3.0,failed or not

[Xenith]

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

I have read what people are saying, but we already know pretty well that Leadership alone will not do. The developers of this game have been pretty explicit about the fact that an elevated Ld stat unavoidably makes things that are supposed to be resistant to running away really good at casting psychic powers, for example.

 

Again, (and as @Captain Idaho has stated above) that's very applicable in a 10 model skirmish game, unneccessary granularity in a mass battle system, and slows the game down when we need mechanics to speed the game up. 

[Pacific81]

Its an interesting parrallel that many years ago I remember an article by Rick Priestley saying that they were going to reduce the different psychological factors of the Rogue Trader rules down to just 'LD' because of the model count increase from 1st ed/Rogue Trader to 2nd edition. 2nd ed 40k had a tiny fraction of the model count of modern HH!

Although there is every possibilty the writer of these rules, whoever they might be, was walking around in diapers when Priestley made that comment, and so the advice was missed. 

[Stitch5000]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

If that really was such an issue, a simple rule that "models without the command rule cannot pass their leadership to a unit they are accompanying, therefore such units would take a leadership test using the next highest available leadership score."

That rule does exist in the game already, as part of Unit Types.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat of points and counter-points because nobody is ever going to change their mind, but I find it amusing that the original tranche of gripes about HH3 were about how stripped back and lacking of "flavour" it was, and we've now moved on to finding it too in-depth. 

[Brofist]

5 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat of points and counter-points because nobody is ever going to change their mind, but I find it amusing that the original tranche of gripes about HH3 were about how stripped back and lacking of "flavour" it was, and we've now moved on to finding it too in-depth. 

Those people just bounced from the hobby or don't post anymore. It doesn't mean those gripes didn't go away. Like people hate on the Chaplain because a single high statline is pretty flavorless compared to what existed in previous editions.

[Captain Idaho]

5 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

I find it amusing that the original tranche of gripes about HH3 were about how stripped back and lacking of "flavour" it was, and we've now moved on to finding it too in-depth. 

 

It's a matter of mental load has been added to, but flavourful rules removed.

[Xenith]

On 1/13/2026 at 2:25 PM, Stitch5000 said:

I find it amusing that the original tranche of gripes about HH3 were about how stripped back and lacking of "flavour" it was, and we've now moved on to finding it too in-depth. 

 

Somehow GW managed to do both - they stripped back the fun/thematic (and simple) rules from the legions, things people like about the game, and added loads of depth and nuance to psychology and challenges, things that were an issue, but either needed making more relevant in the case of psychology, or speeding up, in the case of challenges. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:34 PM by Xenith
Typos on phone keyboard

[Gorgoff]

3ed is the fix for those problems GW put on the table with 2ed changes is my take nowadays. 

They still killed my HH group with 3ed. Some didn't like the new rules, some didn't line the vibe change, some didn't like a new edition after such a short span of time, most were a mix of these.

 

To me it was a lot of pros and cons.

 

They changed the FOC to allow more and different army compositions. Yeah

They force everyone to take several command units. Boo

They made yoinking units from other armies easier than ever for my AL. Yeah

They removed my AL Minitaur from the Liber. Boo

They added it again in the Legacy. Yeah

.... only for SA. Boo

The Overseer I bought for an SA allied contingent I own is now part of the core Liber. Yeah.

The Power Lance I gave him is now illegal for that unit. Boo

Solar Auxilia is now a lot better. Yeah

They removed Penal Legion Cohort, making mist of the models I already bought and build for SA illegal. Boo

The list goes on and on. 

 

Bottom line is I haven't looked st my legions since 3ed dropped because the took to much away and I started my Militia again. 

 

[Stitch5000]

15 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

It's a matter of mental load has been added to, but flavourful rules removed.

In terms of "mental load" what has really been added though? It's still exactly the same process to take a psychological stat check as it was to take a Leadership check. You just roll 2D6 and reference a number. In the trade-off we get a bunch more weapons that have been part of the IP forever, that are actually viable now and do slightly different things to different target units.

Granted, challenges are a little more complex but they are actually fun and dare I say it, "flavourful" compared to the old challenge process that was invariably a very flat experience almost every time. 

What in terms of "flavourful rules" has actually gone, that isn't implemented in a slightly different, probably more smoothly integrated way? I personally feel like a lot of the Legion's character is actually more accurately reflected by what we have. 

 

[Captain Idaho]

12 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

In terms of "mental load" what has really been added though? It's still exactly the same process to take a psychological stat check as it was to take a Leadership check. You just roll 2D6 and reference a number. In the trade-off we get a bunch more weapons that have been part of the IP forever, that are actually viable now and do slightly different things to different target units.

 

Because it's not just leadership, it's also willpower, cool and intelligence, we have 3 extra stats to keep track of. Added to that, each test against them from weapon effects result in 4 different effects on units. Then we add the weapons no longer just affect leadership but exclusively one of the 4 stats to test against, we have to keep track of even more.

