State of the Union (Heresy)

[SkimaskMohawk]

@Brofist does the macharius directly compete with the kratos? Yes? Shock that the kratos looks like a bargain in points compared to its direct competition.

[Arkhanist]

7 minutes ago, Brofist said:

Yeah this .pdf is pretty disappointing in terms of quality. Given what I've seen there isn't much hope for militia this edition.

Check out this quality rules writing

Looks fine to me apart from the stroke the poor writer had when he was putting the points in and added an extra 0.

[Cruor Vault]

7 hours ago, Astartes Consul said:

Looking at the PDF again on my phone and, have they forgotten to put transport capacity on the Land Raiders?? 

It's up in the stat block now, next to the armor and hull points.

[Dark Legionnare]

1 hour ago, Brofist said:

Yeah this .pdf is pretty disappointing in terms of quality. Given what I've seen there isn't much hope for militia this edition.

Check out this quality rules writing

The "sawed-off tank-gun" ranges are things I was talking about earlier with lots of lads.

The Fellblade still has immense range on its main gun, why is the vanquisher 36"....

Hell, why is the battle cannon 24"?

A lot of this PDF looks like it was slapped together in 20 minutes copy pasting.

Reminds me of the 40k copy-paste job in 9th where my krieg veteran cavalry are crack-shots with this las-pistols but are pretty bad at aiming their lances on a charge. (They pasted WS and BS wrong, clearly.)  Still no FAQ to fix that, come to think of it.

Leh sigh.

[Brofist]

1 hour ago, Dark Legionnare said:

The "sawed-off tank-gun" ranges are things I was talking about earlier with lots of lads.

The Fellblade still has immense range on its main gun, why is the vanquisher 36"....

Hell, why is the battle cannon 24"?

A lot of this PDF looks like it was slapped together in 20 minutes copy pasting.

Reminds me of the 40k copy-paste job in 9th where my krieg veteran cavalry are crack-shots with this las-pistols but are pretty bad at aiming their lances on a charge. (They pasted WS and BS wrong, clearly.)  Still no FAQ to fix that, come to think of it.

Leh sigh.

yeah I sincerely doubt much of this will be fixed, it'll be up to the community to fix these things

[Dark Legionnare]

54 minutes ago, Brofist said:

yeah I sincerely doubt much of this will be fixed, it'll be up to the community to fix these things

Frankly it's very disenfranchising when they give off the vibes of "they could care less"; a multi-million dollar company providing a product, a product that has all the hallmarks of a PowerPoint slapped together in 20 minutes before the class it was due in.

I love the game, but the more and more they do stuff like this, the more I buy resin bottles. And the more we have to just ignore their rules.

I'm already doing that with my reavers. Magnetized for banestrike and volkite, but can't do that anymore. Just house-ruling what vets pay for them, on them.

If they haven't spent the THIRTY SECONDS it would take to swap two letters in the last two years, "B & W", for my krieg cavalry kerfuffle... My confidence is 0 they can or will course-correct the multiple messes in this pdf. Heaven help any placeholder PDFs for talons, mechanicum, etc...

Edited July 2, 2022 by Dark Legionnare

[spessmarine]

some things certainly got attention though, Mortug definitely was written with interest but then you've got things like the character dreads who feel a bit... added last minute

overall UM and DA maybe look like strong winners (legends doc), they'll have a blast literally, WS and RG I think might've come out decently too while EC probably on the absolute short end
metric being whether you got some neat toys restored with some love

Edited July 2, 2022 by spessmarine

[Prim]

We can only hope* that GW pick up on some of the feedback for this rules pack and give us an amended version. As it is only a free pdf, changing it doesn't mean invalidating a pile of new books, and would go a long way to convincing people that they are serious about 30K being a major system in the long run. 

 

*The first step on the road to disappointment, I know. 

[Brofist]

UM and DA look like strong winners until you read the first page and realize RAW loyalists can't take anything from the .pdfs :)

[tinpact]

"Within are a selection of units that 
can be included in any Space Marine Legion, along with a number of units that are available only to specific Legions with either the 
Loyalist or Traitor allegiance."

@Brofist Okay, I'll bite. How so?

[Prim]

@tinpact - I think @Brofist is referring to the "Liber Loyalists" text on the first page of the pdf. It should say "Liber Astartes". 

[Petitioner's City]

Just a reminder if you do have feedback, email the faq email - only way changes might occur is if enough people complain 

[lansalt]

I just saw this photo in social media and I'm again baffled by another GW's decision. The special edition of the new rulebook supposedly made to match the old hardcover Black Books... is actually smaller and does not match them.

