State of the Union (Heresy)

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

40k - "These corvus hammers and knightly maces are all the weapons that are left of old Caliban's armouries."

 

30k - "You get a sword and you get a sword and you get a sword!"

 

well there's always those of us labouring to give you units which bring some of that wargear back to the 31st millenium

 

maybe wielded by something like a Ravenwing Uhlan Jetbike Squadron

[BitsHammer]

So GW on Facebook confirmed the leaked image Valrak had as being the boxset and said the Contemptor is tomorrow's preview.

EDIT:

Edited April 27, 2022 by Fulkes

[Gorgoff]

"You’re just not liable to fail that many leadership tests over the course of a game from shooting."

Pre baby I played round about 70 games each year. In each game I force two LD test each turn on my opponent on average which goes for 5 turns (again on average).

That's 700 LD a year.

Do the math how many of them I saw fail.

700 LD test I never had to do, because of my "boring" ability.

The claim that this legion speciality is not powerful is just nonsense. Plain a d simple.

Same with the claim (hui, it rhymes) that LD9 or even 10 is the norm.

Most of the time I killed the sergeant of the units I force to make a LD test. In opposite to those players who always complain about the AA sarge in the front row I quite like it when people do that because that gives me the oportunity to kill their ld.

And I often see units run in my games. Always it is horrible to the plans of my opponent.

Again: I never have to do them and my units don't run.

Great stuff.

Dont get me wrong. +1S is great but it isn't a exciting or even thematic rule. IW are know for their Quantity is a quality on it's own tactics and not their prowess in killing stuff.

Which brings me to the other rules.

Hits on SoH get -1 to strength in cc. Yawn.

IF not get +1 to hit with autoweapons as well. Yawn.

BA get +1 to wound when they charge. Yawn.

The new rules are not thematic, they are not exciting, they are plain and boring. No finesse no interesting stuff. Just one bonus for everyone.

Oh yes they put real efford into reactions but it feels as if this was their only efford.

If that is a good or bad thing I can't say unless I can play that game just for now it feels boring.

[Brofist]

Idk man, personally I feel +1S is both interesting and thematic. I used to play IWs and I wish we had those rules back in HH 1st edition! To me it opens new ways for you to use certain units and weapons. Look through the weapon list and add 1 strength to everything and consider how you might use those weapons and units differently. Cheaper options get better, so you can take more, or spend points elsewhere. Feels like attrition 'war by numbers' to me

[Noserenda]

Yeah as a (sort of current) Iron Warriors player S5 bolters at a reduced range is definitely interesting to me and my 60 tactical marines :D 

[DesuVult]

I dislike morale mitigation mechanics being widespread. I am over the moon with the IW rules in their phase 1 playtest state. This is likely in part due to my expectation that the rules instead be something like +1S only against buildings. Iron Warrior lascannons frontally threatening spartans is enjoyable.

[Gorgoff]

Idk man, personally I feel +1S is both interesting and thematic. I used to play IWs and I wish we had those rules back in HH 1st edition! To me it opens new ways for you to use certain units and weapons. Look through the weapon list and add 1 strength to everything and consider how you might use those weapons and units differently. Cheaper options get better, so you can take more, or spend points elsewhere. Feels like attrition 'war by numbers' to me

All true.

IW in cc against Contemptors, so many players already complain about, will be brutal.

Killing a Rhino on average with a ten men squad when we are in 12'?

Powerful stuff.

Lascannons with Sunder and S10 will be great to nuke stuff, Volkite Culverines with S7 as well. Playing with light vehicles against IW will be frustrating to say the least...

That in combinations with the fact that cover safes are all 5+ max compensate for the lack of Iron Havocs. Allegendy HSS can now take a Signum so here we are again at BS5, +1S, -1 cover (sort of) and tank hunter (sort of) if you take Lascannons.

So I DO see the merits of the new special rules but I just like the more thematic and more often then not subtile approach of the current rules more, that's all.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Gorgoff

[Petitioner's City]

I finally got hold of Fafnir and Dominion to check out the scale and I'm not sure what to make of them. They are slightly taller than regular marines but far more slender and proportional to some extent, I'm a bit confused as to how I feel about them to be honest.

