State of the Union (Heresy)

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Some pictures floating around from a reference sheet / turn summary sheet shown at the event.

 

(Base) Reactions are apparently exactly the same as in the so-called 'version three leaks'. Nothing has changed. Make of that what you will.

[Waaagh?]

So there seems to be a distinct lack of info from inside the event. No tasty tidbits of info that those in attendance usually yield? Edited May 8, 2022 by Waaagh?

[Brother Kraskor]

 

To the Heresy veterans in here: what unit best fits taking Mk6 armour? I know GW are obviously pushing them as the posterboys of Heresy now but the fluff doesn't have it as widespread until right at the end/after. Something fast & elite I'd guess?

I did a long post on this recently basically laying out longstanding fluff reasons for Marks II-VI to be available to basically any force post Istvann III with the fluff/logistics reasons behind it. Sure, having nothing but Mark VI very early in the heresy would be a little odd for legions other than Raven Guard or Alpha Legion (both of which had it in quantity pre Istvann III), as it didn't go into mass production until just before the heresy started, but it's perfectly possible as there were pre-production versions of it in various legions, and certainly post Istvann V there'd be quite a bit of salvage.

 

Mark II-IV would be most common early heresy generally, mark V and VI more common mid heresy, and a lot of mark VI everywhere with some artificer prototype mark VII for loyalists at the siege itself. But each legion was absolutely huge, logistics was all over, both sides had forgeworld alliances, and in the end there's enough fluff justification for any ratio of those marks to be in your particular force that you personally prefer. III, IV and VI obviously have the advantage of being in plastic currently.

 

Mark VII pre the battles of Sol would be anachronistic, along with any Mark VIII or of course primaris Mark X given they were both much later, but other than that, it's a broad canvas.

 

That all said, if you want to personally keep Mark VI to seekers and recon units (where it was mostly being tested pre-heresy) or despoiler or assault squads* where its relative agility and speed would also have been an advantage, that's fine too!

 

* the new plastic mark VI tactical squad will need some bitbox salvaging (there are some bits from 40k tactical/assault squads you can use, and sanguinary guard jump packs without the wings) or 3rd party parts initially to make despoiler/assault squads, though a future mark VI assault squad in plastic is a tantalising possibility.

 

 

Thank you for explaining again in here I appreciate it. Assault marines are a good suggestion I think that might be the winner for me! Which flavour of jump pack would fit the Mk6 pattern best historically? Although I understand the logistics point and they'd likely have scavenged what they could, but if they were to get hold of a pristine set of Mk6 outfitted with jump packs would it be the big single thruster with two small Mk4 style, the "40k" twin thruster style on the Mk7s? I'm sure FW did a set back in the day and I tried searching for an old photo but no luck.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Brother Kraskor

[Joe]

So there seems to be a distinct lack of info from inside the event. No tasty tidbits of info that those in attendance usually yield?

 

Isn't much that some of us can share, I'm afraid. Designers don't attend the events anymore (although Andy Hoare was lurking in the back room), and some of what others were told is pretty hush hush for a variety of reasons. That said, I can confirm through chatting to the chaps running the games side that there's an FAQ coming early on to correct some outstanding issues, and they are aware of some of the more awkward rules interpretations that will need sorting out.

 

I just published a short blog post with some of my thoughts about the day.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Some pictures floating around from a reference sheet / turn summary sheet shown at the event.

 

(Base) Reactions are apparently exactly the same as in the so-called 'version three leaks'. Nothing has changed. Make of that what you will.

Ya people seeing them for the first time off that reference sheet. And complaining that stuff like the movement reaction doesn't let you go in any direction to try and get cover.

 

I'm here worrying about compounding benefits, and these guys want even more bonuses lol.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

 

I'm here worrying about compounding benefits, and these guys want even more bonuses lol.

 

 

So very true

[Unknown Legionnaire]

 

 ... I can confirm through chatting to the chaps running the games side that there's an FAQ coming early on to correct some outstanding issues, and they are aware of some of the more awkward rules interpretations that will need sorting out.

 

 

This is ... a joke, right ? 

 

We're talking about a product line encompassing three books that are each 300+ pages, which apparently have been printed and are ready for release, and they're NOW aware of 

'some outstanding issues'  that'll need an early FAQ, probably right along the books' release ? 

 

Talking about high quality finished products and thorough game testing ...

 

Who's gonna pay full price for a hyped-up product that's busted from the start ?  

[Joe]

The current rules are perfectly fine pre-FAQ; there's just a handful of quirky issues that need ironing out, like the ability to transport fliers inside fliers and wound allocation on character units like Deathshroud. Had the play-testers actually done their job this would have been picked up on sooner rather than later. Christ, there's been more play-testing done on the Age of Darkness Discord as far as we can tell.

