New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Gorgoff]

56 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

More screen caps taken from the teaser videos:

Can anyone actually read anything here? 

I certainly cannot. 

[Nephaston]

11 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

Can anyone actually read anything here? 

I certainly cannot. 

Just the armour save rule. Nothing too out of the ordinary at a cursory glance.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Can't wait to lay eyes on a digital copy of the book and see if it's actually good, simply silly and stagnating or outright terrible in terms of rules.

 

 

[BitsHammer]

1 hour ago, Marshal Loss said:

Sunday preview only mentions some 'delectable lore posts' about the Heresy, so probably no rules previews coming this week.

We probably won't see anything rules related until the preorders start

[Nephaston]

10 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

We probably won't see anything rules related until the preorders start

Unless the playtest rules leak like last time, but who knows.

[TheTrans]

34 minutes ago, Unknown Legionnaire said:

Can't wait to lay eyes on a digital copy of the book and see if it's actually good, simply silly and stagnating or outright terrible in terms of rules.

 

 

Like... I'm feeling its gonna shift toward the latter of those options given the studio 'thought the game was in a good place' doesn't really leave me filled with hope they have competant rules writers around. 

That and honestly, adding skirmish game stats into a game that is built around 2.5k+ just seems like a terrible idea... The weapon statlines all read a lot like necromunda as well.. which can be a bit of a slog rules wise when you're only worried about 10 models, let alone 50-100... 

Not the mention that I'm sure the poor old leacy factions will get a another beating... cue 'its already dead' meme from the simpsons.. 

But hey... how bout those MK2s right ;) 

[BitsHammer]

1 hour ago, Nephaston said:

Unless the playtest rules leak like last time, but who knows.

I mean there are those Saturnine boxes possibly out in the wild but the real question is if those books will leak.

1 hour ago, TheTrans said:

Like... I'm feeling its gonna shift toward the latter of those options given the studio 'thought the game was in a good place' doesn't really leave me filled with hope they have competant rules writers around. 

That and honestly, adding skirmish game stats into a game that is built around 2.5k+ just seems like a terrible idea... The weapon statlines all read a lot like necromunda as well.. which can be a bit of a slog rules wise when you're only worried about 10 models, let alone 50-100... 

Not the mention that I'm sure the poor old leacy factions will get a another beating... cue 'its already dead' meme from the simpsons.. 

But hey... how bout those MK2s right ;) 

Andy Hoare is involved and I like his other work thus far so I have hope.

[Nephaston]

1 hour ago, TheTrans said:

That and honestly, adding skirmish game stats into a game that is built around 2.5k+ just seems like a terrible idea... The weapon statlines all read a lot like necromunda as well.. which can be a bit of a slog rules wise when you're only worried about 10 models, let alone 50-100... 

To be fair, it's not like it'll play like necromunda with a hundred individual dudes, as those dudes are bundled into blobs of units.

 

So depending on the size of the game it might be like playing necromunda but rach model has an enourmous footprint that shrinks as it takes damage.

[MARK0SIAN]

4 hours ago, TheTrans said:

Like... I'm feeling its gonna shift toward the latter of those options given the studio 'thought the game was in a good place' doesn't really leave me filled with hope they have competant rules writers around. 

That and honestly, adding skirmish game stats into a game that is built around 2.5k+ just seems like a terrible idea... The weapon statlines all read a lot like necromunda as well.. which can be a bit of a slog rules wise when you're only worried about 10 models, let alone 50-100... 

Not the mention that I'm sure the poor old leacy factions will get a another beating... cue 'its already dead' meme from the simpsons.. 

But hey... how bout those MK2s right ;) 

What’s even weirder is they said they thought the game was in a good place but the rules they’ve previewed and those we’ve gleaned from people deciphering the screen shots of the video are quite a significant departure from the current rules. 
 

I have a suspicion this is going to feel like a very different game than 2.0 rather than a refinement of it.

[BitsHammer]

5 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Can anyone actually read anything here? 

I certainly cannot. 

I'm going to give this my best attempt at transcribing:

Quote

 

Armour Saves
Armour saves allow a player to ignore damage.

For each wound caused, the player that controls the target unit must roll a dice and check the Armour Save characteristic of the models in the target unit. If the value of the dice roll is equal to or higher than the value shown there the wound is discarded. If the result is lower the then a model in the target unit loses a number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used.

If a model in the target unit has already already had one or more wounds and not been removed as a casualty then that model must be the one that [bears additional wounds?]. Otherwise, the player that controls the unit may choose any model in that unit [blurry text] wound. If a model loses a number of wounds equal to or greater than its Wounds characteristic then that model must be removed from play as a casualty.

Some weapons may be power enough to ignore armour. When this is the case it is described by the weapon damage characteristic of a weapon. If the AP characteristic of the weapon used to make an attack is equal to or lower than the Armour Save characteristic of the models in the target unit than no roll may be made to discard a wound. However if the models in the target unit have an Invulnerable Save characteristic greater than [blank space] then a roll may still be made [text cuts off] the Invulnerable Save characteristic [text cuts off] Save characteristic.

