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 September 13 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.

[Orodhen]

My city's FB group page is a ghost town now. Luckily my playgroup is most likely sticking with 2.0. 

 

I think what the game really needed was a 2.5 instead of a reboot.

[Doghouse]

Finding content on Youtube is frustratingly almost non existent beyond a few that cover it exclusively and those are often trying to make money off their channels so I am not sure I trust their opinions.

 

I'm seeing people say they enjoy it but it's hard to measure whether I want to spend money on the rule book and Libers again because it feels glossed over as an edition. As someone on the cusp it's very frustrating and feels like the moment I do take the plunge GW will pull the rug on the edition again.

[Brother Kraskor]

I've had a great time with 3rd, and every opponent I've met has said the same. Some granular special rules have been lost yes, but that is traded for tighter and faster gameplay. The new scoring forces you onto the front foot, and I love the challenges! Also the damage/initiative modifier characteristics have been well integrated, and statuses are fun too.
 

I genuinely challenge anyone who's not played yet to just give it a go. You may be surprised! I appreciate everyone likes a dripfest now and then, but  I think this perception that there's a huge cloud hanging over the edition is overblown. 

[Mandragola]

I like it so far. I went to the GHO doubles last weekend and had four great games. I think the game plays pretty well, though definitely not without issues. I’ve yet to meet anyone who likes the 3” medium terrain visibility, for example. 
 

GW clearly messed up the launch though. They needlessly created a lot of bad feeling with the veterans who make up the heresy community. They were forced into a pretty humiliating reverse with wargear options. Nobody is happy with that, I’m sure. 
 

I gather that Saturnine hasn’t been flying off the shelves like AoD did. In retrospect I’m not surprised. AoD was the introduction to heresy for a lot of people. It contained basically a whole army. Saturnine *also* contains almost a whole army - just a different one. Mk2 and mk6 don’t very naturally sit together so saturnine probably represents a new army, which not everyone wants to commit to. 

[JeffJedi]

Lack of FW resin kind of hurts. We saw mk6 pads and helmets in 2e. There were also plastic named characters for 2 legions near the start of 2e. Both would have generated more excitement for each legion. How long has it been since a resin character was made for Horus Heresy? It must have been Siege of Cthonia.

 

Please bring out the Breachers, mkII assault squads and the Fellblade asap, GW. MKIV and MKV would be very exciting along with the rumored new Cataphractii as well.

 

As a Dark Angels player I don't have the most exciting rules but on the whole the game looks fun to me and I am working on painting an army to actually play in this edition.

Edited September 13 by JeffJedi

[Razorblade]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

I like it so far. I went to the GHO doubles last weekend and had four great games. I think the game plays pretty well, though definitely not without issues. I’ve yet to meet anyone who likes the 3” medium terrain visibility, for example. 

May I ask what mission and deployment rules were used? 

I feel like the core missions and objective placement rules were specifically designed to bring out the worst of the already (in my humble opinion) questionable rules, so I'd be interested in hearing peoples fixes (especially since custom missions seem to be much more palatable to most hobbyists than full on rule changes)

[Mandragola]

1 hour ago, Razorblade said:

May I ask what mission and deployment rules were used? 

I feel like the core missions and objective placement rules were specifically designed to bring out the worst of the already (in my humble opinion) questionable rules, so I'd be interested in hearing peoples fixes (especially since custom missions seem to be much more palatable to most hobbyists than full on rule changes)

We played missions one and two from the book and a couple designed by goonhammer. 
 

Regardless of mission, all scoring really revolved around Line. I think around 30-40% of points were from Line, not including the points for the objectives themselves. I agree with the complaint that this will make armies look similar. I don’t hate that this makes basic legionaries key, though you don’t want that to mean identikit armies. 

[Razorblade]

6 hours ago, Mandragola said:

We played missions one and two from the book and a couple designed by goonhammer. 
 

Regardless of mission, all scoring really revolved around Line. I think around 30-40% of points were from Line, not including the points for the objectives themselves. I agree with the complaint that this will make armies look similar. I don’t hate that this makes basic legionaries key, though you don’t want that to mean identikit armies. 

I think that and a far too low number of objectives in general is the issue. If there were more objectives and higher victory points per objective, it would be much harder to cover all your scoring with line, whilst also reducing the relative impact of line and "activating" a larger portion of the table for vanguard. 

I agree that basic troops should be good (tough I think they were pretty good in 2.0, due to HotL which they removed for reasons that are unfathomable) but right now there is no way to play themed forces tgemed around the old RoWs and have a shot at actually winning game.

