Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Irate Khornate]

So here's a question, would the core rules of third edition combined with the FOC of first edition including actual rights of war that modify the FOC make a much better feel?

[MARK0SIAN]

3 hours ago, Irate Khornate said:

So here's a question, would the core rules of third edition combined with the FOC of first edition including actual rights of war that modify the FOC make a much better feel?

I think that would go a long way to solving my biggest issue with 3.0. I think you’d also benefit from bringing back some of the Legion flavour from previous editions. If you did both of those I think you’d be on to something.

[BitsHammer]

On 8/16/2025 at 7:40 PM, Brofist said:

The sections of the rules telling you what a dice is. How to roll. Who a player is:

 

Its the myth of the New Heresy Player in full swing

That'll normal game design stuff to both ensure that people don't try and do silly stuff like play with d12s as well as help new players.

 

It doesn't mean the game is designed to eject anyone who hasn't been playing since 30k's 1.0 days, it's so people can pick up and learn the game even if they don't have a community to play with.

 

We should be celebrating new people coming into the game not acting like the game was ruined just so they could play.

 

On 8/16/2025 at 9:50 PM, Irate Khornate said:

I'm still dissatisfied with the terrain and line of sight changes. Plus I really didn't want damage making it's way into Heresy. Now we get to experience lethality creep in all the systems.

You mean like Brutal in 2.0? We already had damage and frankly most of the game has gotten less lethal despite a wider damage spread largely because we don't have rerolls and the volume of attacks in melee has gone down.

 

Shooting is still strong in a lot of ways but in others it has gotten weaker. A single mechanic change taken in vacuum is not enough to say we're getting lethality crept.

 

On 8/17/2025 at 8:40 AM, Irate Khornate said:

So here's a question, would the core rules of third edition combined with the FOC of first edition including actual rights of war that modify the FOC make a much better feel?

Honestly I don't think we need to change detachments from 3.0 to fix the issue as much as legion specific detachments all need legion specific prime slots. The Atramentar did this right by their detachment giving the units inside Deep Strike and Impact Hits (I) through Prime Slot bonuses.

 

More of that would go a long way to giving us more flavor back without needing to mess with army construction again.

Edited Wednesday at 01:05 AM by BitsHammer

[Pacific81]

16 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

That'll normal game design stuff to both ensure that people don't try and do silly stuff like play with d12s as well as help new players.

 

 

This is the first time, across 35 years of wargaming and probably dozens of rulebooks from various companies and systems, I have ever seen a book need to identify what dice and players are. If it wasn't necessary in all of those, why is it in this one?

 

It's both funny and also kind of weird/disconcerting. Like you are trying to teach a nascent general artificial intelligence what a 'game' is. Or if they had ordered 100 too many pages in the book and had to fill it with guff (guff being what it is)? I would have rather had a piece of artwork or two, but there we go. 

 

 

[jaxom]

26 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

This is the first time, across 35 years of wargaming and probably dozens of rulebooks from various companies and systems, I have ever seen a book need to identify what dice and players are. If it wasn't necessary in all of those, why is it in this one?

Huh, I see it all the time. It’s usually in the context of defining abbreviations and how to read gaming vernacular like d3 and 2d6.

[BitsHammer]

2 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 

This is the first time, across 35 years of wargaming and probably dozens of rulebooks from various companies and systems, I have ever seen a book need to identify what dice and players are. If it wasn't necessary in all of those, why is it in this one?

 

It's both funny and also kind of weird/disconcerting. Like you are trying to teach a nascent general artificial intelligence what a 'game' is. Or if they had ordered 100 too many pages in the book and had to fill it with guff (guff being what it is)? I would have rather had a piece of artwork or two, but there we go. 

 

 

Funny because defining game tools is a common rules element for a lot of games.

 

Maybe it's just that they didn't bother doing it for Warhammer games that is throwing you.

 

It's a good thing regardless even if it doesn't directly apply to you or me or anyone else who has been playing Warhammer for a while and doesn't try to game the system by going "it doesn't say I can't".

[Gorgoff]

14 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

Funny because defining game tools is a common rules element for a lot of games.

 

Maybe it's just that they didn't bother doing it for Warhammer games that is throwing you.