 

I don't think a lot of existing parts are going to work on them, stuff like the hands and heads are tiny in comparison to existing models and I can see this extending to the MK6 marines. I don't think they are the same size as the chaos marines, feels like an all new scale to me.

 

I was planning on converting Fafnir but I am not sure how now. Maybe I've been truescaling too long! :D

This is fascinating; do you have pictures of what you mean comparing them to other minis?

[BitsHammer]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/28/heresy-thursday-lead-the-charge-with-the-all-singing-all-dancing-contemptor-dreadnought/

[panascope]

I just like the more thematic and more often then not subtile approach of the current rules more, that's all.

Like what rules are subtle in the current edition? What makes a subtle rule good? A lot of them are just bad or irrelevant, especially the earlier legions. Wrecker on your grenades is meaningless. Immunity to Fear isn’t exciting anybody. Not being able to benefit from an allied warlord trait has never come up.

[Dark Legionnare]

 

I just like the more thematic and more often then not subtile approach of the current rules more, that's all.

Like what rules are subtle in the current edition? What makes a subtle rule good? A lot of them are just bad or irrelevant, especially the earlier legions. Wrecker on your grenades is meaningless. Immunity to Fear isn’t exciting anybody. Not being able to benefit from an allied warlord trait has never come up.

 

I believe that's Gorgoff's exact point. "The rules may not matter of come up much (if at all like wrecker grenades) but they fit a fluff theme?"

 

IE:

• IW's are known as premier siege specialists (Nobody mention it to the banana boys...)
  • So, they get wrecker (anti-building) on grenades which if playing against fortifications will absolutely hose them compared to other armies. IE, they're better at the act of breaking through siegeline defenses in a style akin to swarming men through a break in the enemy defenses lines, and proceeding to absolutely tear them down with ease/efficiency.
• They're known to be constantly put in situations of grueling attrition that they take a sort of pride in the face of never flinching at.
  • They get pseudo-Fearless from shooting attacks

Similar to Lunas (SOH more fluffily)

• Cthonia is known as an absolute hellworld of gang-fighting in tunnels.  Up close, dirty, pitiless "warfare."
  • Ergo, they get "dirty tactics" additional swings at I1 after fighting while an enemy is likely "reeling" from the higher initiative hits/swings and have now become outnumbered and stabbed from all sides by the outnumbering Sons of Horus
  • Further, they get better BS at close range assault, RF, and pistol weapons. Synonymous with every inductee to the legion from Cthonia having more than likely spent many formative years in close-range gunfights with weapons/tactics of that nature.

For sure, Lunas traits come up WAY more than IW in a normal game, but they're both "fluffy". I THINK that's what Gorgoff is going for in his meaning, and if so, I agree. I like rules being inspired and reflective of fluffy stigmas/backgrounds rather than just flat buffs that "kind of" fit in with the theme. (IE, SoH melee S reduction due to said "dirty tunnel fighters being more adept at unorthodox tactics" works, but not as well as that "free shivs at I1" in my opinion.

 

</twocents>

 

Again, "I THINK", not "I know" so, don't anybody get their pitchforks and torches out. I'm not speaking for Gorgoff.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Dark Legionnare

[Gorgoff]

 

I just like the more thematic and more often then not subtile approach of the current rules more, that's all.

Like what rules are subtle in the current edition? What makes a subtle rule good? A lot of them are just bad or irrelevant, especially the earlier legions. Wrecker on your grenades is meaningless. Immunity to Fear isn’t exciting anybody. Not being able to benefit from an allied warlord trait has never come up.

You have a very subjective approach here.

I won't argue that old Legion rules where bad like DG but if you are immun to fear and your buddy plays NL it is a winner.

The allied warlord one is thematic. It doesn't happen a lot, sure, but it is a nice Touch and that is completely out of the window.

Why? It doesn't bother anyone but gives a little nod to the fluff so why kick it?

By the way wrecker comes in handy if you play ZM a lot like I do. Again very subjective approach from your side.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

For anyone interested, I had a crack at photobashing what a Mk4/6 kitbash would look like to get my head around the scale - I've tried to get them at consistent scale using the bases but ofc it's never gonna be 100% accurate:

[LameBeard]

Dreadnought looks so much better than first impression in the leaks. I like that the havoc is optional, other weapon options, not worried about the blank space - I have decals and bits to fill that - heck I might even try to sculpt something.

