Wh40k 10th Edition Horus Heresy Units In 10th Edition

[phandaal]

Just now, Captain Idaho said:

 

In what post? The HH one?

 

Correct. I took a screen cap on my phone but not sure how to load it, and not sure how to link a Facebook comment. Just scroll down a bit and you will see someone asking about Relic Terminators.

[Magos Takatus]

4 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

During 8th & all previous editions I was very live & let live as far as competitive players are concerned. But over the course of 9th, with all the rules churn and constant adjustments to the edition I began to resent the tournament scene more and more. I still try to be understanding of competitive view points and remember that the issue is GW giving them so much influence, but it's hard when I feel that tournaments have become a blight on the rest of the community because they have such a disproportionate effect on the rules & player attitudes.

Although I wouldn't have called it a blight as such I feel that I appreciate that rules do get updated but I think they are updated more often than GW can effectively keep pace. For example, with the hard rebalancing Adeptus Mechanicus got in 9th they made the faction difficult to play effectively and instead of working out how to rebalance the army they just reinstated the broken rules to increase their overall power level. I felt AM tanks were a bit week compared to the lists with hordes of Fast Attack Ironstriders and part of that was due to the interaction with the Core rule (or lack of). Instead of making the weak units more powerful they just made the "broken" units broken again. It felt like GW wanted to be seen to be doing something, though perhaps the had neither the ability (or time?) to fix it properly. Maybe as they knew 10th edition was going to bin the Core rule they decided it wasn't worth the effort? For the record I am glad it is going since it was largely arbitrary anyway. Space Marines tanks as far as I recall did not get Core yet Dreadnoughts did. So a handful of Space Marines in a metal can = not Core and one Space Marine in a metal can = Core? Why? Never understood it.

[Noserenda]

Its worth mentioning that the 30k excuse is paper thin here, most of those units were released for 40k first and still exist in 40k in large numbers fluffwise. Even the marine stuff saw a lot of it released as general marine kits before or side by side with Heresy rules. Its bad.

Edit

And not engaging with the "find better people" nonsense because the mods explicitly said to drop it *cough* 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Noserenda

[Captain Idaho]

It's alright I got it:

 

 

I'm pretty annoyed with this.

 

GW have basically made my army obsolete. All my Terminators, a bunch of Dreadnoughts... cheers GW.

[gaurdian31]

@Captain Idaho That really sucks, I am just loosing a couple of units, I am truly sorry that you are basically loosing your whole army.

[MagicHat]

"We didn't want rare 30K heresy models to flood the tables of 40K, so we put the ones invented for 40K into legends."

 

"Space Marines are spoiled for choice, so DG, TS, WE and AdMech needs to become collateral damage."

 

I can accept the rationale that there is just so much to balance and throwing another 30 ish dataslates for CSM and SM can be a bit much. But at least let chaos have their drop pods and deamon engines, the god specific legions have barely anything at all!

 

 

I am not angry about the Secutarii, just disappointed. Being a non-integrated, non-balanced and forgotten unit was pretty much their existence from the get-go. I never bought the Terrax, and probably wont at this rate.

 

Weird how I still think the basic rules look better then 7th-9th, but what they do with the rules keeps letting me down.

 

At least Cerastus Knight integration is looking good, and I am happy for the custodes players. 

Now gives us a lancer with a battle cannon GW! 

 

[Closet Skeleton]

5 hours ago, Irate Khornate said:

The loss of the Forgeworld Daemon Engines definitely hurts chaos marines of all flavors as a whole.

 

In a way I could understand the removal of 30k prominent units. They're millennia old and actively competing with the 40k range money wise. But I'm definitely not happy about it. World Eaters for 40k have a very small range that I'm not particularly interested in. Guess I'll stick with 30k with them and use bugs this edition.

 

Forgeworld Daemon Engines haven't been mentioned at all.

 

Daemon Engines have never been Horus Heresy units. The article said nothing about FW units in general.

 

FW units weren't updated more than once per edition in 8th or 9th. Them becoming legends is basically no change at all.

[lansalt]

4 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

still exist in 40k in large numbers fluffwise

Not really. Ironically the 30k stuff is very rare within the main 40k chapters due to attrition, and mostly used by those which are notorious for hoarding it like the Minotaurs.

