FW: Horus Heresy Rulebook This Friday

Get ready Horus Heresy Fans – your Rulebook is inbound and up for Pre-Order this coming Friday from Forge World!

The Age of Darkness Rulebook is coming from Forge World to bring you an updated ruleset to battle in the Horus Heresy!

via Warhammer Community

Games Workshop also put out a quick FAQ about the book to help illuminate some of the questions players have been asking:

Q: What can you tell us about the upcoming Horus Heresy Rulebook?

A: It is a rulebook for use with the Horus Heresy range of miniatures using the 7th edition ruleset.

Q: The core of the rules will be familiar to those playing the Horus Heresy today, but there have been some changes. Can you tell us about any?

A: The previous FAQs for 7th edition have been incorporated and the army construction section uses the Horus Heresy rules instead of the 7th edition standard. We’ve also made some balance changes based on community feedback. Invisibility has been replaced, while the usage of melta-bombs has been changed.

Q: Does the new book work with the current range of Horus Heresy books and expansions?

A: Yes – all your red and black books still work!

Q: What is in the book apart from the core rules themselves?

A: The rulebook just contains the core rules and useful reference material – you’ll find all the lore and specific rules for your chosen Legion (or the Mechanicum, or Crusade Imperialis) in the various Horus Heresy supplements.

It’s sounding a lot like the Age of Darkness Rules are going to have the core of 7th with changes made based on player feed back. Including many “much-asked-for balance tweaks” – which I’m personally curious about. GW also teased a psychic power as well:

It’s going to be interesting to see how much (or how little) the 7th Edition ruleset actually changed. I know a lot of fans that have been looking for answers to that very question and have basically put their armies on ice until they find out. Hopefully this is the rulebook they have all been waiting for. It is comforting to know that all your current books will work with this
book as well.

However, there has been some debate back-and-forth about which option would have been better – pull off the band-aid and move to 8th or stick with 7th. When the decision came out that Age of Darkness would remain is 7th I was personally surprised. I guess we will find out if GW made the right call in a couple of weeks when the book goes out into the world and we can judge the fan response.

 

What do you think about the New Age of Darkness rulebook? Are you excited about the changes ahead? Let us know in the comments below!

  • vlad78

    It’s the best decision, complete the heresy before moving to whatever edition they find best. (and it’s not 8th by a long shot imho )

    • wibbling

      When you look back at the complicated muddle that 7th edition is you realise just how much has been learned for 8th edition.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        I think so complication could be re-added to 8th. Like maybe variable toughness (i.e. the toughness equivalent of armor facing).

        • ZeeLobby

          Man, I really miss facings. Was so satisfying to roll a good flank and vaporize a tank from behind. Felt like I was using my masterful tactics (aka lucky dice rolls) to swing the battle!

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Whilst I can’t see facing coming back into 8th in the same sense that each armour side of a vehicle has a different toughness.

            I can see down the line when the studio are considering what they want to tweak the game to possible reflect facing a bit more. I feel the biggest issue re-introducing facings would be the need for instruction on what counts as front, side and rear and which/when/if an unit (of individual models of a unit) attack different facings – which can start to bog down a rule book with the very things the core rules have tried to avoid in 8th.

            If the Studio does look at some solution, it would be some simple mechanic that doesn’t invalidate every vehicle data sheet.

          • ZeeLobby

            yeah… So basically we won’t see it, lol. That’s a shame. I just don’t see how you would add it without adding complexity or changing data sheets. I mean by its very nature it would do both of these.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            They could just do front arc and back arc. if you shoot the rear, you get a bonus to hit or a bonus to wound?

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I’d at least take that.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            I thought about both those options. But with all the aura abilities and stratagem bonus’s flying around with those kind of buff, I thought I would pretty much neuter vehicles – it would be very easy be hitting on 2+ and wounding on 2+.

            I’ve mused on several things, but then all tend to take the wind of out the sails of vehicles.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            they could have made a clear template to put over the vehicle showing the facings.

          • vlad78

            Indeed but reintroducing proper cover rules and especially difficult grounds slowing down units should be the top priority.

          • Mike Forrey

            Cover rules are seriously needed again.

