3.0: failed or not?

[Irate Khornate]

13 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

snip

 

You added more variables to the function, therefore the function has changed. The only thing that is the same is you have to build a list. How you build that list is drastically different. You even proved it by providing the extra variables that were introduced causing it to be changed in function. 

 

And you didn't even bring up points previously. Agreeably so points are much more limiting than they were in previous editions because you have to bring more HQ units.

[TheTrans]

I look forward to 4.0 when they just flat remove non-box load out options like they did for 3.0 but backflipped when they spotted the fall out from it. Or have we forgotten about that excellent bit new edition goodness as well haha. 

I for one, after playing a game of 3.5ed 40k last night, love the Force Org and the hard Decisions it makes you take. Yes points can be a concern sometimes, but unilimted slots allows a lot of MSU bull:cuss:tery. 

At 3k in 3.5, without going completely nuts on weird upgrades, I think I would actually max out the force org without an ally or super heavy. which I kind of like. 

 

[Brofist]

Yeah I'm kinda dreading the inevitable whiplash with 4.0. They might just kill the game if they do it wrong.

[Stitch5000]

9 hours ago, Irate Khornate said:

 

You added more variables to the function, therefore the function has changed. The only thing that is the same is you have to build a list. How you build that list is drastically different. You even proved it by providing the extra variables that were introduced causing it to be changed in function. 

 

And you didn't even bring up points previously. Agreeably so points are much more limiting than they were in previous editions because you have to bring more HQ units.

How many of your HH1 or HH2 armies contained a single HQ model?

[Pacific81]

11 hours ago, Brofist said:

I mean, is a digital game/movie/book truly good if you have to read half of it (or re-read it several times) before it gets good? 

 

I was watching some videos on Rift Forge Studios and those guys were playing quite quickly, with a few off camera stops to check a rule. But, I don't know how many games they have played to get to that point (at least a dozen have battle reports on the site, so I would imagine many times that number). So I kind of resent that you have to live and breathe the game to make it flow smoothly (a combination of the appalling writing/editing in the rulebook, which brings to mind the worst sort of academic writing, and the amount of phased & special rules crunch).

 

And especially if you have played enough other games (not least from GW) to know this isn't necessary in a wargame.

I have found the NewRecruit app, open on a tablet as I play, absolutely essential so you don't end up with bulging biceps from being stood there with the rulebook open all game!

[Stitch5000]

54 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

 

I was watching some videos on Rift Forge Studios and those guys were playing quite quickly, with a few off camera stops to check a rule. But, I don't know how many games they have played to get to that point (at least a dozen have battle reports on the site, so I would imagine many times that number). So I kind of resent that you have to live and breathe the game to make it flow smoothly (a combination of the appalling writing/editing in the rulebook, which brings to mind the worst sort of academic writing, and the amount of phased & special rules crunch).

 

And especially if you have played enough other games (not least from GW) to know this isn't necessary in a wargame.

I have found the NewRecruit app, open on a tablet as I play, absolutely essential so you don't end up with bulging biceps from being stood there with the rulebook open all game!

I've played HH since its inception and 40k before that. so I may well have a bias.

To that end, HH3 really isn't that much of a departure from what I am familiar with because most of the fundamentals are basically the same. The differences are in the specifics, where you'd have had to refer to the rules to resolve a situation anyway. 

I've actually found it super easy to teach people how to play, both fro scratch and from a previous basis. 

In the Movement phase you Move your Movement Characteristic or Rush (Add initiative to Movement Characteristic)
In the Shooting Phase you pick a Unit and you make a shooting attack. You just add up the FP characteristics of your models... No Rapid Fire or anything to worry about. 
In the Assault Phase, you declare charges and in a lot of cases, you don't even have to roll dice to resolve them because of Set-Up moves. (Yes it's a table to look at, but most things Set-Up 3" unless they are super fast or super slow.)

Work out what Breaching (X), Rending (X), Heavy (X) and Impact (X) do and you are away. 
 

Edit: Yes, I am aware that I'm fighting an uphill battle against a bunch of guys that have decided they don't like the game for their own reasons. I actually really enjoy it and have found it to be the most liberating, exciting and tactical edition of the game so far. 