 

That said, they've been aware of the issues since the content went to print. Like virtually every company on the market, they've stepped in to FAQ them as need be. Better sooner™ rather than later. I vaguely recall hearing at the event that the missing 1E factions are also getting an FAQ to be usable in 2E whilst they wait for their respective books.

[Arkhanist]

 

 

To the Heresy veterans in here: what unit best fits taking Mk6 armour? I know GW are obviously pushing them as the posterboys of Heresy now but the fluff doesn't have it as widespread until right at the end/after. Something fast & elite I'd guess?

I did a long post on this recently basically laying out longstanding fluff reasons for Marks II-VI to be available to basically any force post Istvann III with the fluff/logistics reasons behind it. Sure, having nothing but Mark VI very early in the heresy would be a little odd for legions other than Raven Guard or Alpha Legion (both of which had it in quantity pre Istvann III), as it didn't go into mass production until just before the heresy started, but it's perfectly possible as there were pre-production versions of it in various legions, and certainly post Istvann V there'd be quite a bit of salvage.

 

Mark II-IV would be most common early heresy generally, mark V and VI more common mid heresy, and a lot of mark VI everywhere with some artificer prototype mark VII for loyalists at the siege itself. But each legion was absolutely huge, logistics was all over, both sides had forgeworld alliances, and in the end there's enough fluff justification for any ratio of those marks to be in your particular force that you personally prefer. III, IV and VI obviously have the advantage of being in plastic currently.

 

Mark VII pre the battles of Sol would be anachronistic, along with any Mark VIII or of course primaris Mark X given they were both much later, but other than that, it's a broad canvas.

 

That all said, if you want to personally keep Mark VI to seekers and recon units (where it was mostly being tested pre-heresy) or despoiler or assault squads* where its relative agility and speed would also have been an advantage, that's fine too!

 

* the new plastic mark VI tactical squad will need some bitbox salvaging (there are some bits from 40k tactical/assault squads you can use, and sanguinary guard jump packs without the wings) or 3rd party parts initially to make despoiler/assault squads, though a future mark VI assault squad in plastic is a tantalising possibility.

 

 

Thank you for explaining again in here I appreciate it. Assault marines are a good suggestion I think that might be the winner for me! Which flavour of jump pack would fit the Mk6 pattern best historically? Although I understand the logistics point and they'd likely have scavenged what they could, but if they were to get hold of a pristine set of Mk6 outfitted with jump packs would it be the big single thruster with two small Mk4 style, the "40k" twin thruster style on the Mk7s? I'm sure FW did a set back in the day and I tried searching for an old photo but no luck.

 

I thought FW had too, but I've not been able to find a sniff of evidence of forgeworld doing a Mark VI assault squad with jump packs. The mark VII rectangular pack doesn't really show up anywhere in heresy media, but that also means it's not officially 'wrong' either.

 

Mark II (only currently available on the ashen circle i believe)

 

 

Mark III rarely had packs, and they never had an official version, but Mark II ones would do.

 

Mark IV had the slimline single central thruster, which survives in the blood angels sanguinary guard, or you can get the Mark IV assault squad of course.

 

 

Mark V reverted to a mark II-style dual turbine design, but with some differences.

 

 

And after that there's not a lot to go on. There's Dominion Zephyr in artificer Mark VI which is a cool sort of precursor to standard Mark VII, but hard to replicate! (Corax too, but a primarch is obviously going to be custom)

 

 

 

There's the night lord raptors doing uh, their hybrid thing in Mark IV.

 

 

So probably the safest approach would be mark IV style, or a twin round turbine design ala Mark V for a more scavenged look. Or you could hack up the intakes on Mark VII packs to look closer to the Dominion Zephyr, which are kind of a hybrid between the old 3rd ed raptor pack intakes and mark VII.

 

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82/Wappellious/RaptorTHREEMultiviewRESIZE.jpg

 

Personally, I wouldn't use straight mark VII packs as I think half the fun of Heresy is doing things a little differently, but people certainly have given the difficultly/cost or having to go 3rd party to do anything else, and it isn't 'wrong' as we don't have an official pack for mark VI.

 

And there's certainly plenty of 3rd party alternatives such as maxmini, kromlech or popgoesthemonkey, or larger scale ones from tortuga bay if you fancy something a bit different.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Arkhanist

[SkimaskMohawk]

The current rules are perfectly fine pre-FAQ; there's just a handful of quirky issues that need ironing out, like the ability to transport fliers inside fliers and wound allocation on character units like Deathshroud. Had the play-testers actually done their job this would have been picked up on sooner rather than later. Christ, there's been more play-testing done on the Age of Darkness Discord as far as we can tell.

