Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Yeah twin linked is an interesting case where they added complexity in 2.0 by making a distinction between Gravis and Twin Linked. I kind of liked this, even if it meant on a landraider you’d have to re explain it to every opponent.

I could see them dropping this distinction, but they may also further differentiate them.

[Lord Marshal]

Challenges article.

 

Quote

We’ll be back tomorrow with more lore of the Horus Heresy, while we’ll touch on the Force Organisation Chart – which is still very much with us – on Wednesday, and vehicle rules on Friday. Yes they’re tougher, and no we haven’t changed how it all works.

 

With Sergeant being it's own rule/type combined with only Commanders and Champions being able to Challenge, I wonder if that means most of the former can't partake anymore?

 

Edited Monday at 02:08 PM by Lord Marshal

[Cyrox]

Biggest takeaway from today:

 

[Nephaston]

FOC still here and and vehicle rules still the same, though vague enough to not be entirely clear if that means vehicle movement, vehicle armour/damage, or both. Either way I'm optimistic.

[Wibbling]

It's good that Workshop have laid out an article order. As I really like tanks hearing they've got tougher is very welcome. I wonder if they'll change the what can be fired/defensive weapons rules?

 

The challenge phase I'm not sure on, as while I like the idea of a concentrated 'duelling' element the roll and add initiative concerns me a bit. I agree the element of randomness is a nice touch (as when fencing it's not always the fast little guy first) but also... hmm, another random element. 

[arnesh88]

I'm liking the Challenge Rules. I was indifferent when first announced, but honestly sounds fun and cinematic. Might be my favorite change so far.

Edited Monday at 02:28 PM by arnesh88

[01RTB01]

I like the challenge mini game. In 2.0 it was generally clear who would win challenges. This adds some rock paper scissors style element which should lead to some interesting outcomes.

[Brother Kraskor]

Really like the new challenge rules. Looks like they'll happen less often (not every sergeant can do it) but be more special as a result. More thinking involved, and a chance for someone to punch above the weight from time to time. Very cool!
 

Also pleasing to see some restraint when it comes to melee weapon Damage values - only 1 for Sigismund, and 2 for the Khan. I also fully expect the Laer Blade to correct the article's bold claims about the Khan being faster than Fulgrim! 
 

And nice to see two big topics (FoC and Vehicles) coming this week!

Edited Monday at 02:37 PM by Brother Kraskor

[jaxom]

7 minutes ago, Brother Kraskor said:

not every sergeant can do it

 

48 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

Challenges article.

 

 

With Sergeant being it's own rule/type combined with only Commanders and Champions being able to Challenge, I wonder if that means most of the former can't partake anymore?

 

I hope Brother Kaskor is right. It may mean no more artificer armor for sergeants and that would speed up some parts of the game and remove the “every sergeant is a Salamander taking all the hits for their squad” tactic. I never liked that.

[Mogger351]

It confounds me, they invented 4 leadership stats as it allowed nuance to represent more stuff.

 

Duels however are an algebraic compound stat based off another stat + a dice roll... why not just have a "challenge" or "focus" stat?

[Vassakov]

1 minute ago, Mogger351 said:

It confounds me, they invented 4 leadership stats as it allowed nuance to represent more stuff.

 

Duels however are an algebraic compound stat based off another stat + a dice roll... why not just have a "challenge" or "focus" stat?

 

I assume because regardless of how stoic you are, how wise and how resolute your will... Khârn's still going to bury a chainaxe in your skull. Nothing you can do there, champ. Dread it, run from it... the Eightfold Path comes for you. 

[Marshal Rohr]

It was nice of them to let us know games will take an extra hour and half now. 

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

It was nice of them to let us know games will take an extra hour and half now. 

This, I don’t know anyone who was sad when challenges were removed from 40k in honesty. It's a time sink and a win/lose more mechanic historically.

 

Whey we agree on something!

19 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

 

I assume because regardless of how stoic you are, how wise and how resolute your will... Khârn's still going to bury a chainaxe in your skull. Nothing you can do there, champ. Dread it, run from it... the Eightfold Path comes for you. 

