How are you liking HH 2.0 so far?

[SkimaskMohawk]

@Dont-Be-Haten not sure how you kite anything in this game without hit and run/jet pack move/advance reaction. You just move and hope they don't make the charge, and most melee units that aren't just basic guys with chainswords will easily beat them in combat. Apothecaries let you live the 4+ fnp dream against cool/starter units until it gets annoying for them and they switch to the unit they should have made in the first place. 

@Ripper.McGuirl cool to know! I was just confused because obviously ITC became the face of 7th ed 40k regardless of whether you went to the huge events in NA, but ya, never heard about there greying legion at all. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I've had dudes jump over LoS blocking terrain forcing wide swings in movement, followed by quick scoring. 

Assault marines have been great boons in last turn shatter strike, quick objective grabbers in Dominion and they absolutely rock in Tide of Carnage. They have been most valuable unit in several games.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I am very excited about the prospect of assault marines being a little more useful. I think a lot of the things that used to instantly erase them have been tones down, so they will hopefully see more table time.

[Brother Sutek]

43 minutes ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I am very excited about the prospect of assault marines being a little more useful. I think a lot of the things that used to instantly erase them have been tones down, so they will hopefully see more table time.

I use two units of 15 in my Death Guard and they have been good so far. I did lose a lot to a unit of Tactical marines when they hit them with Fury of the Legion but that's weight of dice.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I guess no matter what, they are just regular marines and will die to the same things. But since plasma and templates don’t just erase whole squads at a time, they have a little more of a fighting chance.

I hope to use mine for high-risk deepstrike/charge shenanigans.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I have run mine with a Chaplain for the Stubborn, LD 10, and Hatred bundle for my assault marine squad. It's been a good boon.

 

[Laughingman]

12 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I guess no matter what, they are just regular marines and will die to the same things. But since plasma and templates don’t just erase whole squads at a time, they have a little more of a fighting chance.

I hope to use mine for high-risk deepstrike/charge shenanigans.

All of the scoring troop generic choices seem viable to varying degrees... Though Tactical, Assault and Recon seem to be the most common in my local scene.

[Brother Sutek]

I'm happy that assault marines are viable, I used then last edition despite their cost. I'm sure there are other units that are "better" but I'm enjoying them right now. When I get back to my Dark Angels I want to experiment with tacticals a bit, our group is pretty low key and I don't have to worry about four + dreadnought builds so they will be pretty viable.

[Misterduch]

Assault marines have proven themselves to be a deciding factor in most of my games, wiping out much larger and costlier squads of power armoured guys on the charge while also holding forward objectives.

My favourite loadout is power mauls on the regular guys ( 1 in 5 ) and any AP2 weapon you van get on the sgt 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Had a 2k game against SoH yesterday afternoon. More thoughts; I must reiterate, snipers and pinning is so important. Taking out Apothecaries, forcing pinning checks and fast moving jump infantry are solid and just about mandatory to shift the flow of the game.

I have also noticed in my games that Dreads are not as difficult to shift as initially percieved. Breaching and rending shots alongside some healthy AP 2+ really cuts their feet out from underneath them. However this is only having to deal with 1-2 of them and maneuvering around them with screens and reactions.

I think rhinos may see more use as rotor cannons pick up popularity, and bubble screens are aomething to consider when protecting your vehicles/artillery from Deep Strike Assault.

[Noserenda]

Yeah it really does feel like pinning and sniper rifles in particular is clutch right now.

[Brofist]

Of all the generic troops options I do feel breachers are still the worst for what they offer

[BitsHammer]

38 minutes ago, Brofist said:

Of all the generic troops options I do feel breachers are still the worst for what they offer

A cool theme paired with okayish rules? Yeah, that's GW for you.

[Bung]

2 hours ago, Brofist said:

Of all the generic troops options I do feel breachers are still the worst for what they offer

Breacher with Melter or Lascutters work pretty well in Assault Drills.

[Noserenda]

Oooh did they make lascutters not a complete liability? Id missed that! :D 

[Petitioner's City]

Do you guys think with the mournival, discord and some other community groups working together on the libers panoptica/Centura/etc (I know some of you worked on these too), that there might be more widespread adoption of these? Or have you found resistance to them?

[Brother_Angelus]

40 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

Do you guys think with the mournival, discord and some other community groups working together on the libers panoptica/Centura/etc (I know some of you worked on these too), that there might be more widespread adoption of these? Or have you found resistance to them?

I'm not interested in playing community editions or revisions of a live ruleset.

Sure for BFG or Mordheim, where it's had some time to marinate and you're not going to get erratas or FAQs for anything, but I don't see widespread adoption while official support exists.

[Brofist]

Pretty much the same with our local community

[WrathOfTheLion]

A lot of the local players are newer and still trying to figure things out and just get playing. I don't think they'll be too interested in that stuff while the dust hasn't even settled. I know I personally am not really interested either for the same reason, even coming from 1E.

[Reyner]

I am loving the new edition after falling out with 40k over the last few years and even better LOADS of people are playing at my local store!

