Wh40k 10th Edition Horus Heresy Units In 10th Edition

[WatchCaptainNavar]

2 hours ago, madlibrarian said:

Remember guys, make sure you email your thoughts to GW customer service email address. That’s the way this’ll change.

I got a response from them to my email from yesterday, it was just the same boiler plate response they’re using on Twitter and Facebook of these models are still perfectly usable on the table top outside of GW events. But hopefully the number of disgruntled complaints they’re getting will do something behind the scenes.

[Mandragola]

I play a lot of 30k at the moment but used to do loads of competitive 40K. The index rules for FW stuff were always a complete train wreck. 
 

So my (probably unpopular) opinion is that this is the right choice for competitive 40K, actually for the reasons GW gives. They aren’t able to balance these units so it’s best they aren’t in there. 
 

The problem is that competitive 40K casts a weird shadow over the rest of the game. the tournament format becomes the standard format for matched play. And this makes a bit of sense for lots of people, as it’s the one that keeps being updated. 
 

GW doesn’t intend to stop you using your leviathans and Contemptors in 40K. They’re giving you rules to do so. But if everyone plays tournament format by default then you won’t be able to. And people won’t want to buy models they can only use some of the time. 
 

I’m not particularly affected by this myself to be honest.  My 30k army is totally distinct from my 40K ones. I expect that’s probably the case for most people. The aesthetics are pretty different too so I don’t personally like to put the models together. 

[Xenith]

All of this is assuming GW will continue to push GT books as the best and only way to play in 10th as they did in 9th.

 

If they choose not to do this, then it doesn't matter. 

[Closet Skeleton]

12 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah no I get that, but that's LITERALLY the crux of this whole argument; Tournament rules blow, because if you aren't WAAC at a tournament, why are you bothering and if you're WAAC at a casual pick-up game, why are you the worst type of person?  This is the problem with codifying tournament playstyle as the "main" playstyle, which GW doesn't do enough to combat against and is what Phaandaal et al are trying to push.
 

 

 

This is just nonsense and shows you've never been to a tournament. At a thirty person event you have tiny odds of being in the top 3 so if winning was the only reason to attend almost no one would bother. Its only small invertationals where everyone is at a high skill level where winning is the actual goal of showing up.

 

40k has just too many options that its literally impossible to make a 'casual' list that doesn't have the potential for being a highly unfun hard counter to another 'casual' list. I've obliterated tons of people in pick up games with lists that can't do better than 2/5 in a tournament and were never designed to be powerful.

[Marshal Rohr]

9 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I actually wanted to buy a 2nd, plastic Leviathan. Which I won't now.

 

I have a plastic 2nd Contemptor in a box ready to go... but I don't want to waste my time on it and might look to sell it.

 

Then there's the new Knights. They're still a sure thing as are Custodes? Well until they're not in a few years eh GW?

 

GW has basically torn away a lot of trust they built up since 8th in one fell swoop. I don't think they did it on purpose, more just incompetently not understanding what the community uses to play the game as a baseline and what is a slow death (i.e. Legends).

 

In short, who is going to invest money, time and effort into anything not in the main Codex books for 40K? That big new Knight? What if you ditch it like you did everything else in the next few years?

How do you still not have a HH army after all these years!? Surely ten years is enough time to come around to it!

[OttoVonAwesome]

7 hours ago, Gederas said:

Missed this one in my post:

 

So the issue is this. Someone at my FLGS posted a comment on in response to me saying the Legends rules are still legal for games, and sums up one of the MAJOR issues with the mindset of "Comp play = only way to play", with these words:

"If they are not tournament legal, they are not matched play legal."

 

That right there is the crux of the issue, no? People think this, and apparently it's a common sentiment, which is where this whole debate and argument stems from.

