3.0,failed or not

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Quite interesting video,more than interesting. In my personal opinion 3.0 it's not a failed edition,but very disssapointing at least for me, a wasted opportunity.

 

But what's your opinion,specially comparing previous editions?

[Corswain]

There are some very disappointing changes this edition, for me, the weapon options and Legacies fiasco in particular but it depends on how you measure success.

 

I've been a retailer for 20ish years so I would largely (although not exclusively) measure success or failure based on sales. I would imagine that GW will do exactly that, so regardless of how many of us feel or believe the product/game to be going, only GW will know and they might be extremely happy with it.

 

I've also used that product/game split very deliberately as it might be an enourmously unpopular game but still a very successful product line of miniatures.

 

Short version - maybe. But only GW knows and I don't think they're likely to tell us outside of one sentence in their financial report. 

[MDops]

I would hope there would be something coming out in the next shareholder report. I don't think (looking at the previous year) that they will get that granular in the reporting but i suppose getting an understanding of the sales for the last 6 months something could be gleaned.

[Valkyrion]

I'm not able to watch that video just yet, but all I can tell you is this;

HH2.0 boxed set starting contents not counting the HQ; 10 cataphractii terminators, 30 MK VI marines, Contemptor, Spartan

HH3.0 as above; 6 Saturnine Terminators, 30 MK II marines, Saturnine Dreadnought, Weapons Platform.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I bought the 2.0 boxed set four times. Four. One of those times will have been to make use of the weapon upgrade boxes and/or ebay, and another of them was to begin an eventually aborted project, but across the existence of 2.0, 120 marines, 4 contemptors, 4 spartans and 40 terminators crossed my path.

For HH3.0  I simply have the contents of the big box without any desire to buy more.

 

You could argue that I don't need to buy more because I already have a big chunk of infantry from the last edition, and you would be correct. But we all know that isn't how Horus Heresy players are and I'm looking forward to the Mk IV and V box as much as the rest of you and will thank you kindly for those extra marks no matter how needless they are!

The last box is one and done, it's simply not that useful, and I've had no need to buy more. 

[Cleon]

So locally yes, it's a complete failure as a game. We still have a number of people painting models and even buying models (although more slowly), but no one plays, we talk occasionally at trying to figure out a version 1, 1.5, 2 or try to fix 3, but that's harder than just playing the current game and we're all busy.

 

It's not one thing though, different people have different reasons why they aren't excited by it, for one it's the re-write of the army build mechanics, for another it's the vehicle and wound rules, another it's the re-imagining of the Mechanicum - For me it's the scoring and scenarios.

 

With everyone a bit turned off, no one is pushing to play it.

[LameBeard]

I’m sorry to be broken record here, but in case any of the designers are reading:

 

For me 3.0 was a failure simply because it arrived too soon. I’ve not bought it because I feel burned I didn’t get the value I expected out of £100 of 2.0 books. Looking from the outside, there are loads of ideas in 3.0 I like the look of. But I won’t be trying them, maybe I’ll come back for 4.0, maybe not.

[Lord Marshal]

Influencers still aren't done trying to milk that cow huh.

 

Overall I think it's an improvement; far from perfect, but that comes with the territory in any GW system and "playable but flawed" describes 95% of their rules anyway. I'm not saying that as an excuse on GW's behalf of anything mind you, just that I find it funny certain quarters who were loudly railing against 2.0 it's entire existence are now treating it as a sacred cow.

 

External and internal balance of 2.0 was a joke, and by comparison 3.0 is a massive improvement for non-Marine armies (except Custodes and Sisters but the jury is still out on them until they get their Liber). Vehicles are powerful but hardly dominating, infantry is broadly useful, Artificer Armour being consigned to hell was a much needed change, the 'PDF Armies' weren't waiting most of the edition to get their rules this time around and are at least intact, if not received more new stuff. I'm having far more fun in 3rd with my Solar Auxilia than I ever did in 2nd.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 04:57 PM by Lord Marshal

[Brofist]

Fail is probably a stretch, but as a TO I'm seeing a plummet in enthusiasm and attendance. People are playing, but less. Guys are still working on models, but mostly just for the hobby and not the game. Pre-registrations for next year's event are down 43% and I know from post-event and pre-event surveys that its due to the edition change.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Marshal said:

External and internal balance of 2.0 was a joke, and by comparison 3.0 is a massive improvement for non-Marine armies (except Custodes and Sisters but the jury is still out on them until they get their Liber). Vehicles are powerful but hardly dominating, infantry is broadly useful, Artificer Armour being consigned to hell was a much needed change, the 'PDF Armies' weren't waiting most of the edition to get their rules this time around and are at least intact, if not received more new stuff. I'm having far more fun in 3rd with my Solar Auxilia than I ever did in 2nd.

 

Sure, but 2.0 was literal abandonware. I feel that's where a lot of resentment comes from. They could have fixed the issues and still made money, but they chose to burn goodwill and sell us a totally new edition instead. That doesn't bode well for the future.

