State of the HH vs 40k 8th edition

[m0nolith]

This isn’t elitism, it’s pure tribalism which is something that naturally comes about when a community has been on the defensive for so long.

 

For the most part I don’t think I’v ever come across anyone who demands that it stay 7th permanently nor have I ever seen someone who affirms that AoD is perfect and without any faults. What I have seen tho is pretty much the global Heresy community rejecting the idea of the game being ported over to 8th.

 

To me it seems that almost everyone is ok with change, this includes players of 8th, the question is to what degree and in what direction.

Edited December 3, 2019 by m0nolith

[Elzender]

Warning: this post is made by someone that has not played a single game of AoD nor 8th edition.

 

Based completely on what I've been reading on this forum and past experiences in previous editions (as 5th-6th were fairly similar to 7th in its core mechanics), I think there are a few mechanics of 8th edition that could be implemented into AoD that could be nice:

 

-AP modifiers: not a direct port from 8th, but rather as a special rule for some weapons. Called something like "Piercing X", where X would be the penalty inflicted on the armour save. It would add some granularity to the everpresent 3+ save, and maybe help reduce the ap2/3 spam that the competitive meta pushes (plasma, whirlwind scorpius, phosphex, etc). Some weaponry currently sporting ap2/3 could actually be swapped to it to tone it down a bit, and maybe give an additional rule to boarding shields to reduce this effect? (might be slightly biased by my IF blood here :D). This might help give regular infantry units a bit more presence on the tabletop.

 

- Movement stat: while some units already have penalties or bonuses to movement through special rules, it might be a good idea to introduce the movement stat for some units. Not sure on how would I exactly apply it, though, due to lack of tabletop experience.

 

- Keywords: this is something that I feel is a really nice mechanic that GW has implemented really, really poorly in 8th. In the case of AoD, the reduced number of factions could make it easier to implement. It could potentially help to clarify the wording on RoWs, how certain special rules affect different units and/or characters, etc. Moreover, I think a keyword for infantry, vehicles and monstruous infantry (and other stuff that may be escaping me), in combination with special rules for weaponry, would help a lot in making weapons more specialised. Vehicles having a rule that makes most weapons less effective against them (penalty to penetration roll?), but weapons with the "antitank" rule/keyword are not affected, or even have a bonus against them. Similar situations could apply to antiinfantry and antimonster/machine weaponry.

 

- Vehicles having save rolls: some already have them through invulnerable rolls, but in combination with the above rules, it might help their survival against small arms. As an example, we could see heavy vehicles getting a 3+ save against weapons regardless of their ap, except if they have the "antitank" keyword/rule.

 

 

Obviously, balancing all these rules would take a lot of effort on the FW team, but I guess they could reach out to the 30K community for that, which would also help them recover some of the trust that has been slowly eroded in the past years.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Elzender

[Brofist]

I feel the perception of elitism is real. To me it’s a byproduct of what 30k has become along with two different approaches to the hobby:

 

Heresy is a specialist game, the clique is smaller, it costs more, has a more military model aesthetic, and so it draws an older crowd. It tends to be played like a narrative with an emphasis on hobby (fully painted, fluffy lists, etc).

 

Mainline Warhammer is a big pool of players, the Evy Metal style is distinct and appeals to more diverse groups, and the barrier of entry is lower. Narrative games are one of the ways you can play, but there’s always been a competitive scene.

