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.

[Brofist]

My league is a community of about 30 people. The new edition was poorly received and I'd call interest tepid if I'm generous. The group is now fragmented, some people are dropping out of the hobby because they can't afford or don't want to be on the edition treadmill, some are writing their own rules, roughly a third or so played some 3.0 with mixed interest. The reasons vary, but you've heard them all before: obtuse list building, lack of flavor, less turns, bad missions, too much emphasis on scoring, killing models out of LOS, over-abstracted terrain, etc.

 

When I surveyed the crew about a month ago only a single person actually said they liked the new edition. We host a pretty serious yearly event and haven't even decided what to do for 2026. I'm doing what I can to keep the community together, but 3.0 has been real bad ju ju. I haven't seen it this bad, ever.

Edited 7 hours ago by Brofist

[Pacific81]

It's always quite interesting reading these posts, as you have everything from 1/2 star to 4/5 star reviews, it seems very subjective. 

 

One thing I will note, and which is definitely more objective, is that this sort of new release is always impactful on the hobby communities. At its most extreme, you have WHFB being nuked, which effectively did the same to the communities for that game. But I think even with something like HH, you had a very long initial edition (7 years), most players people accepted that a renewal was needed and I think mostly embraced 2.0 even if it wasn't universally loved, but now such a short lifespan for that edition feels like, whilst not a nuke, has at least dropped a hand grenade in the room. The over-riding impression I have had from vets is one of worry; is this now the new normal? Should I spend lots of time re-learning rules (rules with the same names but now act differently, which plays havoc on anyone north of 40 lol) or re-modelling armies which are generally some of the most lovingly crafted and collected in the hobby. And people look over the fence at identikit L-shaped terrain, grey plastic armies in 40k (partly brought about by the aggressive new edition cycle) with justified concern. 

 

I really hope the aggressive new edition cycle was a blip, and for all its faults the new edition will settle down with better objective systems, bring back some Legion flavour, give it a chance to bed in for at least 4-5 years with steady releases. And GW if you do require a sales surge (and *surely* these games have tiny sales volumes compared to 40k/AoS) just release a pretty new starter box with some new minis, don't turn the rules and games system on its head again. Is that a realistic expectation to hold, for the sake of helping consolidate the community?

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

19 hours ago, Razorblade said:

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)

I completely agree with @Razorblade and don't have much to add. Simply put, for every good thing 3.0 brings, it brings four bad ones. I've already mentioned in other posts that my experiences haven't been particularly good.

Here, in this corner of the map, the interest and enthusiasm that existed with the previous edition hasn't been replicated at all with this new edition. People have moved on and returned to other games, and even some, like Mordheim, have returned from the grave. This is clearly evident in local FB groups.

 

I think they've really messed up with 3.0. I'm not saying there aren't any good things, just that they don't even come close to making up for everything that, in my opinion, is wrong or doesn't work as it should.

A lot would have to change, and I think if that's the case, we should wait for a new edition.