Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Spazmolytic]

A heads up for anyone in the Toronto Area and is on the fence about buying the box, Wheels & Wings hobby has a instore special only, $223.00 CDN + tax. Not sure how many copies they have left but you need to be in person, no shipping, to get that price, otherwise its 318.00 plus tax. I'd phone ahead before the trek to verify stock.

[Gorgoff]

I'm currently trying to get my Death Guard army into the new army organization plan and I'm finding that it's not working at all. I need way more detachments than I could ever get. I think I have to screenshot the individual elements as little symbols and make them into little stickers so that I can put them together on the computer like a collage. Who came up with this :cuss:?

 

As far as I can see it I am now forced to take maximum characters in my primsry detachment to being remotely able to take a what I would call normal army. 

 

[jaxom]

What are the units?

[Shard of Magnus]

I’ll second jaxom, what are you trying to include and is there a point total you’re targeting?

 

I’m looking forward to New Recruit getting everything finalized, as having it on mobile for use has been super valuable in 2.0.  However, I’m leaning towards making a bunch of detachment cards + unit cards of my models that I can use to visually build a list.  Thought is to make something like the old epic army cards. Using a spreadsheet or draft version of New Recruit hasn’t been as helpful for me when I keep playing around with logistical benefit options and different detach combinations.

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, jaxom said:

What are the units?

I have two tactical squads, which fit nicely in the primary just as characters. 

Then I have two Heavy Support Squads, two Kratos, two Castra Ferrum, one Destroyers, one (or maybe two) Rapiers so far. And two Techmarines. So I already need a Consul for the two bots.

I figured that the Death Guard detachment will help immensely.

[jaxom]

Thank you, I’ll be able to take a closer look when I get home. 
 

I can say the 2 dreadnoughts got me thinking it could be a Consul or a Moritechnican (or whatever the dreadnought specialist moved to Legacies is called).

[SlickSamos]

You can do it but will require your Tech Marines to have a promotion each

 

Primary

Mortificator (Tech marine model)

Forge Lord (Tech marine model)

Centurion 

Tactical Squad (Prime Advantage)

 

Dreadnought Talon

2 x Castra Ferrum Dreadnoughts 

 

Armoured Support

2 x Kratos Tanks

 

Tactical Support

2 x Heavy Support Squads

 

Reaping Host

Tactical Squad (Prime Advantage)

Rapier Battery

Destroyer Squad

Edited August 8 by SlickSamos

[Gorgoff]

The Mortificator doesn't unlock Castra Ferrum Dreadnoughts but only Contemptors sadly.

[Brother Kraskor]

Edit: ignore me! Got my wires crossed.

Edited August 8 by Brother Kraskor

[SlickSamos]

39 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

The Mortificator doesn't unlock Castra Ferrum Dreadnoughts but only Contemptors sadly.

Pants...

 

I think there are two different ways of doing it then, both using the prime slots for models:

 

#1

 

Primary

Forge Lord (Tech marine model)

Centurion 

Tactical Squad (Prime Advantage: Logistical Benefit - Castra Ferrum Dreadnought)

 

Armoured Support

2 x Kratos Tanks

 

Tactical Support

2 x Heavy Support Squads

 

Reaping Host

Tactical Squad (Prime Advantage: Logistical Benefit - Castra Ferrum Dreadnought)

Rapier Battery

Destroyer Squad

 

Looses one Techmarine but has another HQ (which could just be another Forge Lord or a Mortifcator) and detachment to expand to (which could be a Techmarine Covenant)

 

---

 

#2

 

Primary

Centurion 

2x Random HQ or a second Centurion 

Tactical Squad (Prime Advantage: Logistical Benefit - Castra Ferrum Dreadnought)

 

Armoured Support

2 x Kratos Tanks

 

Tactical Support

2 x Heavy Support Squads

 

Reaping Host

Tactical Squad (Prime Advantage)

Rapier Battery

Destroyer Squad

 

Techmarine Covenant

2 x Techmarine (one with Prime Advantage: Logistical Benefit - Castra Ferrum Dreadnought)

 

Has all the models but isn't easy to expand on

 

---

 

Making lists shouldn't be this hard but oh well

[Shard of Magnus]

50 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

The Mortificator doesn't unlock Castra Ferrum Dreadnoughts but only Contemptors sadly.