        • Munn

          Why? what would we be the point? Oh my lascannon wounds an a 3 or…also a 3. My bolter wounds a rhino on a 5 or…also a 5

        • Xodis

          That is an option I would be on board with. Honestly I would like to see Special Characters all bumped like 100 points so they become a little more rare and special as well.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        The muddle was the army books. 30k never used them so that was a non issue for 30k players.

        • Graham Roden

          Yep, 30k manages to keep the insanity out of the game

      • vlad78

        Not at all.

        When I look back to al previous 40k editions, I realize GW has only solved some problems at the cost of creating new ones, as usual.

      • Drpx

        8th edition.

        Still favors boring gunblobs.

        Still on Codex release cycle.

        Still has ally spam and character abuse.

        Still IGYG.

        They learned nothing.

        • Dennis J. Pechavar

          Wait Imperial Soups lists are abusive?

          • Drpx

            They were called prefix stars last year.

  • Richard Mitchell

    It sounds like FW basically made an alternative history version of 8th. Which is good, some fans who are not satisfied with the current ruleset but want to still use their 40k models. I really wish GW would have just handed the entire WHFB rules to FW and let them start that side while GW would handle AoS.

    • wibbling

      Warhammer Fantasy was losing Workshop money. The explosion of content and variety that Age of Sigmar has brought is a good thing.

      • ZeeLobby

        It def needed an explosion, not sure AoS was the right explosion. Think they could have done a lot with what they have, but they never really tried.

        • Drpx

          I remember everybody getting excited for End Times and buying all the books and Nagash models fast as they came out.

          Little did they know the name was literal.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            It’s one of many things that soured me to AoS. I spent a bunch of money that was almost immediately invalidated. I still play fantasy 8th edition but the play group is now 4 people instead of the 20+.

          • Drpx

            As long as you didn’t buy Tomb Kings or Bretonnians you can still use that stuff.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            Sadly I own 5000pts of Brets and 4000pts of Tomb Kings. I also don’t care for the skirmish style of AoS as I prefer ranked style combat. I’m glad others like AoS but it’s not for me.

          • Drpx

            Ouch sorry.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            Sadly that is only what I had painted, there is quite a bit more unpainted. Not to mention my other armies as I was in a really great group that trading or outright selling armies was a normal thing. If I could have changed how GW did the change over I’d do what they did with 8th for 40k. That way you get to change things but not squash everything. The other part of the equation would be to do as FW is doing 30k. That way people who have invested a large amount of cash and time in the hobby don’t feel as betrayed as they might otherwise.

          • Richard Mitchell

            That is true, but the people who played WHFB didn’t play for the models only. They played for FnR. Imagine if they took 40k and made it FnR or gave it the X-Wing mechanic? Ya, you could still play with the same models but you just didn’t buy a models, you bought a specific game mechanic. That is the real issue.

        • Richard Mitchell

          I think if they blew it up and kept the core mechanic flank and rank, people would have been okay. But they really gutted the entire system that people play. If they would have done what PP did where you have Warmachine as your Focus/Fury, resource/risk mechanic but then you have CoI which is has its own mechanic. It would have been great to have WHFB as your flank and rank massive system and AoS as your true skirmish level game. But entirely gutting the mechanic that was the reason most of your players began playing the game to begin with was not a good idea.

          Making the AoS and 40k systems similar saves on game design costs however it also produces two games, that are drawing a majority of its profits from the same fan base, that are competing against each other. Not a good recipe for success. Since the drop of 8th the main AoS line is looking a lot more like WHFB in regards to sales and updates with one difference. People still play WHFB after it has been discontinued. Don’t know if I could say the same with AoS if it got discontinued.

      • vlad78

        WFB might have been losing money (of which you have no proof) because GW let the setting rot and made a really poor ruleset and clearly showed they were just milking their customers, period. Saying anything different is just delving into alternative facts.

        AOS is Kirby’s child, no proper setting, no proper rules, nothing in common with a proper wargame and GW focusing only on making miniatures and gloating about how great they were. Thanks god they turned the ship a little around which does not make of AOS a good idea nor a good game. (if you like wargaming and a proper setting)

        • I_am_Alpharius

          “AOS is Kirby’s child”

          Errrrm no and no and no – what a huge pile of horse poop.

