Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Is it because the release of this new edition is so close to the old one and invalidates the money spent on expensive rulebooks?

Or is it, because a complete rules overhaul feels unnecessary, when a Necromunda-esque rules cleanup would've sufficed?

Equal parts these two for most Heresy players, I'd be quite prepared to say.
3 years is not a long time when all said and done and not everyone has the opportunity or the means to game regularly. I'm fortunate in that I have access to a group who meets once a month a place not inconvenient to me. So I can often squeeze two games in the day, sometimes a third if I'm lucky. Not everyone has that chance and if you can only meet 3 or 4 times a year for a year then having a 3 year rotation is not really conducive to value for money.


The rules for 2nd edition aren't perfect by any means, but they did work with minimal problems. A complete over-haul is only necessitated if the game is unplayable, which 2.0 was far from. In this instance a complete rework of the rules is nothing but a cash grab. There wasn't anything wrong with the rules that couldn't have been fixed with a few careful tweaks. I don't think there was any single aspect of the rules that needs a total overhaul.
And it's not even a matter of the rules being old and stale and in need of a revamp. This basic rule set had been serving 40k well enough for 18 years(?) from 3rd thru to 7th. If people didn't want to play them, Heresy never would have taken off in the first place.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's the first two things you mentioned - a 3 year lifespan on expensive hard back rulebooks you bought does not feel good. Rule changes that add bloat to an already complex game will always be controversial.

And I think the fanbase for Heresy skews older, perhaps with less frequent games. So people might have only played the new edition a dozen or so times before the reset.

This, I’ve had a whole 5 games of heresy 2.0, have barely gotten used to reactions and haven’t finished the army I started with its release. The couple of hundred quid I’ve spent on rulebooks for it that are now invalid hurts.

This rules churn is why I stopped playing 40k, it will now be why I give up on heresy.

Same, I had I think 5 games and I painted 2500 pts

 Da Boss wrote:
It's the first two things you mentioned - a 3 year lifespan on expensive hard back rulebooks you bought does not feel good. Rule changes that add bloat to an already complex game will always be controversial.

And I think the fanbase for Heresy skews older, perhaps with less frequent games. So people might have only played the new edition a dozen or so times before the reset.

I also suspect that there's something else.
The knowledge that what this really means is that 30k players are going to get churned.
Perhaps some really did believe that they would escape the fate of every other GW game which isn't just canned. Most though - I believe - always knew, deep down, but tried to deny the knowledge. There's no running from the truth now though.
New rules every three years; your rules library frequently invalidated; units getting abandoned to Legends; New Thing™ is best thing; entirely mutable background. It's all coming.
Get ready, Old World players!

If you've played 5 games in 3 years, that's more your issue isn't it?

You can't expect a company to calibrate their release schedules for players that play fewer than a game per 6 months.

Better yet - buy the books once you're in a position to play.

Dudeface wrote:
Better yet - buy the books once you're in a position to play.

Problem: You need the rules in order to know how to build the army you want. It isn't that easy.

Vorian wrote:
If you've played 5 games in 3 years, that's more your issue isn't it?

You can't expect a company to calibrate their release schedules for players that play fewer than a game per 6 months.

How many games did you play, that you're happy replacing your 3 year old hardcovers?

Mod edit - removed.

The best thing with the 3 year cycle is that if one of of your armies get nerfed, you can just put it in a box for 3 years and try again next edition.
(looking at you ad-mech -your time will come)

What's ad-mech? All I know is Mechanicum. Which were pretty damn playable. At least in one composition.
But, yeah, I shouldn't have sold my Reaver and second Warhound. Seems like the old Reaver+2 Warhounds list might be back on the menu

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Vorian wrote:
If you've played 5 games in 3 years, that's more your issue isn't it?

You can't expect a company to calibrate their release schedules for players that play fewer than a game per 6 months.

How many games did you play, that you're happy replacing your 3 year old hardcovers?

Mod edit - removed

I have plenty of hardcovers from editions for things that I have never played - but that's my fault, right?

