A shift from Historical Wargaming to Casual Wargaming

[lansalt]

I'm going to be the discordant voice here, and say that there's no point to the Horus Heresy game if one doesn't make the effort to make a lore-accurate force that uses the aesthetics of 30k and avoids the 40k look as much as possible. This doesn't mean that there's no room for creativity or unusual stuff when doing a new army for the game, it just means that those creative takes need to be in the spirit of the 30k setting instead of just for using anachronistic stuff. The aesthetics of Blackshields are a good example of what I mean.

I think a lot of this push for 40k stuff in 30k comes from players's impatience for key kits and bits currently unavaliable or difficult to get. I guess in GW's mind it makes sense to release a army in a box set like AoD and then later drip feeding new weapons, units and vehicles. But people do not want to wait and slowly built their armies, they want all their kits at the same time.

Using proxies and old 40k models, etc. for testing, learning, or trying the game with newbies is fine to me. There's no need to be unreasonable, and everyone needs to start somewhere. But one should be always aiming for the 30k look and feel. Otherwise one may well play an old 40k edition if one doesn't care for the pseudo-historical part of the game.

Edited August 10, 2022 by lansalt

[Dont-Be-Haten]

35 minutes ago, lansalt said:

I'm going to be the discordant voice here, and say that there's no point to the Horus Heresy game if one doesn't make the effort to make a lore-accurate force that uses the aesthetics of 30k and avoids the 40k look as much as possible. This doesn't mean that there's no room for creativity or unusual stuff when doing a new army for the game, it just means that those creative takes need to be in the spirit of the 30k setting instead of just for using anachronistic stuff. The aesthetics of Blackshields are a good example of what I mean.

I think a lot of this push for 40k stuff in 30k comes from players's impatience for key kits and bits currently unavaliable or difficult to get. I guess in GW's mind it makes sense to release a army in a box set like AoD and then later drip feeding new weapons, units and vehicles. But people do not want to wait and slowly built their armies, they want all their kits at the same time.

Using proxies and old 40k models, etc. for testing, learning, or trying the game with newbies is fine to me. There's no need to be unreasonable, and everyone needs to start somewhere. But one should be always aiming for the 30k look and feel. Otherwise one may well play an old 40k edition if one doesn't care for the pseudo-historical part of the game.

I don't think that was a discordant voice. I agree with the sentiment. We also want to help new players and cultivate the hobby. 

Here's an example, two brothers came into my local GW 2 weeks back looking for Horus Heresy stuff (they are brand new to warhammer). Outside of AoD there isn't really much you can actually purchase that isn't out of stock.

I explained what 40k models could be brought to the games without anyone making much fuss. I.e. Mars pattern rhino chasis, drop pods, and what some believe is acceptable as "converted" dread claw drop pods alongside land speeders etc including the bunker that was snuck into the heresy .pdf

 

[de Selby]

I'm not really playing at the moment but my take is I would prefer both armies on the tabletop to at least try and be heresy era armies. That covers a lot of stuff, including, say, building a whole truescale heresy army out of converted primaris with no HH parts, but it doesn't cover just using your 40k collection with heresy rules. I have 40k marines too, there's a whole other game for them. We can play that. I'd make an exception for just trying out the 30k rule set with proxies.

On the other hand I am not worrying about matching Mk 2-6 armour marks to a particular point in the history, and I am not matching standard colour schemes. I just painted some Thousand Sons in burgundy and bone white.  They all have bare heads because I want them to look as different from my 40k TS as possible. I say it's a legion scheme, not the legion scheme. Some people might not be happy.

I'm avoiding any use of mk7 parts or later. Having said that, I have a spare Space Marine Heroes sergeant in Mk7 and I am seriously considering painting him as a legion sergeant in 'artificer' armour. Not sure if this is amusing or eye-rolling. Everyone will draw a line differently.

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

I'm going to be the discordant voice here, and say that there's no point to the Horus Heresy game if one doesn't make the effort to make a lore-accurate force that uses the aesthetics of 30k and avoids the 40k look as much as possible.

Maybe playing the game is the point of the game and it's rules? 

