3.0: failed or not?

[Razorblade]

29 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

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. 

Please explain how any of my points where incorrect or which other failing of 2E was supposedly fixed?

[Stitch5000]

11 minutes ago, Razorblade said:

Please explain how any of my points where incorrect or which other failing of 2E was supposedly fixed?

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat debate at length on this, but for example, you said " line(2) doubles your scoring rendering all other scoring irrelevant".

This is literally not true, and does not take into account any of the mechanics of how scoring works.

"Dreadnoughts are overnerfed"... OK. Wade a dreadnought into a Tactical Squad in combat and see what Line (2) counts for then?

[Irate Khornate]

4 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

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. 

 

And that makes it sound like you're WAAC. I played the game for fun and modeling. Anyway I'm done going tit for tat with you. Have a good day.

[Lord Marshal]

1 hour ago, Razorblade said:

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?

 

In 1E and 2E you could already do that with Rites of War. "I've always wanted a Dreadnought army" come 2E was a joke for a reason. Hell, many RoW carried a character tax of their own (Siege Breakers in a bunch, Mortificators in Fury of the Ancients, etc). Praetors were mandatory to even bring a Rite of War, which is what 99% of lists took, to say nothing of 1E being even harsher with character taxes (Word Bearers HAD to take a Chaplain in addition to everything else).

 

Praetors for the Reaction are far from mandatory, especially considering they give up Slay The Warlord now and non-Decurion Commands don't. Plus there's alternatives like the Command & Control Squad to work around said Reaction.

 

I wouldn't call the character tax massive at all, especially now the Praetor tax (already the most expensive non-Unique HQ) is gone. Most Command are in the 80-140 range, so assuming most armies want to add another Centurion for the extra Detachments you're very roughly lookin at maybe 120 points more.

 

 

Edited Friday at 01:45 PM by Lord Marshal

[Razorblade]

21 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat debate at length on this, but for example, you said " line(2) doubles your scoring rendering all other scoring irrelevant".

This is literally not true, and does not take into account any of the mechanics of how scoring works.

"Dreadnoughts are overnerfed"... OK. Wade a dreadnought into a Tactical Squad in combat and see what Line (2) counts for then?

It is and does. If your scoring is twice or even three times as effective as mine, I might as well not bother. 

As for your example (which really says nothing, since beating up tacticals was never what dreadnoughts were for): The Dreadnought is going to kill a little over 1,5 Tacticals. If those have a vexilla they will likely pass their ld-test or tie the combat outright, continue to score thanks to line 2 and tie up a more expensive unit while their at it

[Razorblade]

46 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

 

In 1E and 2E you could already do that with Rites of War. "I've always wanted a Dreadnought army" come 2E was a joke for a reason. Hell, many RoW carried a character tax of their own (Siege Breakers in a bunch, Mortificators in Fury of the Ancients, etc). Praetors were mandatory to even bring a Rite of War, which is what 99% of lists took, to say nothing of 1E being even harsher with character taxes (Word Bearers HAD to take a Chaplain in addition to everything else).

 

Praetors for the Reaction are far from mandatory, especially considering they give up Slay The Warlord now and non-Decurion Commands don't. Plus there's alternatives like the Command & Control Squad to work around said Reaction.

 

I wouldn't call the character tax massive at all, especially now the Praetor tax (already the most expensive non-Unique HQ) is gone. Most Command are in the 80-140 range, so assuming most armies want to add another Centurion for the extra Detachments you're very roughly lookin at maybe 120 points more.

 

 

You could do a full dreadnought list, but not the "bunch of random characters and whatever gunplatforms"-Lists that 3E invites.

Even with a praetor and a mandatory specific HQ you'd be well short of the 4+ characters you might need to run in 3E

[Stitch5000]

1 hour ago, Razorblade said:

It is and does. If your scoring is twice or even three times as effective as mine, I might as well not bother. 

As for your example (which really says nothing, since beating up tacticals was never what dreadnoughts were for): The Dreadnought is going to kill a little over 1,5 Tacticals. If those have a vexilla they will likely pass their ld-test or tie the combat outright, continue to score thanks to line 2 and tie up a more expensive unit while their at it

Why aren't dreadnoughts for beating up Tacticals? They are literally line-breakers!

You can't score when you are locked in combat and you can't disengage if you don't lose the combat. 

Stop theory-hammering and play some games, it's loads more fun (and actually pretty well balanced) that reddit will have you believe. 

[Razorblade]

1 hour ago, Stitch5000 said:

Why aren't dreadnoughts for beating up Tacticals? They are literally line-breakers!

