Horus Heresy New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[TheTrans]

14 hours ago, No Foes Remain said:

 

I had the same issue trying to port forward my 2.0 2k list into 3.0, I had 1d6chan main page and the legion tactics page open so I could figure out what unit is in what detachment and even then I had to drop my laser vindicator because I need to buy two more HQs so I could have my army.

 

I'm starting to think each detachment should have had their own HQ and in certain detachments they could only have certain Consouls as HQs in that detachment, so to get the armour detachment you'd have to by a 'master of armour' HQ ala the Armoured RoW in 1.0 and 2.0. It would seem more like the main detachment has attached support companies, though I guess that's sort of what GW has tried to do with the extra HQs but still seems messy.

See this I could get around, if there was a cool, thematic and specific HQ for each of those detachments, that was actually compulsory, one could probably police the 'tax' of those detachments based on the HQ the opens them up. As it stands a what, 60 point centurion being able to open up just about any 2 slots its nuts and not that much a tax at 3k points.

 

3 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Another issue with the list building system for me is that it feels like armies end up with an absurd number of HQs given the size of the force. You’ve got a Legion where a Sergeant is perfectly capable of leading 20 Marines yet a force with generally 60-80 marines (in my experience) somehow needs a Praetor, Multiple Centurions and some specialised HQs. 
 

It just feels very top heavy like the worst kind of corporate culture with too many managers. 
 

In real life it’d be like a regimental commander, multiple company commanders and executive officers all turning up to fight involving a couple of platoons. Sure, that can happen, but it’s not the norm. 

Good point, Praetors always were a 'too big a fish' but now you need tthem unlock a whole heap of stuff that was pretty standard in earlier versions of the game. 

Yeah non-thematic, basic centurion picks to water it down a bit.. whats a foot centruion doing unlocking an armoured demi-company, where is the master of armour unlocking that etc?

 

5 hours ago, jaxom said:

This me being very generous to the designers, but if I had to supply a reasonable point of discussion it would be [written in the all positive form of a WarCom interview]:

 

The new system allows you to fulfill one of two army narratives. We [the designers] really wanted to lean into what we read in the books. Players can efficiently recreate the legions by filling each slot in the Primary Crusade Detachment (and auxillary detachments) and have more units per character. Alternatively, players can recreate cadre of heroes and their hand-picked retinues by taking more character per units forces.  For example Abadddon, Falkus Khibre, and Ekron Fal accompanied by a mass of Terminators; or Erebus surrounded by his favored acolytes and Gal Vorbak. We think the latter provides a flavorful way to build an army containing only what you want. 

 

Outside of all positive, the high character count of "build whatever you want" is a tentative balance. No more single Centurion-Delegatus or whatever leading as many Insert-Legion-Specific-Awesome-Unit-Buffed-By-Their-Matched-RoW as one can fit into the points limit. It also avoids the 40k issue of just taking the most efficient units and only the most efficient units - though I assume no 30k player would be driven by such a motivationswhen building their army.

Does it though, like Three centurions using a single prime slot is what, 7 extra detachments. Thats 180 points over 2500-3000 not a huge tax. 

That unlocks, nominally what could amount to, in old terms 7-14 Elite Slots. Or 14-28ish nominally Heavy Support Units. 

So like, that 'tax' doesn't really limit ROW-type unit shenanganry much worse than what could have occured back in the day. 

Now yes units are 'balanced' by Line/Vanguard point costs etc, which means they are reliant upon those more than the 'limitations' of the new Detachments,...which nominally are none!

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, TheTrans said:

Does it though, like Three centurions using a single prime slot is what, 7 extra detachments. Thats 180 points over 2500-3000 not a huge tax. 

That’s a good point. Assuming 2 slots used per detachment plus one from logistics that’d be about 217 points per unit to do 3000 points. That seems doable. So yeah, not a mechanical balance.

 

I still assume the designers where thinking in terms of characters and their retinues for hyper-themed armies.