OK, but maybe someone's a good line fighter but a bad duelist or vice versa. It's about as worthy of representation as being good at using a data pad.

[Brother Kraskor]

4 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

It was nice of them to let us know games will take an extra hour and half now. 

Frater, I think you're throwing the baby out with bathwater here!

 

Once we are familiar with the Gambits, it will just add one dice roll extra to determine who strikes first and then it will run at the same speed. And moreover, only between Commanders and Champions - I'd expect Primarchs, Praetors, Champion consuls and maybe base Centurions without Consul upgrade. For a lot of matchups that will only mean two models on the entire battlefield will be eligible. And shouldn't we want that epic clash to have a bit more excitement? 

[Mogger351]

Someone seemingly in the know on Reddit (they called a lot of the article contents 2 months ago) is saying that vehicles keep facings, perform better, tougher, the pen table is gone but the glancing table remains and has no destroyed results.

7 minutes ago, Brother Kraskor said:

Frater, I think you're throwing the baby out with bathwater here!

 

Once we are familiar with the Gambits, it will just add one dice roll extra to determine who strikes first and then it will run at the same speed. And moreover, only between Commanders and Champions - I'd expect Primarchs, Praetors, Champion consuls and maybe base Centurions without Consul upgrade. For a lot of matchups that will only mean two models on the entire battlefield will be eligible. And shouldn't we want that epic clash to have a bit more excitement? 

They're historically lengthy win more/lose more mechanics. Either you know you've lost the duel before it starts and you back out for the unit to be debuffed and wiped, or you know you get to slap the other character with relative ease. Id love to be wrong but GW has always done challenges badly.

[Dudley Nightshade]

I'm a bit fuzzy on some of the modifiers. I think I've got it, but can someone confirm the following?

 

For AM (Attacks Modifier) some have a number, e.g., +1, and some have "A". Does "A" mean the modifier is zero, i.e., use the A stat from the unit's dataslate?

 

This might be similar regarding IM (Initiative Modifier). The Charnabal Sabre has an IM of "+1". The Black Sword has an IM of "1". Do they mean The Black Sword strikes at initiative 1, or is that a typo, or does it mean something else entirely?

[Irate Khornate]

This feels extra complicated for the sake of being complicated. Narrative I suppose however it's still even more book keeping than previous. To be fair though likely three or four will be the go-to's and the rest barely used.  It also reminds me of modifier stacking from 8th edition. 

[Nephaston]

18 minutes ago, Dudley Nightshade said:

This might be similar regarding IM (Initiative Modifier). The Charnabal Sabre has an IM of "+1". The Black Sword has an IM of "1". Do they mean The Black Sword strikes at initiative 1, or is that a typo, or does it mean something else entirely?

That's not a 1 but an I, to show that the weapon hits at the users initiative. 

[MARK0SIAN]

The various buff stacking does seem a bit overly complex and unnecessary. 
 

On the positive side, reducing the number of characters who can take part in a challenge is a good thing. They’ve just got to avoid handing out chosen warrior to everyone and their dog now. 
 

Not loving more 40k creeping in though with critical hits.

[Djangomatic82]

48 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

That's not a 1 but an I, to show that the weapon hits at the users initiative. 

Oooph, my eyes must be getting old. I see it now that you pointed it out, but jayzus that is a really poor typesetting choice. Really wish they just went with the good old "-" if it used the equipped models initiative.

 

On a side note, I've been thinking about the "Heavy" weapons rule change.

 

I do like the re-engineering to make it applicable to a myriad of stats, but like others, I am both worried about the implied mobility/lethality increase it now grants to heavy weapon toting Infantry, as well as the loss of the tactical decision making the "Do I move, or Do I shoot this turn" created. Trade offs and real cost/benefit decisions are what make things interesting, as others have already stated.

Fortunetly, I don't think the re-working of the Heavy weapons type has to automatically locks out the the mechanic of models having to choose between firing at full BS or making Snap Shots.

If the previous wording of the weapons "Heavy" type is instead moved to the "Infantry" Unit Type description (if these are kept for 3.0), I think it would achieve the same thing as before.