There's arguments about how fun the games are with unpainted/discordant lists, but in all my time playing Warhammer, the only games that were ruined by poor modelling/painting were where you couldn't tell what weapons/models were supposed to represent what. And one of those was actually against a beautifully painted and converted, thematic, adeptus mechanicus army.

The point of the game is to play a mission and follow the rules for the models on the table; make use of tactics and positioning to gain advantages.

Like, what does "avoid the look of 40k as much as possible" even mean? Do siege-era word bearers look substantially different than chaos space Marines? The art prints have them all in baroque armour, with stylised daemon-helmets and fiery glow and runes. How about death guard? Emperor's children? How does a 40k rubric look substantially different from a thousand son veteran; how about a scarab terminator? How about ultramarines at calth who were described and shown in the art prints as wearing parade gear, plus they have units like the suzerains; do they look substantially different in terms of bling from 40k marines?

Its just subjective nonsense that discards the lore it tries to adhere to.

 

[lansalt]

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Maybe playing the game is the point of the game and it's rules? [...] The point of the game is to play a mission and follow the rules for the models on the table; make use of tactics and positioning to gain advantages.

You could say that about any wargame. But people choose specific ones because the setting they're based on. Games like Bolt Action, SW Legion, 40k, and 30k all offer different experiences due to not only their rules, but specifically because their ambientation. And that's not even talking about the arguments about 40k rules having always been serviceable at best, and how much better are other rulesets out there in pure crunching/sim terms. People began playing 30k because of its aesthetics and lore when it was just a 40k supplement.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Like, what does "avoid the look of 40k as much as possible" even mean?

 It means literally that, and what FW deliberately did with its art direction during more than a decade. From all those armour marks, vehicle patterns, different units and their markings, legion subcultures, etc. to even avoiding 30k lore-accurate 40k units in 30k to keep both ranges separate (SA instead of guardsmen, no skitarii, Custodes bikes and terminators...). I don't agree with all the decisions they took, but it's undeniable that it has been the guiding principle of the HH game design since the start to today.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Do siege-era word bearers look substantially different than chaos space Marines? The art prints have them all in baroque armour, with stylised daemon-helmets and fiery glow and runes.

Yes, some of them were warped and chaosy but they still used pre-VII armour marks and were mostly normal legionaries.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

How about death guard?

Siege-era DG wasn't yet as warped as their 40k version despite being already damned. The SoT books mention how they slowly begin their transformation after their fall.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Emperor's children?

Ironically the EC is the legion that should already be the closest to their 40k version going by the events of Angel Exterminatus and the Siege. The nice purple guys from the rulebooks are the Isstvan-era version that were gone after that.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

How does a 40k rubric look substantially different from a thousand son veteran; how about a scarab terminator?

Neither should have the extreme warped trim and Tzeench icons of the 40k models.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

How about ultramarines at calth who were described and shown in the art prints as wearing parade gear, plus they have units like the suzerains; do they look substantially different in terms of bling from 40k marines?

UM can be shown in a variety of ways, from Calth parade colours, to late Shadow Crusade gritty and dirty mismatched armour, but the bling of their 30k versions is distinct from the 40k era. Suzerains with mk3 armour, vets with praetor helmets and torsos...etc. Only the recent UM resin praetors "look 40k" and they have been criticized for it.

50 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Its just subjective nonsense that discards the lore it tries to adhere to.

No, it's people being aware of the differences and loving 30k for them, rather than trying to fight against them.

Edited August 10, 2022 by lansalt

[Marshal Mittens]

Probably the RIGHT way to play 30k is how YOU want to play it.

And that might be different from how others want to play it.

 

Which does not mean that you are wrong, or they are wrong.

 

However, just because you play the way you want to play, does not mean anyone else will want to play with you.

 

I am sure there are folks who want to play ultra competitive lists, WAAC, and don't paint their armies. And there are people who love to play them. 

 

I like to play casual "beer and pretzels" type games with fully painted armies on a good table with a mat and full terrain. I'm ok with someone "redoing" something they forgot, or taking back a really bad choice if they realize it's a really bad choice, etc. Its about a shared, fun experience for me. 

 

Myself and the other example might not enjoy playing one another.

