New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[No Foes Remain]

18 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

If that is true I will explode with happiness, however I think it’s a bit from the rapier crew (replacement wheel part). 

 

That's a good idea that, didn't think about that. Me and my manager were thinking about that at work today, all we could think of was either breacher charge or the smoke charges for the recon marines.

[LameBeard]

I’m sure they are just trolling us, but if you really want to get ahead of the curve: https://www.thediceshoponline.com/specialist-dice/d18-specialist-dice.html

 

Plenty of colours to choose from.

[MoriyaSchism]

21 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

A D2? You mean a coin toss?

If that is true I will explode with happiness, however I think it’s a bit from the rapier crew (replacement wheel part). 

It looks like it's too small to be one of the Rapier rollers or sprockets.

[Mogger351]

28 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

On the new rules v tweaked rules argument, I think it's probably instructive to look at how they've handled games like Necromunda or MESBG. Both of these are on their Nth edition, but have retained the same core rules functionality for donkey's years now. They've had new launch boxes and new iterations of some models, but they've been expanded on with supplements and FAQs, but at a glacial pace in comparison to 40k and AoS. Honestly, I think an "updated" rulebook that was essentially a hefty FAQ plus a bit of a balance pass, and then some errata's for the Liber Books would be about right. They can certainly do something about every single sergeant having Artificer Armour to tank shots... or maybe thats just me. 

 

I would be very, very surprised  if HH went in a different direction. Even over the last three years, since 2.0 launched there's been what, 2 FAQ's? Otherwise it's been some supplemental campaign books, downloadable rules and one new faction book (Mechanicum, I think Liber Imperialis launched around the same time as LA and LH?) 

 

For all the shouting and yelling about decisions the GW community doesn't like there are very, very few that can't be understood. I think the emblematic one is the decision to separate the lines for HH/TOW from 40k/AoS. We all understand the logic behind this decision from a commercial and business sense, but a lot of us don't agree with or like it. Those are different things. 

 

[note: the one decision I cannot for the life of me understand is the dropping of various vehicles from EC and the absolutely bonkers decision to only allow Maulerfiends and not Forgefiends. That's still got me baffled, especially when it hasn't happened to the other Cult Legions. But that's basically the only one that's completely lost me from a logic perspective.]

 

I think GW is well aware that HH is a refuge for some who don't like 8th Ed 40k onwards, or Primaris, or constant balance updates and books that are out of date. And now they've got that market. If they are hellbent on not having the models cannibalise each other, what possible logic is there to risk the customer base they've clearly invested a lot in by doing the literal opposite of what the community clearly wants. Contrary to the prevailing narrative amongst the angrier section of the community, GW are not in fact stupid, nor do they personally hate large chunks of their customers for no adequately explained reason. 

I think a shift to a 3 year cycle can be easily understood. Their most successful games continue to break record profits on that cycle, they saw a huge success with the age of darkness box and they've clearly invested a lot into padding out solar aux and mechanicum to get it away from being just marines.

 

Now they see it selling and being popular, they want to employ their tried and tested game growth and money making strategies from 40k.

 

They might not fully grasp the reluctance from people to the change and if we're honest, people are also assuming the worst just because the rulebook might be changing after 3 years.

Edited 12 hours ago by Mogger351
Random triple post

[Vassakov]

Perhaps I failed to make my point - Necromunda has gone through a number of "new boxes" in recent years, but the underlying rules framework has remained the same and the "new" rules are essentially just errata'd and updated versions of what is, fundamentally, the same set of rules since 2017 when it relaunched. 

 

I fully accept that I might be proven wrong very quickly, but I'd not be surprised at all if this were a "tweaked" ruleset with a lot of the existing material remaining valid, at least for now, alongside a whole new bunch of models, with a "new" (but not really) core book. 

[Gaz Taylor]

8 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

people are also assuming the worst just because the rulebook might be changing after 3 years.

I think it's fair for people to expect this. It's one of my pet peeves with GW that you will spend a small fortune on books only for them to be invalidated after a few years due to a new edition. This is only an issue if you want to play the latest edition which is usually what people do. 