 

That said, they've been aware of the issues since the content went to print. Like virtually every company on the market, they've stepped in to FAQ them as need be. Better sooner™ rather than later. I vaguely recall hearing at the event that the missing 1E factions are also getting an FAQ to be usable in 2E whilst they wait for their respective books.

The rules aren't currently fine. As written currently, wound allocation breaks when it comes to ICs. They can juggle wounds on and off regardless of circumstances, and ignore targetting abilities like precision strikes, sniper, and challenges.

 

That's a really big thing, because everyone loves their characters and puts them in high impact units; the units get shot at, they have to interact with wound allocation mechanics, and then run into the current rules. It's almost a return to the start of 6th where you could look out sir after failing a save; at least now the duders have to rely on their own armour.

 

They could also implement something to eliminate key-holing to snipe out important models. Though again, raw the IC wound allocation lets you pass them out of los.

 

Re: jump packs

 

Honestly use the box packs from 40k. They fit in fine with the aesthetic, and the lack of generic mk6 units with packs leaves it open as the previous post mentioned. They also do a great job at being different, as few people use them in heresy.

 

I would recommend the Raven guard ones off the dark fury, except they look really weird without some sort of wing attachment, and theyre now a bespoke, special pack in 2nd.

 

Fun note about night lord stuff; all their unique things are clean raptor gear. Really lets you match with that range nicely.

Edited May 8, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[Arkhanist]

 

 

 ... I can confirm through chatting to the chaps running the games side that there's an FAQ coming early on to correct some outstanding issues, and they are aware of some of the more awkward rules interpretations that will need sorting out.

 

 

This is ... a joke, right ? 

 

We're talking about a product line encompassing three books that are each 300+ pages, which apparently have been printed and are ready for release, and they're NOW aware of 

'some outstanding issues'  that'll need an early FAQ, probably right along the books' release ? 

 

Talking about high quality finished products and thorough game testing ...

 

Who's gonna pay full price for a hyped-up product that's busted from the start ?  

 

GW has long had issues with the fact that the books have go to the printers months and months in advance, so any flaws that get picked up after that have to be FAQ'd. And their testing process definitely has some holes in it where they're not being nitpicky enough (or maybe just ignoring the playtesters).

 

This would be a lot easier to live with if GW wasn't so wedded to dead trees, or had a better playtesting feedback loop, or even just have printers that had a faster turnaround. (I know they've experimented with UK printers as well as China)

[BitsHammer]

So there seems to be a distinct lack of info from inside the event. No tasty tidbits of info that those in attendance usually yield?

I'd assume most people need to travel home first and then edit together videos first.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

 

... I can confirm through chatting to the chaps running the games side that there's an FAQ coming early on to correct some outstanding issues, and they are aware of some of the more awkward rules interpretations that will need sorting out.

 

This is ... a joke, right ?

 

We're talking about a product line encompassing three books that are each 300+ pages, which apparently have been printed and are ready for release, and they're NOW aware of

'some outstanding issues' that'll need an early FAQ, probably right along the books' release ?

 

Talking about high quality finished products and thorough game testing ...

 

Who's gonna pay full price for a hyped-up product that's busted from the start ?

Busted? Hardly. But there are only so many playtesters, especially during Covid so new eyes (some of which never played HH and don't have the asaumptions of 1.0 in their head) can lead to seeing that there are things they to tighten up further just to be sure.

 

This is a known issue with closed playtesting: you can't hit 100% of the potential problems because you will never have enough eyes on the product.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Fulkes

[Noserenda]

 Yeah id rather have a minorly flawed product with decent faq support than half as many or twice as expensive "flawless" ones. Its when FW cant be bothered to do FAQs that problems occur. 

Independent character rules are always going to be janky unfortunately, tis the nature of the beast.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

 

Busted? Hardly. But there are only so many playtesters, especially during Covid so new eyes (some of which never played HH and don't have the asaumptions of 1.0 in their head) can lead to seeing that there are things they to tighten up further just to be sure.

 

This is a known issue with closed playtesting: you can't hit 100% of the potential problems because you will never have enough eyes on the product.

 

 

 

It is busted. Because as a company making money of these (unfinished) products, you should be providing the best product possible. Otherwise, people will buy something else.

Or go to recasters in the case of models, when it's not about the books.

It's very simple, actualy.

 

And as a consumer who pays for the product, you don't have to care about there being too few playtesters, or if said people were doing their job right or not.

That's none of the consumer's concern. That's GW's concern.