 

 

 

[No Foes Remain]

2 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

Just a reminder if you do have feedback, email the faq email - only way changes might occur is if enough people complain 

In adition, make sure you title it as a complaint as it will get flagged by their system as such that way. Also wish I had commented about the Indomitus Terminators being troops, which doesn't really make much sense in the way of things.

 

1 hour ago, lansalt said:

I just saw this photo in social media and I'm again baffled by another GW's decision. The special edition of the new rulebook supposedly made to match the old hardcover Black Books... is actually smaller and does not match them.

 

 

 

I'm actually glad I didn't buy that now, I was half tempted but managed to hold off. Would not have looked right on my bookshelf and would have annoyed the hell out of me.

[Allart01]

6 hours ago, lansalt said:

I just saw this photo in social media and I'm again baffled by another GW's decision. The special edition of the new rulebook supposedly made to match the old hardcover Black Books... is actually smaller and does not match them.

 

 

 

 

Well that is a picture of Betrayal if I ever saw one.

[GodEmperorOfMankind]

I might well send mine back then! Where's the point if it doesn't match the forgeworld ones. It'll turn up tomorrow so I'll take a look and then OK a case with GW customer service 

[bushman101]

Hmm. I thought the main appeal of the limited book was the binding rather than the dimensions.

[Noserenda]

9 minutes ago, bushman101 said:

Hmm. I thought the main appeal of the limited book was the binding rather than the dimensions.

Continuity was my main thought, thoug FW in particular seem clueless about book collecting, like no two books in the AT range having matching spines...

[Petitioner's City]

So I sent my email to the FAQ, while I didn't title it as a complaint, i hope it is useful for you guys and gals also to send any material to FW:

Quote

Dear Horus Heresy Team,

 

Thank you for the release of the Legacies of the Age of Darkness and Exemplary Battle Units pdf on Friday - it contained a number of wonderful surprises, like the Indomitus Terminators and the great presentation of the Castra Ferrum dreadnoughts, among other lovely inclusions. Overall, Heresy 2.0 is a fantastic release and myself and my friends are very excited about it all!

 

However we've noticed a number of changes from the earlier edition to many units which seem like mistakes, or very striking negative comparisons with the units in the pdfs with those in the Liber Astartes/Hereticus books which seem confusing to me and other players in my gaming group.

 

As such, I've collected my gaming group's thoughts into the following list:

 

Liber Hereticus

1. Is it deliberate that Palatine Blades (Liber Hereticus, p. 160). lost their ability to take jump packs compared to their older edition profile?
2. Is it deliberate that Thousand Sons independent characters upgraded to psykers may not take force weapons (as they had in Inferno) - I guess this option is replaced by the Achaen Force Weapons?
3. For Prosperine Arcana, some of the arcana mention that the 'Psyker' suffers the Perils of the Warp test, while Pavoni mentions 'the unit' (p. 255) - is this deliberate? 
   1. In addition, if the character who selected the power is removed, e.g. the Sergeant, does the unit then lose the ability to use the Arcana?
4. Is there a reason that Thousand Sons rotor cannons can no longer take Asphyx ammunition (p. 258)?
5. Is it deliberate that Sekhmet Terminator Cabals (LH, p. 262) have lost their ability to wear Tartaros Terminator Armour and thus not use the 40K models?

Legacies of the Age of Darkness: Universal Rules

 