 

I'm just hoping the following:

• Rules waffle is cut down. No paragraphs explaining something when a sentence will do
• Rules to play games from day 1 for everybody. Basic PDF army lists would be fine

I'm okay with streamlining as I've played loads of editions and it gets muddled up in my head. I get why some people don't like it but there's a difference between streamlining and removing customisation which is what I think most people get annoyed about. 

[Xenith]

5 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

It just seems odd to be adverse to getting more plastic support, the game being pushed and the playerbase growing possibly all because they release books you weren't going to buy/use?

 

Or is the fear that if a new radically different edition is released and introduces a new wave of players, that there will be an expectation for everyone to move over?

 

Real life and jobs mean limited time, limited headspace. People can't relearn rules and the game every 6 weeks. Heresy is nic because it's stable. One can pick it up and play it, and the rules will be the same as 6 months ago. A new edition will be fine, as long as we dont get extensive mechanics changes, like how characters work, or wounding etc. Streamlining some of the janky stuff and making things like flyers relevant is all that's needed, the game is amazing as it is. 

[Aarik]

Regardless of whether we'd like it, we can all agreed that this does in fact mean a new edition is coming, right?  Seeing a lot of discussion on Reddit about how "no, this is just GW trolling us by acknowledging the rumors and poking fun at Valrak" is driving me crazy.  There's zero way that GW would spend money and time putting this together as a joke (outside of it being April Fool's, which wouldn't have continuing updates like we are getting).

 

 I'd bet a decent amount of money that the rules will be mostly a clean-up of the current ones, maybe with some changes to reactions or something, but definitely won't be a ground-up re-write or move to 40k-style rules instead.  And it's interesting to me that the prevailing opinion here seems to be that people want the Libers to remain.  From all the discussion I've read though, the larger problems with this edition seem to be from the Libers rather than the core rules.  Poor internal balance -- contemptors and lascannon HSS squads being too powerful/cheap, and Mechanicum and Solar Auxilia having only a handful of half-decent units -- and poor external balance between the legion list and all the others.  So while I can definitely understand wanting to still be able to play all armies day one, I'd think that the Libers would benefits a lot from being re-written.

[Nephaston]

7 hours ago, Mr Farson said:

 The middle is a saturine shoulder pad

Hmm, but is it a saturnine terminator shoulder pad, or is it a saturnine dreadnought shoulder pad?

 

Im hoping it's the latter because i want the terminators to look like pre-corruption obliterators, and handwave the centurion resemblance a bit.

 

Edit: actually, taking a proper look at it, the detailing seems very infantry sized, so I guess egg-inators or similar are a go.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nephaston

[Halandaar]

6 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

OK, acknowledging that a game community can continue without ability to buy the intended supporting materials and minis ala mordheim, again, is that still preferable to GW doing what they do?

 

Regards a new edition now - if the community is so strong and stubborn, run 2.0 events, use the stuff you own. Those won't be taken away and a 3.0 release won't bother you.

 

It just seems odd to be adverse to getting more plastic support, the game being pushed and the playerbase growing possibly all because they release books you weren't going to buy/use?

 

Or is the fear that if a new radically different edition is released and introduces a new wave of players, that there will be an expectation for everyone to move over?

 

I'm genuinely baffled, sorry, about how it's good to highlight that games live and are well as long as someone is playing them, but then to get angry and lose interest because they release something you don't want or need to buy?

 

A new edition isn't automatically a bad thing as long as it doesn't invalidate the existing structure of the game - think of the differences between 3rd-7th edition 40k, where Codexes remained usable and in some cases lasted across two or even three full editions of the game because the game itself was so stable, as opposed to 3rd itself,  8th and 10th which were such big overhauls that existing books became unusable. 

 

A "new edition' that is essentially just a rules cleanup and integration of errata, with a limited number of changes that don't invalidate the existing Liber books would be ideal. What I object to isn't so much that the rulebook changes, it's when everything else alongside it changes too. 

