Weekender News. 30k Going to 8th...Eventually.

[ChildofFang]

Having talked to someone who is and has been pretty close to the Heresy as a game from the outset I think the most likely outcome is to rebuild what we have while taking aspects of 40k. After a year or 2 40k will have settled a fair amount, the wrinkles being smoothed somewhat, it will be much easier for them to see what will work with Heresy.

 

Now of course things can change, I’m not sure that GW will bother too much with what ruleset HH is using as long as the department can hit sales targets. They aren’t going to try and make HH a big game like AoS or 40K.

[Gorgoff]

I still want a hybrid 7th/8th: AKA 2nd edition Horus Heresy

 

1.Bring over Armor save modifiers, so we actually see variation in close combat war gear (When was the last time you saw a power sword/lightning claw,etc in the age of darkness?)

2. Keep flamer templates, i'm still open to getting rid of blast templates (small blast templates consume outrageous amounts of time especially the omnipresent quad launchers)

3. I vastly prefer the 8th edition psychic phase, it takes far less time in my experience

 

Basically I want a system that prompts interesting a varied war gear and unit section, instead of a small number of good points efficient units/gear and a bunch of stuff no one will ever use. IE When was the last time you saw someone bring Rotor cannons, heavy chain blades, Destroyer squad, Etc.

Almost every game.

I myself put very often a Heavy Chainblade dude into my army. My buddy fields a TSS with Rotor Cannons in every game with his NL and so on.

There are over 60 units in the game with dozens of options and only a tiny amount of them is horrible and even then it is completely meta dependend if you can use them.

Sure, you can minmax with that list and make 90% of the units obsolete but in which game can't you do that?

And who wants that?

Most HH player played 40k for a long time and has to know from haed gained experience what happens if you max out your army lists.

At the end of that process everyone looses because armies looking stupid and some armies become unplayable.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Gorgoff

[Brofist]

Well, at least we can all agree that destroyers are broken in the reverse way of veterans

[Gorgoff]

Well, at least we can all agree that destroyers are broken in the reverse way of veterans

Hehe yeah pretty much.

Not antiheros but antiveterans. :D

[civsmitty]

I still want a hybrid 7th/8th: AKA 2nd edition Horus Heresy 

 

1.Bring over Armor save modifiers, so we actually see variation in close combat war gear (When was the last time you saw  a power sword/lightning claw,etc in the age of darkness?) 

2. Keep flamer templates, i'm still open to getting rid of blast templates (small blast templates consume outrageous amounts of time especially the omnipresent quad launchers)

3. I vastly prefer the 8th edition psychic phase, it takes far less time in my experience

 

Basically I want a system that prompts interesting a varied war gear and unit section, instead of a small number of good points efficient units/gear and a bunch of stuff no one will ever use. IE When was the last time you saw someone bring Rotor cannons, heavy chain blades, Destroyer squad, Etc. 

 

Saturday. 

[Warhead01]

While it's not official rules there are fan rules for 30K 8th.

I am planning to try them out in my next 40K game. 

You can follow the thread that they are in on dakka dakka.

There are 4 PDF documents. 
 

I don't play beyond casual play and I have all of these painted models, it seems a shame to not use them as much as I would like to.  

Edited February 7, 2018 by Warhead01

[Noserenda]

See i think the Horus Heresy having its own rules is a huge mistake, they benefited from being a separate codex pool in 7th under that previous regime which i think gives a false impression. The FW rules team has already basically said they consider things like FAQs a low priority and as a couple of topics on this forum already show thats problematic. 

Beyond that though you are giving up the work of a much larger and better supported rules team who can be dealing with the core rules issues on an extremely regular basis. Leaving aside edition wars for now thats putting aside a huge benefit for effectively a house rule set from 3 individuals with super minimal playtesting and next to no ongoing support.

I mean thats objectively terrible right? 

[Warhead01]

I Don't care, my self, about faq's being from FW or from a forum. Frankly things like the ITC have put out faq's which were widly used for the past several years. (Like it or not.)

If this forum want's to put one together and sort things out. That would be cool. As far as official goes it is as simple as a rules packet informing people which faq is in use. (for tournaments and what have you.) If that becomes the way the majority play GW/FW will take note. (If what we have seen from how they have behaved so far with 8th edition 40K.)