Chaos marines are another story, of course.

[BrainFireBob]

Problem is, with modern ideas about not blaming, finger pointing, etc.- businesses that screw up can't reverse themselves. They can put people on leave, launch new initiatives, etc.- everything but say "Timmy made a bad call, he's fired and we reversed it." 

 

This is sufficiently stupid I hope they have massive blowback. Releasing these kits in plastic and then going "yoink!" Reminds me of the days they argued that Specialist Games, instead of being entry points, were cannibilizing 40K/Fantasy sales, so they opened the door for Mantic, Armada, etc. and yelled "Take the money, we don't want it!"

[WAR]

=][= This is everyone's second warning....Play Nice, be Respectful and we won't have to shut down or lock thread. =][=

[Kallas]

3 minutes ago, MagicHat said:

Weird how I still think the basic rules look better then 7th-9th, but what they do with the rules keeps letting me down.

Agreed, this is pretty much my feeling too. Each preview is making me feel more and more "Eh..." about 10e, even though the overall feel of the edition seems to be better put together. Just...the decisions they keep making feel 'off' to me, and I can't quite put my finger on it - first few previews I was excited, middle few I was optimistic but concerned, and the latest ones have made me less eager.

[bigtrouble]

I think this indicates that they are not only looking to reduce the game design complexity, but that it heralds reduced production of resin cast models. A lack of rules support to match the changes in their business.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

4 hours ago, redmapa said:

 

If today people playing use the same rule set as a tournament then what mode of game do you think people will use in the future? It's the one closest to a tournament setting because that's the "fairest" rule set for all involved, if GW has decided to split matched from competitive then people will simply drop matched play rules and use the competitive rules just like they are doing now. You and GW keep using matched play as if it means the same as it does now, we are all playing Grand Tournament pack Arks of Omen, right? Well then we'll keep playing the tournament rules of 10th as if those are the baseline rules because in practice they are and 10th Ed matched play will just gather dust in a corner like open play does now.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as "rules" are concerned, isn't "tournament play" just a competitive mindset? Tournaments still use matched play rules, so what we are asking people is to build their list with competition and tournaments in mind. This is again, why I wish GW would come out and say "this is when you would use tournament play rules," so people understand it isn't standard 40k. People fall into the trap of thinking it is because 90% of list talk (and thus advice) on the internet (where the majority of us go to discuss matters of our hobby), devolves into some form of competitive relation. Whether that something as simple as telling an OP that his choice of units aren't competitive enough, or the OP is getting feedback on what they should change or order to be more competitive. You can't get away from the mindset at this point, it is so ingrained in the community. 

Since when have competitive/tournament lists ever been about what is fair? The mindset seems to drive every narrative/fluff gamer I've seen on forums, FB groups, and reddit crazy because it is usually about min/maxing, spam, meta-chasing, and taking whatever advantage one can take in order to gain the upper hand over their opponent. And yet some of you on this forum are trying to get myself and others to believe that is more fair than allowing your opponent to use a unit or even some units that are in legends. Nah, I'm not having it, that is a crock of  and you all know it. If you don't know it, then you should know it. It's a completely disingenuous argument for all of you trying to convince me or anyone else that the tournament/competition mindest/approach to this game is somehow fair and balanced and builds a conducive environment for the casual gamer. 

Now, none of these have anything to do with the argument I tried to make and what I wanted to discuss, but for years there were plenty of people in the community who refused to even recognize FW as part of GW and would not allow people to use units from imperial armor.. some of that stuck around for the indexes in 8th edition but I think the prevailing argument died off as FW became more and more present. How is the change to resign FW models to legends any different from what they used to be under IA? I'll name a huge difference, GW has decided to recognize they are officially part of the game and are allowable in matched play games. Obviously they wanted a change for tournaments/competition and who knows what that reason was. But don't act like people must backhanded deals to play with their models because they aren't part of the game when they have been officially recognized. 

All that being said, I don't hate the competitive side of the community, at all.. However, they should not be dictating as much as they do for things like this very topic. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire
spelling/grammer

[alfred_the_great]

1 hour ago, redmapa said:

 

 

God damn GW and their stupid solutions, no one asked for this.

