It's been a year, what do you like and dislike about 2.0?

[Marshal Mittens]

It's been almost a year now! 

 

What have you been loving about 2.0?

 

What do you not like as much?

 

Personally I like that Veterans seem tough and adaptable, and terminators, especially Cataphractii, are very tough and can survive so much fire power directed against them, which makes sense, lore wise. I also like all the releases, even if I wish we had more core troops out in plastic. 

 

For things I do t like, I am not sure I like the math hammer type turn, away from the narrative, it seems to have taken on a larger scale. 

 

Overall I feel very positive about it and look forward to the future. 

[oldhat]

I'm still very, VERY salty about the change to Knights.

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 hours ago, Marshal Mittens said:

For things I do t like, I am not sure I like the math hammer type turn, away from the narrative, it seems to have taken on a larger scale.

 

It's funny because back before the double whammy of 8th and Inferno soured a lot of people, the narrative angle was much much lower, and people weren't maligned for analyzing unit strengths with math.

 

There's a lot to both like and dislike, but unfortunately it's somehow worse than when looking at the playtest rules a year ago. Back when there were fewer did weapons and contemptors didn't pummel everything into the earth.

 

Also amazingly, there was no real FAQ/errata, or balance change. We live in a world where a sentinel is 5x larger than a dread, a militia is 2x larger than an attack bike, and a lasgun is twice as likely to kill a cataphractii as a medusa shell.

Edited May 11, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Bung]

I do like the rework in generall, i see way more infantry on the table and i like that.

 

I even enjoy the MK VI Marines, as they are a joy to convert at least for me.

 

On the other side there are some game design desicions i dont get, like why make Phalanx Warders Troops in Stone Gauntlet.

It doesnt fit the lore and makes people extremly salty. 

 

[Cleon]

I must admit I'm struggling to retain any interest in playing HH v2, The lack of any plastic power armoured melee troops (or even decent power weapon sets for the terminators - I hate working with resin/plastic hybrids) has really compounded the poor balance between legion traits and the 'haves' and 'have nots' of who specialist games gave compounding versus non compounding benefits too (+1 to hit with auto weapons AND you can have assault cannons that it works on AND  AND AND for the fists versus 'yeah you get some marginal benefit on the charge but we won't sell you any melee troops for the EC for example).

Then combine the rock paper scissors of Contemptors and underpriced Lascannon HSS and how reactions magnify the issues with unbalanced units (woo an extra shooting phase for those tyrant terminators or you can choose to leave them alone) and the game is a real mess, especially if you try and play games between people starting with v2 versus people with well fleshed out V1 collections. Add on the farce that vehicle explosions are pretty much the only effective 'Blast' weapon left and things are playing really off.

At this point I think I'm almost at the point of painting up what I've got in the background while playing other things and re-visiting it in another year to see if it's more fun to play then.

[sarabando]

i like the accessibility that the new plastic kits provide however i am still disappointed in the lack of support for some of the legions. I get that SOH and IF are the poster children but the Istvaan legions are just as relevant and are all missing their praetor minis. 

[Balthamal]

I suppose the most obvious aspect of enjoyment is being able to get a game? 2Ed brought in a lot of people who previously weren't involved and the local gaming scene is pretty much bouncing with it. As well as the actual spread of Legions across the board with things too now and not just the same 2/3. 

 

Game wise, might just be the locality but not really seeing the whole rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock combinations of things that are taken to neuter other things then get roflstomped by something in turn. There's a fair bit of variety not just in infantry/mech ratios but also in RoW vs no RoW, Primarchs vs no Primarchs and in the whole "not stocking up on contemptor/leviathan talons." It's true some Legions have to work harder than others to get stuff done but that's always been the case imo.

 

My only real gripe is that, event wise, so much effort is still devoted to Istvaan. Like it's literally cutting off people who play a third of the available Legions. Narrative events are great but not when they're that exclusionary.

[Xenith]

I'm enjoying it a lot more than I am 9th ed 40k, which I guess is a low bar. My 2.0 games are more fun than the 9th ed ones, though usually either draws or runaway victories of like 6-0 or something. 