Matched and tournament are one and the same. GW pretending they don't already know this is just an attempt to gaslight the playerbase. 30k Legacy units don't have the limitations that 40k Legends do and it's obviously for a reason that they don't want to admit beacuase it will make them look like clowns. There's no logical reason they are seperating the units the way they are other than something that makes no sense to anyone but a corporate bean counter. We already suffered what's in the box is what you get and had a ton of stuff taken away from that and now we 2 pages in 2 pages out and datasheet space limitations utterly destroying any kind of flavor. Now they are trying to tell us balancing is too much work when the community is collecting all the data for them in a nice neat pile. The reality is they don't think much of 40k players. To them 40k players are all babies and morons and they are too big to fail and we'll just eat whatever :cuss: they spoon feed us.

 

Take whatever stance you want on the issue but the reality doesn't change GW wants 40k to be for the lowest common denominator. They grew up on the same rpg's we did and none of us struggled to play D@D or Battletech or Shadowrun or any other game that we were interested in as kids and the people who bitch about rules bloat and theoretical barriers to entry other than the goddamn cost of miniatures have only validated the dumb ass decisions that have created the :cuss:ty situation we are in now in regards to the dumbing down of the game we all love. This game and every other game will never be balanced and the sooner people realize this a a game and not a sport we can get back to what makes these games great and it isn't competition and tournaments it's taking the minis you bought with your blood sweat and tears and painting them playing with them on the tabletop with what little time you can spare before you have to go back to reality and the least GW can do is provide the rules we need for the minis we bought however imperfect they might be with no limitations.

[Nova-V]

58 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

This new Knight Cerastus might sell a lot worse than they think, as might these Titans in the faction focus. 

 

People won't want to risk buying expensive models they can no longer use in most of their games.

Except it's a totally different situation with Knights (and as the article points out Custodes).  The issue they are having is the SM range cannot support two ranges, the 40K range and the 30K range, and as such to keep competitive play fair they are splitting out the 30K models.  Knights we cannot say are a big range and adding the various Cerastus Knights will be a boost not a detriment to the factions options.  If they split the Knights range in the same way 30K players loose access to Armigers, Questoris and Dominus as these were 40K releases.  A split range for Knights is not sustainable, hence why in the article they are explicitly called out as an exception.

 

Titans however I'm inclined to agree with you.  They have always had patchy support from a gameplay point of view and really are modelling projects more then anything.  Even the Titan owners club play with AT rules not 40K.  Them being Indexed seems highly likely.

[Doctor Perils]

11 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Does anyone else find this ironic:

 

 

Chaos Kratos coming, straight into Legends.

 

The way GW are shouting about this as if it's a great success to crow about, I get the impression they genuinely have no idea what people think of Legends until now. They're in a bubble and I suppose don't do community feedback for fear of leaks etc, so this has come as a surprise to them.

 

Their Facebook is overwhelmed on it.

Well, I for one am extatic about it - the Kratos has been about for a year without any rules for Chaos players, and many of the other heresy gear has been available to loyalists in their own codex while chaos have had to make do with inferior versions kept in another expensive Imperial Armour book which is updated about as often as the Legends stuff

 

But apparently people trying to provide solutions or positive opinions aren't allowed to do so in this thread, only the same handful of people bemoaning the change for the last... 10 pages. Apparently solutions such as "talk to your playing buddies before a game" aren't acceptable in a polite society any more and are considered "dismissive"

 

For those bringing up pick up games - I'd frankly be surprised if Combat Patrols didn't become the norm, as long as GW sticks to the promise that they were vigorously playtested and balanced

[Captain Idaho]

27 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

How do you still not have a HH army after all these years!? Surely ten years is enough time to come around to it!

 

I technically do have a HH army, as my boys are MK4. I built for both essentially.

 

But all my local opponents are 40K players so I had to adjust my army with additional units. Hence the Centurions etc.

 

Just takes the wind out your sails on other stuff you know. I can't use it in 30K unless I travel and book events, I work a lot of hours... just tough going outside 40K.