You can't score when you are locked in combat and you can't disengage if you don't lose the combat. 

Stop theory-hammering and play some games, it's loads more fun (and actually pretty well balanced) that reddit will have you believe. 

Because they are slow, expensive, have too few attacks to kill a tac squad and waste their S, AP and D on them? 

You're right, I thought in the switch to body counting to determine control you would also be able to score in combat. 

Play once against a Person that actually understands how games work and you will rapidly learn the ridiculousness of that statement.

[Darmor]

5 hours ago, Razorblade said:

It is and does. If your scoring is twice or even three times as effective as mine, I might as well not bother. 

The bonus of the Line rule is added to the Tactical Strength of the unit, not the model (models don't have Tactical Strength). So a 10-man Tactical sitting on the objective would be Tactical Strength 12, not 20.
Source: Core Rulebook, Core Missions, page 308, paragraph Primary Objectives.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Right, I haven't posted here in a long time.

 

My Heresy journey started technically with the 'Badab War' books, since they got me back in to (then 4th or 5th ed. ?) WH40k after a long hiatus, 

as I initially played from 1989 to 1995 and then life happened.

Anyhow, those beautiful Forgeworld books got me back into the game ... but hey, an edition change stole the excitement, as the Codex Space MArines uesd with the 

Badab books was now no longer valid. I guess one can see where this is going, but bear with me.

 

HH 1st ed. was a blast, even with some trivial rule hickups and irregularities, and I played first edition for the entirety of its lifespan, with two Legions and one Militia & Cults list.

 

HH 2nd hit, and it took a good while to get used to it, but eventually I managed. Notably, the circle of friends interested in the game had already start to shrink by this time.

 

Two years into second edition, I sold all my armies (for various reasons) and started to collect two (to start with) new projects, Taghmata and Sisters of Silence.

 

One year later, and boom, HH 3.0 and then ...

 

1.)  None of the projects I started would be a valid army anymore in this edition, Mechanicum having lost most of the equipment and unigue appeal as well as undergoing drastic rule changes to Thallax which were meant to be a good chunk of my army. Sisters of Silence were reduced to one (1) unit and HQ. You know what James ? Go and bonk a hole in a wall.

 

2.)  Rules that were once simple got overcomplicated to an absurd amount where the game now feels more like a piece of abstract modern art nobody asked for but without any art actually being in it. Army list selection is only enjoyable for people without a job, a life, a family or the mentally challenged. It's simply grievous and completely unecessary. The writing and composition of unit entries is just ... abyssmal. I cannot fathom how these products ever cleared quality control and were allowed to go to print.

 

3.)  No one, repeat absolutely no one (as in not a single person) from my previous gaming group (in my previous country) plays HH anymore, nor has any form of interest of picking up the game again.

 

 

I recently migrated halfways across the world and would theoretically be more than willing to start a new army if I would be able to find people still enjoying either first or second edition, but there's none to be found (and woohoo behold, there's no 3rd ed. players either in that regard).

 

HH 3.0 effectively killed the game. 

 

Thanks James, I guess.

 

 

[Gorgoff]

13 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

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. 

 

I'm with @Irate Khornate with this one.

Your statement definitely comes over as if it is an completely alien concept to you to not play an minmaxed army list and to actively avoid things which you see as broken. 

I can only say that during 1ed I meet around 30 or 40 different players in person from around my country and we all played with this gentlemens approach. 

Nobody showed up to a HH event with 12 phosphex thudd guns are similar broken crap, nobody overdid it. 

Second edition changed that and the first WAAC players came into the hobby in big waves. 

With third edition that attitude seems to get normalised even more and in parts it is the game itself which enforces this.

By the way the rules are written in that weird way as if the whole audience is made of people actively trying to bend and break the rules to get the most juice out of it, by the way armies are build now and by the WAY less atmospheric rules.

 

It's weird. They implemented a whole subphase for cinematic duels but the game still feels less immersing. 

 

Anyway @Unknown Legionnaire if you happen to live in northern germany now I could tell you who is more than willing to play 1ed with you. 

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Haha, thanks Gorgoff, very kind, though I migrated from the south of Germany to Canada a year ago.

 

[Orodhen]

21 minutes ago, Unknown Legionnaire said:

Haha, thanks Gorgoff, very kind, though I migrated from the south of Germany to Canada a year ago.

 

Yea the scene here in Canada hasn't recovered since the new edition dropped. In Ottawa at least.

 

If GW lose interest running HH, maybe the fans can take over like with Mordheim and old Blood Bowl.

