Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Mmmmm Napalm]

47 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Do you have the book? 

Nothing about that marine's heraldry is reminiscient of destroyers. Granted it is alpha legion, but still. I also looked at the mk. iv destroyers and the color plate does not have the distinctive destroyer elements such as the reinforced plastron and their vent-less facemask. Besides the presence of rivets on the poleyns and elbows (which are noticeable more pronounced in the color plate), the details highlighted in the image are not clear analogues to details on the existing destroyer models, and in general are the sorts of slight alterations I would expect from an updated Mk. IV armor design. The backpack in particular does not resemble existing mk. iv backpacks. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Mmmmm Napalm

[Marshal Rohr]

9 minutes ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

Nothing about that marine's heraldry is reminiscient of destroyers. Granted it is alpha legion, but still. I also looked at the mk. iv destroyers and the color plate does not have the distinctive destroyer elements such as the reinforced plastron and their vent-less facemask. Besides the presence of rivets on the poleyns and elbows (which are noticeable more pronounced in the color plate), the details highlighted in the image are not clear analogues to details on the existing destroyer models, and in general are the sorts of slight alterations I would expect from an updated Mk. IV armor design. The backpack in particular does not resemble existing mk. iv backpacks. 

So then we have examples of Mark IV Assault, Mark IV tactical, and now this Mark IV with reinforced forearms and shins but this one singular piece of artwork out of all the other artwork done for the rest of the new mark ranges is actually the Mark IV and not the variant with reinforced forearms and shins?

Edited 20 hours ago by Marshal Rohr

[Mmmmm Napalm]

1 minute ago, Marshal Rohr said:

So then we have examples of Mark IV Assault, Mark IV tactical, and now this Mark IV with reinforced forearms and shins but this one singular piece of artwork out of all the other artwork done for the rest of the new mark ranges is actually the Mark IV and not the variant with reinforced forearms and shins. 

The vambraces are distinctly different from the reinforced ones seen on the destroyers.

[Marshal Rohr]

20 minutes ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

The vambraces are distinctly different from the reinforced ones seen on the destroyers.

As are all of the new mark three plates on their update. Just take a second and ask yourself why they’d have two different types of regular power armored Mark IV. Is it a headhunter? Maybe? Recon? Maybe. Destroyer? Probably. But it’s definitely not just some mistake. Once we get the book we can see what it says. 

[Stitch5000]

22 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. 

The wording for Reserves is different to the wording for Aerial Reserves. the former states "a point along the edge of the Battlefield that is within the Deployment Zone for that Player".

The Combat Assignments generally state that "The Model may be placed anywhere along the edge of the Battlefield Edge that is within the Controlling Player’s Deployment Zone." This implies that there is ONE edge that can be used. 

[Joe]

This is also assuming they are actually in the office, and not ~checks hand~ booked off on annual leave like many, many working professionals in the UK are during this point of the summer.

 

I'd love to get half my outstanding tasks finished, were it not for colleagues that are now away until mid-to-late August. 

 

 

[Mandragola]

I’ve got a new article up on GH, this time looking at in depth at troops and support: https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-astartes-troops-and-support-units-in-third-edition/ 

 

Hope you find this useful. I’d be interested in any comments. 
 

Next up will be Elites, Retinues and Heavy Assault. 

[OttoVonAwesome]

18 hours ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

God dammit I just finished modernizing the mark 4 and making new destroyers... Welp back to the mines.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

I’ve got a new article up on GH, this time looking at in depth at troops and support: https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-astartes-troops-and-support-units-in-third-edition/ 

 

Hope you find this useful. I’d be interested in any comments. 
 

Next up will be Elites, Retinues and Heavy Assault. 

"Medic!" is a mess. Good lord, why they made it so weird...

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

I’ve got a new article up on GH, this time looking at in depth at troops and support: https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-astartes-troops-and-support-units-in-third-edition/ 

 

Hope you find this useful. I’d be interested in any comments. 
 

Next up will be Elites, Retinues and Heavy Assault. 

Just curious but do you think this is actually how they intend the apothecary to work or do you think some mistake or lack of proofreading slipped through somewhere and it’s not what they intend? 

[MoriyaSchism]

20 hours ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

I don't like it. Seems like a really pointless redesign. All they had to do was make a non-artificer version of Tybalt Marr's armour. 

[Mogger351]

29 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Just curious but do you think this is actually how they intend the apothecary to work or do you think some mistake or lack of proofreading slipped through somewhere and it’s not what they intend? 

Unintentional impact of the excessive word salad confusing the writers to not get their own sub turn sub structure in order and break their own core rules? I'd be more impressed if it was intentional.

[Mandragola]

38 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Just curious but do you think this is actually how they intend the apothecary to work or do you think some mistake or lack of proofreading slipped through somewhere and it’s not what they intend? 

I guess they function, so I *think* this is intentional. But it's a weird one. In particular it's unusual to have a lot of 2-wound models left on 1 wound, though that seems to be possible. And the wasted wounds you're left with are also odd.

 

I have to be honest and say this is all my interpretation of a very unclear rule. I could definitely be wrong, but I'm doing by best with this stuff.

[MARK0SIAN]

16 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Unintentional impact of the excessive word salad confusing the writers to not get their own sub turn sub structure in order and break their own core rules? I'd be more impressed if it was intentional.

This does seem pretty plausible. A lot of this new edition feels like it wasn’t play tested very well, if at all and this is maybe one of the areas that slipped through the cracks without getting a cleanup. 

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Mandragola said:

I’ve got a new article up on GH, this time looking at in depth at troops and support: https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-astartes-troops-and-support-units-in-third-edition/ 

 

Hope you find this useful. I’d be interested in any comments. 
 

Next up will be Elites, Retinues and Heavy Assault. 

 

Despoiler Squads and Assault Squads - I think they could use a sentence or two about how certain Legion rules will promote taking them. 

 

Apothecaries - As I understand it:

1. Unsaved wounds are allocated to models. The player(s) should group damage by wounds; for example, 1 unsaved 2-damage wound and 1 unsaved 1-damage wound are allocated to 3-Wound Model 1, 2 2-damage wounds are allocated to 3-Wound Model 3, and 1 2-damage wound is allocated to 3-Wound Model 3.
2. 3-Wound Models 1 and 2 are casualties and 3-Wound Model 3 has 1 Wound left.
3. Models make their Recovery Test. Let's assume they all make it.
4. Results
   1. 3-Wound Model 1 can reduce 2-damage wound to 1-damage or 1-damage wound to 0-damage; either way, they retroactively only take 2 damage.
   2. 3-Wound Model 2 can reduce either 2-damage wound to 1-damage, but retroactively still take 3 damage and will be removed as a casualty.
   3. 3-Wound Model 3 reduces the 2-damage wound to 1-damage; they retroactively take 1 damage.

To summarize, track the damage each model has been allocated, lower it by one on a successful Recovery Test, and they retroactively only take this newly calculated damage.

 

If Tactical Squads get taken as much as I think they will, then there will be a lot of 1-damage shooting on 1 Wound models. Big blobs of 20 will benefit, but I wouldn't take them with smaller squads. The Apothecary in a way helps act as a deterrent against small arms. Does the opponent risk shooting 1-damage weapons and that you'll Medic? Or do they have to use weapons they'd rather point at Terminators and tanks?