How are you liking HH 2.0 so far?

[Noserenda]

3 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

If so he couldn't run this army in 1ed as well, no?

 

They werent troops in 1st ed, though that does make me a bit sad they are still trying to stick to one FOC in this edition, my Auxilla at least quickly filled the whole thing and RAW were then stuck with only allies as options, im hoping the new version of them brings in some form of platoons! 

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, Noserenda said:

They werent troops in 1st ed,

What I meant was that if he has more Indomitus than he has troop slots he couldn't field his army in 1ed because they were elite there.

It would be wonderful if he could elaborate on the topic. Same with Castaferrum. If you want to you can field 12 of them and I'd say that is really enough. ;)

Quote

though that does make me a bit sad they are still trying to stick to one FOC in this edition, my Auxilla at least quickly filled the whole thing and RAW were then stuck with only allies as options, im hoping the new version of them brings in some form of platoons! 

Ine of the best features of HH army building is, that you can't allie with yourself. It is always a :cuss:show whenever it is allowed. 

Having said that I as well hope that they somehow fix the issue for IM with what you said. Platoons or smth but the real issue will be how their tanks got nerfed to the ground as far as we know now. I really don't see how they want to make this army work, if at all. 

Sad truth is that they don't make rules for units without model or good rules for models which are for 40k so I fear that IM will be a very bad army and unplayable junk. 

We will see but nobody should have high hopes for that army. 

[Brother Sutek]

As someone with a squad of rotor cannon Solar Auxilia I hope they do still exist! I have two Imperial Guard armies and was going to build Solar Auxilia for 30k, yes I have a problem. Needing tanks has indeed been an issue and it's caused me to hold off on the army. My Dark Angels needed work so it's not a big issue now. I am excited for the inclusion of Assassin models so I can work on those also while I wait. Have to say one of the biggest things that made me lose interest in 40k 8th edition was the loss of platoons for my IG. Not only did it help balance them but it also gave me more room to fill out those troop slots. 

[Noserenda]

At least in 8th you can stack up FOCs so the platoon wasnt as needed as before, hell from what i recall lots of FOCs were good in 8th? I dunno i was only playing random friendly games at the time. 

I suspect things like Rotor Auxilia will stay in PDFs even after they release proper books, so its a bit random if they will be good or not, but im not holding my breath. The upcoming book does sound promising but they all do :D 

Self allying is a bit silly, i think it could have been a good way to represent supporting forces, like a tank platoon supporting an infantry company, but most of the relevant ROW are main force only so nope.

With the terminators, the chap said he had other PA squads too of which several logically had to be troops for the former army, either way its a random thread now :D 

[Brother Sutek]

You could stack up but the problem is that then you'd have what we got which was all the conscription armies with nothing holding them back. Old school made you buy multiple infantry squads and command squads which helped keep the shenanigans down. I really love the Guard and I am competitive but I want the army balanced esp so we don't get the nerf hammer over and over.

[bushman101]

Self ally is okay at very large games (+4k points) for people with only one army, as long as you keep it to 1 RoW for the whole thing. 

[Gorgoff]

12 hours ago, Brother Sutek said:

As someone with a squad of rotor cannon Solar Auxilia I hope they do still exist! I 

Imperialis Militia =/= Solar Auxilia. 

The latter will be in Liber Inperium which shouls drop next week as far as we know. So no worries there. 

IM should get a PDF army list just like Daemons will. And don't get me wrong. I am routing for Militia. After all I have one myself so.

GO GO GW.

Give me a proper Imperial Army goddammit!

11 hours ago, Noserenda said:

At least in 8th you can stack up FOCs so the platoon wasnt as needed as before, hell from what i recall lots of FOCs were good in 8th? I dunno i was only playing random friendly games at the time. 

That is the best and in my humble opinion only way of playing GW games, my friend.

[sarabando]

On 9/24/2022 at 11:50 AM, Gorgoff said:

If so he couldn't run this army in 1ed as well, no?

 

used to use it as a pride of the legion (or what ever it was called where you can take termies and vets as troops) 

i say its unuseable as im referring to the base game as the pdf really dont feel well written enough to be used half the time. Plus i think they got rid of some of the options, like the dual volkite box dread.  legacy pdfs are not really the same thing as being in the propper rules imo. 

[BitsHammer]

So I've been slowly trying to absorb the game for a while and I feel like Covid did a number on the Heresy we got.