[Petitioner's City]

8 hours ago, Brother_Angelus said:

I'm not interested in playing community editions or revisions of a live ruleset.

Sure for BFG or Mordheim, where it's had some time to marinate and you're not going to get erratas or FAQs for anything, but I don't see widespread adoption while official support exists.

 

7 hours ago, Brofist said:

Pretty much the same with our local community

 

5 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

A lot of the local players are newer and still trying to figure things out and just get playing. I don't think they'll be too interested in that stuff while the dust hasn't even settled. I know I personally am not really interested either for the same reason, even coming from 1E.

Fair points brothers, although I find it sad too to read this, as it feels very disconnected from the hobby's history - I grew up on the Citadel Journal, Fanatic and the first Specialist Games, in which GW supported and published fan variations, rewrites and additions to their games.

That culture arguably leg to heresy itself, with the black books originating both in

- Alan Bligh's fan work while a mail order troll (according to French's obituary of him; a number of CJ and fanatic authors were GW staff from outwith the design studios) - material which did lead to him being able to be hired by FW during the vraks trilogy 

- and also in the fan community of Tempus Fugitives, whose work remains inspirational to today (and was a fan rewrite of 5th as a then-living game). 

Voxcast also - especially several episodes interviewing game designers and Peachy - were encouragements to write, add, modify and change the games themselves, and Hoare's team really encourage this in Necromunda too. It's a bit of a shame to not want to experiment, I find, but understand also risk aversion 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Petitioner's City
Added link to old TF thread

[Xenith]

48 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

Voxcast also - especially several episodes interviewing game designers and Peachy - were encouragements to write, add, modify and change the games themselves, and Hoare's team really encourage this in Necromunda too. It's a bit of a shame to not want to experiment, I find, but understand also risk aversion 

There's a huge, huge difference between making some tweaks to the rules or new scenarios for your gaming group, and trying to enforce those tweaks on others globally. 

I do agree that GW games have become quite prescribed, and there's less imagination, but that's maybe as they've come up with a bunch of decent ideas already?  Stuff like ash wastes battles would have been fan-add ons in the past, now they're mainline supported. 

[Petitioner's City]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

There's a huge, huge difference between making some tweaks to the rules or new scenarios for your gaming group, and trying to enforce those tweaks on others globally. 

I do agree that GW games have become quite prescribed, and there's less imagination, but that's maybe as they've come up with a bunch of decent ideas already?  Stuff like ash wastes battles would have been fan-add ons in the past, now they're mainline supported. 

But there isnt "enforce(ment)", so to use that language is quite inflammatory? I mean many mournival ideas are popular - centurion mode, destroyer terminators, etc - and we can all see how bad many things are in the rules released to date (the worst being the legacy pdf, sadly), so it's nice for people to offer some solutions - but there is no " you must use this" at all in the language in the document or by its authors (happy to be corrected, though). As I said, I do understand being risk averse - but find it often has an ugly side to it too (as though people are threatening one another over what rules they use, when that isn't the case). 

I wouldn't say GW is more prescribed or prescriptive than in the past - I don't think they are saying you can be limited in what you do (open play remains key to their rulebooks, including heresy) and as I said, SG is an example of a part of the company that carries on being extremely unprescriptive - with Necromunda (in its disparate publications and their continuous "arbitrator's suggestions" of how you can change the game) being perhaps the clearest example of that. But open play is another aspect of that, narrative too, etc. I do feel it's not GW but players who feel prescriptive - we must play the 'actual' game, 'don't split the community', etc.  And it's players who often gravitate to rather limited forms of matched play (for many good and bad reasons) rather than responding to gw's and other players' suggestions of a less prescriptive form of 'the' game. Of course some recent and current GW employees or former employees state things like a more prescriptive model (Malhotra, for example), but then others like Wade and Peachy and more talk differently. C'est la vie. 

Anyway really great to talk about this :)

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

With all due respect, fan made rules only bring a disconnect between player bases. Especially in major events. A new player follows rules from a fan service site/group goes to a major event, especially with a list already in mind, can no longer take sucha  list due to the legality of it, and thus either doesn't go, or has sunk money into something unaware of unofficial versus official rules.

Events are in some ways the only way players can get games in. Many people use vacation time etc, in order to travel and prepare.

We talk about gate keeping a lot in 30k, and all fan made .pdfs are just other barriers to entry. Most common players don't jump on forums or follow closely with home-brew works. 

Trust me, I've seen blokes get disheartened in locals trying to implement stuff like this when they get ignored or shot down for wanting to bend or "improve" unit rules.

[Bung]

12 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

Do you guys think with the mournival, discord and some other community groups working together on the libers panoptica/Centura/etc (I know some of you worked on these too), that there might be more widespread adoption of these? Or have you found resistance to them?

Probably only the FaQ Part as a solution until something from GW is published.

And maybe the rules for unsupported models as the GW PDF is mehr.

The balance changes are simply to questionable and alot seems pushed from a monority.