 

It feels like being bitter, but the imbalance in what's been given to legions isn't just me. The writer(s) seem to have an erotic attraction for Dark Angels and Fists, the former who get like, 6 rites of war, most decent or broken (the destroyer one) and the latter who get awesome units, then multiple synergistic buffs - +1 to hit with autoweapons, then magically this edition get assault cannons, and then who get to be line troops with their new consul. 

 

Legions like Thousand sons pay a 100pt tax on 5 cataphractii with slightly better power weapons and mostly useless/100% situational legion trait, Alphas had one rite neutered to be the most useless in the game, and another OK one, and pay a 75pt unit tax and 5ppm weapons tax to make their unique terminators Line. 5 standard catas with fists are 225. 5 lerneans with fists are 325. 

 

 

[Noserenda]

The Militia list is the first real hope ive had in a long while for the system honestly, it certainly feels like they actually tried to make them good/interesting. A lot of the rest of the edition is hamstrung by a weird mix of appealing to nostalgia over sense on rules and absolutely punishing you for taking certain armies/legions/units in army building. That and SG's seeming disinterest in fixing even the glaring problems hardly encourages the fresh investment needed to work around those.

 

[Bung]

3 hours ago, Xenith said:

I'm enjoying it a lot more than I am 9th ed 40k, which I guess is a low bar. My 2.0 games are more fun than the 9th ed ones, though usually either draws or runaway victories of like 6-0 or something. 

 

It feels like being bitter, but the imbalance in what's been given to legions isn't just me. The writer(s) seem to have an erotic attraction for Dark Angels and Fists, the former who get like, 6 rites of war, most decent or broken (the destroyer one) and the latter who get awesome units, then multiple synergistic buffs - +1 to hit with autoweapons, then magically this edition get assault cannons, and then who get to be line troops with their new consul. 

 

Legions like Thousand sons pay a 100pt tax on 5 cataphractii with slightly better power weapons and mostly useless/100% situational legion trait, Alphas had one rite neutered to be the most useless in the game, and another OK one, and pay a 75pt unit tax and 5ppm weapons tax to make their unique terminators Line. 5 standard catas with fists are 225. 5 lerneans with fists are 325. 

 

 

 

You know IF and BA already had Assault Cannons in the first Edition of rules and IF just got the same amount of access like BA which got their full rules years after IF.

 

[Xenith]

Oh right, I thought fists only got the assault cannon on terms, not the ability to swap any HFlamer for one - still, they benefit a lot more from it than BA! 

[Cruor Vault]

This edition is a mess...  sloppy writing everywhere.  Arbitrary points across the map and clear indications of 2-3 distinctly different groups authoring rules without any evidence of crossover editing between them.  The Legacy PDF is a joke...

 

The comical imbalance in the rules set has resulted in an awfully frustrating line dividing the players at my store between the guys who want to play something approaching casual, and those who don't want to feel penalized by bringing thematically fun, but mechanically unsound units.

 

As someone who plays Ultramarines I'm increasingly frustrated by how BORING my legion is.  I've had to stop bringing ANY of my legion specific units because they are so much more efficient than everyone elses...  But where other Legions have awesome and thematic RoW/Legion traits/Characters/Wargear to make their army thematic...  I have...  +1 to hit...  In an edition where every single shooting unit worth taking has easy access to BS5.  I would kill for something like the Word Bearers Corruption mechanics, or even a second RoW.

[NemoVonUtopia]

I really like most of the new special rules and that they can have variable trigger values.

 

I like the change to WS since higher values have more impact.

 

I like that dreadnoughts are useable, last edition they would get exploded or crippled in the first two turns.

 

I have been having a lot more fun this edition. I hope there will be more FAQ and updates but not as many as 40k and AoS have had.

[Petitioner's City]

The thing Ive loved the most is the community creations to accompany the game; honestly it's so enthusiastic and I keep hoping FW take on those guys and gals as freelancers! Bring back the Citadel Journal and Fanatic! (and great to see things like Malmo adapt the Panoptica into their events).