Based on the leaks the game should have been out last year but it seems it was pushed back for a number of factors related to COVID, shipping delays and the like. Which honestly probably helped the game get such a strong launch since it didn't need to compete with anything, but with the rulebook lead times I have to wonder if somethings fell through the cracks because of Covid causing shutdowns and forcing people to stay home in 2020 and that caused stuff to be missed in editing or testing (like calvary models and dreadnoughts have a size under the Transport Bay rule, but don't have bulky built into their models for any other rule that needs to refer to unit size).

Honestly the game is not bad, it has a lot of stuff doing good things and I really like it. But the better something is the bigger the flaws stand out and draw attention to themselves.

But enough grumbling out of me. I still have to build a lot of models for my legion.

[Gorgoff]

15 hours ago, sarabando said:

used to use it as a pride of the legion (or what ever it was called where you can take termies and vets as troops) 

i say its unuseable as im referring to the base game as the pdf really dont feel well written enough to be used half the time. Plus i think they got rid of some of the options, like the dual volkite box dread.  legacy pdfs are not really the same thing as being in the propper rules imo. 

I won't try to force something on you but in the latest article they talked about this matter and said those PDF are work in progress material. And that some of these may get into a proper book some time. What they implied here is that they wait and see how popukar a unit is I guess and since Indomitus seems to be a huge turn on for a lot of people it is safe to assume that those will be in a book soonish. 

Rule wise you can run Pride of the Legion and use all 6 troop slots for Indomitus terminators now. Really good option to do if you are into those. And Castaferrum, although loosing the volkite option, are better then they ever were*. So I'd say it is the perfect time for you to get back in the saddle and claim your part of glory!

<play intense drum music>

*apsrt from 2ed of course. ;)

 

[arnesh88]

I'm liking it so far. I can't speak for mechanicum or other armies, but the space marines generic units for the most part are good where they're at. Just need some FAQs to address some rules, some points tweaks, etc. Perhaps a more radical change needs to be applied to some of the rites of war. Yeah, it's a social contract between players, but sometimes a new player won't catch on to that until they're already heavily invested in a certain army build that most people wouldn't play against.

Main complaint I have is with the missions. For the most part, they encourage more killing rather than objective capturing. Even with the glow up and "importance" of Line units, it doesn't matter 2 out of 3 times or maybe even 5 out of 6 times. I think it's mostly due to how objectives work vs 40k or AoS, in that objectives tend to only matter if you've survived by the end of the game instead of actively capturing them early.

TL;DR

Core Rules: No complaints, pretty solid overall

Units: Needs minor touch ups and clarifications

Rites of War: More heavy handed adjustments would probably be best to bring the power level down on some, bump up some of the lackluster ones

Missions: Least favorite, needs work. Currently too much focus on killing vs objective capturing

Edited September 28, 2022 by arnesh88

[Dont-Be-Haten]

If you aren't liking the missions and want more scoring...here's one of mine from my campaign that you may find to your liking.

[Gorgoff]

14 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

If you aren't liking the missions and want more scoring...here's one of mine from my campaign that you may find to your liking.

Like Dominion but zone based. I like it.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I have an ongoing campaign and I've pulled from a lot of old missions. This one is a modified sieze ground from 5th edition 40k, but had held up very well. Everyone I've presented this to has liked the mission and it has gotten great results. It's very easily modifiable and can be played on just about any board set up.

But, this also goes back to putting a lot of time and testing into the mission, only to get push back from the local community because it's not officially official. So I really hope you guys can try it and have a fun game. 

[Stitch5000]

20 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

If you aren't liking the missions and want more scoring...here's one of mine from my campaign that you may find to your liking.

Interesting, but a couple of points, if I may...

What is a Tactical Draw? Is it different to a regular draw? Something in your campaign?
What does "equally clear to both opponents" mean?
How is a unit within 3" of an objective marker? It it a model from that unit or every model in the unit?
Is "stealing the initiative" different to Seizing the Initiative? 
What's a board space and what is a neutral zone?

[Xenith]

20 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

If you aren't liking the missions and want more scoring...here's one of mine from my campaign that you may find to your liking.

I do like that. I feel a simple change to progressive scoring as you've done here would be a simple change for the better for HH games. 

[Noserenda]

Using old missions is always a good option to change things up as they are generally pretty systems agnostic, or just need some trivial fixes, but have a different design angle to play with even for similar ones.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, Stitch5000 said:

Interesting, but a couple of points, if I may...

