Horus Heresy Rules Update

[Lord Marshal]

And it's not even Thursday!

 

PDF link.

[ThaneOfTas]

Vanguard change is definitely needed and nice to see.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Glad to see! Not sure why they didnt add that tweak to Vanguard, like, a year ago, but happy they got around to it eventually. I see Seekers also got their shot selector knocked down to Breaching (4+) and Master of Descent was changed to only be allowed to drop with other marines instead of Thallax. 

[lansalt]

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I don't understand how the wording of Vanguard now prevents the denial of scoring VPs by the target unit running away if they still need to be wiped out or Routed.

 

[Joe]

It's not the greatest FAQ in the world to be perfectly honest; and does look particularly awful when compared to the TOW updates. White Scars players are still out on the lamb when it comes to jetbikes, and none of the Legacies documents were touched - something that even Heresy 2E managed.

 

But this isn't massively surprising when you look at some of the new faces involved with the rules team for Heresy now.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

2 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

But this isn't massively surprising when you look at some of the new faces involved with the rules team for Heresy now.

I’m not sure I’m aware of there being a new team? Who is in the mix now?

[Valkyrion]

35 minutes ago, lansalt said:

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I don't understand how the wording of Vanguard now prevents the denial of scoring VPs by the target unit running away if they still need to be wiped out or Routed.

 

 

Unless I'm misreading it, provided the opponent was within 3" at the start of your turn, you gain the VP - so the opponent can't React away and deny you VP, I think is the point.

[lansalt]

12 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

 

Unless I'm misreading it, provided the opponent was within 3" at the start of your turn, you gain the VP - so the opponent can't React away and deny you VP, I think is the point.

But the target unit still needs to be destroyed or routed for the attacking unit to score the VP, right? So how does that solve the issue when a unit repositioning makes it avoid meele combat? Volley fire is usually not enough to achieve that, right?

[RolandTHTG]

11 minutes ago, lansalt said:

But the target unit still needs to be destroyed or routed for the attacking unit to score the VP, right? So how does that solve the issue when a unit repositioning makes it avoid meele combat? Volley fire is usually not enough to achieve that, right?

Previously, if you knew a unit with only a couple models on the objective was going to be destroyed, you could reposition those couple models off the objective and not give up VPs. 

[Lord Marshal]

15 minutes ago, lansalt said:

But the target unit still needs to be destroyed or routed for the attacking unit to score the VP, right? So how does that solve the issue when a unit repositioning makes it avoid meele combat? Volley fire is usually not enough to achieve that, right?

 

Because before if it moved even an inch off the objective due to Reposition, it didn't matter what you did - you weren't getting any VP for that. Whereas now you can still shoot it as you've still got your Shooting Phase to go, or charge it. Before if you did that it was already invalid for giving up any VP.

 

Reposition can still make the charge more difficult, mind you - but that was always part of it's intended use anyway.

 

 

Edited Monday at 12:54 PM by Lord Marshal

[MARK0SIAN]

The article and the FAQ don’t really marry up well. “We’ve collected a vast amount of feedback.” Then they release an update with only one real notable change. 
 

Nothing to address the myriad of complaints about list building and a lack of flavour in the Legion rules. Not sure where they were getting this feedback from but it’s not anywhere I’ve seen people post their feedback. 

[Xenith]

8 hours ago, lansalt said:

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I don't understand how the wording of Vanguard now prevents the denial of scoring VPs by the target unit running away if they still need to be wiped out or Routed.

 

 

It's not the biggest change, you still have to kill a unit, but it's gone from killing a unit that moved off an objective awarding no vanguard points to awarding full vanguard.

 

Weird seeing the change to vanguard that was made in the ZM book. Overall nothing game changing but some good QoL errata 

[Stitch5000]

21 hours ago, Joe said:

But this isn't massively surprising when you look at some of the new faces involved with the rules team for Heresy now.

You just do a drive-by like that and leave everyone hanging!?

Edited Tuesday at 08:52 AM by Stitch5000

[Wugo_Heaving]

19 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

The article and the FAQ don’t really marry up well. “We’ve collected a vast amount of feedback.” Then they release an update with only one real notable change. 
 

Nothing to address the myriad of complaints about list building and a lack of flavour in the Legion rules. Not sure where they were getting this feedback from but it’s not anywhere I’ve seen people post their feedback. 

 

It's actually good to know that there are some very thorough playtesters out there, catching obscure interactions, wording etc rather than just moaning about the Legions, which anyone can do. This is a brief errata and faq clarification, that's all.

 

There are still some very obvious changes needed, but those are primarily the terrain rules (regarding charging within terrain etc) and wargear (chainswords, power swords etc) which just don't fall under the remit of this document.

 

So... what does this tell us? No, not that GW 'hate the Legions' or whatever knee-jerk childish people spout, but likely that the next 'edition' will be similar to what  has happened with the Old World, a "3.5" collection of the erratas along with the bigger changes, (i.e. terrain, a few pages for armoury updates of all the Factions perhaps) printed officially to buy in one book. As for the Legions, we've yet to see any Legion-specific units in plastic. That is bound to be the focus of any big-box releases in the future to fill in for an edition update, and will more than likely come with Journal/mini-Libers with a selection of Rites of War, Detachments, and updated rules for units where applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:43 PM by Grotsmasha
Replaced Swear Dodge with Emoji

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, Wugo_Heaving said:

 

It's actually good to know that there are some very thorough playtesters out there, catching obscure interactions, wording etc rather than just moaning about the Legions, which anyone can do. This is a brief errata and faq clarification, that's all.

