Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[twopounder]

It still surprises me that they won't resolve the full turn sequence issue. Even Andy Chambers stated that they really wanted to get rid of it in 3rd edition, but just didn't have the time with a full game overhaul that required new plastic molds and entire revision of all the army books.

Its the #1 biggest issue with the game and a lot of the problems would go away if it wasn't possible to wipe half an opponents army before they even get a chance to move on the first turn.

 

It also looks like there are a lot of new rules that could offset anything they try to do with the stat simplification. Plus they did it a really roundabout way. For example, Melta gives armorbane at 6". Okay, so instead of just saying a melta weapon has the Armorbane rule, you have to lookup what melta does, and melta tells you to go look up what armorbane does.

Its these kind of details that pile on and make the game a slog.

I'm interested in how they tweaked vehicles to not be one hit kills and seeing if that didn't make them way overpowered.

 

In terms of the new FoC, I hesitantly like it. Its a modified version of Legions Imperialis, which I quite liked. But it also stacks a bunch of rules that aren't present in that list building system. 

[BitsHammer]

I still say that Apoc 2.0 had one of the best fixes for alpha strikes and similar problems by having you resolve wounds at the end of game turn. It also made it a gamble on if you did enough to a unit or not.

 

Shame it seems to have died with that version of Appc because it was my favorite mechanic out of that ruleset.

[01RTB01]

56 minutes ago, twopounder said:

It still surprises me that they won't resolve the full turn sequence issue. Even Andy Chambers stated that they really wanted to get rid of it in 3rd edition, but just didn't have the time with a full game overhaul that required new plastic molds and entire revision of all the army books.

Its the #1 biggest issue with the game and a lot of the problems would go away if it wasn't possible to wipe half an opponents army before they even get a chance to move on the first turn.

 

It also looks like there are a lot of new rules that could offset anything they try to do with the stat simplification. Plus they did it a really roundabout way. For example, Melta gives armorbane at 6". Okay, so instead of just saying a melta weapon has the Armorbane rule, you have to lookup what melta does, and melta tells you to go look up what armorbane does.

Its these kind of details that pile on and make the game a slog.

I'm interested in how they tweaked vehicles to not be one hit kills and seeing if that didn't make them way overpowered.

 

In terms of the new FoC, I hesitantly like it. Its a modified version of Legions Imperialis, which I quite liked. But it also stacks a bunch of rules that aren't present in that list building system. 

As much as I malign the terrain set ups provided.

 

They do mitigate the issues of blowing opposition armies away in a turn. Conversely they favour highly elite, small armies. Glares at custodes.

[TheTrans]

1 hour ago, twopounder said:

It also looks like there are a lot of new rules that could offset anything they try to do with the stat simplification. Plus they did it a really roundabout way. For example, Melta gives armorbane at 6". Okay, so instead of just saying a melta weapon has the Armorbane rule, you have to lookup what melta does, and melta tells you to go look up what armorbane does.

Its these kind of details that pile on and make the game a slog.

Me and my gaming group call these 'Babushka Doll Rules', where you look at a special rule, that is just nominally a link to another couple of special rules, so on and hence forth. 

I think we started seeing these 'BDR's in 2.0, and with the drop of ToW they went absolutely nuts with them. 

Now with HH3.0 its evovled to its next form. 

I honestly feel like the specialist rules teams has something like this written plaque somewhere whenever they do rules now:

1. No Negatives at decision making points, only things are either good, or better.
2. More Universal Special Rules are good, USRs within USRs are better.

3. Put every rule sentence through the AI to add over-explained processess for the simpliest thing.

4. :cuss: Magic/Psychic Powers.

5. ABLR (Always be lessening restrictions).
6. Pick a favourite faction and really lean into it!

7. Pick a red-headed step child faction and whip away!

8. Simplify, but add boiler-plate stats, sub-types etc to give impression of depth and complexity.

9. Minimal FAQs. Make people yearn for the new edition churn!


 

[Marshal Rohr]

I wonder which faction of players caused Specialist Games to decide being hyper wordy in rule writing was necessary? Was it the Imperial Armor/Scale Modelers? The Black Library readers? Truly, a mystery for the ages. I have a vague suspicion it might be the people who talk about negative modifiers at “decision points” though. That feels like someone more into rules than models and campaign games. 