 

It's a good thing regardless even if it doesn't directly apply to you or me or anyone else who has been playing Warhammer for a while and doesn't try to game the system by going "it doesn't say I can't".

I agree mostly but that they felt the need to explain which side we have to look to see what we rolled on a dice felt like sarcasm. 

Edited Thursday at 08:16 AM by Gorgoff

[Pacific81]

@jaxomand @BitsHammer - I agree with you to an extent, but do you not think it is excessive in this case?

 

I've taken some photos below, first from an Epic Armageddon rulebook (2004), which I happened to be using for a game yesterday - which for me represents the pinnacle of GW's rules & mechanics writing.

[Pacific81]

Then from HH3.0. The funniest part for me about this is that you have a little extract about rolling dice or measurement, which would have done (I would argue it is still excessive!), but then they come back with entire pages of yet more! And the text from the enigmatic 'designers note' (who are they? We know not) telling you not once, but twice, that really it is important you read all of these absolute trivialities. I dont want to have my brain leak out through my nostril, so I will decline, thank you sir 

 

 

[BitsHammer]

6 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

I agree mostly but that they felt the need to explain which side we have to look to see what we rolled on a dice felt like sarcasm. 

I feel more like people are just looking for a reason to gripe at this point.

 

You all can have fun doing that if you want, I'm going to spend my energy making Templar Brethren out of MkIII Command Squad models and the MkVI head kit instead.

 

Tricky part is going to be layering the transfers on the shields so I can recreate the Fist icon in the middle of the templar cross that the resin shields had. Mostly because that requires me to successfully line them up.

[Pacific81]

Now very glad that I know, myself, that I am a player playing a game. And that is why I am stood there.

Also, I won't turn up to a game using a severed leg tattooed with old imperial chain measurements for moving my units.

 

I can *absolutely* now understand why the rumours of this rulebook being written with AI assistance started.

[BitsHammer]

22 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

Now very glad that I know, myself, that I am a player playing a game. And that is why I am stood there.

Also, I won't turn up to a game using a severed leg tattooed with old imperial chain measurements for moving my units.

 

I can *absolutely* now understand why the rumours of this rulebook being written with AI assistance started.

No that came out of the clunky technical writing because people can't tell AI writing from technical writing.

 

Edit: frankly this smacks of "I have no real problems so I need to complain". Not everything in a rulebook needs to written for every player. Sometimes stuff exists to help people who have never played a wargame before and may not be part of or have a community to learn from.

 

Yes to something who plays these games and has for a while it's silly but if it helps even one person to start playing I fail to see any real issue or reason to complain about it. We're not being talked down to or treated sarcasticly because it's not meant for every player to need.

 

The complaining about stuff means for new players just strikes me as the same energy from WFB that killed my desire to start playing it because the wider online community was full of people who just sneered at anything that remotely made the game more accessible to new players.

 

Now I am pretty sure no one means it that ways but complaining about things that help new players and blasting the game for things that make it easier to get into for new players comes across in the same manner even if it's not meant that way.

 

I can get behind a lot of the complaints about the technical writing not being up to snuff, or that they failed to clearly communicate things through WHC, or about the way they let Pardo take the heat for their choices and him not wanting to get sued for breaking NDA while not saying anything when the leaks came out. There are a lot of reasons to complain but stuff aimed at new players we don't need doesn't feel like one of those things.

 

Now I'm going to put this soap box away before I fall off it. I don't mean to moralize but I have seen a toxic online community full of veteran players who chased away new blood before and that game died. I don't want to go down that road again.

Edited Thursday at 02:17 PM by BitsHammer

[Pacific81]

Are we not allowed to make observations? 

 

And also the passive-aggressive link to toxic communities is not necessary. I've organised several events over the past few years trying to get newcomers into the hobby, as well as a charity event which raised hundreds of pounds in the memory of Paul Sawyer. I resent being likened to some angry grognard gatekeeping the hobby, because I've had the gall to point out that GW should have hired an editor. 

 

[BitsHammer]

5 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

Are we not allowed to make observations? 

 

And also the passive-aggressive link to toxic communities is not necessary. I've organised several events over the past few years trying to get newcomers into the hobby, as well as a charity event which raised hundreds of pounds in the memory of Paul Sawyer. I resent being likened to some angry grognard gatekeeping the hobby, because I've had the gall to point out that GW should have hired an editor. 

