Horus Heresy 2nd Ed HH design changes

[SkimaskMohawk]

I've been thinking about things during the thread locking, really about the nature of design shift in 2nd edition and how it impacted player's enjoyment of their models and armies. 

 

I mentioned it above, but solar aux were the imperial guard equivalent. No, not in the narrative sense; IG was classically the mass human resources of the imperium on display, while the solar aux were more of an specialized subset. But in everything else, they were the analog; the normal humans in 40k; the large body count of infantry that were backed up by some very heavily armoured and armed tanks; reliance on shooting over melee. People bought into either the unique look, or they bought into the imperial guard archetype. The archetype that's been the same for edition after edition after edition; that maintained the same concepts through most of the forge world off shoots, and even persevered into 8th+ edition of modern 40k. The tanks were the heroes and draws of the army, the dudes were there to support in any way they could (whether that was veteran squads/command special weapon squads in 5th, or screening the tanks in every edition, or simply to score).

 

But the designers upended the power of a lot, and tanks are artillery certainly aren't the draw of the army from a rules perspective. I'm very confused why people are being told they shouldn't be frustrated with that direction, and to basically collect a different archetype of army to play it "properly".

 

To do a quick (or not) comparison, we just got the old world released a couple of weeks ago. I've only looked through 3 or so of the bad guy armies, but guess what? The armies have kept their archetypes. They've kept the unique hooks that drew people to them in the first place. They (mostly) respected their legacy collectors by having the units function the same way they did when they bought them in 6th or 7th. The details might be different on how some things work, but I look at the tomb kings list and i think "yes, this is the continuation of the faction I started in 7th (with the 6th Ed book). I have blocks of badly statted chaf that dont run and can be healed back. I have two important characters that both improve units in unique ways. My army can't march but can still move surprisingly fast. There's a bunch of killing blow throughout the higher tier units.". Idk if the points are right, but the function is there. The tomb scorpion can deepstrike, killing blow everything with its claws, and poison attack with its tail; the same reasons I bought some when I was 13. The bonegiant can high roll a unit into the ground if you're lucky. The casket melts people's faces off. The destroyer of eternities has the coolest name ever and gives killing blow. Why would the developers go to such work to preserve the feel of the armies? Why didn't they decide to change all the weapon statlines and force armies to revamp their entire archetype as a result? Were they just not as smart as the heresy 2nd team? These are all rhetorical and facetious, btw. It's because they cared about the armies identities and the people that collected them. 

 

Also, just to touch on the whole "narratively, legions should beat up on humans super duper easily" argument. Like ya, but also, like no? Marines lose to humans all the time in the lore; they get held up, repulsed, ground down, and whatever else'd a ton in classic 40k lore. The point of the big guns to support the guard was to kill the big stuff, be that crazy bug alien, mecha suit, Arnold terminators, or space marines. There was about 1.8 million marines in the crusade; we're saying the galaxy got reconquered with only that minute amount of threat that needed marines to deal with? Everything else was worse armoured than them? No. The new narrative doesn't hold water with the actual narrative. 

 

 

 

[TrawlingCleaner]

=][= Split into its own topic as it was quite far off topic but probably worthy of discussion. Remember to keep it civil =][=

[WrathOfTheLion]

My main thought on this matter is that there is somewhat of a disconnect between the direction of the game miniature-wise and the rules. I think Anuj was likely the person that wrote a large amount of the rules before leaving for Creative Assembly. So we've got that odd disconnect where the remainder of the team is trying to put the factions out in updated plastic kits, while the rules that implement them were written by someone that's no longer there.

 

We don't know how finished the rules were at that point, or whether they had time to further refine them. But I do highly suspect shifting rules writers had a significant impact on its design, whereas ToW was likely in development for four or five years.

[Marshal Rohr]

13 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

My main thought on this matter is that there is somewhat of a disconnect between the direction of the game miniature-wise and the rules. I think Anuj was likely the person that wrote a large amount of the rules before leaving for Creative Assembly. So we've got that odd disconnect where the remainder of the team is trying to put the factions out in updated plastic kits, while the rules that implement them were written by someone that's no longer there.

 

We don't know how finished the rules were at that point, or whether they had time to further refine them. But I do highly suspect shifting rules writers had a significant impact on its design, whereas ToW was likely in development for four or five years.

