State of the Union (Heresy)

[Arkhanist]

 

Lansalt I really think you are misreading the spartan eagle

I guess at some point it was decided to use this symbol for the loyalists in media instead of the Imperialis, which came later in the war and maybe reminds people more of 40k.

 

From what I remember, the original old fluff was a throwaway line that the EC were the only ones allowed to display "the aquila" in the Crusade. When forgeworld decided to do the Heresy, they realised that was going to be waaaay too restrictive (given horizontal winged Imperial Aquilas are used on a bunch of 40k plastic models that are valid for 30k, just for starters) so it was retconned to the Palatine Aquila, the emperor's personal symbol - which has never actually been called out officially I believe.

 

The upward straight angle wings + lightning is assumed by many to be the Palatine, but as you say it appears to be used quite a bit as a marketing brand for Heresy for a good while - presumably to better distinguish 30k from 40k, and there is some differences with the EC aquila.

 

In other words, I suspect there may not have been a coherent, consistent vision encompassing this particular tidbit of lore over the years, and sometimes they just make it up a bit as they go... If we ever get an Emperor model with heraldry, maybe that will clarify!

 

In the meantime I'm just assuming that post Istvaan V the Emperor changed his mind, said stuff you to those sinful traitors, and Imperials were allowed to use all forms of the eagle.

[spessmarine]

From the Spartan article

 

More reveals are coming for Warhammer: The Horus Heresy in the next few weeks, so give your boltgun a scrub, polish your power armour, and sign up to the newsletter to avoid missing a thing.

 

 

Emphasis mine. There is only one Thursday article left, possibly the Weekender then they mean?

 

The upward straight angle wings + lightning is assumed by many to be the Palatine, but as you say it appears to be used quite a bit as a marketing brand for Heresy for a good while - presumably to better distinguish 30k from 40k, and there is some differences with the EC aquila.

 

In other words, I suspect there may not have been a coherent, consistent vision encompassing this particular tidbit of lore over the years, and sometimes they just make it up a bit as they go... If we ever get an Emperor model with heraldry, maybe that will clarify!

 

In the meantime I'm just assuming that post Istvaan V the Emperor changed his mind, said stuff you to those sinful traitors, and Imperials were allowed to use all forms of the eagle.

 

Yeah, I imagine some of this was thought of off-hand decades prior with no expectation it would be that important. My view is, don't sweat some of this stuff.

[BitsHammer]

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

[Bung]

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

Then you should never visit a Star Wars scale modelling forum.

[Gorgoff]

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

Yeah, I think that our community is pretty cool as well.

[BitsHammer]

 

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

Then you should never visit a Star Wars scale modelling forum.

"That's the wrong shade of white for a Storm Trooper!"

 

Look, I get being passionate about the little details about the lore, but it should never extend into being a purity test or reason to talk down to people.

[Gorgoff]

 

 

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

Then you should never visit a Star Wars scale modelling forum.

"That's the wrong shade of white for a Storm Trooper!"

 

Look, I get being passionate about the little details about the lore, but it should never extend into being a purity test or reason to talk down to people.

You should never talk down to people uncalled but nerds in particular are more often than not unempathic and treat people who don't know what they know like morons. Quiet ironically the more touchy they react to personal critisism the more agressive they act towards other people in those situations. Edited April 23, 2022 by Gorgoff

[sarabando]

 

 

 

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

Then you should never visit a Star Wars scale modelling forum.

"That's the wrong shade of white for a Storm Trooper!"

 

Look, I get being passionate about the little details about the lore, but it should never extend into being a purity test or reason to talk down to people.

You should never talk down to people uncalled but nerds in particular are more often than not unempathic and treat people who don't know what they know like morons. Quiet ironically the more touchy they react to personal critisism the more agressive they act towards other people in those situations.

 

its almost like there was some sort of condition that exhibited its self as sucking at social interactions and getting super obsessed with things.

[Doghouse]

Well nice to see everything I was told is finally being revealed.

 

The other kits I was told about were the plastic Leviathan, Sicarian and Mk II marines at the time so maybe we'll see them at some point after the launch.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Well nice to see everything I was told is finally being revealed.

 

The other kits I was told about were the plastic Leviathan, Sicarian and Mk II marines at the time so maybe we'll see them at some point after the launch.

 

well given the leviathan and sicaran both went last chance to buy fingers crossed we'll have them & the Mk2 on the horizon too

[Corswain]

A plastic Leviathon would be very dangerous for me. I've been batting my eyelashes at one since release but never actually bought one. And my Iron Warriors are just begging to have one added to their ranks.

[Brofist]

From what I've learned over the last couple weeks is that some people are very sweaty about this stuff. I assume they'd be counting buttons or rivets in historical games or complaining that something was the wrong shade of blue.

Funny enough, I learned about a guy in one of our group's area who's really into historicals, but is gung ho about primaris counts-as for 30k

[Cris R]

So I picked up my Leviathan during that FW sale a few years ago where you could get a weapon for a Dread free if you bought the chassis and another weapon. Totally wild FW actually had an honest to god sale like that.