 

Is it an observation to claim the game is being dumbed down for new players or that the writers are being sarcastic at us? It feels more like projection and salt than an observation.

 

Complaining that GW went into detail explained ng what a die is because you don't think its necessary because it's not aimed at you isn't the same thing, sure. But it's not a big step to get there from that position.

 

And GW has editors but clearly this level of technical writing is something no one at the company is comfortable with or is able to execute to the level they want. There are plenty of examples of that without complaining that they explained how to read a die.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

4 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

Then from HH3.0. The funniest part for me about this is that you have a little extract about rolling dice or measurement, which would have done (I would argue it is still excessive!), but then they come back with entire pages of yet more! And the text from the enigmatic 'designers note' (who are they? We know not) telling you not once, but twice, that really it is important you read all of these absolute trivialities. I dont want to have my brain leak out through my nostril, so I will decline, thank you sir 

 

 

I don't like this way of redacting rules. I don't like it at all.

 

It's beating around the bush, something that should be more concise, clear, and direct. It makes it sound almost bombastic and pedantic, which makes it, at least for me, unnecessarily dense to read.

Edited Thursday at 06:21 PM by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

7 minutes ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

I don't this way of redacting rules. I don't like it at all.

 

It's beating around the bush, something that should be more concise, clear, and direct. It makes it sound almost bombastic and pedantic, which makes it, at least for me, unnecessarily dense to read.

In any case, I don't believe that expressing a reasoned and argued opinion, whether we like what that opinion says or not, means we should get into an argument and "let's compare medals and scars to see who's the biggest," which would only lead to the Mods closing the thread.

[Rusted Boltgun]

4 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

... And the text from the enigmatic 'designers note' (who are they? We know not) ...

 

With regard to the designers, one of them was interviewed for a recent WH+ programme but I forget his name. He said that he had been involved in HH since v.1. 

It was an interesting little interview but I think most of the content had already come out in WarCom articles.

[Brofist]

My point was that this is not a game for new players. You want us to celebrate them including 3 pages about dice rolling and tape measures? For a game with 300+ pages of rules and a buy in of what, 1,000 USD? 2,000 USD? They also justified cutting actual content existing players wanted 'in order to save space' so of course we're gonna be critical. We have every reason to poke fun of them for it!

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Agreed. Supposedly, and in GW words, precisely this edition is more for newcomers than for veterans, but if I was a rookie, I avoided this edition like the plague. Look the size and the format of the rulebook or how is written.

And  GW "saving space method" is a bit odd, because they waste lot of space with this rule writing or the many of the entries in the Libers for units. 

 

In many aspects,at least for me, this edition it's not only inferior to the previous one. It's directly awful and a mess.

Edited yesterday at 11:42 AM by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf

[BitsHammer]

1 hour ago, Brofist said:

My point was that this is not a game for new players. You want us to celebrate them including 3 pages about dice rolling and tape measures? For a game with 300+ pages of rules and a buy in of what, 1,000 USD? 2,000 USD? They also justified cutting actual content existing players wanted 'in order to save space' so of course we're gonna be critical. We have every reason to poke fun of them for it!

Where did anyone ask for celebration? Please point it out to me.

 

No, my point was that grumbling about something clearly aimed at new players is the sort of thing that turns people off of the game. As I have said and keep having to say: there are many reasons to complain about 30k but anything aimed at new players is not one of them.

 

And let's not even start on US prices. Half that is the fault of very stupid people who don't understand how tariffs work. Yes GW is maintaining a profit margin but thanks to how publicly traded companies work their first duty is to their shareholders not their customers and this will just lead us down a long road about pricing models and cost vs value and I don't know how many pages devoted to arguing how good or evil a company operating for profit is.

 

So let's just skip that mess.

 

Now I don't recall them justify why they cut anything. We have assumptions such as anything that doesn't have a model or is getting a new kit with different options, but we don't have confirmation on why most things were cut beyond the characters who never had models but whose wargear is available to generic characters and the only difference they had to said special characters was a single rule.

 

Frankly I am shocked Dias survived the culling since I don't see a single Imperial Fist with a flamberge on the webstore.

