How are you liking HH 2.0 so far?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

6 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

@SkimaskMohawk @Brofist

Turn 1&2= 1 point per marker. 

Turn 3&4= 2 points per marker. 

Turn 5&6= 3 points per marker. 

 

Oooo I like that! May steal it. Makes going second that much stronger. 

I think there's several opportunities to help grow your games.

[Snakeeater]

Iam now playing HH for 10 years. In all these times, Horus Heresy was played by a small group of people. But in every local Tabletop group was minimum one HH Player. So the system stay on focus.

With this background i hate GW for the new Legions Books. The changes from Units and RoW made the Most Version 1 armys unplayable. And the Balancing between the Legions are now more unbalanced then before.

So the people who helps GW let the system be alive, are now the most punished. 
 

Beside that i like the new rulebook, reactions and other Stuff. Just the Missions could be changed.

 

[Nagashsnee]

15 hours ago, Snakeeater said:

Iam now playing HH for 10 years. In all these times, Horus Heresy was played by a small group of people. But in every local Tabletop group was minimum one HH Player. So the system stay on focus.

With this background i hate GW for the new Legions Books. The changes from Units and RoW made the Most Version 1 armys unplayable. And the Balancing between the Legions are now more unbalanced then before.

So the people who helps GW let the system be alive, are now the most punished. 
 

Beside that i like the new rulebook, reactions and other Stuff. Just the Missions could be changed.

 

Yeah  i feel this, luckily my Mech were not affected as i had a large collection and the limited nature of the army, but i was thinking of my old BA HH army and how while legal it would be a total shambles to field in the ed. Tho i will add that shacking up the meta is also a good thing. Some units ( example attack bikes) got so shaken as to be utterly unusable in anything outside total fun lists for no real reason ( was anyone complaining they were too op?). 

 

My hope is as the game settles ( we need deamons, militia, talons and auxilia out and playing first) they will address the more extreme cases in future.

[Pacific81]

I've just been getting back into the latest version of Blood Bowl and was annoyed that a couple of my team lineups have changed, which amounted to having to buy and paint 2-4 new miniatures.

 

I can't imagine how I would feel if I'd invested £hundreds, spending hundreds of hours painting an army only to now not be able to use it in the new rules systems. Why have GW not done a 'legacy' PDF or something similar to allow those people to continue to play, using the new rules, until the new books or whatever get to them? Or allowed those old formations to be used if force lists have changed radicallly and invalidated them? Its not like balance has ever been a major concern. And not doing this shows that they don't really care about that existing fervent player base who have devoted so much of their energy to the game, in the face of forcing people to buy the new rules/miniatures. It's actually rather cruel.

[Gorgoff]

On 10/3/2022 at 12:17 PM, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Oooo I like that! May steal it. Makes going second that much stronger. 

I think there's several opportunities to help grow your games.

Or you could change it that turn 3&4 those missions give 3 points and in 5&6 it is 1 again or somethin. 

[Xenith]

On 9/30/2022 at 7:34 PM, SkimaskMohawk said:

The only real flaw is deploying objectives in the open. It basically encourages a terrible board with open fire lanes to accommodate objective placement, and that warps the game far more than progressive scoring would.

 

Agree there - the 'markers not in terrain' thing is 9th ed I believe and not actually in the HH book - I'd be trying to encourge use of terrain pieces as objectives instead of actual markers, so whoever's in/on them has some cover and will be harder to shift. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

24 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

Agree there - the 'markers not in terrain' thing is 9th ed I believe and not actually in the HH book - I'd be trying to encourge use of terrain pieces as objectives instead of actual markers, so whoever's in/on them has some cover and will be harder to shift. 

9ths restriction is presumably so units can't hunker down in cover and never move out of the defensive buffs, but you very much can place the objective behind LoS blocking terrain so your units don't get gunned down by direct fire weapons.

 

This reads as the opposite; it can be in cover, but it has to be in a fire lane between the two armies. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

Agree there - the 'markers not in terrain' thing is 9th ed I believe and not actually in the HH book - I'd be trying to encourge use of terrain pieces as objectives instead of actual markers, so whoever's in/on them has some cover and will be harder to shift. 

Intervening models always give you a 6+ cover save. So bubble wrapping/screening units is very important. As well as making sure if your opponent shoots through their own units with AP2+ you always get a save. Tanks also make excellent mobile LoS blocking terrain features.

 

There's nothing wrong with hiding objectives behind LoS blocking terrain to force more cagey games, It forces better tactics sometimes, and others just makes them no brainers.