 

However, issues like the legacy docs really frustrate me, and I hope the Imperialis Militia and Bound Daemon docs (despite some of their flaws) signify a very different approach going forward. The militia list is something which is narrative to the nth degree, which I adore - although i accept it isn't the strongest consequently. Similarly, the issues with Core things - be it op units or underperforming things like Arquitors, Lightnings, etc, which just seem to be awful, just don't work, just die. 

 

But while the rules are erratic, I'm in a bind - I've long loved FW's erratic rules - Munda is also a mess, but utterly creative (It's also had weird release issues and weird pdf/WD integration with published rules in 2017-19, before really coalescing into a more solid core in 2019 with various Book of supplements to the main rulebook and Gangs. It's still a mess, and full of typos and mistakes and clashes and fuzziness and frustrations - it's a true "narrative" game, though) I'm hoping that Heresy can move more in that direction of a stable core leading to eccentric tangents - but significantly tangents that have less of the typos, mis-interactions and throw-away additions that have both enhanced and afflicted Munda. However Munda is a game intended for arbitration, for groups to edit and modify. That's harder with heresy as a global community, even with events like Malmo using Panoptica.

 

I was disappointed we didn't have any heresy narrative in the last year - I was rereading James Hewitt's AMA and he mentioned how AH did the lore for AT (with later content by Barnes, and others). I'm really excited to see the return of narrative books which build on SG's substantial expertise (from middlehammer, FW and FFG) in this area. But i wish it had come sooner.

 

I also don't like the "mathshammer"-ifiication of the heresy. It's kind of encapsulated in the output of sites like Goonhammer - it hones in on what is "trash" versus what is best, but has these nice concessions to '"for lols" too (but don't take them!)' style writing (a bit different from the more lolz-y list articles on 1d4chan, for example). But it doesnt even take advanced mathshammer to determine what is just the best to bring - there are such clear winners, the rest of the options just pale so very much. 

 

And reactions. I like, but don't like. I hate how units can make multiple shooting reactions in a turn - or rather can shoot multiple times through reactions including the benighted interceptor. I just wish reactions were toned down - limited by the points level played, and units limited to one reaction a turn, irrespective of wargear. I just hate the ill impact these have on the game atm, but love them when they are over-tuned. 

 

Another thing - I loved how much bespoke wargear and options were added in the new rules - more to learn, but also creating more legion cultures. I wish there were more similar options in the Auxilia and Militia lists. I also wish the Solar Auxilia have a refresh, pretty please!

 

Sorry, bit of a ramble, but there's so much in this game.

 

 

[Gorgoff]

11 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

The thing Ive loved the most is the community creations to accompany the game; honestly it's so enthusiastic and I keep hoping FW take on those guys and gals as freelancers! Bring back the Citadel Journal and Fanatic! (and great to see things like Malmo adapt the Panoptica into their events).

 

However, issues like the legacy docs really frustrate me, and I hope the Imperialis Militia and Bound Daemon docs (despite some of their flaws) signify a very different approach going forward. The militia list is something which is narrative to the nth degree, which I adore - although i accept it isn't the strongest consequently. Similarly, the issues with Core things - be it op units or underperforming things like Arquitors, Lightnings, etc, which just seem to be awful, just don't work, just die. 

 

But while the rules are erratic, I'm in a bind - I've long loved FW's erratic rules - Munda is also a mess, but utterly creative (It's also had weird release issues and weird pdf/WD integration with published rules in 2017-19, before really coalescing into a more solid core in 2019 with various Book of supplements to the main rulebook and Gangs. It's still a mess, and full of typos and mistakes and clashes and fuzziness and frustrations - it's a true "narrative" game, though) I'm hoping that Heresy can move more in that direction of a stable core leading to eccentric tangents - but significantly tangents that have less of the typos, mis-interactions and throw-away additions that have both enhanced and afflicted Munda. However Munda is a game intended for arbitration, for groups to edit and modify. That's harder with heresy as a global community, even with events like Malmo using Panoptica.