          Beside being completely wrong, you have no more proof of any that, than Wibbling has by saying it was being WFB in decline that led to the world and system, for want of a better word, ‘dropped’.

          Indeed, GW themselves have said the decision to dramatically change tack with WFB was not taken lightly and was, in the end, driven by the designers in the studio feeling WFB setting/game had become very stale andy constrained due weight of the background and being tied single world where nothing radical could really ever happen*.

          Indeed, by the time AoS would have been in development Kirby had already stepped down as Chief Executive, way back 2009. He then became Chairman until 2015** when he took up his current role as Non-executive Chairman. In both these Chairman roles he absolutly no decision making power in regards to products made by the studio. And to be fair to Kirby, he gets an awfully bad rap in the internet community. People are very short minded and seem to forget it was Kirby that led the 90’s management buy out and helm the great expansion of stores in those years. After he stepped back in the early 2000s GW went into all kind of issue and by the mid 2000 he return, steady the ship and helmed the company during the boom of the LOTR franchise. He’s never been the evil overlord he portrayed to be.

          *Chuck in the whole copyright and trademark concerns that GW have been addressing and you got the recipe for change.
          **he did have a brief 9ish month stint as the Interim CEO, whilst Mark Wells replacement was found in the form of Kevin Roundtree. During which he made no changes to the plans in place.

          • vlad78

            I’m sorry but I ‘ve been following GW from the end of the 80s and if Kirby has been at the helm in turning GW in THE most successful fantasy and miniature manufacturer, he’s also made of GW a corporate monster pissing over its customers through the decades and had he not decided to slowly step down from most of his responsabilities, GW might well have experienced a really bad crisis.

            Saying the designers were the culprits for the drop of the old world is just a corporate BS made to justify that the law department and marketing department took over after the chapterhouse disaster which was mitigated only because GW had more financial strength than the owner of chapterhouse.

            Kirby’s philosophy were constantly reminded in all his statements made each year when the financial reports were made public. Miniatures were first, games and stories were just added to sell more miniatures but were not essential to GW business. Of course this statement was probably often the voice of the board rather than just Kirby’s own opinion but nonetheless he was at the head of most GW business policies since the 90s.

            Moreover, AOS has been a move prepared long ago, even simultaneous with 8th edition release (which was only an attempt to milk WFB players whereas they perfectly knew the system was going to be cancelled). Such move cannot have been made without the impulse of the board. Saying the studio has any freedom in making such drastic changes is nonsensical especially given how GW managment took some strategic decisions like completely frozing the setting and staying really conservative with the evolution of their ruleset for the previous 25 years.

            You want proof that AOS is the logical product of Kirby’s managment, you just have to read every statements he made for the last 15 years. Minimal lore and rules development, the belief the technical perfection of the miniatures and the strength of the brand will be enough to sell , the drop of any ties to historical wargaming, the drop of any ties to pseudo historical lore which can’t be protected by copyrights… and terrible arrogance.

            Kirby is not an evil lord but he lead GW roughlessly in order to maximize short term benefits damaging a bit the franchise and its customers goodwill and he was also responsible for the stagnation which occured after 2004 and storm of chaos whereas the last 2 years proved GW with minimal changes could really improve the way it was perceived by their target audience and therefore really improve their financial results.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Hmmmm uh-huh…. I’m guessing at some point you’ve felt personally slighted by GW in someway; so, believe what you wish to believe about why AoS was developed and the boogie stories about Kirbies management. If it makes you feel better then all power to you – I shall not argue with you. Anyway, it would be like hitting my head against a brick wall, given the general disdain towards GW that come with many of your comments.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Since Kirby has gone things have changed enormously for the better, that can’t be denied.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            For sure – but its very easy to throw stones from the outside in. It’s hard to really tell if that effect was Kirby or Mark Well. My moneys on it was more on Mark Wells during his 13 year term with GW given his prior retail background. Prior to GW he was the Corporate Development, Merchandise and Marketing, Customer Service for Boots the Chemist and had similar roles in other companies. His roots in retail were in business that looked towards sales before anything else. He fill a similar various roles in GW for about 8 years before being promoted to CEO, and brought all his experience across. As CEO he brought in a couple of other senior manager (can’t recall their names) who had similar backgrounds to his and pushed the sell sell sell focus GW had of a long time.

