State of the Union (Heresy)

[Corswain]

Rotate the right arm down a bit, then give him the sword and MK VI helmet from the 40k Dark Angels upgrade sprue

Exactly what I was thinking with the arm. It would be a little more natural, I think. I was thinking Alpha Legion helmet though......

The Ravenwing sprues will have some great bits for Heresy MKVI.

 

The head doesn't work for a Praetor for me but it might work beautifully for a Librarian for those ignoring the Edict.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I was looking at the force org charts, is there a way to bring more than 6 troops choices? I kinda wanna build 2 3500pt forces to fight each other, but I want lots of troops, 6 troops choices seems light for a 3.5k game, but crusade is the most troops choices I could see of any force org?

3500 is the soft cap of the game system. Its not really designed to scale past that point level and the FOC was intended to be replaced with apocalypse. In the rules for 2nd, they have the same caveats about intended points, but say to just tweak the rules to suit the game level.

[Petitioner's City]

Given earlier discussion, it is possibly worth posting this old article by Jervis, given Fanatic was where Bligh did his early work (on Necromunda, with John French). Handily shared on Reddit today, but struck me of the recent discussion of "is heresy really a narrative game?":

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea, Jervis having contempt for competitive players is nothing new. People have been calling him out on it for at least 8 years.

 

He just seems bitter that Warhammer went from a DM'd experience with a lot of roleplaying elements to the mid third style of pickup game. It also just never occupied the niche of historical gaming where unfair scenarios are...the point.

[wildweasel]

I was looking at the force org charts, is there a way to bring more than 6 troops choices? I kinda wanna build 2 3500pt forces to fight each other, but I want lots of troops, 6 troops choices seems light for a 3.5k game, but crusade is the most troops choices I could see of any force org?

 

When you say two forces to fight each other, who are you mainly planning to be playing with?

[bushman101]

I was looking at the force org charts, is there a way to bring more than 6 troops choices? I kinda wanna build 2 3500pt forces to fight each other, but I want lots of troops, 6 troops choices seems light for a 3.5k game, but crusade is the most troops choices I could see of any force org?

I think I saw a RoW on Discord that allowed you to take Troops in Elite and Fast slots. Take it with a grain of salt though (Stormwing?) Edited April 14, 2022 by bushman101

[Noserenda]

Our group just gives you another FOC when you run out of troops, afaik its only been relevant to my militia army with its ludicrously cheap troops and HQs, marines and the like run out of points first.

Could be a problem for pure Sisters too i guess but i tend to run a bunch of knights in huge games.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Yes I have always seen it that you can roll over into a second force org if you max the first. But I kind of like the limitations, and feel like the anything goes approach of all the various detachments in 9th is too much for me to handle.

[Marshal Mittens]

 

 

I was looking at the force org charts, is there a way to bring more than 6 troops choices? I kinda wanna build 2 3500pt forces to fight each other, but I want lots of troops, 6 troops choices seems light for a 3.5k game, but crusade is the most troops choices I could see of any force org?

When you say two forces to fight each other, who are you mainly planning to be playing with?

Friends, but not all will have heresy army's. I come from historicals, so I'm no stranger to painting both sides of a conflict. I also like the mental image of a LOT of tactical marines maneuvering on the field. Seems fun and thematic.

[Corswain]

I also like the mental image of a LOT of tactical marines maneuvering on the field. Seems fun and thematic.

It sounds great but after about 30 tac marines it loses it's appeal a bit and you start coveting your neighbours Sicaran. :)

[LameBeard]

Given that it could be 20 tactical marines per squad, I salute your ambition: 20 x 6 x 2 = more models than I will paint this edition - and that’s just your troops!

[Petitioner's City]

Yea, Jervis having contempt for competitive players is nothing new. People have been calling him out on it for at least 8 years.

 

He just seems bitter that Warhammer went from a DM'd experience with a lot of roleplaying elements to the mid third style of pickup game. It also just never occupied the niche of historical gaming where unfair scenarios are...the point.

I think "contempt" is rather ott, and misreading what Jervis actually said in this article:

 

 

...or others. Fortunately since the early 2000s there have been evolution in tourneys, but still, it's about competing "evenly", right?

 

His point in this article was to be creative, to go off-piste, to write things that are story or idea-driven, not limited to the artificial idea of mirrored points and the idea things must be "balanced". It's a model that Alan, Andy, John, Neil, Anuj and others put in each black book, with much playtesting of those campaigns - heresy, like Badab before it, started and was born from narrative. Indeed it is a particular story given gaming form.

