Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Dwango]

34 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. 

Wasn't shred covered in a previous article. Shred (5) was reroll wounds on a 5 to hit. I could have dreamt that though.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

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

It's not the 40k version, whatever it ends up being. Each bespoke weapon rule in 30k still triggers on the (X) roll, not off a natural 6 (a 40k critical hit). Based off the Flurry of Blows rule and the fact it's on the Black Sword, I think Critical Hit might the new version of Instant Death or at least do more damage. I can't imagine Sigismund only ever doing 1 damage per wound roll.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea, so challenges were shoe horned into 40k for 6th edition, and....never really worked. And it kept on not working through the versions of heresy. 

 

On one hand, I'm interested in seeing a functional challenge mechanic. On the other, everyone hated extra phases. They didn't like the bloat of the psychic phase, and they super didn't like the bloat of the dogfight phase through n 7th. 

[Misterduch]

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

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.

 

I mean, we already have critical hits in game with Breaching, Rending, Murderous strike etc

[Corswain]

Hmmmm... least interesting addition to the rules for me. If they limit command and champion sub-types so that challenges are rare then it shouldn't slow things too much, I suppose.

Or if you don't like challenges and your opponent doesn't like challenges you can both just completely ignore them.

[BitsHammer]

I read this article right after I got up and I have to say it felt like my brain wasn't functioning. 

 

Looking at it again I think it looks like the concept is the challenge system from 6th/7th restricted to Independent Characters with a mix of the dogfighting mini game just so people can't solely win through stats.

 

I can appreciate that if that was the intended goal.

[MagicHat]

Heavy did have a problem in both 40k and 30k where if you already had -1 to hit/snapshot you might as well move without further malus.

 

40k fixed this with lower BS base, and then +1 to hit if stationary. 

 

30k choosing to reduce a stat and giving it back if stationary works, but they missed a trick limiting it to a single stat and just one increase. 

Heavy bolter being FP2 and Heavy (FP2) for instance, or multimelta being Range 12" Heavy (range12").

Some weapon could have been heavy (FP1, D1) as well.

 

Oh well.

[Brother Sutek]

2 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

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. 

Again my point is more that when more minor things are added more time is taken. I'm hoping it won't be an issue as challenges will be far stricter than they are now. I only scanned the rules as I don't know the entirely of the rule set so anything read can be taken out of game context. Thia is why I didn't mention the size of modern armies vs 2nd as the rules are mostly streamlined from then. Either way if the new duel rules makes it impossible for the unit to attack those in a duel or for the leftover wounds inflicted to spill into the unit I'll be happy. I loath that two heroes are fighting, one dies and suddenly the victor is making Julien fries of the unit in the same turn. Personal bug bear I know.

[MARK0SIAN]

22 minutes ago, Misterduch said:

 

I mean, we already have critical hits in game with Breaching, Rending, Murderous strike etc

Yeah I don’t object to the mechanic as much as it just seems lazy to borrow the same name they use in 40k. 
 

I’d rather they stayed very separate games but it just feels like it’s moving too much towards 40k. I think I’m just bummed because I was really hoping for pretty minor rules updates in this edition and everything they reveal just makes it feel like it’s moving away (in a big way) from the game I like. 

[Gorgoff]

To me the inportsnt bit was this:

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.

 

Challenges sound like fun and pretty restricted to some characters. 

It will be tedious at start but after doing it a couple of times it will run smoothly I am sure.

But again I am more interested in the rules for list building and how vehicles work than challenges. 

[arnesh88]

5 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Yeah I don’t object to the mechanic as much as it just seems lazy to borrow the same name they use in 40k. 

What would you call it then?

[Corswain]

Yeah, I am curious to see how they keep the FOC but enable you to build an "all jetbike army."

 

My bet is a return to multiple FOC's.

[MARK0SIAN]

2 minutes ago, arnesh88 said:

What would you call it then?

Well it depends on exactly what it does but if it’s as Jaxom suggests and it’s a new version or variety of instant death then the existing murderous strike name would be fine.