[No Foes Remain]

To preface, I haven't played any of 1.0 (though I've played a number of games in 40k 5th and 6th which the rules were based on) and haven't played any 3.0.

 

I don't believe it's a failure, I do believe it's a flop though.

 

2.0 wasn't the best system, a lot of stuff was nerfed from 1.0 but overall I thought it was the more balanced of the two and I've enjoyed making up forces on New Recruit to try out for different legions as well as a few different HQs for those legions.

 

3.0 seems to have better core rules, though myself and some members of my small gaming circle seem to think they made them overlly wordy to prevent people from interpreting them differently but have lead to that same result due to their wording. 

 

However. Those core rules are let down by the Astartes books which, in my opinion, have removed a lot of Legion flavour. Not just that but lack of options in general for all the units, leading down the route of 'not in the box, so not in the rules' that's in 40k which misses the entire bloody point of 30k. I think I've built about 10 or so HQs for not only my SoH and Terran Ultras but IF, RG, Sallies and others and out of them I can only use 1. Because I gave a Raven Guard Centurion/Optae twin lightning claws. Everyone else has two melee weapons and a bolt weapon, because the options were there so why wouldn't I? But 3.0 comes around and now the rest I can't use.

  It's fine saying 'just use them as count-as' but I don't want to, I built them based on the rules we've had which have stayed the same for 13 years so I'm going to use them that way which just means that I'm not moving onto 3.0.

 

Was 1.0 or 2.0 the better system? No, they were just different. But I think that 2.0 was the more stable one and the one my group are making our own house rules to fix it, though I am interested to see what Macca does with his Circle edition which seems to be the best bits of 1.0 and 2.0 melded into 1.5/1.75.

[Torbenos]

 

While I echo what is said above that the change of edition more or less put a hold on the local community, I think we've had maybe 5 games played since release and I've been in 4 of those, I am slowly coming around to the rules themselves. 

 

For me the negativity which was around the release was the worst I've seen in the online spaces in this hobby, it rather posioned the well I think and I had a number of local players decide they hated it before the game was even out based on leaks and people voicing their strong opinions. It's easy to be swept along with that, regardless of merit or not. As others have said I think the rules of themselves are fine, my biggest issue is with the Line rule, and how it makes scoring run away, and that the missions in the core book are subpar to my view.

 

But there is something to be said about the fact that I don't know anyone local who is excited to play it.

[N1SB]

So I just listened to this YouTube.  In case you're reading on your phone, this Hobbyist has very concrete observations based on 40+ games:

 

• No themed armies like the OLD Rites of War, like an all-Termies that can score, like in previous editions
• Missions are samey, Mission 3 is unplayable according to him (it's the one that "drains" VPs off Objectives)
• Terrain rules are terrible
• Clunky rules, especially during the Charge Phase

 

The biggest thing I agree with him on is how clunky the rules are, and yes, it's especially around the Charge Phase.  You got to add up your Initiative and Movement, look up the result on a table to Reposition, then you got this extra Shooting Phase of Volley Fire, then someone calls up a Challenge, then they got this Gambit they gotta read out AAAAAAAAH.

 

+++++

 

I'll take this opportunity to NOT talk about the financial report, except to say I 100% agree with you guys.

 

+++++

 

And nonetheless, it turns out in my local meta, this really seems like the most popular game in a long time.

 

I'll give you the short version why: the guys play these team games, yesterday they did 4 vs. 4.  Something with how flexible list-building is and how 1 of the guys summed it up, "The gap is smaller," meaning unlike 40k where there's absolute top tier units and rubbish units, the variance isn't THAT big between different units and Legions.  So team fun.

 

However, there is a huge asterisk: no one here's played the previous editions except the Warhammer Store Manager and me.

 

As for familiarity with the lore, only one other player then myself have read the novels...but we won't shut up about them.

[Pacific81]

On 11/15/2025 at 3:33 PM, LameBeard said:

I’m sorry to be broken record here, but in case any of the designers are reading:

 

For me 3.0 was a failure simply because it arrived too soon. I’ve not bought it because I feel burned I didn’t get the value I expected out of £100 of 2.0 books. Looking from the outside, there are loads of ideas in 3.0 I like the look of. But I won’t be trying them, maybe I’ll come back for 4.0, maybe not.

 

This is exactly my thoughts too. At least locally to me the hardest hit hasn't been because of the rules themselves, but because its such a fast refresh from last time around. Thankfully the legacies PDF reversed some of the more egregious changes and at least allows people to play with their toys - although I know there are still some exceptions to this. Heresy players dont generally like to play with grey plastic, built to the current meta, and the impact (and ill-will) I think is bigger because of this.

 

I'm hoping the rapid re-release was just because of a development team re-jig since 2.0 and the new guys have a firm philosophy in mind* which they now want to develop over the coming 4-5 years. But, we don't know this for sure as no-one is credited anymore. 

 

*Again, for any developers reading this, for the love of all things holy, employ an editor next time around! I'm getting through packs of tissues to cope from all the nosebleeds I get trying to read the damned rulebook.. :D

Edited Monday at 11:38 AM by Pacific81
Typo