TOW changed designs and objectives multiple times during the development period. Jonathan Taylor York and Rob are the Old World Rules guys. I believe Neil Wylie and Owen Barnes are the two Horus Heresy rules writers after Anuj left. I’m not sure if Neil is still there. Andy obviously still contributes to both systems. Some of the exemplary battles are straight out of his time in the 40K studio. 

Edited February 4 by Marshal Rohr

[MegaVolt87]

Considering we got a lot of tanks released vs infantry in the infantry biased HH 2.0 rules set, I think its clear something changed somewhere in development. 

[Razorblade]

I don't think this is a matter of redesigning the armies identity, I think it's a fundamental lack of understanding how the game plays.

 

I think auxilia is still very much artillery and tanks at its best, it just so happens that only the vanquisher and Laser-Rapiers are worth it.

Contrary to what people who fail to comprehend both the game and basic math claim, spamming infantry will not win any games. Auxilia infantry is worse point for point in almost every conceivable metric than even basic legion infantry. Worse, it is too slow and has too little output to force anyone to engage with it. It doesn't matter if there are 50, 100 or even 300 of them if they can be simply ignored.

 

To readdress game design: Horus Heresys fundamental issue is 2+ Saves and Static AP. In first edition this wasn't as much of an issue because most things in 2+ Armour where single wound (so volume could still hurt them) and there was a bunch of high powered guns around. Those guns however led to a Situation where the game became incredibly hostile to infantry. Add in armoured ceramite and Flare shields to make guns that where supposed to be great against tanks near useless and you have a pretty :cuss:ty game. 

The Problem is that they addressed all issues at once.(Vehicle Mounted) Big Guns where shredding infantry so they get nerfed big time. Elite Infantry is too vulnerable to random failed saves so they all get a second wound. Mass AP2 is too common so it gets downgraded to various levels of rending/breaching. Dreadnoughts were kinda odd so now they're basically  super Elite Infantry. Tanks were too tough, so armoured ceramite gets the Axe and Lascannons sunder. Individually all of these changes make sense but combined they lead to a game where tanks are generally undergunned and squishy and elite Infantry and Dreads run absolutely rampant. And that's before reactions...

Edited February 5 by Razorblade

[Marshal Rohr]

2 hours ago, Razorblade said:

I don't think this is a matter of redesigning the armies identity, I think it's a fundamental lack of understanding how the game plays.

 

I think auxilia is still very much artillery and tanks at its best, it just so happens that only the vanquisher and Laser-Rapiers are worth it.

Contrary to what people who fail to comprehend both the game and basic math claim, spamming infantry will not win any games. Auxilia infantry is worse point for point in almost every conceivable metric than even basic legion infantry. Worse, it is too slow and has too little output to force anyone to engage with it. It doesn't matter if there are 50, 100 or even 300 of them if they can be simply ignored.

 

To readdress game design: Horus Heresys fundamental issue is 2+ Saves and Static AP. In first edition this wasn't as much of an issue because most things in 2+ Armour where single wound (so volume could still hurt them) and there was a bunch of high powered guns around. Those guns however led to a Situation where the game became incredibly hostile to infantry. Add in armoured ceramite and Flare shields to make guns that where supposed to be great against tanks near useless and you have a pretty :cuss:ty game. 

The Problem is that they addressed all issues at once.(Vehicle Mounted) Big Guns where shredding infantry so they get nerfed big time. Elite Infantry is too vulnerable to random failed saves so they all get a second wound. Mass AP2 is too common so it gets downgraded to various levels of rending/breaching. Dreadnoughts were kinda odd so now they're basically  super Elite Infantry. Tanks were too tough, so armoured ceramite gets the Axe and Lascannons sunder. Individually all of these changes make sense but combined they lead to a game where tanks are generally undergunned and squishy and elite Infantry and Dreads run absolutely rampant. And that's before reactions...

You should find a new game! Sounds like this one isn’t doing it for you. 
 

Here is Andy’s interview where he specifically talks about faction asymmetry 

 

 

 

30K was redesigned to be a mass battles game in 28mm. That’s why the plastic kits are far more models per dollar than 40K. When Mech goes to plastic it will be far more affordable to put significantly more Robots on the table, just like it’s far more affordable to flood the table with plastic Dreadnaughts, legionaries, and legion tanks. The biggest design change from 1st to 2nd Edition wasn’t the rules, its was the affordability of the scale the games were meant to be played at. Solar Aux and Mech aren’t designed as resin armies where your big ticket models need to erase units, they’re now designed where you have five or six of the old unit erasers. 