Just how organized does play really need to be? 
This doesn't mean we won't want an official faq but I would think it would help them to provide a more useful faq. 

 

On a side note it seems there is little qaqc checks with in FW but I may just be overly crittical of some of their recent models.

 

What I do know is a few of my friends would be quitting completely if the AoD has gone straight over to 8th. I am willing to playing 2 different editions so long as it means I am playing at all. I'm sure we'll still be playing 30K first edition long after it's changed over if JKC has his way....   (But I could be wrong.)  30K is a delicate subject for a game within a game system. I don't know what I would do with 30K rules but I think I would prefer rules specifically for 30K over rules that are compatible with 40K. But I would also prefer it to be more of a narrative game and not a competitive/tournament game.

[ChildofFang]

40K and 30K work on very different time scales and want look to acheive different results while also dealing with different issues. We know 40K has been designed to work in a competitive environment, yes there are 3 ways to play but matched play is very much what drives the FAQ process as it is more required there than anywhere else. This is being done at regular intervals because there are so many releases for the game, HH just doesn't have that kind of need (they release <1 book a year) and the army selection and system design are seperate. HH is designed to make the armies we read about in the Heresy playable on the tabletop, they are much less versatile than 40k armies are and that means there is a much much greater chance of games becoming rock/paper/scissors which does not really make a better game.

Taken that in mind a FAQ that handled 40K would have to bear in mind how it affects 30K but their primary role would be 40K and it's competitive balance. In the last FAQ for 7th ed this led to the Melta Bomb ruling that seemed fine for 40K but was ignored for most 30K groups and was quickly redacted in the Age of Darkness rulebook. This would potentially be much more common with a shared rules set where the tools they use are very different.

I would also suggest that the approach of the new team feels different than it was a year ago. There was a focus on rules at the Weekender that there hasn't been before and they are fully aware that there are rules issues. If they move the rules forward as an Age of Darkness rules set then there is plenty of space for them to create something very cool and I have confidence in a game made that way by the people who are involved. The only concern would be how they go about promoting the game as the jump from 40K to 30K would require more investment than it did when both games were 7th and no matter what games need new blood. There is plenty they can do, I just wonder what they would choose to do.

[depthcharge12]

I wouldn’t be mad about the DA delay if they had said they were overhauling the system to 8th edition instead. This whole “do 7th edition” thing for all the legions is absolutely non sensical and causing them more work.

 

The only thing I miss from 7th is armor angles and that’s it. I have serious issues with the ap2 arms race (invalidates so many units), poor character options, and monstrous creatures ability to shrug off anti tank weapons, among other things. 7th edition Heresy was phenomenally better balanced and nicer than 40k at the time, but that ship has long since set sail.

 

So many more options would open up to the community for list building if we switched over! Turn 1 assaulting WE despoiler squads out of Dreadclaws! Anything AP-1 starts to become horrendous in large numbers towards marines :) cover actually helps improve your save! Terminators would finally get the two wounds they deserve! There’s finally a reason to take a power fist or anything other than a paragon blade on your praetor!

[Noserenda]

40K and 30K work on very different time scales and want look to acheive different results while also dealing with different issues. We know 40K has been designed to work in a competitive environment, yes there are 3 ways to play but matched play is very much what drives the FAQ process as it is more required there than anywhere else. This is being done at regular intervals because there are so many releases for the game, HH just doesn't have that kind of need (they release <1 book a year) and the army selection and system design are seperate. HH is designed to make the armies we read about in the Heresy playable on the tabletop, they are much less versatile than 40k armies are and that means there is a much much greater chance of games becoming rock/paper/scissors which does not really make a better game.

 

Taken that in mind a FAQ that handled 40K would have to bear in mind how it affects 30K but their primary role would be 40K and it's competitive balance. In the last FAQ for 7th ed this led to the Melta Bomb ruling that seemed fine for 40K but was ignored for most 30K groups and was quickly redacted in the Age of Darkness rulebook. This would potentially be much more common with a shared rules set where the tools they use are very different.

 

I would also suggest that the approach of the new team feels different than it was a year ago. There was a focus on rules at the Weekender that there hasn't been before and they are fully aware that there are rules issues. If they move the rules forward as an Age of Darkness rules set then there is plenty of space for them to create something very cool and I have confidence in a game made that way by the people who are involved. The only concern would be how they go about promoting the game as the jump from 40K to 30K would require more investment than it did when both games were 7th and no matter what games need new blood. There is plenty they can do, I just wonder what they would choose to do.

