I've seen a lot of anger and dismay at the N&R Horus Heresy Thread, but some folks (myself included) are looking forward to the game.

What are your plans for the game? Are you going to buy the box set? Pick up a Liber or two? Or just wait for the rules to drop before making a decision.?

I don't know, man. I'm not as torn up by the loss of wargear option as others, but I feel like it's a bad indicator, y'know? I'll probably pick up the rulebook and Liber Astartes, but my enthusiasm is dampened, for sure.

I'll continue to pick up some mechanicus models for an OPR project but I'm not interested in the rules side, they just sound worse than 2.0. I'll probably get some 2.0 rulebook for cheap on eBay just because. Looking at 3.0 it looks as if HH 2nd now is the peak of 40Ks old rules framework.

I’m in. And will be keeping my 2nd Ed books, natch.

I'm out for 3rd ed.
I'll still be collecting models, and I'll still be playing games of 2nd ed as often as I can get them. But after the Liber leaks I've lost any remaining enthusiasm I might have had for the new edition. And if Heresy has now joined the edition churn as it appears to have, then I'm not going to grapple with the changes they've made only to have to do-over again in 3 years time.

I’ve flip-flopped a couple of times over this week. Seeing my SW army basically decimated by the list changes was discouraging; luckily it was still WIP. I think I’ll pre-order the new boxed set and the 2 libers, and see how it goes. My Heresy Rogue Trader project will be for 2nd Edition.

I know new editions often attract wailing and gnashing of teeth, but this seems like a mis-step by GW. It’s so frustrating, because the Heresy models are amongst the best they do. I have ridden many, many changes of direction, but the elimination of customisable characters and units from HH (after stripping it out of WH40k) is proving to be hard to swallow.

Hard pass.

The rules are a word jumble mess, and the vast majority of changes that have been added haven't been seen as an improvement. A bunch of my models also got invalidated, so I can't go to events and run a legal army in some cases.

Oh, and the switch to a three-year cycle, along with £16.50 DLC books that are minuscule compared to previous campaign books really soured me.

The only thing that I liked was that Knights can take Mechanicum or human buddies in a list and that does not an edition make.

No definitely not. I will reamin 2.0 and either tweak it.

I'll be giving it a go. There's an OK game beneath those words (so many words, best words ever). The reduction of options is a bit pooh, but let's see what's in the legends pdf, or journals. (The first one does have a Jump Pack Praetor).

Underneath its unhinged AI writing style 3.0 also has some nice advancements - combat statuses, vehicle damage, area terrain, refined weapon statlines... and honestly I like Prime Slots a lot more than I liked Warlord traits - that would be a shame to lose out on.

Ultimately my plan was to go with the edition with the better balance between Marines and non-Marines. And right now it still looks like Mechanicum and Auxilia rules in 3.0 are considerably more ambitious than they were in 2.0. But it seems they fethed up any semblance of balance within Marines, which was pretty unexpected, and it's going mostly along the loyal/traitor divide, and this will counteract any benefit we gain from a stronger Auxilia/Mechanicum.

The cull of options was also unexpectedly brutal, even if I predicted a shift towards No Model No Rules based on the Saturnine rules preview. Culling even options that actually have models is doubly bizarre. The blatant shift of focus away from crafting My Dudes towards just another canned product to consume like a good little drone saps all my desire to engage with it.

What to do? Stay in 2.0 and adopt some 3.0 solutions? Move to 3.0 but keep some 2.0 unit profiles and legion rules? Faction balance is a lot trickier to house rule than general game mechanics. And, as Gert says, anything you do locks you out of playing outside your friend circle.

Best hope, some influencer or tourney organizer with enough of a following to gain traction and who actually knows what they're doing (so not The Outer Circle) makes their own edition that actually gets played by a significant percentage of global Heresy players.

I'm in for 3.0. I still have the old books though, I have all my 40k stuff back since 4th. I do expect a FAQ/errata for some of the stupid stuff, legacies for some of the removed stuff, and will just deal with the rest. The new core rules and mechanics look good, though I am unsure about challenges. Statuses and the seeming massive reduction of rerolls and layers of rules on top of rules on top of rules are major pluses.

I was on the fence till I saw how they screwed both of my armies over, now I have ZERO interest in playing 30(40)k.

It's even gotten to the point where I'm questioning even continuing to build & paint their miniatures. Looks like I'm gonna go back to real world stuff(cars, motorcycles & military) minis.

Nope. The big discussion the last two days with my Heresy group is if anyone actually wants to go forward with 3.0 or just stick with 2.0 and it was universally 'stick with 2.0'.

Once some more rules and Arcane Journals or whatever they are calling the Heresy version are out, we might reassess things in a year or so, but squinting at the contents on the Dropsite Part 1 it isn't looking promising.

It would be interesting if this edition flopped. It’s not something I would necessarily want to see, because it could get HH killed off, but if it made GW’s management a little less focused on pushing out new product at the expense of existing players then that would be a good thing. It’s happened before - 2nd edition Epic flopped because most players hated the rules changes.

I’ve pre ordered the rule book at half price from eBay.
I’ll probably get the Liber Astartes and the Jornal to have a full read but my playing group have all agreed we are staying with 2nd Edition. Hoping we can easily use the scenarios from the Journals with 2nd Edition🤞🏻

I've got the Core box + Heretic book on order (& paid for) at the FLGS.
The worst that'll happen is that I get a bunch of cool new models & waste some time reading a rulebook.

There's a # of people eagerly looking forward to trying this new edition who've never played HH before.

So yes, I expect to be giving this new edition a spin.

There's also people that already play who I know aren't going to rush right out & grab the new books. some of them might never as they're pretty happy with v.2
So I've no plans to get rid of my 2.0 books & expect to still play that edition.

 Snord wrote:
It would be interesting if this edition flopped. It’s not something I would necessarily want to see, because it could get HH killed off, but if it made GW’s management a little less focused on pushing out new product at the expense of existing players then that would be a good thing. It’s happened before - 2nd edition Epic flopped because most players hated the rules changes.

But how would flopping be measured? I bet everyone who sticks with 2.0 will still buy new plastic models. Heck, people who decide to just not play until 4th edition will still buy new plastic models. Just the Libers not moving? Would that be enough for GW to register?

Organised Event attendance is another potential metric. Possibly analysis of hashtags and that.

Not played v.1 or v.2, but my FLGS are getting me the launch box, as I want the minis. Probably won't ever actually play the game, mind.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Organised Event attendance is another potential metric. Possibly analysis of hashtags and that.

Hmm yes, the question is does GW care about that metric as long as the product (except books) is selling?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
But how would flopping be measured? I bet everyone who sticks with 2.0 will still buy new plastic models. Heck, people who decide to just not play until 4th edition will still buy new plastic models. Just the Libers not moving? Would that be enough for GW to register?

Good question. I bet they make huge profits from their paper products, so an unpopular rule set will make a dent. And while many will buy the models regardless (because they are very cool), the sales will presumably still be markedly lower if the rules and libers aren’t selling.

Anyway I just pre-ordered the boxed set and the 2 legion libers. I guess I am ready to go another round…

no. Sticking with 2.0. 3.0 is looking like a complete dumpster fire that someone has been using as a latrine.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Snord wrote:
It would be interesting if this edition flopped. It’s not something I would necessarily want to see, because it could get HH killed off, but if it made GW’s management a little less focused on pushing out new product at the expense of existing players then that would be a good thing. It’s happened before - 2nd edition Epic flopped because most players hated the rules changes.

But how would flopping be measured? I bet everyone who sticks with 2.0 will still buy new plastic models. Heck, people who decide to just not play until 4th edition will still buy new plastic models. Just the Libers not moving? Would that be enough for GW to register?

It'll register. The entire point of this is to sell rulebooks. The models would have sold anyway. I'd expect that the major goal given to the rules writers was "Change everything enough to require that people buy new books".

I bought the rulebook and Liber Astartes, not the starter box. My buy-in was far less than expected at the beginning of the leaks/reveals, but at least I saved money? I guess I can buy MOTU Origins figures for my Kowloon Walled City of a shelf or other minis with that money, lol.

Vanilla 3.0 is a non-starter. It removes simply too much stuff. I'll play either 2.0 or a fan modified 3.0, TBD.

It's a great shame as 3.0 brings some genuine improvements, but at a cost which is not acceptable. On my Maslow's pyramid of Horus Heresy needs, being able to actually use my miniatures in the game comes first. Nothing else matters if that step isn't satisfied. While I did lose less stuff than some others, I have full sympathy for those hit hardest, and I think solidarity with them is important.