Edited February 5 by Marshal Rohr

[Xenith]

2 hours ago, Razorblade said:

To readdress game design: Horus Heresys fundamental issue is 2+ Saves and Static AP.

 

I'd suggested ages ago that the modifier system would work perfectly for a game where the majority of games are power armour v power armour, to actually differentiate the weapons outside of "marines always get a save, guard never get a save".

 

Similarly, bolters, unless en-masse are largely ineffective against marines, so lasguns must be rubbish - but that's where the big tanks should come in.

 

I do feel tanks are underpowered, and should be able to reaction fire with primary weapons in the same manner dreads can - just maybe not with ordnance? Even then, 1 or 2 large AP4 blasts per turn is going to do less damage than 2x gravis lascannons returning fire. 

[Marshal Rohr]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

I'd suggested ages ago that the modifier system would work perfectly for a game where the majority of games are power armour v power armour, to actually differentiate the weapons outside of "marines always get a save, guard never get a save".

 

Similarly, bolters, unless en-masse are largely ineffective against marines, so lasguns must be rubbish - but that's where the big tanks should come in.

 

I do feel tanks are underpowered, and should be able to reaction fire with primary weapons in the same manner dreads can - just maybe not with ordnance? Even then, 1 or 2 large AP4 blasts per turn is going to do less damage than 2x gravis lascannons returning fire. 

The only way for the SGDS to not fall into the cesspit of constant point changes like 40K is to change alter the way the USRs work or FAQ in additional wargear. Like the Leman Russes used to have that special rule for Traction Drives or whatever. Just add “Advanced Targeting Arrays” or something that lets an Auxilia Leman Russ do reactions, or a “Rapid Auto Loader” that lets Leman Russ do a Fury of the Legion style double tap. That way the books aren’t invalid immediately to new players because the points and wargear are all the same. Once the Plastic Rapier comes out though I imagine a lot of the issues with lethality in the list will evaporate. The two Sentinels will likely be cheap as dirt or they will have something to address weaknesses in the list. 

 

Another often overlooked unit because it’s in resin is the Charonites, but they have AP 3 melee weapons and lots of special rules to make them live under fire. Once those guys are plastic the Solar Aux list will be able to combo Power Axe Veletarii and Charonites for more lethal lists. 

Edited February 5 by Marshal Rohr

[WrathOfTheLion]

There was definitely a problem in 1E with artillery completely bypassing armor saves with high-strength blast template weapons, but I think they overcorrected some. The changes were clearly intended to solve a problem that was there, even if it did it maybe too much.

 

I'm wondering if they might pull in some design elements from ToW with blast weapons, where there's some sort of mechanic for units fully under the template vs. partially under. Now that they have a rule system that's done something like that, could be something they work with later.

Edited February 5 by WrathOfTheLion

[Razorblade]

4 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

You should find a new game! Sounds like this one isn’t doing it for you. 
 

Here is Andy’s interview where he specifically talks about faction asymmetry 

 

 

 

30K was redesigned to be a mass battles game in 28mm. That’s why the plastic kits are far more models per dollar than 40K. When Mech goes to plastic it will be far more affordable to put significantly more Robots on the table, just like it’s far more affordable to flood the table with plastic Dreadnaughts, legionaries, and legion tanks. The biggest design change from 1st to 2nd Edition wasn’t the rules, its was the affordability of the scale the games were meant to be played at. Solar Aux and Mech aren’t designed as resin armies where your big ticket models need to erase units, they’re now designed where you have five or six of the old unit erasers. 

Sounds like you should learn reading comprehension before you try your luck with writing. 

One faction relying on a lot of models whereas another fields few elite ones is assymetry. One faction being shooty while another relies on Melee is assymetry. A variety of possible builds between tanks, infantry combined arms etc. is assymetry. 

One faction being better across every conceivable metric and build ~after accounting for different points costs is not assymetry, it's :cuss:ty balancing. 

Your point is meaningless because no matter the price in $ these units are bad for their points. Similarly it doesn't matter what some dude at the design team thought they were designing if the game they designed doesn't play like that.