[Rejects of Anvilus]

So I picked up my Leviathan during that FW sale a few years ago where you could get a weapon for a Dread free if you bought the chassis and another weapon. Totally wild FW actually had an honest to god sale like that.

That was such a good time, may have got a few things then as well!

[SkimaskMohawk]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but difficult terrain is simply -2 to movement like current 40k. I knew it couldn't stay like the current system, but I thought it'd be more like Titanicus with halving movement values.

 

I feel like this is another case of homogenization with the 40k system to generate more appeal. It's far less "7th with tweaks" than it is a "7th and 8th+ hybrid".

 

Things just don't have harsh consequences any more. A risky jaunt through difficult won't leave you moving 1"; misplacing your seargent with artificer won't lead to your unit getting shredded by AP3; not checking vehicle arcs to line up the target won't lose you the weapons output; "going to ground" and "jink" don't prevent shooting; fury doesn't lock you out of shooting the next turn. There's more, all mostly connected to reactions.

 

As Ive said a few times now lot of these changes feel like sidegrades to streamline and appeal to more audiences, instead of upgrades that make the game better.

 

I really like a lot of the changes of 2nd, but I really don't think the mechanics of 7th needed to be changed to this extent. And I'm baffled why the terrain rules remained as 7ths dumpster-fire version when they're porting so much else from 9th.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but difficult terrain is simply -2 to movement like current 40k. I knew it couldn't stay like the current system, but I thought it'd be more like Titanicus with halving movement values.

 

I feel like this is another case of homogenization with the 40k system to generate more appeal. It's far less "7th with tweaks" than it is a "7th and 8th+ hybrid".

 

Things just don't have harsh consequences any more. A risky jaunt through difficult won't leave you moving 1"; misplacing your seargent with artificer won't lead to your unit getting shredded by AP3; not checking vehicle arcs to line up the target won't lose you the weapons output; "going to ground" and "jink" don't prevent shooting; fury doesn't lock you out of shooting the next turn. There's more, all mostly connected to reactions.

 

As Ive said a few times now lot of these changes feel like sidegrades to streamline and appeal to more audiences, instead of upgrades that make the game better.

 

I really like a lot of the changes of 2nd, but I really don't think the mechanics of 7th needed to be changed to this extent. And I'm baffled why the terrain rules remained as 7ths dumpster-fire version when they're porting so much else from 9th.

 

 

Rules changes / additions that seem to have originated from a fluff / setting perspective strike me as rather nice in general, like Loyalist / Traitor warlord traits and new / altered RoW.

 

Rules changes that want the game to be more 'progressive' and / or 'in touch' with GW main game systems fall rather flat on the nose (in my opinion that is), like the changes you mentioned for example. 

 

Which is sad, because a lot of things now feel more vanilla now, and don't make the game better. 

 

Consequences, in the potential 2.0 edition, won't seem to come from having made the wrong tactical decision, but will rather originate exclusively with 'Reactions'.

The idea of 'Reactions' in concept is not a bad one, but I think the system is poorly executed - to a point where armies will just stand still and shoot each other at maximum distance, because nobody wants to get close anymore. But of course there's infantry units that now move 9 inches .... etc. etc. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Pretty much totally agree.

 

On an aside, I also just realized Harbingers don't get to deny objectives, meaning landspeeders. So a javelin's top speed got slashed by almost 2/3, and they can't contest; someone's day must have been ruined by them repeatedly by them going for the swoop. Meanwhile, jetbikes can still contest, despite being...well basically the exact same, except they move faster and can run. And before I hear any "but no vehicles can contest any more!"; Dreadnoughts can. So you have a smaller version of the unit that can, and another "ex-vehicle" unit that can.

 

Not being able to contest unless troops was one of the weaker parts of 6th, but at least it was marginally consistent. This...isn't. It's reactionary to basically being bad at positioning and/or target priority. Hopefully this is something that gets tweaked in the further iterations. Either juice their movement, or restore denial; being a pure trade piece is the most boring fate any unit can have.

Edited April 24, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

'sidegrades' that make the game more accessible to new players/ streamline in places are pretty much exactly what I was looking for so I'm very happy with a bunch of changes

there are still a few weird rules interactions/ choices, but with a supposed 2 additional phases of playtesting after the 3.0 rules we've seen fingers crossed most of them get iron out

[Unknown Legionnaire]

See, there's the thing: Personally, I think that the game  won't  be more accessible to new players at all, even if that's what GW was fantasizing about to sell more models (there's no other reason). There's still lots and lots of special rules and interactions, like there used to be in the previous incarnation, they're just prioritised differently. And to be honest, 'Reactions' aren't easy to learn, considering you'll need to remember 20+ of them, just as an example. So, yeah ... 