Edited yesterday at 04:27 AM by Marshal Rohr

[TheTrans]

5 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

I wonder which faction of players caused Specialist Games to decide being hyper wordy in rule writing was necessary? Was it the Imperial Armor/Scale Modelers? The Black Library readers? Truly, a mystery for the ages. I have a vague suspicion it might be the people who talk about negative modifiers at “decision points” though. That feels like someone more into rules than models and campaign games. 

Just keep glugging the Kool-Aid man! 

I think its the people that don't actually hobby and argue where a comma should be placed and what that means for a rules intention that are probably the issue.... 

But sure, wanting there to be actually meaningful decisions is a game is a monstrous ask. 

[firestorm40k]

6 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

No dude with a fancy helmet and a chansword as a sarge? Promote him to be a centurion instead

Again, if I had the models that might be a solution - I've only got two Tactical Squads, so that's two Sergeants (both equipped with Power Fist and Plasma Pistol), so if I remove one to proxy as a Centurion, that's a squad which won't have a Sergeant. I genuinely do not have a suitable model to sub-in as a replacement. 

 

I realise that the likes of @Bradeh and @SvenIronhand seem to be dismissive of my issue that I don't have the models, or don't seem to think it's that big a deal to add more: let me spell it out. This is my army as it stands:

(Excuse the weapon less Tac Support, I was in the process of painting their magnetised guns when I took the pic; also excuse that I don't have a whole army pic - I really need to do that!) It took two years of work to make this. I know it's not a 3k army, but later this year I was going to take it to that - adding 1 more HQ, another Contemptor, a Spartan and another tank. In the new rules I won't be able to do that without adding another HQ to what I already have. 

 

Those are all the models I've got, and getting these was a big commitment in resources and time. I made the army this way because I could get an army using the 2nd Ed box and a few extras that were available at the time (support and heavy support weapons); I made the Castellan as it gave the army some Imperial Fists 'flavour' without having to invest in Forgeworld models like Templar Brethren or Phalanx Warders that I couldn't afford at the time (and probably still can't to be honest! ). Yes, basically it was the cheapest route to having a decent sized Heresy army. Now, it feels like I'm being punished for not having the foresight to build more HQ's, which at the time I didn't need! 

 

I also tried to keep my army true to the setting, I was inspired by this diagram of a Legion structure from a 1st Ed book:

I figured if I have my Castellan and another HQ, I'm being true to this bit of background - my army can represent a demi-company, plus support, or something like that.

 

Here's the thing that might shock you: I'm interested in other game systems and miniature collections other than Horus Heresy. So when I'm told 'just build another HQ', what if it's not that easy as I don't have time due to other projects. Like I say, I wanted to expand this army later this year - that would have been after I've finished the other stuff I'm doing. If you're 100% invested in Heresy, well good for you - in all seriousness, I'm glad you've found your hobby niche and enjoy it. There's a guy in my local hobby group who is like that - all Heresy, he's the sort who has bought multiple of the Command Squad set and has built several different Consul types. Very cool idea! 

 

But as I say, I collect, build and use miniatures from multiple systems. I have to schedule my time and resources with each project - whether that's a full army or a warband for a skirmish type game. And it is disappointing that, after investing two years of time and effort into my army as it stands, I can't use it in the new edition without deviating from my initial plan - or without additional cost (buying Centurion miniatures). 

Edited yesterday at 04:40 AM by firestorm40k

[Unknown Legionnaire]

3 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

I wonder which faction of players caused Specialist Games to decide being hyper wordy in rule writing was necessary? Was it the Imperial Armor/Scale Modelers? The Black Library readers? Truly, a mystery for the ages. I have a vague suspicion it might be the people who talk about negative modifiers at “decision points” though. That feels like someone more into rules than models and campaign games. 