 

We put objectives in terrain just not LoS blocking terrain for the purposes of my campaign missions though if you're playing against death guard and their scorched earth RoW (can't remember the actual name atm) sometimes you may not want all of your objectives in terrain features since they are treated as dangerous terrain if you aren't Death Guard. Woof!

 

@Gorgoff I'll look into it. Ive got a new mission i need to write up for next week anyway!

Edited October 12, 2022 by Dont-Be-Haten
Weird word autocorrects

[TheTrans]

15 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

I've just been getting back into the latest version of Blood Bowl and was annoyed that a couple of my team lineups have changed, which amounted to having to buy and paint 2-4 new miniatures.

 

I can't imagine how I would feel if I'd invested £hundreds, spending hundreds of hours painting an army only to now not be able to use it in the new rules systems. Why have GW not done a 'legacy' PDF or something similar to allow those people to continue to play, using the new rules, until the new books or whatever get to them? Or allowed those old formations to be used if force lists have changed radicallly and invalidated them? Its not like balance has ever been a major concern. And not doing this shows that they don't really care about that existing fervent player base who have devoted so much of their energy to the game, in the face of forcing people to buy the new rules/miniatures. It's actually rather cruel.

 

This has really neutered a lot of my groups excitement for 2.0.

Hard to get excited when there aren't rules for half your groups armies. Then when mech dropped, in the state it was in (from both a balance and editing point of view) didn't put anyones mind at ease either... there is a lot of trepidation about doing anything by the non-marine players.

Our wider community of marine players are pretty callous about the lack of non-marine rules with quotes such as Ïf it's not marines I don't care if it doesn't have rules"", which while each to their own, its hardly showing any solidarity toward your non-marine community members...

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I don't think we've been able to get many copies of the Mechanicus book here yet. It's very unfortunate. The book is almost like a meme here.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Gorgoff]

On 9/29/2022 at 4:19 PM, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Missions are set up as: Major victory, minor victory, Tactical draw.

Major victory: opponent concedes before half the turns rounding up, or 3 turns is played. I.e. tabled, etc. A major victory is also greater than 5 victory points.

Minor victory: win of 5 points or less

Tactical draw: neither army has taken advantage and thus gains no bonuses or advantages for the following mission.

Both players must be able to see the objective from their board space; i.e. no placing an objective behind LoS blocking terrain.

That's the first thing I would kick out of this mission tbh.

That only allows sholting armies like mine to wipe every unit out which tries to take one. 

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

6 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

That's the first thing I would kick out of this mission tbh.

That only allows sholting armies like mine to wipe every unit out which tries to take one. 

 

If you are purposefully building lists trying to table your opponent instead of focusing on missions for a campaign that's a personal choice you get to make. The proponents to this rule is for people to follow through with the game. You do not concede your points, just the victory. 

[Gorgoff]

On 10/13/2022 at 1:25 PM, Dont-Be-Haten said:

If you are purposefully building lists trying to table your opponent instead of focusing on missions for a campaign that's a personal choice you get to make. The proponents to this rule is for people to follow through with the game. You do not concede your points, just the victory. 

That doesn't change the fact that this rule empoweres shooting armies, which are already better know  ecause of the very strong shooting reactions. I don't have to change my army in any way to get buffed by this mission. 

It would be similar for close combat armies if in a missions the distance between the two armies would be reduced significantly.

But each to their own I guess. The rest of the mission is great so it is easy to adjust to be playable for me. 

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

8 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

That doesn't change the fact that this rule empoweres shooting armies, which are already better know  ecause of the very strong shooting reactions. I don't have to change my army in any way to get buffed by this mission. 

It would be similar for close combat armies if in a missions the distance between the two armies would be reduced significantly.

But each to their own I guess. The rest of the mission is great so it is easy to adjust to be playable for me. 

 

If It's of any consolation...There have been very few major victories/conceding elements to the game. The only 2 major Victories have been because one player brought 2 line options & no vehichles to mission 4. The other one was because of a miss play and then concession because the miss play caused the to lose a unit >400 points at the end of a turn.

 

None od the players have complained about any disadvantage to the rules. Everyone has set up fairly equally...and the total points for every player are about even and will be reflected in the apocalypse size game the first weekend of November.

[ABrownTuft]

14 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

If It's of any consolation...There have been very few major victories/conceding elements to the game. The only 2 major Victories have been because one player brought 2 line options & no vehichles to mission 4. The other one was because of a miss play and then concession because the miss play caused the to lose a unit >400 points at the end of a turn.