 

Coming from a mainline game, 30k checks most of the elitist boxes if you ignore the pejorative meaning of the word- it isn’t very accessible, the community is tight, it’s usually played in a set way, etc. But, like Monolith is saying, past that point it’s really just tribalism. People get upset when one group tells the other how they feel they should be playing. Its ok to hate 8th and its ok to wish HH was on another system, but we’re past the point where that was actually a discussion.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Brofist

[Qkhitai]

As someone who leans more towards the modelling side of the hobby, rather than the gaming side, the only reason I'm adverse to 8th ed. rules-wise is that unit/character customisation was completely gutted, which both kills a lot of the modelling opportunities, and makes building an army potentially more expensive. I like the fact that in HH I can turn a 95pts Magos into a unique 300pts murder machine, and model it appropriately. Buying and building (exponentially more) generic units for 8th is unappealing, and a massive turn off for the system. Ironically, for those of us on a budget, 8th edition can actually be a lot more expensive. I could pick up 10 Traitor Guard and run them for, what 50pts in 8th edition? Yet I could use them in HH for 200pts in a Militia list, and kit them out with way more options - although I still have the freedom to run them at 50pts should I so choose too. So I don't really care how the games work mechanically, but I'd hate for HH to follow 8th in streamlining unit customisation and army building. I'm not sure if that's elitism, but if it is, I certainly won't apologise for it.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think so much of it ties to the fact Alan passed right before 8th Edition. You also have people who say things like ‘it should’ve died the death it deserved’ (a mod no less) unprompted. My personal theory is that when the Heresy came out and there was so much enthusiasm for starting narrative logs, adopting military modeling techniques for armies, and building conversion heavy armies when the ‘I don’t like the Heresy thread’ here came along it just broke up the community irreparably. That’s why AoD 2.0 forging a new game built off of 7th the way Necromunda is built off of 8th (according to Andy) but ‘granular’ (again according to Andy) has a lot of potential to reconcile both sides. You only see a very small, very abrasive group bash AT, Aeronautica, and Necromunda while singing 8ths praises. If the Heresy becomes a true ‘specialist game’ I think it will be better for everyone. I tried Primaris and ended up giving them to my dad (the scale is too off for me). I’m starting again with Sisters. If a lore focused, narrative gamer like me can eventually come around to the new 40k it’s not impossible for that goodwill to come back around the other way. Plastic starters, discrete and updated rules could do that. As long as the Heresy doesn’t become more armies to play in 40k people will be upset, but if it becomes it own thing and not a shared thing it can flourish. Edited December 3, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Brofist]

I don't know if HH 2.0 would ever appease the tribalism. I like my thing and I don't like yours because X and Y.

 

There's a common root between the two games that compounds the comparisons, but at the end of the day 30k is already a new system (albeit not that different mechanically from 7th).

 

I mean I hope it does, I just don't know if it will shift entrenched opinions.

[m0nolith]

I feel the perception of elitism is real.

I feel the perception is real too, but it’s only a perception and is not based on reality. Here are four points why I think that perception unfounded.

 

-The 30k community is bar none the friendliest community I have ever been a part of. Players already always incredibly open to new players and have always been happy to help them out in any way with starting 30k. This isn’t an exclusive club, everyone and and anyone can join...well almost anyone, there is one type of player that’s not welcome which leads me to my next point:

 

-Jerks, they’re frowned upon. Every community has them, and although they exist here too, it’s far less than anywhere else I have experienced. Usually they come in guise of “win at all costs” types of players. The kind that say “to hell with both of us having fun, your misery and your loss is my fun”. Well...ok, but that’s not the typical kind of player that I see in 30k due to it being more narrative driven.

 

-The idea that Heresy armies need to be painted to a better standard.

Forgeworld is a part of GW that from the get go has existed to cater to the veteran playerbase. When you have people in the hobby for many years, they naturally get better at that hobby, in this case that being painting, but I fully reject the idea that there is some superior standard that Heresy armies must be painted to. Some of the funnest games Iv had were with people whose armies had a little over the three tones.

There are undoubtedly armies in 30k that are painted beautifully, but given the fact that FW attracts more experienced hobbyists, you see the same thing in Necromunda, Titanicus, LotR, ect ect,

Every type of standard and method is encouraged.

 

-Finally there’s the price.

