How are you liking HH 2.0 so far?

[Ripper.McGuirl]

If all they did was put out the rest of the pdfs and books they’ve mentioned and left the models already out available, that right there is way more than we had for the bulk of the last 8 years. Combine all of that with all of the campaigns and game modes from last edition that are more or less still usable, and I have easily a decade of gaming open to me without needing anything else.

So if they go totally off the rails after this year, oh well, I have a buncha fat books full of rules already. And if they DO keep putting out more rad :cuss:? AWESOME

 

[Noserenda]

I mean, there is some deliberate and fairly brutal imbalance there already if you scratch the surface, its entirely possible that when they do get around to FAQs some stuff will be adjusted, depends i guess, if the Legends stuff is just one and done like in the main systems.

That is presuming FAQs though, which they havent been clear about yet, still, big news this week apparently, lets see what it is! 

[SkimaskMohawk]

44 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I mean, there is some deliberate and fairly brutal imbalance there already if you scratch the surface, its entirely possible that when they do get around to FAQs some stuff will be adjusted, depends i guess, if the Legends stuff is just one and done like in the main systems.

That is presuming FAQs though, which they havent been clear about yet, still, big news this week apparently, lets see what it is! 

In their blurb about expanded units, it mentions that units may migrate from expanded to core, so I don't think they're going to be treated like 40k legends.

And first I've heard about big 30k news lol. Be nice if it was something more than another look at the custodes and auxilia liber.

[Noserenda]

18 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

In their blurb about expanded units, it mentions that units may migrate from expanded to core, so I don't think they're going to be treated like 40k legends.

And first I've heard about big 30k news lol. Be nice if it was something more than another look at the custodes and auxilia liber.

True, though i expect thats as much about stuff getting new models and thus more official rules, im sure some special characters have models lost in "development hell" too. I guess we will see, im at least heartened by them not making the rules as easy to ignore as legends.

And yeah they mentioned it in the weekly preorders post thingy on WHC earlier, so "big" might just be marketing, i guess we will find out Thursday. 

[BitsHammer]

I suspect once they get all the Libers come out we'll be looking at semi-regular campaign expansions for a while. 

I just hope we see an assault/despoiler squad box before then since that'd do a lot to helping fill out the core of the legions in plastic. 

I'm just hoping they don't do what they did with Cataphractii shoulderpads and stop part way with the legion upgrades.

[brother_b]

17 hours ago, Noserenda said:

I mean, there is some deliberate and fairly brutal imbalance there already if you scratch the surface, its entirely possible that when they do get around to FAQs some stuff will be adjusted, depends i guess, if the Legends stuff is just one and done like in the main systems.

That is presuming FAQs though, which they havent been clear about yet, still, big news this week apparently, lets see what it is! 

What are the serious and brutal imbalances? We've yet to play the game in our group and a quick read over didn't leave me with any of those feelings. That being said, I've never played HH!

[Noserenda]

38 minutes ago, brother_b said:

What are the serious and brutal imbalances? We've yet to play the game in our group and a quick read over didn't leave me with any of those feelings. That being said, I've never played HH!

Theres a lot sprinkled around but compare the super heavies in the libers and the legacy doc, the most obvious one being the Shadowsword v Falchion or the Armigers being immune to a whole swathe of anti tank things RAW because that unit type isnt mentioned in their rules. 

Some of it is slip ups, (Which are kinda inevitable/forgivable to some degree) but some of it is presumably a design choice to make units unplayable for whatever reason.

[Brofist]

Brutal (3) imbalance

[Laughingman]

7 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Theres a lot sprinkled around but compare the super heavies in the libers and the legacy doc, the most obvious one being the Shadowsword v Falchion or the Armigers being immune to a whole swathe of anti tank things RAW because that unit type isnt mentioned in their rules. 

Some of it is slip ups, (Which are kinda inevitable/forgivable to some degree) but some of it is presumably a design choice to make units unplayable for whatever reason.

The entire fortification section (and associated rules) was an after-though as well.