 

 

And that my friend is a new form of low against your fellow Heresy hobbyists.  Awesome.  Really.  As if all of this wasn't divise enough already.

 

 

You know what, I tell you who's behind the 'need' for wordy and verbose rules writing that borders on word-salad vomit.

 

1. Powergamers are. Have you seen the lists that pop up right now with the 'new' FOC ? Four characters and 28 Multi-Melta Rhinos. An (unpublished) edition screws itself. Hard.

2. GW are, or rather we are, for beliveing they would put out any decent new rules. They told us themselves multiple times over the past few years that they are now a 'model company' and not a 'games company'. Which is prefectly fine, really. But then we shouldn't have high expectations, shouldn't we ?

3. People who gobble up every bit they'll be tossed, no matter how bad it is. And thus spurn on the edition churn.

 

 

Every single one of those leaked 41 pages had bad convoluted rules writing on it. 

 

There I said it.

 

I still very much hope the full game / edition will make more sense once we know everything, but right now, there's no reason to be particularly optimistic.

 

But yes, let's start to go at each others throats. 

 

 

 

 

[Marshal Rohr]

2 minutes ago, TheTrans said:

Just keep glugging the Kool-Aid man! 

I think its the people that don't actually hobby and argue where a comma should be placed and what that means for a rules intention that are probably the issue.... 

But sure, wanting there to be actually meaningful decisions is a game is a monstrous ask. 

You’ve been [redacted] and moaning for three years. Why not wait a few more weeks to see the army lists and complete rules before deciding the edition is trash? I know you and skimask and the others have some kind of weird Parasocial hatred of the random kids writing the game now, but you’re not the main characters of the hobby or reality, maybe this just isn’t for you anymore if you’re gaming so much you can’t enjoy it. You used to sculpt cool stuff and write lore and now the longest thing I’ve seen you write is a multi paragraph personal takedown of people you don’t know, one of them even posting here for the same amount of time you did before getting hired. Yeah, some of this stuff sucks but it’s what we are stuck with and we don’t actually know if it sucks yet. That force org chart will let militia and solar run more heavies than they could in 2nd. Those psychic rules are fine for cheap rogue Psykers, which by the way, will unlock more detachment as Command slots. Ogryns can disordered charge out of a Dracosan. Just take a [redacted] beat dude. 

[TheTrans]

18 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

You’ve been [redacted] and moaning for three years. Why not wait a few more weeks to see the army lists and complete rules before deciding the edition is trash? I know you and skimask and the others have some kind of weird Parasocial hatred of the random kids writing the game now, but you’re not the main characters of the hobby or reality, maybe this just isn’t for you anymore if you’re gaming so much you can’t enjoy it. You used to sculpt cool stuff and write lore and now the longest thing I’ve seen you write is a multi paragraph personal takedown of people you don’t know, one of them even posting here for the same amount of time you did before getting hired. Yeah, some of this stuff sucks but it’s what we are stuck with and we don’t actually know if it sucks yet. That force org chart will let militia and solar run more heavies than they could in 2nd. Those psychic rules are fine for cheap rogue Psykers, which by the way, will unlock more detachment as Command slots. Ogryns can disordered charge out of a Dracosan. Just take a [redacted] beat dude. 

Mate the moaning comes from a deep love of the hobby and the lore and world that old mate bligh left for us with 1.0, it had its foibles and issues, but god was there a passion and love invovled in it! We've had 3 years of me moaning probably due to the state 30k has been in and what those, lets be honesty, not great, rules meant for armies I've belaboured hours and hours into, through love of a system and its background. Keep checking, hoping for something amazing that isn't just getting swept away in a discord feed. 

3 years we've had one FAQ, some really iffy book releases and people that have been suckered into just waiting for the next release. I'm going to imagine you were saying "Oh reactions will be fine. Dreads are balanced. Just wait to get the releases. At least the game is supported now!" when we got the 2.0 leaks. 