[SlickSamos]

My preference would be no FoC with some units restricted (e.g. no more than 1 retinue per Command / High Command & no more than one High Command per 2000 pts), then one army wide bonuses (RoW style which doesn't replace the legion rules) such as:

 

Armoured Assault: 

Requirement: more than 50% of units have the Vehicle or Automata rule

Bonus: re-roll all failed tests when removing Statuses 

 

Rapid Assault:

Requirement: more than 50% of units have either the Anti-Grav or the Outflank rule or have the Flier Subtype

Bonus: re-roll all reserve rolls 

 

Orbital Assault:

Requirement: all units have to be able to start in reserve and have either the Deep Strike rule or Flier Subtype, or are Transported in a Vehicle with either the Deep Strike rule or Flier Subtype

Bonus: if all units have to be able to start in reserve and have either the Deep Strike rule or Flier Subtype, or are Transported in a Vehicle with either the Deep Strike rule or Flier Subtype, then 50% of those units excluding Fliers may automatically Deep Strike on Turn 1.  All reserves must enter the Battlefield via Deep Strike except Fliers (and any units they're transporting).

 

Seize and Hold:

Requirement: more than 50% of units have the Infantry rule

Bonus: units with Line (X) gain Vanguard (1); unless they already Vanguard (X) as well, units with Vanguard (X) gain Line (1) unless they already Vanguard (X) as well; and, units with Support (X) loose the Support (X) rule

 

Finally if you ever meet the conditions for more than one RoW then you must choose which one applies during list building 

 

Obviously I'm biased but one of the things I like with my way is you don't end up with silly things like being unable to run Legion specific units in certain detachments (e.g. no Dark Furies in your Master of Decent detachment) because it relies on unit types, subtypes and special rules instead.

 

Also a number of things everyone is griping about should be reimplemented (e.g. all Characters can access the Officer Weapons Lists and you can Deep Strike any number of units a turn) as well as few old options (e.g. Javelin, Bike & Attack Bike weapon options)

[BitsHammer]

On 8/25/2025 at 1:01 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

Another issue with the list building system for me is that it feels like armies end up with an absurd number of HQs given the size of the force. You’ve got a Legion where a Sergeant is perfectly capable of leading 20 Marines yet a force with generally 60-80 marines (in my experience) somehow needs a Praetor, Multiple Centurions and some specialised HQs. 
 

It just feels very top heavy like the worst kind of corporate culture with too many managers. 
 

In real life it’d be like a regimental commander, multiple company commanders and executive officers all turning up to fight involving a couple of platoons. Sure, that can happen, but it’s not the norm. 

Honestly that's always been a problem with the way the game scales for both 30k and 40k. Somehow we always end up with at least a captain or chapter master level HQ leading a force that they have no reason to be involved with because it's too small.

 

Part of how I've squared this in the past was that the units represented more units that we have due to game scale, or that the army is a cross section of a larger force who are fighting other fights outside of the section we're seeing.

 

These days I just shrug and figure it's just an issue with the scale of the game.

[Irate Khornate]

So in what ways are y'all thinking 4th edition will change things? 

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Personally, I don't know. And I think is too soon to start thinking in a 4th ed.

But,honestly, a have little faith on a new one. TmI think there will be little improvements. I don't expect nothing good because this edition is such a disappointment to me.

Edited August 27 by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf
A word was repited

[Brofist]

6 hours ago, Irate Khornate said:

So in what ways are y'all thinking 4th edition will change things? 

 

Whatever's good this edition will be triple nerfed and bad in 4th edition. So, in no specific order: Kratos, Demolisher Cannons, Tactical Squads, Artillery, Librarians, Champions, Thallax. What am I missing?

[TheTrans]

I'm not sure what your guys army build speeds are like, but mine are generally slow (unless I've got an inbound event).

For those that aren't 'All In', but also aren't 'All out', where does the feared 3 year cycle leave you sitting from a hobby mojo point of view. 