 

I Don't care, my self, about faq's being from FW or from a forum. Frankly things like the ITC have put out faq's which were widly used for the past several years. (Like it or not.)

If this forum want's to put one together and sort things out. That would be cool. As far as official goes it is as simple as a rules packet informing people which faq is in use. (for tournaments and what have you.) If that becomes the way the majority play GW/FW will take note. (If what we have seen from how they have behaved so far with 8th edition 40K.)

Just how organized does play really need to be? 

This doesn't mean we won't want an official faq but I would think it would help them to provide a more useful faq. 

 

On a side note it seems there is little qaqc checks with in FW but I may just be overly crittical of some of their recent models.

 

What I do know is a few of my friends would be quitting completely if the AoD has gone straight over to 8th. I am willing to playing 2 different editions so long as it means I am playing at all. I'm sure we'll still be playing 30K first edition long after it's changed over if JKC has his way....   (But I could be wrong.)  30K is a delicate subject for a game within a game system. I don't know what I would do with 30K rules but I think I would prefer rules specifically for 30K over rules that are compatible with 40K. But I would also prefer it to be more of a narrative game and not a competitive/tournament game.

Problem is community FAQs are extremely hard to use universally, the ITC ones always seem to have some clear and savage bias for example which makes them hard to take seriously. The benefit of a centralised FAQ source is that its official and (unless its really dumb) hence simple to use with any opponent.

 

Im also on the flip side as my gaming group was super fatigued with 7th already and Heresy has thus basically died  while we play 40k/AoS, it really cuts both ways on a local level but one system is always going to win out in the end. I mean every single version of 40k there are always some who declare they will never play the new one but they always come back, except now theres official support for the old crapness so everything fragments. 

 

 

40K and 30K work on very different time scales and want look to acheive different results while also dealing with different issues. We know 40K has been designed to work in a competitive environment, yes there are 3 ways to play but matched play is very much what drives the FAQ process as it is more required there than anywhere else. This is being done at regular intervals because there are so many releases for the game, HH just doesn't have that kind of need (they release <1 book a year) and the army selection and system design are seperate. HH is designed to make the armies we read about in the Heresy playable on the tabletop, they are much less versatile than 40k armies are and that means there is a much much greater chance of games becoming rock/paper/scissors which does not really make a better game.

 

Taken that in mind a FAQ that handled 40K would have to bear in mind how it affects 30K but their primary role would be 40K and it's competitive balance. In the last FAQ for 7th ed this led to the Melta Bomb ruling that seemed fine for 40K but was ignored for most 30K groups and was quickly redacted in the Age of Darkness rulebook. This would potentially be much more common with a shared rules set where the tools they use are very different.

 

I would also suggest that the approach of the new team feels different than it was a year ago. There was a focus on rules at the Weekender that there hasn't been before and they are fully aware that there are rules issues. If they move the rules forward as an Age of Darkness rules set then there is plenty of space for them to create something very cool and I have confidence in a game made that way by the people who are involved. The only concern would be how they go about promoting the game as the jump from 40K to 30K would require more investment than it did when both games were 7th and no matter what games need new blood. There is plenty they can do, I just wonder what they would choose to do.

Im sorry brother but you appear to be talking out of your arse here, the CORE RULES dont update multiple times a year and while Codexes etc need regular FAQs they dont affect those except in extremely odd edge cases. So a 30k supplement, just like in prior editions can benefit from core updates whilst not having to worry about the rest. Things like multibombing were just as ignored by 40k players as 30k in fact universally ignored by basically everyone because they made no darn sense with how the game worked with either Codex set.

 

This feeling that somehow Heresy gamers are somehow only playing narrative games and 40k gamers only play competitive is nonsense too, in my experience (And common sense) the demographics break down on exactly the same lines in both groups, because really, they are the same group. There are just as many 30k tourneys as Narrative events in my events feeds and tbh a lot of those "Narrative" events are just organised play with a locale added tbh. (though ill admit to being spoiled by The old GW events Team, Tempus Fugitives etc for a super high standard in narrative events).