 

And yes, obviously every rules product is optional, the point is that an overhaul that invalidates existing players' investments isn't necessary in order to bring in new players. You can create an updated product and new plastic minis and bring everybody with you. It's not a binary choice. 

 

 

 

 

[crimsondave]

1 hour ago, Aarik said:

Regardless of whether we'd like it, we can all agreed that this does in fact mean a new edition is coming, right?  Seeing a lot of discussion on Reddit about how "no, this is just GW trolling us by acknowledging the rumors and poking fun at Valrak" is driving me crazy.  There's zero way that GW would spend money and time putting this together as a joke (outside of it being April Fool's, which wouldn't have continuing updates like we are getting).

 

 I'd bet a decent amount of money that the rules will be mostly a clean-up of the current ones, maybe with some changes to reactions or something, but definitely won't be a ground-up re-write or move to 40k-style rules instead.  And it's interesting to me that the prevailing opinion here seems to be that people want the Libers to remain.  From all the discussion I've read though, the larger problems with this edition seem to be from the Libers rather than the core rules.  Poor internal balance -- contemptors and lascannon HSS squads being too powerful/cheap, and Mechanicum and Solar Auxilia having only a handful of half-decent units -- and poor external balance between the legion list and all the others.  So while I can definitely understand wanting to still be able to play all armies day one, I'd think that the Libers would benefits a lot from being re-written.

The idea that there is no new edition on the horizon is absurd at this point.  It’s obviously going to be revealed very soon.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by Reddit.

[Marshal Rohr]

I don’t think we are doing a 3 year cycle. 2nd edition was the bastard child of multiple designers with shifting design philosophies and languages and by the time it dropped people like Anuj were already gone. It’s makes way more sense to do a new edition under Andy with a clear goal and the same guys working it from start to finish. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Marshal Rohr

[Mogger351]

24 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

A new edition isn't automatically a bad thing as long as it doesn't invalidate the existing structure of the game - think of the differences between 3rd-7th edition 40k, where Codexes remained usable and in some cases lasted across two or even three full editions of the game because the game itself was so stable, as opposed to 3rd itself,  8th and 10th which were such big overhauls that existing books became unusable. 

 

A "new edition' that is essentially just a rules cleanup and integration of errata, with a limited number of changes that don't invalidate the existing Liber books would be ideal. What I object to isn't so much that the rulebook changes, it's when everything else alongside it changes too. 

 

And yes, obviously every rules product is optional, the point is that an overhaul that invalidates existing players' investments isn't necessary in order to bring in new players. You can create an updated product and new plastic minis and bring everybody with you. It's not a binary choice. 

 

 

 

 

Exactly and this is the balanced perspective that seems quite rare. I honestly think it'll be a tidy up edition as ou suggest. But the majority of people seem to expect it to kill the game completely for some reason with sweeping changes or simply refuse to acknowledge the concept.

 

Either way we'll have to see, I'm aiming to jump whole heartedly in with whatever is dropped. I've not played 2.0 (although I am familiar with most of the rule sand played since 3rd ed 40k) and have no attachment because I was late to the party and my regular opponents haven't got their stuff together.

 

So to keep it doesn't matter if it's nothing, a soft update or a hard reset. It just seems to induce some really weird reactions from some people you don't see with their other games. Maybe it's a gorgnard thing.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

To be honest, I'd be partying so hard if it was actually GW just trolling people at this point, because that's exactly what I would do.  

[01RTB01]

2 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think it's fair for people to expect this. It's one of my pet peeves with GW that you will spend a small fortune on books only for them to be invalidated after a few years due to a new edition. This is only an issue if you want to play the latest edition which is usually what people do. 

 

I'm just hoping the following:

• Rules waffle is cut down. No paragraphs explaining something when a sentence will do
• Rules to play games from day 1 for everybody. Basic PDF army lists would be fine

I'm okay with streamlining as I've played loads of editions and it gets muddled up in my head. I get why some people don't like it but there's a difference between streamlining and removing customisation which is what I think most people get annoyed about. 

