HH2.0 FAQ

[Stitch5000]

I've been reading a few topics and a few members have commented that the new edition of Heresy has opened up a few questions regarding rules interaction etc and has even been branded as "poorly written and edited"... I don't want to stire up any major arguments with this, but personally I haven't really found that many issues that can't be relatively simply fixed or even explained by a comprehensive reading of the rules. I have a good idea how a lot of stuff is supposed to work, including the longstanding issue regarding Interceptor and units with the Flyer type...

As a forum, is there a list of these issues that have been found that can be forwarded to Forge World's FAQ inbox?

 

[Cruor Vault]

It's pretty broad honestly.  The errors range from incorrect diagrams and charts, to missing keywords, to rules that flat out don't interact with each other in the way they are intended.

The problem is that not everyone shares the same view of "how things are supposed to work".  Especially now that the game is growing and attracting a newer crowd of players who are more interested in the rules interactions than in recreating the 14th battle of so and so.

I don't think I've seen a comprehensive list, but honestly...  the whole damn core book needs another proof read and edit for consistency/clarity.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yes, a lot of rules issues with 2nd can be simply fixed in some way. A comprehensive reading of the rules can lead to plausible (if debated) interpretations.

The frustration is that we waited a long time for Horus heresy rules, we paid for new ones, and we got this. Issues with different rules across various prints (aod box rules vs others, English mechanicus vs marines and German mechanicus), issues with vague/unclear wording (flyers and interceptor, failed flanking assault reserves, fury and rapid fire, etc...), issues with rules being incomplete (mixed initiative for consolidation, mixed movement values for hit and run; which to use?), and issues with design intent (are dreads and cavalry supposed to not be bulky, why does jaghatai get explicitly both furious charge 1 and 2 if they don't stack, are amrigera supposed to be immune to everything that their peer robot monsters are vulnerable to, etc...). 

It feels disrespectful, especially compared to the technical writing of 40k and AOS. We should not be making community FAQs for rules interactions right off the bat. Especially when you combine the playtesting cycles and lack of support for 1st; the rules should have been fantasticly well written.

[Cruor Vault]

1 hour ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Yes, a lot of rules issues with 2nd can be simply fixed in some way. A comprehensive reading of the rules can lead to plausible (if debated) interpretations.

The frustration is that we waited a long time for Horus heresy rules, we paid for new ones, and we got this. Issues with different rules across various prints (aod box rules vs others, English mechanicus vs marines and German mechanicus), issues with vague/unclear wording (flyers and interceptor, failed flanking assault reserves, fury and rapid fire, etc...), issues with rules being incomplete (mixed initiative for consolidation, mixed movement values for hit and run; which to use?), and issues with design intent (are dreads and cavalry supposed to not be bulky, why does jaghatai get explicitly both furious charge 1 and 2 if they don't stack, are amrigera supposed to be immune to everything that their peer robot monsters are vulnerable to, etc...). 

It feels disrespectful, especially compared to the technical writing of 40k and AOS. We should not be making community FAQs for rules interactions right off the bat. Especially when you combine the playtesting cycles and lack of support for 1st; the rules should have been fantasticly well written.

It's the same old trap GW fell into for years and years (and still does occasionally in their 40K rules).

They wrote a set of rules that allows someone to play a game under their (GW's) preconceptions of how the game should play out. 

For example: Allowing unit A to perform action Y and Unit B to perform action Z, and assumed that was good enough.

Unfortunately they never stopped to think about what if unit A attempts action Z, or unit B attempting action Y!

          "Because why on earth would anyone think unit B would be involved in action Y?"

 

[Sir Frenchy]

I must admit I've been having a lot of fun using the latest heresy ruleset, and most of the core mecanics I haven't had any issues with especially since we're beginning to assimilate the rules through our first games here. But that said, this new edition could use extra attention and extra work for a few things.
To name 3 :
The lack of consistency between each different libers (the turbo laser destructor having 2 different profiles depending on which book you are using or Ferrus hammer having a different profile from the english book in my french version)
The rule brutal (yes: this rule bugs me more than it should... I agree) being so powerfull that we are looking at a Str10 AP2 Shred Reaper Chainsword not being that dangerous or impressive compared to a simple thunder Hammer hitting at str 8 AP2 Brutal 2. Units, weapons and primarchs with this rule are a head and shoulder above the ones that don't have it and I frankly quitte hate it. Too good, too cheap, no limitations, too effective against pretty much everything with a wound characteristic.
The legacy units PDF ... do I need to mention the salamander special character ?