I am not to the point where I'll stop buying the models yet, so long as they remain good, but I am not buying the rulebooks this time around.

Well it looks like Knights are best in HH 3.0. They act, fight, and react like Knights should.

I might be switching from 40k to HH.

(Still glad I never bought a Dominus Knight or Canis Rex)

Tentatively jumping in with Solar Auxilia, myself. I’d never even purchased a HH mini until I ordered up a small force a few days ago, to ease myself into the new edition.

Ordered up the rulebook and Liber Auxilia. While I can sympathize with folks who’ve had stuff invalidated, I have none of that baggage and I’m looking forward to playing the game. Looks fun.

 nels1031 wrote:
Tentatively jumping in with Solar Auxilia, myself. I’d never even purchased a HH mini until I ordered up a small force a few days ago, to ease myself into the new edition.

Ordered up the rulebook and Liber Auxilia. While I can sympathize with folks who’ve had stuff invalidated, I have none of that baggage and I’m looking forward to playing the game. Looks fun.

I have the feeling you are exactly GW's target audience. Which I am not saying to attack you in any way - just lamenting that existing players aren't included in that category.

I'll give it a go, but I'm not optimistic about this edition's future. Many of my fellow long-time HH players that I'd hoped would return are not going to do so, and I don't think a game this dense will have widespread appeal.

Undecided. Even if I decide I want to play 3rd, I dont know that I have the mental bandwidth to process the rules as they are written. Im definitely holding on to my 2.0 books and hope that some of my local opponents will stick with it as well. Im thiking ultimately the solution will be to stick with 2.0 while incorporating some of the more forward-thinking features of 3rd into it, unless the legacies and journals tactica fill in some of the gaps that GW created by cutting content.

I think there's gonna be a lot of that.

A divide between new players in 3.0 and the old guard who either stick 2.0 or are lured to 3.0 with the promise of competition and new toys.

I see all the Knight players switching to 3.0 - it's just a better / more fun setup for them. Knights don't feel tacked on.

(Oh, as a side note, Flyers might actually work in 3.0)

chaos0xomega wrote:
Undecided. Even if I decide I want to play 3rd, I dont know that I have the mental bandwidth to process the rules as they are written. Im definitely holding on to my 2.0 books and hope that some of my local opponents will stick with it as well. Im thiking ultimately the solution will be to stick with 2.0 while incorporating some of the more forward-thinking features of 3rd into it, unless the legacies and journals tactica fill in some of the gaps that GW created by cutting content.

Definitely incorporating the terrain/cover rules into 2.0. Other than that? No thanks, probably.

Yep, Flyers, Knights, and Titans seem better integrated into the rules, the flip side is that Im not a fan of the increased lethality and the way regular vehicles are being handled.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I think there's gonna be a lot of that.

A divide between new players in 3.0 and the old guard who either stick 2.0 or are lured to 3.0 with the promise of competition and new toys.

I see all the Knight players switching to 3.0 - it's just a better / more fun setup for them. Knights don't feel tacked on.

(Oh, as a side note, Flyers might actually work in 3.0)

Ok, enliighten me. How have they improved Knights in 3.0? If they've actually done that, then I'd like to incorporate it into 2.0.

When the initial announcement was made I was keen for 3.0 as were a lot of the guys who used to play but hadn't for a while. We also had quite a few guys who had never played thinking about joining too.

However, as the rules dribbled out it and it started to look like overly complicated word salad I started to be a bit more cautious, and a lot of the interest dried up locally.

Add to that the gutting of customisable options and removed/legendesed units and my enthusiasm for 3.0 is severely diminished. I've picked up the Liber Heretica to look at the rules for Fulgrim and Sons in detail, but I suspect they're just going to remain a painting project rather than seeing any gaming.

Might give it the ol college try with LI minis (ala Epic heresy) at some point, but unlikely to get involved much tbh

[The reduction in unit loadouts make LI models an even better fit]

I'd rather play HH 3.0 than HH 2.0. I don't think it would be particularly hard to add in the lost weapon options and units if GW doesn't. Easier than fixing and self-policing in HH 2.0. Though, I've never had a fondness of pre-8th ed 40k.

I actually like the way list building works in HH 3.0 comparatively. I was the only player I've encountered that made use of the Crusade detachment. It should be nice to face more varied listed. I mostly stopped playing since many of my opponents were 'Opps, all [blank]. I don't blame them. HH 2.0 rewarded single unit saturation. It looks like HH 3.0 in list building and mission play wants players to have a bit of everything. I just hope they don't give Line to a bunch of things and make Tacticals and Despoiler kinda redundant again (to be fair, that more book missions not really needing Line units that much). It's not perfect, but a bit of an HQ tax doesn't seem too bad of the price of spam. If that is how it works. Better than just making the good stuff overly expensive if taking in small amounts.

I like the idea of different status effects in theory. I'm neutral on breaking up Leadership into a bunch of stats. Doubly so, since the game is only 4 turns long. Which might de facto eliminate a unit anyway. Seems like a lot of hoops to get to the same place (very on brand for GW and HH) I would have rather simpler and more numerous turns to allow units to recover and players to fine tune their tactics as battlefield conditions evolve. As it stands, there is a strong possibility that HH 3.0 might be a 'wind 'em up and let them go' game. Since once deployed, any one unit are kinda set on how much interaction they are going to make. Which would be very modern GW, but I can live it. If that is the case.

Also, a 4 turn game is likely to be quite lethal to satiate how much of the armies are removed from the table. Perhaps making status and all the different Leadership type stats superfluous.

I'm glad that deep strike is limited. Most of my games in HH 2.0 were against melee focused deep striking Imperial Fist melee focused terminators. Like 30 of them. I really didn't have the units to counter 30 terminators with storm shields anyway. But them skipping the need to pick a deployment lane or even cross the table made the impossible to fight or retreat further than they could reach me. Though, it does feel a bit too limited for drop pod use.

I think the Charge/Combat Phase is more overwrought than a very overwrought set of rules. But if GW is set on not allowing marines shoot in the Shooting Phase and then fight. Volley fire is at least something. But I will have see how it actually works.

I'm glad that reactions are toned down. Probably not toned down enough for my liking, but I'm probably being unreasonable. I had too many feels bad of not doing an action because of the reaction repercussion in HH 2.0. At least this shouldn't happen as often.

I'm glad Artificer Armor is gone from Sergeants. I found everyone basically had to take it. And to use it meant slow rolling until it finally gave out. I also am glad the rules don't really let damage allocation move around. I'm also not fussed with removing models out of line of sight. If these buildings really were that invincible, the Imperium should have been strapping it to their tanks.

Challenges do seem like more than they need to be. I might want to try to get an opponent to skip the actual game of HH and just try out Challenges in isolation. Maybe they are cool, but GW's track record often is tons of choices, but most are trash or specific and obvious to which should be used.

I'm not sure what GW was thinking (yes, I actually do) removing as much as they did. I'm glad there is the blowback there has been. I hope it gets GW off their butt and put something out to fix that. While I generally like the rules, they do seem too Byzantine to bother getting. If I do play HH 3.0, it will have be via using someone else's books. Because I'm not paying for another round of hack edited rules that are near useless to use mid-game.

That's a very balanced assessment. I am also fairly positive about the new list building system, having applied it to 2 of my existing (WIP) armies. I actually like the idea of more Centurions, as I am a big fan of character models (I suspect that the increase in HQs was the main reason for taking artificer armour away from sergeants). It's really the culling of units and unit options that I find the most off-putting. I see that even SN Battle Reports couldn't put a positive spin on this!

Maybe. Hard maybe.

 Snord wrote:
That's a very balanced assessment. I am also fairly positive about the new list building system, having applied it to 2 of my existing (WIP) armies. I actually like the idea of more Centurions, as I am a big fan of character models (I suspect that the increase in HQs was the main reason for taking artificer armour away from sergeants). It's really the culling of units and unit options that I find the most off-putting. I see that even SN Battle Reports couldn't put a positive spin on this!

Well, I have a bias, both in that I've never really cared much for pre-8th ed 40k. As well as HH 2.0 straight-up taking me into the back and beating the snot out of my collection. Ironically, for playing something closer to what it feels HH 3.0 wants.

But I agree that GW gutting the unit and wargear options is really the bridge too far. I think if that wasn't the case, most players would eventually come around to the new rules. If even just begrudgingly.

