State of the Union (Heresy)

[Cris R]

I've had an unwelcome thought, what if they've binned the box set and will just release the models seperate at a later date. Would that be viable for them?

 

Among some of the rumours were that the box set was meant to be out a year or two ago (would that have matched up with the Siege books?) so perhaps as they've had to delay it again and again maybe they've cut their losses and moved on.

 

I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

They would have needed to make that decision a while ago to begin setting up the supply, manufacturing, and distribution processes for the launch of the box set and Heresy 2.0. If we're seeing leaks of a box set, you can assume that's the decision GW decided to pursue a while back. Now I can be wrong here and it could be the case that GW is considering launching Heresy 2.0 with smaller box sets instead of releasing a large starter set. But regardless of what option they've picked, they're not going to be making drastic last minute changes when they've already invested resources towards the launch.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Cris R

[Doghouse]

For anyone interested, I've been told the new rules are a "tidied up" version of the rules Heresy is currently using. It's not been remade using ninth edition rules.

[MCC]

For anyone interested, I've been told the new rules are a "tidied up" version of the rules Heresy is currently using. It's not been remade using ninth edition rules.

 

I certainly hope so, I made the decision to permanently switch over to heresy after playing the 8/9th edition rules. I want vehicle facings and having to shoot the way your facing!

[Brofist]

Same. Also not really surprised. I'd always assumed they wanted to split HH into its own system, even back when it was (mostly) cross compatible with 40k.

 

I'm gonna be a bit sad if my dark mech never get their own black book, but frankly I'm looking forward to a refreshed ruleset and a new meta. Shaking up the scene will be a good thing, though I expect salt as it is the norm.

[Noserenda]

I am entirely sure it was never intended to be its own system, just the combination of GW leaving FW entirely out of 8th ed development and Alan Bligh's illness combining to leave them completely in the lurch and wildly improvising.

You would definitely see a surge in players with a 9th ed rulesset but if the revamp fixes some of the more egregious nonsense from 7th it might get out group back playing.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

I've said it before but one thing I think'd really help is taking the Titanicus approach and breaking down the 7th ed ruleset into basic, standard and advanced layers of rules that allow new players to learn how to play without having to confront the entire mass of the ruleset head-on, as well as potentially building in a mechanism for faster games if you don't have the time a full 30k game requires.

[Hfran Morkai]

 

 

For anyone interested, I've been told the new rules are a "tidied up" version of the rules Heresy is currently using. It's not been remade using ninth edition rules.

I certainly hope so, I made the decision to permanently switch over to heresy after playing the 8/9th edition rules. I want vehicle facings and having to shoot the way your facing!

I sincerely hope so too, vehicle facings is a tactical decision.

 

I wouldn't mind some stuff ported over, different movement maybe, individual models being able to target different units etc but I'd much rather stay with pretty much what we see now refined than current 40K.

[Spagunk]

I've said it before but one thing I think'd really help is taking the Titanicus approach and breaking down the 7th ed ruleset into basic, standard and advanced layers of rules that allow new players to learn how to play without having to confront the entire mass of the ruleset head-on, as well as potentially building in a mechanism for faster games if you don't have the time a full 30k game requires.

I personally don't think HH needs this level of change. I think AT is better off with their streamlined ruleset because you really don't have the extensive model range/weapons to contend with VS HH. Other than Legio modifiers, Quake Cannons work the same on both sides, A reaver moves pretty much the same etc. 

[LameBeard]

 

 

I've said it before but one thing I think'd really help is taking the Titanicus approach and breaking down the 7th ed ruleset into basic, standard and advanced layers of rules that allow new players to learn how to play without having to confront the entire mass of the ruleset head-on, as well as potentially building in a mechanism for faster games if you don't have the time a full 30k game requires.

I personally don't think HH needs this level of change. I think AT is better off with their streamlined ruleset because you really don't have the extensive model range/weapons to contend with VS HH. Other than Legio modifiers, Quake Cannons work the same on both sides, A reaver moves pretty much the same etc.