 

And thus we can think about it as a gaming system as more than just 3000 point mirror matches, which X has the best stats, etc. Nothing salty about that, it seems very Heresy to do :)

Edited April 15, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's not misreading. I understand he claims he's not against tournament play, or even points, but the sum of his (multiple) articles on the subject paint a different picture. He fundamentally does not like even games that use a consistent metric to measure victory.

 

What's the "worst excesses of the tournament system"? Well, his example of TOs curbing that "excess", is by making a unique mission for each table. He then mocks people who think that's unfair. In a tournament. And that's just from the snipped part of the whole article. The guy does not understand the appeal of tournaments and pickup games, straight up.

 

I'm going to trot out the story of the miserable narrative Heresy event I went to a couple of years ago.

• No one knew what the missions were until ~10 minutes before we started playing.
• It used non-standard scoring.
• It used asymmetric deployment zones. 
• It used non-standard army deployment and first turn determination.
• It increasingly penalized Traitor players as it went on (the EO even decided to penalize them a bit more mid event).

Jervis would have loved it.

 

Everyone playing it, did not; including the guys who had participated in previous narrative events run by the same EO. People don't mind asymmetric win condition, different point level, narrative games when they know what they're actually signing up for. They do mind it when they get surprised with the information, payed to participate, and are left with a sense of frustration at the unfairness. 

[Petitioner's City]

But that's a singular - and indeed mismanaged, or miscommunicated - circumstance, and EOs can make mistakes. Not every instance will be that, indeed most won't.

 

I rather like a lot of what you describe about it, less the penalisation thing (there are fun ways to make that happen, but I feel it requires a more consentual context like in a necromunda campaign of ganging up on leaders), but if done well, that certainly sounds like it could have been really involving!

 

I know we want different things, that's ok. Glad you tried something out even if not to your taste.

[Bung]

It's not misreading. I understand he claims he's not against tournament play, or even points, but the sum of his (multiple) articles on the subject paint a different picture. He fundamentally does not like even games that use a consistent metric to measure victory.

 

What's the "worst excesses of the tournament system"? Well, his example of TOs curbing that "excess", is by making a unique mission for each table. He then mocks people who think that's unfair. In a tournament. And that's just from the snipped part of the whole article. The guy does not understand the appeal of tournaments and pickup games, straight up.

 

I'm going to trot out the story of the miserable narrative Heresy event I went to a couple of years ago.

• No one knew what the missions were until ~10 minutes before we started playing.
• It used non-standard scoring.
• It used asymmetric deployment zones. 
• It used non-standard army deployment and first turn determination.
• It increasingly penalized Traitor players as it went on (the EO even decided to penalize them a bit more mid event).

Jervis would have loved it.

 

Everyone playing it, did not; including the guys who had participated in previous narrative events run by the same EO. People don't mind asymmetric win condition, different point level, narrative games when they know what they're actually signing up for. They do mind it when they get surprised with the information, payed to participate, and are left with a sense of frustration at the unfairness. 

 

Your experience.

Made the same with private 40k Events. Something like that can happen.

 

But i can tell you why people dislike tournament play.

 

Playing against the same army more than 2 times. The last tourney i visited in the time of 4th Ed mad eme play against the same list 4 times (Chaos with 2 Lash princes and 9 Kyborgs)

It was the most boring experience of organised gaming events i ever visited.

 

And be the attitude some players have or develop when there is something to win, which makes the experiencd extrem unfunny.

 

Differnt point of view, but i would ever a prefer a well organized narrative event than anything with a tournament label.

[SkimaskMohawk]

You're missing the point I was trying to make.

 

Not that narrative-style, asymmetry is bad. But it has to be done properly for everyone participating to enjoy it.

 

Just like you go into DnD and historicals knowing that the game isn't going to be "fair", and is driven by a narrative (or historical) premise, narrative 40k relies on that mutual understanding from the get go. It's like having a mid-Crusade army in 9th in a matched pickup game.

 

The reason points and standard missions ("fair" systems) exist is basically short form of the narrative agreement for strangers. Both sides know what they're signing up for and can reasonably expect. Tournaments add the caveat of "it's a measurement of skill at winning the game" to that short form.