Edit: I also think fixed positions for all objectives would greatly improve the game as right now there is 0 incentive to not hide all objectives in the corners

Edited September 14 by Razorblade

[Pacific81]

@Razorblade and @Mandragola with the objectives & scoring system, do we think this has suffered in the same way as Legions Imperialis in that it just hasn't been playtested enough? Like if it had, there are some very obvious mistakes in there that would have immediately become apparent and been corrected? Some of it seems just so basic.

 

Just reading the new Epic Warpath game rules and they've printed the names of 25-30 people involved in playtesting the game. Do GW just not do this anymore (either for $$$ or maintaining secrecy reasons?)

Edited September 14 by Pacific81

[Razorblade]

16 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

@Razorblade and @Mandragola with the objectives & scoring system, do we think this has suffered in the same way as Legions Imperialis in that it just hasn't been playtested enough? Like if it had, there are some very obvious mistakes in there that would have immediately become apparent and been corrected? Some of it seems just so basic.

 

Just reading the new Epic Warpath game rules and they've printed the names of 25-30 people involved in playtesting the game. Do GW just not do this anymore (either for $$$ or maintaining secrecy reasons?)

I'm pretty sure they don't or at least they don't pull in outside help to do it. (For the specialist games that then also don't get fixes later on that is) On the whole this edition seems like a very singular vision of how the game should be, with no outside input taken into consideration and a baffling lack of corporate oversight.

[Gorgoff]

21 hours ago, JeffJedi said:

Lack of FW resin kind of hurts. We saw mk6 pads and helmets in 2e. There were also plastic named characters for 2 legions near the start of 2e. Both would have generated more excitement for each legion. How long has it been since a resin character was made for Horus Heresy? It must have been Siege of Cthonia.

 

Please bring out the Breachers, mkII assault squads and the Fellblade asap, GW. MKIV and MKV would be very exciting along with the rumored new Cataphractii as well.

 

As a Dark Angels player I don't have the most exciting rules but on the whole the game looks fun to me and I am working on painting an army to actually play in this edition.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/de-de/articles/qnxe95ul/sunday-preview-ueberschwere-verstaerkung-fuer-das-zeitalter-der-finsternis/

 

Since you seem to have to power to make GW do thkngs, please demand a complete overhaul of their abyssal rules for terrain, line of sight, fortifications and bland legion rules. ;)

 

20 hours ago, Razorblade said:

May I ask what mission and deployment rules were used? 

I feel like the core missions and objective placement rules were specifically designed to bring out the worst 

I like the new mission rules which basically are the same rjles we had for 2 years now plus line, vanguard and so on.

Only mission three is terrible because the one who has first turn is usually the one winning it no matter what, whichbis obviously bad.

Having only three different missions is a straight up joke though. GW makes missions for over 30 years and can choose from dozens of different missions so they had to include more than three in the book. They used to put a whole bunch of missions in older 40k missions which was way better. 

12 hours ago, Razorblade said:

I think that and a far too low number of objectives in general is the issue. If there were more objectives and higher victory points per objective, it would be much harder to cover all your scoring with line, whilst also reducing the relative impact of line and "activating" a larger portion of the table for vanguard. 

I think you have a point here. 

12 hours ago, Razorblade said:

I agree that basic troops should be good (tough I think they were pretty good in 2.0, due to HotL which they removed for reasons that are unfathomable) but right now there is no way to play themed forces tgemed around the old RoWs and have a shot at actually winning game.

Edit: I also think fixed positions for all objectives would greatly improve the game as right now there is 0 incentive to not hide all objectives in the corners

Apart from the fact that you deployment them before you role for what kind of deployment method you use in the game ao that isn't the best way to do it but your general opinion is correct of course. The more the marrier I would say.

[MDops]

20 hours ago, Mandragola said:

We played missions one and two from the book and a couple designed by goonhammer. 

Might be a bit off topic but is there a link to these or are they revamped 2.0 missions?

[Razorblade]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

I like the new mission rules which basically are the same rjles we had for 2 years now plus line, vanguard and so on.

Only mission three is terrible because the one who has first turn is usually the one winning it no matter what, whichbis obviously bad.

They aren't tough. In 2.0 objectives were placed outside of the deployment zones, aka within 24" of the opposing deployment zone, aka in move and charge range of the opponent turn 2 at the latest. 2.0 was about getting in your opponents face with line units quickly.

In 3.0, while you technically don't know where you'll deploy it is simply most effective to always deploy all objectives as far in the corners as possible, which will result in them being in the deployment zones. Add the melee nerfs and lack of line 2 on any aggressive unit outside the absolutely gutted despoilers and you have a bunch of boring stand-offs

[Gorgoff]

8 hours ago, Razorblade said:

They aren't tough. In 2.0 objectives were placed outside of the deployment zones, aka within 24" of the opposing deployment zone, aka in move and charge range of the opponent turn 2 at the latest. 2.0 was about getting in your opponents face with line units quickly.