Which given the huge stink the internet has kicked up, if GW didn't have something in place before, they sure as gak better now. I can totally understand a player refusing to try this edition if a good chunk of their model collection has to be re-arranged or completely unused. And the draconian way the rules are written, have a good chance of not getting new blood. This isn't the low bar of entry Kill Team, and it's poorly written but actually good rules are. HH basically has a couple of legal tomes to read through.

Because I do think they fix more than they break to allow for games that players don't have to police themselves nearly as much to have something more fair. I'd hazard a guess that HH 3.0 still works just as well as HH 2.0 if players drop 3's list building system and just build lists as if using their favorite RoW plus all the self-policing they were already doing.

The only big hurtle after that is, it's not 3rd-7th 40k at is core. Which I suppose could still be a dealbreaker for some.

I'll certainly give it a try, pick up a libre and the main book. Perhaps our local gaming group can home rule any irritating things away or return lost options.

It has potential, but I doubt I'll be building a whole new army or buying too much for this edition unless a bit of practice makes it prove to be rather enjoyable.

But I very much sympathise with people who suddenly found units they spent time and money getting up to scratch suddenly having them unusable or function differently.

I think the issue is even more fundamental than just having models invalidated for this edition. It's the fact that the game has gone onto the 3-year edition conveyor belt. So even if you suck it up and start replacing weapons on models and reorganising your units, you have no certainty that you won't have to go through the whole f**king exercise again in 3 years - in fact, there is a pretty high likelihood that you will. That's a huge disincentive to simply soldering on. If I had unlimited time and energy, and could crank out an army in 6-8 weeks like I could 20 years ago, I would probably just shrug and start a new army. But I don't and I can't.

Yea, really takes the wind out of lovingly crafting My Dudes when they have a 3 year shelf life. In fact, the last thing I painted, while we were already receiving the first 3.0 leaks, was 20 Breachers, total custom job bashed from about 6 different sculptors - and I made it out easy, I only lost 10% of them, the two flamer guys. They're a month old and they did not live to see a game.

Alchem weaponry also got completely removed so my all Death Guard just have Weirdly Sculpted Flamers now.

 Snord wrote:
I think the issue is even more fundamental than just having models invalidated for this edition. It's the fact that the game has gone onto the 3-year edition conveyor belt. So even if you suck it up and start replacing weapons on models and reorganising your units, you have no certainty that you won't have to go through the whole f**king exercise again in 3 years - in fact, there is a pretty high likelihood that you will. That's a huge disincentive to simply soldering on. If I had unlimited time and energy, and could crank out an army in 6-8 weeks like I could 20 years ago, I would probably just shrug and start a new army. But I don't and I can't.

This has been the consensus in my local LI/HH gaming group. A few 'WTF' comments when the rules first appeared. Guys who have spent months or often years crafting an army and now can't play it without extensive proxy/counts-as rules.
A lot of us have families, older with jobs that don't allow the 20 hours a week you could sink into building your army when you were younger or a student. And they will not be prepared to play with the grey plastic legion as much of the 40k community seem to be.
Rules aside, not allowing people to play with their toys is a pretty basic mistake to make with this edition, and you can already see its going to result in upset and split communities.

Friend & I were going to split the box (he loves the Saturnine terminators), probably play a smaller skirmish game (using an older 40k ruleset, OPR or even Armageddon shadow war) with a Great Crusade setting, which I think is a better fit for these minis than Dropsite Massacre, and then flog the rulebook on eBay.
But, there is no way either of us will be able to keep up with the new edition lifespan, even if it had been a 'must play' set of rules that was not a word salad.

Plenty of GW people over the years have told me that the real profits are from incoming players, not established players. That seems to increasingly drive their business model.

I'm not going to be defeated by GW's poor decision-making. My WIP Space Wolves are a lost cause, but I think I can get my SoH army complaint without too many casualties. I'll need to source another box of OOP Mk 3 Marines, however. My Ultramarines just require some minor weapon swaps, and as they're unpainted it's not too big a deal.

 Snord wrote:
It’s happened before - 2nd edition Epic flopped because most players hated the rules changes.

It would have survived the rules change (the same rules system was loved in BFG) if the model prices didn't increase, in some cases by 500%.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Snord wrote:
It’s happened before - 2nd edition Epic flopped because most players hated the rules changes.

It would have survived the rules change (the same rules system was loved in BFG) if the model prices didn't increase, in some cases by 500%.

Bridge-to-far-syndrom as often with GW, which can count itself lucky that their universes and hegemonial positions have such a draw...

- Marketing that states it's a progression of 2.0... turned out it isn't.

- Army building enforcing Consuls, which are monobuild, invalidating a lot of models and army builds at the same time.

- implementation of a 3 year cycle, nvm that we just turned whole books into physical DLC abandonware.

- Ridicoulus restrictions which are not enforced equally.

- DLC content for legion specific units .... which was core product in the past. So we follow the trend of digital DLC made from cut content.

- All of the above done in a physical environment in which a box of plastic/ resin marines can put you close to a full video game, a meal out, etc.

 Snord wrote:
Plenty of GW people over the years have told me that the real profits are from incoming players, not established players. That seems to increasingly drive their business model.

On the contrary that was the old GW model. The reason for the 3 year cycle is to periodically remonetize the existing customer base, which is a much more sustainable business model than relying on perpetual new customer churn.

 Snrub wrote:
I'm out for 3rd ed.
I'll still be collecting models, and I'll still be playing games of 2nd ed as often as I can get them. But after the Liber leaks I've lost any remaining enthusiasm I might have had for the new edition. And if Heresy has now joined the edition churn as it appears to have, then I'm not going to grapple with the changes they've made only to have to do-over again in 3 years time.

This. 100 times this.

I've been slowly building armies to the 2.0 Libers since the Age of Darkness box dropped.
I have the Assault group box, a Leviathan Dread, and assorted Astartes tanks and transports.
End of May I finally picked up Mechanicum.

The overly verbose rule text, changes to the army building, and the absurd amount of "It's the same game" bs from GW have all put me off the new edition.
The massive amount of rules just for the challenge phase was the nail for me, before we even got the leaks for the Libers cuts.

Sidenote: How many models/unit loadouts were invalidated between the Red books and the Age of Darkness (2.0) release?

1) We haven't seen the pdfs yet. I am sure there will be issues they fail to address, but I think many issues will be resolved.

2) Just because we had a three-year release this time, doesn't mean we are now on an endless three year cycle.

I'll give 3.0 a try - playing Mechanicum, 2.0 wasn't exactly a good edition for me with units I wouldn't even bring to a Beer&more Beer game. What I saw in the new Liber Mechanicus looks definitely better and more fun to play.

 skrulnik wrote:

Sidenote: How many models/unit loadouts were invalidated between the Red books and the Age of Darkness (2.0) release?

Most is in the Legacies, they're still on their web page.

Sticking with the AT and LI. Building a Knight or Titan army are far too limited due to the price and effort of the more interesting units, whereas Epic scale can be comfortably small out of the box, or as large as one likes.

 Fifty wrote:

2) Just because we had a three-year release this time, doesn't mean we are now on an endless three year cycle.

I think if TOW and Legions Imperialis also receive new editions on their 3rd year, then it would seem to be a safe bet.

It's unfortunate, because the plastic releases for Solar Auxilia really are tempting, but seeing the ruleset as it is makes me think of just using their models for 40k as Imperial Guard instead. The move to "no-models, no rules" for even a specialist game like this just makes it even more of a "nope" to play 3.0.

 Grimskul wrote:
It's unfortunate, because the plastic releases for Solar Auxilia really are tempting, but seeing the ruleset as it is makes me think of just using their models for 40k as Imperial Guard instead. The move to "no-models, no rules" for even a specialist game like this just makes it even more of a "nope" to play 3.0.

How cute, you still think this is a Specialist Game.

Scrolling through the HH WIP thread to see how my just about 3000 pts of painted models fare in 3.0


5 Recons with nemesis bolters, A-ok


10 Tactical Support with alchem flamers, are now just Weirdly Sculpted Regular Flamers


Libby in Terminator armour, dead and gone.


3 Boxnauts, who knows, but that's on me, they were already Legends in 2.0


10 Tacticals, alright, except that I put combi-grenades on every character I can because I love pinning, and this is the only of 200 weapons in the game that lost pinning


Primus Medicae in Terminator armour, dead and gone


Mortarion, is Mortarion


Rapiers, unit size went up by 1, no problem


Vigilator with a shield, no-no


Moritat is the only HQ who kept all the options I gave him


Termite is unscathed


Dorito lost nipple alchem


Heavy support squad is unscathed


Breachers lots access to flamers - alchem or otherwise - so 2 guys are out
Could be worse, I could have put volkite on them.