I think a lot of this can be done by creating a bit more structure to the existing rules. “advanced rules” is not a new concept and has been in many 40k editions. Even a starter booklet taking you through say 6 games where game 1 is just infantry and then characters, challenges, vehicles, psykers, reserves, flyers, whatever introduced as additional layers would help.

[Doghouse]

 

 

For anyone interested, I've been told the new rules are a "tidied up" version of the rules Heresy is currently using. It's not been remade using ninth edition rules.

I certainly hope so, I made the decision to permanently switch over to heresy after playing the 8/9th edition rules. I want vehicle facings and having to shoot the way your facing!

I sincerely hope so too, vehicle facings is a tactical decision.

 

 

I was told vehicle facings are still a thing, just some general clean up of the rules to make it play better.

[Brofist]

I am entirely sure it was never intended to be its own system, just the combination of GW leaving FW entirely out of 8th ed development and Alan Bligh's illness combining to leave them completely in the lurch and wildly improvising.

 

You would definitely see a surge in players with a 9th ed rulesset but if the revamp fixes some of the more egregious nonsense from 7th it might get out group back playing.

I don't really agree. FWs books and models have always catered to older gamers, either intentionally or unintentionally, because of how they were executed and priced. Over time it became one of their defining characteristics.

 

Being totally pragmatic, its in GWs financial interest to have multiple systems that appeal to different age brackets and settings. That's how big successful franchises operate. We've all seen how fast GW has modernized its approach to marketing and designing their products, so these decisions are definitely not being made by amateurs anymore. Did it start out that way? Probably not, but by the time the split happened it was definitely part of their arithmetic.

[Spagunk]

 

I think a lot of this can be done by creating a bit more structure to the existing rules. “advanced rules” is not a new concept and has been in many 40k editions. Even a starter booklet taking you through say 6 games where game 1 is just infantry and then characters, challenges, vehicles, psykers, reserves, flyers, whatever introduced as additional layers would help.

 

I would categorize that as more of a New Player Experience issue. The NPE currently is terrible but as mentioned by others it's definitely not a new player focused hobby per se: either by intention or unintentionally.

[Marshal Loss]

 

I am entirely sure it was never intended to be its own system, just the combination of GW leaving FW entirely out of 8th ed development and Alan Bligh's illness combining to leave them completely in the lurch and wildly improvising.

 

You would definitely see a surge in players with a 9th ed rulesset but if the revamp fixes some of the more egregious nonsense from 7th it might get out group back playing.

I don't really agree. FWs books and models have always catered to older gamers, either intentionally or unintentionally, because of how they were executed and priced. Over time it became one of their defining characteristics.

 

Per ADB, Alan Bligh had intended to take HH to 8th, but his illness & untimely demise stopped that in its tracks. While a lot has changed since then, the original intent was always to have 30k and 40k using the same system. Using the same ruleset didn't/doesn't preclude targeted marketing though, 30k was always aimed at a different audience even when it used 40k's rules.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Marshal Loss

[Noserenda]

Adeptus titanicus is a great game (Best thing GW produces right now, PLAY IT) but its rulebook is a fractured nightmare, handy for your very first game or two and then a gigantic liability for every game after that. Id always rather have a get started scenario or booklet separate to the main rulebook than be constantly flicking around it to solve an edge case.

Similarly "advanced" rules are either essentially just pretentious core rules or completely ignored by 90% of players. Just write a solid rules system, lay it out sensibly and do whacky things in campaign packs like the original cityfight or zone mortalis where players can opt in to a whole rules package.

The Age of Darkness game is horribly new player unfriendly but chopping around the rulebook isnt the main issue here, its the cost of entry, if you have to drop hundreds of pounds on rulebooks thats a bigger issue tbh, i would hope the rumoured redux red books would largely fix that though, then a new player can get to spending all their money on toys :) 

The Core of 7th ed is still pretty straightforward, its just all the exceptions and detritus that clogs things up. 

[Noserenda]

 

I don't really agree. FWs books and models have always catered to older gamers, either intentionally or unintentionally, because of how they were executed and priced. Over time it became one of their defining characteristics.

 

Being totally pragmatic, its in GWs financial interest to have multiple systems that appeal to different age brackets and settings. That's how big successful franchises operate. We've all seen how fast GW has modernized its approach to marketing and designing their products, so these decisions are definitely not being made by amateurs anymore. Did it start out that way? Probably not, but by the time the split happened it was definitely part of their arithmetic.