 

That doesn't make either of us wrong, and it's a big enough hobby that we don't need to play each other for us both to have fun. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Marshall Mittens

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

And that's not even talking about the arguments about 40k rules having always been serviceable at best, and how much better are other rulesets out there in pure crunching/sim terms. People began playing 30k because of its aesthetics and lore when it was just a 40k supplement.

The first surge in the popularity of 30k was to escape 40ks rules in 7th edition. That carried it right up until 2017 when 8th dropped, and inferno destroyed the balance of pickup games.

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

SA instead of guardsmen

"I don't understand the concept of the militia list and what it's meant to represent".

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

no skitarii

The peltasts had rules so you could directly run the Vanguard or rangers. 

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

Custodes bikes and terminators

And yet the custodian guard are identical; trying to make an argument that the highly ornate models on foot are fine, but the bikes/terminators aren't, from a visual/thematic perspective is ridiculous. 

2 hours ago, lansalt said:

Yes, some of them were warped and chaosy but they still used pre-VII armour marks and were mostly normal legionaries.

According to...what? You're just making an assumption, and one that's less likely than them free-falling into corruption. The diabolist entry notes how brazen they were with their upgrades; their entire gameplay hook was about buffing units with malign power, using sorcerous artifacts and using straight up possessed units. They're corrupted as sin, especially by the siege.  I'll agree on not using mk 7, but the csm kits aren't mk 7.

3 hours ago, lansalt said:

Siege-era DG wasn't yet as warped as their 40k version despite being already damned. The SoT books mention how they slowly begin their transformation after their fall

Well there's no described tentacles, but they're very much warped. Here's some art from Warhawk:

If there's bony protrusions and Typhus is obviously corrupted, larger guts is right on theme. And there's also an apothecary who's very obviously started screwing around with things.

3 hours ago, lansalt said:

Neither should have the extreme warped trim and Tzeench icons of the 40k models.

Thousand sons whole theme was arrogance and ignorance about the "great ocean"; they had daemons tutoring them and were completely in the dark. The tzeentch symbol can be used as an ironic bit of foreshadowing. Their cult markings are also all distinctly tzeentch themed/styled already.

Warped trim can be explained as the flesh change.

3 hours ago, lansalt said:

the bling of their 30k versions is distinct from the 40k era. Suzerains with mk3 armour, vets with praetor helmets and torsos...etc. Only the recent UM resin praetors "look 40k" and they have been criticized for it.

It most definitely isn't distinct. The suzerains are more decorated than the honour guard they're inspired by; the contemptor is more decorated than the relic contemptor. The only difference with the praetors is the paint scheme. The art prints from tempest make it clear how much decoration the 30k ultras can have, and how it puts the 40k models to shame.

3 hours ago, lansalt said:

No, it's people being aware of the differences and loving 30k for them, rather than trying to fight against them.

This entire post is emblematic of how people with your mindset aren't actually that aware. Tons of 40kisms can be justified by the lore, without breaking their legions theme.

[Pacific81]

Great post there @TheTrans and I agree wholeheartedly.

For me its about effort but also that I can play someone who feels the same way about the game as I do - I think that's a lot of the problem for people, when those feelings dont allign between you and your opponent. If I spend many dozens of hours building, converting & painting my force, and feel some pride in what I have built, I can see when someone else has done likewise and respect that person for that.

I think Heresy has always taken a bit more hobby committment than many other GW games, not least because of the prices and it being more niche. Now there is that much more opportunity to 'half-arse' an army and especially in pick-up games you can play people who haven't been able or else willing to meet you half-way with your own force and that way that you would like to play.

I stopped playing pickup 40k as I got sick of basically one opponent who I think fell quite firmly into the 'cannot be arsed' category, and who consistently brought the same captain that consisted of only a pair of legs on a base, unpainted, to games. For purposes of army lists he was apparently armed with a power fist, although I never asked the guy which leg, boot or perhaps buttock was the 'counts as'. The guy turned up, week after week, the pair of legs smiting in the name of the emperor. Now I'm trying not to be critical - you dont know what time or economic pressures people have on them, and why he could never stick a torso or arms on that marine. But, it kind of ruined the experience, and sense of immersion, for me after Id spent so many months carefully crafting my own force.