1. a Legion Spatha Attack Bike is 55 points (p. 15), being only M14, T4 and W1, and Cavalry (Skirmish) (Legacies); a Legion Proteus Land Speeder (Liber Astartes, p. 61) is 60 points base, being M16, T5 and W3, and Cavalry (Anti-grav). Is this a suitable price for either?  A single Outrider (LA, p. 57) is 20 points, and a single Sky-Hunter (LA, p. 59) with a Heavy Bolter) is 30 points - shouldn't a Spatha Attack Bike be closer to a Sky-Hunter in terms of cost?
2. The Legion Terminator Indomitus Squad is great, but it's a shame that conversions players made based on the first edition Terminator profile with "era-appropriate" Reaper Autocannons, Power Weapons and Plasma Blastguns aren't allowed - could these be added in?
   1. A cheeky request, but could it be possible for Cataphractii Praetors, Centurions and Command Squads to swap their Cata armour for Indomitus Armour, or create appropriate profiles?
3. I wondered if Hussar Squadrons and Sky Seeker Squadrons from Malevolence would be coming back - these were nice units, and it's a shame to lose them, although I'd understand if you feel they are unnecessary.
4. For the Avenger Strike Fighter (p. 19), did you mean to remove the older list's options to include tactical bombs,  autocannons or multilasers? In addition, it has gone from Armour 12/10/10 to 11/10/10, while gaining a HP from 2 to 3 - I wanted to check this was deliberate?
5. For Legion Primaris-Lightning Strike Fighters (page 21), will the option to add twin-linked autocannons, twin-linked multi-lasers or twin-linked missile launchers, instead of bombs, or the electromagnetic storm charges, return?
6.  For the Land Raider Achilles (page 23), will its old options to take phosphex return?
7. The Legion Basilisk's Earthshaker Cannon profile is different from that in the Age of Darkness Rulebook (where it has a 36" minimum range)
8. For the Legion Medusa (p. 26), will the ability of a Siege Breaker Consul to add phosphex shells to a Arquitor also apply to a Medusa, as it did in first edition?
9. For the Caestus Assault Ram (p. 28), was it meant to lose its ability to carry Terminator-sized models, and more critically, its ability to ram? (Old Edition: "The vessel is purpose built to survive smashing into a heavily armoured structure, and its forward prow is augmented with field generators. When conducting a ram attack, the Caestus’ controlling player can roll two dice and pick the higher number when determining if it has penetrated the target’s armour and add +1 to any rolls on the Vehicle Damage chart that it uses. The Legion Caestus Assault Ram conducts all of its ramming attacks at Strength 10, in addition to its other rules. In addition, the Caestus has an invulnerable save of 5+ against any attacks against its Front armour, including any damage it suffers as a result of carrying out a ram or being rammed itself from the front.)
10. The Legion Minotaur (thank you for including this lovely tank) seems to have a mistake - it doesn't include rules for the its "twin-linked earthshaker cannon", only the standard earthshaker cannon seen in the Basilisk profile. Does it benefit from the Twin-Linked USR, even if this isn't stated in the profile?
11. The Legion Stormblade (p. 31) seems to have a copy-and-paste error, as it doesn't really relate to either the model on the FW site or its old profile in two key ways 
    1. The formerly hull-mounted Plasma Blastgun is now a turret, even if the model is hull-mounted
    2. The sponsons - the old Stormblade (and the model for sale) has "two pairs of side sponsons, each with one lascannon and one twin-linked heavy bolter"; however the Legacies profile has "Two Sponson-mounted lascannon arrays", like a Falchion, which can be upgraded to "two sponson-mounted laser destroyers". 
    3. In addition, the new Stormblade is priced at 750 points; in comparison a Legion Falchion (LA, p. 90) is 650 points. I just wanted to check the Plasma Blastgun (Range 72", Str 9, AP 3, Type Ordinance1, Massive Blast (7"), Breaching (4+)) is really worth 100 more points than a Twin-Linked Volcano Cannon (Range 120", Str 14, AP 1, Type Destroyer 1, LArge Blast 5", Ignores Cover, Twin-Linked).
    4. A stormblade is also M10" rather a Falchion's M12".
12. Legion Baneblade (p. 35) has similar issues to the Stormblade, although its comparison is the Fellblade
    1. The Baneblade is 750 points, a Falchion is 650 points
    2. The Baneblade has an inferior profile - M10, Front Armour 13 - to the Fellblade's M12, Front 14.
    3. The Baneblade's cannon is Range 72", Str 8, AP 4, Type Ordinance 1, Large Blast (5"), Rending (6+), Pinning; whereas the Fellblade's cannon has two firign modes - one at Range 100", Str 8, AP 3, Type Ordinance 1, MAssive Blast (7") and the other even stronger. 