They did actually - the complaints about bloat and multiple rule books etc in this very forum are testament to that. 
 

but it is one of those irregular verbs: I have a rich and varied rule set, you have too many rules to learn, GW is bloated. 

[WatchCaptainNavar]

I think the thread has already stated most of my sentiments on this issue, it just feels like a dirty bait and switch. Being old fashioned I emailed negative feedback to gw customer service as they’ve spent the last 12 months pushing the compatibility of the new Horus heresy plastics with 40k, looking at the old Warhammer community articles it was especially bad on the Kratos as it’s 40k rules had a download link prominently in the middle of the article.

 

I haven’t been hit as bad as some, but I now have 2 contemptors and leviathans as well as a Kratos that are apparently now legends and as already pointed out they’ll gradually fade away as future balance patches reinforce any rules or points deficiency’s they have in legends. 
 

I don’t agree with the fluff reasoning as this ‘insert vehicle / unit’ is rare as they often hand wave the introduction or reintroduction of units onto the tabletop and the contemptors seem to feature quite heavily in recent books where marines have needed or run into a dread.

 

on the competitive side, I don’t think it’s a casual vs competitive situation. I help organise my local club and your options are tempest or the current tournament book as that’s what everyone gravitates to with 40k no one plays the older books or core rule book missions and everyone’s all comers lists are built to the arks of omen force organisation chart. We always try to pair people up by skill level or game intention and when people play regularly you see the evolution of lists as underperforming units get dropped and people sharpen their understanding of the game and army. You might run a theme game where the scenario encourages a thematic or fluffy list. But if it’s a pick up game in late 9th many marine factions have relied on a volkite contemptor for mortal wounds output or for chaos the plastic heresy kits feel like one of the few ways to keep up with the loyalists when they have no equivalent to all the primaris releases such as the gladiator reaper.

 

for now though it’s back to the drawing board on 10th ideas for my iron warriors as my leviathan was my favourite model as an army centrepiece and I was planning on buying the new plastic vindicator laser destroyer tomorrow.

[Orange Knight]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

The "Tournament rules at all costs" brain rot is present in everything now a days.  It's like people forget you're playing with plastic toys.

 

I actually agree with this.

 

I happen to participate in tournaments and I'm looking forward to making my return to the scene in 10th edition, but there is a significant and real negative impact on the game.

 

I actually had more fun when the game was less balanced, but was a more enjoyable beer and pretzel experience. 

 

The biggest casualty of the focus on the American tournament scene is the mission design, followed by the verbiage in the rules of the game.

 

The game will always return to a bad state because they have 20+ factions but missions that demand the same thing from every army. 

The language used in said mission and unit rules has gone from thematic and enjoyable to read (although more open to misunderstanding), to a monotone legal blurb that belongs in a financial agreement.

 

Gone are the days of fun, asymmetric missions, thematic objectives and a game you could play without ever having to check the Internet for an update. Instead we have a game more focused on predictable and measured outcomes, that can be decided in the list building stage more often than not.

 

And now, the latest victims of GW's direction of choice are the various Forgeworld units. Some of these came before the Horus Heresy game, such as the Spartan. They really couldn't include it in the new codex but insist on having 5 datasheets for Gladiator and Predator variants? OK.

 

It's not a common occurance for me to be so negative about a given topic - I just think GW have missed a trick, and have ultimately failed to please anyone with this particular decision.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Orange Knight

[phandaal]

This will continue to fall on deaf ears.

 

However, it is less "tournament rules at all costs" and more "fair and balanced baseline ruleset." People want a baseline for their interactions, and in 40k the GT pack is it. Yes, you can negotiate your way to other kinds of games, and the further you get from that baseline, the less likely you are to actually play that game.

[lansalt]

6 minutes ago, WatchCaptainNavar said:

for now though it’s back to the drawing board on 10th ideas for my iron warriors as my leviathan was my favourite model as an army centrepiece and I was planning on buying the new plastic vindicator laser destroyer tomorrow.