 

None od the players have complained about any disadvantage to the rules. Everyone has set up fairly equally...and the total points for every player are about even and will be reflected in the apocalypse size game the first weekend of November.

The problem you are going to find online is that people want the game to suit their list or the units they want to use. Rather than building to suit a game. 

[Noserenda]

14 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

 

 

None od the players have complained about any disadvantage to the rules. Everyone has set up fairly equally...and the total points for every player are about even and will be reflected in the apocalypse size game the first weekend of November.

No rules complaints at all rings terribly false to my British sensibilities but then i have met Americans :P (Y'all are generally more positive) What sort of lists are you fielding? No outliers or big wins/losses implies no armies leaning in to any particular (for want of a better term) theme, IE all your armies are rocks, paper or scissors if that makes sense? 
(to clarify tone because online, this is a genuine question rather than aggression of some kind)
 

30 minutes ago, ABrownTuft said:

The problem you are going to find online is that people want the game to suit their list or the units they want to use. Rather than building to suit a game. 

Similarly im not sure what the point you are making here? It feels like you are  saying we should just be playing powerful units and ignoring things that might be fun?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

No rules complaints at all rings terribly false to my British sensibilities but then i have met Americans :P (Y'all are generally more positive) What sort of lists are you fielding? No outliers or big wins/losses implies no armies leaning in to any particular (for want of a better term) theme, IE all your armies are rocks, paper or scissors if that makes sense? 
(to clarify tone because online, this is a genuine question rather than aggression of some kind)
 

So many of the players in my area found Heresy in the AoD box. So foe the campaign we kicked off with a 1500-+3k escalation league.

Here's a list of armies

Loyalist legions:

Dark Angels x1

Space Wolves x1

Blood Angels x1

Imperial Fists x1

Ultramarines x2

Raven Guard x2

 

Traitor legions:

Sons of Horus x2

Iron Warriors x1

 

All of the traitors have Primarchs for large scale games of 3-4k games the Dark Angel and both RG have primarchs if they wish to field them.

 

Almost every army fields a minimum of 3 Line troop choices from 1500 - 2k. There are a couple armies that run 4 and 1 that maxed out 2 tactical squads with apothecaries.

 

The majority of the players run very different lists from one another, focusing on what their army and special units do best or have heavy use of Fogeworld, but all have built lists to help tell a story, so it's been a lot of fun. I.e. 3 armies use Breachers, 2 use Assault Marines to some degree, 1 uses recon squads alongside tacticals, then support squads/tanks/etc.

 

So far, I have only needed to make one change to a thunder run type mission where the "units of importance" would get pinned and so I gave those units the stubborn and LD 10 special rule for taking pinning tests if they were infantry.

 

[ABrownTuft]

5 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Similarly im not sure what the point you are making here? It feels like you are  saying we should just be playing powerful units and ignoring things that might be fun?

 

The opposite. Let the game on the board guide you. If you choose to go against what the mechanics and missions incentivize then be prepared to struggle. It be like not buying any properties in Monopoly.

 

For example; if you do a full DS army without a Herald you are getting what you should expect. 

 

As per usual the best army for general play is a army that is flexible, the less flexible (or more skew you lean) the worse the repercussions of being wrong are. 

[Gorgoff]

I try to come up with a Capture the flag kind of mission.

Line units can capture objectives, when they end their movement in 3" and do nothing for the rest of the player turn. They can take away the objectives from the enemy in one go as well.

At the end of the game the player with most markers wins. 

Something like that.

Ideas?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

I try to come up with a Capture the flag kind of mission.

Line units can capture objectives, when they end their movement in 3" and do nothing for the rest of the player turn. They can take away the objectives from the enemy in one go as well.

At the end of the game the player with most markers wins. 

Something like that.

Ideas?

In my experience Relic missions are not much fun and difficult to balance. Heresy may double down on that...Like good luck shifting a Cataphractii line unit with Primaris Medicae in a Pride of the Legion RoW off a/the flag.

 

I would probably make the objective give, the "Relic" & "Burdened" special rules. 

 

Relic: a Relic must remain in base contact with at least one model to be considered held.

 

Burdened: This unit must get this item back to High Command, and must make sure it gets there in one piece!

Any unit that has a burdened model in it gains the Heavy Sub-type and may never move farther than the base movement speed on the slowest profile. Additionally, any actions or reactions taken other than moving, forces the objective to be put down. Place the objective exactly 1" away from the model(s) carrying it. That unit may not reclaim the objective until the end of the following movement phase.