 Fifty wrote:
1) We haven't seen the pdfs yet. I am sure there will be issues they fail to address, but I think many issues will be resolved.

2) Just because we had a three-year release this time, doesn't mean we are now on an endless three year cycle.

Glass half full here, which is probably a good way to be generally. But if I were a betting man, I would say it is more likely than not that it will fall in line with 40k/AoS edition cycle, rather than this being an outlier and it returning to 5/6 years or more?

I should imagine GW sales have looked at the size of the HH market (we have seen some comments about it being the 3rd best-selling game for them, which I think is absolutely believable given the size of online communities and how much you see it played, at least anecdotally) and they have pulled it into their business model which has worked so well for their main games and thought of how to further monetise it; i.e. get that player base to buy new rules, new minis, get rid of existing ones every three years.

I didn't pre-order anything for 3.0 at the weekend (well, I bought the Black Library map but that doesn't show up in SGS's accounts).

At this point unless there's some major backtracking above and beyond just a PDF putting a few legacy options back I won't play 3.0. I'll have to see what my options are, but just buying and doing less stuff in general is certainly on the table. It's amazing how much good will and interest in the game has just been torched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snord wrote:
Plenty of GW people over the years have told me that the real profits are from incoming players, not established players. That seems to increasingly drive their business model.

That's true for the main studio games - i.e. AOS/40k/Kill Team/Warcry/Underworlds. It's not true for the SGS games. Too much of the SGS games are resin for that to be true for a start.

No. I only play 1-2 games a year so splashing a couple of hundred quid on new rule books and learning a new game every three years just isn't worth it.

I'll still be buying some models and working on my existing armys.

I started an Imperial fist army with 2.0 and haven't finished it, and want some of those plastic breachers for it. And a fellblade.

I feel 3rd will be a flop for them, maybe not gorkamorka levels of bad but not the hit they expect. Hopefully the large number of players sticking with 2.0 keep buying models so the game doesn't lose new model support from GW.

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the contrary that was the old GW model. The reason for the 3 year cycle is to periodically remonetize the existing customer base, which is a much more sustainable business model than relying on perpetual new customer churn.

Maybe you know something I don’t, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. The reaction of established players to major revisions to rules and units would also suggest the opposite. In fact I think they’ve actually become more ruthless about this business model, especially with the 3-year edition cycle - everything feels more disposable. The only qualification is that, as far as WH40k is concerned, they are also pandering to the competitive lobby - possibly because they seem to be prepared to discard existing models and buy large quantities of whatever is newly competitive whenever the meta changes (which is frequently).

AdeptiCon HH is the reason I play. My buddy and I make the sojourn every year. My Imperial Fists 3k list looks to be largely unaffected.

That said, my desire to work on my Sons of Horus is gone. They're at about 1500 points, but I'm pissed off about the 3-year release schedule, the weirdly verbose prose we've seen for far in the rules, and invalidating many people's armies. I'll probably just sell them off.

If AdeptiCon HH goes to 3rd edition, then I will too. Otherwise, I'll play what they play.

So far my group has no desire to switch 3rd. I've seen nothing that interests me with 3rd myself and no one in my group is enthused about learning new rules.

Won't be moving to 3rd.

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the contrary that was the old GW model. The reason for the 3 year cycle is to periodically remonetize the existing customer base, which is a much more sustainable business model than relying on perpetual new customer churn.

Maybe you know something I don’t, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. The reaction of established players to major revisions to rules and units would also suggest the opposite. In fact I think they’ve actually become more ruthless about this business model, especially with the 3-year edition cycle - everything feels more disposable. The only qualification is that, as far as WH40k is concerned, they are also pandering to the competitive lobby - possibly because they seem to be prepared to discard existing models and buy large quantities of whatever is newly competitive whenever the meta changes (which is frequently).

The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the contrary that was the old GW model. The reason for the 3 year cycle is to periodically remonetize the existing customer base, which is a much more sustainable business model than relying on perpetual new customer churn.

Maybe you know something I don’t, but I don’t see any real evidence of that. The reaction of established players to major revisions to rules and units would also suggest the opposite. In fact I think they’ve actually become more ruthless about this business model, especially with the 3-year edition cycle - everything feels more disposable. The only qualification is that, as far as WH40k is concerned, they are also pandering to the competitive lobby - possibly because they seem to be prepared to discard existing models and buy large quantities of whatever is newly competitive whenever the meta changes (which is frequently).

The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

Tbf, the HH crowd was made up of the vets that had enough from mainline 40k to a large degree.

I'm just using this whole debacle as a recruiting drive for Adeptus Titanicus.

We haven't had a new book in forever, but we keep getting new models (with rules!) - so join on to the best Horus Heresy game ever written!

I think that if anything hurts 30k sales, it won't be the new core rules or even the loss of options, it was when GW decided to cut every 30k unit out of 40k, removing a major market for the kits.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

Yes, that's absolutely true. CCS put up a post in the Heresy N&R section that summarises our addiction:

"Look, I've explained this to you anti-GW types (maybe even you specifically) before.
They make models, I buy models.
When they make models that satisfy me concerning Price/Quality (including sculpt, material, etc)/My interests & needs/Availability (to an extent)? They get my $.
When they fail? They don't make a sale.
It's that simple.
I foresee this pattern continuing until I'm dead or shortly before. Or they go out of business. Wichever comes 1st. And I know wich I'm betting on."

But remember that those of us posting on forums are not really typical of the majority of players. Every time GW churns out a new edition, a proportion of its player base says 'f**k it, I'm out'. Killing off the Old World in favour of AoS did it, and the last few editions of WH40k did it too. I suspect that GW have worked out that the shelf life of an average player is about 3 years. So after that period they can basically start the whole thing again; the profits from the influx of new players more than justifies the loss of a proportion of their more established players.

GW makes great models, and the Horus Heresy line is one of my favorites they have ever produced. I will continue to build my Salamanders army of mostly 30K Marines, because I put that project off for too long. I'm super excited about the new Saturnine figures, and I'm planning on getting at least one of the new starter sets.

That said, I will not be playing any games with GW rules again in my lifetime. To get the updated army books I need for my armies I'm planning or have would cost too much money, and I would rather put that towards the minis. Rather, I'm writing my own mini-agnostic rules to play my games with that I can include my other sci-fi armies from other armies and games I have accumulated over the years. I'm having more fun in writing and play testing my own game with my closest gaming buddies than I ever did with GW or other games over the years. I'm just at a point in my life that I want to work on projects that I have always wanted to do, and I figured this is as good a time as any to do it.

But to anyone that wants to play HH 3.0, go for it! I bear no ill will towards other rules or anyone who enjoys them. Have fun, and get some more paint on those minis!

Unfortunately I think the probability of enough people declining to buy into the new edition to push GW to rethink the rulebook treadmill approach is vanishingly small. I do however wish they would get that kind of jolt which might make them look again at their approach, ideally decide to slow down the cycle and also invest just a little bit more time and resource into the quality of the rules writing, but don't have much hope of it happening.

I won't be buying into the new rules myself, but will continue to pick up models as and when they make something I like at a price point I'm willing to buy (e.g. hopefully the fellblade). I guess this is where I differ from CCS, and it's not really about being "anti-GW" - but I take the same approach with the printed materials as I do the models (if I don't think the cost/quality is worth it I don't buy it, if I think it is I do), I don't get the folks (and plenty of evidence of them around) who seem to feel they have to buy the GW rules (even when they know they're poor quality for the cost) just because they do like the models. You don't have to do both.

I'm not planning on playing HH3.0, but not for any of the reasons everyone online is complaining about.

I bought into 2.0 and was pretty excited to get into it, but I just haven't had the time with getting more into the competitive side of 40k, without dropping off the casual / narrative side. I've gotten all of 2 games of 30k in since 2.0 dropped and that's just not enough for me to invest into more books and models I will hardly ever use. On top of that, there's nothing in the box set that I'd use in 40k since I already have more tactical marines than I'd ever need and the others won't get rules...

I might give it a spin if I have the time once waha gets all the rules there, but I'm not investing in another batch of books I'll hardly ever use.

Heresy Hammer have produced what is basically a ‘how to cope with 3rd Edition’ video. It’s quite helpful. However, it pre-dates the news regarding the contents of (and rationale for) the pdf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzKg0L3XBBo

I'm going to buy the Knight and Titan book, because I love AT, and more stories, and useless trivia makes me happy.

Ii still look at the old Knight codicies and AT campaign books for fun.