 

So rather than keeping track of leadership values, weapons that affect leadership, their modifiers and being either broken or pinned for a total of 4 things, we now need to keep track of 16 things:

 

• Leadership, cool, intelligence or willpower.

• modifiers for each of those weapon effects.

• which weapons affect which stat but not others.

• results for each stat check, which are all different.

 

And this doesn't take into consideration that there are multiple rules in the game that address each individual stat or check and any weapons or attacks that might affect more than a single stat depending on use. Kraken Bolters for example can either have Panic or Suppressive at different modifiers, or neither but Breaching. So it was generous.

 

Just 1 rule change and we have 4 times the mental load. At least.

Edited Wednesday at 11:54 PM by Captain Idaho

[librisrouge]

The changes to psychology have been the biggest failure of the edition, imo. It slows down the game and I keep a cheat sheet nearby to remind myself of all status effects, what they test against, when that matters, etc. At this point, with admittedly only a few 3.0 games under my belt (can't find opponents), I would almost rather they just got rid of leadership all together.

[Brofist]

Personally, the biggest flop have been the 3 basic bitch missions heavily overvaluing line. 50% less content that's basically a copy paste. Talk about lack of flavor. Watch them try to sell us DLC this year with alternative ways to play :)

[Stitch5000]

16 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

Because it's not just leadership, it's also willpower, cool and intelligence, we have 3 extra stats to keep track of. Added to that, each test against them from weapon effects result in 4 different effects on units. Then we add the weapons no longer just affect leadership but exclusively one of the 4 stats to test against, we have to keep track of even more.

How many games have you played? (I'm not trying to use this as some kind of gotcha, but it really doesn't work out like that in my experience.) 95% of the time, you need to worry about one psychological stat per unit, and since "routed" overrides everything else, you just take a routed test first. You don't need to keep track of anything, because the value of the stat in question is only modified for the instance of the test being taken... The game comes with some great, useful tokens and a more-useful-than-ever reference sheet...

[Captain Idaho]

If a kraken Bolter fires at a Tactical squad, I have to keep track of Suppression or Panic, the different effects of either rule, their modifiers and the statline of cool and leadership respectively. Depending on which bolter rounds I'm using, that's a a different modifier too, against stats with different values.

 

So the mental load is there. And the thing about potential rules, you have to be aware of them even when they're not in use, since they very well might be next turn, or your opponent might do something as you can't be sure etc.

Edited 16 hours ago by Captain Idaho

[Pacific81]

I think I would probably put this game in the same category as Legions Imperialis, in that it is "for us, not for them."

If you live and breathe the game, play regularly and somehow managed to finish the rulebook without suffering a brain aneurism, I am sure things like 'mental load' reduce relatively. Someone with a young family, who has read what they think are the important parts of the rules and play once a month? Not a chance, sir. Unless you are prepared for a fun evening of being surrounded by rulebooks and getting most of it wrong.

 

I keep coming back to the image of my past of playing four hour sessions in my friend's attic until 2am, wearing dodgy knitwear and listening to the Smiths, not having to worry about getting up for work the next day. I would have absolutely adored the level of crunch and granular detail back then. Now it annoys me as I have played enough other games to know it is unnecessary; but perhaps it is a 'me' thing?

[Captain Idaho]

4 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

I keep coming back to the image of my past of playing four hour sessions in my friend's attic until 2am, wearing dodgy knitwear and listening to the Smiths, not having to worry about getting up for work the next day. I would have absolutely adored the level of crunch and granular detail back then. Now it annoys me as I have played enough other games to know it is unnecessary; but perhaps it is a 'me' thing?

 

I definitely feel ya on this. Days gone by, I'd breath the game and know every rule going and then some. I'd even be aware of Codex rules for armies I never played with or against.

 

Now I am someone who works, boxes, coaches boxing and has kids... knowing all the rules is a lot of graft and my brain just doesn't quite have the space.

 

To be clear, Heresy is still the game I'd choose over 40K. On a personal level I like the theme and there are many things about it that are cool. It just has some awful flaws that detract from it and for me to convince my casual playing friends it is beyond a challenge I can win with.

[Irate Khornate]

On 1/13/2026 at 1:33 PM, Brofist said:

Those people just bounced from the hobby or don't post anymore. It doesn't mean those gripes didn't go away. Like people hate on the Chaplain because a single high statline is pretty flavorless compared to what existed in previous editions.

Speak of the devil and he shall appear.

 

Yeah. They managed to both strip away flavor and make the rules so mind numbingly granular that it's like chewing on a burnt Splenda granola bar. Doesn't taste good, you have to chew it slow, and you know exactly how many grains there are because they all got stuck in your teeth. 

 

I have to agree with the sentiment about the rules being better for a skirmish game. It's how I felt when I called 3rd a bad mix of necromunda and 30k when everything was leaking.