Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[BitsHammer]

1 minute ago, Sky Potato said:

I’m quite clearly not ascribing malice. I’ve never thought anything was being done out of spite, for me or for anyone else.
 

I’m asking why it’s taking so long to proof read a document and release it. I’m asking why a logical deadline wasn’t met.

 

I’m worried about the internal workings of a company I’ve invested in - both as a customer and a stockholder - who are showing signs of either indifference or incompetence by:

- Not having a strategy mapped out for their big annual summer release. 
or

- Rushing a known bad product out the door to meet their own deadlines.

This is a FTSE100 company now, and this is their sixth or seventh consecutive summer release. They should be better at this.

 

No chips on shoulders here, just genuine concern.

The issue is clearly the three year cycle. Devs are being pushed to release unfinished products and patch them on day one as a result. 

 

If we assume the community backlash lead to the pdf document being adjusted it likely needed more passes before release to prevent it from making things worse.

 

If we assume it was done and ready to go, then this was an intentional choice to space things out instead of dumping out pdfs on the same day the pre-orders for Space Wolves and Grey Knights kicked off as to not distract from that hype cycle.

 

There are probably more reasons we could think up, but the thing is we're guessing. And while I personally spend a lot of time trying to work out why GW does stuff, I have no more of a clue than anyone else who is outside of the company.

 

We only know what they tell us, and that is that they are intentionally holding this pdf for a couple more days. 

[Antarius]

While I agree that we don't really know anything, I think it's fair to say that this bears a lot of the hallmarks of a product being rushed out to meet a deadline (so yeah, this is going to be filed under the tired old "3-year cycle bad" complaint at the end of the day).

I can't say for sure whether the designers honestly thinks this is a better version of the game (they might even be right, if only the writing was less convoluted and less filled with errors), but I think it's fair to say that the writing is very obviously lacking proofreading, editing and a bunch of rewriting and that this is the cause of most of the complaints and dissatisafaction.
Something which, taken together with everything else we know of the process, tells me that they haven't been given enough time to do their job properly, because these people clearly aren't idiots or bad writers.

 

Riffing off of this, I sort of wonder how many problems would be solved by moving to a 5-year cycle and whether this would actually materially impact their revenue? I mean, they must be doing it this way because they think it makes them more money, but does it really? Or is shortening the cycle to 3 years actually going to lose them customers at a rate that offsets the initial benefits?

I mean, obviously 40k is their main breadwinner, but both AoS, Old World and Heresy seem(ed?) to be doing fine and one would think they have enough other games that they could keep things going on a 5-year cycle without having slump years, but I (obviously) don't know. I just know that I can see the advantage of having a fixed cycle for editions and that I think 5 years seems much more reasonable both from the customer and the designer's point of view.

[MoriyaSchism]

6 hours ago, caladancid said:

I’m going to add this photo here as an illustration to the earlier comments on ‘contempt’ for customers. Call it whatever you’d like, this is not acceptable for a 70 USD book. 

Damn, Super Soaker bolter man obscuring the better design. He should get out of the way and stop hogging that base. 

[Cleon]

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

Riffing off of this, I sort of wonder how many problems would be solved by moving to a 5-year cycle and whether this would actually materially impact their revenue? I mean, they must be doing it this way because they think it makes them more money, but does it really? Or is shortening the cycle to 3 years actually going to lose them customers at a rate that offsets the initial benefits?

 

For me the three year cycle never made any sense - unless you go for a 6 year cycle with a mid edition refresh where you change up the edition box, wrap up the FAQs into a 'rulebook 2' and make any larger fixes official - that way you can give players of all armies a decen ttime with their codex and in the second half only do 2nd codexes for the ones left behind or didn't work out as intended and focus on campaign/other books. 

[Doghouse]

I think they should stick to a six year cycle and have a new mid edition themed starter set released at the three year mark.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

15 hours ago, Redcomet said:

The negativity on this forum.

 

Holy moly.

Nobody is stopping you from buying the Saturnine box. You are even allowed to buy all the journals and campaign books which will be released in the next three years. Open your wallet and spend as much as you like. No one is stopping you. Although DON´T come then in 2028 to a forum in order to bitch and moan that James Workshop has turned all your book purchases into toilet paper and your army into glass cabinet divas.

 

It´s always funny that valid criticism is regarded as negative but shameless shilling for a soulless corporation is the highest form of virtue. 

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

20 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Not to mention we do have proof of people acting in ways that could indicate contempt for customers.

 

For example, whoever made the decision to delete entire ranges of units/loadouts that were common until now could certainly be said to have contempt for the time people put into building their massive HH armies.

 

Whoever is pushing for a harder split between ranges to make it more difficult for people to use their HH models in official 40k events after hard selling cross compatibility (i.e. Leviathan dreads) seems to not be all that concerned about how customers might feel.

 

Whoever chose to release a premium cost rulebook that needs a large Day One DLC to fix it probably cares less about getting a quality product into people's hands than he does about getting people's money into GW's bank accounts.