 

There are still some very obvious changes needed, but those are primarily the terrain rules (regarding charging within terrain etc) and wargear (chainswords, power swords etc) which just don't fall under the remit of this document.

 

So... what does this tell us? No, not that GW 'hate the Legions' or whatever knee-jerk childish people spout, but likely that the next 'edition' will be similar to what  has happened with the Old World, a "3.5" collection of the erratas along with the bigger changes, (i.e. terrain, a few pages for armoury updates of all the Factions perhaps) printed officially to buy in one book. As for the Legions, we've yet to see any Legion-specific units in plastic. That is bound to be the focus of any big-box releases in the future to fill in for an edition update, and will more than likely come with Journal/mini-Libers with a selection of Rites of War, Detachments, and updated rules for units where applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t understand how you can be happy with this after more than a year of the edition being out.  It also shouldn’t have taken thorough play testers going through with a fine tooth comb to realise there was a problem with vanguard. Vanguard has been rubbish since day one. They even changed its effects for zone mortalis because they knew it was terrible and the planning for that journal must’ve been at least 6 months ago, probably longer. It shouldn’t have taken this long to get this kind of fix. 
 

I disagree that the big changes needed are primarily terrain rules and wargear changes. List building is needlessly complex and needs a change. The legions lacking flavour is not a minor problem that can just wait on the slow timetable of rolling out legion plastics with journals. The problem is deeper than that, it’s that the rules don’t have any mechanism for adding that flavour since they changed rites of war.  Legion flavour shouldn’t just come from unique units. Under the old system you could run a legion force with no unique units and it could still feel like a flavourful force thanks to the legion rules and the rites of war. The current system doesn’t do that. 
 

To hype this faq as having taken on loads of feedback then not address some of the most common issues that people have complained about seems contradictory. 

[Haranin]

On 10/12/2026 at 8:38 AM, lansalt said:

But the target unit still needs to be destroyed or routed for the attacking unit to score the VP, right? So how does that solve the issue when a unit repositioning makes it avoid meele combat? Volley fire is usually not enough to achieve that, right?

 

Shoot it with other units till there are a few marines left, then finish it with vanguard

 

[Gorgoff]

On 10/13/2026 at 6:26 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

I don’t understand how you can be happy with this after more than a year of the edition being out.

 

People demanded vanguard to be actual usable.

It is now.

People wanted to know how the line of sight works.

We do know now.

People wanted the area terrain rules to be changed.

They kinda did.

Granted heavy terrain is still nonsense but the other versions are at least workable now. 

It is ok to be happy about that being all addressed.

 

On 10/13/2026 at 6:26 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

 It also shouldn’t have taken thorough play testers going through with a fine tooth comb to realise there was a problem with vanguard. Vanguard has been rubbish since day one. They even changed its effects for zone mortalis because they knew it was terrible

 

You dont know that.

Maybe they though vanguard is too good in that environment. We all saw the change as a sign that they saw their error and fixed it but I don't think so.

I think they wanted to just do something unique for ZM.

 

On 10/13/2026 at 6:26 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

 

I disagree that the big changes needed are primarily terrain rules and wargear changes. List building is needlessly complex and needs a change.

 

Expecting them to change one of the corner stones of the game in a FAQ is a folly. That's a thing for a new edition.

On 10/13/2026 at 6:26 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

The legions lacking flavour is not a minor problem that can just wait on the slow timetable of rolling out legion plastics with journals. The problem is deeper than that, it’s that the rules don’t have any mechanism for adding that flavour since they changed rites of war.  Legion flavour shouldn’t just come from unique units.

 

Same here.

 

On 10/13/2026 at 6:26 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

To hype this faq as having taken on loads of feedback then not address some of the most common issues that people have complained about seems contradictory. 

They hype everything they bring out. 

You should know that at this point.

You will never see something like "Well, the edition suck, but at least we now Patch the more gleaming rule holes for now." 

 

I for once like that they patched up these holes. That was more than I hoped for.

 

 

 

Still gonna wait this edition out and see what 4th edition will bring to the table. ;)

 

Edited Thursday at 05:44 PM by Gorgoff

[Corswain]

On 10/13/2026 at 5:22 AM, MARK0SIAN said:

The article and the FAQ don’t really marry up well. “We’ve collected a vast amount of feedback.” Then they release an update with only one real notable change. 
 

Nothing to address the myriad of complaints about list building and a lack of flavour in the Legion rules. Not sure where they were getting this feedback from but it’s not anywhere I’ve seen people post their feedback. 

By the time they address all the feedback they're basically writing a new edition. I think the FAQ is just to limp them across the line before 4th.

[sarabando]

8 hours ago, Corswain said:

By the time they address all the feedback they're basically writing a new edition. I think the FAQ is just to limp them across the line before 4th.

almost like a 3 year cycle is counter productive to a good game. 

 

Im happy the game is getting any support but these changes dont change anything that i have issues with this edition.