Plus, I might be able to play HH 3.0, as it costs too much for me to play 2.0 (needed another 300+ dollars to buy/build/paint the Armiger Tax, and couldn't use the Moriax).

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The only evidence i have is my eyes. We all complain about the 3 year cycle but we all go back for another hit and give them our money like addicts. This HH release is the first ive seen of any major resistance to follow the cycle.

Yes, that's absolutely true. CCS put up a post in the Heresy N&R section that summarises our addiction:

"Look, I've explained this to you anti-GW types (maybe even you specifically) before.
They make models, I buy models.
When they make models that satisfy me concerning Price/Quality (including sculpt, material, etc)/My interests & needs/Availability (to an extent)? They get my $.
When they fail? They don't make a sale.
It's that simple.
I foresee this pattern continuing until I'm dead or shortly before. Or they go out of business. Wichever comes 1st. And I know wich I'm betting on."

But remember that those of us posting on forums are not really typical of the majority of players. Every time GW churns out a new edition, a proportion of its player base says 'f**k it, I'm out'. Killing off the Old World in favour of AoS did it, and the last few editions of WH40k did it too. I suspect that GW have worked out that the shelf life of an average player is about 3 years. So after that period they can basically start the whole thing again; the profits from the influx of new players more than justifies the loss of a proportion of their more established players.

Yeah, that's it. I remember watching a video interview of someone who used to work at GW laying it out:
* Plastic kit molds are so expensive that if they dont expect to see sales in the 100k's, they wont do it
* The most money spent on GW stores comes from middle aged women (Lil Timmy's mom)
* Player retention is somewhere between 3-4 years ie. they dont make business decisions for people like us

Now granted, HH audience isnt the same audience as 40K/AOS, but I'm not convinced the management realizes this..

These are the harsh realities of modern GW and many people huff copium like madmen trying to delulu thinking they matter

Piousservant wrote:
Unfortunately I think the probability of enough people declining to buy into the new edition to push GW to rethink the rulebook treadmill approach is vanishingly small. I do however wish they would get that kind of jolt which might make them look again at their approach, ideally decide to slow down the cycle and also invest just a little bit more time and resource into the quality of the rules writing, but don't have much hope of it happening.

I won't be buying into the new rules myself, but will continue to pick up models as and when they make something I like at a price point I'm willing to buy (e.g. hopefully the fellblade). I guess this is where I differ from CCS, and it's not really about being "anti-GW" - but I take the same approach with the printed materials as I do the models (if I don't think the cost/quality is worth it I don't buy it, if I think it is I do), I don't get the folks (and plenty of evidence of them around) who seem to feel they have to buy the GW rules (even when they know they're poor quality for the cost) just because they do like the models. You don't have to do both.

How exactly do you differ from me?

Models
I've always bought GW models when it suited my needs/wants (& if the price was right - no, I will NOT be buying a Kharon pattern transport from GW. Not at that price)
GW has consistently produced models I've liked. They don't show any inclination of stopping either. Thus my statement that I expect to be buying them until I die.

Rules
This is 2025 - I don't need to buy GWs rules in order to play their games....
Once upon a time, particularly concerning WHFB, I'd joke that "I don't need to buy GW models to play this game, just their rules".
Now it's "I don't need to buy GWs minis OR GWs rules to play this game".

I buy the models because I like them better than many of the alternatives.
I buy (some of) the rules for the convenience of not haveing to read them on my phone/tablet.
Or in some cases because they come bundled into box sets & it's cheaper to get the minis that way than as individual kits.

ccs wrote:

Piousservant wrote:
Unfortunately I think the probability of enough people declining to buy into the new edition to push GW to rethink the rulebook treadmill approach is vanishingly small. I do however wish they would get that kind of jolt which might make them look again at their approach, ideally decide to slow down the cycle and also invest just a little bit more time and resource into the quality of the rules writing, but don't have much hope of it happening.

I won't be buying into the new rules myself, but will continue to pick up models as and when they make something I like at a price point I'm willing to buy (e.g. hopefully the fellblade). I guess this is where I differ from CCS, and it's not really about being "anti-GW" - but I take the same approach with the printed materials as I do the models (if I don't think the cost/quality is worth it I don't buy it, if I think it is I do), I don't get the folks (and plenty of evidence of them around) who seem to feel they have to buy the GW rules (even when they know they're poor quality for the cost) just because they do like the models. You don't have to do both.

How exactly do you differ from me?

Models
I've always bought GW models when it suited my needs/wants (& if the price was right - no, I will NOT be buying a Kharon pattern transport from GW. Not at that price)
GW has consistently produced models I've liked. They don't show any inclination of stopping either. Thus my statement that I expect to be buying them until I die.

Rules
This is 2025 - I don't need to buy GWs rules in order to play their games....
Once upon a time, particularly concerning WHFB, I'd joke that "I don't need to buy GW models to play this game, just their rules".
Now it's "I don't need to buy GWs minis OR GWs rules to play this game".

I buy the models because I like them better than many of the alternatives.
I buy (some of) the rules for the convenience of not haveing to read them on my phone/tablet.
Or in some cases because they come bundled into box sets & it's cheaper to get the minis that way than as individual kits.

Ah fair enough, not so different then - was just going off what I kind of read into the post above.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tauist wrote:

Yeah, that's it. I remember watching a video interview of someone who used to work at GW laying it out:
* Plastic kit molds are so expensive that if they dont expect to see sales in the 100k's, they wont do it
* The most money spent on GW stores comes from middle aged women (Lil Timmy's mom)
* Player retention is somewhere between 3-4 years ie. they dont make business decisions for people like us

Now granted, HH audience isnt the same audience as 40K/AOS, but I'm not convinced the management realizes this..

These are the harsh realities of modern GW and many people huff copium like madmen trying to delulu thinking they matter

Y'know 'd love to know what data that's based on. I don't necessarily doubt that's GWs thinking; but I'm just genuinely curious what the actual data they use to reach those conclusions. They've never seemed to invest in any market research, or even be interested in doing any, and beyond the obvious data they do have, particularly from their own online store, I really am sceptical they have enough information to really understand their market that well. For instance, it seems pretty plausible that most money in stores is from parents, but I don't think we've ever seen or heard anything which would tell us that they have any hard data on the gender/age profile of spending in store (online of course they will have better data).

It does seem most likely that any such data (assuming they do actually do some real analysis and not just make a bunch of sweeping assumptions) is going to be almost entirely derived from their online store. And I have to wonder how accurate a picture that paints, for example I suspect there is a trend of people who get into their games and maybe start out buying direct but as they get more involved in the hobby (and better informed) may well end up switching and spending more at their FLGS and/or discount retailers online. Which might look to GW like someone who they've lost as a customer, but that isn't really the case from a retention perspective and I can't see how they'd get the data from third parties to reliably be able to say otherwise.

Which again isn't to say that GW don't think those things you've said, but as an analyst I just remain very sceptical that they really have the right data to draw those conclusions until such times as they conduct a series of proper surveys not just of instore/online direct customers but 3rd party customers too. Would be fascinating to see the data if they ever did though.

Yeah, if youre referring to the video i think youre referring to, that perspective is based on their expsrience as an employee 10+ years ago. The business model of 2025 GW has changed radically from where it was in 2015.

In this case you could also just watch the Interview series of former GW "core" people which also left 10+ years ago
the only intresting one here for the context would be the one with Ronnie Renton as this tells how GW sales strategy changed over time so you get an idea how they are working

but outside of a general idea, everything else would be based on outdated information

And I don't think they even care to get the "right" conclusions as their metric would be rather simple, if something sells, it sells, if it does not it needs change.
40k having the best sales, so anything that should also sell better gets the same buisness model

also my personal impression in here is that 40k sells despite what GW is doing, not because of it (and the managment might think otherwise because if it sells, it sells), hence why their other games struggle with the same buisness model as the reason why people buy and play aren't the same and therefore not selling that well despite what they are doing but selling worse because of it

So someone might have thought that doing the very same as in 40k would get them the same sales results in the long run, as they also upset the community several times there but still had new records in sales every single time

PS:
for the topic, no I am not going to play HH3 and also not going to buy the new boxes.
core box looked good but the Saturnine are too large for my liking and I still have enough old models for my heresy Wolves to build and paint so I don't need anything
but a plastic Fellblade might make its way and will finally replace the scratch build one (based on a 1/35 IS-3)

To me it sounds like those who are going to be investing HH 3.0 will be people who:

A) Never played HH 2.0

-or-

B) Did not like HH 2.0

-or-

C) Enjoy playing HH with others and are drug kicking and screaming into 3.0 by the local community.