 

And so on. That kind of person is who people are referring to when they speak about "contempt," not the Peachies and Louises and the real nerdy fanboys grinding things out under The Man.

A lot of former GW employees have reported that GW suits hold customers or even employees in very low regards, if they "play with toy soldiers" past the age of 18. So employees who love the hobby are prone to suffer passive-aggressive remarks on most occasions. These people also tend to not last long in the company.

Edited Sunday at 10:04 AM by Deus_Ex_Machina

[Redcomet]

36 minutes ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Nobody is stopping you from buying the Saturnine box. You are even allowed to buy all the journals and campaign books which will be released in the next three years. Open your wallet and spend as much as you like. No one is stopping you. Although DON´T come then in 2028 to a forum in order to bitch and moan that James Workshop has turned all your book purchases into toilet paper and your army into glass cabinet divas.

 

It´s always funny that valid criticism is regarded as negative but shameless shilling for a soulless corporation is the highest form of virtue. 

Yes because shilling is what I do 24/7

 

It is funny how bitching and moaning about GW has become their primary hobby instead of just leaving the hobby, the forum and going outside to touch grass

[SalamandersBro]

Does anyone else remember. When GW was building up HH for the 2.0 release they said HH wasn't necessarily going to gollow the 3 year cycle? Or am I remembering incorrectly? 

[Matcap86]

1 hour ago, Redcomet said:

Yes because shilling is what I do 24/7

 

It is funny how bitching and moaning about GW has become their primary hobby instead of just leaving the hobby, the forum and going outside to touch grass

 

This. Valid criticism is fine. There's plenty of stuff to be annoyed about. But reiterating the same point that's been made a 100 times before and looking for every misplaced comma in 100s of pages of rules to loudly declare "being slapped in the face by the CORPORATION again" is just wallowing in the negativity. 

[Captain Idaho]

Let's keep it on topic folks. Complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining is off topic.

 

And I typed that rather than copy and pasted it.

[Joe]

Made a quick spreadsheet looking at the current games and their approximate edition cycles. For Heresy to be on the "three year cycle" that people are talking about we'd need to see another edition in 2028 for flat confirmation that's a thing. Basically, a trend has to be isolated - and right now there's more systems that don't sit on the three year cycle than do.

 

(This may change if we see for say, Warcry 3E this year - at which stage that game would be on said cycle.)

 

[Astartes Consul]

Will probably pick up the Liber today from my FLGS so I can list build properly. I do really like the army building mechanics tbh, so I’m looking forward to seeing how I can play about with it.

 

Assuming we’ll get the Legacies on Monday/Tuesday. I’m quite apprehensive. The fact that the document looks set to be so huge is a potential double edged sword. We are getting far more than I think most people assumed, but the additional quality control seems likely to be a problem. Seeing the (relatively) small Talons PDF have to be updated only hours after it’s release doesn’t fill me with hope…

[BitsHammer]

1 hour ago, SalamandersBro said:

Does anyone else remember. When GW was building up HH for the 2.0 release they said HH wasn't necessarily going to gollow the 3 year cycle? Or am I remembering incorrectly? 

I don't recall them promising anything.

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Redcomet said:

Yes because shilling is what I do 24/7

 

It is funny how bitching and moaning about GW has become their primary hobby instead of just leaving the hobby, the forum and going outside to touch grass

+1 GW Social Credit Score point has been added to your account.

 

Seriously. GW made an absolute pig's breakfast of the release. People are mad, and have every right to be mad. If you don't like seeing people angry at GW completely botching what had been one of the last good rulesets they put out, maybe it is you that needs to touch grass.

[Matcap86]

5 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

+1 GW Social Credit Score point has been added to your account.

 

Seriously. GW made an absolute pig's breakfast of the release. People are mad, and have every right to be mad. If you don't like seeing people angry at GW completely botching what had been one of the last good rulesets they put out, maybe it is you that needs to touch grass.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

Let's keep it on topic folks. Complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining is off topic.

 

[Mana]

3 hours ago, Joe said:

Made a quick spreadsheet looking at the current games and their approximate edition cycles. For Heresy to be on the "three year cycle" that people are talking about we'd need to see another edition in 2028 for flat confirmation that's a thing. Basically, a trend has to be isolated - and right now there's more systems that don't sit on the three year cycle than do.

 

(This may change if we see for say, Warcry 3E this year - at which stage that game would be on said cycle.)

 

I'm sorry but I disagree with your analysis. The concept of the three year cycle comes from AOS and 40k release cycle, which the last couple of editions has been 3 years for a new edition.

We don't need to see a new HH edition in 2028 to confirm if we are in a 3 year cycle, the concept of a trend does not apply. The 3 year cycle is a binary state, not a trend, you either are in a 3 year cycle or you are not. Facts determine that, not trends, nor wishful thinking. HH2 released in 2022, and now HH3 released in 2025, 3 years difference, congratulations, we ARE in a 3 year cycle. The question now is, what will happen in 2028? will we be in a 3 year cycle still? Well, we will have to wait and see.