In 3.0, while you technically don't know where you'll deploy it is simply most effective to always deploy all objectives as far in the corners as possible, which will result in them being in the deployment zones. Add the melee nerfs and lack of line 2 on any aggressive unit outside the absolutely gutted despoilers and you have a bunch of boring stand-offs

So you and your friends knowingly do a thing which ruins the gaming experience for all of you and blame the rules for it? 

That must be the reason why GW was forced to give players deployment maps with fixed terrain and objectives because players were unable to regulate themselves and play on morenornless empty tables where shooting stand offs are even possible.

That's why the terrain rules are like they are by the way. It is a way of making L shaped ruins gw sells* which are full of holes somewhat usable.

*players have stopped to build/buy good terrain for some reason and wonder why shooting armies are king. 

 

I know my tone is harsh but it is true. If you (partially correct, mission one has a fixed 3 points objectuve in the middle of the board) assume that objectives in the corners make a bad gaming experience there is only one to blame for it: the players who do that. Just stop it, place them in terrain along the middle line between both armies and et voilá your games become a lot better. That is by far the easiest and most obvious to solve problem the rules have. 

Terrain rules need a little bit more of house ruling though. 

 

From my sparse experience so far I can say that I think that having several statūs feel unnecessary.  It only makes broken armies possible which hand out as much statūs as possible which are a pain to play against. And the spam phosphex for that as well. 

[Razorblade]

30 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

So you and your friends knowingly do a thing which ruins the gaming experience for all of you and blame the rules for it? 

That must be the reason why GW was forced to give players deployment maps with fixed terrain and objectives because players were unable to regulate themselves and play on morenornless empty tables where shooting stand offs are even possible.

That's why the terrain rules are like they are by the way. It is a way of making L shaped ruins gw sells* which are full of holes somewhat usable.

*players have stopped to build/buy good terrain for some reason and wonder why shooting armies are king. 

 

I know my tone is harsh but it is true. If you (partially correct, mission one has a fixed 3 points objectuve in the middle of the board) assume that objectives in the corners make a bad gaming experience there is only one to blame for it: the players who do that. Just stop it, place them in terrain along the middle line between both armies and et voilá your games become a lot better. That is by far the easiest and most obvious to solve problem the rules have. 

Terrain rules need a little bit more of house ruling though. 

 

From my sparse experience so far I can say that I think that having several statūs feel unnecessary.  It only makes broken armies possible which hand out as much statūs as possible which are a pain to play against. And the spam phosphex for that as well. 

With that understanding of games, do you even need a rulebook? Surely you must be happy to just push your minis across the board making little pew-pew noises, then arbitrarily decide on an outcome? (The real winner is *fun* anyway)

Pleasantries aside, not only is it exclusively the designers fault if the most effective way to play the game makes said game unfun, I believe this is also fully intentional as evidenced by the existence of mission 3, which only resembles an actual game if you bury the objectives as far in the corners as possible. Now surely you can (and should) ignore designer intend and houserule deployment or come up with your own mission/set-up rules, but the fact that this is necessary sort of proves my point that the game as-is sucks, doesn't it? 

It's funny that you hate on 40k because that game proves that GW is capable of writing good rules and should really be the standard we should be expecting.

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, Razorblade said:

With that understanding of games, do you even need a rulebook? Surely you must be happy to just push your minis across the board making little pew-pew noises, then arbitrarily decide on an outcome? (The real winner is *fun* anyway)

Pleasantries aside, not only is it exclusively the designers fault if the most effective way to play the game makes said game unfun,

 

Which was the case like ever. Where the rules have holes we as the players must step in and fill the void. We could easily eruin the game by minmaxing our army lists for example but as a whole the HH crowd isn't that way. And this is what made the game enjoyable so far. 

Outting the objectives in the corners because it is the most effective way makes one part of the problem and I want to be part of the solution.

3 hours ago, Razorblade said:

. Now surely you can (and should) ignore designer intend and houserule deployment or come up with your own mission/set-up rules,

 

On the nose, that is what we have to do.

3 hours ago, Razorblade said:

but the fact that this is necessary sort of proves my point that the game as-is sucks, doesn't it? 

It proves that the missions let us wanting but doesn't automatically mean the game as a whole sucks. 

Missions had been better or worse and we as the players had to adjust them all the time. 

It is very annoying that GW gives us just these three missions because they want to be able to sell their DLC in the future thiugh I absolutely agree.

3 hours ago, Razorblade said:

It's funny that you hate on 40k because that game proves that GW is capable of writing...

...god awful soulless rules for a gamenI once loved and now degenerated into a terrible boardgame for tournament try hards and new players. 

But it is the money machine which allows GW to make stuff like HH or other smaller games so Gogo 40k I say.