Ex:

INFANTRY

Infantry units include all types of foot soldiers. A typical unit of Infantry is between five and ten models strong, but they can be much larger. In rare cases, an Infantry unit may comprise only a single model. Infantry are fairly slow moving, but can cross almost any terrain and make the best use of cover to avoid enemy fire.

The wider category of Infantry units contains a number of sub-types which may be referenced in other Age of Darkness books. Infantry represent the most basic element of any army.

 

When making a Shooting Attack, an Infantry model with a Heavy weapon attacks the number of times indicated. If an Infantry model equipped with a Heavy weapon moved in the preceding Movement phase, they can only make Snap Shots with that Heavy weapon during the Shooting phase. Note that weapons with the Blast special rule cannot fire Snap Shots. Infantry models that make Shooting Attacks with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot Charge in the ensuing Assault phase.

An Infantry unit may only include or be joined by models of the Infantry or Primarch Unit Type, unless a special rule states otherwise.

 

This would allow Vehicles and any other desired unit types to receive the benefits of the new Heavy type as written, while keeping open the option for Infantry through Wargear, like Suspensor Webs or Terminator Armour.  

 

Here's hoping.

Edited Monday at 05:44 PM by Djangomatic82

[01RTB01]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

This, I don’t know anyone who was sad when challenges were removed from 40k in honesty. It's a time sink and a win/lose more mechanic historically.

 

Whey we agree on something!

OK, but maybe someone's a good line fighter but a bad duelist or vice versa. It's about as worthy of representation as being good at using a data pad.

I was. Ultimately games are a time sink. This just adds an extra dimension of fun and is trying to develop a mechanic.

 

As with all changes, it'll take a bit of getting used to but let's be honest, epic challenges are a part of heresy. Trying to see them do something with it is appreciated. It's not like sergeants are going to be challenging primarchs every turn to slow them down. They should be pointful and relatively epic. Bring it on.

[Brother Sutek]

1 hour ago, Brother Kraskor said:

Frater, I think you're throwing the baby out with bathwater here!

 

Once we are familiar with the Gambits, it will just add one dice roll extra to determine who strikes first and then it will run at the same speed. And moreover, only between Commanders and Champions - I'd expect Primarchs, Praetors, Champion consuls and maybe base Centurions without Consul upgrade. For a lot of matchups that will only mean two models on the entire battlefield will be eligible. And shouldn't we want that epic clash to have a bit more excitement? 

I will only add to the original comment that way back in 2nd edition 40k we had a ton of modifiers to stats and combats, it added a lot of time. I concede that if we only see a few and people only play limited numbers of options the time added will be manageable.  It's my hope that they aren't adding complexity for its own sake as sometimes, read that as often, it's better to have a simple rule you remember than multiple that are not. 

[Chyttering]

The passing reference to Shred (X) is interesting - the only way I can think to give Shred degrees of effectiveness would be if Shred (1) allowed reroll 1s, Shred (2) allowed reroll 1s and 2s, etc. 

[01RTB01]

12 minutes ago, Brother Sutek said:

I will only add to the original comment that way back in 2nd edition 40k we had a ton of modifiers to stats and combats, it added a lot of time. I concede that if we only see a few and people only play limited numbers of options the time added will be manageable.  It's my hope that they aren't adding complexity for its own sake as sometimes, read that as often, it's better to have a simple rule you remember than multiple that are not. 

In fairness, the mechanics of close combat in 2nd Ed were clunky and incredibly time consuming. As such, it's never been even slightly similar since. (For 40k/ heresy)

 

At the same time, a marine army of 20-30 models was a 'big' army. 

 

We won't have the same issue with challenges. 

[Brother Kraskor]

8 minutes ago, Chyttering said:

The passing reference to Shred (X) is interesting - the only way I can think to give Shred degrees of effectiveness would be if Shred (1) allowed reroll 1s, Shred (2) allowed reroll 1s and 2s, etc. 

I think the clue is in the Flurry of Blows. It says you get D3 extra attacks but have to be Damage 1, and nothing can change that - specifically stating Shred. So maybe Shred (6+) means a 6 to wound adds a point of Damage. 

Edited Monday at 05:18 PM by Brother Kraskor