 

And I love how the Community Team are rubbing in the pose-ability, like GW saying “ok we HEARD you already, you didn’t like the last dred - HAPpY now!?”

 

We’ll yeah I’m pretty happy. I’d like to know who’s been nagging you for 10 of the old cataphractii though, they kind of stick out in this box. For a while during the leaks I even wondered if they were a refresh, but it seems not. Even Octarius had a couple old sprues.

[panascope]

You have a very subjective approach here.

I won't argue that old Legion rules where bad like DG but if you are immun to fear and your buddy plays NL it is a winner.

The allied warlord one is thematic. It doesn't happen a lot, sure, but it is a nice Touch and that is completely out of the window.

Why? It doesn't bother anyone but gives a little nod to the fluff so why kick it?

By the way wrecker comes in handy if you play ZM a lot like I do. Again very subjective approach from your side.

Of course your approach is very subjective as well, but has essentially boiled down to old rules being “subtle” and “thematic” (the definition of these words still hasn’t been explained) while the new rules are boring and unthematic or whatever. Even as several people are pointing out that a lot of existing rules are pointless or essentially do nothing.

Immunity to Fear barely even matters against night lords because Fear is such a bad, low impact rule in the first place. This is why they’ve had to change it completely, because nobody cares about Fear. A rule that does nothing essentially 99% of the time is a bad way mechanically to represent fluff, and should be replaced with something that actually matters.

Like how is wrecker coming up in ZM? The doors are AV13, so the krak grenades that are standard on tac marines don’t do anything.

Edited April 28, 2022 by panascope

[Gorgoff]

 

You have a very subjective approach here.

I won't argue that old Legion rules where bad like DG but if you are immun to fear and your buddy plays NL it is a winner.

The allied warlord one is thematic. It doesn't happen a lot, sure, but it is a nice Touch and that is completely out of the window.

Why? It doesn't bother anyone but gives a little nod to the fluff so why kick it?

By the way wrecker comes in handy if you play ZM a lot like I do. Again very subjective approach from your side.

Of course your approach is very subjective as well, but has essentially boiled down to old rules being “subtle” and “thematic” (the definition of these words still hasn’t been explained) while the new rules are boring and unthematic or whatever. Even as several people are pointing out that a lot of existing rules are pointless or essentially do nothing.

Immunity to Fear barely even matters against night lords because Fear is such a bad, low impact rule in the first place. This is why they’ve had to change it completely, because nobody cares about Fear. A rule that does nothing essentially 99% of the time is a bad way mechanically to represent fluff, and should be replaced with something that actually matters.

Like how is wrecker coming up in ZM? The doors are AV13, so the krak grenades that are standard on tac marines don’t do anything.

Meltabombs get wrecker as well my dude. And wreckers helps with object markers who needs to be destroyed as well and so it helps agains fortifications and dilabidated buildings.

I guess you never play with those as well as you never played ZM with IW but I can tell you that it is a wonderful and very thematic rule which helps IW a lot.

For fear the same thing applies as for ld test in general. It's just wrong and I won't do again the math for you. It's not a sledgehammer rule though, which apparently asks too much from some players in opposite to the new rules who just smack a big, fat bonus into our faces. Nothing subtle* about it. Just a straight bonus. And I think that is boring, yes. Some of the current rules are lackluster, that's true. The core rules changed and that took their breath away so to speak. Rerolling failed dangerous terrain tests is much better if those don't allow armour saves. Or rules who help against pinning, who are way Wecker since all of the sudden pinning got taken away from almost every weapon.

But what they did was apparently that they gabe out a bonus and split up the flaver and put it in titbitz in the new warlord traits. At least kind of. So if he dies the army loses it's flavor. Not very immersive. But it is super obvious how to use so that is good for beginnend and that seems to be important radida.

*not every new rule is boring though. I like the approach they took with DG. Way better now and still very narrative. It feels a little bit more "matured" than the IW or IF rules. Maybe a sign that those will change? We will see.

 

I like the plastic Contemptor by the way. Yes, it looks very plain but you have lots of room for decorations and transfers on it. Really nice.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Gorgoff

[OttoVonAwesome]

 

I finally got hold of Fafnir and Dominion to check out the scale and I'm not sure what to make of them. They are slightly taller than regular marines but far more slender and proportional to some extent, I'm a bit confused as to how I feel about them to be honest.