For instance we're not going to have our full alottment of armies until at best end of October, so we're already down to a possible 32 months left of the edition. This is not factoring in that I feel many legions won't be operating at 'full power' until they get a journal. 

So like, with a view of edition churn is anyone sort of in a crux point of bothering to start a new army or not?

Like down here, we've got no local events on the Horizon for 3.0, at all, which doesn't make the game jump out at me and if I'm playing locally with mates, I'll just play 1.0 in all honesty. 

So after that ramble, is the fear of Edition Churn (and with how much we've seen get really shaken up on the edition swaps) stopping you from committing to a new project/running an event etc? 

[Hfran Morkai]

Well my hobby mojo is almost non-existent without rescaled MkIV/Tartaros as well as kits in the current scale for Slayers.

 

I MAY pick up one of those Combat Forces but I'd likely look at using the MkVI for Seekers (likely with third party bolters).

 

Maybe the same with MkII, grab some third party axes and shields for Grey Slayers as I think the FW stuff will look too small on them.

[Irate Khornate]

4 hours ago, TheTrans said:

snip

New edition killed my plans for projects. Now it's working on backlog when I get the motivation to actually want to hobby.

[Gorgoff]

7 hours ago, TheTrans said:

I'm not sure what your guys army build speeds are like, but mine are generally slow (unless I've got an inbound event).

For those that aren't 'All In', but also aren't 'All out', where does the feared 3 year cycle leave you sitting from a hobby mojo point of view. 

 

After the rules leaked and then the rulebook came out I was devastated. 

They took away a lot of my units and characters for no apparent reason. I fell in a state of frozeness and did nothing for the hobby for a good month or so. 

But a new player arrived at our gaming club and he loves 1ed and asked shyly whether we would play it and I was stocked of course. I loved 1ed. 

And they brought back a lot of the lost stuff in the legacy.

 

7 hours ago, TheTrans said:

For instance we're not going to have our full alottment of armies until at best end of October, so we're already down to a possible 32 months left of the edition. This is not factoring in that I feel many legions won't be operating at 'full power' until they get a journal. 

 

Nah, you can play all of them right now and tbh people seem to give the journals way to much credit.

I guess what we will see here is a unit or two plus characters but nothing  else apart from general stuff like special missions and so on. 

So if one doesn't like their legions I suppose the journals won't change it 

7 hours ago, TheTrans said:

 

 

So like, with a view of edition churn is anyone sort of in a crux point of bothering to start a new army or not?

 

I decided that my already started Death Guard project will be my army for 3ed. I don't build them specifically for it but that will be the legion to go in this game. 

7 hours ago, TheTrans said:

Like down here, we've got no local events on the Horizon for 3.0, at all, which doesn't make the game jump out at me and if I'm playing locally with mates, I'll just play 1.0 in all honesty. 

 

Before the leaks happened I already claimed to organise a 3ed event and I stuck with my word. This Saturday is the day. 

7 hours ago, TheTrans said:

So after that ramble, is the fear of Edition Churn (and with how much we've seen get really shaken up on the edition swaps) stopping you from committing to a new project/running an event etc? 

I hope we will have a blast as usual.

If we are an even number of players we will also play one of those Titan killer missions. I will face the titan army of my friend. Don't know if we manage to do that because it depends entirely on the number of players to show up but if so I gonna have a rottentotten good time trying to kill a Titan or two. 

 

Otherwise I have to jump in and play the stupid game which will be something, because I have played exactly zero games befor that. :D

 

I try to make  the best of it as you can see. 

 

Edited August 28 by Gorgoff

[Irongert]

6 hours ago, TheTrans said:

I'm not sure what your guys army build speeds are like, but mine are generally slow (unless I've got an inbound event).

For those that aren't 'All In', but also aren't 'All out', where does the feared 3 year cycle leave you sitting from a hobby mojo point of view. 

For instance we're not going to have our full alottment of armies until at best end of October, so we're already down to a possible 32 months left of the edition. This is not factoring in that I feel many legions won't be operating at 'full power' until they get a journal. 