 

This new focus on rules seems superficial too, the reports i read definitely seem to imply that FAQs are a low priority on their overloaded work pile. I dont hold out hope for much better than we have currently, i mean Inferno is riddled with FAQ issues, not to mention things like the Indexes which kinda need work too. Splitting Angelus should help them but they still have that and Fires of Cyraxus in the Medium term to write, plus things like Custodes 8th ed rules etc.

 

 

Depthcharge12, couldnt agree more :D (But trying to avoid edition wars again, people wont listen to reason :D ) 

 

[ChildofFang]

Wow easy tiger.

I have never said the community was playing vastly different games, I said the focus of the game is different. I also didn't state the Rules are updated 'multiple times a year', I said at regular intervals. That's pretty different. Essentially we could get more than one update inbetween 2 black books whether its required for 30K or not. Yes most updates are army specific issues but there are and will also be rules changes, those rules changes will be affected by the game state to try and keep it fit for purpose and there is the possibility that what is required for one game is not required for the other.

Obviously mileage varies but as someone who is asked to shout out events and keeping an eye out around other podcasters doing the same I can honestly say that my experience is of about an 80/20 narrative to competitive mix. And most of those narrative events are specifically narrative events at venues that aren't games clubs. I can throw each of my events up here - The London GT which I think is up around 80 players with the previous year being 60, Blood and Glory which was a more modest 40, over 50 at Takaan-Reva, the Geno Five Two guys selling out all their events due to lack of more space, the aussies and canadians who aren't even running structured timetables but allowing weekends that play into the narrative. Maybe your feed is full of a 50/50 mix of people that like competitive to narrative - mine certainly isn't - I can only think of a couple of (independent) tournaments for 30K when I can name a dozen narrative off the top of my head.

Having talked to Neil and Anuj I believe there is a desire to look at the rules going forward, they had dozens and dozens of post it notes in their red books which all referred to issues they were looking at and they spoke passionately about the game as a game. Now they may be very charismatic and playing me along but they also may care and wish to do what they said. It's a fair point to say that workload will probably affect how often they get to look at rules issues and it's probably not helped by many people asking questions that are already clearly answered within the rules themselves. They did state that they will probably wait till the legions are all out as they can go back and redo the army list books rather than release a patch which would have to be updated more than once before the new book.

I actually would play the game whatever system they choose, I like the setting and the models. I thought it would be certain to switch to 8th at the start, the more I talk to staff the less convinced I am and the more I kinda look forward to a radically reviewed version 2 of the Age of Darkness ruleset.

[civsmitty]

The thing is, they *are* different games. 40k is the living game system, where new characters and armies can reasonably be added without much fuss. 30k addresses a specific time period with established characters and fluff. Essentially, 30k is a historical wargame set in the 40k universe. There's no practical reason it needs to be able to play 40k armies, and one can argue that doing so diminishes both systems. I mean, you could play AoS against 40k but why would you? 

 

Certainly, AoD 2ed can borrow the good from 8th (save modifiers, charging units going first generally, psychic phase, movement values, disembarking and assaulting) and keep the good of 7ed (USRs, anything to do with vehicle facing and weapon arcs, leadership and morale, assault vehicles rules, initiative (in subsequent rounds of combat and for pursuing enemies)). They could even address some of the more questionable decisions (WS chart revamped to allow hitting on a 2+, glancing rules, dreadnoughts as vehicles instead of MC...). 

 

I like Heresy more. As someone mentioned, it feels like a more complete game. 8ed, to me, feels like a board game with more complicated rules. It's...simple. Not that that's a bad thing, Shadespire is a board game, but it's not what I look for in a tabletop.

[carlisimo]

See i think the Horus Heresy having its own rules is a huge mistake, they benefited from being a separate codex pool in 7th under that previous regime which i think gives a false impression. The FW rules team has already basically said they consider things like FAQs a low priority and as a couple of topics on this forum already show thats problematic.

Beyond that though you are giving up the work of a much larger and better supported rules team who can be dealing with the core rules issues on an extremely regular basis. Leaving aside edition wars for now thats putting aside a huge benefit for effectively a house rule set from 3 individuals with super minimal playtesting and next to no ongoing support.

I mean thats objectively terrible right?