 

I don't think a lot of existing parts are going to work on them, stuff like the hands and heads are tiny in comparison to existing models and I can see this extending to the MK6 marines. I don't think they are the same size as the chaos marines, feels like an all new scale to me.

 

I was planning on converting Fafnir but I am not sure how now. Maybe I've been truescaling too long!

This is fascinating; do you have pictures of what you mean comparing them to other minis?

 

Fafnir is pretty slender I figure it's due to his artificier armour, Zephon on the other hand is chaos marine sized in terms of bulk and same as the new mk6, Yes hands are a bit smaller, shoulder pads are about 5% larger doesn't seem like much. Alot of difference comes from the armour marks being less homogenous in the newer designs with mk6 and 7 being alot bulkier than they were, Death Guard aren't good to compare to cuase they are def swollen and larger than they should be even for mk 3. Zephons helmet is def a bit smaller and rounder than the earlier mk 6 helmets, But I think the bare heads are about the same as the last generation of plastics. I'm finally printing mk 4 marines at these new sizes took a bit of trial and error to work it all out (and some digital calipers). I wouldn't call it an entirely new scale compared to Chaos marines more of aesthetic difference between 40k and 30k. 

[panascope]

Meltabombs get wrecker as well my dude. And wreckers helps with object markers who needs to be destroyed as well and so it helps agains fortifications and dilabidated buildings.

I guess you never play with those as well as you never played ZM with IW but I can tell you that it is a wonderful and very thematic rule which helps IW a lot.

For fear the same thing applies as for ld test in general. It's just wrong and I won't do again the math for you. It's not a sledgehammer rule though, which apparently asks too much from some players in opposite to the new rules who just smack a big, fat bonus into our faces. Nothing subtle* about it. Just a straight bonus. And I think that is boring, yes. Some of the current rules are lackluster, that's true. The core rules changed and that took their breath away so to speak. Rerolling failed dangerous terrain tests is much better if those don't allow armour saves. Or rules who help against pinning, who are way Wecker since all of the sudden pinning got taken away from almost every weapon.

But what they did was apparently that they gabe out a bonus and split up the flaver and put it in titbitz in the new warlord traits. At least kind of. So if he dies the army loses it's flavor. Not very immersive. But it is super obvious how to use so that is good for beginnend and that seems to be important radida.

*not every new rule is boring though. I like the approach they took with DG. Way better now and still very narrative. It feels a little bit more "matured" than the IW or IF rules. Maybe a sign that those will change? We will see.

 

How many meltabombs are you taking in ZM that this is coming up a lot? A regular meltabomb has like an 80% chance of blowing up a door, lol is that really the huge buff you’re making it out to be? I’m sure you’ll tell me how you’ve been blowing up 8 doors a turn with melta bombs in every ZM game you play now but I’m not buying it.

And again, what is a “subtle” rule? What makes Fear subtle? Why is subtle good? These are rules people have been complaining about being irrelevant and boring for years and years now, what makes you right and the hundreds of others wrong?

Edited April 28, 2022 by panascope

[The Scorpion]

I like when the rules are thematic, but I dislike when they are so situational they might as well be useless.

 

Wrecker for meltabombs is the perfect example. When was the last time you saw anyone field a building?

Even if it did, the Iron Warrior would need to purchase a meltabomb, reach the building, and fail to destroy it normally for the rule to even come into play.

 

I'd rather have rules that are simple but distinct and effective, than rules that are intricate to the point of never coming up in tabletop, which defeats the whole point of having said rules in the first place.

[BitsHammer]

I like when the rules are thematic, but I dislike when they are so situational they might as well be useless.

 

Wrecker for meltabombs is the perfect example. When was the last time you saw anyone field a building?

Even if it did, the Iron Warrior would need to purchase a meltabomb, reach the building, and fail to destroy it normally for the rule to even come into play.

 

I'd rather have rules that are simple but distinct and effective, than rules that are intricate to the point of never coming up in tabletop, which defeats the whole point of having said rules in the first place.