As a counter to this Heresy gaming and the narrative events I attended were wonderful as they gave me opponents who shared the same desire to see two well painted (or at least, where effort had been spent) armies, where our imaginations could be transported to that battlefield. It was far away from net-listing, piles of grey plastic, sometimes unbuilt, and all of that nonsense on a game system that is totally unsuited to the high-competive concept. If that shared way of playing for those that enjoy it is under threat, I would say that is a great shame, and you cant blame people for being defensive about it.

I realise this makes me sound like a total gaming snob, but there it is!

[brother_b]

HH was gatekept by the mere fact of resin minis and forge world. GW broke that gate open with plastic minis and a full-blown shift from niche to mainstay game.

As someone who has been HH curious for years there is no better time to get into the game.

I see this new release really bringing out the 40 K style of gaming; we will have competitive, we will have lore-based games, we will have a narrative games, and also historical games.
 

As I never played the game before, I can’t comment on how this game was previously played. I’ve heard and read all about the attention to detail, etc. that Horus heresy players seemed to cling to and focus on the historical aspect. Obviously those players will still be here, but I doubt the influx of new players will be so inclined to follow those footsteps exactly.

I just hope everybody will continue to respect the gameplay decisions of other players.

[Cruor Vault]

3 minutes ago, brother_b said:

As I never played the game before, I can’t comment on how this game was previously played. I’ve heard and read all about the attention to detail, etc. that Horus heresy players seemed to cling to and focus on the historical aspect. Obviously those players will still be here, but I doubt the influx of new players will be so inclined to follow those footsteps exactly.

I just hope everybody will continue to respect the gameplay decisions of other players.

Fingers Crossed!

[Torbenos]

As a few others have pointed out, I doubt this will be an actual problem either way. Likely just people giving opinions online and coming off as extreme. Face to face and with an actual community around you it tends to be different.

[Evil Eye]

This is an interesting topic. I feel that the Heresy should fall a little closer to the "historical" side of the divide myself, HOWEVER I will also add the caveat that a large part of the Heresy's appeal (IMO anyway) is that nobody knows exactly what happened because it's more or less myth by the 41st Millennium. People know it happened, but very few know _what_ happened. So there's definitely room for some degree of creative liberty; overall I think 30K is better suited to the more "historical" approach just because whilst a lot of the specifics aren't known, what IS known is some of the most influential stuff to ever happen in 40K. It's a weird period that is simultaneously shrouded in mystery yet also has some very defined parts of it that, if changed, would completely affect the entire setting.

That said, "casual" and "historical" approaches can survive side by side just fine, and both are infinitely preferable to "tabletop videogame"...

[LameBeard]

1 hour ago, Pacific81 said:

stopped playing pickup 40k as I got sick of basically one opponent who I think fell quite firmly into the 'cannot be arsed' category, and who consistently brought the same captain that consisted of only a pair of legs on a base, unpainted, to games. For purposes of army lists he was apparently armed with a power fist, although I never asked the guy which leg, boot or perhaps buttock was the 'counts as'. The guy turned up, week after week, the pair of legs smiting in the name of the emperor. Now I'm trying not to be critical - you dont know what time or economic pressures people have on them, and why he could never stick a torso or arms on that marine. But, it kind of ruined the experience, and sense of immersion, for me after Id spent so many months carefully crafting my own force.

 

Sorry I just can’t help laughing at the vision of the legs on a base. I can understand not wanting to commit to a weapon load out … but anyway in my group this would probably have become a running joke and any attempt to add the torso would have been seen as betrayal; let the butt-kicking disembodied grey legs march to victory once  again!

Back on topic, as I get older I am certainly leaning more into trying to make an immersive experience - compared to (say) my son, who has the same high tolerance for proxies I had at his age.  I think what those shrill voices on Reddit are missing is the flexibility that has been there in the Heresy these many years - e.g. GW/Forgeworld are encouraging (say) running a traitor faction of a loyalist legion (when not always explored in the books), or before the resin landspeeders were released, we all *had* to come up with some conversion - some heavily, some lightly. I just bought a plastic one myself to start to try. It’s kind of my favourite bit of the 30k hobby - trying to take something 40k but make it look 30k. And no doubt I have varying degrees of success - but it sounds like most people in this thread would appreciate the effort.