How can I put this, I am the only person that I know that has a full Forgeworld army. By that I mean I bought all my resin from FW. I did this because for the most part Pirate Island resin I find to be brittle and I’m far too worried about something breaking off, and given the fact I spent an absolutely obscene amount of time painting each and every thing, I might as well pay the obscene prices and get the real thing and not worry about something breaking or being miscast. In the end I spend way less than most standard 40k players because of how long I spend on each model.

That being said, Pirate Island figures are pretty much the norm, everywhere. I suspect that FW looses massive amounts of revenue every year due to this and switching to a cheaper plastic alternative would make FW/GWs profits explode.

But recasts are a common reality of the game, and in the end most 30k players that I know spend far less on their 30k army than plastic 40k players.

Edited December 3, 2019 by m0nolith

[rendingon1+]

Ummm, like the definition?

 

Elitism:

the attitude or behavior of a person or group who regard themselves as belonging to an elite.

 

Elite:

a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

 

AoD community groups (not always in the individuals, but as a general attitude) tends to exude a certain attitude that the typical AoD gamer is more sophisticated, more complex, more nuanced, and in a lot of cases, more talented individual interested in the hobby side. There's an internal perception that we focus more on thematic armies, better painting, and general more congenial attitude than the typical 40K player. The ruleset thus acts as a gatekeeping tool used to weed out the non sophisticate who can't handle such a robust system and will gravitate towards a less worthy option (that being 8E at the moment), while of course adhering to a general code of community conduct that is the best means of self moderation.

 

Frankly, all good goals... but when it gets smeared in others face as a perceived proof rather than a goal, it's gonna get called out. So every time that one of us says 'Go back to your dumbed down grey plastic game while I stay here with my period accurate resin upgrade legion kit' it fosters a bit of negativity.

 

If you're willing to learn and put actual effort into it you'll have a full grasp of the system in no time. Argument that to hit or to wound tables are difficult is silly, literally takes 10 min to memorize. I'm 100% in agreement that the ruleset as it is would benefit from some changes but by saying that AoD rules are too difficult equals to admitting one's laziness at the very least.

 

This.... doesn't read well if you don't consider yourself part of the core community.

 

Oh, as for your actual list... maybe a bit of a surprise I actually agree with every single point, mate :P

First, things first. I didn't say one bad thing about 8ed players except for not liking the ap system. And neither did I play "superiority HH" card. My point was that the rule barrier is a silly argument and I still sustain it. There are lot more complex and complicated game systems, hell, I would even say that when you want to make most of it, Total War Warhammer on max diff is more demanding than AoD ruleset. There was a time (long ago) when I was really into hobby and had no problem with learning rules for WH, WH40k and Mordheim (yup I was playing a lot). And there are people who right now are into 8th 40k, necromunda and/or some other specialist game - apparently not so hard to achieve, but "30k bad". Yeah,right.

 

Also let it be said that 8th edition that started as a quick to play easy ruleset is going the same way as ol' 40k with a mass of suplements, erratas, additional rules, power creeps etc. And it's not an argument that AoD is better, only that it's impossible for GW to ever make a game that would not require a ton of add ons to keep it working. We all know it, we all love/hate it. It's a never ending cycle that will last forever and possibly 40k will one day be as "bloated" as HH is now if it's not close to it already.

 

2:I was replying to Noserenda who's only input is that AoD rules are stupid and HH players are elitist snobs. I still stand by what I said earlier - there's no rules barrier, only willingnes to learn them. Not to mention I highly doubt that people who are so vocal about changing HH rules to 8th will suddenly start playing it should it ever happen. If you like Heresy you'd be playing it right now, if you don't, I don't believe you will with the new rules. Applies to 40k either.

 

And for other things like fluffy armies or well painted models - I can't see a difference between 40k and 30k groups, it's up to people how seriously they take their plastics/metal/resin soldiers irrelevant of a system. I know a 40k player who's every marine has chapter/company/squad markings all of wich are custom made transfers, not to mention that most of his stuff is contverted and painted to a very high standard. There's also a guy in our HH group who refuses to paint his models because "he's yet to choose his true legion". Like for 2 years.

