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.

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

TBH this is of more interest to me than anything and will be make or break for 3.0 for me, which has largely killed off the pre-existing local groups. If 3.0 ZM is actually good I might make the effort to find new ones and try to make my armies fit the new rules despite my general distaste for it, because if not I'll be back to getting two games a year at Christmas when my gaming buddies from my teens are all back in town for family stuff.

How did 3.0 kill off the existing local groups? If they were happy playing 2.0 they could just keep playing it....

ccs wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

TBH this is of more interest to me than anything and will be make or break for 3.0 for me, which has largely killed off the pre-existing local groups. If 3.0 ZM is actually good I might make the effort to find new ones and try to make my armies fit the new rules despite my general distaste for it, because if not I'll be back to getting two games a year at Christmas when my gaming buddies from my teens are all back in town for family stuff.

How did 3.0 kill off the existing local groups? If they were happy playing 2.0 they could just keep playing it....

Heck people still play 2.0 at our local Warhammer shop. (Not that anyone could tell the difference).

My local group moved on to 3.0 and I refuse to. Im not learning another fething game system when the one im using works just fine(with a lil tweaking but that's just normal GW games). The treadmill has never appealed to me and 3.0 has driven me off it(i.e.the game). The minis are the only appeal for me anymore + I want to hobby so I backed the Damned and couldn't be happier.

 Rolsheen wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:

He also says he hears that there will be a plastic Fire Raptor.
.

See, praying to the Dark Gods does pay off eventually.

While I can see the appeal in a Fire Raptor kit, there are a lot of things that should get plasticised ahead of that. As others have observed, some more light vehicles in plastic would be more of a priority for (I would guess) most players.

Zone Mortalis rules – Fight furious close-range skirmishes in the Age of Darkness

PDF Link

ccs wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

TBH this is of more interest to me than anything and will be make or break for 3.0 for me, which has largely killed off the pre-existing local groups. If 3.0 ZM is actually good I might make the effort to find new ones and try to make my armies fit the new rules despite my general distaste for it, because if not I'll be back to getting two games a year at Christmas when my gaming buddies from my teens are all back in town for family stuff.

How did 3.0 kill off the existing local groups? If they were happy playing 2.0 they could just keep playing it....

You'd think so wouldn't you.

Step 1: Half the existing players switch to 3.0 because Must Play Current Edition.
Step 2: Half remaining players decide well if we're not playing Current Edition then I like 1.0 better and want to play that.
Step 3: Most of the people who switched to 3.0 don't like it, but being Muh Supported fiends just get bored and wander off despite having been perfectly happy playing 2.0 a couple of months prior.
Step 4: Remaining people who like 3.0 wander off to join the last stable group that revolves around the GW, locking out anyone who might have been willing to revisit their opposition to 3.0 if it's the only local option but who have lots of 3d prints and 3rd party in their armies.
Step 5: Neither 1.0 nor 2.0 players can line up regular games anymore because of lack of numbers and scheduling conflicts.
Step 6: Everyone just reverts to occasional games with close buddies since no group can attain the necessary critical mass of players except the "official" one at the GW store.

I'm sure I could rebuild a new group with enough time and effort but honestly, I'm tired boss. All the games I like are OOP and I always end up being the one who has to shoulder the burden of organising, collating rules, curating houserules and fanrules, collecting extra factions to run demo games with, etc etc. Half the appeal of Heresy for me was that it was the one in-print GW game that I liked enough to just pick up & play it.

beast_gts wrote:
Zone Mortalis rules – Fight furious close-range skirmishes in the Age of Darkness

PDF Link

With a little teaser for Breachers in the article, too

Racerguy180 wrote:
My local group moved on to 3.0 and I refuse to. Im not learning another fething game system when the one im using works just fine(with a lil tweaking but that's just normal GW games). The treadmill has never appealed to me and 3.0 has driven me off it(i.e.the game). The minis are the only appeal for me anymore + I want to hobby so I backed the Damned and couldn't be happier.

I'm the same. I started HH with the v2 release, thinking (rather deluded) that it would be like HH v1 and last a long time before the book churn hit. Now it seems to be 'on the 3 year churn cycle', I just cba. I've stopped with 40k (played since v3) and my tinker with AoS because of the book/rules churn.
As for the people that say to just keep on playing HH v2. Well, when GW bring out a new version, they always release newer, cooler models for that version that didn't exist in the previous version. GW lovers tend to always want new plastic, and when they don't have rules in the old version, they all move to the new version.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Well, when GW bring out a new version, they always release newer, cooler models for that version that didn't exist in the previous version.

That's how they get ya.

But I gotta say, the 3 year hardcover book churn, the deranged AI language and a handful of meh loyalist legion rules aside... 3.0 is shaping up to be a better game, especially if you want to play anything outside the core Legion Libres. Everything from Mechanicum to Militia to Shattered Legions is more fun, more straightforward, stronger, and better integrated into the core rules.

