Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[No Foes Remain]

20 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

People aren’t claiming they invented the whole PDF in response to the backlash, they stated prior to preorder that the PDF would exist. Most arguments seem to be that it has had an emergency expansion in response to how negatively the changes in the libers were received. 

And this expansion wouldn’t have had to be completed on the preorder weekend or in time for the warcom article. It’s a digital release so they can be adding to it seconds before it goes live. That gives them at least two weeks from the backlash to complete the expansion, actually a bit longer because they’ve only said it’ll be released shortly after the new edition drops. Shortly after could mean another week giving them 3 weeks.

 

Now for an ‘all hands on deck’ emergency, two weeks is easily long enough to crank out any expanded rules for the PDF. Particularly as most of the rules are already written. For example the Tartaros siege terminators entry can simply copy/paste the Tartaros entry in the libers and add a single line to let them take chainfists or powerfists. The same will be true for characters with jetbikes etc, the characters already exist in the liber, they just need to give them a few more options. 
 

Even units like destroyers that aren’t in the liber at all aren’t hard to create. Jump pack infantry already exist, bolt pistols already exist, rad grenades already exist, they’ve basically just got to slap it all together and give it a points cost.

 

All this is easily achievable in two weeks for a team of people who’ve been writing these rules for  years at this point.

For those moving on to 3.0 I just hope it's better than the 2.0 Legacies PDF.

[MARK0SIAN]

10 minutes ago, No Foes Remain said:

For those moving on to 3.0 I just hope it's better than the 2.0 Legacies PDF.

Well it looks like the legacies pdf is already shaping up to be better than the actual libers (an admittedly very low bar) so it could potentially be better than the 2.0 one. If anything, after the backlash I think they’ll be quite sensitive to any further accusations that they’re squatting people’s collections so they may actually make more of an effort to keep the pdf up to date as a living document. 

[Brofist]

Going through more rules tonight, another thing I've realized- fliers are so close to being good, but they are gimped hard by their missions forcing them to go their movement distance. Something like the poor Kharybdis is functionally useless, besides costing a ton of points, it will never go more than 2 inches out of your deployment zone... the entire game Easy fix would be to double the movement of all fliers.

 

So who, exactly, play tested this?

[Mandragola]

45 minutes ago, Brofist said:

Going through more rules tonight, another thing I've realized- fliers are so close to being good, but they are gimped hard by their missions forcing them to go their movement distance. Something like the poor Kharybdis is functionally useless, besides costing a ton of points, it will never go more than 2 inches out of your deployment zone... the entire game Easy fix would be to double the movement of all fliers.

 

So who, exactly, play tested this?

This is isn’t quite right, though it’s what I thought too at first. Reserves can come on any of the edges of your deployment zone, not just the back edge - which is actually never defined. So flyers can come on up the sides too. A Kharybdis or better yet a storm eagle can easily deliver a turn 1 charge into the enemy DZ. it’s like having a transport with an 18” move that has to start on your flank. 

 

To be honest I don’t rate the Kharybdis that much. But more because it can’t do a lot after dropping off troops. It’s a great way to drop a load of Cataphractii somewhere inconvenient for your opponent but not reliable, as I don’t think the MoS improves its chance to turn up. 

[Gorgoff]

45 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

This is isn’t quite right, though it’s what I thought too at first. Reserves can come on any of the edges of your deployment zone, not just the back edge - which is actually never defined.

It says pretty accurate that you deploy them along the edge of the battlefield edge in your deployment zone. 

 

 

the flanks are not the edge imho. 

But worry not @Brofist

Look at the three deployment maps. Search and destroy seperates the board in quarters and if the flyer is positioned correctly it can fly directly into the neutral zone besides the deployment map which is very useful. 

And in Dawn of War the deployment zone is 12" wide so easy to fly outside with all flyers.

Funny enough I was thinking about the Stormbird couple of minutes ago. 

It can come flying in, disembarka a rhino in front of it (it isn't limited to its back anymore) which drives full 12 inches and disembarks a unit as well. 

Kind of a flying Matroschka. :D

 

[Mandragola]

20 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

the flanks are not the edge imho. 