Should they delay a year so you can get another 2 games in?

If youre not playing it enough to get value then it's perfectly rational for you not to buy the edition. It's not particularly rational for a games company to base their release schedules on players that are barely playing the game.

I feel your pain... I have my unplayed RPG book pyramid.

Does anyone have an idea what the cost of the books are going to be (roughly?)

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Better yet - buy the books once you're in a position to play.

Problem: You need the rules in order to know how to build the army you want. It isn't that easy.

Only as a point of precision. If you know you want a mechanised force or a dread based force etc. You can make a start then getthe rules, you night not have an exact 3k army or whatever but it should be enough to start with or build off.

It's the same with 40k, buy some models you like, paint them, buy rules, finish the force off.

it is always the consumers fault, never the fault of the company
if people are too stupid and give companies money, there is nothing GW did wrong /s

of course it is on the people who buy the stuff, but GW not advertising "a new game every 3 years" contributes
there is no need for GW to do this outside making money by tricking people into thinking that the changes won't be that big and things being valid for a while
Instead of "Editions" GW could be more honest and give it a new name each time they release a new game so that people know that they only have 3 years until it is replaced by something different instead of adding to the confusion and call it again Horus Heresy

I've played loads of HH2 and yet I don't want to be learning a new edition every three years, especially when the previous one only needed a polish.
4 years from now? Sure give it a whack at new rules with new concepts.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Better yet - buy the books once you're in a position to play.

Problem: You need the rules in order to know how to build the army you want. It isn't that easy.

Only as a point of precision. If you know you want a mechanised force or a dread based force etc. You can make a start then getthe rules, you night not have an exact 3k army or whatever but it should be enough to start with or build off.

It's the same with 40k, buy some models you like, paint them, buy rules, finish the force off.

Cool. You make that "dread based force" that you mentioned, then discover that it's totally OP and toxic, and no one wants to play with you. Too bad you didn't consult the rules first, right? Keep trying.

Gert wrote:I've played loads of HH2 and yet I don't want to be learning a new edition every three years, especially when the previous one only needed a polish.
4 years from now? Sure give it a whack at new rules with new concepts.

Well said Gert. Nailed it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Better yet - buy the books once you're in a position to play.

Problem: You need the rules in order to know how to build the army you want. It isn't that easy.

Only as a point of precision. If you know you want a mechanised force or a dread based force etc. You can make a start then getthe rules, you night not have an exact 3k army or whatever but it should be enough to start with or build off.

It's the same with 40k, buy some models you like, paint them, buy rules, finish the force off.

Cool. You make that "dread based force" that you mentioned, then discover that it's totally OP and toxic, and no one wants to play with you. Too bad you didn't consult the rules first, right? Keep trying.

I don't think that the evil Dread Army (that curbstomped my Knights into oblivion) can be laid on the feet of a new player not being familiar with the rules.

When I first bought my Knights I didn't know that people didn't like to play against them, I just thought they were cool and there was a codex for them with a bunch of really inspiring art. It wasn't until much later that I learned that people didn't want to play against Knights.

Lathe that's literally the point being made about buying models before rules.

The first event I went to had someone with an Iron Hands Dread army who loved the lore and loved the idea. They didn't know how good Fury of the Ancients was and spent the whole event apologising to everyone he played.

Nobody blamed him and he still felt rubbish about it all.

 Gert wrote:
Lathe that's literally the point being made about buying models before rules.

The first event I went to had someone with an Iron Hands Dread army who loved the lore and loved the idea. They didn't know how good Fury of the Ancients was and spent the whole event apologising to everyone he played.

Nobody blamed him and he still felt rubbish about it all.

I know how he feels, but that's how GW hooks new players into the game.

My roommate visited a Warhammer shop (unsupervised), and came back Trajann Valoris. No codex, no Combat Patrol (Out of Stock)... but he liked the model and the shop sold him on the rule of cool.

He's been building haphazardly, and realizing that he can't use the model he likes in Combat Patrol games. So Valoris just sits in a tray, partially assembled.