[sarabando]

Tbh separating the games is good. If they are too close/similar then some bean counter/suit will one day simply ask why they have two games and heresy would get the axe. I'd rather have two separate games completely.  You can have primaris 40k and we can have heresy normal marines 

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 minute ago, sarabando said:

Tbh separating the games is good. If they are too close/similar then some bean counter/suit will one day simply ask why they have two games and heresy would get the axe. I'd rather have two separate games completely.  You can have primaris 40k and we can have heresy normal marines 

That's very dismissive Brother. You certainly are entitled to hold a different opinion to many here, it seems that playing the better game (HH) creates a different and interesting perspective.

But to ignore the massive negative impact of this is an example of the same problem the Primaris-OG divide. 

 

There are a crap-tonne of players who can only play 40k on their areas, and who have groups that only ever play matched play even out of comps, and have older styled armies.

 

Relics make 40k armies even cooler, 40k is all about ancestors veneration and ancient tech worship; these toys need to stay in all aspects the game.

And a simple nod from GW in a Compendium that is updated once per cycle would do it. 

[Captain Idaho]

30 minutes ago, Doctor Perils said:

But apparently people trying to provide solutions or positive opinions aren't allowed to do so in this thread, only the same handful of people bemoaning the change for the last... 10 pages. Apparently solutions such as "talk to your playing buddies before a game" aren't acceptable in a polite society any more and are considered "dismissive"

 

 

The post in question was removed because it responded to a series of thoroughly explained circumstances belonging to other players with merely "get better friends." This was considered not constructive and indeed is dismissive in tone and context.

 

What's more, people with opposing viewpoints have been posting without interruption, including your own but also Frater who have been heavily involved with the discussion throughout, so it is inaccurate to say anyone has had their opinions stifled here.

 

If you have issues with the conduct of the thread or its moderation, please contact an Admin or raise a report on what you might consider a breach in the rules so it can be reviewed by the team.

 

Thank you.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Kastor Krieg]

It's not so much about tournaments, matched play, comp, WAAC.

It's a game and it follows playground rules. The Game Masters at GW have put some units on the "icky list". 

People don't want to play against the "icky list units". No matter why they got put there or if "they're ok for Matched, just not our Grand Tournaments". They're on the icky list and they will be shunned, because this is a kids game and people are kids at heart.

 

You don't brand a unit with social stigma of rejection like that and then expect it not to be shunned or people not to be dismayed that their favourite toy is now on the :cuss: list.

[TrawlingCleaner]

6 minutes ago, sarabando said:

Tbh separating the games is good. If they are too close/similar then some bean counter/suit will one day simply ask why they have two games and heresy would get the axe. I'd rather have two separate games completely.  You can have primaris 40k and we can have heresy normal marines 

 

I think it's a bit of triple whammy for the most part (based purely off conjecture):

• As you mentioned, it's a further seperation of games. It's been mentioned in a few places but HH is now it's own thing internally within GW. From my understanding it shared designers, release schedules etc with Specialist games but also the funding/"how much money is this game making" analytics with Specialist games. This is supposedly why it was left in the dark for a while (I'm pretty sure this was talked about with someone who left the studio?).
  Purely as a comparison (this isn't to spur on non 40k discussion), this is what's happening with AoS and TOW where TOW models are slowly being pulled from AoS ranges so that they can push them as TOW exclusive sculpts and seperate the games more. Cities of Sigmar are losing Wood Elves, High Elves and some of the Earlier dwarves in their upcoming tome, assumably so that they're TOW exclusive but leaving them in Legends.

 

• Most of the HH units are incredibly similar in unit roles as other counterparts. Levis, Contemptors, Land Raider, Vindicator, Predator varients are all very similar to existing choices. Contemptors specifically but also Levis in a lot of cases basically just made things like Boxnaughts and Redemptors redundant. It doesn't really matter what rules you give them, they're just superiour choices.

