State of HH 3.0

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

Judging from the little amount of HH 3.0 battle reports presented on YT so far this new edition doesn´t seem to have taken off very well. What are your experiences with HH 3.0?

[Razorblade]

It sucks. 

Legions feel super bland, half the unique units are worthless because they're stuck in cataphractii.

The mission design is atrocious, practically enforcing boring gunline stand-offs. 

Mandatory line 2 and limited anti-armour makes every army look same-ish.

New Melee Rules are sluggish and convoluted and Melee in general is pretty bad. (Challenges are fun tough)

[Khulu]

I've been having a blast. All my games have been close ones. Games have been fast enough to actually finish, which is nice since my play time is limited. My FLGS is hosting a small event next week which I'm looking forward to.

 

I do wish there were more mission variety, though.  

[Astartes Consul]

4 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Judging from the little amount of HH 3.0 battle reports presented on YT so far this new edition doesn´t seem to have taken off very well. What are your experiences with HH 3.0?

I don’t know, I’ve seen quite a few reports?

 

I think the main problem is that there is an actually learning curve to the new system, not just tweaks and learning new mechanics. 

[TheTrans]

Got zero events in the local calendar so far. 2.0 had one in its starting month and 1.0 had a decent range of events constantly. 

 

The local GW gluggers are saying its healthy as ever and a great system..but yeah... no events soo....

[Marshal Loss]

It's hard to tell how well the game is doing. Anecdotally, some in my area are sticking with 2.0 and others have moved to 3.0, though plenty of people seem to be be working on Saturnine kits. Previously I'd have expected everybody to migrate to the new shiny and I'm a little concerned about the game's long-term future locally. Any responses you get to 'how well is 3.0 doing' online will vary based on where you ask the question, but 3.0 is clearly a polarising edition one way or the other. GW badly bungled the launch. 

 

I don't think counting battle reports is a good measure of how well the game is doing. There have never been many HH 'content creators' and HH battle reports have never hauled in masses of views. 40k is an anomaly in that regard among GW's games. 

 

Personally I really like 3.0. The core rules generally feel like an improvement over 2.0 and I have thoroughly enjoyed the few games I've played so far. That being said I absolutely hate the army building/detachment system, it's awful, and most factions feel like they've lost a fair amount of flavour.