 

This entire elitism thing is just like "racism" or "nazism" on other boards,

[Fajita Fan]

 

 

I would like for HH to move to 8th but keep the complexity of their army lists, special rules, and interesting force org modifications but NOT so they can be played against other 8th edition armies.

 

Most likely the systems will converge with 9th edition?

It's been touched on a page or two back, but this is most likely not the case. They are separate games now and are likely to remain that way.

 

I really can't understand why people want things to move in the 8th direction though.. Don't get me wrong, I understand some of the positives and really like them, but take for example even something as basic as the way certain units shoot. In previous editions the demolisher cannon was an incredibly destructive weapon that only fired one shot. It sucked when you rolled a one to hit, sucked even more when your dice scattered to hell but it was way more realistic than giving that weapon D6 shots in 8th edition. Now that's just one simple case but you see it everywhere across all factions. The multiple damage and the AP systems are positives I can agree with, but the weapons themselves still do not do anywhere near as much damage as they used to. Weapons like lascannons and missile launchers all had the possibility of destroying most vehicles in one shot with the vehicle damage table dynamics, and that's something else I really agreed with. I know it's not always the best arguments to compare sci-fi to real modern life but there are certain weapons in military's arsenals that are capable of reducing something like a tank to a a pile of metal scrap in one shot. Because the damage system is based on a six sided die and because vehicles and creatures are so much more durable with high wounds, the possibility of outright destroying a unit in one shot is gone. Personally, I feel like heavy weapons should literally do double the damage they currently do. I think it would add a lot of the game.

 

I could go on ad nauseam about all the issues I have with 8e.. It's easiest for me to sum it all up as dumbed down WH40k, and I'm sorry guys but that's all 8e is. I wont disagree that it has it's merits but it's just a completely different feel from what WH40k was when I started. I think some of the changes were a great idea for narrative and open play, but GW should have gone a step further for matched play and retained a lot of the features from previous editions. That way those who didn't want to take the game as seriously (and I don't mean on competitive terms) could do so but those that wanted the immersion and the complexity could have that as well. All of that is gone from WH40k, now and it's something myself and most of the HH/30k community appreciate about those rule sets staying with 7e.

Honestly I would rather only have to learn one set of bloated, convoluted, FAQ-ridden rules to play 30k-40k. That’s all, I don’t care if HH gets a little dumbed down and 40k gets a little more complex if the rule systems converge, I would rather just have to learn one game system to play. I’m just a casual, fluffy player who loves fluffy, diverse lists and I blow tons of money on this silly hobby of little painted men.

 

With respect to things like Demolishers do you honestly love watching your opponent move 30 man squads with a 2” gauge to make sure every model is spread out in coherency and constantly checking true LoS to minimize casualties to your Demolishers? Changes to things like random numbers of casualties to blast weapons instead of scattering templates are changes I like because my bladder doesn’t let me enjoy one hour turns. Also my GW doesn’t have a restroom :/

[rendingon1+]

I’m just a casual, fluffy player who loves fluffy, diverse lists and I blow tons of money on this silly hobby of little painted men.

I wonder - what people consider fluffy in 8th edition?

[m0nolith]

With respect to things like Demolishers do you honestly love watching your opponent move 30 man squads with a 2” gauge to make sure every model is spread out in coherency and constantly checking true LoS to minimize casualties to your Demolishers? Changes to things like random numbers of casualties to blast weapons instead of scattering templates are changes I like because my bladder doesn’t let me enjoy one hour turns. Also my GW doesn’t have a restroom :/

Honestly, yeah I love it. It immersed me into the game, while the way it’s done in 8th takes me out of it.It’s things like this why we love this game.