 

The people I work with in my job, who're essentialy my customers, don't care or can't be bothered if I had a bad nights sleep or have some private issue going on behind the scenes.

They rely on me, and I have to do my job 100% right.

[BitsHammer]

No wargame is 100% perfect out of the gate and you are acting entitled over this.

 

:cuss "best possible product" never means "100% perfect" it means "the best product possible under the conditions of time and resources that were available at the time". This fiction that any game GW makes is "busted" because it's not 100% perfect out of the gate with no possible rules loopholes or potential jank through rules ambiguity is a fantasy concoted by people who don't understand game design, much less know how to set realistic expectations for products.

[Noserenda]

Yeah id be really interested to see a wargame or rpg, or hell, any sufficiently large and complicated book product come out without a single error. Go on, im waiting.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

No wargame is 100% perfect out of the gate and you are acting entitled over this.

 

"best possible product" never means "100% perfect" it means "the best product possible under the conditions of time and resources that were available at the time". This fiction that any game GW makes is "busted" because it's not 100% perfect out of the gate with no possible rules loopholes or potential jank through rules ambiguity is a fantasy concoted by people who don't understand game design, much less know how to set realistic expectations for products.

 

 

Right.

 

There's a rather large gap between being '100%'  perfect and being printed released with  'some outstanding issues'  I'd say.

 

But please, let's just leave it at that, yes, because apparently it seems to be a rather sensitive matter and I don't like you getting personal and insulting here at all. Thank you.

[BitsHammer]

You said "100% right" so you're the one asking for a flawless product while complaining that they're fixing things to improve the product they have instead of leaving those issues standing.

 

This has been a textbook case of unrealistic expectations and entitlement even if you wanted to dress it up as GW's fault somehow.

[Gorgoff]

No wargame is 100% perfect out of the gate and you are acting entitled over this.

 

:cuss "best possible product" never means "100% perfect" it means "the best product possible under the conditions of time and resources that were available at the time". This fiction that any game GW makes is "busted" because it's not 100% perfect out of the gate with no possible rules loopholes or potential jank through rules ambiguity is a fantasy concoted by people who don't understand game design, much less know how to set realistic expectations for products.

I guess he feares that we as well get treated like beta testers who have to buy a full price rulebook. We see that for years now in 40k where a books life span is counted in weeks nowadays before some FAQ comes out and invalidates the book the Fans just paid 50 money for. That is not ok and it is fair to point out.

Having said that obviously it is better to get a day one FAQ instead of having to deal with u cleared problems for years and years like we had to in first edition.

@skimaskmohawk What is the problem with wound allocation regarding IC? I didn't see all the rules yet.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

You said "100% right" so you're the one asking for a flawless product ....

 

That's not what I wrote at all. But suit yourself.

 

I'm out of here.

[jaxom]

I’ve seen top-layer pics of the index books and tutorial missions. Indexes are just that, kind of remind me of the red books. There are some inset quotes in the rules. Usual “minis in a battlefield” picture space towards bottom of the pages.

 

Tutorials were simple printouts explaining the reaction and setting a scenario for it to be used. For example, does a 10 man squad Advance on an objective to get to it first or Withdraw as the enemy squad outnumbers them and would end up in rapid fire range.

[BitsHammer]

This is less a new codex launch and more a new game edition launch. Far more complex and with a greater number of possible points of failure.

 

And since non-HH people got to playtest it at the event I'm certain some of the FAQ stuff will be because they don't have assumptions from 1.0 baked into their thinking.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Fulkes

[Hfran Morkai]

 

 

So there seems to be a distinct lack of info from inside the event. No tasty tidbits of info that those in attendance usually yield?

Isn't much that some of us can share, I'm afraid. Designers don't attend the events anymore (although Andy Hoare was lurking in the back room), and some of what others were told is pretty hush hush for a variety of reasons. That said, I can confirm through chatting to the chaps running the games side that there's an FAQ coming early on to correct some outstanding issues, and they are aware of some of the more awkward rules interpretations that will need sorting out.

 

I just published a short blog post with some of my thoughts about the day.

I doubt it's in there but I sincerely hope they allow Infiltrators to deploy as such with the Drop Pod RoW.

 

I want Recon Marines guiding in the pods even if it's only thematically.

[Joe]

Just going to list off some of the rules changes that've made it into the print books compared to the leaks, according to conversation at the event;

 

• Contemptor's are now W5, and the Power Fist is now S7 and has lost Murderous Strike.
• Lascannons lost Sundering.

 

We've also seen some changes to the Kratos cannon compared to the leaks, with the Melta Blast-Gun getting an extra 6" to range and Heavy 4 whilst losing Large Blast (5"). So there's already substantial changes, lol.