State of the Union (Heresy)

[LameBeard]

@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.

Yeah you or someone else already corrected me on that point - I know they *can* take artificer, I’m just saying that they *shouldn’t* be allowed to. I was agreeing with your general point (let’s have some consequences to bad decisions) but disagreeing about the attractiveness of one specific example (placing the sergeant to take the hits).

 

Sorry what are ICs in this context?

[SkimaskMohawk]

Independent characters.

 

Their v.3 rules are written super poorly so it's hard to pare full intent, but they have full control over wound allocation currently. You can start on your IC, have them take a wound or two, and transfer off. All in the same wound pool and shooting attack.

[Noserenda]

I mean a lot of this is the usual pre release hysteria but i do wonder if by trying to appeal to those who hate change and those who want a better game they arent going to alienate both crowds.

Id prefer Artificer armour on sergeants be gone too, its an awful, gamey contrivance to abuse wound allocation most of the time unfortunately.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I mean a lot of this is the usual pre release hysteria but i do wonder if by trying to appeal to those who hate change and those who want a better game they arent going to alienate both crowds.

 

Id prefer Artificer armour on sergeants be gone too, its an awful, gamey contrivance to abuse wound allocation most of the time unfortunately.

Lol "those who hate and change and those who want a better game". Not like the people who want a better game just don't think some of the changes that are being made will actually lead to that.

 

And I'll take a gamey mechanic with memorable moments over a bland mechanic like 8th/9th wound allocation. I guess 2nd will have to be more interesting; with ICs and 2+ saves and only killing in LOS, we'll see the return of the legendary 4th edition keyhole shot to snipe the important models. That's where you position vehicles to narrow a units line of sight to only include the desired enemy models.

Edited April 25, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[WrathOfTheLion]

I want to see more final rules. If the rumors are correct and these are a year and a half+ old, then there's a lot of time for them to be invalidated. That doesn't mean they did, however. The event the first week of May should give us a stronger metric to catalog what all we actually have with.

[bushman101]

I'm really hoping things get ironed out in the final release. But I'll agree this is looking more like a 7th/8th hybrid than 7th tweaked.

 

I'm really scratching my head on the Deepstrike changes. Drop a unit and roll a die to see who places the remaining Deepstriking units? Weird.

[Noserenda]

 

I mean a lot of this is the usual pre release hysteria but i do wonder if by trying to appeal to those who hate change and those who want a better game they arent going to alienate both crowds.

 

Id prefer Artificer armour on sergeants be gone too, its an awful, gamey contrivance to abuse wound allocation most of the time unfortunately.

Lol "those who hate and change and those who want a better game". Not like the people who want a better game just don't think some of the changes that are being made will actually lead to that.

 

And I'll take a gamey mechanic with memorable moments over a bland mechanic like 8th/9th wound allocation. I guess 2nd will have to be more interesting; with ICs and 2+ saves and only killing in LOS, we'll see the return of the legendary 4th edition keyhole shot to snipe the important models. That's where you position vehicles to narrow a units line of sight to only include the desired enemy models.

 

You cant improve a game without making changes ;) 

 

Keyhole sniping is a bit poor but the real stupidity is sergeants unerringly throwing themselves in front of AP3 hits to meatshield the squad. Ideally wound allocation really should be bland in a system, straightforward and obvious is a complete benefit with something like that, and verisimilitude is something games should always be aiming for, perhaps if squads had some specific "tank" role with combat shields that did aim to draw fire it might make more sense but leaders shouldnt be leaping in the way of krak missiles deliberately :D 

 

 

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Changes would be welcome if they were 'good' changes, for sure.

 

From what we know now, what we have established on the previous page, and from personal 'experience' testing the game with the 'leaks' we have at the moment, it's not going to have more tactical depth at all, but will rather be easier on those players uncertain how to make tactical decisions. 

Which is ... fine. 

 

If you want to appeal to that audience.

 

But not great. At least not in my book.

 

I guess we'll have to wait for the final product to find out, yes. But if it plays like the rules / changes that we have seen in the 'leaks', then it certainly won't be for everybody.