 

But you’re really limiting yourself if you adhere to only one rules system. There are so many games out there that have their own systems, Necromunda, AT, Sigmar ect ect. How regressive would it be if they all had the same rules?

Edited December 4, 2019 by m0nolith

[Vykes]

M0nolith, I'm not gonna doubt what you said because I have a feeling you're right for your spot... but man, we must live in alternate dimensions and I got the short end of the stick because articles 1 and 2 are categorically NOT what I experienced.  The hardcore, win at all costs type players are usually just referred to as the 'top tier competitive driven gamers' and given a suspicious amount of positive attention and gushy accolades.  (for the record I'm not referring to the site, I'm referring to the actual local physical community.  And 40K isn't any better in any way shape or form.  Gaming, in general, kinda sucks here if you aren't in the competitive mindset and I've heard so from a few other like minded individuals.  I'm just lucky I found a certain distinct sub-niche of gamers.) 

 

Rendingon, man... I'm not gonna get into it, we're definitely seeing something different here.  You're still cool so I ain't gonna drag it down any more. Ain't fostering any sort of hard feelings over something like this. 

 

I already blew my 1K post on this instead of something creative, it's just digging trenches here.  I'm done.  Out, gone.  Peace. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Vykes

[m0nolith]

Vykes, mind if I ask where in Canada do you play? Edited December 4, 2019 by m0nolith

[Vykes]

Aye, I play out north of Edmonton Alberta, so West-sort. 

[StrangerOrders]

To continue to beat the dead horse (at this point its liquefied), I think lived experience is a big factor for all of us. The kind of person you are and the kind of players available will always shape your experiences, generalizing it and inflicting it on one game system or another is not doing anyone any favours. 

 

I will personally admit that I have no love for 'optimized' players. And I find it rich to call 30k elitist when a fair number of 40k players spend fortunes on whatever is hot at the moment and deride anyone trying to have a fun list.

 

But I do not pretend that some form of that isnt present in some 30k groups. Anything where you can win is eventually going to draw some really pathetic souls.

 

For my part, I am a fluffy player that rolls EC. I have reached a transcendental acceptance of defeat which many Buddha's would envy. Moreso since I stubbornly play loyalist and refuse to use Shriekers or Kakaphonoi because it wouldn't be fluffy to my eyes. 

 

I will generally say that I have no patience for people that exist to bag on others, both in gameplay and by condemning them on boards. I see no functional difference between 30k 'elitism' (to use a more complementary word than is deserved) and the 40k players attempting to use WAAGH energy to kill AoD (Only reason I can give for posting solely to say the game sucks and should die).

 

By my own stance, I can say that giving GW more control would be bad for the current community as I know it. Customization, minor gimmicks and lovingly put together but often old kits seems to violently clash with the current preferences of GW. I similarly hold that in most editions since I started (3rd), GW has had all the restraint and sense of balance for rules as a deranged orangutan. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I love all the speculation spoken as if it’s the truth.

[MegaVolt87]

Painting standards are very subjective. I don't think its fair to say all HH players would have higher painting standards and snobbery than 40K. I am sure there are as many "poor" painters in HH as 40k relatively. I don't do HH proper, but have a fair few FW kits these days. I prefer the HH paint style for the IW's I intend to use primarily for 40K at this time. HH paint work heavily leans on the same principles you use for historical's- muted colour, weathering, advanced product like inks/ powders etc. Its not any better or worse than mainline GW box art/ pics for 40k studio armies. Its personal preference, no right or wrong and not fair to brandish as a negative thing at all. 

[Fajita Fan]

I love all the speculation spoken as if it’s the truth.

It's what the internet is for, man.  

 

 

I’m just a casual, fluffy player who loves fluffy, diverse lists and I blow tons of money on this silly hobby of little painted men.

I wonder - what people consider fluffy in 8th edition?

 

I'm not saying 8th is fluffier than 7th, I'm just looking forward to one scifi gaming system from GW for 30k/40k for me to enjoy both settings. That's all. 