          • vlad78

            I’m sure Mark Wells also played his part. I totally concur.

          • GWELLS

            I actually like the new AOS background better than Old World. I found the old alternate earth dark fantasy a little to stale and stuck with 40K. AOS doesn’t have the depth of Old World yet. But it is only a couple years old, a fluff book release would greatly fix things up. I mean I see what they wanted to do, potentially infinite space across several dimensions allows them to do basically anything. In the old world they basically had to keep everything eternally deadlocked to keep the world constant (e.g. the chaos warriors would have to stay relatively contained in the north, the Dark Elves across the sea, Skaven underground, etc…)

            Now they are free to do almost anything, instead of alternate history middle ages.

          • vlad78

            The beginning of end times proves things could have been shaken up a bit without blowing the entire franchise. There’s a world between making the setting evolve (something GW never cared to do) and just burning everything down.

            I’m happy you like AOS background, but I think AOS would have been perfect as a war in heaven scenario where the war for the mortal realms would be the war within the warp reflecting what would have happened in the old world. Then both settings would have been allowed to live and interactions between both would have been both possible and interesting.

            As it is AOS competes with lots of fantasy world, many of them much more interesting. (lores comes first to me)

            But no, legal department dictated to make an emergency drop of anything even remotly related to real historical earth or classic fantasy.

          • GWELLS

            Yes i am aware of that. AOS is by no means completely unique. No more than Warhammer 40k is unique (i.e. it rips off almost every sci-fi trope there is). I just simply like the new concept, especially since I personally have never been a fan of alternate history that the Old World was. I feel if you are going to make it, keep actual history to a minimum. Perhaps keeping the Malus around in some capacity would have been better for some, but whats done is done.

            I also feel that the background will improve with time.

          • Richard Mitchell

            That is right how dare this man complain about GW invalidating entire armies and removing an entire mechanic from which he made his purchases around? GW is gawd! Shun the sinner, shun the sinner!

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Didn’t say he could not complain. But if you’re going to complain you need to get you facts straight ie. for starters understanding the role of a Chairman within a PLC.

          • vlad78

            Then free to prove me wrong.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            By virtue of Kirbys position as a Chairman for all that time. A Company Chairman has little to no influence on the CEO and certainly no power in the products being released and how they are sold. They are mainly there to: act as a liaison between the Board and the CEO; ensure the Company is meeting its responsibilities to the Shareholders; and ensure the Company conducts business with in the law. What you describe is a complete fallacy to the role he had and currently still has.

          • Richard Mitchell

            Not true, the Old World was so unpopular. I mean look at the literal flood of AoS digital licenses that are going around! I have not seen a video game based upon the Old World since at a fortnight. Again more Fake News!

        • Richard Mitchell

          Fake News! Sir, Fake News! AoS is a smashing success. I see 10 times more AoS players than 40k players at the stores since 8th drop.

      • Drpx

        Nobody was spending money on their unsupported game which they used as an excuse not to support it.

        • Dennis J. Pechavar

          Specialist games? Now that the nostalgia factor has kicked in we see new versions of the old games. I’m hoping they fix some of the issues but sadly Mordheim no longer exists. Skaven, Orcs, Empire, Brettonnia, Tomb Kings…sorry off topic tangent salt.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I still think AoS was a good move on their part. Not blowing up the old world but the switch to a skirmish style game. Lots and lots of younger people play at my local Warhammer Store.

      I, personally, am still really sad they blew up the old world. They could have just kept the old world and layered all the other AoS stuff on top.

      • ZeeLobby

        I still think they should have come up with a scaled game, skirmish at lower points, ranked at higher. LoTR WoTR would be great examples of this. Kind of hoped the game mechanics had the same depth as well. They just swung real hard towards the opposite end of the spectrum, which just disinterested me personally.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          I agree, it was a real bummer. I liked ranking up and moving my guys in formations.