[Xenith]

18 hours ago, brother_b said:

What are the serious and brutal imbalances? We've yet to play the game in our group and a quick read over didn't leave me with any of those feelings. That being said, I've never played HH!

As long as everyone follows Wheaton's law, as every everyone will be fine. From what I gather, largely, the main book units are stronger, badding some exemplary units? So everyone has access to the strong stuff. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Xenith

[SkimaskMohawk]

Lol wheatons law is basically satire at this point; the guy is unstable to say the least.

And while most glaring imbalances are in the core list, that doesn't mean they're negligible. Bike builds got really hosed, and if you had built around them with one of the three legions that had rites, being told to just buy a new army doesn't exactly resonate. Ironfire is similar, though it's sheer stupidity in 1st makes sympathy harder. There's a lot of units that just feel terrible to use compared to their contemporaries.

[Petitioner's City]

One thing I am not sure I like is the comparative ws chart. Personally it's ironic as I had wanted it for necromunda, but now find myself thinking the same things my group had said when I proposed it. As an idea, I like it because it's more granular, but now seeing it work it does feel quite ... cruel (for want of a better word) on a d6 system. If things were on a d10 or even a 2d6, I feel it could create more nuance. As it stands, I feel it makes CCW - already a risk - even more of a risk for most things in the game.

Of course I like that weapon skill matters - and when you do hit a better opponent it means more (until it doesn't because of weapon/armour/mitigation) - but it's definitely frustrating to see assault squads/grey xs/despoilers equivalents really struggle (or the khan against his brothers!). Not quite sure how id work it out better, though.

[Xenith]

I'm a fan of that - it lets your WS act in a defensive manner, and thematically you can actually have last stands with characters fennding off hordes of stuff, or cutting their way through terminators. Practically, I think a bit too much stuff has been given WS5+, like dreads.

[Noserenda]

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

As long as everyone follows Wheaton's law, as every everyone will be fine. From what I gather, largely, the main book units are stronger, badding some exemplary units? So everyone has access to the strong stuff. 

That only works on some competitive fresh field though, if people are constructing certain lists for narrative or already own models for whatever reason its pretty appalling. Especially on Super heavies, dropping a couple of hundred pounds and hours of effort because FW decided that of the two tanks with similar roles, one of them is going to get hosed.

Like, its beyond the unit being a bit meh but usable if you arent trying to optimise, the Shadowsword is considerably worse (and missing old options for some reason) and costs considerably more. :( 

[Chaeron]

To report back after my first game, I have to say we kept settling on the phrase ‘ebb and flow’, because of how the reactions work. Heresy has been my main game for a number of years, but the nature of reactions really means you think through options and gives the chance for responses that add elements of risk to your own actions in a way I hadn’t fully appreciated until you’re actually on the table. I think it’ll be interesting as to how impactful that’ll be in larger games, but it has certainly got me excited to keep trying to think through and best utilise these in my battles to come.

It’s also great to see so many people enjoying the Heresy setting and game that the new release has encouraged!

[Brother Sutek]

6 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

And while most glaring imbalances are in the core list, that doesn't mean they're negligible. Bike builds got really hosed, and if you had built around them with one of the three legions that had rites, being told to just buy a new army doesn't exactly resonate. Ironfire is similar, though it's sheer stupidity in 1st makes sympathy harder. There's a lot of units that just feel terrible to use compared to their contemporaries.

Having a bike army I can back this comment up. I've played Ravenwing since Warhammer 40k 2nd Edition and love my bikes and speeders. This edition seems to be back to "play the game in hard mode" if you want to do that. I haven't had the actual game time to back that with facts so maybe I'm totally wrong and they are just as good with less toughness and high cost. The Attack bike is an absolute slap in the face for cost vs value, I understand that there isn't a 30k model but that shouldn't be the reason it was hit so hard. I still say someone in development lost badly and regularly to a White Scars player and this is the fall out 

[Sir Frenchy]

On 9/19/2022 at 7:26 PM, brother_b said:

What are the serious and brutal imbalances? We've yet to play the game in our group and a quick read over didn't leave me with any of those feelings. That being said, I've never played HH!