 

I know the Age of Darkness staying stuck in 7th was not the original plan, and i think that was pretty obvious by the absolute carnage at the time that things were not running to plan! 

 

I think it would be an absolute mistake to assume people like rules-sets based on age, (Or especially price!) its always more complicated than that. Our own group of Grognards has no time for 7ths convoluted rules but absolutely LOVE Adeptus Titanicus, arguably a more complicated game, but then we also LOVE Warcry which is a very very simple game. Necromunda is another popular, simple core game with an absolute mountain of extra stuff piled on top and i would be surprised to find more active Age of Darkness players than Necromunda players, though i suspect spending would be the other way around.

 

In fact i do recall an article by Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestly that was talking about things being quite the opposite age wise, Teenagers especially get attracted to intricate rules because memorising minutia is a big appeal to geeky boys at that age, once your geeky boys are 40 theyve already got enough of that in their lives and just want something straightforward to play or generally geek out about.

 

I wasnt too sure when i first read it, but damn does it feel accurate now. One of my group played one game of 9th with Space marines and never came back thanks to all the extra army rules modified by phase and such. The same guy i can recall having long conversations about optimising stuff and wanting more "realism" rules twenty years ago. Heh, time flies.

 

Id also not over estimate the professionalism of Forge world, who still work somewhat separately for GW even today, but especially in the mayhem of Summer/Autumn 2017.

 

 

 

Per ADB, Alan Bligh had intended to take HH to 8th, but his illness & untimely demise stopped that in its tracks. Whatever their current plans, the original intention still had 30k and 40k using the same core ruleset.

 

Aha i knew i had heard that directly somewhere but couldnt recall the source TY :) 

[Hfran Morkai]

 

 

I'm pretty sure there are at least the models coming, otherwise someone has spent considerable time on that Spartan interior as well as other stuff.

 

And would waiting for a new set hurt GW/FW's sales? People putting aside cash that could be otherwise spent on parts of the hobby that exist?

 

Seems a bit weird for FW/GW to completely ignore the leaks, delete posts about it rather than just say: "Glad people are excited about the Heresy but this is nothing to do with us, however why not pick up X/Y/Z today?"

 

It is weird, until you think about the history with GW engaging with fans online and how staff/writers ended up getting endless streams of abuse & their social media feeds were flooded with negative comments and trolling. From a professional social media perceptive, I absolutely understand why GW delete comments so frequently and don't allow public comments on things like YouTube. Almost no benefit for them and just a platform for negativity that ends up associated with their brand and directing abuse towards their staff.

 

It sucks, but that is just how it is I guess...

I get that and don't blame them for that.

 

But *IF* the box was faked for the lulz I think they'd address it rather than outright deleting posts on it.

 

I know it's anecdotal but I'm currently not spending *much* on FW/GW stuff as I'm waiting to see what happens. I personally would have spent more money over the past couple of months had I not seen those pictures, probably would have bought Kill Team.

 

I'd genuinely be interested to see their HH as well as general sales patterns over the same months since we've seen the pics for a few years back, to see if there is indication people are kind of reserved or not.

[MegaVolt87]

I think GW is sleeping on the zone mortallis format. It would be a great intro to HH for new people, its just infantry and walkers at a manageable 1k pts. Would teach you most of the basics + templates. Advanced layer of rules, such as corridor breaches, low grav etc. Could also have its own version of narrative play/ crusade, which would be fantastic for weekly play nights. Cheap entry level combat patrol style boxes maybe with a bit higher model count to fit 1k, ZM terrain box with mini HH rulebook + ZM supplement would be a winner. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Adeptus titanicus is a great game (Best thing GW produces right now, PLAY IT) but its rulebook is a fractured nightmare, handy for your very first game or two and then a gigantic liability for every game after that. Id always rather have a get started scenario or booklet separate to the main rulebook than be constantly flicking around it to solve an edge case.