Wowza, you're telling me the world doesn't revolve around my opinion, this is truly earth shattering news to me brother, thank you for the enlightenment, truly staggering! 

I still write lots of fluff and hobby stuff mate, but it moves around between diffent systems. I can also see you went for a bit of a rage-dive on my user page, much the same as I did yours, and well, get some hobby going instead of your GW defence seminars over here! Pot, kettle, over!

I come back to B&C to hope for new, cool stuff for Horus Heresy etc... and well, the specific 30k forums have been significantly quieter and quieter (part of the terrifying slide over to reddit and discord) but there was a definite  decline after the intial excitment of 2.0 dropping kick up a bit of a stir (hell 2.0 did a pretty good job of folding up the Heresy scene in Vic after about 6 months).

Which to me really reads that we're losing the older, forum based gorgnards who loved HH1.0... and moving to the reddit and discord peeps. And the forums, espcially News/Rumours etc has always been a place to discuss, lament and argue.. sooo....

But hey, sign in for more updates and thoughts from yours truly, as I am, and forever will be, the centre of both the hobby and reality proper! 

Edited yesterday at 05:07 AM by TheTrans

[2gud2bbad]

I like the FoC Changes, however, I feel like the detachment Sizes (as in choices you get per detachment) feel a little bit off. Why can I put 4 Vindicators or Predators in 1 detachment, while I can only put (presumably) only 2 units of Seekers in the combat pioneer detachment? Additionally, specific consuls should be able to unlock 2 specific detachments (ie 2 of the same, Siege Breaker -> 2x Tac Support Detachment). This will balance the consuls against the centurions, given their higher cost and inflexibility in what detachment to unlock. But hey, we haven’t seen the whole book and I am excited for what’s coming in the Libers!

[Mmmmm Napalm]

I just wish the Dread auxiliary detachment had two slots instead of one. 

[TheTrans]

3 minutes ago, 2gud2bbad said:

I like the FoC Changes, however, I feel like the detachment Sizes (as in choices you get per detachment) feel a little bit off. Why can I put 4 Vindicators or Predators in 1 detachment, while I can only put (presumably) only 2 units of Seekers in the combat pioneer detachment? Additionally, specific consuls should be able to unlock 2 specific detachments (ie 2 of the same, Siege Breaker -> 2x Tac Support Detachment). This will balance the consuls against the centurions, given their higher cost and inflexibility in what detachment to unlock. But hey, we haven’t seen the whole book and I am excited for what’s coming in the Libers!

The vehicle ones are maybe broad because they got rid of squadrons... but then that doesn't work for the dreadnought detachment... You reckon all dreads will be dumped into the dread-box?

[2gud2bbad]

1 minute ago, TheTrans said:

The vehicle ones are maybe broad because they got rid of squadrons... but then that doesn't work for the dreadnought detachment... You reckon all dreads will be dumped into the dread-box?

Given how the Apex Detachment Picture looks like where they selected the Leviathan as Add-On and it having the same icon as the heavy Support Detachment, it looks like it yeah.

 

 

[Marshal Rohr]

2 minutes ago, TheTrans said:

Mate the moaning comes from a deep love of the hobby and the lore and world that old mate bligh left for us with 1.0, it had its foibles and issues, but god was there a passion and love invovled in it! We've had 3 years of me moaning probably due to the state 30k has been in and what those, lets be honesty, not great, rules meant for armies I've belaboured hours and hours into, through love of a system and its background. Keep checking, hoping for something amazing that isn't just getting swept away in a discord feed. 

3 years we've had one FAQ, some really iffy book releases and people that have been suckered into just waiting for the next release. I'm going to imagine you were saying '

Oh reactions will be fine. Dreads are balanced. Just wait to get the releases. At least the game is supported now!' when we got the 2.0 leaks. 

Wowza, you're telling me the world doesn't revolve around my opion, this is truly earth shattering news to me brother, thank you for the enlightenment, truly staggering! 