 

Which is fine again, 'cause people are allowed to have different opinions.

 

Neither mass hysteria about how 'bad' the game will be, not blatant fanboyism / shilling about its proposed awesomeness are appropriate, really.

[Brofist]

There's no question that its different, it's a completely different game underneath. We've had nearly a decade with the old rules so I get that not everyone likes the changes, plus the new corporate flavour ontop (no models, no rules, etc).

 

Feels some of you are dead set against liking it, I get it. For my group at least, we've played the leaks and we've liked what we played. I think we expected the worst, so seeing a complete shakeup of balance and overall tighter rules has been welcome.

[MichaelCarmine]

That's why i think the Vigilator will be close to an auto-include in this edition. Atleast in my book! xD

Thanks to the abscence of Look out Sir, he'll be able to snipe out Artificer Sergeants/Apothecaries/SpecialWeapons left and right.

[Slips]

Oh I definitely agree on the Vigilator point; if he remains unchanged from his current form he'll be a pretty good addition to a lot of lists that can include one to help deal with things like Apoths, hidden special weapons, Sergeants, etc. On top of Pinning being a much more important mechanic to trigger.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Slips

[Brofist]

Seems most of the consuls are solid enough to have a role. The only exception, imo, being the legion pathfinder who can't really join anything to take advantage of that Pathfinder special rule (scout conferring the vigilator can do better). The armistos is also a bit odd, as you rarely want a single heavy weapon guy, even if he's relentless. Plus he can't shoot and buff his squad without firing protocols. Edited April 25, 2022 by Brofist

[Gorgoff]

I guess Master of Signals could be very popular as well because he buffes the leadership.

For people like me, who seldom took more than one HQ, that will be quite a change. We will see how it turns out but I don't like rules who forces people to take certain models. So far we could take almost any unit and have a good day but if some units are way WAY better its getting harder to ignore them. Javilins in the current version are a good example for a unit which is stupidly good and ogryns are an example for the opposite.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

The two consuls I'm most excited about are the Esoterist and Forge Lord due to them allowing you to include up to 3 Ruinstorm Daemon Units/ Thallax Cohorts in your army respectively, it opens up some really fun options for characterful lists.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Iron Hands Fanatic

[Billy Butcher]

I want to see more final rules. If the rumors are correct and these are a year and a half+ old, then there's a lot of time for them to be invalidated. That doesn't mean they did, however. The event the first week of May should give us a stronger metric to catalog what all we actually have with.

 

I suppose something else to factor in here is the current global supply chain issues, they probably had to freeze 6 - 12 months ahead of the intended release to the public. It may be one of the reasons it 'feels' like HH2 has missed a few release windows already.

[bushman101]

I'm not trying to be a downer, but it's worth saying.

GW doesn't make better editions, they make new editions. 6th ed 40k didn't fix 5th ed problems and etc.

I want to believe, but I've been down this path before

[Lautrec the Embraced]

I have a question as I see some folks already creating whole army lists or talking about units I've not seen leaks for while I struggle to remember even some basic rules fom Heresy 2.0 and it gets tiresome browsing through a lot of pages just to find a certain excerpt - is there some drive / site / link / whatever that would have most of the current leaked/playtest rules gathered altogether or do people just save everything they find and then work with it?

[Slips]

The whole P3 documents got leaked on /tg/ for Loyalists and Core rules with the P1 Word Doc for traitors. So you only need those 3 things.

[BitsHammer]

Changes would be welcome if they were 'good' changes, for sure.

 

From what we know now, what we have established on the previous page, and from personal 'experience' testing the game with the 'leaks' we have at the moment, it's not going to have more tactical depth at all, but will rather be easier on those players uncertain how to make tactical decisions. 

Which is ... fine. 

 

If you want to appeal to that audience.

 

But not great. At least not in my book.

 

I guess we'll have to wait for the final product to find out, yes. But if it plays like the rules / changes that we have seen in the 'leaks', then it certainly won't be for everybody.