 

I was disappointed we didn't have any heresy narrative in the last year - I was rereading James Hewitt's AMA and he mentioned how AH did the lore for AT (with later content by Barnes, and others). I'm really excited to see the return of narrative books which build on SG's substantial expertise (from middlehammer, FW and FFG) in this area. But i wish it had come sooner.

 

I also don't like the "mathshammer"-ifiication of the heresy. It's kind of encapsulated in the output of sites like Goonhammer - it hones in on what is "trash" versus what is best, but has these nice concessions to '"for lols" too (but don't take them!)' style writing (a bit different from the more lolz-y list articles on 1d4chan, for example). But it doesnt even take advanced mathshammer to determine what is just the best to bring - there are such clear winners, the rest of the options just pale so very much. 

 

And reactions. I like, but don't like. I hate how units can make multiple shooting reactions in a turn - or rather can shoot multiple times through reactions including the benighted interceptor. I just wish reactions were toned down - limited by the points level played, and units limited to one reaction a turn, irrespective of wargear. I just hate the ill impact these have on the game atm, but love them when they are over-tuned. 

 

Another thing - I loved how much bespoke wargear and options were added in the new rules - more to learn, but also creating more legion cultures. I wish there were more similar options in the Auxilia and Militia lists. I also wish the Solar Auxilia have a refresh, pretty please!

 

Sorry, bit of a ramble, but there's so much in this game.

 

 

I agree on everything you've said. There is so much potential in the game. GW just have to realise how to use it 

[Aarik]

I haven't played at all, so my input is very limited.  But I'd like contemptors and leviathans to be toned down a little bit.  I still want them to be good, but not so good that they need to be limited by gentleman's agreement to 1 per 1000 points.  They're some of my favorite units looks-wise, have so many cool variations between GW, FW, and third parties, and they're fun to paint up and can be done more quickly "for the points" than infantry squads.  I'd love to be able to take more of them without being "cheesy."  Even though I don't play much, I like the idea of theoretically being able to eventually use what I paint up, and spending a bunch of time on something that likely won't see the table is a tough pill to swallow.

 

To those who have more play experience, is there a modest points hike that would make them more reasonable?  

[OttoVonAwesome]

Having lived through 1.0 from the very first black book I got less complaints than I should. Necromunda 2.0 as well yeah... For a new version it's going ok wouldn't mind a balance pass Faq for the broken stuff we all know is broken stuff like Stone Guantlet. Points increases for Contemptors and Scorpius Whirlwinds, etc (they don't actually bug me much cept for them being a little cheap for what they are). Weapon profile changes like toning down Guardian spears for the sake of the armies synergy is pretty needed as much as adding breaching to high strength artillery is. 

 

But anyway I knew from the get go it was gonna be slow there would be a long wait for basic stuff the assualt troops and despoilers in plastic is super dissapointing since they are pretty essential building blocks for army archetypes it's pretty baffling they weren't higher priority but then again I'm still waiting on my Orlock brute so seeing em on a roadmap makes it a little better. In terms of models I think once we hit the 2 year mark it's gonna be very very cool. We'll have 3 marks updated in plastic easy access to all the basics and a dragon's hoard of bits and bobs for conversions.

 

Looking forward to seeing what new armies are added, new campaign books and yeah errata just see how the game grows from this point on cuase it's had a really good start in comparison to alot of things. Only major complaint is there being no current plans to bring the basic troops and units of admech and solar auxilia to plastic I think that's gonna be a real problem once they add Skitarrii (all plastic already), Dark Admech (Who I assume will also be 40k and plastic) and second line Imperial army (who I assume will just be current Astra militarum) and Deamons cuase you just won't see people building armies of them as much. It's already a problem now in that no one takes artillery or heavy bolters cuase the armies they are good against aren't getting played.

