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.

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. 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.