You can use the two prime advantages on the tactical squads for logistical benefit and pick up the two dreadnoughts that way if you don’t mind passing on master sergeant or combat veteran options.

[jaxom]

@SlickSamos did great work!

 

To help explain why the second list has less expansion options, here's what left open in the detachments.

 

Spoiler

#1

Primary

1x High Command - Unlocks 1 more detachment

1x Centurion - Unlocks1 or 2 more detachments

3x Troop

4x Transport

 

Armoured Support

2x Armoured Support

 

Tactical Support

2x Transport

 

Reaping Host

1x Troop

 

OR

 

#2

 

Primary

1x High Command - Unlocks 1 more detachment

3x Troops

4x Transport

 

Armoured Support

2x Armoured Support

 

Tactical Support

2x Transport

 

Reaping Host

1x Troop

 - Prime Advantage could be used for Logistical Support

 

Techmarine Covenant

4x Techmarine

 

 

If you go with option #1, you can pick up a two more characters and unlock up to three more detachments. That blows open even more expansion options. In both lists, the easiest expansion options without new detachments is up to 2 more Armoured Support units and/or up to four more Troop units; plus up to 4 Transports if you are into that sort of thing.

 

So far from list translation (2.0 to 3.0) experiments like this, I've lists based on "non-Troop becomes Troop", HQ-light lists, and lists with full Techmarine and/or Apothecary units are suffering the most. The Apothecarion and Techmarine Covenant detachments are too restrictive while also being too big. I wish they were 4 Support slots, with at least two being filled with the matching unit and then that lets you use the other two for any Support unit.

[Brofist]

Spent a few days making lists. I loved the idea of detachments going in, but I've grown to dislike it. I find it frustrating because its both more complex, but also more restrictive and with less flavour. I miss RoW- slurp juice and amazon prime are poor substitutes.

 

I also feel they really over indexed on the reactions economy. There are so many to keep track of. I'm going to need cards or a spreadsheet along with counters if I end up playing this.

[SlickSamos]

They feel like a bit more fiddly and yet open version of 7th's formations.  I guess it's because they had to be designed to work across multiple armies and archetypes so ended up not quite working for a number of v2 lists...

[Irate Khornate]

List building for 3rd really does remind me of troubleshooting circuits and that's not a good thing. 

 

For those who enjoy it, I'm happy for you. 

 

For some of us it reminds us of getting bit by a live wire you swore you shut off trying to track a bad wire or connection in a sweltering hot attic.

[Rusted Boltgun]

32 minutes ago, Irate Khornate said:

List building for 3rd really does remind me of troubleshooting circuits and that's not a good thing. 

 

For those who enjoy it, I'm happy for you. 

 

For some of us it reminds us of getting bit by a live wire you swore you shut off trying to track a bad wire or connection in a sweltering hot attic.

 

I wouldn't have thought list building in 3.0 provoked such a physical reaction but it certainly reminds me of trying to back track through a maze.

But then 2.0 was like trying to find the right pair of jeans in Levi's factory for me.

[jaxom]

3.0 army building reminds me of Nigel Stillman's advice on collecting, painting, and gaming. Vexing if one is working off the 1.0/2.0 zeitgeist, but very valuable if starting from scratch in this new40k 3rd ed/HH3.0 zeitgeist.

[SlickSamos]

I could write an essay on what they did wrong because, for me, it is so close to being excellent. 

 

But the short version is:

If everyone had a wider range of detachment choices (e.g. Dark Angels) then I think it would be less stressful for the players without missing what SDS was probably aiming for; and, 

If each detachment had a tiny bonus associated with it then it'll feel so much better adhering to it and make them feel like actual detachments

[Cleon]

Honestly, if this army build system was built in place from HH1, and had been a consideration when units were being created and people's collections were being built, I could see it having grown into a system that two edition later was seen as unquestionably better than the standard force org chart. Alas we are not in that world.