So like, with a view of edition churn is anyone sort of in a crux point of bothering to start a new army or not?

Like down here, we've got no local events on the Horizon for 3.0, at all, which doesn't make the game jump out at me and if I'm playing locally with mates, I'll just play 1.0 in all honesty. 

So after that ramble, is the fear of Edition Churn (and with how much we've seen get really shaken up on the edition swaps) stopping you from committing to a new project/running an event etc? 

Personally the edition churn doesn't affect me or my existing armies/army plans directly. I tend to build my armies according to an idea/theme I have for them rather than a specific way to play it in any given edition. That makes them relaitvely edition proof. I have been around for long enough to know that building lists rather than armies, if that makes any sense, means you're very likely to be stuck with a useless heap of models. Now, that has changed to some extend with GW's more and more prevalent desire to invalidate older models I have to admit so it's no longer foolproof.

 

As for starting new armies, that's another point. I had plans for starting 2 new legions and a mechanicum allied force for this edition. That didn't happen, the edition is not what I'm looking for in 30k for a myriad of reasons. I was ready to get into full HH hobby mode again after having been busy finishing two 5k armies for ToW for a year and a half by now. That got halted dead in it's tracks. This is not just me, it's everybody in my (very small) community, we all shelved the new projects we had in mind. 

 

All in all the edition churn itself isn't stopping me from a new army. The content of the edition itself might though, as in this case. It's clearly not aimed at me as a customer anymore, which fine. We all have the older books here and we collectively have decided to switch back to 1st and houserule any new models anyone wants to include. I guess the danger for our group lies more in the dissapointment that follows if the new edition isn't what we are hoping for with regards to a new project rather than it being a new edition in and of itself. 

 

Having said that, I don't think that legions aren't working at full force untill they get a an AJ. I know it's a 40k board but to make the obvious comparison. I played Beastmen as my main army for the first year of ToW. I got my AJ the last out off all armies pretty recently and at no point was it/felt like an incomplete army. I don't expect there to be much difference for HH. 

[Pacific81]

Not sure if the comment about 4th edition was intended as a joke, but I guess people taking it seriously shows that it is already a distinct possibility! 

I'm making an army for 3rd which is quite bespoke and so probably quite vulnerable to edition overhaul. I've also had the rug pulled from under me a couple of times before (most notably with WHFB) so understand clearly GW will think nothing of nuking a game system and a community if it fits their financial plans. So if it happens again it will be on me, no excuses, the Leopard will not change its spots.

I'm quite fortunate to have a close-knit games group and we will follow whatever suits us - so if 4th arrives and up upends the Apple cart we will just keep on playing 3rd.

 

Although part of me hopes the 3 year lifespan of 2.0 was just a blip as they did a full reset, but the other part knows that is quite possibly naive!

[Shard of Magnus]

A potential 3 year cycle doesn’t affect my hobbying at all. If anything, the surge in availability of kits has given me a boost in interest. I tend to work around army themes rather than stress about future changes invalidating stuff I enjoy; the build and paint is more important than the question of will I ever use it. The local group also approaches new editions as a try it first and then decide to go with an older edition, house rule problem areas, or create custom scenarios & campaigns.  That leaves less concern that a future ruleset/liber will completely ruin my gaming experience.

 

I was already planning to start a new marine legion before the release date was announced but was blocked a bit by the temporarily out of stock status of basically everything.  I did delay on making a legion choice after 3.0 was announced - partly because the gaming group was in flux on what others were going to field (most have multiple armies) and I didn’t want to double/triple up on a legion as people switched up primary armies.  That indecisive time was not a productive period…as my lack of progress on my Call to Arms vow attests to.

 

I’ve since begun planning a Solar Aux force as well.  I probably wouldn’t have done that without the new edition.  I decided to pick up their liber at the start and wouldn’t have looked at solar aux if I hadn’t done that impulse buy.