[Razorblade]

On 2/27/2026 at 9:00 PM, Darmor said:

The bonus of the Line rule is added to the Tactical Strength of the unit, not the model (models don't have Tactical Strength). So a 10-man Tactical sitting on the objective would be Tactical Strength 12, not 20.
Source: Core Rulebook, Core Missions, page 308, paragraph Primary Objectives.

You're completely missing the point. The issue is not tactical strength but VPs scored. Most objectives score 1-2 VPs. That means scoring those with line (2) more than doubles your points. This means you essentially have to take multiple of the grand total of 5 units in the game that have it in order to be able to play the game on any semi-even footing.

[Razorblade]

On 2/27/2026 at 11:57 PM, Gorgoff said:

I'm with @Irate Khornate with this one.

Your statement definitely comes over as if it is an completely alien concept to you to not play an minmaxed army list and to actively avoid things which you see as broken. 

I can only say that during 1ed I meet around 30 or 40 different players in person from around my country and we all played with this gentlemens approach. 

Nobody showed up to a HH event with 12 phosphex thudd guns are similar broken crap, nobody overdid it. 

Second edition changed that and the first WAAC players came into the hobby in big waves. 

With third edition that attitude seems to get normalised even more and in parts it is the game itself which enforces this.

By the way the rules are written in that weird way as if the whole audience is made of people actively trying to bend and break the rules to get the most juice out of it, by the way armies are build now and by the WAY less atmospheric rules.

 

It's weird. They implemented a whole subphase for cinematic duels but the game still feels less immersing. 

 

Anyway @Unknown Legionnaire if you happen to live in northern germany now I could tell you who is more than willing to play 1ed with you. 

Weren't you loudly proclaiming the greatness of 3E half a year ago?

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, Razorblade said:

Weren't you loudly proclaiming the greatness of 3E half a year ago?

Oh I do like most of it and my one game so far was really really good, but that doesn't make me blind for the problems it has and especially for negative things it caused. 

But I am not just black or white and see both the good and the bad. 

For instance the rules for Titans are great and very in depth and I recommend trying them. The rules for terrain on the ither hands are terrible, the writing style is as well, the way armies are build sucks and the legion rules are pale and boring. The ones for Militia are fun and way better than those in 2ed and so on and so forth...

[Shard of Magnus]

Personally, I haven’t seen Line significantly change the way the local group builds lists…for the most part. The couple who liked to take only assault squads for compulsory slots in 2.0 being the exception + occasional rite of war change ups. I get this is an isolated local view and everyone’s experience is different. For us, of all the changes that have impacted the group’s enjoyment of HH, the line changes aren’t close to making the list of things complained about.

 

It likely would skew a battle if there was a major difference in # line units between the two players - I.e someone went heavy on line units or someone took no line units. However, I’m not absolutely certain of that between statuses, general effectiveness of line vs non-line units, and being in combat preventing being able to earn VP. It feels very different for sure. And the lack of options to give line to units that wouldn’t have it is still jarring compared to 2.0.

 

The limited missions and their design certainly don’t help the view of Line. There are situations where a significant VP lead can be quickly built (I also saw this happen in 2.0 although the # of VP didn’t make it stand out as much). Having 4 turns limits options to bridge the gap if one falls behind. Vanguard should create more options but the rules make it at best a lucky gamble to earn. Etc.

 

In the end this is another example of the extent of changes resulting in ill will and a general divide in the community. I’m not sure that fracture will ever heal or that the global HH community will recover passion for the game. I have generally enjoyed the 3.0 games I’ve played and know that biases my view. Like with 1.0 and 2.0, that doesn’t mean I agree or am happy with all the rules. Nor does it mean I feel everyone should feel the same!

Edited Sunday at 04:39 PM by Shard of Magnus
Fixing iPhone caused errors

[DuskRaider]

On 12/11/2025 at 9:26 AM, Nagashsnee said:

1 edition 30k was a magical time, and the original black books were of a level that GW is now INCAPABLE of making. They also managed to achieve the hard to get feeling of making everyone feel they got something in each book. Even if it was just 1 character or  unit or two.   3ed did nothing to wash the taste that i was a second class player in the games eyes that 2ed gave me.  Not in minis, rules or books. So between lukewarm rules, a dying local community and nothing from the game to make me excited i saved my money for things i would enjoy. 

I have no input on 3rd Edition since I haven’t picked up a 30K model since 1st, but I have to agree that 1st Edition was indeed such a special experience. My local game group was very heavily invested into it, we had a plethora of different factions / Legions, played everything from Zone Mortalis all the way up to massive games, and loved it. 
 