Just my 2 cents about it obviously, but some playstyles are more advantageous than others and less easily punished. Specific aspects/rules of the game really reward some playstyles more than others.
Infantry Heavy Shooting armies gets elevated by reactions, FotA lists are tough to face because of the dreadnoughts powerfull rules, while Melee lists get insanely deadly when the brutal special rule is involved.
You can build a very nice and thematic ravenguard list that takes advantage of the shrouded special rule, but this can be denied through reactions, wargear or special rule , thus making your whole gimmick less effective. Do you field a mele beatstick primarch without Brutal ? Good luck facing one with Brutal (2) or even Brutal (3) and nothing can deny or even mitigate the effect of the brutal special rule. You also can't go wrong with an extra shooting phase on your lascanon HSS during your opponent's turn.

[Brofist]

I feel the general vibe of the imbalances goes like this:

• Core unit balance is pretty good actually, especially in the LA book, including most weapons
• However there was a design decision to tone down all the things that were good in the 1.0 meta

So what we have are sweeping changes to the units that were standouts in 1.0. On the nose this would be fine, new game new meta that's cool. Problem is this went a bit far, like for artillery, where you now have a dozen units with little tabletop value and almost not distinguishable difference in weapon statlines. There's just gulf between the stuff that was brought up to become good in 2.0 and the things deliberately nerfed in 1.0.

Again, change is good, new meta is good... but good balance means making as many options as you can feel good and be viable on the table. That's simply not the case.

[Noserenda]

Exactly that and honestly it feels like a major design fail when the core themes of the legions you are apparently designing around to the exclusion of all else run afoul of it, like White Scars on bikes, Iron Warriors carting around artillery and Fists standing on walls.

[Brother Sutek]

On the plus side they got rid of Acid bolter rounds. Now I won't lie and say I didn't build a heavy support squad just for them but even I thought they were brutal. 

[Bung]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

Exactly that and honestly it feels like a major design fail when the core themes of the legions you are apparently designing around to the exclusion of all else run afoul of it, like White Scars on bikes, Iron Warriors carting around artillery and Fists standing on walls.

GW / FW already tried to expand the core themes but its more the players that stick to the old tropes.

IF were mentioned as one of the top Boarding Legions, yet most players want to glue themself to the wall.

WS got the Pioneer companies pre-Khan which didnt use Bikes that much.

Bloodied Iron Warriors full of Close Combat weapons as Assault Company isnt new either.

Its all in the more than a decade old fluff but players choose to ignore it partly due to the old rules and part of thats the fluff anyone tells me.

[Noserenda]

34 minutes ago, Bung said:

GW / FW already tried to expand the core themes but its more the players that stick to the old tropes.

IF were mentioned as one of the top Boarding Legions, yet most players want to glue themself to the wall.

WS got the Pioneer companies pre-Khan which didnt use Bikes that much.

Bloodied Iron Warriors full of Close Combat weapons as Assault Company isnt new either.

Its all in the more than a decade old fluff but players choose to ignore it partly due to the old rules and part of thats the fluff anyone tells me.

Im not sure what your argument is here? Are you trying to say White Scars DONT ride bikes? Iron Warriors ARENT famed for extensive artillery? Imperial fists CANT cling to a static defence like glitter? That those arent perfectly valid themes for a heresy era army? 

Alternate themes existing far from invalidates other ones, especially when things like Iron warrior assault focus is as old as their artillery focus (Index Astartes) or Pioneer companies being largely dissolved as they met up with the greater Legion after the Khan was found. I quite like the naval aspects of the Imperial fists myself, but if you asked a bunch of players if fortifications were a fluffy choice for them (Regardless of mechanics) you would get a solid majority of affirmative,  especially when Black Library was been focused on the Siege of Terra for a couple of years. 