          • ZeeLobby

            It was just cool and different from a lot of other games out there. Now it’s so close to 40K I just don’t feel the need to play both. I’ll stick with 40K and find a different fanatasy game which brings some unique mechanics (Runewars is great to play actually, just too hard to find players, haha).

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Rune Wars came out at the wrong time. 8th edition really drowned the game.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, agreed. Slow release of the 2 other factions didn’t help. I mean I’d love to see it grow, but with SW:Legions on the horizon, I’m just not sure.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Yeah FFG dropped the ball. I liked the look of the game but was not interested in the 2 base factions. I held off purchasing stuff. then 8th hit and I forgot all about Rune Wars.

            Legion should be good.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Looking forward to Legion. Hope it isn’t hugely overpriced in Europe like a lot of FFG stuff.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            That doesn’t make a lot of sense. FFG merged with Asmodée Éditions, a French Company.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Perhaps its the falling pound, but everything made outside the UK seems very pricey.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            That is probably the ticket. the pound took a beating last year.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            that doesn’t explain the difference between what the price should be according to the official exchange rate, and what it actually is. It means in real terms UK players are being gouged 20% by FFG on top of the already bad exchange rate.

          • Richard Mitchell

            send katie links to nlr docos
            work on deployment and user manuals

            True, I feel that scaling down and promoting a skirmish style WHFB or a Shadespire for it would have been a good move. There are a lot of lessons learned going on here for GW as they transform their business model to be on par with the industry.

            With sales slumping for AoS after its initial release and especially with 8th dropping I feel that WHFB was a missed opportunity. Beyond aesthetic, GW has two products competing in the same space. With WHFB you get Flank and Rank and that makes it different from 40k.

            Who knows, maybe when Chaos wins in 40k you will get a Warmahordes thing where AoS models can fight 40k models.

          • ZeeLobby

            I always thought a blending of the two might actually occur at some point. If they really start to cannibalize each other I imagine it’s only a matter of time.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          6th WHFB had a good skirmish version already.

          WHFB just needed more investment. That was obvious as the End Times campaign attracted lots of new players.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I always bring this up when the support, or lack thereof, of WHFB gets brought up, but I would have killed for the mini campaign support 40K got with the Assault on Black Reach and Shield of Baal campaigns.

          • Drpx

            Once GW makes up it’s mind, they go through with it. Everybody had a fit when they let slip that 40k would be dumbed down like AoS and they did it anyway.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Yes, a very rigid mentality and fixed hierachy. They should have introduced AoS alongside WHFB not as a replacement.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Below is a summary of what was said during the WH-Tv twitch stream discussion on the new book. Expands a little on what WH-Com have published in their article today:
    – 8th not adopted as it is gear towards more variety and broad array of unit. So stuck with 7th as this fit the middle ground (which SM are) really well.
    – Conversation to 8th was seriously consider, but existing books, which are really nice would be negated and would have been a huge undertaking as each book built on the last. Additional desire from HH player base tends towards hobbyist that like the detail 7th brought and enabled
    – New book for intended for the foreseeable future. Has everything need to play, rules wise
    – Fundamentally it is 7th ed with FAQ incorporated and wordings tightened up.
    – Biggest notable tweaks to psychic phase to fit the development of psychic powers throughout the HH.
    – Demonology far restricted to only units that are explicitly allowed it.
    – Invisibility, replaced with ability called Mind Howl. Malediction. Target a unit within 12”. That unit is reduced to BS/WS 1.
    – All the OOP supplements for 40K have rules in there e.g. fortifications, bastions, redoubt etc…
    – FOC chart like the ones in 30K books so slightly different to 40K. Same for Warlord Traits, allies and mission types.
    – Appendix contains all the Universal ‘special rules’ for HH units and weapons
    – Melta-Bombs, and all grenades can now multi-bomb in close combat. Doesn’t apply to Grenades that have an effect e.g. rad, the effect is only ever -1
    – Contains summing rules, and rules for all the demons. Very generic. Included as 7th ed demon book not available. Although, if you have the demon codex, or can get it, then it still valid to used.
    – D weapons use the same table as 7th ed rules.
    – Release not confirmed, but its at the printers and seriously not far off.
    – Zone Mortalis not centralised to Rule book, as the ones in the individual book still appropriate.