 

Which is fine again, 'cause people are allowed to have different opinions.

 

Neither mass hysteria about how 'bad' the game will be, not blatant fanboyism / shilling about its proposed awesomeness are appropriate, really.

Feels a but premature to determine what the final result of the game is before we know what the final version is. We don't know how much changed in either direction and forming opinions on what we know is an incomplete product just seems like a lot of conclusion jumping.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

 

Changes would be welcome if they were 'good' changes, for sure.

 

From what we know now, what we have established on the previous page, and from personal 'experience' testing the game with the 'leaks' we have at the moment, it's not going to have more tactical depth at all, but will rather be easier on those players uncertain how to make tactical decisions. 

Which is ... fine. 

 

If you want to appeal to that audience.

 

But not great. At least not in my book.

 

I guess we'll have to wait for the final product to find out, yes. But if it plays like the rules / changes that we have seen in the 'leaks', then it certainly won't be for everybody.

 

Which is fine again, 'cause people are allowed to have different opinions.

 

Neither mass hysteria about how 'bad' the game will be, not blatant fanboyism / shilling about its proposed awesomeness are appropriate, really.

Feels a but premature to determine what the final result of the game is before we know what the final version is. We don't know how much changed in either direction and forming opinions on what we know is an incomplete product just seems like a lot of conclusion jumping.

 

 

Dude ... that's precisely what I said. No final product, no final verdict. Perhaps read a bit more thoroughly ?

 

Yet still, we can do some testing with what we have right now, eh ?

 

Who knows, maybe 2.0 will be great.

Some of us are just evaluating things that have been leaked and are comparing them to what we have in 1.0

And that is not conclusion jumping.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

Changes would be welcome if they were 'good' changes, for sure.

 

From what we know now, what we have established on the previous page, and from personal 'experience' testing the game with the 'leaks' we have at the moment, it's not going to have more tactical depth at all, but will rather be easier on those players uncertain how to make tactical decisions. 

Which is ... fine. 

 

If you want to appeal to that audience.

 

But not great. At least not in my book.

 

I guess we'll have to wait for the final product to find out, yes. But if it plays like the rules / changes that we have seen in the 'leaks', then it certainly won't be for everybody.

 

Which is fine again, 'cause people are allowed to have different opinions.

 

Neither mass hysteria about how 'bad' the game will be, not blatant fanboyism / shilling about its proposed awesomeness are appropriate, really.

Feels a but premature to determine what the final result of the game is before we know what the final version is. We don't know how much changed in either direction and forming opinions on what we know is an incomplete product just seems like a lot of conclusion jumping.

 

 

Dude ... that's precisely what I said. No final product, no final verdict. Perhaps read a bit more thoroughly ?

 

Yet still, we can do some testing with what we have right now, eh ?

 

Who knows, maybe 2.0 will be great.

Some of us are just evaluating things that have been leaked and are comparing them to what we have in 1.0

And that is not conclusion jumping.

 

I read it just fine, I just feel complaining about how the incomplete version plays is a waste of energy when we've seen a massive shift just going from 1.0 to 3.0. Who knows how much more shifted to get to the 5.0 final build version.

[SkimaskMohawk]

We haven't seen a massive shift from playtest 1 to 3 though lol. Maybe a smaller amount of options on the special units.

[Brofist]

We actually have no idea, because the 1st cut of the rules never leaked

[TheTrans]

I for one don't like the gutted legion rules. Some of them have less crunch than their 9th ed chapter tactics... 

I want my negatives to my special rule positives. 

(I think for future as well, we can all imagine an asterisk after every comment about the leaked rules saying "based on what we've seen". )

 

I for one don't think we'll see huuuuge changes in the rules in all honesty. Like how bent and no briainer augury scanners are, making it to the 3rd iteration is pretty worrisome.

[Gorgoff]

Those goddamn leaks.

I just realized that I am not at all excited about next week.

In fact I am more interested in what kind of army Squats are than hiw the new edition playes out. :(

Edited April 26, 2022 by Gorgoff