 

Edited Monday at 03:37 AM by BitsHammer

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

What’s even weirder is they said they thought the game was in a good place but the rules they’ve previewed and those we’ve gleaned from people deciphering the screen shots of the video are quite a significant departure from the current rules. 
 

I have a suspicion this is going to feel like a very different game than 2.0 rather than a refinement of it.

I don't take any commentary on them thinking it was in a good place at face value, that's just marketing stuff. I think by virtue of the lack of FAQs, they had clearly decided to depart significantly and redo it quite early on, perhaps even before 2.0 actually released.

 

This would sound kind of weird, but I think given the reorganization and the changes in rules writing staff, the people that have wrote 3.0 aren't the same people as those who wrote 2.0. Given the timeline of things, 2.0 was done basically when book 9 came out.

Edited Monday at 05:31 AM by WrathOfTheLion

[Marshal Rohr]

There’s a significantly larger dev team now than ever before. If Neil is still there then in addition to that is now Quinn, Rob, Ben, and Josh. Though Rob may be doing something else. 

[Nagashsnee]

My main fear is that what happened to 2ed wil happen to third, a OKish edition with some issues that need adressing....that just never get adressed. Instead they pump out books and minis while completly ignoring the rule side year after year. Untill its time for 4th edition to 'fix' the minor issues with third which the studio ( was 'generally happy with'.

 

There will ALWAYS be issues, and units that need fixing, but if the will to do so is utterly lacking (how did dreadnoughts make it all the way thru the edition without changes?) it wont matter how good or bad the core of the edition is. 

 

We know GW works at least 18 months in advance, that means that half way thru 2ed they were working on third (best case very likely more).  No wonder 2 ed felt given up on, they had already been told to leave it behind. 

 

I was so happy that mech would have day 1 rules, it took a friend to point out how very very low that bar was. And then i realised how low my expectations had been brought by 2ed.  I really hope 3ed knocks it out of the park, and it gets actual support this time. Not just new minis or new books, support.

[WrathOfTheLion]

They had to make a call at some point. Attempt to figure out and redo 2E, which they didn't participate much if at all in writing, or start over and make something they fundamentally understand the framework of. In my personal opinion, this was the right call, but we'll have to see how it shakes out.

[Antarius]

21 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

They had to make a call at some point. Attempt to figure out and redo 2E, which they didn't participate much if at all in writing, or start over and make something they fundamentally understand the framework of. In my personal opinion, this was the right call, but we'll have to see how it shakes out.

I think you're right, but it also depends on whether 3rd ed. will basically be abandoned halfway through (which, to my mind, is the main problem with the edition churn cycle).

[TheTrans]

Edition churn feels like politics.. they get in.. spend the first year of their term bitching about thr last guys (dropping FAQs to fix all the stuff ups)..

 

Year 2 starts...and already they kind of just stop doing :cuss: and start worrying about getting re-elected and let everything else by the wayside..

 

My concern is a lack of commitment to an edition. People drop hundreds on books that by hook or by crook don't get the errata they need and before you know it..new releases to not get erratad.

 

Now people are saying 'oh but it's a new team, that's why they let 2.0 die'... like... how is that an excuse in any way shape or form? 

 

If the new team is good at rules writing, it wouldn't have taken them an afternoon to rattle together an FAQ to sort some egregious issues and concerns... but instead...because they decided they want people to reinvest in paper again in 1.5 years... they'll not spend a few hours to support a 'supported' system. 

 

Legit blows my mind how people can defend GW's practices, while glugging the cope of 'well 3.0 will be good...cos the guys that wrote it are the ones that let 2.0 die'... 

[Astartes Consul]

There’s also the potential that everyone is reading a bit too much into ‘The Studio were happy where the game and rules were at’.

 

It was a launch stream, aka. a marketing exercise. The presenters were hardly going to say ‘Yeah, the studio team realised there were a load of issues which they hadn’t had the capacity to fix. Hopefully getting to rework the game into a new edition in one go will make this new set of rules a better experience’ were they?

[Marshal Loss]

It's clear that the design team are obviously very aware that the community is as a whole, I think it's fair to say, not particularly keen on an edition change, and 3.0's launch preview marketing is highlighting continuity even though the changes appear to be really quite substantial across the board. I don't blame them for that, and if they've done a good job, people will come around, but it's going to be a tough sell for some entrenched parts of the community. I'm more than happy to be cautiously optimistic for now as the potential pros easily outweigh the potential cons for me but I don't blame some people for being upset at the prospect of buying a wall of new books.

 

When 30k went from 1.0 to 2.0, I wasn't mad about my black books being invalidated because they were impractical gaming pieces to begin with and they're all gorgeous pieces of art I love having on a shelf. I don't feel the same way about anything they published during 2.0.

 

 

8 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

We probably won't see anything rules related until the preorders start

 

I'm confident it will be sooner than that, especially given they already started teasing changes during the reveal stream - maybe next week. We'll see soon enough though.

