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 am torn because I like the idea of specifically psychic powers having their own stat to reference but I feel like the cool/intelligence/willpower dynamics of heresy are just not present enough in a normal game to make a difference, especially given how normal tactical marines are just 7/7/7 across the board (unless you're a thousand son).

Intelligence is the biggest offender here - there could be some really cool interactions if this was named something different like "savvy" or something and it made interfacing with equipment of all kinds better somehow, but then you'd need to change the way equipment works to accommodate those interactions and it gets really messy so fast. I especially dislike the way zone mortalis missions work. It really feels like GW said "hey, here's a set of missions where that stat we made that isn't relevant becomes relevant now!"

I have played four games of heresy 3.0, three with my Solar auxilia and one with some word bearers and the whole system just wasn't relevant aside from having to reference cool over leadership once or twice per game.

I dunno, maybe I'm missing something?

I am fine with it. I love how it gives flamers and similar weapons a more pronounced role, but it's very prone to being gamed (take a single rotor cannon, flamer, graviton gun etc to make a single unit pump out all statuses at once) and as you noted it's somewhat underused. The fact that a single flamer is as good at routing as a unit of ten heavy flamers feels a bit off.

It has more value in narrative play where you can design missions around getting more value out of intelligence checks, or in boarding actions as you noted.

Overall, I am ambivalent.

I like the splitting of stats, especially intelligence and willpower.

Willpower is a niche stat but there's nothing wrong with that. It's good to be able to separate "strong psyker" and "strong leader".

Intelligence probably needs to be more used, but otherwise follows the same logic as Willpower in that it's good to separate it from leading ability.

Leadership and cool, however, feel like a distinction without a difference? Like why is routing leadership but all the rest are cool? I feel like these two could be rolled into one - nothing would be lost and you'd remove the need to memorise/reference two arbitrarily different stats. Especially since who gets what seems fairly random.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The fact that a single flamer is as good at routing as a unit of ten heavy flamers feels a bit off.

This is something I find a little strange.
Like one flamer is as scary as a whole wall of ten firing, but then strap two flamers together and suddenly they're scarier?

I don't necessarily know how I'd change it though. Maybe give an extra -1 to a status check for every full 5 weapons joining in.
So 1-4 flamers would be Panic (1), but then 6-9 would be Panic (2), and a full squad of 10 flamers would be Panic (3).

I also think the drama of statuses could be toned down a whee bit. Instantly setting you to initiative 1 is pretty crippling when thunderhammers exist and in challenges. Similarly voxcasters are insanely strong compared to units that can't access them. Panic a Tactical Squad and they just shrug, but panic a Cataphractii squad and they're basically out of the game.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Like one flamer is as scary as a whole wall of ten firing, but then strap two flamers together and suddenly they're scarier?

Not to mention that this is ten heavy flamers I am comparing to the singular flamer, and yes, they have the same level of Panic.

Setting aside the fluffiness of whether these should be the same, a squad of 10 heavy flamer marines are 200 points, a squad of 10 flamer marines are 130 points. Going to S5 AP4 instead of S4 AP5 is probably not worth a 50% price increase from a pure gameplay perspective...

Well your heavy flamer is 33% more lethal sgainst Marines but 150% more lethal against Solar Auxilia. Pricing is hard with the all-or-nothing AP system when armour is basically a faction stat.
Plus they're significantly better against vehicles as well.

Love the concept. Love the impact.

But, as others have said? It could work a wee bit better. The design space it’s opened up is wonderful. Formerly overlooked weapons now have a genuine appeal, and players have serious options beyond just “which weapon obliterate my foe the fastest”. Just needs further work.

For instance, I agree that massed Flamer or Rotor fire for example should have a modifier to their relevant tests, compared to just one or two firing on a unit.

That being said? I don’t think I’d go much beyond -2 for massed shooting. Maybe only -1 if you’re using 5 or more. In my mind (and open to discussion!) that creates an incentive to take a larger than minimum sized squad, and some target prioritisation considerations for my opponent. Do they just go after my more valuable stuff, or attempt to neuter my Status capacity?

But what I like most about the Status effects? You test to remove each on separately. Yes it’s extra book keeping and dice rolling. But I think it would’ve been less useful if you just tested once and recovered from them all.

So. In summary? Corking idea, currently on broadly the right track, but needs some work to get it “perfect”.

That includes ensuring the stats linked to them are feeling right across the whole game.

It was one of the things that turned us off the new edition, we just couldn't be bothered learning it all when 3 years later it could all get binned again

That honestly just sounds like you're looking for excuses not to play the new edition.

I much prefer 3rd to 2nd, and the statuses provide an extra layer of tactics that is all but entirely absent from 2nd

4 mental stats is bloat for the sake of bloat and for the sake of changing the stat line of every single model so you can more easily justify remaking Libres barely 3 years old.

Not sure why folks immediately switched to talking about status effects, which are pretty much unrelated, and are indeed awesome.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
That honestly just sounds like you're looking for excuses not to play the new edition.

I much prefer 3rd to 2nd, and the statuses provide an extra layer of tactics that is all but entirely absent from 2nd

Chief our group is lucky if we even see each other once a month let alone play games. 3rd was too much change and a move to the 3 year cycle, we flat out don't have the time to learn everything over again.

I don't need to "look for excuses" I just have reasons I didn't want to pick it up.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
That honestly just sounds like you're looking for excuses not to play the new edition.

Isn't it the other way around? A new edition has to justify itself if you're already playing the old one.

For lots of people it just means "I play the new edition because everyone else is" but if you're talking it over as a group, that premise isn't actually there.