The employees themselves as so ingrained in pushing the models and the "cool army" concepts, that I think that the playability aspect becomes secondary.

I am all in favor of a little bit of honesty in the Warhammer community, where players, especially new ones can find out if the army they want to invest in is a "fun" army or a force that will gather dust because you can't find an opponent due to your list being a giant block of .

I.... I'm simply an old curmudgeon that doesn't want to have to learn a new ruleset again every 3 years to play the same game, you know?

 Albertorius wrote:
I.... I'm simply an old curmudgeon that doesn't want to have to learn a new ruleset again every 3 years to play the same game, you know?

You sound like the perfect recruit for Adeptus Titanicus. It's the best game released by GW in the past 15 years, the rules are cheap, the models look amazing, and the game has been totally forgotten about by the new edition churn.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Lathe that's literally the point being made about buying models before rules.

The first event I went to had someone with an Iron Hands Dread army who loved the lore and loved the idea. They didn't know how good Fury of the Ancients was and spent the whole event apologising to everyone he played.

Nobody blamed him and he still felt rubbish about it all.

I know how he feels, but that's how GW hooks new players into the game.

My roommate visited a Warhammer shop (unsupervised), and came back Trajann Valoris. No codex, no Combat Patrol (Out of Stock)... but he liked the model and the shop sold him on the rule of cool.

He's been building haphazardly, and realizing that he can't use the model he likes in Combat Patrol games. So Valoris just sits in a tray, partially assembled.

The employees themselves as so ingrained in pushing the models and the "cool army" concepts, that I think that the playability aspect becomes secondary.

I am all in favor of a little bit of honesty in the Warhammer community, where players, especially new ones can find out if the army they want to invest in is a "fun" army or a force that will gather dust because you can't find an opponent due to your list being a giant block of .

So, maybe, the method that gw employees use to "hook" people into Warhammer is flawed? Maybe, just maybe, they should know and understand the rules before pushing models on people interested in playing the games (instead of just building and painting the models)?

Sounds like another argument that you should know the rules before building an army.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Does anyone have an idea what the cost of the books are going to be (roughly?)

Given this is off the back of an announcement yesterday? And (unless it was mentioned in the stream) we don't have a release date?

The only answer to this is "probably more than you want to pay".

MOD EDIT - REMOVED.

+ + +

Just to check I've got my armour marks right, the Breacher teaser image looks to be on Mk III?

Warcom article

In short, yes. There are loads. What’s more, this edition will accelerate the move from resin to plastic – making the jump is a mix of classic units (such as the MKII Crusade armour) alongside never-before-seen units. And it’s not just the little stuff. Did you see that new tank? It’s not the only one…

Welp, time for me to get on the hopium and assume and even expect plastic custodes kits, as they mentioned moving from resin to plastic, and saying it’s not just the little stuff but big vehicles too.

Vorian wrote:
If you've played 5 games in 3 years, that's more your issue isn't it?

You can't expect a company to calibrate their release schedules for players that play fewer than a game per 6 months.

'

It is the company's problem when they don't know their audience. HH, while having some overlap, is not the same audience as 40k or AoS. HH enthusiasts are more akin to historical wargamers and that crowd isn't constantly playing games or publishing revised rule sets. It isn't a tournament game dominated by the meta and trying to make it that kind of game, if only appearing to do so, will burn good will and lose customers.

 Dysartes wrote:
Just to check I've got my armour marks right, the Breacher teaser image looks to be on Mk III?

Yes

They said it's an upgrade kit that will work with any mark, but I dunno, the kit obviously comes with bespoke Mk3 arm poses and Mk3 drum fed bolters, maybe even bespoke Mk3 heads? Would be weird it it came with arms and guns for all marks. The shield itself is some unholy amalgam of both previous shield designs.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Lathe that's literally the point being made about buying models before rules.

The first event I went to had someone with an Iron Hands Dread army who loved the lore and loved the idea. They didn't know how good Fury of the Ancients was and spent the whole event apologising to everyone he played.

