State of the Union (Heresy)

[Balerion84]

Well, anyone who'd try to argue something like this with me, would get a hearty laugh from me, then I'd hit them over the head with the rulebook before continuing with game. Because that's completely bonkers what you guys are saying regarding ID interaction :D

[jaxom]

 

Is taking wounds not reducing the Wounds characteristic? Are they RAW unkillable...!

 

No. "Wounds (W) - This Characteristic represents how much damage a model can take before it dies."

 

Wounds from attacks are allocated from a Wound Pool, and a model can have allocated to it as many as it has Wounds characteristic before being removed as a casualty; the characteristic itself doesn't change when a model takes damage. If that was not the case, then any effects that restore Wounds, which usually are limited to restoring max up to the Wounds Characteristic, could never work as the Wounds characteristic would be lowered as damage is taken.

 

 

Two things to note. First: the wounds characteristic is modified. The 'Take Saves & Remove Casualties' from the Shooting rules using the wording "reduce that Model's Wounds by 1." Personally I agree with what you're saying and it matches more modern game designs. The industry standard recently has been to have an explicit or implicit 'damage taken' pool and that's what goes up and down in response to wounds and healing, and when it equals the wounds characteristic the unit/model gets removed.

 

Second: There's a difference between changing the Wounds characteristic from attacks and from special rules and effects. A model with Silver-Iron Will, assuming the wounds langguage stays the same as 1st edition, can be wounded, but would be immune to Instant Death (edit: because Instant Death is a special rule added to an attack), extra wounds from weapon or unit effects, and pretty much anything that isn't a basic ranged or melee attack.

Edited May 21, 2022 by jaxom

[Marshal Mittens]

Maybe it's just me, but it see.s pretty obvious that the intent is obviously not to make a character and their entire unit immune to ID and the like.

 

I feel like it's a very strong rule anyway.

[Excessus]

I'm so glad I never have to play against some people in this thread...

[SkimaskMohawk]

Maybe it's just me, but it see.s pretty obvious that the intent is obviously not to make a character and their entire unit immune to ID and the like.

 

I feel like it's a very strong rule anyway.

yea of course it's obvious. We're just commenting on how far the poorly phrased rule actually goes raw.

 

 

A lot of people seem to think that saying "this how the rule mechanically functions" is a synonym for "I will only play the rule to the extent I just explained". In reality, understanding how a rule functions is the first step to fixing it. You can talk about removing/changing certain clauses with your group, how that would affect the rule and balance in the long term, and come up with a fix that actually works.

 

That's how my group does it at least; no need for hitting our opponents with rule books or telling our friends we don't want to play them because they...have reading comprehension.

[infyrana]

So that Iron Will rule really just makes an idea of a Destroyer Rad Phage list really pointless, nice... >.<

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I think some of the wording on the ruleset thinks that it is being extra clear, but is so overcomplicated that it actually becomes less clear.

[Petitioner's City]

In GMG's rules vid today noticed that Cataphractii are more expensive - they are 250 points, rather than Phase 3's 215 for 5 with 4 fists and 1 power weapon. Also Plasma has Rending rather than Breaching, and Lascannons don't have sunder - but I think Joe mentioned this point before from the weekend. 

 

Overall, I do think Cata need a points increase - they are so very good. Intriguing to see if Breaching is in the Core Book, and if the Liber lists give it back to plasma.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn18EFRbYt0&ab_channel=GuerrillaMiniatureGames

Edited May 21, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[Excessus]

 

He's never affected by a *special rule* that lowers wounds. The ID rule is in the basic rule section of the new book it seems.

It's not. And if it were, where's the rule for assault results modifying leadership? In the same section of rules that tell you to take wounds off for failing saves

 

In 1.0 it's in the Special Rules section of the rules, but in 2.0 ID is in the Basic Rules section of the rules. (29:08 of GMG:s video)

 

 

 

Maybe it's just me, but it see.s pretty obvious that the intent is obviously not to make a character and their entire unit immune to ID and the like.

 

I feel like it's a very strong rule anyway.

yea of course it's obvious. We're just commenting on how far the poorly phrased rule actually goes raw.

 

 

A lot of people seem to think that saying "this how the rule mechanically functions" is a synonym for "I will only play the rule to the extent I just explained". In reality, understanding how a rule functions is the first step to fixing it. You can talk about removing/changing certain clauses with your group, how that would affect the rule and balance in the long term, and come up with a fix that actually works.

 

That's how my group does it at least; no need for hitting our opponents with rule books or telling our friends we don't want to play them because they...have reading comprehension.