 

 

With respect to things like Demolishers do you honestly love watching your opponent move 30 man squads with a 2” gauge to make sure every model is spread out in coherency and constantly checking true LoS to minimize casualties to your Demolishers? Changes to things like random numbers of casualties to blast weapons instead of scattering templates are changes I like because my bladder doesn’t let me enjoy one hour turns. Also my GW doesn’t have a restroom :/

Honestly, yeah I love it. It immersed me into the game, while the way it’s done in 8th takes me out of it.It’s things like this why we love this game.

 

But you’re really limiting yourself if you adhere to only one rules system. There are so many games out there that have their own systems, Necromunda, AT, Sigmar ect ect. How regressive would it be if they all had the same rules?

 

I would actually really like for 40k to share the same basic attack, defense, stat, and movement mechanics with skirmish games like Necromunda.  Then for a squad-based skirmish game like Necromunda or Kill Team they could add in more complex systems like knockdowns or more complex melee rules.  Imagine zooming in on a 40k battle and focusing on one fight in one trench, that'd be the KT/Necro rules.

 

In the same vein I wish GW had kept WHFB then made AoS the zoomed-in skirmish rules.  Maybe that only makes sense to me?  I'm starting my third AT legio and I have 3 Sigmar armies I'm painting atm along with stuff like Bloodbowl.  I'm not trying to make this silly but is 30k really growing using the previous generation ruleset?  I doubt HH sales are growing at a steady clip, especially given how US prices jumped overnight when they made the US ordering portal.  

[Marshal Rohr]

Pendraig reported the Heresy is still making enough money to be viable and afford expanding the staff

[StrangerOrders]

Pendraig reported the Heresy is still making enough money to be viable and afford expanding the staff

Now if only they had enough money to rerelease Tempest

 

Jokes aside, I wonder what would motivate them to do it. Its such a beautiful piece and each of the Black Books was a considerable investment, seems wasteful to halt production on so many (alright, two, but still).

[Marshal Rohr]

Iirc, they didn’t stop making it, they sold through their stock

[StrangerOrders]

Iirc, they didn’t stop making it, they sold through their stock

Reword my comment to 'get more stock' then

 

Also curious what it would take to get Prospero or Calth back?

[Fajita Fan]

Pendraig reported the Heresy is still making enough money to be viable and afford expanding the staff

We can't really speculate without seeing figures but are we sure they're adding payroll while expanding the staff or simply replacing older/expensive staff with cheaper, younger staff?  Time will tell, I hope they do well because I love AT but are we sure that new players are allegedly flocking to the more expensive, harder to assemble HH models because it uses the old 7th ed ruleset or despite it?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Pendraig reported the Heresy is still making enough money to be viable and afford expanding the staff

We can't really speculate without seeing figures but are we sure they're adding payroll while expanding the staff or simply replacing older/expensive staff with cheaper, younger staff? Time will tell, I hope they do well because I love AT but are we sure that new players are allegedly flocking to the more expensive, harder to assemble HH models because it uses the old 7th ed ruleset or despite it?

None of that is quantifiable to us or them. What is quantifiable is that the Heresy sells enough they’ve committed to supporting it via more staff. It’s probably not new players, just the same players expanding or buying new armies. Edited December 4, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[m0nolith]

 

Pendraig reported the Heresy is still making enough money to be viable and afford expanding the staff

 

We can't really speculate without seeing figures but are we sure they're adding payroll while expanding the staff or simply replacing older/expensive staff with cheaper, younger staff?  Time will tell, I hope they do well because I love AT but are we sure that new players are allegedly flocking to the more expensive, harder to assemble HH models because it uses the old 7th ed ruleset or despite it?

Anecdotal, but a significant amount of new Heresy players that Iv come across are there because of the fact that they’re dissatisfied with 8th Ed.

So to answer your question directly: because of it.