 

And changing topic, I hope we get the legacies pdf this week, I will give this edition a try still, but I'll be honest, I'm not very hopeful for the future of the game, but I really want to be wrong.

[Gorgoff]

What about them starting to make one good edition without all those mistakes instead so they don’t have to make a new edition in a fixed time period? 

Am I the only one old enough to find it ridiculous that they plan on making a new one and when they have to release it?

[roryokane]

9 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

What about them starting to make one good edition without all those mistakes instead so they don’t have to make a new edition in a fixed time period? 

Am I the only one old enough to find it ridiculous that they plan on making a new one and when they have to release it?

No, but unless GW HQ has some sort of Bastille moment, we're unlikely to see a change. (To be clear, I agree with you, it is MAD.)

Edited Sunday at 04:35 PM by roryokane

[ZeroWolf]

20 minutes ago, Mana said:

I'm sorry but I disagree with your analysis. The concept of the three year cycle comes from AOS and 40k release cycle, which the last couple of editions has been 3 years for a new edition.

We don't need to see a new HH edition in 2028 to confirm if we are in a 3 year cycle, the concept of a trend does not apply. The 3 year cycle is a binary state, not a trend, you either are in a 3 year cycle or you are not. Facts determine that, not trends, nor wishful thinking. HH2 released in 2022, and now HH3 released in 2025, 3 years difference, congratulations, we ARE in a 3 year cycle. The question now is, what will happen in 2028? will we be in a 3 year cycle still? Well, we will have to wait and see.

 

And changing topic, I hope we get the legacies pdf this week, I will give this edition a try still, but I'll be honest, I'm not very hopeful for the future of the game, but I really want to be wrong.

Actually the three year year cycle runs deeper than that, as according to their investor report, they themselves run on a three year cycle. Most important part of this is the factory planning. Basically they manage what the factory will produce based on this three year plan. Why is it three years? That I couldn't tell you. Maybe they did some research and thought it was the perfect balance of output and planning, who knows.

 

Problem here is, if they were to change to another cycle, we'd see nothing about it for a good few years while they finished their current cycle. Caveat here would be when the current cycle ends, it could be timed with 40k edition changes, which means they'd be ready to plan out another three years across all products next year (perfect time to jump to a longer cycle) or it could be something completely different 

 

Though given rumours of another new army coming to 40k next edition, the three year cycle is fully beyond its limits just for that system, let alone poor HH

[Joe]

Not entirely surprising, as they did tell us it was coming.  Big question is how long it remains; I could easily see SGS deciding to replace it in a year or two with a newer mould, alongside plastic Dreadclaw upgrade and such. The old drop pod has definitely made its mould and production costs back by now.

[BitsHammer]

Been thinking about the new detachment system and I think I am starting to get the intent.

 

So the old FOC basically gave us 6 unit types: HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, Lord of War. 2.0 tried to expand that by adding the Heavy keyword to create differences between units in those slots and better flavoring the armies.

 

The new one moved away from that to give us far more unit types to help show the difference between something like a bike squad versus a Jetbike even though both were Fast Attack slots. But trying to make an FOC chart that restricts slots and characters adjusting those slots becomes a very clunky mess so they gave us detachments. 

 

This allows them to tax us by adding characters so we don't just spam the strongest slots, while allowing them to add restrictions to units that should be less common such as Dreadnoughts.

 

Obviously it's not perfect, but I think I get it now.

Edited Sunday at 05:48 PM by BitsHammer

[Wibbling]

Seeing the pre-orders indicates it really hasn't sold well. If individual components are being broken down to sell separately - given that the whole box can be bought at a significant discount either this was always planned (but odd to be so soon after the collective release) or a genuine problem in that they printed a lot more than have sold. 

 

I could be completely wrong, but it is a bit odd.

[Doghouse]

14 minutes ago, Wibbling said:

Seeing the pre-orders indicates it really hasn't sold well. If individual components are being broken down to sell separately - given that the whole box can be bought at a significant discount either this was always planned (but odd to be so soon after the collective release) or a genuine problem in that they printed a lot more than have sold. 

 

I could be completely wrong, but it is a bit odd.

 

I'm wondering how this impacts FLGS sales. From my casual delves into retail sales of the product Alcamist Workshops are still showing 341 copies of the starter in stock. I've also noticed the stand alone rules book has sold out in a lot of places, presumably because people have existing armies so I was wondering if people may just get the Saturnine models separately?  

 

I can't see how this is going to help FLGS' push more starter sets? I skipped getting the boxed set because I just wanted some MK II, if it wasn't released this early separately I may have caved and bought the starter.

[01RTB01]

Saturnine terms are in boxes of 4...

 

Unit that's 3-6. I don't know the sprue layout but this makes no sense to me.