The bullet points are gone also, I think. Regarding what was noted above about Rom 3, propitiation was used in Rom 3 and elsewhere in the HCSB. It had a bullet point (which referred the reader to an appendix) in which the meaning of the term was given.
I wonder if the many textual and marginal notes will be retained? That was another thing that set the HCSB apart. The NET is the only translation I know of that had more notes.
The change to the more literal and traditional rendering of Psalm 1 (i.e. walk, stand, sit) is welcome.
HCSB: "How happy is the man who does not follow the advice of the wicked or take the path of sinners or join a group of mockers!"
CSB: "How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers!"
I never spent as much time with the HCSB as I wanted to. This is probably in part because no one I knew used it and because I've focused more on reading the KJV in recent years. Most churches and preachers I know, even Southern Baptists, use the NASB, ESV, KJV or NKJV instead.
Some have expressed the view that they basically aren't interested in switching to a version (i.e. as their "main" Bible) that sees several major changes within 10-15 years and which states in the preface that "each generation needs a fresh translation of the Bible in its own language." (A lot of the people who were already of that opinion stuck with the NIV (gender neutral language is today's language, like it or not) or were already using something like the NLT.) Thus, many of those who reacted against the changes to the NIV (or who only used it grudgingly in the first place) weren't interested in switching to a translation that from the outset stated that it would always be in a state of flux. This militates against memorization, etc. Whether or not we agree with the idea that a translation should use "elevated language" or should dispense with as many archaisms as possible, it seems clear to me that versions that use more pedestrian prose like the HCSB, the NIV (and to some extent even the NASB) aren't as easy to memorize because they are often simply less memorable. (That being said, the impression I got was that the HCSB was more striking or vivid than the NIV in the prophets and maybe some other places.)
I'm also hoping that Holman will come out with more black letter editions, which would be in keeping with dropping the capitalization of pronouns. There are interpretive issues with that as well, not to mention more serious issues such as encouraging the idea that the red letters are more inspired than the rest of the Bible.