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.

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.