I can't agree. Remember the transition from 6th to 7th? It 'broke' a lot of 30k units and special rules, and took a while to sort out. The rules updates GW is doing to 8th ed. will generally be smaller than that, but they'll still be disruptive. The root of the problem is that rules changes are closely related to army lists and issues that GW sees in the 40k meta. GW sees a problem, changes a rule to fix it, and if that problem didn't exist in 30k then it's going to break something. At that point, FW needs to edit its army lists to compensate.

 

ChildofFang's meltabomb example is a good one - it may have made sense in 40k, but it made several 30k units significantly less valuable and left assault-based armies in a very difficult spot against tank-heavy opponents.

 

As long as 30k and 40k are made to feel different (which is my preference), it will be rare for a change to the core rules to have a positive effect on both games. Therefore, letting the GW main studio affect 30k's rules will result in FW needing to take time away from the books and FAQs it's already struggling to write in order to write new FAQs. I don't see the upside.

[Master Sheol]

 

See i think the Horus Heresy having its own rules is a huge mistake, they benefited from being a separate codex pool in 7th under that previous regime which i think gives a false impression. The FW rules team has already basically said they consider things like FAQs a low priority and as a couple of topics on this forum already show thats problematic.

Beyond that though you are giving up the work of a much larger and better supported rules team who can be dealing with the core rules issues on an extremely regular basis. Leaving aside edition wars for now thats putting aside a huge benefit for effectively a house rule set from 3 individuals with super minimal playtesting and next to no ongoing support.

I mean thats objectively terrible right?

I can't agree. Remember the transition from 6th to 7th? It 'broke' a lot of 30k units and special rules, and took a while to sort out. The rules updates GW is doing to 8th ed. will generally be smaller than that, but they'll still be disruptive. The root of the problem is that rules changes are closely related to army lists and issues that GW sees in the 40k meta. GW sees a problem, changes a rule to fix it, and if that problem didn't exist in 30k then it's going to break something. At that point, FW needs to edit its army lists to compensate.

 

ChildofFang's meltabomb example is a good one - it may have made sense in 40k, but it made several 30k units significantly less valuable and left assault-based armies in a very difficult spot against tank-heavy opponents.

 

As long as 30k and 40k are made to feel different (which is my preference), it will be rare for a change to the core rules to have a positive effect on both games. Therefore, letting the GW main studio affect 30k's rules will result in FW needing to take time away from the books and FAQs it's already struggling to write in order to write new FAQs. I don't see the upside.

Yes it would bè true if FW didn't choose to stay in the worst rules set ever in all 40k history

This is IMHO the real problem of HH rules now, staying in a ruleset that most players hated with a passion

[kijamon]

 

 

See i think the Horus Heresy having its own rules is a huge mistake, they benefited from being a separate codex pool in 7th under that previous regime which i think gives a false impression. The FW rules team has already basically said they consider things like FAQs a low priority and as a couple of topics on this forum already show thats problematic.

Beyond that though you are giving up the work of a much larger and better supported rules team who can be dealing with the core rules issues on an extremely regular basis. Leaving aside edition wars for now thats putting aside a huge benefit for effectively a house rule set from 3 individuals with super minimal playtesting and next to no ongoing support.

I mean thats objectively terrible right?

I can't agree. Remember the transition from 6th to 7th? It 'broke' a lot of 30k units and special rules, and took a while to sort out. The rules updates GW is doing to 8th ed. will generally be smaller than that, but they'll still be disruptive. The root of the problem is that rules changes are closely related to army lists and issues that GW sees in the 40k meta. GW sees a problem, changes a rule to fix it, and if that problem didn't exist in 30k then it's going to break something. At that point, FW needs to edit its army lists to compensate.

 

ChildofFang's meltabomb example is a good one - it may have made sense in 40k, but it made several 30k units significantly less valuable and left assault-based armies in a very difficult spot against tank-heavy opponents.

 

As long as 30k and 40k are made to feel different (which is my preference), it will be rare for a change to the core rules to have a positive effect on both games. Therefore, letting the GW main studio affect 30k's rules will result in FW needing to take time away from the books and FAQs it's already struggling to write in order to write new FAQs. I don't see the upside.

Yes it would bè true if FW didn't choose to stay in the worst rules set ever in all 40k history

This is IMHO the real problem of HH rules now, staying in a ruleset that most players hated with a passion

 

 

 

Utter guff. 6th edition was far worse than 7th edition for a start. 