 

• FW is likely to be retiring most of the Chaos kits. How old are Decimators, Scorpions and Slaughterers at this point? FW seem to be pivoting hard into Specialist games stuff, HH upgrades and titans that aren't feasible for plastic. How long should GW keep supplying codex rules for units that they don't make anymore? Legends has been a lot less cutthroat than other games like Malifaux that just axes units with season changes (not that Legends has been perfect mind).

 

[Blindhamster]

34 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

That's very dismissive Brother. You certainly are entitled to hold a different opinion to many here, it seems that playing the better game (HH) creates a different and interesting perspective.

But to ignore the massive negative impact of this is an example of the same problem the Primaris-OG divide. 

 

There are a crap-tonne of players who can only play 40k on their areas, and who have groups that only ever play matched play even out of comps, and have older styled armies.

 

Relics make 40k armies even cooler, 40k is all about ancestors veneration and ancient tech worship; these toys need to stay in all aspects the game.

And a simple nod from GW in a Compendium that is updated once per cycle would do it. 

HH really isn't the "better game", frankly it wasn't even with 1st edition of HH, which IMO was better than what we got as its replacement.

 

It's very likely true that creating stronger divide between the two games is probably going to be beneficial for the long term health and support of the games, because it makes them distinct games with very likely distinct fanbases.

 

I do agree with the sentiment that there should be a way to represent the ancient tech stuff still, thankfully there is though - legends! They DON'T need to be valid for tournaments, which is literally the only thing GW are saying they aren't valid for.

 

for reference, my laugh emote is purely at the better game comment, because it did legitimately make me laugh, I'm not laughing at the overall sentiment that the situation sucks, on that I empathise and do think they could have done things better, but I do also think legends doesn't need to have the stigma it does, it doesn't in the groups I'm part of.

 

Quote

And a simple nod from GW in a Compendium that is updated once per cycle would do it. 

That's literally what legends is. It's a compendium of datasheets that gets updated once per cycle.

 

 

Anyway, honestly I think what we will see happen as a result of this, is legends will actually start to get greater acceptance in pick up games and other non tournament games, with players wanting to use those units still. This would be a generally good thing as it might help errode the erronius opinion that legends means dead.

[Redcomet]

I am honestly surprised not more of the SM range, and others for that matter, hasn’t been rotated out of Matched play. 
 

Bad on GW for up selling them for 40k, but good for the health of the competitive scene.

 

I only play at home and/or paint however.

[Captain Idaho]

To be fair, I think the majority of players would be happy if the Legends units didn't get to be used in tournaments but still got updated in line with other changes.

 

The crux of the problem is it doesn't take long for Legends to be unusable in fair games and pick up play.

 

I think the issue of resources to update the rules is a fairly weak one, as it appears we get resources for Titans more people will avoid than Contemptors and Leviathans, for example. And other gaming companies around the world employ people to do the jobs required. GW could employ 1 extra person who's job is to keep everything updated and it would be sorted.

 

What's an extra 26K salary (which is about 35K to a business for total costs in house etc) when they're earning record profits? And the amount of good will and sales that'll generate is immense.

[sarabando]

50 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

That's very dismissive Brother. You certainly are entitled to hold a different opinion to many here, it seems that playing the better game (HH) creates a different and interesting perspective.

But to ignore the massive negative impact of this is an example of the same problem the Primaris-OG divide. 

 

There are a crap-tonne of players who can only play 40k on their areas, and who have groups that only ever play matched play even out of comps, and have older styled armies.

 

Relics make 40k armies even cooler, 40k is all about ancestors veneration and ancient tech worship; these toys need to stay in all aspects the game.

And a simple nod from GW in a Compendium that is updated once per cycle would do it. 

GW have zero responsibility to us as players and 100% responsibility to provide their shareholders with profit.

 

They can't do that if people aren't buying new minis because old minis are better. 

 

Competitive players buy meta armies they are more likely to be whales and buy whole new armies. So competitive play is given value 

 

It's pretty simple when you look at it as a pure business move .