 

[Fenbain]

5 hours ago, Marshall Mittens said:

That doesn't make either of us wrong, and it's a big enough hobby that we don't need to play each other for us both to have fun. 

This is where I'm at.  As with most things, people generally fall along a spectrum of how much they care about the pseudo-historical/narrative element to 30k and will have a tolerance either side of that point for who they are likely to enjoy playing with. Not everyone will be a compatible gaming partner with each other and that is okay. As long as people communicate properly in regards to expectations for any given gaming session (e.g. event, pick-up, tournament etc.) and try to be gracious and understanding about it either way, both online and offline, hopefully it won't be a major issue in reality.

[spessmarine]

taking the historical aspect is comical because then IH players are basically never allowed to use Manus except for when losing to EC

[lansalt]

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

The first surge in the popularity of 30k was to escape 40ks rules in 7th edition. That carried it right up until 2017 when 8th dropped, and inferno destroyed the balance of pickup games.

People began playing Heresy games in mid to late 00s with house rules and stuff like the BoLS fandex, years even before FW developed and released Betrayal in time for 6th edition. SM players tired of 40k joining the HH doesn't change the fact that its origin and appeal is based in its lore and aesthetics first and foremost. A lot of 40k players left for other wargames in those years too.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

"I don't understand the concept of the militia list and what it's meant to represent".

They're placeholder rules not given any priority, dedicated models or art besides a few background images with cultists. They will not be in the Liber Imperium and they'll only get a Legacies PDF. But my point was that FW created an entire new range and aesthetics with Solar Auxilia to take the place in the game as the "basic human soldiers" faction over the Imperial Army.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

The peltasts had rules so you could directly run the Vanguard or rangers.

Again, FW created new models and their fluff avoiding existing 40k models. Not to mention deliberatelly creating Taghmata as a way to avoid doing Skitarii despite those being much more present in the stories even before the GW plastic models were relased (or maybe because of that). They don't want players using their otherwise lore-accurate skitarii and Onagers against other HH armies.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

And yet the custodian guard are identical; trying to make an argument that the highly ornate models on foot are fine, but the bikes/terminators aren't, from a visual/thematic perspective is ridiculous. 

My point is that, again, FW created new models and their fluff avoiding 40k stuff, even when those should exist and be fine in the 30k era like Dawneagle jetbikes. It's deliberate product design aiming to give HH armies a distinct look and feel in a table, even for otherwise identical Custodes.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

According to...what? You're just making an assumption, and one that's less likely than them free-falling into corruption. The diabolist entry notes how brazen they were with their upgrades; their entire gameplay hook was about buffing units with malign power, using sorcerous artifacts and using straight up possessed units. They're corrupted as sin, especially by the siege.  I'll agree on not using mk 7, but the csm kits aren't mk 7.

 Of course CSM can be used as a base for more chaosy WB, and I've seen really nice kitbashed WB beakies perfect for the Siege era, but not just as they come from the box. But you are assuming that the diabolist entry stands for all WB legionaries while him and the new WB praetors still have a distinct aesthetic based in older armour marks compared to their 40k versions, just like Gal Vorbak aren't just 40k possesed.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Well there's no described tentacles, but they're very much warped. Here's some art from Warhawk: [...]  If there's bony protrusions and Typhus is obviously corrupted, larger guts is right on theme. And there's also an apothecary who's very obviously started screwing around with things.

Well, there are DG marines with tentacles in the cover of Warhawk, so it's fair to say that they were more mutated since their arrival after months of the siege. But I'll say that the larger gut plates and other more extreme stuff must be more of a later development. After all, that apothecary you mention, none other than the future Necrosius the Undying just sees a single nurgling for the first time in that book.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

The tzeentch symbol can be used as an ironic bit of foreshadowing. Their cult markings are also all distinctly tzeentch themed/styled already. Warped trim can be explained as the flesh change.