Edited Thursday at 11:19 AM by Stitch5000

[Gorgoff]

On 2/24/2026 at 10:01 AM, Stitch5000 said:

WHo shot what at a Kratos and one-bombed it?

I was already wondering why nobody asked what kind of gun my enemy had that deals 12 damage in one volley.

The Reaver Titan had a Vulcan gun which did that.

I was ok with it killing my Kratos but I wasn't ok with it didn't exploding. 

The Kratos just ceased functioning.

Titans on the ither hands have very cool cinematic rules and I highly recommend to play the Titan killer mission. 

We just threw all rules for army building izt if the window and he just took a Reaver and a Warhound plus a couole of Secutarii while I took a regular 3500 points Death Guard army with Iron Warriors allies. 

Was a ton of fun I have to say. 

[Stitch5000]

9 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

I was already wondering why nobody asked what kind of gun my enemy had that deals 12 damage in one volley.

The Reaver Titan had a Vulcan gun which did that.

I was ok with it killing my Kratos but I wasn't ok with it didn't exploding. 

The Kratos just ceased functioning.

Titans on the ither hands have very cool cinematic rules and I highly recommend to play the Titan killer mission. 

We just threw all rules for army building izt if the window and he just took a Reaver and a Warhound plus a couole of Secutarii while I took a regular 3500 points Death Guard army with Iron Warriors allies. 

Was a ton of fun I have to say. 

Ah, makes sense!

[Irate Khornate]

4 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

How many of your HH1 or HH2 armies contained a single HQ model?

Do you mean army lists, or my model collections?

[Stitch5000]

2 hours ago, Irate Khornate said:

Do you mean army lists, or my model collections?

Either/or...

From my perspective Librarians and Chaplains (and other Consul choices) have long been a desirable inclusion, but were never able to fill a compulsory slot, so were taken alongside a Praetor, so you always were taking 2 HQ choices.

[Irate Khornate]

1 hour ago, Stitch5000 said:

Either/or...

From my perspective Librarians and Chaplains (and other Consul choices) have long been a desirable inclusion, but were never able to fill a compulsory slot, so were taken alongside a Praetor, so you always were taking 2 HQ choices.

For my iron warriors in second edition, I only brought my warsmith. As for my world eaters, generally a delegatus. I don't bring very many HQ units. And I'm obviously not going to bring a librarian in my world eaters when they are mid to late heresy. 

 

Do I have multiple hqs in my collection? Yes but they are alternately armed praetors and centurions/equivalents so I don't have to mess with magnetizing. 

 

Admittedly I have the two armies that are opposite ends of the polarizing spectrum when it comes to build, so I don't really need the advantages provided by additional HQ units. If I brought them, then my army would be absurdly oppressive in either melee or shooting and that's just not sportsmanlike.

Edited Thursday at 05:23 PM by Irate Khornate

[Gorgoff]

I go the same direction. 

I rarely took more than one HQ in 1ed and even in 2ed I usually only took two and almost never three.

Now I am forced to take 4 and since all of my consuls (at least in my AL) are now illegal because GW fixed their equipment to the official models load out, I can ever only use them as Centurions.

A trend most players had to follow and for instance the SN analasys of the armies for their upcoming tournament showes that clearly as well:

They made several of those panels but I hate that tournament nonsense although in this instance it shows they msrketing strategy of GW.

All of these got new models and all of these got pushed shamelessly. Look at the number of Rhinos or tactical squads. 

Obviously it is a tournament and those lists doesn't represent what the majority in HH plays but in an exaggerated way it shows where GW wants us players to go. 

Or where our money should go.

I wonder what they will do in 3ed and what they force down our throats then. ;)

 

[No Foes Remain]

I'm in the same boat at Gorgoff, in 2nd mainly just have the 1 HQ needed (usually a delegatus to get a RoW) the rest I spill out on units. And looking at it, out of the 127 various lists across all forces I have on new recruit (from 500pts starter list/patrol to 3,000 full list), 86 only have a single HQ. Out of the 41 about half are just a optae (one for my SoH to go with a assault squad dropping behind lines to make it less likely for them to break) or a librarian because I kitbashed one up and was quite happy with it or a preavian or overseer to get some robots or not-allies in my list.