 

Look, I am all for blasting GW and I have complained many times myself. I will keep complaining that they need to do more with Prime Slots because so many of them are just nothing burger options. Like cool I can make one unit in my entire army have a Sergeant with slightly better mental characteristics. Whoopie.

 

I just don't like it when we start blasting things designed to ease people into the game no matter how sheltered or wargame illiterate they are. That was what I took issue with. I am not asking us to throw GW a party over it, just not blasting them for doing something the game should have anyways.

 

And I don't recall GW saying this edition was more for new people than veterans. I have seen the community claim that but GW wouldn't say something like that out loud. They know better than to say something that stupid in marketing because they know how many people would be upset over it.

 

Plus the Saturnine box only makes sense if it is selling to existing players as an extension of the AoD box and the MKIII battlegroup not as a newbie product.

 

The newbie product is clearly the much smaller getting started box sets they just announced and won't be out for some time.

 

That long delay is something else they got wrong about easing new players on on the hype of a new edition. The other thing is the long delay for Zone Mortalis rules as that smaller version of the game does a lot to make low point games playable for new players but GW dropped the ball there.

 

It's clear that this edition was rushed out to have a summer release before everything was ready and that is an issue caused by management trying to fluff the numbers for the shareholders with another edition launch. A practice that clearly backfired with all the issues we have seen around this launch.

[ThaneOfTas]

24 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

No, my point was that grumbling about something clearly aimed at new players is the sort of thing that turns people off of the game. As I have said and keep having to say: there are many reasons to complain about 30k but anything aimed at new players is not one of them.

My issue with this is that the justification given for a LOT of unpopular changes can often boil down to making the game more approachable.

 

40k is a lot more approachable for new players than its ever been. Its also the least fun that it's ever been for me.

 

If a game has to become less fun for me in order to appeal to new players I don't understand why I shouldn't grumble about that.

 

Look I don't actually believe that it's a true dichotomy, GW absolutely could make the game more accessible without stripping out customisation options and flavour. The problem is that sometimes that they don't.

 

People are just kinda laughing at these entries in the rule book because 1) they're kinda poorly done and overly verbose and 2) because it's emblematic of the way the GW seems to be just tossing everything at the wall to make the game more accessible, rather than having a coherent vision.

 

As an example of a way to make the game more beginner friendly that doesn't take anything away, these new combat forces! Those I'll happily celebrate and they will undoubtedly have a positive impact in getting new players in.

[BitsHammer]

This was started about complaint that they went into detail about what dice are. That is the thing I was pointing at being an issue. Expanding it to mean every change in the game is some "so you hate waffles" logic.

[TheTrans]

Look, I've been visiting this thread since the rumours started and I was very excited.. but the more we learned, the less excited I got, culmination with the Liber Leaks and finalised by the gutting of the Custodes/Sisters. 

I was gonna post a big ole spiel of what my thoughts on the issues with the edition is rah rah rah, but after all the discourse of up and down and all around both here (which I love B&C as forums, to me, are so much better than facebook groups and reddit) but at this point I feel heresy has probably 4 main 'camps.

 

All of this is my opinion, only my observations etc ad nauseam but here we go

Camp 1. Sycophants
GW can do no wrong, don't absue the mutli-billion dollar company. They send me a Saturnine box, they can do no wrong. This can also be a section of people in a 'sunk cost' sort of equation, they have existing armies, with love blood sweat and tears poured into them, so :cuss: just 'needs' to be good, so thats not a waste. Or often, their armies aren't adversly affected so care less. These can be new or old players.

Camp 2. Grognards
Generally resistent to change for both reasonable and unreasonable reasons. Probably been in the hobby a long time, probably have extensive collections where resistance to change can come from, also peoples whos aremies got decimated on an edition change, even if 'newer' will pop into this camp(I probably fall here). Most likely to be old players, with a small contingent of 'burned' new players.

Camp 3. The Middle Men
Happy as long as their army works, or they're getting into the scene for the first time. Happy cracking out whatever the 'current, supported' rules are etc. This I feel is probably the majority of people in GW games and probably aren't frequenting forums, reddit as much etc. These are a both new, old and 'tourists' types of players. 

Camp 4. The Rage-Baiters
I feel this is the worst kind. They exist only on forums/reddit/facebook etc. Very low chance they've played any reasonable amount of games, or have any large amount of actually painted models. They can masquarade as either camp 1 or camp 2, but don't really add anything except vitriol and 'feel-bads' to any discussion and don't care about being constructive as they have no, or less skin in the game. 