I still write lots of fluff and hobby stuff mate, but it moves around between diffent systems. I can also see you went for a bit of a rage-dive on my user page, much the same as I did yours, and well, get some hobby going instead of your GW defence seminars over here! Pot, kettle, over! ;) 

I come back to B&C to hope for new, cool stuff for Horus Heresy etc... and well, the specific 30k forums have been deader since ever (part of the terrifying slide over to reddit and discord) since 2.0 dropped (hell 2.0 did a pretty good job of folding up the Heresy scene in Vic after about 6 months).

Which to me really reads that we're losing the older, forum based gorgnards who loved HH1.0... and moving to the reddit and discord peeps. And the forums, espcially News/Rumours etc has always been a place to discuss, lament and argue.. sooo....

It’s never going back to what it was, no matter how much we want it, 2nd was very popular in their estimation. It sold well and people were selling out events all over the place. The ONLY hope anyone has right now is that someone leaks the libers, and the 4chan leaker goes through and posts the whole book from the start to end. There’s special rules we know exist we haven’t seen, and he hasn’t posted anything since he got home from work. The entire shooting phase is missing. Robots, knights, super-heavy’s, changes to dreads, hell fortifications! Most of what I am looking at reads like trash but it just takes a few times to get what it says and most of the time the bold summary right about the rules is actually just the whole rule. Like Armorbane has all those words just to say what the bold parts says (can’t glance only pen). I think the curve will be steep to figure out what matters but once we figure it out all the granular checks and weapons rules will actually do something like make Solar and Militia fun to play. The cultist and Beastmen provenances? Stick that combat veteran prime benefit on a block of 50 with a discipline master and now you’ve got something pretty squishy with a lower chance to run away like the old fearless blobs. The new statuses like concussive? No way the Medusa and basilisk don’t have that, and solar artillery becomes super relevant again as it stops those multimelta and lascannon squads from ever reacting. There’s stuff coming that might be pretty great. But we won’t know without the libers, crappy writing or not. 

[Razorblade]

Not to get in the way of a good pissing contest, but has anyone seen the actual reserve and DS rules already? 

[TheTrans]

3 minutes ago, Razorblade said:

Not to get in the way of a good pissing contest, but has anyone seen the actual reserve and DS rules already? 

Don't want to cop a splash from the streams brother?

I've seen deepstrike. Main takeaways are:
1 Unit Per Turn (unlesss allowances in mission)
No Scatter, No Closer than 1" to enemy, impassable etc.

All models must be placed within 6" of the first one.

No moving or charging afterwards

Can be Intercepted, can't be 'Redployed' away from. 

In Regards to reserves, I think we just know there is Reserves and a Special Aerial Reserves (for flyers)
"Aerial Reserves are rolled for during the Movement phase, which is part of the Reserves Sub-Phase, starting on the first turn of the battle."
They come on at a 3+, but gets worse each turn (but this may just be for the planes coming back on repeatedly.

Take from those what you will! 

[Antarius]

I get why they want to "layer" USRs like that. It has a certain elegance (for lack of a better term) to it and, in theory, it makes for fewer things to grasp and remember and then you can (again, in theory) always tell what something does just by doing the "math" in your head (i.e. melta gives armourbane, so you just "add" those two together and there's no ambiguity). In practice, I'm not so sure.

 

As for earlier editions/rules writing, I think there's always been the idea that GW writes shoddy rules and I think that's a big part of why they write the rules like they do now. I'm not saying we brought it upon ourselves, but I think there's an element of wanting to do away with ambiguity, which leads to overly convoluted rules and I think that's probably because some people (I'd say mainly tournament players, but I'm not sure that's the whole truth) kept complaining about rules that could be interpreted too much/needed common sense and good will to apply correctly.

Edited 23 hours ago by Antarius

[Mogger351]

6 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I get why they want to "layer" USRs like that. It has a certain elegance (for lack of a better term) to it and, in theory, it makes for fewer things to grasp and remember and then you can (again, in theory) always tell what something does just by doing the "math" in your head (i.e. melta gives armourbane etc.). In practice, I'm not so sure.