I wonder if GW could re-release some of the current CSM kits using the new HH ones. Like the plastic Deimos Predator with all its options plus the CSM sprue as a new 10ed Chaos Predator. It would be a way to give back CSM some of the firepower they've lost with this change.

[Rhavien]

7 minutes ago, WatchCaptainNavar said:

I think the thread has already stated most of my sentiments on this issue, it just feels like a dirty bait and switch. Being old fashioned I emailed negative feedback to gw customer service as they’ve spent the last 12 months pushing the compatibility of the new Horus heresy plastics with 40k, looking at the old Warhammer community articles it was especially bad on the Kratos as it’s 40k rules had a download link prominently in the middle of the article.

 

I haven’t been hit as bad as some, but I now have 2 contemptors and leviathans as well as a Kratos that are apparently now legends and as already pointed out they’ll gradually fade away as future balance patches reinforce any rules or points deficiency’s they have in legends. 
 

I don’t agree with the fluff reasoning as this ‘insert vehicle / unit’ is rare as they often hand wave the introduction or reintroduction of units onto the tabletop and the contemptors seem to feature quite heavily in recent books where marines have needed or run into a dread.

 

on the competitive side, I don’t think it’s a casual vs competitive situation. I help organise my local club and your options are tempest or the current tournament book as that’s what everyone gravitates to with 40k no one plays the older books or core rule book missions and everyone’s all comers lists are built to the arks of omen force organisation chart. We always try to pair people up by skill level or game intention and when people play regularly you see the evolution of lists as underperforming units get dropped and people sharpen their understanding of the game and army. You might run a theme game where the scenario encourages a thematic or fluffy list. But if it’s a pick up game in late 9th many marine factions have relied on a volkite contemptor for mortal wounds output or for chaos the plastic heresy kits feel like one of the few ways to keep up with the loyalists when they have no equivalent to all the primaris releases such as the gladiator reaper.

 

for now though it’s back to the drawing board on 10th ideas for my iron warriors as my leviathan was my favourite model as an army centrepiece and I was planning on buying the new plastic vindicator laser destroyer tomorrow.

Exactly this. The consequence I take from this personally is never ever again buying something from Forgeworld or labeled as HH. Why should I? For me it's less the question if I'm willing to play with models without up2date rules, but what comes next. Are they totally phased out in 11th? Who can tell... 

[DemonGSides]

2 minutes ago, phandaal said:

This will continue to fall on deaf ears.

 

However, it is less "tournament rules at all costs" and more "fair and balanced baseline ruleset." People want a baseline for their interactions, and in 40k the GT pack is it. Yes, you can negotiate your way to other kinds of games, and the further you get from that baseline, the less likely you are to actually play that game.

 

What?  The baseline for your interactions is the game as it is published.

Anything else is people negotiating.

[Rain]

@Bloody Legionnaire For the love of Khorne, man. None of the posters disagreeing with you are against taking FW units, or letting our opponents take FW units. We are not ourselves competitive WAAC players. We probably all have and love our FW 40k units. I have a fully resin WE Contemptor that did not come cheap to buy, and I put hours upon hours of my limited full-time-job-with-a-wife-and-kid time into painting. I myself would not begrudge an opponent taking a Spartan, or whacky FW Eldar flyer, or whatever else that they bought, built and painted, just because it's Legends, but that's not the point.

 

The point is that not every person that you run across at a GS is me, or you, or the other lovely people in this thread. Many of them are leery of Legends units, and when you don't have a regular group, and need to squeeze in random games and events as you can with essentially strangers, you cannot count on them being understanding. It's not even necessarily because they are WAAC tourney-heads either. Might just be because they want to "keep things simple" and they know that Legends is a morass of abandonware that can be difficult to integrate into the game. Might be because as they don't know you either, they are leery of your motives in trying to use what they see as less-than-official rules. Again, I would be okay with my opponent using Legends units, hell, I'd rather play against some of the great looking Legends models than some of the more modern abominations that GW have squeezed and pinched off in the last few years, but I can't play against myself, and neither can the other posters in this thread.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Rain

[SvenIronhand]

Unfortunate. I got a HH Vindicator for my birthday, and intended to build it as a Laser Destroyer. Ah, well.