And Heresy 2 is very decidedly not a mass battle game, with every unique rule, from saves and ap, over the WS chart to reactions decidedly favoring high value units.

It's 2+ Saves, Stuff that kills 2+ Saves and Stuff that is good at scoring. And that is absolutely fine while it's Legion v Legion but auxilia (at least in its current iteration) has no place in it.

[Noserenda]

I think one of the biggest problems with 2nd edition is one or more of the designers thinking everyone was playing the game "WRONG" and it was their duty to bludgeon the rules into making that unpleasant for players so we all roll out awful cookie cutter lists, which is particularly galling because the design philosophy for most of the previous edition(s) was very obviously to provide as many options as possible and try to make them all playable (to varying degrees of success obviously!) which i think much better represents the era personally.

Its more obnoxious with the non marine lists, because there was clearly at least a little feeling that we shouldnt be playing them at all for some reason, like obvious problems with the SA relying heavily on tanks and artillery and both of those being on the undesirables list, but next to no real effort was put into countering that? Not that more special rules is the answer, the system is already drowning in unnecessary special rules and equipment! What it needs is going over the army lists and giving them the second pass they should have had in the first place.  

[Astartes Consul]

4 hours ago, Noserenda said:

I think one of the biggest problems with 2nd edition is one or more of the designers thinking everyone was playing the game "WRONG" and it was their duty to bludgeon the rules into making that unpleasant for players so we all roll out awful cookie cutter lists, which is particularly galling because the design philosophy for most of the previous edition(s) was very obviously to provide as many options as possible and try to make them all playable (to varying degrees of success obviously!) which i think much better represents the era personally.

 

I think this, combined with the decision to cut down easily available units to those with models, and ideal models that come in specific Horus Heresy kits, is the crux. Fwiw, I don’t think the game is approaching anything like 40k levels of cookie cutter, but that is largely because of the nebulous and hard to define ‘narrative’ and ‘community’ nature of 30k.

 

Also worth noting that cookie cutter lists aren’t exactly new. A lot of us have very fond memories of 3rd & 4th edition, but I remember being on this site back then and hardly anyone posting Marine lists without three Las/Plas tactical squads and triple Lascanon Predators. Maybe Heresy 1.0 was an outlier in the level of variation? 

 

As far as SA specifically, completely agree with @SkimaskMohawk in the first post. To me, the list seems to have been written as if designed to do a bit of everything. But without the utility or range of available specialist units that the Astartes lists have. And changes to the core rules mean that even if you go all in on one particular kind of build - tank heavy or mass mass infantry - you are still starting at as disadvantage.

[Noserenda]

Cookie cutters are just a sign of weak internal balance, so they come and go as army lists do in any game system :) Essentially if the designers screw up, some combination of wargear or units its just too much of a no brainer to ignore. I suspect the same is true of models, but thats harder to define as what people consider good looking or affordable can vary wildly compared to rules efficiency! :) 

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's definitely a phenomena.

 

1st was very much a sandbox game, especially in 6th. You could make a lot of builds work and a lot of weapons/units could actually be flexible and fill in the gaps. If you wanted to burn down vehicles you had tons of options. If you wanted to burn down 2+, you also had tons of options. 

 

They tried to make it into mass infantry game in 2nd, like rhor said. But the key word is tried. Because it didn't work. It just went to dreads and the most elite units for marines. 

 

To basically remake the game to fit a different vision of how things should be and have that vision completely dail, is pretty funny. Solar aux are basically the only army doing the mass infantry thing, simply because they have no other better options lol. 

 

Idk. Maybe I'd respect the vision if they came in with the FAQs some point in the last 20 months and tried to massage the direction towards "mass infantry". But they let it stew in lascannon and dreadnought land, featuring way too much interceptor. So the vision is worthless, and we're left with a game that treats a lot of factions as the whipping boys for the (as of summer 2022) intended factions. That also flies in the face of a game that carried the legacy of 3rd-7th. 

 

But ignore me, a radical redesign clearly brought life back into the game that surpassed the 2014-2016 glory days...right? Tactica threads aren't basically dead? People aren't just pillaging the plastic kits for 40k armies?