 

This is the internet, son. There are plenty of people that would use it the way you interpret it, especially within the 40k community.

 

And I agree, understanding a rule is the first step to fixing it...and we have laughably little of the rules shown to us at the moment, making any discussion about it an excercise in futility. But waac is gonna waac I guess...

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

 

He's never affected by a *special rule* that lowers wounds. The ID rule is in the basic rule section of the new book it seems.

It's not. And if it were, where's the rule for assault results modifying leadership? In the same section of rules that tell you to take wounds off for failing saves

In 1.0 it's in the Special Rules section of the rules, but in 2.0 ID is in the Basic Rules section of the rules. (29:08 of GMG:s video)

 

 

Maybe it's just me, but it see.s pretty obvious that the intent is obviously not to make a character and their entire unit immune to ID and the like.

 

I feel like it's a very strong rule anyway.

yea of course it's obvious. We're just commenting on how far the poorly phrased rule actually goes raw.

 

 

A lot of people seem to think that saying "this how the rule mechanically functions" is a synonym for "I will only play the rule to the extent I just explained". In reality, understanding how a rule functions is the first step to fixing it. You can talk about removing/changing certain clauses with your group, how that would affect the rule and balance in the long term, and come up with a fix that actually works.

 

That's how my group does it at least; no need for hitting our opponents with rule books or telling our friends we don't want to play them because they...have reading comprehension.

This is the internet, son. There are plenty of people that would use it the way you interpret it, especially within the 40k community.

 

And I agree, understanding a rule is the first step to fixing it...and we have laughably little of the rules shown to us at the moment, making any discussion about it an excercise in futility. But waac is gonna waac I guess...

In 2nd edition, instant does indeed show up in the basic rules where ash highlights it in his review. And in the special rules section at page 242.

 

And even if it didn't.

 

The warlord trait calls out modifying leadership from losing combat as a "special rule or effect that lowers a characteristic". It is a basic rule found on pages 188 and 191. Yet, it is an example of a rule thats blocked by Silver Iron.

[Astartes Consul]

Brothers who saw / downloaded a copy of the full leaks, I have a question. If I was building a ten man heavy support squad with autocannons right now, would I be wise to give the Sergeant the bolter & scanner option, or just have him kitted out with an autocannon as well?

[SkimaskMohawk]

The scanner.

 

It gives night vision, allowing you to see over 24" if night fight is in effect, and allowed you to ignore shroud.

 

It also lets him give the squad +1 BS instead of shooting.

 

Either of those alone are worth losing an autocannon; both are incredible .

[Astartes Consul]

I'm sure plenty of people have seen this already, but pretty exhaustive, 50 minute breakdown of the rule book:

 

 

 

 

The scanner.

It gives night vision, allowing you to see over 24" if night fight is in effect, and allowed you to ignore shroud.

It also lets him give the squad +1 BS instead of shooting.

Either of those alone are worth losing an autocannon; both are incredible .

 

Thank you. Thought I'd check before I stuck the Autocannon on him. 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Astartes Consul

[bushman101]

do we have pics of the boxset sprues?

(I can't check the videos at the moment)

[Brofist]

Regarding silver iron will, I would not argue that the unit is immortal, but I would argue any special rules that reduce wounds (or other characteristics, like Initiative) the unit would be immune to. The drawback is pretty big, so while its good and probably not intentional, I don't think it's as broken as 'you don't remove any wounds from this unit'.

[Cadmus Tyro]

Brothers who saw / downloaded a copy of the full leaks, I have a question. If I was building a ten man heavy support squad with autocannons right now, would I be wise to give the Sergeant the bolter & scanner option, or just have him kitted out with an autocannon as well?

Perhaps I have a different version, but nowhere in the leaked rules do I see the need to exchange the sergeants heavy weapon. The cognis signum can just be “added on”, meaning you can have a full ten man squad with autocannons, a cognis signum, and an augery scanner.

 

Cadmus

Edited May 21, 2022 by Cadmus Tyro

[ShadowCore67]

In GMG's rules vid today noticed that Cataphractii are more expensive - they are 250 points, rather than Phase 3's 215 for 5 with 4 fists and 1 power weapon. Also Plasma has Rending rather than Breaching, and Lascannons don't have sunder - but I think Joe mentioned this point before from the weekend.

 

Overall, I do think Cata need a points increase - they are so very good. Intriguing to see if Breaching is in the Core Book, and if the Liber lists give it back to plasma.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn18EFRbYt0&ab_channel=GuerrillaMiniatureGames

Are we sure he didn't just misquote the plasma gun? I find it interesting they'd drop an entire rule that made it all the way to phase 3. And I could easily see him confusing the two, since they're very similar rules.