Is there a reason armourbane couldn't have a range in brackets next to it and simply remove melta at that point?

[Antarius]

49 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Is there a reason armourbane couldn't have a range in brackets next to it and simply remove melta at that point?

I honestly have no idea.

[Mogger351]

17 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I honestly have no idea.

I think that sums up my feelings on how they wrote these rules. There's lots of just stuff for stuffs sakes, paragraphs where sentences would do and nestled complexity when it's there for little to no gain.

 

I'll finish painting my mechanicum but I've cancelled my register of interest for Saturnine now and told my group I'm ducking out of any launch activities.

[Antarius]

Just to be clear, I'm in no position to clarify rules design questions, explain or defend any of the changes. I'm not a GW designer; I don't know why they do what they do and I don't feel any obligation to defend any or all of their decisions.

I'm just saying that I think the current mode of design - or at least the current way of writing out the rules -  is a response to the age-old cries of "this is too ambiguous, GW writes crappy rules, because it's impossible for me to know whether my Slann Mage-Priest is supposed to be able to take a flying carpet because they say "models on foot only" but "model on foot" is not defined, so how can we ever know whether a guy on a throne being carried by four other guys is "on foot", OMG GW?!?!?!"*, so now we get layered, convoluted and (perhaps) needlessly complicated, but unambiguous rules for the tournament scene. As you may be able to tell, I'm not particularly convinced this is a good way of doing it, but I also think there's a lot of variables still to know and a lot of things to get used to in the new edition.
I'm also not convinced that the sky is falling or that these rules are any worse than what came before. I think it might still be a better game than the preceding editions, but we shall see.

My main issue with the edition churn is that I'm not like Homer Simpson and "every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain", if only that was how it worked, I'd find adjusting to new rules much easier. If that were the case, I don't think all the layered rules would be a problem, but alas, that is not the world we live in.


*Yes, this was a real rules "debate" back in the WFB days  Substitute whatever Warhammer 40.000 rules lawyer horror story you have in its place.

Edited 22 hours ago by Antarius

[Lautrec the Embraced]

The new detachments might look a bit more complicated but I have to say, I quite like the fact that it looks like armies will be including more hqs and especially centurions,

I always thought that most army compositions (mine included) either have few hqs or are too heavily skewed towards specialist consuls and beatstick praetors, with seemingly no real incentive to replicate 'real' legion command structure, where centurions are likely the most common officers.

 

Just couple months back I made a house rule with a friend that we'd be bringing 3 different hq's each game to more replicate legion command structure, even painted him some extra officers. Talk about precognition!

 

I just wish the new detachment rules didn't invalidate existing armies which may sadly be the case as mentioned by some folks. Hope you can manage with few changes (though tbh, rules may change in a way you don't even want to bring back the same army, which could be a bigger problem...)

Edited 20 hours ago by Lautrec the Embraced

[Valkyrion]

Melta has only ever had its special rule under half range. In 3rd ed to HH2.0 this was defined as 'rolling an extra dice', in current 40k its 'increase damage to X D6+X'. In HH3.0 they have reworked armourbane to double damage (by implication) which only works on 'Melta' when within half range. 

Nothing has changed here; Meltas get their special rule under half range, however that special rule works.  

[Valkyrion]

4 hours ago, firestorm40k said:

*SNIP*

 

(Excuse the weapon less Tac Support, I was in the process of painting their magnetised guns when I took the pic; also excuse that I don't have a whole army pic - I really need to do that!) It took two years of work to make this. I know it's not a 3k army, but later this year I was going to take it to that - adding 1 more HQ, another Contemptor, a Spartan and another tank. In the new rules I won't be able to do that without adding another HQ to what I already have. 

 

Until the Libers come out you don't know if what you're adding will take your current army to 3k anyway, nor whether or not there are IF specific rules that allow for your current army.

 

I honestly understand your pain, I'm long enough in the hobby to have felt it many times, but even if you aren't worrying unnecessarily you may be worrying prematurely.