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 yesterday at 01:40 AM 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 yesterday at 01:48 AM 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? 

 

 

 

 

[OttoVonAwesome]

6 hours ago, MoriyaSchism 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. 

I actually did this. Used the Traitor herald as a reference to sculpt them in Blender. Just finished the new version and yeah... It looks wierd. Reminds me of the kind of 3rd party marines people sculpt when they are afraid of getting a copystrike. I still need to smooth out some of the parts but I think I much perfer the older look.

[Marshal Rohr]

Solar rules are really great and thematic, however you’ve gotta lean hard into that theme. I’m struggling to see the point of the Tactical Command Section, it gives you two detachments but you can’t take the Solar specific tercios, and if your guys aren’t taken as part of a Tercio (with the exception of lasrifles) your command section won’t give them a buff. So for example, if you want to take a Valdor or Infernus, you can never give them the Armored Command Sections auto repair bonus. 

[Xenith]

10 hours ago, jaxom said:

Apothecaries - As I understand it:

 

I'm a fan of clean rules and special rules only where a particular ability cannot be conferred by a statline change. This seems needlessly over complicated, and thematically busted - is the apoc going to be triaging and fixing one person, or going around sticking plasters on all 20 squad members? They could easily have kept this as FNP, had an apoc resurrect 1 model/turn, or just made the unit +1T. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Xenith

[Scruffy_Mcbuffy]

So for Terror Squads. The Headsman can't take the Headsman's axe. And they swapped the icon image for the Justarian and Reaver squads

I could be wrong on the unit icon and it's meant to represent the Terminators as Elite's instead of Heavy Assault? But Reavers aren't Heavy Assault units . IDK it gets more confusing the more I look at it. Seems like a big deal when it's the only way to build an army.

Edited 8 hours ago by Scruffy_Mcbuffy

[Mandragola]

10 hours ago, jaxom said:

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

Fair point. They’re certainly improved by getting +1A on the charge or something like that. But not by enough, in my opinion. A charging world eater despoiler has three attacks hitting on 4s. Give him a bolter and have him stand still, he gets three shots hitting on 3s. 
 

So I don’t think World Eater despoilers are good. I think despoilers probably drag World Eaters down a bit, instead. I’d probably take tactical squads for them, so I could have good shooting and a respectable number of attacks on the charge too, if I was going for pure utility over the fluff. 
 

Workd Eaters and equivalent do have access to plenty of good melee units, like veteran assault squads, retinues and terminators. And the problem for despoilers is that they might see exactly that kind of thing on the other side of the board. The elite melee units tend to have more attacks, more wounds and WS5, yet pay the same price for power weapons that despoilers do. It’s far more efficient to spend those points on a weapon for someone who’ll do a much better job using it. 

[apologist]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

I'm a fan of clean rules and special rules only where a particular ability cannot be conferred by a statline change. This seems needlessly over complicated, and thematically busted - is the apoc going to be triaging and fixing one person, or going around sticking plasters on all 20 squad members? They could easily have kept this as FNP, had an apoc resurrect 1 model/turn, or just made the unit +1T. 

 

I'll agree with overcomplicated, but thematically I think it makes a lot more sense that a field apothecary can triage small arms wounds, but is at a loss when his comrades are hit with tank busters!

 

The designers have made explicit that they want the game to be more narrative, and so I get the feeling the reason rules like these feel a bit over-crunchy is the desire to hew closely to 'feel' rather than slickness. I'm not sure they're hit the mark every time, but I admire the effort.

 

For what it's worth, I think apothecary rules have always struggled a bit. They're either realistic but ineffective (2nd ed. 40k) or overly abstract and 'game-y' (10th ed. 40k). While I always thought I wanted abstractness and clean rules, there's been a bit of a sting in the tail of me getting my wish. 40k has got smoother and faster and slicker, but ultimately I now find it a bit ... soulless? 

 

+++

I always liked having an Apothecary present in my army, but it felt weird seeing one in every squad. These 'Medic!' rules appear over-complex on the face of things, but I suspect after a game or two they'll become second nature. My impression is that they have ensured that taking an Apothecary in a squad will be more driven by narrative and rule-of-cool than an auto-take, and that's a narrative win.

 

... and as a final thought, it strikes me that these rules tally well with Legions Imperialis, where the Medic only has a chance at saving infantry hit by Light weapons (i.e. small arms) – they're ineffective against bigger stuff.

[Marshal Loss]

14 hours ago, Mandragola said:

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

 

Enjoyed the article. Any thoughts on chainaxes vs chainswords on assault squads? 

[Mandragola]

58 minutes ago, apologist said:

I always liked having an Apothecary present in my army, but it felt weird seeing one in every squad. These 'Medic!' rules appear over-complex on the face of things, but I suspect after a game or two they'll become second nature. My impression is that they have ensured that taking an Apothecary in a squad will be more driven by narrative and rule-of-cool than an auto-take, and that's a narrative win.

 

... and as a final thought, it strikes me that these rules tally well with Legions Imperialis, where the Medic only has a chance at saving infantry hit by Light weapons (i.e. small arms) – they're ineffective against bigger stuff.

I think this is right and probably applies to a lot of 3rd edition. They've used too many words and maybe not enough pictures to describe things that actually aren't all that complicated. Once you do understand them, actually using these rules might not be all that bad.

 

And to be fair, wound allocation, saves and damage mitigation has always been tricky. We've finally lost artificer armour tanking and save rerolls at least.

52 minutes ago, Marshal Loss said:

 

Enjoyed the article. Any thoughts on chainaxes vs chainswords on assault squads? 

I think I prefer axes if you're fighting tactical marines or equivalent. They won't do all that much to you with 1 attack each so you can afford to strike after them. And against scarier things you're probably dead anyway, so it doesn't matter. Actually the axes are probably still best against things like Terminators, since their very scary weapons tend to have bigger initiative penalties. You'll still strike ahead of them and maybe do something.

[Vassakov]

They're just bafflingly poorly written rules. Like, for about 80% I think you can understand fairly easily what they mean, but there are going to be disagreements.

 

Then you've got the things that you suspect are wrong, but because there's so much that doesn't seem right it's hard to tell if it is intentional or not like the unit slots referenced above.

 

Really does feel like the rules were rushed to hit a deadline to go with the new models, which is a shame as the core principles actually seem really good. I'm looking forward to giving it a spin, but suspect we might need to do a bit of tweaking or houseruling to make a few things work.

 

And thank you @Mandragola for your articles - shame the Despoilers aren't great but I'm still going to try two squads in Rhinos having a crack at a barney.

 

Then I'll just throw Gal Vorbak at the wall and see what sticks. Assuming that they can actually fight, that is...

[Stitch5000]

2 hours ago, Scruffy_Mcbuffy said:

So for Terror Squads. The Headsman can't take the Headsman's axe. And they swapped the icon image for the Justarian and Reaver squads

I could be wrong on the unit icon and it's meant to represent the Terminators as Elite's instead of Heavy Assault? But Reavers aren't Heavy Assault units . IDK it gets more confusing the more I look at it. Seems like a big deal when it's the only way to build an army.

Justaerin are Elites and need to be taken in an Army Vanguard Detachment (unlocked by a High Command Choice (Praetor Grade). 
Reavers are Heavy Assault, unlocked by the Shock Assault Auxiliary Detachment, unlocked by a Command Choice (Centurion Grade).