[Petitioner's City]

 

In GMG's rules vid today noticed that Cataphractii are more expensive - they are 250 points, rather than Phase 3's 215 for 5 with 4 fists and 1 power weapon. Also Plasma has Rending rather than Breaching, and Lascannons don't have sunder - but I think Joe mentioned this point before from the weekend.

 

Overall, I do think Cata need a points increase - they are so very good. Intriguing to see if Breaching is in the Core Book, and if the Liber lists give it back to plasma.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn18EFRbYt0&ab_channel=GuerrillaMiniatureGames

Are we sure he didn't just misquote the plasma gun? I find it interesting they'd drop an entire rule that made it all the way to phase 3. And I could easily see him confusing the two, since they're very similar rules.

You can see it too, it's rending (4+) on the pistol, blaster and the plasmagun in the box below (at 48.04).

 

 

Edit, also our slightly more expensive catas:

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[LameBeard]

I think some of the wording on the ruleset thinks that it is being extra clear, but is so overcomplicated that it actually becomes less clear.

This is what happens in Kill Team 2021 I’m afraid.

 

I much prefer the sketchier Adeptus Titanicus style; I was kinda hoping Heresy 2.0 would be closer to that.

 

But I appreciate there are people in the opposite camp.

 

 

Edit: so they DID take away power axe as standard for Cataphractii! I feared it. Near miss for me, just built the squad with power fists.

Edited May 21, 2022 by LameBeard

[Cadmus Tyro]

Hmm, so the entry for the Cataphractii is missing a lot of options, it’s limited to the options in the plastic kit. This makes me think the rule book contains a stripped down version of the unit entry, limiting it to the options in the plastic kit for ease. Also, notice that all the standard terminators are equipped with power gloves, whereas the leaked entry has power weapons. It still means the base cost of the unit likely increased, but the two entries are not directly comparable.

 

Cadmus

[LameBeard]

Hmm, so the entry for the Cataphractii is missing a lot of options, it’s limited to the options in the plastic kit. This makes me think the rule book contains a stripped down version of the unit entry, limiting it to the options in the plastic kit for ease. Also, notice that all the standard terminators are equipped with power gloves, whereas the leaked entry has power weapons. It still means the base cost of the unit likely increased, but the two entries are not directly comparable.

 

Cadmus

Ok so this is a rule book entry to get you started, not the Liber entry? Right. That makes sense given it’s what’s in the box. Panic over.

[armarnis]

thats from the pamphlete in the box to let you play with the box. so units only have the options that are coming in the box

[Corswain]

do we have pics of the boxset sprues?

(I can't check the videos at the moment)

Fire Golem linked Tale of Painters in the N&R thread. It has pics of the sprues.

 

https://taleofpainters.com/2022/05/first-look-the-horus-heresy-age-of-darkness-launch-set-unboxing/

 

Biggest thing for me was the sergeant's arms appear to be on the main sprue, not the "command sprue." That means I get eight of them to change up posing. Or use towards an assault squad.

 

I'm going to build an assault squad. :)

Edited May 21, 2022 by Corswain

[bushman101]

 

do we have pics of the boxset sprues?

(I can't check the videos at the moment)

Fire Golem linked Tale of Painters in the N&R thread. It has pics of the sprues.

 

https://taleofpainters.com/2022/05/first-look-the-horus-heresy-age-of-darkness-launch-set-unboxing/

 

Biggest thing for me was the sergeant's arms appear to be on the main sprue, not the "command sprue." That means I get eight of them to change up posing. Or use towards an assault squad.

 

I'm going to build an assault squad.

 

Thanks for that.

 

I am interested in the tact sprue. Looks like the bolters aren't part of the whole arm. 

So I can make a Despoiler squad with some of my left over chainswords and pistols :)

[Astartes Consul]

 

Brothers who saw / downloaded a copy of the full leaks, I have a question. If I was building a ten man heavy support squad with autocannons right now, would I be wise to give the Sergeant the bolter & scanner option, or just have him kitted out with an autocannon as well?

Perhaps I have a different version, but nowhere in the leaked rules do I see the need to exchange the sergeants heavy weapon. The cognis signum can just be “added on”, meaning you can have a full ten man squad with autocannons, a cognis signum, and an augery scanner.

 

Cadmus

 

 

Oh great, I had just assumed you still had to swap!

 

Thanks