I understand why you’d think this, but I’m sure it’s actually up the sides. The wording of the flyer rules is a bit ambiguous on this but it’s clear in the section for normal reserves. All can come on from the battlefield edge within your deployment zone.

 

As I said before, you never have a battlefield edge defined, other than the edge of the board within your DZ. units fall back towards the nearest point on the edge within your DZ too, for example, meaning they’ll quite often fall back sideways. 

[Wibbling]

The term is not 'flank' though. it is edge. Although, I suspect somewhere 'table edge' is defined. This is why this desperation to write lawyeristic rules is bad. Someone is always going to intentionally interpret it for their benefit and no amount of writing will change that.

 

 

[Irate Khornate]

At this point Tzeentch wrote the rules. Which would make a whole lot of sense with Tousand Sons being cranked up this edition. Also gives us confirmation on Thousand Sons getting their hereticus rules this edition. 

 

Remember to wear your tin foil hat so they can't read your mind, also as storage for your giant Hershey Kiss.

 

 

[Mandragola]

55 minutes ago, Wibbling said:

The term is not 'flank' though. it is edge. Although, I suspect somewhere 'table edge' is defined. This is why this desperation to write lawyeristic rules is bad. Someone is always going to intentionally interpret it for their benefit and no amount of writing will change that.

This isn’t me intentionally interpreting a rule for my benefit. I don’t own a Kharybdis and I’ve no plans on getting one. 
 

But I do have a copy of the rulebook. The wording for normal reserves entering play is this:

 

“The controlling player must select a point along the edge of the battlefield that is within the deployment zone for that player as defined by the mission in use.”

I don’t think that’s ambiguous. It isn’t “your” battlefield edge, it’s “the edge of the battlefield”. You don’t have a battlefield edge like you used to have, just a deployment zone. 
 

The flyer rules are badly written and need clarification. What is “the edge of the Battlefield Edge”? Why is the second “edge” capitalised but not the first?  It’s all very mysterious. 
 

Flyers are of course on great big oval bases. If you place one “along the edge of the Battlefield Edge that is within the Controlling Plater’s Deployment Zone”, does that mean just the side of the oval has to be touching the edge in the deployment zone, potentially with half the base sticking beyond the DZ? 
 

I ask because, despite the vast amount of text in the book, this is not clear. It’s an example of where a picture could have replaced a thousand words. 

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

BTW, did you notice that, in the current rulebook, are far fewer example armies, than in the previous one?

 

I mean, you know, a painted army of one of the factions, made and collected by one of the members of GW's staff. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf
Ordo Gramaticus strikes back

[Nephaston]

2 minutes ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

are far more less example armies

 

"Far fewer" 

[BitsHammer]

21 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

 

"Far fewer" 

Thanks Ordo Grammaticus.

 

As for the flyers, it sounds like you can bring it in on the flank if your entry point is inside your deployment zone. That could give you more distance into the board.

[Gorgoff]

5 hours ago, Mandragola said:

I understand why you’d think this, but I’m sure it’s actually up the sides. The wording of the flyer rules is a bit ambiguous on this but it’s clear in the section for normal reserves. All can come on from the battlefield edge within your deployment zone.

 

As I said before, you never have a battlefield edge defined, other than the edge of the board within your DZ. units fall back towards the nearest point on the edge within your DZ too, for example, meaning they’ll quite often fall back sideways. 

I am the first one to admit that my reasoning isn't watertight but for 30 years the edge of the table was always the one the players were standing before and the flanks were called the flanks or sides. I won't change that until GW specifically tells me that they mean in a different way.

 

29 minutes ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

BTW, did you notice that, in the current rulebook, are far more less example armies, than in the previous one?

Yup.

Have you noticed that both armies are illegal because they include units which neither have rules in the Liber nor in the coming legacy pdf? ;)

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Gorgoff

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Yes. If I recall correctly, I told that days ago. At least,not in that time.

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

I am the first one to admit that my reasoning isn't watertight but for 30 years the edge of the table was always the one the players were standing before and the flanks were called the flanks or sides. I won't change that until GW specifically tells me that they mean in a different way.

 

Yup.

Have you noticed that both armies are illegal because they include units which neither have rules in the Liber nor in the coming legacy pdf? ;)