[Marshal Rohr]

They can’t be unaware of the sentiments since they go to the UK events. If nothing has been done about the lascannons, Dreadnaughts, and interceptor when the designers themselves are at events and posting private games on their instagrams - wouldn’t that indicate they don’t agree with it needing fixing? If you’ve got the social media famous Militia and Solar Aux players going to meet up with the designers for big games at Warhammer world surely they’d be talking their ear off about how badly their armies perform? Surely the designers would literally see the armies perform badly. 
 

 

[Xenith]

Don't worry, as a summer tentpole game, HH3.0 is due for relese next year in 2025 in the 40k/aos/30k cycle, and we'll see things swivel back in another direction, like removing contemptors entirely. 

[Razorblade]

The design team don't know how to fix a poorly worded rule without breaking the game for a half a year and are behind on pretty much every pdf release.

To assume that they would be able to identify the problem, let alone solve it is preposterous. 

So is the assumption that the state of the game reflects their intentions for it. 

The fact of the Matter is, where modern 40k has taken every possible step to reduce the impact of differences in raw stats/guns compared to classic 40k  (modifier based AP, No combat initiative, modern wound chart, no WS chart, impactful faction abilities and strats) Heresy 2 has taken every available measure to do the opposite (Reactions, revised WS table, movement affects charges, initiative affects movement).

You are may agree with either philosophy or none but the fact is that Heresy 2 is at the core of its rules heavily skewed towards elites not masses

[Astartes Consul]

2 hours ago, Razorblade said:

You are may agree with either philosophy or none but the fact is that Heresy 2 is at the core of its rules heavily skewed towards elites not masses

 

Not sure that scans with the way objectives, victory points and the Line keyword word, tbh?

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 2/5/2024 at 7:59 AM, Marshal Rohr said:

30K was redesigned to be a mass battles game in 28mm.

 

9 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

If nothing has been done about the lascannons, Dreadnaughts, and interceptor when the designers themselves are at events and posting private games on their instagrams - wouldn’t that indicate they don’t agree with it needing fixing?

 

If you want to make a genuine argument about the point of 2nd Ed being a mass battle game, you can't then claim the things actively preventing that playstyle from emerging don't need to be fixed. 

 

Either dread and las spam isn't a problem, the game is actually about msu ap2 problem solvers that can flex into 3+, and solar aux really don't fit into that template and are struggling. Or, the game is about mass infantry battles, but is undermined by some marine units, and solar aux are the only army "playing as intended" in the mass battle theme.

 

Razorblade can't be playing the wrong game and wanting the wrong things from it if dreads et al in marines aren't something that needs to be fixed. Thered just be something wrong with the design of the army he's critiquing.

 

And even ignoring that, no, I wouldn't say current inaction=design intent. The day before the last FAQ you would have made the same claim about psychic powers as reactions, but they FAQd it a year and a half into the game's life. It's one or two underpaid guys that are grinding out campaign books to hit marketing deadlines.

 

@Astartes Consul you'd think so, but then you look at the missions and it's like:

 

Mission 1 is kill points.

 

Mission 2 is mission of tie (2 objectives, 1 per dz), but you can only score your opponents, and also turn 1 kill points. So it's kill points.

 

Mission 3 gets you points for every unit in the enemy DZ; scoring units net you 2, but denial still score you 1. 

 

Mission 4 is progressive scoring with bonus secondaries for killing. It can be the most important to have scoring units on (racking up a big lead with infiltrate), but it can also be completely counteracted by the kill points if you block the opponent from scoring too many (which I've seen happen).

 

Mission 5 needs scoring units, but also makes all non-flyer vehicles scoring. Id call it the most necessary for having scoring units.

 

Mission 6 has kill points and variable scoring objectives that are more likely to give you 0-1 vps than 3. 

 

Most missions don't actually need a lot of scoring units, and that fact got figured out pretty fast.

Edited February 6 by SkimaskMohawk

[Razorblade]

2 hours ago, Astartes Consul said:

 

Not sure that scans with the way objectives, victory points and the Line keyword word, tbh?

Well Legion-armies all have access to at least one elite-melee unit with line before factoring in uniques, RoWs and Heralds. And you don't need too many line units after that as 

@SkimaskMohawkalready pointed out.

Now that is for the god-awful old missions, but the Situation only gets worse with the revised core missions. 