And all those players are going to have a bad time for doing what GW/FW has indicated they should do, one of the right things to do, which would kinda suck if it was an accident but seemingly as a design choice is something else. a bunch of folks models either tossed to the second hand market at an effective loss or mothballed til the next faq or edition. Im not sure why you would want to defend that? 

 

[Claws and Effect]

After a few more games under my belt, I've come to a few more conclusions. 

Augury scanners on units with Nemesis bolters is brutal to the point of being borderline OP. It makes it nearly impossible to deep strike anything without it getting shot and potentially pinned (25% chance for a lot of units). 

It kinda makes me feel like someone in development really hated deep strike and decided to make it as difficult as possible without outright eliminating it. Especially where Day of Revelation is concerned. Like, what commander in their right mind is going to inform their enemy exactly where they plan on dropping in? It's dumb that it allows your opponent an entire turn to position their army where they can light up everything that's coming in. 

Flanking Assault is almost as bad with having to place a marker. The whole point of flanking your enemy is for them to not know where you're attacking from. "Oh, you're coming in over there? Cool, let me just move my valuable units out of the way and/or move stuff in position to kill what's flanking me."

Just feels like they really wanted to just get rid of deep strike altogether but they knew if they did there would be an uproar. So they did everything they could to discourage us from doing it without outright removing it. 

In spite of my gripes with the new edition I'm still enjoying it for the most part. I just wish it didn't feel so much like the rules team said "We want you to play this way, so we're going to discourage any other way as much as we can."

[BitsHammer]

Honestly I've yet to get games in but I've been hesitant to lean too hard into Terror Assault and Curze for Night Lords because of how frankly oppressive that list can be. I've been looking at Swift Blade for Night Lords because I think it'll look cool, but I don't imagine it'll be strong to lean into despite being a visually cool.

Honestly the thing that bugs me the most about that Rite of War is that you can't take Javelin Land Speeders because they have the heavy sub-type. I also have some feelings about bikes not having Bulky (2) at least but honestly it's kind of a scuffed situation in general. At least if I play against a White Scars bike army we can have murder races together?

[Bung]

7 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Im not sure what your argument is here? Are you trying to say White Scars DONT ride bikes? Iron Warriors ARENT famed for extensive artillery? Imperial fists CANT cling to a static defence like glitter? That those arent perfectly valid themes for a heresy era army? 

Alternate themes existing far from invalidates other ones, especially when things like Iron warrior assault focus is as old as their artillery focus (Index Astartes) or Pioneer companies being largely dissolved as they met up with the greater Legion after the Khan was found. I quite like the naval aspects of the Imperial fists myself, but if you asked a bunch of players if fortifications were a fluffy choice for them (Regardless of mechanics) you would get a solid majority of affirmative,  especially when Black Library was been focused on the Siege of Terra for a couple of years. 

And all those players are going to have a bad time for doing what GW/FW has indicated they should do, one of the right things to do, which would kinda suck if it was an accident but seemingly as a design choice is something else. a bunch of folks models either tossed to the second hand market at an effective loss or mothballed til the next faq or edition. Im not sure why you would want to defend that? 

 

Nope.

But i think your statement here is totally off.

10 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Exactly that and honestly it feels like a major design fail when the core themes of the legions you are apparently designing around to the exclusion of all else run afoul of it, like White Scars on bikes, Iron Warriors carting around artillery and Fists standing on walls.

 

Everything you call out here were never the core themes of the Legion, it was wheere the Legions got their best rules in 1.0.

So, people got burned cause they bought into to the meme army which isnt the best rules match anymore, sorry if i dont have any pity.

Cause its not GW / FW fault if player picking an army thats not as god anymore after an edition change and i feel the most people crying about this are the more competetive folk.

 

I play IF and the stuff i bought for Stone Gauntlet RoW in 1.0 still works, but i dont use the RoW anymore. I dont feel i lost anything or any of my models are unplayable.

The only thing i cant really bring anymore is my 4 Sicaran Punisher List i had in 1.0  as IF its ridiculus and i had already players tell me not to bring that for the first year.