Is the ruleset bad ? No. The core rules are interesting and I'm having fun playing the game. But considering the price of those books and the time it took to publish HH 2.0 having problems like different profile for the same weapon  depending on the faction you are playing or the language you speak is a difficult pill to swallow personnally.

[Brofist]

Yeah man. It comes down to money. We're paying a lot and GW has trained us to expect better (and frankly, we know they can do better). I feel some of the core rule issues are forgivable, given that its a new game 'engine'. 1.0 had the advantage of being ported and worked on in parallel with 40k for a number of years, so we inherited a number of rules clarifications over time. When we finally split from 40k the HH core rules were long hashed out. Its not an excuse, however, they need to be addressed.

1.0 also had inconsistent weapon profiles across books, hell, entire special rules disappeared or went omitted. Units were written with conundrums or were busted on release. But... that was almost a decade ago. Specialist games and GW have put out very solid stuff since then. They sell themselves as a premium product and the stuff since the FAQ has been below expectations.

[Stitch5000]

16 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

flyers and interceptor, failed flanking assault reserves, fury and rapid fire, etc...), issues with rules being incomplete (mixed initiative for consolidation, mixed movement values for hit and run; which to use?), and issues with design intent (are dreads and cavalry supposed to not be bulky, why does jaghatai get explicitly both furious charge 1 and 2 if they don't stack,

Are flyers; interceptor and failed flanking assault reserves the same thing? I can;t find an issue with failed flanking assault reserves as much as I try?

Fury and Rapid Fire I'm aware of...

Mixed Initiative for Consolidation...  In my RB it says "Consolidating units move up to a number of inches equal to their Initiative Characteristic in any direction. In a unit with mixed Initiative Characteristics, use the highest Characteristic." on page 189?

With regards to duplicates of special rules, it's my understanding that when there is more than one instance of a rule, say a Save, the controlling player just picks the one they want to use? (I'm aware there's a similar instance with Raven Guard Mor Deythan with Rending and Fatal Strike.)

[Brother Sutek]

14 hours ago, Brofist said:

 They sell themselves as a premium product and the stuff since the FAQ has been below expectations.

This is my main argument. There are so many minor mistakes even discounting the major ones that it's frankly embarrassing.  If this is a premium product it should be premium quality. I love the game but so much of how things were done makes the game tougher than it should be. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

@Stitch5000 

Failed flanking assaults go back in reserve, but where do they arrive from the next turn? The players board edge like normal arriving from Reserves, or from the flanking assault marker? I've seen arguments for both, and both are plausible enough.

Sorry about the consolidation, I meant regrouping lol. 

Mor deythan are a unit with a lot of weapon options and a special rule to give them a once per game rending 4+. You, the player, can situationally build the unit to have overlapping versions of the same rule. Jaghatai is different; he always has both versions of the rule, without any options to get rid of one, given by the devs.

All this being said, I'm not too sure what the point of your reply was.

[Stitch5000]

2 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

@Stitch5000 

Failed flanking assaults go back in reserve, but where do they arrive from the next turn? The players board edge like normal arriving from Reserves, or from the flanking assault marker? I've seen arguments for both, and both are plausible enough.

Sorry about the consolidation, I meant regrouping lol. 

Mor deythan are a unit with a lot of weapon options and a special rule to give them a once per game rending 4+. You, the player, can situationally build the unit to have overlapping versions of the same rule. Jaghatai is different; he always has both versions of the rule, without any options to get rid of one, given by the devs.

All this being said, I'm not too sure what the point of your reply was.

Thanks, the point of my reply was to get some clarification on the issues you have mentioned. Now you have expanded, I can better understand the points you have mentioned. 

[Claws and Effect]

I haven't had an issue with understanding the rules. My issue is the fact that a rule in one book brings up a question that is answered somewhere else in the book or in a different book entirely. 

And the way the books are laid out makes very little sense. Why do I have to flip to page 104 to find the rules for Centurion Consul types when it would have made more sense to put them right after the Centurion entry? It's not like it takes up any fewer pages either way.