So after reading though each page of this thread, we started with a pretty solid spread of Camp 1-4. I think though at this point we've lost the middle men of Camp 3 who are off enjoying themselves and we're really just degrading into Camp 1 and 2 gnashing their teeth at each other, with Camp 4 just throwing fuel on the fire of their randomly selected host camp.

It's a shame that this thread has just sort of turned into headbutting of firmly entrenched camps as like after reading the last 5-8 pages it just seems to be a sniping back and forth where Camp 2 brings up an issue or concern, and Camp 1 says its not a concern or 'get with the future old man' remark. Or Camp 1 brings up a new mechanic they like and Camp 2 says its a terrible change for no reason. 

Personally 3.0 is not for me, if people are enjoying it, have it it, Hobby is Hobby! If somehow the Victoria (and Australian) Heresy Community gets back to the heights it reached Pre-2.0, I'm not opposed to rattling together a force (I desperately wanted 3.0 to be 'for me' as a good excuse to start a new army) and trying 3.0 out. But given 2.0 only had a handful of events in its very short life, with all the 'spruiking' of it being supported, well see. I'm not going to harp on 3.0 and my issues with it, they are what they are and its all very subjective. 

One final thing I will add though is I think older, existing players get poo-poo'd on a bit too much, I wouldn't have gotten into Heresy the way I did without the fantastic, grognardy exisitng player base that was there and all the amazing work they did for the community, espcially in the nominally unsupported except for occasional black book drops that 1.0 had toward the end. With 2.0 and the, honesly, lack of support it recieved, the community (in Australia) lost a lot of those older players and I don't think it ever recovered. So while new blood is great, its the old blood that is normally hovering around, suckering many new people in with 'try this' or running events etc..... none of which GW actually does.

Also Australians are filthy criminals, so the greater community relied on nefarious means to get access to models due to GW price gouges... so we never had issues with stock, cost of OOPness of a great many things. 

It turned into a spiel anyway, sorry gang haha.

[BitsHammer]

I would say I am largely a Type 3 by your typing. I don't like everything the edition is doing (I dropped Night Lords because their rules annoy me because it is too reliant on people being bad at dice) but there are things I do like as well.

 

I settled on doing Imperial Fists because I have been enjoying thier 30k stories and they are flexible as a legion so I don't feel punished for anything I add to my army.

 

I have constantly blasted the Prime Slot bonuses for being undercooked and the legion specific detachments for not doing enough to flavor the legions but I don't hate the idea of them splitting roles further or using detachments to keep army flexibility without needing bespoke Force Org changing rules everywhere. 

 

This edition has good and bad stuff in it. A solid core with weak libers. An edition box that only really works for people who have armies, but smaller boxes that are coming out too late for new players to ride the hype into the game. Zone Mortalis getting a pdf update months late for it to be used to onboard new people or to let people start with more balanced smaller games to learn with.

 

I also have made complaints about how the resin was completely out of stock at launch and many are still out of stock and while the Recently Restocked tag helps it doesn't even update the same day people get emailed about restocks.

 

So I have a lot of complaints, but I want to focus less on my complaints than how I plan to go forward and seek to try to build an actual 30k community locally. I can focus on the stuff I don't like, or I can focus on the things that I do like instead of using all my energy to complain about the things I think GW did wrong.

 

And honestly I think more people, even online, hold similarly nuanced stances around the edition than all like or all hate. But maybe I am assuming to much and I am the one who is wrong and it's more black and white with all good and all bad instead of some good and some bad with the scales tipping differently for each of us on if we enjoy the game enough to continue or not.

 

But that's just my view on this.

 

Oh and Australia is another country that has very crummy import tax issues so I get it but I will say if you have an flgs try and support them if you can because they are providing a place to play. But maybe that's my tiny apartment bias speaking up when it comes to the importance of play space.

Edited Friday at 01:01 AM by BitsHammer

[TheTrans]

18 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

Much Text.