I will never forgive GW for abandoning that rule system for the pale shell that is their current direction of for essentially killing my local community due to it. 

[Razorblade]

15 hours ago, Shard of Magnus said:

Personally, I haven’t seen Line significantly change the way the local group builds lists…for the most part. The couple who liked to take only assault squads for compulsory slots in 2.0 being the exception + occasional rite of war change ups. I get this is an isolated local view and everyone’s experience is different. For us, of all the changes that have impacted the group’s enjoyment of HH, the line changes aren’t close to making the list of things complained about.

 

It likely would skew a battle if there was a major difference in # line units between the two players - I.e someone went heavy on line units or someone took no line units. However, I’m not absolutely certain of that between statuses, general effectiveness of line vs non-line units, and being in combat preventing being able to earn VP. It feels very different for sure. And the lack of options to give line to units that wouldn’t have it is still jarring compared to 2.0.

 

The limited missions and their design certainly don’t help the view of Line. There are situations where a significant VP lead can be quickly built (I also saw this happen in 2.0 although the # of VP didn’t make it stand out as much). Having 4 turns limits options to bridge the gap if one falls behind. Vanguard should create more options but the rules make it at best a lucky gamble to earn. Etc.

 

In the end this is another example of the extent of changes resulting in ill will and a general divide in the community. I’m not sure that fracture will ever heal or that the global HH community will recover passion for the game. I have generally enjoyed the 3.0 games I’ve played and know that biases my view. Like with 1.0 and 2.0, that doesn’t mean I agree or am happy with all the rules. Nor does it mean I feel everyone should feel the same!

I see how this would fly under the radar if everyone was already bringing tactical squads anyway. 

But this essentially just removes the possibility to run a full themed army all together. All Jump-Packs gone, all bikes gone, Pride of the Legion gone, every RoW focussed on making things troops, gone. Add to that the number of lists that no longer function because Recons, Command Squads, Assault Squads, Heralds, Inductii and Breachers lost line. Then remember that Despoilers got nerfed to hell for no reason, so while they've at least kept line, they're not exactly an enticing option. What you end up with is a tactical tax that this game has simply never had before. 

 

And the gap really does not need to be all that wide to significantly alter games. I've played a few games early after release and in some of them I was almost tabled but walked away with a comfortable victory because my opponent had insufficient line, meaning the game was pretty much over after a couple turns of my scoring. With how few objectives there are in the missions, the difference between one and two copies of line can already be game deciding.

[Stitch5000]

On 2/27/2026 at 10:57 PM, Gorgoff said:

Your statement definitely comes over as if it is an completely alien concept to you to not play an minmaxed army list and to actively avoid things which you see as broken. 

Not at all... Here's a situation. 

You have a DotR Herald with 1 W remaining on an Objective at the end of the game. You need one VP to win the game. You have the option to use the Desecrators rule (that you have been using all game) to increase the amount of VP that Herald scores, 

Do you use the Desecrators rule, even if it puts the win in jeopardy?

Of course you do. Then you bust the test and lose the remaining wound you have, don't score any victory points and loose by 1.

Your opponent says... Hahah, no that doesn't matter. GG. 

 

[Irate Khornate]

Gorgoff brought up something I hadn't thought of. How many groups saw a rise in players who have the WAAC mentality? How much is that mentality being normalized across the edition? I know some groups thrive off of it, but most suffer.

[Brofist]

Hard to say over here. The new edition didn't bring in anyone new 

 

The mainstream discord can get pretty WAACY. Hard to say if its 40k refugees that haven't yet been deprogrammed or something else. I will say, even 40k has a 'spam only 3 units' rule while the dick kicking event in gibraltar just had lists with 4+ spammed units. Those players have always been around though.

[TheTrans]

We had some pretty heinous, well not WAACers, but certainly people taking absolute dick kicker lists back in 1.0, but I feel in 1.0 like every faction had a few bull:cuss: things that could level the playing field. Each faction could touch each other faction up pretty well. Legion or faction rules usually took a bit to make work, or where quite specific. 

 

2.0 definitely saw some 40k refugees come across with the wrong mentality, factor in how binary so much of the game became and how smooth-brain faction 'traits' became which then forced an optimum build path, and the huuuuuge disparity in army power levels, 2.0 certainly seemed more huge wins/loses as opposed to games where both opponents could play. So 2.0 certainly had issues with ridiculously powerful army builds which took very little effort or thought, and a lot more 'well its in the book, so I'm gonna take it' mentalities. 

3.0... well I'll let you know if we have any events down here haha..