[Brofist]

13 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 

I was watching some videos on Rift Forge Studios and those guys were playing quite quickly, with a few off camera stops to check a rule. But, I don't know how many games they have played to get to that point (at least a dozen have battle reports on the site, so I would imagine many times that number). So I kind of resent that you have to live and breathe the game to make it flow smoothly (a combination of the appalling writing/editing in the rulebook, which brings to mind the worst sort of academic writing, and the amount of phased & special rules crunch).

 

And especially if you have played enough other games (not least from GW) to know this isn't necessary in a wargame.

I have found the NewRecruit app, open on a tablet as I play, absolutely essential so you don't end up with bulging biceps from being stood there with the rulebook open all game!

 

One of our Canadian players was lamenting that the FOC and impenetrable writing has made it tough getting new people into the system. Over-complicated in all the wrong spots, oversimplified in all the wrong spots, etc etc

  

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

All of these got new models and all of these got pushed shamelessly. Look at the number of Rhinos or tactical squads. 

 

That's some funny insight. What's missing besides the saturnines (which are seemingly pretty mid)

 

[Gorgoff]

8 hours ago, Brofist said:

 

One of our Canadian players was lamenting that the FOC and impenetrable writing has made it tough getting new people into the system. Over-complicated in all the wrong spots, oversimplified in all the wrong spots, etc etc

 

I absolutely agree.

The way the books are written is appaling to me and the lack of an APP for list building baffling.

8 hours ago, Brofist said:

 

That's some funny insight. What's missing besides the saturnines (which are seemingly pretty mid)

 

There is more.

 

[Stitch5000]

15 hours ago, Irate Khornate said:

If I brought them, then my army would be absurdly oppressive in either melee or shooting and that's just not sportsmanlike.

I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at this kind of statement... It just comes off as "If I used the full power at my disposal, I'd crush you and win automatically, so I purposely don't to give you all a chance."

It is invariably nonsense. 

 

[Stitch5000]

11 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Now I am forced to take 4

DO you mean you need to take 4 in order to take all of the models you own in one big army?

[Razorblade]

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

DO you mean you need to take 4 in order to take all of the models you own in one big army?

Lots of people have to take 4+ just to make their old 2.5k armies legal. The Detachment system works fine-ish if your army is heavily skewed towards a few types of units but once you include a combination of Elite Infantry, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, Speeders, Support Infantry and Tanks (aka efficiently using the old ForceOrg and building a cool amd diverse Force) the detachments add up rapidly. Also Logistical benefits are not functionally extra detachments as you are penalized for taking them over a prime benefit that improves your unit for free. 

[Gorgoff]

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

DO you mean you need to take 4 in order to take all of the models you own in one big army?

More or less, yes. 

I can't play as I used to, with one HQ.

Obviously how many HQ I used in 1ed depended heavily on what type of army and which legion I played but at least I had a choice to do or not to do.

That's over. Now I have to take more commands in order to get detachment slots to field my army and I don't get anything in return. 

The new system is just tedious and overblown for no apparent reason whatsoever. 

Having said that I do know that for militia it is the better system because they can now spam stuff they couldn't before. Artillery and tanks for the most part. 

Or Ogryns if the player wants to loose with style. :)

But as a legion player I don't get anything out of that new system. 

Maybe I miss something, so if you have an idea please tell. 

[Lord Marshal]

I really do not find the new system complex at all. It's just different.

 

Command (HQs) = Slots. That's pretty much all there is to it at the most basic level. Optaes are very cheap and unlock a slot. Centurions give you two. The Legions have their own slots which mix up the basic ones, particularly if you're leaning into that Legion's theme, which makes it easier to dodge the more niche slots. You can then use the 'Prime' choices to give you a single unit from literally anywhere, if you need to. 

 

You have to give more thought to list building but I view that as a plus. I do find it funny that the vibe has shifted from "3rd is going to be too open, it's turning into 10th ed anything-goes slop!" and now we're into "3rd is too restrictive." 