 

The only reason people hated 7th in 40k was formation spam (doesn't exist in 30k) and that the game was so unbalanced that some armies were like playing in impossible mode - orks for example (again, the internal game balance in 30k is much stronger).

[Fire Golem]

It’s pretty clear most players didn’t hate 7th, otherwise they wouldn’t be players. People don’t play games they hate, as a general rule.

[civsmitty]

 

 

See i think the Horus Heresy having its own rules is a huge mistake, they benefited from being a separate codex pool in 7th under that previous regime which i think gives a false impression. The FW rules team has already basically said they consider things like FAQs a low priority and as a couple of topics on this forum already show thats problematic.

Beyond that though you are giving up the work of a much larger and better supported rules team who can be dealing with the core rules issues on an extremely regular basis. Leaving aside edition wars for now thats putting aside a huge benefit for effectively a house rule set from 3 individuals with super minimal playtesting and next to no ongoing support.

I mean thats objectively terrible right?

I can't agree. Remember the transition from 6th to 7th? It 'broke' a lot of 30k units and special rules, and took a while to sort out. The rules updates GW is doing to 8th ed. will generally be smaller than that, but they'll still be disruptive. The root of the problem is that rules changes are closely related to army lists and issues that GW sees in the 40k meta. GW sees a problem, changes a rule to fix it, and if that problem didn't exist in 30k then it's going to break something. At that point, FW needs to edit its army lists to compensate.

 

ChildofFang's meltabomb example is a good one - it may have made sense in 40k, but it made several 30k units significantly less valuable and left assault-based armies in a very difficult spot against tank-heavy opponents.

 

As long as 30k and 40k are made to feel different (which is my preference), it will be rare for a change to the core rules to have a positive effect on both games. Therefore, letting the GW main studio affect 30k's rules will result in FW needing to take time away from the books and FAQs it's already struggling to write in order to write new FAQs. I don't see the upside.

Yes it would bè true if FW didn't choose to stay in the worst rules set ever in all 40k history

This is IMHO the real problem of HH rules now, staying in a ruleset that most players hated with a passion

 

If people hate 7ed so much, and so passionately, how did the FW website break due to the massive influx of preorders of AoD 1st?

 

Maaaaaybe we all shouldn't assume people like the things we like and hate the things we hate?

Edited February 7, 2018 by civsmitty

[Withershadow]

As someone who was at the Weekender, and therefore among the 'front lines', I'd like to hear where that came from - because if I heard it I would have remembered!

 

Certainly what I've heard is that once the remaining Legions get completed (i.e. Blood Angels, Dark Angels and White Scars) the writers will get around to consolidating everything into a new set of Red Books, along with making some changes to the more generic Legion Astartes lists and units. The example given was in the Malevolence seminar about Destroyers, specifically that whilst Blood Angels tackle the use of Destroyers in a Legion differently (i.e. there are no dedicated Destroyer units, it's more of a Jury Duty type model) the rules for these BA Destroyers will move across to the Red Books as an updated base for the generic Destroyer unit. So it'll be less bolt pistols and more or the terrifying weapons of doom, like they should be

 

If someone can come up with where it was specifically said I can look back to see whether this correlates (provided it's in a seminar and not just a random convo with a writer somewhere). 8th has some things right (i.e. bringing back the movement characteristic, and differentiating armour penetration from weapon strength), but on the whole it feels far too simplified, and whilst 7th can be clunky it feels more complete to me. I'd rather they keep 7th for as long as possible, at least until 40k have gone through a couple of FAQs and ironed out all the kinks. 

This is a sweet bit of news, I was always sad how lame the Destroyers were compared to their awesome sculpts.

[Gorgoff]

 

 

See i think the Horus Heresy having its own rules is a huge mistake, they benefited from being a separate codex pool in 7th under that previous regime which i think gives a false impression. The FW rules team has already basically said they consider things like FAQs a low priority and as a couple of topics on this forum already show thats problematic.

Beyond that though you are giving up the work of a much larger and better supported rules team who can be dealing with the core rules issues on an extremely regular basis. Leaving aside edition wars for now thats putting aside a huge benefit for effectively a house rule set from 3 individuals with super minimal playtesting and next to no ongoing support.

I mean thats objectively terrible right?