 

Similarly "advanced" rules are either essentially just pretentious core rules or completely ignored by 90% of players. Just write a solid rules system, lay it out sensibly and do whacky things in campaign packs like the original cityfight or zone mortalis where players can opt in to a whole rules package.

 

The Age of Darkness game is horribly new player unfriendly but chopping around the rulebook isnt the main issue here, its the cost of entry, if you have to drop hundreds of pounds on rulebooks thats a bigger issue tbh, i would hope the rumoured redux red books would largely fix that though, then a new player can get to spending all their money on toys :)

 

The Core of 7th ed is still pretty straightforward, its just all the exceptions and detritus that clogs things up.

Yea I was going to comment that despite being split up into basic and advanced is still extremely not well laid out. There's also a ton of expectation to make assumptions as you go; one of the worst structured rulesets despite having some of the best gameplay.

 

@megavolt I'll always disagree with ZM as the intro to 30k. It should definitely get more support, but it teaches different fundamentals and unit strengths. Have it feature at the same time to teach about different applications of units instead, like one intro mission using AoD format and one with ZM.

Edited September 15, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Yeah I'll admit that AT's layout is not the most intuitive in the world, I just think there are so many stacked layers of rules with 30k a similar approach of having stepped mechanics might work, it's certainly very useful in AT for introducing new players - I do think at least the Heresy rulebook could certainly do with re-structuring to make referencing easier.

 

Honestly while I'm generally pro the slight streamlining without hugely affecting the core mechanics approach, one early rumour I am intrigued by was the suggestion that units would get a Movement stat, which would certainly help differentiate units in a setting where there are a large amount of superficially very similar units, and would help condense down the bloated unit types section in the core rulebook.

[MegaVolt87]

 

@megavolt I'll always disagree with ZM as the intro to 30k. It should definitely get more support, but it teaches different fundamentals and unit strengths. Have it feature at the same time to teach about different applications of units instead, like one intro mission using AoD format and one with ZM.

 

 

Admittedly, I lack a lot of HH experience, though I am looking at it more from different perspectives. Such a force not really being redundant as it expands to the more traditional format. ZM also being a relatively set field, makes it an easier prospect to model terrain, lets newbies cut their teeth on plastic terrain assembly. I actually completely stuffed up my first GW building kit back in the day, the old ad mech era building from cities of death, trying to be clever with a non standard build. Then got completely discouraged with making more terrain even for a 4x4 size board. ZM walls and doors look to have little room for error in comparison. ZM also has a cool aesthetic, corridor fighting + some open space for fighting. Combat patrol/incursion in 40k on 44x30 has yet to hit its stride in terrain bundles IMO. I like this https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/44x30-Cargoport-Battlefield , just needs a warehouse IMO. In comparison https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/44x60-Forge-World-Battlefield  I think is not a good bundle at all, not just because of prices. ZM avoids that by giving an approachable + achievable terrain set in comparison A to B, clear endpoint. It also reduces the need for HH to have branded terrain sets like 40k is doing. Probably unpopular, but I don't think its viable to offer separate bundled terrain packages for HH and 40k, which is why ZM ticks so many boxes for me. Plus, I could probably get D&D peeps in on a narrative ZM as they are going through dungeon corridors/ maps anyways in D&D sessions. I think ZM would be a good new player experience that will appeal to the uninitiated, the open field skirmish battles of 40k even on the incursion/ combat patrol level don't appeal as much as something more structured/ defined like ZM could offer. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by MegaVolt87

[LameBeard]

In fact i do recall an article by Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestly that was talking about things being quite the opposite age wise, Teenagers especially get attracted to intricate rules because memorising minutia is a big appeal to geeky boys at that age, once your geeky boys are 40 theyve already got enough of that in their lives and just want something straightforward to play or generally geek out about.

Absolutely this. When I was a teenager I absorbed the rules like a sponge. I was hungry for extra expansions, white dwarf rules, just keep adding the layers and never be referring to rulebooks because if I read it once that was enough for it to stick. Now I am the mirror image. It all seems so unnecessary - difficult to remember, difficult to look up, without adding anything to the strategy of the game, or to the story-telling. Maybe it’s the journey, but I think 8th/9th (and maybe Sigmar) are worse offenders than Age of Darkness.