 

One of the main complaints I saw in 1st and 2nd was there not being much of a reason to ever bring vanilla Centurions, or indeed, any of the Consuls that weren't extremely powerful - to say nothing of every single battle involving two Chapter Masters. Nudging you into taking more varied HQs than just John "Beatstick" Praetor is a plus in my book.

 

Yeah, if you just want to use the exact same list 1:1 with zero alterations that's probably not going to happen... but that generally occurs no matter what new edition of a game you're playing, whether it's 30k, 40k, Conquest, Infinity- literally any wargame out there. There's certainly more of a HQ/Command tax this time around, but I'd take that over points-creep in the other direction.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:53 AM by Lord Marshal

[Razorblade]

While failed or not is a question that probably dies not have a general objective answer I think it's a good Idea to look at wetter or not it failed at "fixing" or improving 2E in meaningful ways. Let's take a look at some of 2Es issues: 

-List building limitations due to lack of scoring units: Failed. 3E got much worse. "But everything scores now". No it doesn't. The low amount of objectives in play and the low amount of inherent points scored off of them means line(2) doubles your scoring rendering all other scoring irrelevant. This takes us from 13-17 scoring units (depending on how you count Command squads) in the vanilla Legion Options alone from 2E, to 5 *in the entire game* in 3E. FAIL.

Dreadnoughts: 3E nerfed dreadnoughts but everyone limited dreadoughts in 2E so they really weren't a balancing problem anymore. Thus to succeed 3E would have to put dreadnoughts in a place where you could run a fury-style list in good conscience. Turns out you can no longer do this at all and there where probably more dreadnoughts around in 2 when they were limited to 1 in 1000 points because of how badly they overnerfed them. FAIL.

Vehicles: Vehicles got tougher and can react with more of their guns so that's progress. They still randomly explode tough because damage has been so overtuned. They also lost a lot of their identity, having pretty much turned into stationary turrets. People also greatly understood vehicles in 2E. Land Raiders, Scorpii and the Arcus where just all-round great units and predators and Rhinos where perfectly adequate for their jobs. I think the only tank that has significantly improved overall is the Kratos, so sidegrade at best. FAIL.

Leadership affecting psychic powers/repairs: This is just a non-point as A. no one was complaining about it and B: there was never an intrinsic need for these things to be tied to LD. It could just have been an (X) behind the psyker/cybertheurgist rule where X is the target value. Instead they bogged down everyone with necromunda stats. FAIL.

Pinning: There is no longer a way to protect expensive units from pinning which is hilarious given that most cheap units can reliably unpin themselves via nuncio-vox. In the split, pinning also got significantly worse at countering overtuned shooting units because almost all weapons that used to have pinning got new pinning instead of widely spreading Suppressive. FAIL

Reaction Shooting: Rapiers and Myrmidons can still do this just fine. FAIL.

 

Overall, whilst enjoyment is subjective and 3E has unique mechanics that are out of tge scope of direct comparison, I cannot see how this is could justifiably be called an upgrade/worthy successor to 2E (which wasn't exactly the peak of tabletop wargaming either)

[Razorblade]

31 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

I really do not find the new system complex at all. It's just different.

 

Command (HQs) = Slots. That's pretty much all there is to it at the most basic level. Optaes are very cheap and unlock a slot. Centurions give you two. The Legions have their own slots which mix up the basic ones, particularly if you're leaning into that Legion's theme, which makes it easier to dodge the more niche slots. You can then use the 'Prime' choices to give you a single unit from literally anywhere, if you need to. 

 

You have to give more thought to list building but I view that as a plus. I do find it funny that the vibe has shifted from "3rd is going to be too open, it's turning into 10th ed anything-goes slop!" and now we're into "3rd is too restrictive." 

 

One of the main complaints I saw in 1st and 2nd was there not being much of a reason to ever bring vanilla Centurions, or indeed, any of the Consuls that weren't extremely powerful - to say nothing of every single battle involving two Chapter Masters. Nudging you into taking more varied HQs than just John "Beatstick" Praetor is a plus in my book.