 

I see what SlickSamos is saying above, and I totally get the thought, but I really don't trust GW to give detachments bonuses without returning to 6th/7th ed 40ks utterly broken formations system, or failing to apply any form of balance restraint (oh what's that a better bonus on the Dark Angel specific detachments, and they have more of them, what a surprise!), Where I'd prefer to be is to remove the 'unlock detachment' character tax/allocation system from the core Crusade detachment, but instead give each detachment mandatory slots that had to be filled to take it and optional slots that could be filled (and for many of the detachments I'd add the HQ into them as a mandatory slot, and possibly give some characters restricted lists of what detachments (if any) they can be the mandatory HQ in.)

 

The 'Easy' fix to the current complexity from where I sit is to go 'oh, this new system is actually really flavourful and cool for the Solar Aux and the mech, but it doesn't really work with the more flexible Astartes formations.... oh what if they get a faction 'Or use the old org chart' rule and each Astartes unit also gets an old style org chart icon for a 'Legion strike force' build option?

[Marshal Rohr]

They won’t apply rules to detachments because the design philosophy this edition is to strip out always on rules in favor of reactions. 

[jaxom]

9 hours ago, SlickSamos said:

If everyone had a wider range of detachment choices (e.g. Dark Angels) then I think it would be less stressful for the players without missing what SDS was probably aiming for; and, 

If each detachment had a tiny bonus associated with it then it'll feel so much better adhering to it and make them feel like actual detachments

 

9 hours ago, Cleon said:

Honestly, if this army build system was built in place from HH1, and had been a consideration when units were being created and people's collections were being built, I could see it having grown into a system that two edition later was seen as unquestionably better than the standard force org chart. Alas we are not in that world.

 

I see what SlickSamos is saying above, and I totally get the thought, but I really don't trust GW to give detachments bonuses without returning to 6th/7th ed 40ks utterly broken formations system, or failing to apply any form of balance restraint (oh what's that a better bonus on the Dark Angel specific detachments, and they have more of them, what a surprise!), Where I'd prefer to be is to remove the 'unlock detachment' character tax/allocation system from the core Crusade detachment, but instead give each detachment mandatory slots that had to be filled to take it and optional slots that could be filled (and for many of the detachments I'd add the HQ into them as a mandatory slot, and possibly give some characters restricted lists of what detachments (if any) they can be the mandatory HQ in.)

 

The 'Easy' fix to the current complexity from where I sit is to go 'oh, this new system is actually really flavourful and cool for the Solar Aux and the mech, but it doesn't really work with the more flexible Astartes formations.... oh what if they get a faction 'Or use the old org chart' rule and each Astartes unit also gets an old style org chart icon for a 'Legion strike force' build option?

 

I think the trick would have been making some the Legion aux detachments as Legion primary detachments. Then tag a simple rule to the primary detachment; so any Space Marine army only has two passive rules (Legion and primary detachment).

 

[Bung]

8 hours ago, jaxom said:

 

 

I think the trick would have been making some the Legion aux detachments as Legion primary detachments. Then tag a simple rule to the primary detachment; so any Space Marine army only has two passive rules (Legion and primary detachment).

 

 

Which adds 2 problems, how do you mark the detachments on your units, so your opponent has no problem to see which unit is in which detachment and how would you avoid the problems / power creep that destroyed 7th Edition with those detachments?

 

It would have helped if every Liber had a one page sheet cheat to see which unit is what in the force organisation plan,

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Bung said:

Which adds 2 problems, how do you mark the detachments on your units, so your opponent has no problem to see which unit is in which detachment and how would you avoid the problems / power creep that destroyed 7th Edition with those detachments?

To clarify: I’d have done legion specific aux detachments as primary detachments because there’s only one per army. The primary detachment provides the bonus across the entire army.

[Gorgoff]

I am still very iffy whenever GW gives army wide different bonusses deoending on the faction because they have a loooooong history of :cuss:ing up the balance. 

[Brofist]

So.... how about the tags they started adding that do nothing on various unit entries?