 

I'm thankful for heresy that I just had the rulebook and the army book. I appreciate there were other books but they were straightforward enough to... 'acquire'.

 

If I just need rulebook and marine book again I'll be content. 

[Mandragola]

This is definitely a fun way to handle the rumours. For me it’s confirmation of a new edition and I think they’re showing us some bits of the new toys - which do seem to correlate with some of the rumoured kits. 

 

My advice is to prepare emotionally for the worst outcome, which is to need to replace all your books and to see a significant change in army construction. Expect to need to significantly change your army and maybe even start a new one (much of which you’ll get in the new starter box).

 

That way you won’t be super-disappointed if that does happen, and anything less will be a nice surprise. 
 

Personally I don’t think the rules matter a huge amount for heresy. The models, lore, painting and modelling are what it’s really about. If I was their design team I’d have either done a “big FAQ” and balance review or ported the whole thing to 10th. Designing a whole new substantially different game would require loads of effort with no guarantee that it would be better than what they had before. 
 

Accordingly, that’s what I expect them to do. 

[Marshal Mittens]

8 hours ago, The boater said:

The “2” is interesting… I wonder if we’re getting some plastic objective markers in the set… the center one feels kinda “terminator honors”-esk

I imagine the new box set might come with objective markers.

Maybe the little crux is a shield generator for a dread or terminator?

 

The pouch looks like it has two breacher charges from Judge Dredd. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Marshal Mittens

[Valkyrion]

The inclusion of objective markers is an odd touch, if that's what  it is. 

HH/AoD/Specialist Games is generally the domain of more established gamers and established gamers don't tend to need objective markers - unless the new system needs new markers for new reasons. Which is interesting, and potentially worrisome all at once. 

Having said that, GW boxes also come with a load of dice and we don't need those anymore! Or bases, probably. Whippy sticks. Templates....so I've just talked myself out of my own argument I think....!

 

 

[Epic Thoughts]

20 hours ago, INKS said:

an 18 sided not a 20? odd

 No, those are both even numbers.

[Marshal Rohr]

Edit: waste of time

Edited 7 hours ago by Marshal Rohr

[Marshal Rohr]

49 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

The inclusion of objective markers is an odd touch, if that's what  it is. 

HH/AoD/Specialist Games is generally the domain of more established gamers and established gamers don't tend to need objective markers - unless the new system needs new markers for new reasons. Which is interesting, and potentially worrisome all at once. 

Having said that, GW boxes also come with a load of dice and we don't need those anymore! Or bases, probably. Whippy sticks. Templates....so I've just talked myself out of my own argument I think....!

 

 

I think it’s some kind of alternating activation token

[Valkyrion]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

 If I was their design team I’d have either done a “big FAQ” and balance review or ported the whole thing to 10th. Designing a whole new substantially different game would require loads of effort with no guarantee that it would be better than what they had before. 
 

Accordingly, that’s what I expect them to do. 

 

 I know you goonhammer folks don't give a tuppeny :cuss: about promoting Heresy anymore, (5 Legion Focus out of 18 and none for over 2 years) but you actually have a degree of influence with GW as evidenced by asking the LI forum their opinions for a FAQ, so its quite alarming that someone like you is saying that you would tell the design team to port HH over to 10th. 

 

 

[Indy Techwisp]

So has that site been updated?

[Cactus]

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

So has that site been updated?

The last update was the tactical pouch / explosive charge.

[Marshal Loss]

Very excited for this. I'm definitely in the 'light touch/balance pass' camp in terms of what I'd like to see done with the rules. Crossing my fingers they've put some effort into bringing in a little more equity in terms of the legion rules (personally hoping that the Legiones Hereticus EC rules are less pants) and toning down some of the more egregious offenders, but I largely enjoy the game as is.

 

In terms of models I'm most curious to see the Saturnine Terminators, but I really hope this 2.1/2.5/3.0/whatever heralds a reasonable amount of new plastic infantry kits to accompany the inevitable wave of vehicles. I suspect we'll see breachers as there has been a lot of community demand but recon and destroyers also stand out as kits that would be much appreciated by the community.