I can't agree. Remember the transition from 6th to 7th? It 'broke' a lot of 30k units and special rules, and took a while to sort out. The rules updates GW is doing to 8th ed. will generally be smaller than that, but they'll still be disruptive. The root of the problem is that rules changes are closely related to army lists and issues that GW sees in the 40k meta. GW sees a problem, changes a rule to fix it, and if that problem didn't exist in 30k then it's going to break something. At that point, FW needs to edit its army lists to compensate.

 

ChildofFang's meltabomb example is a good one - it may have made sense in 40k, but it made several 30k units significantly less valuable and left assault-based armies in a very difficult spot against tank-heavy opponents.

 

As long as 30k and 40k are made to feel different (which is my preference), it will be rare for a change to the core rules to have a positive effect on both games. Therefore, letting the GW main studio affect 30k's rules will result in FW needing to take time away from the books and FAQs it's already struggling to write in order to write new FAQs. I don't see the upside.

Yes it would bè true if FW didn't choose to stay in the worst rules set ever in all 40k history

This is IMHO the real problem of HH rules now, staying in a ruleset that most players hated with a passion

Which isn't true.

The worst Edition is and ever was fourth edition. Seventh is and was a great game. The problems lay in the codex books which didn't had any impact on Horus Heresy.

But some people can't differentiate between 40k and Horus Heresy and hate both games with a passion no matter the fundamental and obvious wide differences between the two.

Most people do though (differentiate) and thats why most people don't hate the system per se but the crappy codex books or douchbags who ruins the game by minmaxing army list, being horrible people on the board and so forth.

 

I won't start an argument about 8th.

As far I can say it is a fun game and easy to learn. But let me explain why people, who don't like the idea of HH in 8th, actually don't like 8th.

The biggest reason of everyone I now (and lots of people on the internet, which I hardly know but listen to) to not like 8th is the lack of narrative in the rules. It doesn't feel like the miniatures are fighting, like a combat "simulation". It's too much an abstraction and too little a narrative giving form.

Again: great game but only; A game.

 

Would I yell and scream if the HH translate to 8th?

No.

Do I prefer a unique edition for HH with potential to be more tailored to our needs in second edition?

Abso:cussingloutely.

[Withershadow]

Now Horus Heresy can truly be the "historic" game it is often described as, since it is using a historic rule-set as well as dealing with "ancient history".

[Gorgoff]

Now Horus Heresy can truly be the "historic" game it is often described as, since it is using a historic rule-set as well as dealing with "ancient history".

And I may add:

Is played by ancient people. :P

[m0nolith]

Here are a few thinigs as I see them.

 

1: 7th 30k is fantastic, 7th 40k was awful because of the codex books, the formations, the "win at all costs" players and their waac armies.

7th 30k is not 7th 40k.

 

2: 8th certainly does have some great things in it, generally speaking, I believe that 7th would fit much better with what the Age of Darkness is in regards to gameplay.

 

3: Although its horrible to admit, 30k, being that its more of a narrative game, does not have nearly that amount of "win at all costs" type of players. Custodes exist and they arent just overpowered, they're uberpowered, and this has attracted that type of waac players, but this is for the most part regulated by the community itself and it hasnt been nearly as damaging as these kind of situations would be in a 40k setting (Wraithknights, riptides, ect).

 

4: The best solution of this for me would be to have 2nd ed closer to 7th in most regards, but to also take some elements of 8th. Split fire, multiple units in a transport.

 

A few years ago there was a rumor that GW would have a three tiered system.

The simplest rules and the one targeted to new players would be Sigmar. 40k is somewhere in the middle, and Heresy being targeted towards the more experienced player with the more complex rule-set.

 

I think that rumor was bogus, but I wouldn't be against this becoming a real thing.

[Withershadow]

 

Now Horus Heresy can truly be the "historic" game it is often described as, since it is using a historic rule-set as well as dealing with "ancient history".

And I may add:

Is played by ancient people.

I am okay with this.  The rest of you can sit at the children's tables. :P

[Gorgoff]

 

 

 

Now Horus Heresy can truly be the "historic" game it is often described as, since it is using a historic rule-set as well as dealing with "ancient history".

And I may add:

Is played by ancient people.

I am okay with this. The rest of you can sit at the children's tables. :P

Oh I am one of the ancients. :)