Nobody blamed him and he still felt rubbish about it all.

I know how he feels, but that's how GW hooks new players into the game.

My roommate visited a Warhammer shop (unsupervised), and came back Trajann Valoris. No codex, no Combat Patrol (Out of Stock)... but he liked the model and the shop sold him on the rule of cool.

He's been building haphazardly, and realizing that he can't use the model he likes in Combat Patrol games. So Valoris just sits in a tray, partially assembled.

The employees themselves as so ingrained in pushing the models and the "cool army" concepts, that I think that the playability aspect becomes secondary.

I am all in favor of a little bit of honesty in the Warhammer community, where players, especially new ones can find out if the army they want to invest in is a "fun" army or a force that will gather dust because you can't find an opponent due to your list being a giant block of .

So, maybe, the method that gw employees use to "hook" people into Warhammer is flawed? Maybe, just maybe, they should know and understand the rules before pushing models on people interested in playing the games (instead of just building and painting the models)?

Sounds like another argument that you should know the rules before building an army.

I agree, you should know the rules first. But Its hard to prioritize spending sometimes when you have an enthusiastic new player who has to make the call between a rulebook and some cool toys.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I.... I'm simply an old curmudgeon that doesn't want to have to learn a new ruleset again every 3 years to play the same game, you know?

You sound like the perfect recruit for Adeptus Titanicus. It's the best game released by GW in the past 15 years, the rules are cheap, the models look amazing, and the game has been totally forgotten about by the new edition churn.

I mean, yeah, but I have Battletech for that itch ^^. For the 40k smol I use Epic 3rd

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Better yet - buy the books once you're in a position to play.

Problem: You need the rules in order to know how to build the army you want. It isn't that easy.

Only as a point of precision. If you know you want a mechanised force or a dread based force etc. You can make a start then getthe rules, you night not have an exact 3k army or whatever but it should be enough to start with or build off.

It's the same with 40k, buy some models you like, paint them, buy rules, finish the force off.

Cool. You make that "dread based force" that you mentioned, then discover that it's totally OP and toxic, and no one wants to play with you. Too bad you didn't consult the rules first, right? Keep trying.

Wait, are you saying its the players fault for building a force they thought looked cool without seeking peer approval? I thought GW was the big evil here and that 2nd edition was so good people wanted said dread forced for 6+ years.

Sort the hypocrisy out. People should be able to rock up with whatever they think looks cool and the game able to handle it - that's on GW and not the player for not "consulting the rules first".

Conversely it's not taken nostradamus to work out a new edition was a possibility for at least a year now. You might not want it or like it, but it was hardly dropped by surprise. The churn, whilst hardly fantastic, is a symptom of success in GWs eyes. I'd swear some of you want the game to do badly so they stop releasing for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

Vorian wrote:
If you've played 5 games in 3 years, that's more your issue isn't it?

You can't expect a company to calibrate their release schedules for players that play fewer than a game per 6 months.

'

It is the company's problem when they don't know their audience. HH, while having some overlap, is not the same audience as 40k or AoS. HH enthusiasts are more akin to historical wargamers and that crowd isn't constantly playing games or publishing revised rule sets. It isn't a tournament game dominated by the meta and trying to make it that kind of game, if only appearing to do so, will burn good will and lose customers.

It needs to make money to justify releases, this cycle is both a cause and result of that happening. They know their target audience well enough I'd wager.

Dudeface wrote:
It needs to make money to justify releases, this cycle is both a cause and result of that happening. They know their target audience well enough I'd wager.

Perhaps you think "company wants to make money" was a secret only you figured out but pretty sure everyone here knows that and as such is taken into account when having this conversation. The discussion isn't "is this specific release ok" but "is it indicative a change in the approach toward HH and are they trying to make it more like 40k". If they are indeed trying to make it a game with shorter edition cycle and with consistently buying new army books they will probably lose some people. There are other business models that can make money without a new edition every three years.