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.

I'm going to argue that a wargame you play on the weekend shouldn't need law school style definitions and wordcount for any rule in the book, but I feel that's largely a failing of the community of wargamers as much as the rules writers.

Yeah, it does seem that people become obtuse about this stuff rapidly. In all my time gaming with blast templates for example, including running several medium sized tournaments, I've absolutely never seen a dispute over a template that wasn't resolved in under 10 seconds. But from what I see online, agonizing disputes over templates and very slow play due to people stressing about keeping everything 2" apart were commonplace outside of my community. Seems really weird to me but some people really do need all ambiguity squashed out of the rules it seems.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I'm going to argue that a wargame you play on the weekend shouldn't need law school style definitions and wordcount for any rule in the book, but I feel that's largely a failing of the community of wargamers as much as the rules writers.

As someone who started with HH1.0 and was playing HH2.0 nearly every other week, I’ve also not gotten over the wall that is the word salad nor the list building mess to start 3.0. With other life commitments and limited time I just couldn’t muster the energy to slog through it. It was easier for me to just pick up Old World and go back to Oldhammer 40k (3rd/4th) instead.This edition knocked me off HH so maybe I’ll see how 4th will be and jump back then. It’s only 30 months away anyway. Guess I’ve gotten to the old dog stage of my gaming career.

As a side note, I do deal with legal agreements daily in my profession, but that makes me NOT want to deal with more of it in my time off hah!

 Da Boss wrote:
very slow play due to people stressing about keeping everything 2" apart

This was mostly a thing in older 40k editions and HH1.0, and it was by strict necessity. If a Leman Russ caught you bunched up outside of cover, it would make its points back in dead Space Marines every time it fires its main gun.

That is "table you on turn one" levels of raw points efficiency attached to a 72" range gun, and needless to say, that's not something you want to happen if it can be avoided, or else the games will become very short. And this is not even getting started on 1.0 Phosphex.

In 2.0 and 3.0 blasts have been heavily nerfed so there's not the same life-or-death pressure to split up.

I mean there's a lot of difference between bunched up and spread out to the exact legal limit. I just spread them out 'enough' and didn't worry about it too much.

plus it's kinda on the marine player for having marines bunched up and out of cover, either cause of no transport or because of improper placement.

I forgot about blast markers in 2nd Ed. Left my Lascannon Maureens all bunched up.

Thanatar did its shoot twice, and that was them going splat.

There is of course a balance, mostly in player behaviour. If like me your a twonk and let your dudes get blasted? You’ve just got to take it on the chin. If you’re keen on keeping them spaced out? Remember your opponent would quite like a turn and go easy on the micro management.

The additions and new introductions (Tactical Statuses and how you go about inflicting them) , and re-rolls barely existing are pretty welcome. And I think Dreadnoughts are quite nicely balanced now, Spesh as Tanks are a bit tougher than they used to be.

Also remaining stationary with Heavy Weapons being a boost, rather than moving being a nerf feels welcome. Certainly I’ve more options for what I want to do with my units. And again, Tactical Statuses have helped widen the pot of eligible weapons, as you’re not entirely centred on just killing stuff.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I'm going to argue that a wargame you play on the weekend shouldn't need law school style definitions and wordcount for any rule in the book, but I feel that's largely a failing of the community of wargamers as much as the rules writers.

Yep which is why almost every other wargame you play (not least GWs 'core' games) aren't written like they belong on your car insurance T&Ca. Legions Imperialis was also in pretty bad need of an editor, but at least it stopped short of not needing to tell you that models removed as casualties cannot be shot again, or three separate instances of how to use a tape measure.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
plus it's kinda on the marine player for having marines bunched up and out of cover, either cause of no transport or because of improper placement.

Yes, that is my point exactly. You don't want that to happen... so you spread out as much as you can.

 Pacific wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I'm going to argue that a wargame you play on the weekend shouldn't need law school style definitions and wordcount for any rule in the book, but I feel that's largely a failing of the community of wargamers as much as the rules writers.

Yep which is why almost every other wargame you play (not least GWs 'core' games) aren't written like they belong on your car insurance T&Ca. Legions Imperialis was also in pretty bad need of an editor, but at least it stopped short of not needing to tell you that models removed as casualties cannot be shot again, or three separate instances of how to use a tape measure.

I remember (years ago) there was a giant rules argument at a Flames of War tournament where players argued that the rules didn't specifically say that they couldn't "dig in" their Infantry in lakes, rivers, or the ocean.

Sometimes you need to spell out things because there is always someone who will say: "The rules don't say I can't do ×! That means I can do ×."

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I'm going to argue that a wargame you play on the weekend shouldn't need law school style definitions and wordcount for any rule in the book, but I feel that's largely a failing of the community of wargamers as much as the rules writers.

Yep which is why almost every other wargame you play (not least GWs 'core' games) aren't written like they belong on your car insurance T&Ca. Legions Imperialis was also in pretty bad need of an editor, but at least it stopped short of not needing to tell you that models removed as casualties cannot be shot again, or three separate instances of how to use a tape measure.

I remember (years ago) there was a giant rules argument at a Flames of War tournament where players argued that the rules didn't specifically say that they couldn't "dig in" their Infantry in lakes, rivers, or the ocean.

Sometimes you need to spell out things because there is always someone who will say: "The rules don't say I can't do ×! That means I can do ×."

That’s just some people being donkey-caves, which again it’s a community problem. All it takes is a tournament organizer to tell them to shut the hell up and stop being a pedantic dick or leave.

Yet it has driven demand.

The 3rd Ed rules might be wordy, but they do work.

Just because something works doesn't mean its good and tailoring the rules so a minority won't do X when that same minority will find new ways to do annoying things like Y, isn't how rules should be written.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet it has driven demand.

The 3rd Ed rules might be wordy, but they do work.

I feel GW should fulfill that demand in their Designer's commentary and keep it there. Outside of that they should write with the common sense approach that has worked for 30 years.
The unnecessary wordy approach is something that has killed the enthusiasm of my group for 40K already. I feel like GW listened to the wrong minority of the community for that one and with 3rd HH also spread it to other systems.
Remember Baconcatbug on this forum, the guy who argued you couldn't fire assault weapons in 8th? Everybody laughed about his "reasoning", but nowadays it seems GW writes rules just for people like him...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet it has driven demand.

The 3rd Ed rules might be wordy, but they do work.

driven demand? like the fire sale of the saturnine boxes at the start of 3rd?

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet it has driven demand.

The 3rd Ed rules might be wordy, but they do work.

driven demand? like the fire sale of the saturnine boxes at the start of 3rd?

Exactly, just like the fire sale of Age of Darkness boxes at the start of 2nd.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet it has driven demand.

The 3rd Ed rules might be wordy, but they do work.

driven demand? like the fire sale of the saturnine boxes at the start of 3rd?

Not sure a single UK third party offering a hefty discount, confirming on Dakka they’d screwed up and over ordered, and then a couple of others following suit (matching the discount, presumably but not necessarily to protect their own sales) is a Fire Sale?