Welp having read the new ZM pack - yup that's a wrap on 3.0 for me I think. They haven't changed the core issue with 2.0 ZM - that it is structured to encourage you to collect a normal HH army and play interchangably with the regular missions, while 1.0 ZM was a fun small point value game in its own right that you could play endlessly at ~1k points and never need to bother with Big Heresy at all - but this time they're doing it with a big lump of extra cognitive load having to remember all the Confined Space/Bulky interactions in the missions and make different lists for each(which is clearly there so the "take what you want" mission persuades you that the big showy model you wanted isn't a waste of money and hey, once you have it you might as well buy two and expand your army to 3k for regular Heresy missions...).

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

Step 4: Remaining people who like 3.0 wander off to join the last stable group that revolves around the GW, locking out anyone who might have been willing to revisit their opposition to 3.0 if it's the only local option but who have lots of 3d prints and 3rd party in their armies.

I doubt GW will consider that a loss. 'I downloaded the PDF rules from the web and 3d printer goes brrrrr last edition, but I'm quitting this edition so take that GW!' isn't going to sway them any time soon.

It's a good set of rules imo, I'm getting used to it and while I do feel it lost a lot of 'flair' with rites of war and no longer seeing (for now) all deep striking or similar armies, seeing Tactical mooks actually in demand again and fielded as a preference rather than a tax is pretty glorious.

I hope they sort terrain out, but challenges are wonderful. I'm back in the game this edition after a tapering off last, I'm also gaming with a new group who've all come over from the bloat and churn of 40k and they've all been throwing money at the new plastic kits and relishing the more narrative nature of the HH game.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

Step 4: Remaining people who like 3.0 wander off to join the last stable group that revolves around the GW, locking out anyone who might have been willing to revisit their opposition to 3.0 if it's the only local option but who have lots of 3d prints and 3rd party in their armies.

I doubt GW will consider that a loss. 'I downloaded the PDF rules from the web and 3d printer goes brrrrr last edition, but I'm quitting this edition so take that GW!' isn't going to sway them any time soon.

It's a good set of rules imo, I'm getting used to it and while I do feel it lost a lot of 'flair' with rites of war and no longer seeing (for now) all deep striking or similar armies, seeing Tactical mooks actually in demand again and fielded as a preference rather than a tax is pretty glorious.

I hope they sort terrain out, but challenges are wonderful. I'm back in the game this edition after a tapering off last, I'm also gaming with a new group who've all come over from the bloat and churn of 40k and they've all been throwing money at the new plastic kits and relishing the more narrative nature of the HH game.

You're going to have to explain the "less bloat" to me. The churn is also looking to be identical or worse, same 3 year cycle, but now with regular splat books.

 Snord wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:

He also says he hears that there will be a plastic Fire Raptor.
.

See, praying to the Dark Gods does pay off eventually.

While I can see the appeal in a Fire Raptor kit, there are a lot of things that should get plasticised ahead of that. As others have observed, some more light vehicles in plastic would be more of a priority for (I would guess) most players.

I think people have always assumed that FW/SGS's prioritisation list for HH Plastics has been "the players want this" when the logic is much more likely to be "we want to reduce how many resin kits we have returned because the level of warping on big flat panels makes them impossible to assemble."

Dudeface wrote:


You're going to have to explain the "less bloat" to me. The churn is also looking to be identical or worse, same 3 year cycle, but now with regular splat books.

While I've not played 40k in a number of years... I'm under the impression that the rules for 40k, down to unit performances in the various armies, is in a near constant state of online, live changes, or at least the occasional viewing of an 'auspex tactics' video has led me to believe. 'Balance Dataslates' et al, being regularly pruned, edited, amended etc according to outcomes of tourney play.

Also, this is one instance of a 3 year turnover, prior to that the distance from 1.0 to 2.0 was, what, 11 or so years? One swallow does not a summer make. If it's an ongoing trend, I'll agree, it's an unwelcome one, but we cannot base that assumption of pattern from one instance.

Just flicked through th pdf, but not read it thoroughly and it's so silly question time...

Is ZM now only with the restriction of "no aircraft" and a limit of 1,500 for building a force? Its just last time I looked into it they had a fair list of restrictions...

SamusDrake wrote:
Just flicked through th pdf, but not read it thoroughly and it's so silly question time...

Is ZM now only with the restriction of "no aircraft" and a limit of 1,500 for building a force? Its just last time I looked into it they had a fair list of restrictions...

It looks like it, but you need to keep the Confined Space Special Rule in mind.

SamusDrake wrote:
Just flicked through th pdf, but not read it thoroughly and it's so silly question time...