 

 

[Corswain]

I love everything Heresy. I am a collector and hobbyist first and gamer distant second (prepping for my first game soon) so I am totally happy right now - We have an increased, core, plastic range. We have narrative expansions on the way. We have an exciting (for me) roadmap for the future - Everything is good in my Heresy world.

 

I don't imagine my gaming experiences will change that, either. It's just not important to me but I do understand that it's important to other people so I hope some balancing work can be completed.

 

I would also like to see more equal support shown to the Legions for missing Praetors etc. that others have mentioned.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

We need a well condensed softback rulebook, with a better disposition of things like abilities and similar. Like in 5th ed of W40K. And something similar with the Libers.

Don't make me wrong, I love hardback editions but aren't very handly if you don't play at your home.

 

For the rest...is fine for me. At least, for now.

Edited May 11, 2023 by AGRAMAR

[MegaVolt87]

I have no issue with the strength of Las HSS, volkites, scorpius due to the strength of dreadnaughts, infantry and the powerless 2.0 arty. You have to re-stich those things together, if you just pull/cut one thread, its all going to unravel. Keep in mind, we don't have realistically $$$$ priced melee infantry at the moment either, which means most haven't had a chance to play against or with a melee horde. I think the shooting is so strong, because a melee horde with dreads is probably a strong build. We see this with legion specials stacking + ROW is viable, so a generalist melee horde should be effective. Lack of melee units is forcing people into more shooting, and we know not everyone is as good at shooting. Those that are not, coincidently would be beneficiaries of access to plastic melee units at a sensible $$$ entry point. Its almost as if melee legions need melee unit options instead of the stacked shooting options available, instead of more tanks in an infantry based game- funny that. 

[Gederas]

Dunno, I've only played one match of 30k since release because no one at my FLGS focuses, or is willing to spend time building a 30k force.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Gederas

[Corswain]

4 hours ago, AGRAMAR said:

We need a well condensed softback rulebook, with a better disposition of things like abilities and similar. Like in 5th ed of W40K.

I just found that in my bookshelf yesterday!

As  mentioned, I'm not a gamer but I do think those little softbacks are a great idea. Maybe GW feels that digital covers that. I've always preferred paper, though.

[Bung]

16 hours ago, Xenith said:

Oh right, I thought fists only got the assault cannon on terms, not the ability to swap any HFlamer for one - still, they benefit a lot more from it than BA! 

 

BA have them in a Jump Pack equipped unit, which has their own benefits.

 

 

[MichaelCarmine]

2 hours ago, Bung said:

 

BA have them in a Jump Pack equipped unit, which has their own benefits.

 

 

Yeah, but i think he is reffering to the fact, that every IF Unit benefits from +1 to hit while firing an Assault Cannon... ^^

Edited May 12, 2023 by MichaelCarmine

[Mandragola]

So the game lives and is fun to play. These are good things but also the baseline for what we should expect.

 

The rules are just a mess though. I'm finding that it takes real time to resolve the attacks from units. I've got a unit of seekers with preferred enemy and a combi-disintegrator and when they fire it takes minutes to resolve all the different piles of wounds that result. The same applies when my 10 dark furies and chaplain (with hatred, precision strikes, shred and rending) hit something - though in most cases the simpler option would be to just remove the target unit.

 

I think they badly messed up the vehicle/not vehicle rules. It was a choice to make dreadnoughts have wounds instead of AV. They then clearly found that fights between dreads lasted all day long, so introduced the dreadful Brutal rule to compensate. The effect of that is that terminators, which used to dominate dreads in 1.0, are now prey to them. With no natural predators and much more dangerous weapons (between brutal fists and gravis guns), dreadnoughts rule 2.0 battlefields.

 

On the other hand vehicles suffer because they can only make reactions with weak guns, unlike everything else. So a vehicle can't fire at a lascannon squad/dread because it'll die, but they don't fear shooting at it. Again this is particularly problematic with dreadnoughts, as they're largely immune to weapons classed as defensive.

 

I'm pretty happy with the RG army I've made over the last year or so. I had some plans to expand the army or make others but I don't think I will. Hopefully 10th will be good.