GW is a master of writing top-down with their rules design. Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists have always suffered from it though because GW looks at them and decides their rules need to revolve around breaking buildings (and/or cover) instead of making that a smaller tertiary bonus while their main rules focus on the respective cultures they have.

[Gorgoff]

"How many meltabombs are you taking in ZM that this is coming up a lot? "

Any unit who can take one gets one. I think it is rather stupid to not doing it.

 

"is that really the huge buff you’re making it out to be?" Necer said anything like that. You just claimed it never comes up, which is wrong and I told you why, which you didn't understand as well apparently.

"These are rules people have been complaining about being irrelevant and boring for years and years now, what makes you right and the hundreds of others wrong?"

It's a small minority who very loudly complains about absolutely good rules because simply they don't get it and I don't think GW should spend energy to make rules for these people. Apparentely thats exactly what they now trying to do. Making an obvious bonus and that's it. I think that is boring. It's just the fast food version we are geting now.

 

"Wrecker for meltabombs is the perfect example. When was the last time you saw anyone field a building?"

It helps to read what was already said to this topic in order to speeding things up. Wrecker as well helps blowing up doors in ZM.

Besides it is your problem if you never use fortifications and delibidated buildings and if you never play any missions apart from the core 6.

I like that they wrote rules for those kind of situations. Its a nice nod to the IW fluff and since the awesome rule is their ignorance of casualties in shooting face anyway it is absolutely ok that it is situational and not a huge bonus.

"Even if it did, the Iron Warrior would need to purchase a meltabomb, reach the building, and fail to destroy it normally for the rule to even come into play."

Same thing you could say about ccw with armour bane or tank hunter.

Rerolls are always good and nice to have.

And, like I said ten thousand times already, it is a nice nod to the fluff.

 

"I'd rather have rules that are simple but distinct and effective, than rules that are intricate to the point of never coming up in tabletop"

Why not both?

Tank Hunter for HSS (huge bonus) and stubborn in cover behind barricades (situational, but fluffy)?

I guess you guy should realise that (at least the decent ones) the legions ALL have some minor more fluffy rules and one or two big bonusses. Which is okay. Only if one Legion doesn't get any huge bonus comparable to the other legions like DG it is crap. I thought that is completely obvious to any player but here we are.

 

"Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists have always suffered from it though because GW looks at them and decides their rules need to revolve around breaking buildings (and/or cover) instead of making that a smaller tertiary bonus while their main rules focus on the respective cultures they have."

Their rules doesn't resolve around that. IF are great at killing vehicles with their HSS and their Boltguns are slighty better and the whole fortification stuff IS only a minir tertiary rule already.

Same with IW.

[BitsHammer]

I apologize if I've mischaracterized their 30k rules, I just know in 40k GW tends to push them towards denying cover, breaking foritifications, or both.

[Valkyrion]

IW and IF would be better if they got bonuses for being in deployment zones, in both 30k and 40k.

 

The IW want to in the enemy deployment zone - their heavy weapons are designed to breach so their heavy infantry can move in, so they should get bonuses to siege weapons like Demolisher Cannons and infantry bonuses (ala fearless, furious charge, etc) when in the enemy deployment zone.

The IF excel at defending so should get things like counter attack and fearless in their own deployment zone, as well as bonuses to anti tank weapons.

They should be negatives of each other, not two sides of the same coin. 

 

IMO, of course. 

[Slips]

As an IF player I would be livid if I was forced to be in My deployment zone to get any kind of bonus that isnt from a RoW or Mission. Edited April 30, 2022 by Slips

[LameBeard]

I think it’s a tricky thing for the rules writers to balance something which is thematic with something that doesn’t end up making you feel you’ve got to lean into it. That’s why I have some sympathy with the idea that the bonuses don't need to be too strong and could be situational. Let me give you a couple examples in current rules:

 

Imperial Fists bonus with bolt weapons. But what if I really like volkites? Do I feel forced to stick with bolters because I’m giving up a buff/not getting quite the points worth in the upgrade? @Slips - didn’t you make some volkite squads, you didn’t feel this?

 

I started World Eaters - having a free chainaxe is great. +1 S for a huge chunk of your force and a distinctive weapon that reflects the lore. But chain axes are £17.50 for 5 from Forgeworld. Seems a bit of a tax to be a competitive/fluffy player - I might just stick with chain swords for most - they look nearly as good…