 

You can't have that agreement system surprisingly undermined; it creates frustration. It's like if you set up a narrative campaign and someone just brought a tournament army and refused to really go along with the themes of the campaign. Their opponents would get very frustrated. That's basically Jervis mocking people who want consistent missions in tournament round.

 

He doesn't like fair systems. He doesn't care to understand why they exist. Age of Sigmar didn't have any fair systems on release, it included lots of RPG elements. Its design was headed by Jervis. It failed.

Edited April 15, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[BitsHammer]

According to James Hewitt who helped launch AoS the lack of points systems was from the management as there were competing visions on how to design the game coming down from above in a game of management telephone, so Jervis hardly deserves full blame.

 

That said he did invent Blood Bowl which is intentionally asymmetrical.

[dicebod]

I also think we're losing the thread a bit on what I'd guess most folks mean here "narrative."

 

I think when people say that heresy is a game with a "narrative bent," that doesn't mean the correct way to play it is asymmetrically or in custom scenarios. 99% of the games of heresy I've played have been from the 6 matched play (for lack of a better term) missions at a set point value.

 

What it does mean is that the average game in the average meta is maybe a bit less cuttthroat than the 40k equivalent. Even if something as powerful as the 9 voidweaver list in 40k existed in 30k, the 30k culture is such that you probably would not see it as much as you would in that game. It's just not in the general heresy player zeitgeist.

[Petitioner's City]

You're missing the point I was trying to make.

 

Not that narrative-style, asymmetry is bad. But it has to be done properly for everyone participating to enjoy it.

 

Just like you go into DnD and historicals knowing that the game isn't going to be "fair", and is driven by a narrative (or historical) premise, narrative 40k relies on that mutual understanding from the get go. It's like having a mid-Crusade army in 9th in a matched pickup game.

 

The reason points and standard missions ("fair" systems) exist is basically short form of the narrative agreement for strangers. Both sides know what they're signing up for and can reasonably expect. Tournaments add the caveat of "it's a measurement of skill at winning the game" to that short form.

 

You can't have that agreement system surprisingly undermined; it creates frustration. It's like if you set up a narrative campaign and someone just brought a tournament army and refused to really go along with the themes of the campaign. Their opponents would get very frustrated. That's basically Jervis mocking people who want consistent missions in tournament round.

 

He doesn't like fair systems. He doesn't care to understand why they exist. Age of Sigmar didn't have any fair systems on release, it included lots of RPG elements. Its design was headed by Jervis. It failed.

 

 

According to James Hewitt who helped launch AoS the lack of points systems was from the management as there were competing visions on how to design the game coming down from above in a game of management telephone, so Jervis hardly deserves full blame.

 

That said he did invent Blood Bowl which is intentionally asymmetrical.

 

Just so Skimask can read it, the link to that interview is here. It also covers Betrayal at Calth, Burning of Prospero, and AT, which Hewitt also wrote, so definitely worth reading from a heresy perspective too.

 

Also a later conversation about balance and emotional responses is very good too!

 

Finally, a lovely source to go back to is Alan Bligh's blog. It's just interesting to see that one preferred way to play 30K was in campaigns:

 

 

Notable Games involving Models In No Particular Order:

Even more than 2014, 2015 was about the small painted models, and no contest….

• [Most Played by a hideous amount] Horus Heresy-Age of Darkness 30K & 40k No surprise as the day job accounts for a ton of games played of course! But also some excellent ‘for-fun’ games including a mini-campaign day with my friend Mr John French (which was one of the highlights of the year’s games)

 

 

 

Warhammer 40,000 –Horus Heresy: (Tabletop) –quite apart from the work stuff, I’m playing in a cracking mini-campaign with my estimable friend Mr John French is currently ongoing, all for the fun rather than work and I can safely say it’s been glorious so far!

 

 

 

Well this Saturday saw a thoroughly excellent day of gaming between myself and the estimable Mr John French. It was a purely for fun (not work related!) Horus Heresy mini-campaign -the first part of it at any rate- The Battle of Gilead no less.

 

Not always, there is this lovely story of a quick game with Andy Hoare from March 2015 or a game against Paul Rudge in 2014,  that showed pick up games were had, as well as playtesting from the early days throughout.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[SkimaskMohawk]

I did read it.

 

Jervis was the lead and worked on the rules behind closed doors. That closed room also had the rest of higher ups like Merrett and blanche. He was a member of the management team.

 

And yeah Hewitt says that Jervis was pressured, but a classic management technique to sell hard news is to blame other people. The fact that so much aligns with Jervis' design philosophy but "he was made to do it" is frankly unbelievable.