What is a Tactical Draw? Is it different to a regular draw? Something in your campaign?
What does "equally clear to both opponents" mean?
How is a unit within 3" of an objective marker? It it a model from that unit or every model in the unit?
Is "stealing the initiative" different to Seizing the Initiative? 
What's a board space and what is a neutral zone?

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.

3" If you have a single model or a model from the unit within 3" of the objective you may deny that objective.

Stealing the initiative is seizing the initiative...those have been interchangeable for years, so apologies if that was not clear.

Board space is your your board space or deployment board side, neutral = no man's land, the space between you and your opponent, and opponent board space is the space owned by your opponent.

[Stitch5000]

1 hour ago, 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.

3" If you have a single model or a model from the unit within 3" of the objective you may deny that objective.

Stealing the initiative is seizing the initiative...those have been interchangeable for years, so apologies if that was not clear.

Board space is your your board space or deployment board side, neutral = no man's land, the space between you and your opponent, and opponent board space is the space owned by your opponent.

No need to make any apologies buddy, you are sharing something you spent your time to write up! :)

Clarifications are all good, although it might be best, or at least soothes my desire for continuity, to use the language codified in the game rules.

One other tweak I thought might help is to push the condition for the placing of the objective markers out to 6" from a battlefield edge as 12" and 12" apart from another objective marker makes it quite limiting if you roll up 5 markers. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

4 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

No need to make any apologies buddy, you are sharing something you spent your time to write up! :)

Clarifications are all good, although it might be best, or at least soothes my desire for continuity, to use the language codified in the game rules.

One other tweak I thought might help is to push the condition for the placing of the objective markers out to 6" from a battlefield edge as 12" and 12" apart from another objective marker makes it quite limiting if you roll up 5 markers. 

Out of 10+ mission 1 games played you are the first person that has asked for any clarification on rules, so it's good to get insight from other sources. I would try the mission first. Everything has played smoothly with no issues other than people not fielding enough line units.

Future interactions will probably see a reduction in measurements, but being able to outflank onto an objective came up so I stuck with 12" otherwise feel free to change whatever you want if you want to use the mission. This was just our prequel/introduction mission into the campaign from a month ago.

[Bung]

On 9/28/2022 at 5:54 PM, Dont-Be-Haten said:

If you aren't liking the missions and want more scoring...here's one of mine from my campaign that you may find to your liking.

Do you have more like this?

I pulled out the old mission book, City Fight for 40k etc. to look what could be used to make the games more interesting.

But your Mission looks really good.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

11 hours ago, Bung said:

Do you have more like this?

I pulled out the old mission book, City Fight for 40k etc. to look what could be used to make the games more interesting.

But your Mission looks really good.

I do. I have a mission pack to play over 6 missions for a campaign. It's just a simple linear prog tree. I also have a GT packet and narrative 1-day event packet I'm currently working on. 4-5 missions 4 rounds each etc.

Edit: I dont want to post too many missions etc...but here's another mission. I don't want to post too much because it's more for the Amicus or homegrown rules and I don't want to hijack the thread either... lastly you may not get a lot of people who want to play these. But anyone is welcome to join my campaigns if you decide you want to feel free to DM me. I post new content and missions about every 2 weeks.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Dont-Be-Haten

[SkimaskMohawk]

Outflanking onto objectives has been a thing since outflank was introduced in 5th. Arguably 2nds version is the worst version of it, so it doesn't need to be nerfed further lol.

Im not the biggest fan of progressive scoring, as I've seen a lot of games called by the start of turn 3 of 9th due to the inability to catch up, as well as the nonsense that was crimson fury. Dominion from the core pack has a pretty serious flaw in the timing that lets armies with infiltrating scoring almost guarantee the win from the get go. But, I do understand the thought that it balances things out against super-elite armies like knights or fury of the ancients. In theory.

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. I know barrage is largely terrible, but I don't think telling people to line up for the lascannons every turn or be unable to catch up in points is the solution. Deepstrike, sub assault, and even outflank, are viable tools to get to out of los areas. Fast units like speeders, scimitars and sabres can threaten them easily. And the scorpius is still actually capable of killing marines. Lots of options still.

 

[Brofist]

The single ZM mission has this exact problem with progressive scoring and the defender, who can place a unit onto the objective and start racking up points from turn 0. Its not balanced at all.

[Gorgoff]

@SkimaskMohawk @Brofist

Turn 1&2= 1 point per marker. 

Turn 3&4= 2 points per marker. 

Turn 5&6= 3 points per marker.