PDA

View Full Version : HH3 new rules - portent for 7th edition



Poncho160
03-05-2014, 20:21
Got my copy of the new FW HH book through yesterday and it contains quite a few new rules:

There are four different force org charts (standard, onslaught, castellan and leviathan)

Rules stating what exactly a lord of war is and how they can be picked and what they are worth to the enemy for destroying them.

And optional rules for downgrading D weapons, to S10 and having the instant death, sunder and ignores cover special rules. Additionally inv saves must be re-rolled and each unsaved wound inflicts D3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit causes D3+1 hull points or one roll on the vehicle damage chart.

Could be a possibility that we will see these rules in the upcoming rumoured 7th edition.

Kijamon
03-05-2014, 20:33
I don't think so. The only new thing is the D weapon changes but that's probably due to the lords of war rules for heresy gaming meaning that you could bring something ridiculously powerful along at a smaller game size.

The other force organisation charts were also in book 2 I believe.

WordBearer
03-05-2014, 20:35
Yeah, there's been plenty of alternate force org charts, both in 30k and even in 40k. Stronghold Assault presented a few.

wyvirn
03-05-2014, 21:27
Maybe, Zone Mortalis had some inklings of 6th in it.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
04-05-2014, 00:09
I'd be thrilled to see their updated StrD rules take the place of the current ones. However, I currently don't expect much change.

DoctorTom
04-05-2014, 06:37
I don't think so. The only new thing is the D weapon changes but that's probably due to the lords of war rules for heresy gaming meaning that you could bring something ridiculously powerful along at a smaller game size.

As opposed to bringing a Revenant Titan in a 1500 point game of 40k, which you can do with Escalation?:eyebrows:

MajorWesJanson
04-05-2014, 09:53
Got my copy of the new FW HH book through yesterday and it contains quite a few new rules:

There are four different force org charts (standard, onslaught, castellan and leviathan)

Rules stating what exactly a lord of war is and how they can be picked and what they are worth to the enemy for destroying them.

And optional rules for downgrading D weapons, to S10 and having the instant death, sunder and ignores cover special rules. Additionally inv saves must be re-rolled and each unsaved wound inflicts D3+1 wounds. Each penetrating hit causes D3+1 hull points or one roll on the vehicle damage chart.

Could be a possibility that we will see these rules in the upcoming rumoured 7th edition.

It's not quite the granular Destroyer Weapon I was hoping for (where it became a weapon type Destroyer (x)) but this is much more balanced than the current rules. It won't wipe out 2++ death stars nearly as easily, but at the same time it does not make anything else a joke in the process.

my_name_is_tudor
04-05-2014, 10:27
It's not quite the granular Destroyer Weapon I was hoping for (where it became a weapon type Destroyer (x)) but this is much more balanced than the current rules. It won't wipe out 2++ death stars nearly as easily, but at the same time it does not make anything else a joke in the process.

You're right though that the best solution would be something with proper tiers. Strength D1, D2, etc.

Hendarion
04-05-2014, 11:08
I doubt in this change for D being ported over to 40k unless they have two versions of it for regular 40k and for apocalypse. The major problems I see are:
1) It invalidates the point-costs for many D-weapon-tanks/titans big time (Lynx & Scorpion turning into ridiculously overcosted junk like the Cobra for example - when compared to Baneblades).
2) It will create discussions about which rules to apply - those from the rulebook or those from the expansions - as we all know that supplements override the core rulebook.

MajorWesJanson
04-05-2014, 21:53
2) It will create discussions about which rules to apply - those from the rulebook or those from the expansions - as we all know that supplements override the core rulebook.

Well, specific over general as well- If the BRB had a quote something like "In games of 40K under 3000 points, use X rules for Destroyer weapons. In larger games, or games using Apocalypse rules, use Y rules.

itcamefromthedeep
05-05-2014, 04:39
I doubt in this change for D being ported over to 40k unless they have two versions of it for regular 40k and for apocalypse. The major problems I see are:
1) It invalidates the point-costs for many D-weapon-tanks/titans big time (Lynx & Scorpion turning into ridiculously overcosted junk like the Cobra for example - when compared to Baneblades).
This version is more effective than what we see now against a lot of targets. Instant Death alone makes it noticeably better against Wraithknights, Riptides, and most Tyranid MCs.

In most cases, D-weaponry outclasses its competition by a country mile. Take a look at the list of titan weapons and you'll see that Destroyers are clear standouts, often outclassing other weapons at their various specialties. You could nerf D all the way down to S10 AP1 instant death or S10 AP1 ignores cover and most super-heavies would be fine.

Hendarion
05-05-2014, 05:31
I could repeat myself, but why should I? I made my point.

Flogger
05-05-2014, 07:29
So a d-weapon shoots at a gargantuan Creature.

Does 1 wound with ID, which becomes d3 wounds.
Then does another d3+1 wounds..
So on average 5 wounds from ONE hit, 20 wounds from a revenant or Warhound...per turn!


No Thanks, I'd rather play with them as they are...hoping they don't roll a 6.


Or just play them as S10 AP1 armourbane, fleshbane, ignores cover

Thomson
05-05-2014, 09:04
So a d-weapon shoots at a gargantuan Creature.

Does 1 wound with ID, which becomes d3 wounds.
Then does another d3+1 wounds..
So on average 5 wounds from ONE hit, 20 wounds from a revenant or Warhound...per turn!


No Thanks, I'd rather play with them as they are...hoping they don't roll a 6.


Or just play them as S10 AP1 armourbane, fleshbane, ignores cover
From a pure gaming perspective, it would be much more interesting if D weapons would not ignore cover, but invulnerability saves. This would make them a great tool for destroying super inv save units, but you would still have the chance to reduce their effectiveness by using terrain properly.

DVeight
05-05-2014, 13:51
You think the bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima cared for terrain? Inversely, did the terrain reduce the explosions effectiveness?? Nope. D weapons reflect the effectiveness of such an arsenal. Shock and awe people . ;)

itcamefromthedeep
05-05-2014, 15:14
You think the bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima cared for terrain?Yes. Look up the difference that airbursting makes.

A knight's chainsaw isn't a nuke.

I wouldn't mind these D mechanics if they were priced appropriately. With a handful of exceptions, that hasn't happened.

There's a chasm between S10 and SD. That's bad. If HH3 or 7e gets us something that better reflects the power of titan weaponry (like the missiles or the flamer or the plasma blastgun) then I have cause to celebrate.

Hal'jin
05-05-2014, 15:20
Speaking of HH3, have people started to receive theirs? I have ordered the limited Isstvan Trilogy (The 3 Isstvan Books + the 3 other smaller ones), but my order at FW does not seem to budge.

Poncho160
05-05-2014, 15:22
Got mine Wednesday mate, but I'm in the UK.

Navar
05-05-2014, 17:31
Speaking of HH3, have people started to receive theirs? I have ordered the limited Isstvan Trilogy (The 3 Isstvan Books + the 3 other smaller ones), but my order at FW does not seem to budge.

You should e-mail them.

Did you order anything else?

I am in Oklahoma, and despite having to e-mail Forge World for the tracking number I was able to determine that my copy will be in my hands on Wednesday.

Azazyll
05-05-2014, 21:03
Mine came today, but required a signature :( Oh well, I had papers to grade anyway...

Hal'jin
06-05-2014, 06:44
You should e-mail them.

Did you order anything else?

I am in Oklahoma, and despite having to e-mail Forge World for the tracking I was able to determine that my copy will be in my hands on Wednesday.

No i didn't, i wanted to add more later but they wouldn't allow. Dang, looks like I'll have to throw them an email then, thanks!