    4. In addition, while both vehicle share the demolisher cannon, two sponson twin-linked heavy bolters and smoke launchers, where the Fellblade has the superior sponson-mounted lascannon arrays, the Baneblade has two single lascannons - an inferior option. 
    5. As such is a Legion Baneblade really worth 750 points, 100 more than a Fellblade, when it is a lesser vehicle? Especially when the Fellblade is described as "a more advanced variant" of the Baneblade?
13. Similar issues apply to the Banehammer (p. 36), Stormlord (p. 37), Shadowsword (p. 38) and Stormsword (p. 39) - they all feel very overcosted, compared to the baneblade-chassis tanks in the Libers Astartes & Hereticus. The Legacy tanks have M10" and Front Armour 13 compared to M12" and Front Armour 14 for the Liber tanks.
    1. Is there a reason the Banehammer with an inferior cannon and aforementioned inferior armour and movement is 100 points more than a Fellblade?
    2. In addition to issues with its armour and movement, the Stormlord has a transport capacity of 10 now, compared to 20 before. Is this deliberate?
    3. Is there a reason the Shadowsword, with a single Volcano cannon, is  200 points more than the Falchion, which has twin-linked Volcano Cannon and the aforementioned inferior armour and movement?
    4. Similarly, should the Stormsword really be 200 points more than the Falchion?
14. This may be repetitive, but the Macharius tanks (p. 40-41) are also surprisingly expensive and reduced from their old versions
    1. Since their introduction in Imperial Armour, the Macharius tanks were Armour Front 14, Side 13, Rear 12, but in the new Legacies document they are 13/12/12.
    2. In addition, the basic Macharius is 600 points, and has M10", 6 HP, a Macharius Battlecannon (R24", Str 8, AP 4, Type Heavy 1, Blast 3", Twin-Linked, Pinning - reduced from a 72" range cannon, 7" blast weapon).
    3. Perhaps a good comparison with this Macharius is the Typhon (LA, p. 87), which is 425 points, with a superior 24" cannon (R24", Str12, AP3, Type Ordinance 1, Large BLast (5"), Rending (4+), Sunder), as well as superior sponsons (two heavy bolters, versus the Macharius's twin-linked heavy stubber and two heavy stubbers). 
    4. The Vanquisher's cannon is now R36", and cannot fire normal shells, unlike its older rules, in which it was R72", and could fire normal and anti-tank shells. Perhaps the Cerberus (LA, p. 86) is a good comparison, which is 425 points, unlike the Macharius Vanquisher's 600 points.
    5. From the same entry, is the Macharius with its Bolt Cannon - the former Macharius Vulcan, really worth 620 points, when a far superior Fellblade is only 650 points?
    6. The separate Macharius Omega is a very characterful entry, but suffers in comparison to the Falchion (50 points more) or the Kratos with a Melta Blast Gun (*just* 300 points). 
    7. Indeed all Macharius tanks seem to be worse than a Kratos (LA, p. 75), but costing twice as much (at least). This seems strange and misjudged, or are Kratos tanks too cheap? 
15. Suffering also in comparison to the Kratos are the Malcador Assault Tanks (LEgacies, p. 29) - these are odd tanks to assess, but a Kratos at 300 points is M10 BS 4 Armour 14/14/14 and 5 HP, with its kratos battlecannon, autocannon, and four heavy bolters; a Malcador at 245 points is M14, BS4, Armour 13/13/12 and 5HP, with its less good standard battlecannon, and four heavy bolters. It doesn't feel like it's really only 55 points cheaper than the new beautiful tank, even with its fast movement and independent fire control rule.
16. The Crassus (Legacies, p. 42) is again very pricey, at 400 points - it's a wonderful model (like the Macharius) and would be well served by a more appropriate price. Its comparison is probably a Spartan, priced at 350 points (LA, p. 79)
    1. The Crassus is M10, Front 13, Sides 12, Rear 12, with 8 HP and a transport capacity of 35. It has four heavy bolters.
    2. The Spartan is M12, Front/Side/Rear 14/14/14, 6 HP and can carry 26 models, and has two lascannnon arrays and a heavy bolter.
    3. For its weaker armour, and poorer armament, would a Crassus be better being equivalent to or slightly cheaper than a Spartan?
17. The Praetor Armoured Assault Launcher (p. 43) suffers from the same overpricing of many super-heavy tanks in the document, coming at 650 points with the same armour as the Crassus, its baseline. 
    1. Essentially, do its nice missile weapon (sadly missing its old options), its two heavy bolters and its inferior armour make it the same value as a Fellblade or its variants (ie. 650 points)?
    2. The Praetor is M10, Armour 13/12/12, HP 8; a Fellblade is M12, Armour 14/13/12, HP 12. 
    3. The Fellblade has its cannon (the aforementioned 100" weapon with two options to fire), as well as its lascannon arrays, its twin linked heavy bolter, and its demolisher cannon; the praetor just has its Praetor Launcher, and its two sponson heavy bolters.