While the TS cult symbols and their tame pseudo-egyptian stuff are clearly foreshadowing as you say, there's no way to openly display actual chaos gods' icons in the lore without people getting their eyes burning and having corruption creeping in their mind. It's a fact repeated in the stories, like when IW meet the EC in Angel Exterminatus and have to look away from the Slaanesh icons they carry. And the Flesh Change was called that for a reason, and it wasn't the "my-armour-is-redecorating-by-itself change".

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

It most definitely isn't distinct. The suzerains are more decorated than the honour guard they're inspired by; the contemptor is more decorated than the relic contemptor. The only difference with the praetors is the paint scheme. The art prints from tempest make it clear how much decoration the 30k ultras can have, and how it puts the 40k models to shame.

It's not the amount of decoration of the models, but their specific details and aesthetics. FW kept those clearly distinct in HH ultras until the recent new praetors, which as you say, they are pretty much 40k models and have been criticized for it.

15 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

This entire post is emblematic of how people with your mindset aren't actually that aware. Tons of 40kisms can be justified by the lore, without breaking their legions theme.

That "mindset", as you call it, is how the HH was designed as a product and how it's supposed to be experienced in a gaming table. And while you're right that there are many 40k things that should be fine for the era, they weren't supposed to be widespread or representative, and there are also many which don't, yet people wants to use them anyway despite being anachronistic and/or breaking the aesthetic experience of the setting.

Of course there are gray areas, visual "mistakes" in FW books, and plenty of space for doing unusual stuff. The setting isn't so detailed that we know all its little minutiae like a WW2 battle and it's the better for it. There are even technically anachronic models like the 40k scouts or plastic land speeders that were post-heresy patterns, but they easily fit the 30k aesthetics.

4 hours ago, spessmarine said:

taking the historical aspect is comical because then IH players are basically never allowed to use Manus except for when losing to EC

The point of the "historical aspect" is not just to reenact historical battles, but also to play what-if and alternate scenarios within a setting. For me even Great Crusade battles against xenos or Scouring-era forces are fine while there's an effort done to make them look the part.

Edited August 11, 2022 by lansalt

[apologist]

19 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

This is an interesting topic. I feel that the Heresy should fall a little closer to the "historical" side of the divide myself, HOWEVER I will also add the caveat that a large part of the Heresy's appeal (IMO anyway) is that nobody knows exactly what happened because it's more or less myth by the 41st Millennium. People know it happened, but very few know _what_ happened. So there's definitely room for some degree of creative liberty; overall I think 30K is better suited to the more "historical" approach just because whilst a lot of the specifics aren't known, what IS known is some of the most influential stuff to ever happen in 40K. It's a weird period that is simultaneously shrouded in mystery yet also has some very defined parts of it that, if changed, would completely affect the entire setting.

Yes – while there have been some great arguments on both sides of the vague divide, this absolutely nails things for me – nice one @Evil Eye. 

I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here between 'historical accuracy' and 'artistic freedom', I don't think those things are necessarily opposed, and I certainly don't think that they're the only considerations. Variously, posters above have stated or outlined at other factors that influence what people want from the HH ecosystem (for want of a better word to describe the gaming, painting, converting, social and collecting aspects of the hobby). These have included:

• Gaming preferences
• Sunk cost (both financially and in time)
• Lore and expectations of 'canon'
• Social interactions

There are more, but the four above illustrate my point that there isn't a simple spectrum of opinions, with two mutually opposed extremes. Instead, there are lots of different overlapping camps. A diagram of HH hobbyists is more of a Venn diagram than a bell curve – but I think we have more in common than we have differences.

+++

As long-time gamers like @Doghouse, @Pacific81, @Noserenda, @Bob Hunk and @Lucifer216 – to name just a few – will attest  Horus Heresy gaming is old now, and it  long predates the HH series and Age of Darkness rules. From Epic-scale roots to an undercurrent in the 90s and 00s to GW mainstream today, a diverse crowd is involved. Sure it's not as large as 40k, but it's got more 'clout' than most non-GW games, and has attracted a diverse group. Precisely because it is so evocative and attractive, it's brought in lots of very passionate people. Because the lore had – until recently – been less explored than 40k, it had also attracted a lot of very creative people. That has resulted in some wonderful armies – both in terms of compelling models and evocative lore, and I'm delighted to see that. I think HH is a broad church, and welcome in as many people as can come.