Is ZM now only with the restriction of "no aircraft" and a limit of 1,500 for building a force? Its just last time I looked into it they had a fair list of restrictions...

Correct, those are the only hard limitations. Now there are a lot more soft limitations rather than explicit.
Ie, vehicles with HP of 3 or more can't be deployed in ZM due to every tile having Confined Space(10) or worse. Units that move more than 9" take a Dangerous Terrain test, so jump packs are slightly discouraged. The bigger dreads risk being limited by aforementioned Confined Space which can be (6) for the center of the board on 2 missions or as low as 2 for the third.

The best plus of 3.0 over 2.0 is that I haven't seen an angry swarm of Dreadnoughts that beat my Knights to death.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
The best plus of 3.0 over 2.0 is that I haven't seen an angry swarm of Dreadnoughts that beat my Knights to death.

You can still do it, but there's less incentive as it 1)requires you to spam a single Legends Character choice to unlock the 3 slot Contemptor Detachments and 2) Contemptors aren't the be all, end all choice they were in 2.0.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You're going to have to explain the "less bloat" to me. The churn is also looking to be identical or worse, same 3 year cycle, but now with regular splat books.

While I've not played 40k in a number of years... I'm under the impression that the rules for 40k, down to unit performances in the various armies, is in a near constant state of online, live changes, or at least the occasional viewing of an 'auspex tactics' video has led me to believe. 'Balance Dataslates' et al, being regularly pruned, edited, amended etc according to outcomes of tourney play.

Also, this is one instance of a 3 year turnover, prior to that the distance from 1.0 to 2.0 was, what, 11 or so years? One swallow does not a summer make. If it's an ongoing trend, I'll agree, it's an unwelcome one, but we cannot base that assumption of pattern from one instance.

They do regularly rebalance 40k with rules and point changes via pdf and their app, which as much as it can be a pain in some ways, has the upside of not having to lug the books to games and no units sitting broken/dead for 3 years. So there is a degree of rules updating, but that isn't bloat, maybe mild churn? But it isnt dictating a sale or purchase of anything.

Regards the 3 year cycle, I think any assumption other than it being updated in 3 years is setting yourself up for failure. They view it as a "big game release" and the other 3 are all in 3 year cycles.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

Step 4: Remaining people who like 3.0 wander off to join the last stable group that revolves around the GW, locking out anyone who might have been willing to revisit their opposition to 3.0 if it's the only local option but who have lots of 3d prints and 3rd party in their armies.

I doubt GW will consider that a loss. 'I downloaded the PDF rules from the web and 3d printer goes brrrrr last edition, but I'm quitting this edition so take that GW!' isn't going to sway them any time soon.

Then GW would remain as short-sighted as they always have been, but hey like yourself they're always keen to stick their foot in their mouth with silly assumptions. My own 30K Marines are all Tortuga Bay with some 3D printed addons and vehicles, but my SolarAux, Mechanicum, Dark Mechanicum and the models sitting in my Hoard to make a Custodes army are all 100% GW because I like the minis, and I wouldn't have bought a single solitary one of them if I couldn't have my truescale Marines first to hook me on the system, since GW continue to refuse to give them to me. Then there are the literal decades I've been recruiting and retaining people by running Specialist Game groups, groups that never paid a penny for rules but have probably spent many tens of thousands of pounds on models. There was a guy in one of the dead 30K groups locally who's entire collection was Chinacast, but he ran every campaign and event that group ever did and is also probably responsible for dozens of full army purchases worth of stuff that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Often the most passionate people are the first to be alienated by corporate IP managers(which is what GW are, given basically nobody who actually *created* their IPs has worked there in years), but that passion doesn't go away and so they're also often the people recruiting newbies and holding existing groups together with their efforts long after the companies have decided they're "otiose". And even discounting those, there are plenty of 2.0-joiners who only bothered to start collecting because there were 3d printable options for all the stuff that GW has taken literally years to make available.

It's a good set of rules imo

You are legally entitled to hold that opinion.

I hope they sort terrain out, but challenges are wonderful.

What's wonderful about losing 2 turns of the game to make space for a solved problem? Challenges were boiled down to "if you have one of these handful of good Legion Gambits use those, if not use this or that based on the specific scenario, unless they choose the Gambit that makes you choose a different Gambit in which case pick one of the handful of other good ones instead" before the game even officially released. Complete waste of time.

I'm back in the game this edition after a tapering off last, I'm also gaming with a new group who've all come over from the bloat and churn of 40k and they've all been throwing money at the new plastic kits and relishing the more narrative nature of the HH game.

Funny that's the same story as a lot of the guys locally who were driven off. And of a lot of the people who switched over to Heresy back in the Black Book days. Seems like each time GW repeat the cycle it gets shorter, I wonder how long until the 3 year churn alienates you and your mates all over again.