[MARK0SIAN]

3 hours ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

They had to make a call at some point. Attempt to figure out and redo 2E, which they didn't participate much if at all in writing, or start over and make something they fundamentally understand the framework of. In my personal opinion, this was the right call, but we'll have to see how it shakes out.

That does make sense but to me they just seem to be rehashing the transition from 7th to 8th edition 40k.

 

Damage stats? Check!

Much reduced army building restrictions? Check!

stratagems? They’ve called them reactions but they look like powerful abilities that cost points to use so they’re basically stratagems. 
Increased use of modifiers? Check!

 

We just need to look out for an increase in the number of shots and rerolls and they’ll have most of it. Even the new stats harken back to rogue trader so it doesn’t really feel like they’re doing anything original.

 

I appreciate we don’t know a lot yet but what I’ve seen so far has left me a bit glum about the rules for the new edition. Luckily the new models are awesome!

Edited Monday at 09:28 AM by MARK0SIAN

[Mogger351]

28 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

That does make sense but to me they just seem to be rehashing the transition from 7th to 8th edition 40k.

 

Damage stats? Check!

Much reduced army building restrictions? Check!

stratagems? They’ve called them reactions but they look like powerful abilities that cost points to use so they’re basically stratagems. 
Increased use of modifiers? Check!

 

We just need to look out for an increase in the number of shots and rerolls and they’ll have most of it. Even the new stats harken back to rogue trader so it doesn’t really feel like they’re doing anything original.

 

I appreciate we don’t know a lot yet but what I’ve seen so far has left me a bit glum about the rules for the new edition. Luckily the new models are awesome!

There's nothing inherently bad with any of that though, it's down to application.

 

Adding that reactions aren't new to HH, multiple damage attacks aren't new to HH and army building isn't exactly that stringent in the first place and it's really not a big leap. 

[MARK0SIAN]

9 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

There's nothing inherently bad with any of that though, it's down to application.

 

Adding that reactions aren't new to HH, multiple damage attacks aren't new to HH and army building isn't exactly that stringent in the first place and it's really not a big leap. 

Reactions aren’t new but they’re quite limited and even then they can be problematic. Making them more widespread will only make it worse.

 

Multiple damage attacks do exist but they’re pretty rare, they’re limited to things like exo-shock and instant death which already feels a bit too punishing on characters. If something like a powerfist is throwing out 3 damage then you only need a couple to go through and it’s a dead dreadnought. 
 

The list building restrictions are not stringent, that’s very true so why on earth do they need relaxing further? 
 

You’re right that this is all down to application but GW have shown they have trouble applying these mechanics in a reasonable way. Since they came in for 8th edition it took them 6 years until 10th edition to bring them to a somewhat reasonable level. 

[Nagashsnee]

3 hours ago, Astartes Consul said:

There’s also the potential that everyone is reading a bit too much into ‘The Studio were happy where the game and rules were at’.

 

It was a launch stream, aka. a marketing exercise. The presenters were hardly going to say ‘Yeah, the studio team realised there were a load of issues which they hadn’t had the capacity to fix. Hopefully getting to rework the game into a new edition in one go will make this new set of rules a better experience’ were they?

 

Marketing is meant to get me to want to buy something yes? I am meant to see/hear the pitch and be like 'shut up and take my money'.

 

If i am not meant to take the marketing exercise as a exercise in marketing then what am i meant to take it as? 

 

'The studio was happy with the general success of the game and is excited to show how it has improved upon its less popular aspects'.   Is also a positive marketing sentence but it also drops the msg that 'we know some things needed to be looked at and we looked at them'. 

 

Like telling where the new thing you are selling is superior to the old is literally a key part of marketing. Lying to me about the old thing we have all experience is pointless. 

[roryokane]

Guys, I’m starting to think these rumours of a new edition might not just be hearsay…

[Mogger351]

31 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Reactions aren’t new but they’re quite limited and even then they can be problematic. Making them more widespread will only make it worse.

 

Multiple damage attacks do exist but they’re pretty rare, they’re limited to things like exo-shock and instant death which already feels a bit too punishing on characters. If something like a powerfist is throwing out 3 damage then you only need a couple to go through and it’s a dead dreadnought. 
 

The list building restrictions are not stringent, that’s very true so why on earth do they need relaxing further? 
 

You’re right that this is all down to application but GW have shown they have trouble applying these mechanics in a reasonable way. Since they came in for 8th edition it took them 6 years until 10th edition to bring them to a somewhat reasonable level. 

And they have the experiences of reigning it all in now, which should build some confidence hopefully.

 

That said, there's no knowledge of how reactions have changed in earnest yet, back when dreads were a vehicle a couple of powerfist hits were enough as well, regards the army building becoming more "free" we have to wait and see. I suspect if rites of war have gone, it's to make it easier to build what you like without needing a specific HQ or limited bonii to a subset of models/play style making a lot of options "wrong" choices.

[Marshal Rohr]

How are we still talking about a three years cycle when it’s literally going to take three more years to confirm if we are on a three year cycle.