There is a caveat here, and that's real-world time. Speaking just for myself, following the publication of Horus Rising, I lovingly converted an army of Ultramarines that I named the Praetors of Calth. I spent ages trying to make sure they were 'right', sifting through lots of ancient lore and hints – and the truth is that much of it was counter-intuitive, contradictory, or simply made for unappealing models. Things like the Mark II Crusade armour helm being fixed forward, or the simple scale of the tens of the thousands of marines. When I ran into things like this, I didn't want to gloss over them. I created new lore – like the Macragge-pattern helm (to give a name to a cool helmet design from an artwork that had no other precedent), or hung a hat on things by saying that such-and-such was a local variant, but where possible tied things back to other old lore that I remembered. Things like that came from a deep affection and respect for the lore – so to be told years later that 'X was wrong' feels a bit galling – particularly if, at the time, there wasn't an answer.

Ultimately for me, rule of cool always trumped a particular piece of official lore, as I'm long used to things being retconned or tweaked. Again, that's not a critique of GW – if anything, it's an acknowledgement of how the intentional creation of gaps and questionable narrators are so important to the theme of the HH. It's also well worth noting that GW's – and BL in particular under Laurie Goulding's helm – was always quite happy to run with the fan's ideas and interpretations for the HH series, bringing hobbyist's armies, blogs and stories to the table. There are a few Easter Eggs hidden in the HH series from hobbyist's armies – and doubtless dozens from in-house studio armies – that inspired later 'official' lore.

+++

 

Today, any new HH hobbyist is presented with two series of novels (HH and Siege of Terra), the lore in the rulebook, thirty years worth of artwork, colour text, models, retcons and 'history' along with endless fan-exploration. It's unfair to expect anyone to know everything – and I'd argue that, not only does that create an unnecessary hurdle and potential sour taste, it's actually rather missing the point of the mysterious and unknowable truth @Evil Eye make above – that the HH setting is enriched by the fact that lore-accurate, rivet-counting* historical refights have equal validity as looser interpretations and 'what-ifs?'. The unknowable aspect of the HH (and 40k, for that matter) is a subtle but important one. Neither is more valid or right than the other – both have their appeal, and I think players should feel free to move from one to another as the fancy takes them. 

The key thing, as with any social interaction, is to approach a game in good faith. Bring your own idea of what you want to the table, present it pleasantly, and be open to compromise, and you'll likely find you and your fellow gamer have a better time. 

 

* Sometimes used to rib people; but no judgement intended here.

Edited August 11, 2022 by apologist

[apologist]

[... and at the risk of a double post, but rather than further editing the above(!)...]

Today, with the lore getting increasingly codified and illuminated, I'm pleased to see that the writers aren't just filling in the gaps, but are creating new mysteries and ideas such as the Blackshields, 'Imperial' mark armour (and the hints that there were others...). This marches alongside the studio's efforts to square the circle of when Mark VI armour etc. was around – a good example of something that has divided the community. It's the latest in the long line of such events.

The fact Mark IV was so widespread early on in the HH novels was, just a few years ago, as fiercely argued over as Mark VI outside of the Siege is today. Things that now seem core to the setting – the physical height of the Primarchs, the existence of the Ruinstorm, the nature of Mark V armour – were once new. Over time, I think everyone will find things that they like or dislike change – so the choice is either to rail against it, or to find an explanation that satisfies you personally.

Things like that are the reason that I always think it's a bad idea to die on a hill of a particular statement – the background is intentionally loose, in order for hobbyists to dive in where, and how, they want. For what it's worth, while I preferred the (slightly) more realistic events of the original lightning war in which only seven or so Legions were really heavily involved, I think GW, BL and FW have done a pretty good job of allowing players of all twenty Legions to actually play games with some sense that they're replaying the battles they read about and see in the art.

[Marshal Rohr]

'Historical' Wargaming is casual wargaming. 

