 in the case of Militia) Detachments, which generally(for me at least) results in the same or less characters as I brought with the 2.0 FOC.

And while you can bring more of the specialized units(though again, not really considering the old RoWs), you still want those basic units for their higher values of Line. I started the edition with the excitement of not having to bring any Infantry instead of the required two squads of the past for my Tank Auxilia then realized I can't actually win games without bringing basic Infantry.

 Rihgu wrote:
What do you mean?

Force orgs contain slots. (you already intuitively understand this part, you mentioned 1HQ + 2 Troops. Assuming you understand that Elite and Heavy Support and Fast Attack existed, it's the same concept!) Get 1 force org. Add Hero, unlock new force org. Some hero unlock 2 force org.

It's not rocket science *or* music theory.

In all seriousness, it sounds like you would have made a much better job of explaining how it works. Like so much else in the rules, it manages to take what are actually fairly straightforward and logical rule mechanics, and hide them behind an obfuscating word salad, like a first year college student trying to hit word count with their essay and not having much to write about.

I will admit Rihgu's explanation was good, but I still have problems with the army buidling personally.

I liked FOCs, and wished 7th ed had more of them. In fact, when Rites of War came out I wanted every codex at the time to have it. Could you imagine instead of a decurion detachment and formations, necrons got a few rites of war that gave them destroyer cults, flayed one armies and canotep armies?

It was such a damn, simple addition that was easy to understand, summed up in a few paragraphs and building on what army building already had. Now we have word salad and the need to balance an army around how many centurions you got.

The rules are simple enough, just pointlessly annoying and restrictive, but, as established months ago, the deranged AI slop language is pretty hard to penetrate, a youtube video is definitely an easier source than the actual book..

I’ve not found the rules so bad. But then, I have spent well over a decade reading, digesting and applying often complex regulations to things.

Apologies to all if this comes across as cheeky, as it’s not meant to be.

My main tip when reading any law, rule or regulation is to read the whole of the thing, and read only what it says - not what you want it to say.

It won’t make the language instantly clearer or plainer of course. But when you’ve no pre-conceived notion, it’s genuinely easier to digest.

In terms of the modern FOC? I’m a fan. I’m not as restricted as the classic one. Rites of War were one solution, but that was another layer which could get out of hand.

Now? Once you’ve got your head round it (my main thing has been recalling what sits where slot wise) you’ve reasonable freedom as to what your army looks like. And the core rules suitably encourage more basic units for snaffling Objectives and that.

Not entirely sure how I feel about losing vehicle squadrons though.

My favourite toy though are those tactical statuses. They’re a really nice concept, and can be wielded quite offensively to keep your opponent’s units from hitting their full potential.

Phosphex is ridiculous though. The good ridiculous, but ridiculous.

Think I’m gonna order a pair of Custom D6 for panic tests. Where the 1’s are an engraving of Lance Corporal Jones from Dad’s Army.