Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Mogger351]

37 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

I don't even get the target demographic for 40k at the moment. It isn't young people because of the cost, it isn't narrative players because the only narrative they offer is a spreadsheet stapled to the rules that were written for tournament play, it isn't casual players because they need to own enough terrain to make three 5th edition tables just to play one game, and it isn't tournament players because the balance changes aren't frequent enough (nor aggressive enough about buffing underplayed detachments or units) and armies go too long between codex releases for the game to be balanced properly. Plus the high cost of rulebooks and model kits keeps people from switching armies through a tournament season.

 

I literally don't know who they are aiming 40k at because it hits none of the normal targets.

Are you mad? The current crusade offerings are fantastic and honestly some of the best officially supported and written narrative content they've offered in the 20 odd years I've been playing.

 

Honestly a lot of the 40k takes in here seem a little detached from reality. Right or wrong its doing absolutely fine in the market, there's no actual metrics I've ever seen for veteran players abandoning more or less than previously and half the complaints here seem largely either baseless or ignoring issues that it mimics in their other games anyway.

 

It's a bit of a travesty that 40k is simply ruin hammer now, but that's because they keep cranking the lethality dial (seems like HH3 might be from some reviews), HH has the lovely "we're 3" away inside the same ruins and turn invisible" which is a ham fisted way of solving the same LoS issues 40k has for example but with even more weird application.

Edited 19 hours ago by Mogger351

[Elzender]

I like the updated cataphractii design, just subtle changes without drastically changing the overall design, and as I have read elsewhere, it improves a bit on the always tricky terminator proportions.

I just hope the size change is not too noticeable, as I have plenty of resin and plastic ones to build, so I can just add a couple spacers here and there to give them an extra 1-2mm so they do not look too small.

Then again, not sure I'll be buying new ones anytime soon considering I have more than enough still to build for my projects.

[No Foes Remain]

I don't think I like the new Cataphractii, maybe because I like the 'current' ones a lot. I'll have to see the model, if not then stock up on a couple of boxes.

[Irate Khornate]

I really do not like the shoulders of the new cataphractic models. 

[Wibbling]

2 hours ago, Fire Golem said:

Love the new Cataphractii. 

 

They do look nice. The current ones, while 'solid' are a bit square rather than that sort of 'sculpted' look. 

 

Or I could be a womble and have built them wrong. 

[Matcap86]

3 hours ago, Joe said:

 

Look at the size of those lads!

These are going to take some getting used to.

 

Don't hate em, but don't love em yet either.

 

Height is great, but they feel a bit fat(?).

 

Edit: just noticed the MK4 assault marines, now that's a lovely bit of marine.

Edited 18 hours ago by Matcap86

[No Foes Remain]

26 minutes ago, Irate Khornate said:

I really do not like the shoulders of the new cataphractic models. 

 

Yes! That's what I don't like about them, they just seem to stick further out.

[Indy Techwisp]

Just want to take a moment to congratulate everyone here for making this thread longer than the general 30k thread is.

[01RTB01]

Are people basing the like/ dislike based on the colour plates?

[Shard of Magnus]

Fortunately the signal to noise ratio isn’t monitored.

 

I like the new cataphractii but need to see models before I make up my mind. A key point of the edition shift for me is going to be how they handle the new kit releases / update of resin kits, and keep stuff in stock. I spend more time modeling and painting than I do playing. Yes, there are other options to source stuff but I prefer to support the LGS where I often play.

 

Suppose I’m fortunate in the I’ve got a local gaming group with armies…but getting new players introduced or expanding army options has been ugly. Feels like a new edition should be the trigger point to bring more people in but I’m not confident from history that GW will have stock to support that.

[BitsHammer]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Are you mad? The current crusade offerings are fantastic and honestly some of the best officially supported and written narrative content they've offered in the 20 odd years I've been playing.

 

Honestly a lot of the 40k takes in here seem a little detached from reality. Right or wrong its doing absolutely fine in the market, there's no actual metrics I've ever seen for veteran players abandoning more or less than previously and half the complaints here seem largely either baseless or ignoring issues that it mimics in their other games anyway.

 

It's a bit of a travesty that 40k is simply ruin hammer now, but that's because they keep cranking the lethality dial (seems like HH3 might be from some reviews), HH has the lovely "we're 3" away inside the same ruins and turn invisible" which is a ham fisted way of solving the same LoS issues 40k has for example but with even more weird application.