I'm in C, but it's the AdeptiCon community and my buddies I see 2/3 times a year, rather than local game group.

I don't want to update, but I do want to play.

Honestly, for me, I've not played much of HH2.0 and a 3rd edition already left me feeling a little jaded. Some of the rules and snippets coming out looked good and I thought, alright, may be good. Then came the leaks and I got cold feet. Only ended up pre-ordering the journal which I've already cancelled.

I've got a large HH1.0 collection of Alpha Legion, mostly resin that I've still got a ton to churn through and paint, a lot of them are legacies aleady (Skorr, Destroyers, MkIV Castraferrums with Flamerstorms, Achilles Alpha, mixed weapon Vet Squads). I'll likely work on finishing that collection off to HH1.0 standards.

I've been slowly building up White Scars and Iron Warriors to HH2.0 standards using new plastics and recent sculpts. I'll continue working on them over time and I'll likely pick the odd sprue up here or there from box splitters and collection clearance sellers when I get capacity. I like the new MKII's and Saturnine's, however, despise the new Centurion - far too busy compared to earlier Resin Centurions, but that's personal taste.

So, HH3.0 is likely a no, but who knows, as I'll continue buying models I want in an ad-hoc sense when I get a gap in my painting queue.

Not a chance. I’m grateful for the leaks, or I could have wasted my money and been even more disappointed than I am now. Sticking to 2.0

I think rules-wise, it might be worth using the models with the original WH40K: Rogue Trader book. Plenty of vehicles and robots, and Imperial stuff. The book does get reprints once in a while, yet this edition of 30K will be resigned to the book recycling banks in 3 years time.

SamusDrake wrote:
I think rules-wise, it might be worth using the models with the original WH40K: Rogue Trader book. Plenty of vehicles and robots, and Imperial stuff. The book does get reprints once in a while, yet this edition of 30K will be resigned to the book recycling banks in 3 years time.

I dunno - I am old enough to have played RT when it came out, and it's not really a wargame. More of a hybrid role-playing game. It's a great book, but more for the unhinged imagery and other stuff that is still inspiring.

You're not wrong about the transitory nature of current editions of the rules - I still have my RT rulebook (and my 3rd Edition book), but the rest of my WH40k rulebooks (and most of the codexes) are all just landfill now.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
To me it sounds like those who are going to be investing HH 3.0 will be people who:

A) Never played HH 2.0

-or-

B) Did not like HH 2.0

-or-

C) Enjoy playing HH with others and are drug kicking and screaming into 3.0 by the local community.

You know, there are those of us who, having played (& even enjoyed!) HH 2, don't mind a new edition. At least not automatically.

ccs wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
To me it sounds like those who are going to be investing HH 3.0 will be people who:

A) Never played HH 2.0

-or-

B) Did not like HH 2.0

-or-

C) Enjoy playing HH with others and are drug kicking and screaming into 3.0 by the local community.

You know, there are those of us who, having played (& even enjoyed!) HH 2, don't mind a new edition. At least not automatically.

Oh. Then Option D then.

I liked HH 2.0... kind of. Due to budgetary reasons I only played Zone Mortalis.

I am excited for the new version of it coming out.

 Snord wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
I think rules-wise, it might be worth using the models with the original WH40K: Rogue Trader book. Plenty of vehicles and robots, and Imperial stuff. The book does get reprints once in a while, yet this edition of 30K will be resigned to the book recycling banks in 3 years time.

I dunno - I am old enough to have played RT when it came out, and it's not really a wargame. More of a hybrid role-playing game. It's a great book, but more for the unhinged imagery and other stuff that is still inspiring.

You're not wrong about the transitory nature of current editions of the rules - I still have my RT rulebook (and my 3rd Edition book), but the rest of my WH40k rulebooks (and most of the codexes) are all just landfill now.

Curious - did you also play RT using the 1992 "Battle Manual"? Cuz that book took RT rules a lot closer to 2nd edition rules

Just asking this because I feel like many ppls opinion on RT as a game stop before the post-1991 rules updates

 tauist wrote:
Curious - did you also play RT using the 1992 "Battle Manual"? Cuz that book took RT rules a lot closer to 2nd edition rules

Just asking this because I feel like many ppls opinion on RT as a game stop before the post-1991 rules updates

That's a fair point - the subsequent books did alter the dynamic. I had the Battle Manual, but if I am honest I can no longer remember if I used it. I remember using the Vehicle Manual (with the targeting template), the Compendium and also the Ork books. It took a long time to resolve anything even with a small number of models.

 Snord wrote:

I dunno - I am old enough to have played RT when it came out, and it's not really a wargame. More of a hybrid role-playing game. It's a great book, but more for the unhinged imagery and other stuff that is still inspiring.

You're not wrong about the transitory nature of current editions of the rules - I still have my RT rulebook (and my 3rd Edition book), but the rest of my WH40k rulebooks (and most of the codexes) are all just landfill now.

I'd say a bridge between classic historical wargaming and D&D. A toolkit to create cool sci-fi scenarios on the table, which can range from a ship's crew landing on a planet of rubber-toy dinosaurs to a destructive civil war with entire mechanized armies.

And snap on RT and 3rd edition! I left the hobby after 3rd to focus on computing, and wouldn't come back until Lost Patrol 2nd edition was doing the rounds.

I am going to pick up the Saturnine box, but no guarantee I will do much beyond that. When second edition came out I got two starters sets and played for about 8 months. However, it became clear fairly quickly that dreadnaughts and legion specific units were auto-takes and everything else was luke warm to terrible. It made the game really boring for me and my game group. I had planned a solar auxillia army but it just looked miserable to play with.

To me it looks like the internal balance this time around it better, but I am not sold on all of the mechanics. The actually writing of the rules looks atrocious but I can get past that if I get familiar enough with it. Old World's rules are overly wordy but after a few games it all came together.

if I'm playing anything GW, I'll probably be playing the older editions. Already building an army list for HH 1.0 for my mechanicum and knights.

The biggest problem in my mind is the slippery slope of newer and newer editions slowly becoming more and more unrecognizable from what had me fall in love with 40k and heresy in general.

So with the Legacies fixing many crimes against the Legions, and Solar and Mechanicum seeming a lot nicer in 3.0 than in 2.0, I will give it a shot. However, I intend to continue using some of the still missing wargear options, especially Consul loadouts, as they were in 2.0, because I ain't ripping arms off my dudes.

Got my first game booked for 27 August. 1,500, my Dark Angels vs his Blood Angels.

Think I want to try to get a couple of HB Rapiers painted up by then, throw some Suppression down range, see how it works out.

Also need to start trying out army lists. We’ve both agreed nowt too fancy.

I'm on the fence, picked up the rules and the traitor book, going to have a few games of 3rd and see what my local group does. But, also have old world and killteam as backups. Any new units I make for the 3rd edition are likley to be 3d printed anyway, like a squad of vet tacticals with shotguns for my 3rd legion force.

I don't think i will. I'm full-on stick-in-the-mud and rolling with first edition still.

Its been quite strange watching the back and forth on the new edition as i have memories of the same sort of issues being raised when 2.0 dropped.
(missing unit profiles, missing wargear, loss of unit options, edition not wanted/needed)

There have been good ideas in both 2.0 and 3.0 but the delivery spoiled them.
Reactions in 2.0, enhanced statuses in 3.0.

I had my first game over the weekend. Roughly 2k pts, although we weren't being overly strict about clocking wargear costs.

As I said in the N&R thread, the reaction to the new rules was mostly positive from our group. We generally agreed list building was sort of annoying, but likely one of those thing you'll just end up adapting too through attrition of use. A few of the 'nardier Grogs lamented the lack of RoWs and I think there was a bit of quiet envy directed my way because of the Hexagrammaton based Auxiliary detachments the Dark Angels have available, and while the list building isn't exactly to my taste, it seems fine for the most part.
As far as units themselves go, the greatest gnashing of teeth was over the fixed consul load outs, which I think is entirely understandable and more then a touch justified.
The changes to some reactions was met favourably, with just about everyone agreeing that Return Fire happening after casualties, is exactly what it should have been initially in 2.0. Being able to negate overwatch by getting into base contact in your step up(?) move is a nice touch, and one that I really like, and again what the 2.0 overwatch should have been like. Although I did find the whole remodeled assault phase a bit frustrating and the being able to declare a charge you can't physically make the distance for, just to get a few extra inches of movement seems a bit... gamey? Which, fine you still run the risk of being overwatched, and everyone is allowed to do it so its not like one player has an advantage. But it just didn't sit entirely right with me.