[spessmarine]

I also think we're losing the thread a bit on what I'd guess most folks mean here "narrative."

 

I think when people say that heresy is a game with a "narrative bent," that doesn't mean the correct way to play it is asymmetrically or in custom scenarios. 99% of the games of heresy I've played have been from the 6 matched play (for lack of a better term) missions at a set point value.

 

What it does mean is that the average game in the average meta is maybe a bit less cuttthroat than the 40k equivalent. Even if something as powerful as the 9 voidweaver list in 40k existed in 30k, the 30k culture is such that you probably would not see it as much as you would in that game. It's just not in the general heresy player zeitgeist.

Yeah, a matter of vibes.

Less meta-chasing or netlist, less emphasis on just raw optimization. So basically as you said, less cutthroat.

[Petitioner's City]

I did read it.

 

Jervis was the lead and worked on the rules behind closed doors. That closed room also had the rest of higher ups like Merrett and blanche. He was a member of the management team.

 

And yeah Hewitt says that Jervis was pressured, but a classic management technique to sell hard news is to blame other people. The fact that so much aligns with Jervis' design philosophy but "he was made to do it" is frankly unbelievable.

 

Do you think you maybe have some conviction bias, here? The higher ups in this instance ("this imposing upper team" dictating to the rules team, including JJ, about points and bases) are the actual company management. Not the "rules writing team" or "design team", but the people between the rules team and Kirby/Rowntree (this is a group of people Priestley also blames for interfering with games design...), which is filtered down:

 

 

 

And they came back. And I think the problem was kind of a… the telephone game. Basically,  to give an example of the problem, a manager on high gets offered a banana and says “I don’t fancy eating that banana”. The next manager, one rung down from them, who wants to be seen to be doing a good job says “oh, my boss does not like eating bananas, so I’ll stop sending bananas his way.” It might have been because that particular banana wasn’t what he wanted, or he wasn’t in the mood for a banana, but it results in all bananas being embargoed. And it carries on. “Top boss doesn’t like fruit!” says the next manager down, “Well, let’s not produce anything with fruit.” Then eventually it’s “So, the manager at the top doesn’t like eating food, never send food his way.” 

It was a tense time, lots of pressure, and everyone was trying to please the person above them a little bit too much. From what I can tell it’s not quite as much of an issue these days. But what it meant was that if Top Manager at the top said “That rule is really colourful, and makes people play the game in a different way that’s not just rolling dice, that’s really cool”, that then trickles down to the rules team being told to add more silly rules, and it ends up with someone in the team going through all the compendiums replacing some rules that were more like “+1 to hit” with “+1 to hit… if it’s raining outside!”.

 

 

 

So General’s Handbook was written after a change of management. I always see it attributed to Tom Kirby leaving, but I always think it was more about the other people who  left around the same time as Tom. Tom was so high up that he didn’t have much of an impact. He was a couple of levels above the Top Boss who said he didn’t want a banana, and he was sitting elsewhere doing other things. But when he left, several others left about the same time, and new blood came in.  And the great GW pendulum swung as hard as it could to the left and it went from being a game about narrative to being “Oh wait, gamers like playing games, right?”. And so what you ended up with was people like Pete Foley took over the studio, he’s a long-time tournament player, and he pulled it back towards something that would appeal to the gamers. Personally, in my opinion he’s taken it too far that way with 40k 8th edition, but hey, you know, the pendulum swingeth ever onwards.

 

 

Anyway, it's probably off-topic since JJ wasn't involved in heresy, but this is quite a loaded way to read something - "it feeds my view that JJ clearly hated competitive gaming and Hewitt must be lying; it was all Jervis's fault!". 

 

Anyway, it's been nice discussing this, but I think we each have irreconcilable opinions when it comes to this - thank you for sharing :)

[SkimaskMohawk]

I never said Hewitt is lying...

 

For all the accusations of bias and jumping to conclusions, you think you could read my posts properly.

[Noserenda]

Could we not use Alan Bligh as a sock puppet too? Admittedly this is a fairly reasonable example (Though id argue you are mostly quoting him saying he likes playing games with a close friend rather than much about the type of game) but its something some of the Heresy community in particular have used appallingly in the past and a couple of his friends in particular have spoken out against it.

[BitsHammer]

On a different note, I appreciate seeing more Blanche in the HH with that helmetless crest.