Legacies of the Age of Darkness: Legion Specific Units

 

While in general the legion specific units are better comparable to other units in the Libers, there are some strange choices that feel like copy-and-paste errors or misjudgements.

1. Cassian Dracos (Legacies p. 69) 
   1. Cassian is a Castra-Ferrum Dreadnought, with teh appropriate profile and two gravis fists with Dragon's Breath heavy flamers - this would be 125 points. Cassian costs 310 points. Over the basic profile, Cassian has Initiative 4 (compared to 2) and Ld 10 (compared to 9). 
   2. Cassian's special rules are missing the Ferromantic Deflector present in his special rules box, but one assumes he should have this.
   3. The question I have is his ability to use Cybertheurgic Arcana, his extra point of Ld and his extra 2 points of Initiative, and his ability to take the Bloody Handed Warlord trait worth 195 points? He does seem overpriced compared to equivalent Contemptor dreadnought characters who have superior stats - Rylanor at 250 points and Telemechrus at 240 points.
2. Another issue for Salamanders players is Nomus Rhy'tan (p. 70)
   1. Rhy'tan was WS 6 but is now WS 4; is this an error? 
3. For Iron Warriors, the Tormentor (p. 76) is bizarrely priced. It is a Shadowsword so uses the base profile of the Shadowsword in the same document - but as I argued above, there is no good reason why a Shadowsword is 200 points more than a Falchion with better armour, movement and weapons. The Tormentor compounds these issues, although its void shields and transport bay do need to be accounted for - but not at the cost of 250 points more than a Falchion?

Exemplary Battles PDF Units

Again, I want to emphasise how great this document is! There are few weird things, but mainly

1. The Atramentar Squad's WS has gone down from WS5 in the older pdf to WS4 here. Is this deliberate?
2. This may be a bit cheeky, but could Imperial Fist Huscarls have the option to swap their Cataphractii Armour to Indomitus Armour, as represented in the Horus Heresy novels?

Thank you for your time, and your fantastic work overall on the heresy - really hoping to see how the game grows in this new edition, but also really hoping some of the dissonances outlined above are easily fixed (if they are issues!).

 

Hope it may provide something for any of you to adapt also in your emails to HeresyFAQ@gwplc.com

[No Foes Remain]

23 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

So I sent my email to the FAQ, while I didn't title it as a complaint, i hope it is useful for you guys and gals also to send any material to FW:

Hope it may provide something for any of you to adapt also in your emails to HeresyFAQ@gwplc.com

I've seen a lot of backlash on FW's facebook page, hopefully that will show them that stuff needs to get fixed. Also sent my own but I was a little bit more critical at the PDF and did title it as a complaint, though it's good to see that we seemed to cover the same bases.

 

I mean the Baneblade stuff being more expensive and the Macharius being twice as expensive as a Kratos?

[Aeternus]

1 hour ago, Petitioner's City said:

So I sent my email to the FAQ, while I didn't title it as a complaint, i hope it is useful for you guys and gals also to send any material to FW:

Hope it may provide something for any of you to adapt also in your emails to HeresyFAQ@gwplc.com

This is all very nicely set out, kudos. Addresses a significant amount of things as well, some of which had passed me by. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea the stuff that's good in the pdfs are good quality rules that are well thought out. The rest is just churned out trash, and doesn't even get all the legacy units.

It reeks of management interference. I think @Petitioner's City and everyone else are doing a lot of work to try communicate our frustration, but it's obvious that questions like "was this intentional" aren't going to be answered by intern who gets to sift the email as part of their job; the last time I got a rules answer from the faq email was back in 2016 for the original embarked dread-pod facing fiasco.

 

[Petitioner's City]

Thanks guys for your thoughts, guys, and great to hear more are writing and complaining too. @SkimaskMohawk, while you might be right (and I'm not expecting many changes in a FAQ document or stealth edits to the pdfs), Anuj did mention to use the faq email on one of the FB groups, so possibly some emails do get filtered up.

I guess it's frustrating - overall, Liber Panoptica is a great document - and many of its entries, especially its vehicle rules, put to shame the Legends entries. And it was publicly well thought out - whereas this doc doesn't really feel that, in general. But will people be open to using the LP when the Legends document now exists? And FW possibly can't really lift anything from the LP, for legal reasons (as it fits into a 'fan fiction author potentially suing a publisher for theft of their ideas' situation). 

[SkimaskMohawk]

I mean it's the only real way of sending direct feedback, but it also hasn't been reliable to effect any change.

Like, what did Anuj faq since 2019 that got sent through to that email? 

[Petitioner's City]

48 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

I mean it's the only real way of sending direct feedback, but it also hasn't been reliable to effect any change.

Like, what did Anuj faq since 2019 that got sent through to that email? 

I imagine there was no responding to past FAQ'ing after 2019 when they started on 2.0 - but he was saying this after he left GW for Creative Assembly, but still seemed to believe in the system (and he has been critical of GW sometimes since leaving in a kind of 'i wouldn't do it that way' kind of comment - so it's meaningful when he is positive about a process). Of course I could be misremembering as I can't find the specific comment