Because everything is scoring progressively (and in at least two instances on a single centerboard objective) you absolutely need Line units that can kill things in Melee where Elite units have the most advantages stacked against their inferiors. 

[Marshal Rohr]

I can make that argument because the models are priced to encourage you to buy big armies with a lower dollar per model price than AoS and 40K for new plastics. I can also make that argument because we see the designers collections including huge numbers of infantry and tanks, and see their armies at events including huge numbers of infantry and tanks. To be clear when I say a “massed battle game” I am talking specifically about a game that is meant to represent big battles and not Skirmishes - which is what AoS and 40K are, with their weird XCom style unit 12D rock paper scissors design and encouraging players to take multiple small units with different wargear. Even if players spam the same unit over and over because it is more efficient, 40K is designed to get you to take one of a bunch of different types of units and a few core choices. Even if 30K has people taking Dreadnaughts and Lascannons because it’s more efficient, it’s designed for you take larger armies with lots of infantry and tanks. 
 

The SGDS plays the game as it’s intended and writes rules with certain intentions in mind. The effectiveness of those rules is secondary to how they intend the game to be played. What people do with those rules, be it minmaxing or spamming or intentionally taking advantage of poorly written rules is a second and third order effect. They know what people complain about because the extremely online people are so very, very loud about their complaints and have not moved to change anything which means the designers don’t see the need to change things. If they don’t see the need to change anything and they know what the issues are, that means it’s not really an issue they consider to be effecting the success of the game. 
 

When you look at the armies in the events they play at, there isn’t much lascannon and dreadnaught spam. When you look at those events it’s all well converted and painted armies in the UK scene. It’s not the North American scene. It’s not the Australian scene. It’s certainly not impacting sales, since what little they manage to release is sold out immediately and you have to wait six months for something like Jetbikes. 
 

There’s a saying that if you meet a jerk in the morning, you’ve met a jerk but if you meet jerks all day - you are the jerk. So if you consistently find that your games are nothing but Dreadnaughts and lascannons, and the designers aren’t changing the rules, you and your group might be the problem. 
 

edit: it’s not like they haven’t released an FAQ since the game dropped. They’ve had several chances to change it and they haven’t. So if those chances came and went and the thing you think is a problem didn’t change, then the people responsible for designing the game do not think it’s a problem and they decide what the problems are and aren’t. It’s not like a video game where something is actually broken and the game doesn’t work. 

Edited February 6 by Marshal Rohr

[WrathOfTheLion]

On the topic of updates, I'd like to see them move to an FAQ/errata/balancing schedule of twice a year, like they do for MESBG and it looks like ToW now. That would give them time to make deliberate changes, but also would keep it from moving as quickly as 40k does now for instance.

 

They do have all their games out and released now. I suspect a lot of the attention of the 30k rules writers was on finishing Legions Imperialis, so I'm interested to see if there's some change of pace now that they've managed to get all these systems released. They released essentially three new game systems in the span of like a year and a half.

[MegaVolt87]

Well, that's the thing. GW Devs always have their own ideas for the game which more often than not are not aligned with what players are wanting or expecting. They don't even listen to their playtesters anymore. It took the HH community all of 10 minutes to see-

 

-OP MEQ infantry and walkers

- nerfed arty (good scorp tho)

- Lack of general infantry releases, especially melee.

- bad armoured units rules. 

- strong reactions

- useless flyers

 

The community acted accordingly- 

- x4 elite slots, x2 contemptors a no brainer pick.

- Volkite and lascannon spam to crack termi's and legion special units like UM suzies. 

- x2 scorps only arty to see because it's the only effective one. 

- Lack of plastic infantry, easier on the wallet to get legion special units instead of generics for melee, good value for effectiveness to the dollars spent. 

- Most stuck with a Spartan, endpoint is a death Star to put into it. 

- min/max meta of vehicles to not be at a disadvantage. eg- x2 preads chassis a slot, solo sicaran arcus a slot etc. 

 

That's just the surface stuff, there are still plenty of unclear interactions with the finer details. You can't buff infantry the way they did and completely cut the legs out from arty for example. Feels like the few diamonds in the rough were left in on purposes like the scorp by someone throwing us a bone under the nose of a senior who thinks they know better. 

[Marshal Rohr]

Their playtesters leaked the entire edition in advance so I can’t really blame them for telling them to [redacted] off.