[LameBeard]

I’m going to reserve judgment until I see the new rule book in the flesh, but I was hoping they would treat us as grown-ups. Risk/reward, tough choices and living with the bad luck are what make a Wargame for me - and there’s plenty of evidence 8th/9th moved away from that. But I still think those elements can be captured with some streamlining or more abstract rules. I don’t think sergeants should be allowed Artificer anyway - mixed armour units have been a pain under any edition!

[SkimaskMohawk]

'sidegrades' that make the game more accessible to new players/ streamline in places are pretty much exactly what I was looking for so I'm very happy with a bunch of changes

 

there are still a few weird rules interactions/ choices, but with a supposed 2 additional phases of playtesting after the 3.0 rules we've seen fingers crossed most of them get iron out

Ya sorry, when I said more accessible, I meant purely for current 40k players. People who can go "oh this works how it does in 40k" when theyre told about bespoke movement stats, most things having a toughness and wound profile, reactions, and wound allocation.

 

Brand-brand-new players will still have the same amount of book flipping as they used to; the removal of zealot didn't stop them from splitting unit types and special rules between books, so you still have to do a bunch of book juggling until you know what they mean. For that matter, so will pure 40k players; that accomodation is incredibly surface level in execution.

 

Similarly, the streamlining of some things like difficult terrain, run, and weapon arcs is bogged down by even more time-consuming and intricate rules like reactions, deepstrike and flanking assaults and the new WS system.

 

This is why I call it a sidegrade. They stripped out depth and intricacy in some areas to have it in different, arguably worse areas. They pruned some branches to graft on different ones.

 

@lamebeard they definitely still have artificer seargents in v.3 of the playtest. And ICs, whos rules for allocation are going to be broken even when working as they intend.

Edited April 24, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

I will say that as someone who designs units/ rules in the Heresy system, 2.0 has felt a lot easier to parse than 1.0, but I do admittedly have the advantage of already being familiar with the core game and it might be as much to do with only having to reference 2 books rather than having units, rules and weapon profiles scattered across a dozen books and FAQs, and 2.0 was always gonna win that battle on the formatting front. I do also feel that the intricacies added in some areas do benefit from an overall re-structuring that helps a lot with figuring out all the things you need to consider at each step of the game - stuff like damage mitigations rolls being categorized separately, and interceptor & overwatch being partitioned off with the other reactions rather than just being extra special rules lumped into existing phases.

 

One thing I do kinda wish is that as with the addition of movement stats to profiles, that BS had been changed to a hard baked roll stat in unit profiles like 8th/9th ed 40k, with units that are currently BS6+ getting the Precision Shots(X) rule with the X value being changed proportional to their current BS stat. It'd make shooting a bit easier to parse and would prevent stuff like twin-linked & master crafted weapons making BS6+ irrelevant.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Iron Hands Fanatic

[SkimaskMohawk]

About parsing the rules, it really is just familiarity with their structuring and a lower volume of sources to consult. Things like astartes exclusive sub-types will still result in book flipping, as will special rules and weapons that are exclusive to one unit but aren't featured on their datasheet. There's actually...way more problem areas like that now. The javelin makes you look at four different locations to understand what the unit does (core rules unit types, legion special rules, legion wargear, legion weapons), five if we include understanding what the bonus to its reaction means.

 

Your reaction example is odd. Overwatch is found in the core reaction bit before the phases, while intercept is embedded with the reserve rules. The split in how core and advanced reactions are incorporated is very inconsistent. There should be a master reaction table that has both core and advanced reactions, and then references to them in cutouts in their appropriate sections.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Yeah I will say regardless of edition, a good cheat sheet is *vital* to playing Heresy, fingers crossed 2.0 has a good one, I know the Titanicus version supplied with the rulebook is excellent - hopefully the main rulebook's advanced reactions get added to the core reactions reference at the end of the book.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Iron Hands Fanatic

[Gorgoff]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but difficult terrain is simply -2 to movement like current 40k. I knew it couldn't stay like the current system, but I thought it'd be more like Titanicus with halving movement values.

 

I feel like this is another case of homogenization with the 40k system to generate more appeal. It's far less "7th with tweaks" than it is a "7th and 8th+ hybrid".

 

Things just don't have harsh consequences any more. A risky jaunt through difficult won't leave you moving 1"; misplacing your seargent with artificer won't lead to your unit getting shredded by AP3; not checking vehicle arcs to line up the target won't lose you the weapons output; "going to ground" and "jink" don't prevent shooting; fury doesn't lock you out of shooting the next turn. There's more, all mostly connected to reactions.

 

As Ive said a few times now lot of these changes feel like sidegrades to streamline and appeal to more audiences, instead of upgrades that make the game better.

 

I really like a lot of the changes of 2nd, but I really don't think the mechanics of 7th needed to be changed to this extent. And I'm baffled why the terrain rules remained as 7ths dumpster-fire version when they're porting so much else from 9th.

Amen, brother.

In 40k they replaced tactics with command points and in HH they obviously try to do that with reactions. I'll give it a shot but whenever I don't think a couple of days about the new edition and than read about the changes again I feel not so happy about them. But we will see. However, the game has a very hard time with most gamers I know already.