 

Yeah, if you just want to use the exact same list 1:1 with zero alterations that's probably not going to happen... but that generally occurs no matter what new edition of a game you're playing, whether it's 30k, 40k, Conquest, Infinity- literally any wargame out there. There's certainly more of a HQ/Command tax this time around, but I'd take that over points-creep in the other direction.

 

 

 

Again, 3E effortlessly manages the worst of both worlds, enabling you to take stuff that very much "doesn't look like an army"/feels very much modern 40k-ish, like say an army that is almost exclusively dreadnoughts and speeders, whilst simultaneously enforcing a massive character-tax, many of whom might then not have a unit to go into, leading to more terrible looking 40kisms in the form of wandering solo-characters. And Preators are still a near must for the extra reactions, so I fail to see how the new system brought any type of improvement?

[Stitch5000]

47 minutes ago, Razorblade said:

While failed or not is a question that probably dies not have a general objective answer I think it's a good Idea to look at wetter or not it failed at "fixing" or improving 2E in meaningful ways. Let's take a look at some of 2Es issues: 

-List building limitations due to lack of scoring units: Failed. 3E got much worse. "But everything scores now". No it doesn't. The low amount of objectives in play and the low amount of inherent points scored off of them means line(2) doubles your scoring rendering all other scoring irrelevant. This takes us from 13-17 scoring units (depending on how you count Command squads) in the vanilla Legion Options alone from 2E, to 5 *in the entire game* in 3E. FAIL.

Dreadnoughts: 3E nerfed dreadnoughts but everyone limited dreadoughts in 2E so they really weren't a balancing problem anymore. Thus to succeed 3E would have to put dreadnoughts in a place where you could run a fury-style list in good conscience. Turns out you can no longer do this at all and there where probably more dreadnoughts around in 2 when they were limited to 1 in 1000 points because of how badly they overnerfed them. FAIL.

Vehicles: Vehicles got tougher and can react with more of their guns so that's progress. They still randomly explode tough because damage has been so overtuned. They also lost a lot of their identity, having pretty much turned into stationary turrets. People also greatly understood vehicles in 2E. Land Raiders, Scorpii and the Arcus where just all-round great units and predators and Rhinos where perfectly adequate for their jobs. I think the only tank that has significantly improved overall is the Kratos, so sidegrade at best. FAIL.

Leadership affecting psychic powers/repairs: This is just a non-point as A. no one was complaining about it and B: there was never an intrinsic need for these things to be tied to LD. It could just have been an (X) behind the psyker/cybertheurgist rule where X is the target value. Instead they bogged down everyone with necromunda stats. FAIL.

Pinning: There is no longer a way to protect expensive units from pinning which is hilarious given that most cheap units can reliably unpin themselves via nuncio-vox. In the split, pinning also got significantly worse at countering overtuned shooting units because almost all weapons that used to have pinning got new pinning instead of widely spreading Suppressive. FAIL

Reaction Shooting: Rapiers and Myrmidons can still do this just fine. FAIL.

 

Overall, whilst enjoyment is subjective and 3E has unique mechanics that are out of tge scope of direct comparison, I cannot see how this is could justifiably be called an upgrade/worthy successor to 2E (which wasn't exactly the peak of tabletop wargaming either)

I feel like you've been playing a completely different game to me... Petulantly typing "FAIL" in caps at the end of each sentence doesn't reinforce your  objectively incorrect points. 

It's hilarious how people have begun to hark back to 2nd Ed. like it was some kind of optimal point in the development of the game. 

[Stitch5000]

23 minutes ago, Razorblade said:

leading to more terrible looking 40kisms in the form of wandering solo-characters.

You know that "no way to protect expensive units from pinning" lament? Do you know about Chaplains? (You also get a Detachment if you take one).

[Razorblade]

14 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

You know that "no way to protect expensive units from pinning" lament? Do you know about Chaplains? (You also get a Detachment if you take one).

Yeah he doesn't do that. Even with a chaplain you get a 1 in 6 of failing (which, as any Blood Bowl Player will explain is practically a guaranteed fail in any critical situation) and that's *before* pinning (X) and fear. In fact it is pretty doable to get a unit to 50+% fail rate even with a chaplain