[Gorgoff]

It will never cease to amaze me that there are a lot of players who actually buy their models directly at GW stores online and in person. 

 

[Brother Sutek]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

It will never cease to amaze me that there are a lot of players who actually buy their models directly at GW stores online and in person. 

 

I used to when they had the bitz and skullz programs. Mind you that was a long time ago and most of the hobby stores around my area had limited choices for what you could buy.

[Astartes Consul]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

It will never cease to amaze me that there are a lot of players who actually buy their models directly at GW stores online and in person. 

 

Given the amount of Online Only kits, especially for Heresy, it’s not that surprising. I have two very good local hobby stores, so I would also go to them first. But character models and upgrade kits I generally have to use the GW webstore, as eBay resellers will often be just as pricey.

[Pacific81]

4 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

It will never cease to amaze me that there are a lot of players who actually buy their models directly at GW stores online and in person. 

 

Other than for the special resin kits, people who have shares in the company?

[Shard of Magnus]

I suppose the topic of buying direct from GW was triggered by my comment on things being unavailable? The point was intended that the situation of what appears to be GW delaying making restock available in preparation of the edition release had more impact to my hobby mojo than a possible new version of rules in 3 years.
 

Yes, there are online discount stores, 3D printing, eBay, and other options that don’t depend on GW supply being available. None of those help if supporting the local store you play at is more of a priority and the FLGS that can’t order kits because GW doesn’t have it available.

[SlickSamos]

I now prefer the 3rd edition list building to 2nd edition.  With the old rules I usually ran out of Fast Attack when trying to theory craft an army I liked (Outrider Squadrons x2, Attack Bike Squadron, Land Speeder / Javelin Squadron, Seeker Squad x2 - so really had to settle on Recon list so Seekers were troops).  The main thing that has helped me get my head around it is considering Prime slots as adding a 0-1 wildcard slot to each Detachment (via Logistical Benefit, max once per detachment), and only when I'm near the point limit start thinking about what other Prime Advantages I should take.  The Apothecary and Techmarine Detachments are really useful if you want to field extras of the otherwise tricky slots to unlock (namely Elites & Retinue, though Techmarine plus Dreadnought is also a nice combination).  I might start a list building tips and tricks thread with some worked examples on 2nd edition lists I've pulled from the forums.

 

Another thing I really appreciate is the scoring in this edition looks so much better than the past one, but I never completed my army for 2nd and it's still being built now!  

[Gorgoff]

Words cannot tell how much I hate list building now. 

I don't want to constantly jump back and force to look what detachments I need to take in order to get one :cuss:ing unit. It feels so unnecessary and forced.

Being forced to take so many characters is also an absolute nightmare for me. I usually ignored them more or less.

 

[jaxom]

Ironically, my Militia army didn't work in 2nd but does work in 3rd.

[TheTrans]

On 8/30/2025 at 3:42 PM, Gorgoff said:

Words cannot tell how much I hate list building now. 

I don't want to constantly jump back and force to look what detachments I need to take in order to get one :cuss:ing unit. It feels so unnecessary and forced.

Being forced to take so many characters is also an absolute nightmare for me. I usually ignored them more or less.

 

It 100% sucks and is just free for all with an extra step. 

 

It wouldn't suck as bad if the tax was thematic. Maybe a master of signals would unlock the flyer based detachment. Siege breaker the artillery one etc.. or hell, you take the thematic one, it gives you an extra prime slot for that detachment..but nope.. generic centurion #47 gives you all of the above.

[jaxom]

5 hours ago, TheTrans said:

It wouldn't suck as bad if the tax was thematic. Maybe a master of signals would unlock the flyer based detachment. Siege breaker the artillery one etc.. or hell, you take the thematic one, it gives you an extra prime slot for that detachment..but nope.. generic centurion #47 gives you all of the above.

It is weird the only place is happens is the recon centurion and recon detachment.

[Orodhen]

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

It is weird the only place is happens is the recon centurion and recon detachment.

The Champion also has one.