[Matcap86]

1 minute ago, sarabando said:

GW have zero responsibility to us as players and 100% responsibility to provide their shareholders with profit.

 

They can't do that if people aren't buying new minis because old minis are better. 

 

Competitive players buy meta armies they are more likely to be whales and buy whole new armies. So competitive play is given value 

 

It's pretty simple when you look at it as a pure business move .

That logic doesn't really hold with the fact that a large part of the models that are now being relegated to legends are the newer models that just came out. Which will see a drop in sales due to less crosscompatibility

They also can't oblige their shareholders if people stop buying products because they might get invalidated/less usefull/whatever in half a years time. 

[Allart01]

5 minutes ago, sarabando said:

GW have zero responsibility to us as players and 100% responsibility to provide their shareholders with profit.

 

They can't do that if people aren't buying new minis because old minis are better. 

 

Competitive players buy meta armies they are more likely to be whales and buy whole new armies. So competitive play is given value 

 

It's pretty simple when you look at it as a pure business move .

 

This would be true if GW didn't just release a ton of HH tanks in plastic...

[Doctor Perils]

1 hour ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Relics make 40k armies even cooler, 40k is all about ancestors veneration and ancient tech worship; these toys need to stay in all aspects the game.

And a simple nod from GW in a Compendium that is updated once per cycle would do it. 

 

Yeah, a compendium updated once per cycle sounds perfect for this kind of case: and just to enforce how important these units are to the setting, they could even call this list "LEGENDS"

 

Oh wait :P

[Cleon]

I know they won't, but for me the new detachments system would be the perfect way to model different eras of the game. Want to play an 'Early second founding' detachment - cool you get access to HH vehicles and relic terminators, but not Primaris and not some of the more recent Firstborn units (No Centurions, boxnoughts can't be venerable yet etc.), but are still Codex style tactical, assault, devastator and not Legion squads. Want to play a 'Dark Millenium' (2nd war for armageddon to fall of Cadia' "Classic" Firstborn era you get all of the 'core' firstborn kit, maybe a couple of the 'classic' HH options that have been part of 40k the longest and no Primaris. Want 'Indominus Crusade' detachments, you get basic Primaris and only Veteran Firstborn units, or if you want 'Era Indominus' then it's Primaris only.  It's probably what I'll be doing for more casual play, assuming I get many games in.

[Matcap86]

5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I know they won't, but for me the new detachments system would be the perfect way to model different eras of the game. Want to play an 'Early second founding' detachment - cool you get access to HH vehicles and relic terminators, but not Primaris and not some of the more recent Firstborn units (No Centurions, boxnoughts can't be venerable yet etc.), but are still Codex style tactical, assault, devastator and not Legion squads. Want to play a 'Dark Millenium' (2nd war for armageddon to fall of Cadia' "Classic" Firstborn era you get all of the 'core' firstborn kit, maybe a couple of the 'classic' HH options that have been part of 40k the longest and no Primaris. Want 'Indominus Crusade' detachments, you get basic Primaris and only Veteran Firstborn units, or if you want 'Era Indominus' then it's Primaris only.  It's probably what I'll be doing for more casual play, assuming I get many games in.

 

This would be amazing, if unwieldy as they're already struggling with getting timelines etc right.  

[crimsondave]

20 minutes ago, Doctor Perils said:

 

Yeah, a compendium updated once per cycle sounds perfect for this kind of case: and just to enforce how important these units are to the setting, they could even call this list "LEGENDS"

 

Oh wait :P

Especially if they actually updated the list instead of dropping half of it into oblivion every “cycle.”

[Kastor Krieg]

41 minutes ago, sarabando said:

GW have zero responsibility to us as players and 100% responsibility to provide their shareholders with profit.

Because pissing the customer base off is the best way to ensure profit for the shareholders. What a WotC/Hasbro way of thinking.