Maybe it's a preference thing but the core rules and options of the game feel leas narrative so a progression tracker spreadsheet bolted onto the game does not feel more narrative than past game formats even if they spice it up with variables like the Emperor's Children tracking what they have to make drugs with.

 

EDIT: just wanted to say that on the new Cataphractii I just hope the shoulder pads are easier to line up properly than the old ones. Like it doesn't require anything crazy I just want to have an easier time getting that nice gap between the plates without them sagging the second I look away while gluing them.

Edited 17 hours ago by BitsHammer

[Mogger351]

5 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

Maybe it's a preference thing but the core rules and options of the game feel leas narrative so a progression tracker spreadsheet bolted onto the game does not feel more narrative than past game formats even if they spice it up with variables like the Emperor's Children tracking what they have to make drugs with.

 

 

To each their own, but having a series of growing epithets for my commander, who happens to move slower due to a leg injury but gains a bonus when outnumbered after a triumph in a crucial battle, allowing him to win a fight and gain a relic from a bygone age as their force followed a defined goal to greatness altering the army rules and tying the games together, adds more for me than assembling a character who essentially remains static bar my head canon once painted.

[1ncarnadine]

50 minutes ago, No Foes Remain said:

 

Yes! That's what I don't like about them, they just seem to stick further out.

 

That's fair, they do stick out a lot more. I honestly love it. They look more anchored to the carapace for a beetle-back look,* look like they might give more real estate for transfers and other designs, and also appear more practical for arm range of motion (which could also lead to better poses with the sculpts and more open poseability with resculpting and reposing). I'm hoping this model design also has a complete helmet instead of the half-helms for easier head swapping, but that remains to be seen.

*The old Cataphractii are great, but something I really didn't like is when the double-stacked pads would have a huge gap between the pads and torso. It just looked like too much weight stacked awkwardly over the shoulder joint, and like a giant bullet trap. So I'd always move the top pads in as far as possible.

[BitsHammer]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

To each their own, but having a series of growing epithets for my commander, who happens to move slower due to a leg injury but gains a bonus when outnumbered after a triumph in a crucial battle, allowing him to win a fight and gain a relic from a bygone age as their force followed a defined goal to greatness altering the army rules and tying the games together, adds more for me than assembling a character who essentially remains static bar my head canon once painted.

I am not saying that progression system is bad, I am saying that it doesn't feel as narrative as being allowed to start from a character who gets to pick from a wide range of options and then grows and changes over time.

 

Like lets say I take some inspiration from 30k and want a Captain with a power fist and storm shield or two power axes. I can't make those characters in 40k.

 

And yes Captains do have a decent amount of kit *now* but only because they have like four kits not because GW encourages you to make one on a bike even though they don't sell a bespoke kit for it. 

 

That's where it falls off for me. I don't get to lean into the "my dudes" side of the hobby being able to customize characters like we used to do allowed.

 

But like I said: I am biased. I started when grenades were an optional upgrade so for me the idea of micromanaging every model's wargear from the start and making them feel like their own character appeals to me more than modern 40k's "you get one enhancement for a character" system.

[Mogger351]

9 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

I am not saying that progression system is bad, I am saying that it doesn't feel as narrative as being allowed to start from a character who gets to pick from a wide range of options and then grows and changes over time.

 

Like lets say I take some inspiration from 30k and want a Captain with a power fist and storm shield or two power axes. I can't make those characters in 40k.

 

And yes Captains do have a decent amount of kit *now* but only because they have like four kits not because GW encourages you to make one on a bike even though they don't sell a bespoke kit for it. 

 

That's where it falls off for me. I don't get to lean into the "my dudes" side of the hobby being able to customize characters like we used to do allowed.

 

But like I said: I am biased. I started when grenades were an optional upgrade so for me the idea of micromanaging every model's wargear from the start and making them feel like their own character appeals to me more than modern 40k's "you get one enhancement for a character" system.

It's an interesting point really, I've been playing since 3rd so I understand the customisation aspect, but I can't really describe it as narrative.

 

I remember converting a chaos lord (badly) back in the day to have a power fist and archaons sword with a jump pack, mostly because to teenage me it looked cool and it made him get smashing faster.

 

I enjoyed the process, but there was no story there, the model didn't change as I didn't want to repaint him. Having the options to customise made him mine in terms of attachment, but it added no narrative at all.

 

I suppose I'm trying to say I see that narrative, ownership/attachment and customisation aren't all the same thing I think, but often get tied to the same brush