    • Munn

      Good changes overall and I agree that 7th works…relatively well with just marines and marine equivalents.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      Thanks for that

    • GWELLS

      Yeah 7th edition only really failed because they let the codex creep get out of hand towards the end and tried to release too many supplements. 7th actually wasn’t too bad at the start, and Horus Heresy is pretty similar to 7th at the beginning. With no real army that is obviously the most powerfull. I think it will be fine, and allow people even more rule variety.

      They even said before 8th dropped that they were going to make it so AOS is easiest; 8th is middle ground complexity; Horus Heresy will be most complex for those who want the rules variety and highly complex gameplay. Three tiers i see.

  • James Regan

    I think it probably made sense for them to stick with 7th- with the greater similarities between armies, keeping some of the more technical rules probably allows it the stay a quite strategic game.

    In particular, I think vehicle facing is more important when there’s a good chance you both have the same tanks- in 40k, as well as the direction of the tank, there’s more variance in manoeuvrability and capability, which allows location to give some strategic elements (i.e. you don’t move your battlewagon, your land raider and your monolith the same, despite them all being heavy transports with decent firepower). But if you’ve got two identical, or near identical vehicles, both armed in an anti-tank capacity, without the variation depending on flanking etc., it’d be a lot more luck based, because you can’t float your predator over that wood, or have to close the distance fast in order to bring your shorter ranged zzapp guns to bare, as you’ve both got predators with the same movement options, and any advantage of one gun over another is likely mostly in points efficiency (which, whilst a fun thing to work out beforehand, does not really contribute to the fun of actually playing, especially if you’re the person who’s just ended up at a mathematically provable disadvantage, and possibly can’t do anything like clever positioning to even the odds).

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    I was not hoping for 8th, but a big overhaul of 7th. Hopefully this is enough to keep me interested.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah. I mean HH in many ways combated the craziness that was 7th 40K. List building had all kinds of percentage and unit slot restrictions that really made lists feel fluffy and ended in games which weren’t horribly unbalanced.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Marine on Marine, the game was really well balanced. The non-marine armies were always trouble children.

  • marlowc

    Given the HUGE cost of the existing Forgeworld 30K books, I think Warhammer World would have been burned down by an angry mob if they’d made them all redundant 🙂

    • Drpx

      Like they care how long their books last before the new ones come out.

  • Severius_Tolluck

    Considering how ponderously slow it takes FW do any book, it only makes sense. They can never keep up with GW proper as is.

    • eMtoN

      I agree. I’ve often wondered why they haven’t just spun their own game system instead of trying to keep up with regular 40k.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        The goal was to encourage 40k players to cross the road and play 40k.

      • marlowc

        I guess doing their own game would have rather strained the delicate relationship they must have with GW. Rather like riding the proverbial tiger – it’s OK till you try to get off 🙂

        • I_am_Alpharius

          “delicate relationship they must have with GW.”

          Hahaha. You’re joking right?

          You do realise GW and FW are literally the same company?; with the same bosses and working to the same goal of designing, manufacturing and selling models at a profit. The GW and FW studios work hand in hand with each other. Even more so than ever with the work they’ve done on Blood Bowl, Necromunda and the soon-ish to be released Adeptus Titanicus. They’re not, and never have been, some mysterious shadow company with a company looking to subvert one another.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I am always shocked when I hear people talking about FW as if it is a vile, 3rd party company, suckiling off GW’s scraps like some kind of remora.

  • Agent OfBolas

    Actually for me it’s … a bad decistion. I really had high hopes for HH with 8th WH40k rules. 7th edition was not the finest in terms of ruling, 8th edition is much better.

    And it would be a nightmare to play both systems at once…

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I play SAGA, Terminator Genisys, 40K, 30K and Bolt Action regularly.

      Get those brain cells working, you can do it!

  • GWELLS

    I think this will be fine for now. Many people I’ve heard while not missing 7th imbalance did miss the cool complexity and rule variety for individual armies. This will probably be good for individuals who for whatever reason miss the 7th rules and liked being able to greatly customize their armies with unique rules.