[Toxichobbit]

6 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

 

Gone are the days of fun, asymmetric missions, thematic objectives and a game you could play without ever having to check the Internet for an update.

 

 

It does still exist somewhat, it's just all in Crusade now. In 9th the most memorable game I had was one of those missions. I can't remember the exact details, but I know the asymmetric nature meant both myself and my opponent ended up moving down opposite sides of the board from each other, skirmishing a bit, but not properly engaging until the very end (and even then, only with a small part of our force). It sounds like a really boring game, but honestly, it was so much fun. Not only was it cagey and pretty tense in a Wild West showdown kind of way, but it also lead to some amusing story telling. Like my Necron Lord - Arseholeotep "bravely" leading the "advance", in the opposite direction to the enemy and straight off the board (got VPs for units escaping through the enemy lines) - while his long-suffering Royal Warden formed a rear guard and did all the actual fighting.

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

What?  The baseline for your interactions is the game as it is published.

Anything else is people negotiating.

 

No, the baseline is what the majority of people decide it is, and what people decided long ago is that it is the GT pack. Hitting the respectful denial button does not change this, because it is not an opinion.

 

That said, "what?" Right after my comment about falling on deaf ears.  Thank you, sir.

[BrainFireBob]

59 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as "rules" are concerned, isn't "tournament play" just a competitive mindset? Tournaments still use matched play rules, so what we are asking people is to build their list with competition and tournaments in mind. This is again, why I wish GW would come out and say "this is when you would use tournament play rules," so people understand it isn't standard 40k. People fall into the trap of thinking it is because 90% of list talk (and thus advice) on the internet (where the majority of us go to discuss matters of our hobby), devolves into some form of competitive relation. Whether that something as simple as telling an OP that his choice of units aren't competitive enough, or the OP is getting feedback on what they should change or order to be more competitive. You can't get away from the mindset at this point, it is so ingrained in the community. 

Since when have competitive/tournament lists ever been about what is fair? The mindset seems to drive every narrative/fluff gamer I've seen on forums, FB groups, and reddit crazy because it is usually about min/maxing, spam, meta-chasing, and taking whatever advantage one can take in order to gain the upper hand over their opponent. And yet some of you on this forum are trying to get myself and others to believe that is more fair than allowing your opponent to use a unit or even some units that are in legends. Nah, I'm not having it, that is a crock of  and you all know it. If you don't know it, then you should know it. It's a completely disingenuous argument for all of you trying to convince me or anyone else that the tournament/competition mindest/approach to this game is somehow fair and balanced and builds a conducive environment for the casual gamer. 

Now, none of these have anything to do with the argument I trade to make and what I wanted to discuss, but for years there were plenty of people in the community who refused to even recognize FW as part of GW and would not allow people to use units from imperial armor.. some of that stuck around for the indexes in 8th edition but I think the prevailing argument died off as FW became more and more present. How is the change to resign FW models to legends any different from what they used to be under IA? I'll name a huge difference, GW has decided to recognize they are officially part of the game and are allowable in matched play games. Obviously they wanted a change for tournaments/competition and who knows what that reason was. But don't act like people must back backhanded deals to play with their models because they aren't part of the game when they have been officially recognized. 

All that being said, I don't hate the competitive side of the community, at all.. However, they should not be dictating as much as they do for things like this very topic. 

You are missing two elements.

 

40k is a hobby with high cost of entry that takes large chunks of time to play. 

 

If a list is tournament legal, it is legal in all game formats. This is not true of any other format. 

 

GW would prefer, by inference, us all to have large developed sideboards and constantly evolving lists.

 

Players generally want to *play,* which means wasting the least amount of time and money. That means a *planned* list that a players buys, assembles, and paints, to maximize playtime before the next game shakeup (which can make lists illegal). You can always play people- events, pickup games, etc.- with a tournament legal list. 

 

Yes, WAAC players will meta chase, but they're not the problem here. The problem is most people can play, events aside, 1-2 games a week? And they now change the rules (including points costs) every 3 months, so 12 weeks? It is *not worth* including maybe, maybe-not useable units as part of a planned list. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by BrainFireBob