Oh those are very broad, loosey goosey camps man. LIke as I said I was hovering in Camp 3 with new edition Hype (2.0 didn't blow my mind as a non-basic-legion player), but then I got progressivley more and more shunted into Camp 2 with each leak, where as the scales just tipped too far for me to go nuts about 3.0, nails, coffin etc.

I think the edition churn also is a worry for me, generally when I commit to an army, its a lean in big, hobby fiasco. I'm a teribbly slow painter and converter, unless there is an event on the horizon, but with 2.0 events where so few and far between there wasn't really much impetus for me. So no events, slow painter, quick edition churn, scrubbed back libers, and look I think we can see the writing on the wall with the Arcane Journals, some pople aren't going to have a legion that works the way it was meant to until very late in the edition and I imagine GW will properly shake up the game again so they can resell all the books in 3 years.

I think that uncertainity is a huge factor for myself and my group. If the game was 'meh' but it was set and you could work toward something, sweet, but my posse all have kids and jobs, so hobby time always loses out, so to try and then build toward something that may get wrecked before its complete can be a hard sell, where as skirmish games now...well.. you have some absolute bangers out there. 

In regards to FLGS in Aus, I can only talk for myself, but GW prices are so bloody horrific down here, unless you're on a really solid wage or don't have many outgoings, trying to build something like a 3k Heresy army is ruinous, now with the 3 year churn looking to be a thing, it makes it practically undoable for many people, let alone the time as well.

At least during the days of 1.0, stuff felt pretty set and you could slow-build toward stuff without having the rug pulled out from under you (Been playing 3rd ed 40k for the last 2 years, ran a couple events for it and its been great having a 'set' game!).

Further more to the FLGS, I'll generally try and buy supplies from them, but a great many FLGS down here in Australia make their bank off of MTG and other card games. So thats where they get their bigger money, and as wargamers generally look for better prices to drop cash (probably online), they aren't dropping money at their FLGS which may only offer 10% (compared to 20% and with GW pricing, that 10% can be pretty significant) which then doesn't encourage FLGS to waste too much MTG space for wargaming space and it becomes cyclic.

So for my group of 6-12 guys (depending on what game we're playing) we're lucky enough to all have garages where we can store terrain, and when we want a big catch up, we hire an Airbnb, take our terrain and go smash out games for a weekend, or just have tables set up at someones house, so our group (only speaking from this perspective) is not really reliant upon a FLGS for gaming, nor do any of us have particuarlarly close ties with any one FLGS.. so we generally, not don't care, but I'm not going to go spend an extra $300 more of my ever dwindling hobby funds for legit gear, at a FLGS that doesn't really do much for me, as opposed to get cheaper stuff for an army that I'll probably just use at home/airbnb or an event. 

One additional thing in regards to the FLGS, buying from nefarious sources etc, like if I'm doing marines, back before 3d printers I'd truescale stuff with termy legs, then we had the option for de-primarising primaris armour for big guys, then 3d printing hit big, with some great scultpts, so if I'm doing marines, generally stuff will be 3d printed, with only bibs and bobs being used from actual kits to 'ground' the models (Often I don't want to drop $37 for one or two heads from the Marine Head Upgrade kit etc).

So in all honesty, I am 100% not who GW is gunning for for any release. I'm cynical enough to know the books will be useless hunks of FAQs within a few weeks of release and that we'll be able to source stuff from the net if just patient (I'm also a big sucker for making my ownm legal, but 'reskinned' codexs so I don't have to lug around 5 books, just my own little army book I've made). My armies will be predominantly 3d printed, not from a price perspective, but from an actual like, 'design choice' perspective I suppose and I'm far enough along in my hobby journey that I only use very specific GW hobby items. So I think I grabbed the Hive Secudondus box set last year from GW for necromunda, as that was very cool... but outside of that, random paints and maybe transfers I don't think I've done any major GW purchases.

So I'm 100% not who GW wants, but at the same time, people like me who are happy running events and 'gateway drug'-ing in new players, we are what GW needs to keep people into the hobby, as we saw with 2.0 (down in Vic at least) while GW 'supported' (very loose use of the term) 2.0, due to a great many event runners not liking it, no events ran, ergo, the scene didn't grow and who knows if that did or didn't have any affect on GWs bottom line, but it feels like it logically should have, at least locally. 

But all of the above is really only applicable to me and my posse.

Edited Friday at 01:31 AM by TheTrans