Challenges were a definite post-game talking point. A few of the guys really liked the way they happen now, while a couple thought it was over complicated and pulled the focus away from the rest of the game. We had a classic praetor-off. Terranic Greatsword vs Thunderhammer. The Dark Angels gambit where you drop an attack for... critical strike(?) seems quite good if you roll well on your initiative roll off. And I did manage to knock all but 1 wound off him in one round. The 2nd and 3rd round though did not go my way as I flubbed all my attacks and then my opponent made me pay for it. The Paladin though seems quite nasty in a challenge environment, if you take the slayer of kings Hekatonystika rule. WS7 is nothing to sneeze at. I didn't get to use him in a challenge though as we realised that moritat I tried to challenge couldn't actually fight a challenge because he didn't have a specific rule. Personally, I thought they were definitely more interesting then the old rules. But I still don't exactly like the mechanic itself as a whole.
The one guy who bought a flyer with him was not overly enamored with the new flyer rules, although I don't recall what his actually grievance with them was.

Oddly enough there was very little talk (that I heard at least) about Tactical Statuses. They only popped up twice in my game. One of my units got hit by a heavy flamer squad and got suppressed(?) and another squad had something else happen to them, but they were sitting on an objective and so I wasn't planning on doing anything with afterwards anyway so I think it didn't matter at all.
The Tactical Status mechanic itself seems fine. I like the concept behind it and i think it opens up a breadth of options for weapons that normally wouldn't get taken in favour of other things (i.e- flamers). I just don't see why it needed 4 additional leadership based stats though.

Was everyone taking voxes? Their ability to help clear statuses seems worth the points, and worth the points of taking snipers to pick them off.

In the games I played they seemed to affect vehicles worst, who clear them off at a much slower rate and stacking all three can really hurt a vehicles ability to transport or fire any weapons.

For infantry it seems ideal to slap one on your target then charge them to abuse that initiative 1 as much as anything else.

How was scoring? The whole Line/Vanguard/Support thing?

A friend of mine has got the rulebook and thinks it is worth a shot. And now I think the inclusion of legacy units has walked back my main criticism of the new release.

Now to finish getting 1k points of stuff painted up, so should be good to go by the time 4.0 comes along!

I’m tempted to convert up a Siege Breaker and field a brace of Phosfeckoff equipped Quadlauncher Rapiers.

Because that stuff is nasty. As you flee at least twice when panicked, if I can hit a unit early enough (24” range, so not entirely guaranteed) it may flee off the board, or at least well out of position so it plays little part in the main battle.

cody.d. wrote:Was everyone taking voxes? Their ability to help clear statuses seems worth the points, and worth the points of taking snipers to pick them off.

Not sure to be honest. I didn't have any, and I don't believe my opponent had any. Not sure about the other tables though.
On the note of snipers. I did take my trusty Vigilator with me, and let me say, that melon-fether is NASTY. NA-STY! He is, in my opinion exactly where he should be. I've always been of the opinion that he should have had a gun that did brutal (2), and while he was good at taking out sergeants, apoths, wargear carriers, etc. last edition, his native 2 damage and ability to boost that up to 3 with a lucky role, makes him very much worth considering. Once people find their feet with the edition I think we'll be seeing them quite a bit. I ganked a librarian with one shot on the first turn and it was great! (Then completely wiffed the 2nd turn shot against a sergeant )
If as you predict, voxes will be the hot item, then I can definitely see a vigilator making it into a lot of lists to counter them.

lord_blackfang wrote:How was scoring? The whole Line/Vanguard/Support thing?

Yeah that adds something of a dynamic element to an old standard. And honestly, even from only a single two turn game, I came to the rapid conclusion I liked it. We had 3 objectives, one 3pter in the middle, two 1pters on opposite quarters. I had a plasma support squad go an jump on the middle objective in my 2nd turn, so gaining the single point. Opponents 2nd turn his grave wardens (i think) came in and pushed me off and claimed the bonus points and in doing so, evened the VP count.
I really liked it as a way of giving non-line units something to do. Also means all hopes not lost if you lose your line units in a VP game. You can eek back a few points with support units or go for a last-ditch steal if you have a vanguard. Maybe a single game is not enough experience to really sing it's praises, but IF my single game was any indication, then it's a system I like.

Pacific wrote:Now to finish getting 1k points of stuff painted up, so should be good to go by the time 4.0 comes along!

I would say 1k/1.5k is a good starting place for the new edition. Especially if you're familiar with first or second edition rules, or any pre-8th edition 40k, as there's enough changed to make starting with a big game quite confusing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’m tempted to convert up a Siege Breaker and field a brace of Phosfeckoff equipped Quadlauncher Rapiers.

I wonder if they'll turn out to be as utterly nasty as they were in 1st edition. They might regain their status of the "I-hate-having-friends" unit.

I wonder if games are going up to 3500 pts to make up for the new character tax.

I checked the last 3k list I used -

Mortarion
Primus Medicae
Grave Wardens
Spartan
3x Boxnaut
Rapier Battery
2x Tacticals
1x TSS in a Rhino
1x Kratos
1x Sicaran

- and I seem to be four detachment unlocks short under basic rules, even accounting for the one Logistical Benefit I can buy. I seem to have lucked out, randomly, and the Death Guard specific detachment combines two unit types I use and gives and extra Logistical Benefit, so by happy coincidence I can cut it down to two unlocks, so for this list I just need to add one do-nothing Centurion or two actually cool Consuls.

Snrub wrote:I wonder if they'll turn out to be as utterly nasty as they were in 1st edition. They might regain their status of the "I-hate-having-friends" unit.

Who knows! The Quadlauncher is kind of, ish, limited by its 24” range. So first turn bye-byes are likely to be fairly rare.

But I would be surprised if they’re seen more often than not. First, to unlock plentiful ranged Phosphex you need the Siege Breaker first. Same with the Arquitor Bombard. And after that “tax” it’s another points investment to get the shells.

And whilst no doubt effective, the Rapiers and Arquitors aren’t exactly tough cookies.

Other than that, you’ve the Leviathan’s Phosphex Discharger. 18” range, and whilst it doesn’t need a Siege Breaker, it is further points spent, and on a pretty rare option for most armies.

And so whilst Phosphex is to be feared, and you can build an army around it, its points and limits your build options. So thankfully I don’t think it’s going to be Fury of the Ancients common!

I noticed a bunch of resin (and a chunk of Alpa Legion) returned to the GW online store.


***

Maybe I'll check out 3rd when the new Zone Mortalis rules come out. The 2nd Edition version was really fun. I can't imagine much has changed for 3.0

ZM may be about to get more challenging, because of the change to heavy weapons moving.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
ZM may be about to get more challenging, because of the change to heavy weapons moving.

Heavy Weapons were less of a thing for our group as we had Necromunda levels of blocking terrain.

The only major difference (besides leaving the big guns at home), will probably be the direct inclusion of non marine armies, with their own special abilities.

I've played 4 games now and my takeaways

1. Things are far more up to random chance/less consistent due to lack of re-rolls. This is good for me, as I almost never used re-rolls beyond twin-linked anyways, and often got chaplain'd or shredded by my main opponents. However, this does mean a lot of stuff goes "weird" more often. Such as Ferrus Manus and Gorgon terminators absolutely plowing over Horus and Justaerin.

2. Tactical statuses haven't come up in any significant way in any of the 4 games so far.

3. Vanguard is a pathetic rule. Units with vanguard cost more points than equivalently fighty units, but are easily countered by simply walking off of the objective when they enter 12" range. The one time anything came close to scoring Vanguard in any of the four games it was a shooting Knight Questoris that had more than 12" range, but even then it couldn't actually kill a tactical squad on the objective so I just pulled models off of the zone, so if the rest of the unit got smashed it wouldn't count for Vanguard.

4. Sons of Horus rule doesn't play into their lore in any capacity. Why are these tip of the spear fighters, who, to quote first edition, "begin and end wars against enemies that don't even know they're at war", slightly better at shooting with a very slim range of weapons right before a charge? Yeesh. Why do the merciless fighters scoff at weaker opponents when challenged? Shouldn't they duff up the bug, in some sort of merciless way?