Some sort of flier would make sense since they put AA guns in the starter set.

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 YodhrinsForge wrote:

Step 4: Remaining people who like 3.0 wander off to join the last stable group that revolves around the GW, locking out anyone who might have been willing to revisit their opposition to 3.0 if it's the only local option but who have lots of 3d prints and 3rd party in their armies.

I doubt GW will consider that a loss. 'I downloaded the PDF rules from the web and 3d printer goes brrrrr last edition, but I'm quitting this edition so take that GW!' isn't going to sway them any time soon.

Then GW would remain as short-sighted as they always have been, but hey like yourself they're always keen to stick their foot in their mouth with silly assumptions.

Mod edit - there are better ways of getting a message across, this ain't it.

As to the departure of so many of your chums with chinacast armies or 3d printed forces who are 'actually really good for GW as they ran events', thanks for the anecdotes, if you can prove somehow that they won't be replaced by the influx of people starting up, which I'd imagine might just include experienced event hosts from other systems, I'd love to hear about it.

Otherwise, it's not a departure lounge... you know the rest.

If HH's moves are the staggering disaster you're claiming, it will affect them fiscally, then I'd imagine they'd be very keen to change course. I don't suspect for a single minute that people with armies of Beijing's finest flouncing, however, is going to be a significant motivator...

Gosh it's lovely to be back on dakka.

I dunno. Way I see it, HH 3.0 started as a dumpster fire, but subsequent PDF releases have mostly put out the early fires by now. I'd wager that for every HH 2.0 player who quit, at least one new HH 3.0 player has emerged, so for GW its neutral or even slightly better than 2.0

I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even play HH, based on a couple decades of watching this GW circus from the sidelines (and sometimes within). Just one opinion, we all got em

Beast_gts, Rihgu, cheers.

 tauist wrote:
I dunno. Way I see it, HH 3.0 started as a dumpster fire, but subsequent PDF releases have mostly put out the early fires by now. I'd wager that for every HH 2.0 player who quit, at least one new HH 3.0 player has emerged, so for GW its neutral or even slightly better than 2.0

I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even play HH, based on a couple decades of watching this GW circus from the sidelines (and sometimes within). Just one opinion, we all got em

I’m honestly not sure GW cares who plays which edition. It’s the models that make the money.

Whether someone has stuck with 2nd Ed or 1st Ed? The mass plastification is lowering prices, widening appeal and, ideally* increasing sales.

*I used this word because GW don’t publish results by system, so at best we can only speculate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


I’m honestly not sure GW cares who plays which edition. It’s the models that make the money.

They make a lot of the money on the models, but I think part of the 3-years cycle is to get people to buy at least the base rules + one or several codex (codices ?), as over time people (if they stick with the game and don't start new armies) buy less and less models...

CorwinB wrote:
as over time people (if they stick with the game and don't start new armies) buy less and less models...

Historically? No, they don't.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You're going to have to explain the "less bloat" to me. The churn is also looking to be identical or worse, same 3 year cycle, but now with regular splat books.

While I've not played 40k in a number of years... I'm under the impression that the rules for 40k, down to unit performances in the various armies, is in a near constant state of online, live changes, or at least the occasional viewing of an 'auspex tactics' video has led me to believe. 'Balance Dataslates' et al, being regularly pruned, edited, amended etc according to outcomes of tourney play.

Also, this is one instance of a 3 year turnover, prior to that the distance from 1.0 to 2.0 was, what, 11 or so years? One swallow does not a summer make. If it's an ongoing trend, I'll agree, it's an unwelcome one, but we cannot base that assumption of pattern from one instance.

Hope springs eternal..... despite the obvious signs that dispute said hope.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You're going to have to explain the "less bloat" to me. The churn is also looking to be identical or worse, same 3 year cycle, but now with regular splat books.

While I've not played 40k in a number of years... I'm under the impression that the rules for 40k, down to unit performances in the various armies, is in a near constant state of online, live changes, or at least the occasional viewing of an 'auspex tactics' video has led me to believe. 'Balance Dataslates' et al, being regularly pruned, edited, amended etc according to outcomes of tourney play.

Also, this is one instance of a 3 year turnover, prior to that the distance from 1.0 to 2.0 was, what, 11 or so years? One swallow does not a summer make. If it's an ongoing trend, I'll agree, it's an unwelcome one, but we cannot base that assumption of pattern from one instance.

Hope springs eternal..... despite the obvious signs that dispute said hope.

We'll see. Their take on of HH is quite different to 40K and AoS (fully accepted legacies, free downloads for armies that need conversions or the use of whatever models you want). For me as a Mechanicum player 2nd edition sucked hard as half of the list was unplayable. With 3.0 that changed.