[Doctor Perils]

 

In fact i do recall an article by Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestly that was talking about things being quite the opposite age wise, Teenagers especially get attracted to intricate rules because memorising minutia is a big appeal to geeky boys at that age, once your geeky boys are 40 theyve already got enough of that in their lives and just want something straightforward to play or generally geek out about.

Absolutely this. When I was a teenager I absorbed the rules like a sponge. I was hungry for extra expansions, white dwarf rules, just keep adding the layers and never be referring to rulebooks because if I read it once that was enough for it to stick. Now I am the mirror image. It all seems so unnecessary - difficult to remember, difficult to look up, without adding anything to the strategy of the game, or to the story-telling. Maybe it’s the journey, but I think 8th/9th (and maybe Sigmar) are worse offenders than Age of Darkness.

The bloat in 9th is due to a few bloated factions (AdMech for instance), the core rules are way easier to navigate though from what I can tell

 

I do think it's a positive having the two rulesets though - I personally can't be bothered to deal with 7th, but I know a lot of people prefer it so I wouldn't want to take that option away

[MCC]

 

 

In fact i do recall an article by Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestly that was talking about things being quite the opposite age wise, Teenagers especially get attracted to intricate rules because memorising minutia is a big appeal to geeky boys at that age, once your geeky boys are 40 theyve already got enough of that in their lives and just want something straightforward to play or generally geek out about.

Absolutely this. When I was a teenager I absorbed the rules like a sponge. I was hungry for extra expansions, white dwarf rules, just keep adding the layers and never be referring to rulebooks because if I read it once that was enough for it to stick. Now I am the mirror image. It all seems so unnecessary - difficult to remember, difficult to look up, without adding anything to the strategy of the game, or to the story-telling. Maybe it’s the journey, but I think 8th/9th (and maybe Sigmar) are worse offenders than Age of Darkness.

The bloat in 9th is due to a few bloated factions (AdMech for instance), the core rules are way easier to navigate though from what I can tell

 

I do think it's a positive having the two rulesets though - I personally can't be bothered to deal with 7th, but I know a lot of people prefer it so I wouldn't want to take that option away

 

 

Can i ask what you thought was wrong with the 7th rules? From what I recall before they dropped 8th people were switching over to Heresy in my area to avoid some of the 40k 7th rules problems (formations/Decurions and the free rhino/drop pods/upgrades)

[lansalt]

 

In fact i do recall an article by Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestly that was talking about things being quite the opposite age wise, Teenagers especially get attracted to intricate rules because memorising minutia is a big appeal to geeky boys at that age, once your geeky boys are 40 theyve already got enough of that in their lives and just want something straightforward to play or generally geek out about.

Absolutely this. When I was a teenager I absorbed the rules like a sponge. I was hungry for extra expansions, white dwarf rules, just keep adding the layers and never be referring to rulebooks because if I read it once that was enough for it to stick. Now I am the mirror image. It all seems so unnecessary - difficult to remember, difficult to look up, without adding anything to the strategy of the game, or to the story-telling. Maybe it’s the journey, but I think 8th/9th (and maybe Sigmar) are worse offenders than Age of Darkness.

 

Same here, but I always disliked convoluted systems full of exceptions and ad-hoc rules. Both 3rd-7.5 AoD and 8th-9th have decent core systems dragged down by layers of bloat in the supplements. Ironically I'm enjoying the new Kill Team because it has a mix of 9th-alike datasheets with classic USRs.

 

Is great that the new AoD rules keep being an evolution of the classic system, but they really need streamlining and fixing a lot of jank and unfluffy things in the game. Not all the classic concepts are worth keeping.

[Valkyrion]

7th edition suffered quite a bit from balance issues, many of which were resolved in HH by it being 99% space marines and the removal of formations. 

 

There are some things I don't like in HH - I think the rules for psykers and flyers are overly complex and nuanced, but I feel like the rest of the game is close to perfect for 2000-3000 points.

 

There's also the personal element that 7th is really just the 5th version of 3rd edition in a lot of ways, so if you played any previous edition then the crux of the rules are very similar. 8th was about learning a whole new game which was fun for a while, but I fell back to comfortable familiarity.