5. Prime advantages are mostly garbage. Logistical Benefit, Paragon of Battle and Interdiction Cadre are the only ones I've glanced at, and even then LB is mostly just being lazy in list-building. Master Sergeant is too limited to be of great use, if you could bring it more than once per detachment I think I'd be making nice despoiler sergeants. The Sons of Horus one is, again, very bad. There's 1 way to get an Elite Prime Slot (apex detachment), 2 if you count the Assault Veteran-limited one that comes with Master of Descent, so once per army you can make a justaerin able to accept and make challenges with +1 initiative... whoopy.

6. List building is silly. The new legacies document lets me take a Mortifactor, which opens up 3 contemptor dreadnoughts. Or, I could take a Centurion with Logistical Benefit and get 3 of any type of dreadnought I want! Then again, I'm sacrificing the Paragon of Battle Moritat or Vigilator if I do that (but hey, 2 leviathans is good enough compared to 3 contemptors, right? or I could just use my plentiful Prime Troop slots from Supremacy Cadre to spam all the dreads I want). Similarly, now that Delegatus is a thing, a Delegatus in a Command Slot can unlock the Vanguard Apex detachment for 3 Elites, and Logistical Benefit for a fourth. That's +1 Elite slot over what a Praetor can do, which is quite funny. Starting to think these things weren't super deeply thought through!

Overall, the edition isn't looking bright for me. But hey, I kept playing that garbage in 2.0, I'll probably keep playing it in 3.0.

Oh so the cent gives 2 detachements plus giving them logistical for a 3rd right? Yeah, that does make the mortifactor a little meh. Cause you can also take leviathans or doderos with said centurion, no limit that the mortifactor comes with.

On the other hand, the morties stave slapping 3 status effects on a vehicle with a single tap is kinda nice. A little healing is also handy.

I'm shocked statuses haven't come up though. Even just taking a flamer on rhino's is usually enough to cause at least 1 panic.

If the players are used to thinking of the game in terms of lethality rather than status effects, then they may be skipping fielding status effect based weapons, and thus have so few of them that they have minimal impact on gameplay.

cody.d. wrote:
Oh so the cent gives 2 detachements plus giving them logistical for a 3rd right? Yeah, that does make the mortifactor a little meh. Cause you can also take leviathans or doderos with said centurion, no limit that the mortifactor comes with.

On the other hand, the morties stave slapping 3 status effects on a vehicle with a single tap is kinda nice. A little healing is also handy.

I'm shocked statuses haven't come up though. Even just taking a flamer on rhino's is usually enough to cause at least 1 panic.

Statuses came up in that tests were made, but they were either passed or like, a 1 model unit routed after a combat. The most statuses came up was when I took a bunch of neutron and graviton vs knights and was able to keep 2 models pinned, but they didn't need or want to move anyways. One time a sabre of mine got weapon destroyed turn 1 and spent the game not shooting? but that's an 80 point model anyways.

If the players are used to thinking of the game in terms of lethality rather than status effects, then they may be skipping fielding status effect based weapons, and thus have so few of them that they have minimal impact on gameplay.

As mentioned above, I brought a list geared towards inflicting status effects on vehicles vs a vehicle heavy force and I brought sniper teams against an infantry heavy force, and neither time did tactical statuses feel impactful towards the result of the game.

That sounds asinine...twas the one thing i thought they'd handle better and yet somehow that sounds and looks worse than 2.0 pinning.

At this point, I'm on the fence.

I play 30k, because it's the 40k I recognize. If it isn't that anymore, I don't know what's going to draw me to play it. Especially if it's introducing damage characteristics and behaving more like modern 40k.

 Snrub wrote:
with just about everyone agreeing that Return Fire happening after casualties, is exactly what it should have been initially in 2.0.

But you Return Fire before step 11 that is before casualties. So it works like in 2.0

The relentlessly wordy (albeit in theory thorough) writing makes omissions all the more baffling, especially in a game as narrative as this.

As I saw someone else put it, if you present me with a set of rules for baseball that specifies that animals may not play the game, and then omit dogs from the otherwise thorough list of barred fauna, the omission becomes all the more jarring for it.

I think the main issue is that I am not sure who all this is for. 30k is way too dense a game to ever appeal to casuals proper (honestly even 40k in its modern streamlined form remains real messy at times), and grognards don't need to be told explicitly what exactly a tape measure is, because they didn't make a habit of trying to TFG their games that way. And besides, if your opponent needs a dictionary definition of a tape measure in the rulebook in order to not be TFG about it... Maybe you should be playing someone else? I don't think that addendum is going to make them a pleasant experience all of a sudden.

I am trying to think of who wants this incredibly complex ruleset but also wanted warlord traits/RoW (particularly gameplay-interactive RoW like the Night Lords mass-character biker clans) gone and I am kind of coming up short. That doesn't mean no one will have fun playing 3.0, absolutely not, but so much just seems unexplained.

Another headscratcher of mine being dreadnoughts. They were OP in 2.0 but seem perfectly reasonable in 3.0 due to having their stats nerfed and multi damage being proliferated. So why did they also remove talons -and- make their detachment one model? That's not necessary in a world where dreadnoughts are not oppressive and tanks are 4 to a detachment.

The cynic in me says the limit on Dreads is to make you buy new stuff. They didn't necessarily push Dreads on purpose in 2.0, but they are aware that munchkins (plus Doc) bought loads, and GW now want them to fill those points with new purchases, not with a balanced Dread army.

The rules are wordy, no disputing that. But once I’ve read and digested a given rule? I’m more likely than not to understand what it does, and when it does.

There are oddities which I’m hoping we can collect in the TFG FAQ thread. But so far, and whilst I make no claim they’re the only ones, we’ve two.

The main “but what does it actually do” is the Medic! reaction. And that’s because it doesn’t say what a passed Recovery Test actually does.

The multiple damage thing is taking a cue from 10th Ed 40K. But it’s fairly modest for the most part. Sure I can field a unit of 10 Lascannons, but that’s really points intensive. Melta tends to have really solid Dam stat, even before you’re close enough for the Trait bonus, but outside of stationary Multimelta, really big tanks (AV14) are still pretty resilient.

I’ve got my first game scheduled for 27 August, and I’ll of course report back with how I found it. Whilst I’m expecting a fair amount of flipping back and forth, how much it slows down that first game remains to be seen, let alone whether I’m still seeing slowdowns a few games in.

A friend of mine has jumped in with both feet, in an attempt to be supportive I have bought a bunch of stuff!

As a general rule I give a game 2-3 solid goes to check whether I enjoy it or not. If we have given the game a good run and are still struggling, we have already agreed we will switch to OPR. Although that might be too much the other way (what is HH1.0 like?! )

The excessive verbosity and granularityof Legions Imperialis really put me off the game - GW have been at this lark for a long time now, and especially as this game isn't aimed at power-gamers, but veterans who know how to hold a tape measure (as Ashiraya says above), a more succinct rule-writing style would have probably sufficed. But, I will reserve judgement until I've got the book and have had a chance to digest it.

HH1 is 6th/7th 40k. It has problems like any edition, most of which are based on Thousand Sons and Custodes being fairly abusable.

Having had players for both armies in our group, a middle ground is easy enough to find where people still get fun armies without being maniacally brutal in composition.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The cynic in me says the limit on Dreads is to make you buy new stuff. They didn't necessarily push Dreads on purpose in 2.0, but they are aware that munchkins (plus Doc) bought loads, and GW now want them to fill those points with new purchases, not with a balanced Dread army.

Thank you for the exception. My Dreadnought fetish is well known, and unrepentant

On paper they do seem a bit better balanced these days. Still resilient to a decent amount of weapons, but easier to take down due to multiple damage. Particularly Melta, which can do nasty things to Dreadnoughts.

Still a huge FOIP to come though. My first game I’m fielding a Leviathan, mostly to give Phosphex a spin at the same time as seeing how Dreadnoughts do. One prediction is Phosphex Equipped Leviathans may still be nightmares, because anyone trying to get clever with a Meltagun has to get in range of the old Phosphex first, which is a risky proposition.

Yes, Phospex is insane and Levi is probably its sturdiest platform (albeit also with fewest shots per point)

My personal tally IIRC is 4 Contemptors (incl. FW WS one) 4 Doritos 2 Levis 2 Saturnines.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The cynic in me says the limit on Dreads is to make you buy new stuff. They didn't necessarily push Dreads on purpose in 2.0, but they are aware that munchkins (plus Doc) bought loads, and GW now want them to fill those points with new purchases, not with a balanced Dread army.

There definitely is some suspicious pushing. Centurions for example are incredibly pushed in 3.0 and were rarely used in prior editions.

The new army building also encourages taking a lot of one thing, and makes it onerous to go wide with a little bit of everything, which will also push players to get stuff to make their lists legal again.