 

It's also important to remember that now that FW is releasing plastics, essentially any space marine kits from Heresy or 40K work for what you need. I dig the Devastator lascannons, and will use those over shoulder mounts. The different between Mark 6 and 7 Arms is negligible. The round knee on mark 7 is also on mark 5 and some variants of mark 4 and 6 in the art. Everything that isnt Primaris is in play AND primaris kits have TONs of bits we can use too!

Edited August 11, 2022 by Marshal Rohr

[TheNineteenth]

I've never attended any kind of organized play event that was treated as a historical narrative. I have seen some map campaigns, but really no coherent narrative.

Maybe this is a UK/North America/OZ difference?

[Testamentum_Veritas]

4 hours ago, TheNineteenth said:

I've never attended any kind of organized play event that was treated as a historical narrative. I have seen some map campaigns, but really no coherent narrative.

Maybe this is a UK/North America/OZ difference?

I’m getting the feeling that some people are misunderstanding what is meant by historical in this context. Which may be what has confused you there. 

It doesn’t mean accurately recreating the events from the novels and only the events from the novels. That’s just ridiculous as it would mean some Legions could never fight each other or some Primarchs couldn’t be used if they die early in the series. 

I think, and at least this is how I have interpreted everyone who likes historical accuracy, it’s all down to theme and composition. 
All everyone wants is to turn up to a game and see that an effort has been made to embrace the story and visual themes of the 30k setting, as opposed to 40k. And this can be a casual or competitive list and still be lore friendly. The setting is so huge you have a lot of grey areas to work with anyway. 

No one is saying that your MkII, grey armoured, great crusade era Word Bearers can’t fight someone else’s Siege of Terra themed Imperial Fists because it didn’t happen in the lore. 
They just want to see a well thought out and lore based theme for your army. 
i.e. I love Word Bearers and want to use the new MkVI sets. So I’m setting my army in the Late Heresy. This makes it okay for units to be a bit more corrupted  and mix in a bit of chaos stuff with the 30k era kits (especially as my chosen chapter was the Unspeaking which had gone all out by Calth in the lore). That’s a solid and historically grounded theme that is represented by my painting and modelling choices as well as the miniatures I use. 

On the other hand, if I was doing Crusade era Word Bearers in MkVI armour and painting them blue. This would upset a lot of people as it is not accurate. I should be using Mks II and III, painting them grey (although variants are more than accepted) and staying away from the chaos stuff. And rightly so. I fully appreciate the desire to ground all choices in the amazing source material we have available. That’s all historical means to me, and to others. You can have this and be a casual gamer. My ideal game would be two painted armies, with awesome lore friendly themes playing a chilled game. I don’t care if the list is hard to beat or not, as long as the theme is cool and we can look at each other’s armies and see how they fit within the established background then I’m happy. 

Hopefully that explains that viewpoint a bit clearer. Is that gatekeeping, though? Not really. No one is saying they don’t want new players. It’s just easier to integrate if you make an effort. I started heresy with the Calth set, and spent the first month reading blsck books and novels to see how the Word Bearers differed from the 40k version. Then list built with these ideas in mind. Every gaming group will have minimum standards. Some people will fit with that, some won’t. Inclusivity is fine, but has massive caveats. For beginners, it’s not a big deal, but to have an expectation that, with time, someone learns the lore, delves into what makes their chosen legion unique and understands more than what units are good and bad is not unreasonable - or at the very least uses the models from the game system they want to play. At the end of the day, if you’re not interested in what makes the setting and theme of this particular brand of toy soldiers unique, then what’s the point in taking part? It would be like turning up to a football game in full tennis whites with a racket and expecting to get subbed on when you clearly aren’t invested in the game. But if you bought some boots and went to a few training sessions first you’d always be welcome to a kickabout with the team 

[Doghouse]

On 8/11/2022 at 10:51 AM, apologist said:

As long-time gamers like @Doghouse, @Pacific81, @Noserenda, @Bob Hunk and @Lucifer216 – to name just a few – will attest  Horus Heresy gaming is old now, and it  long predates the HH series and Age of Darkness rules. From Epic-scale roots to an undercurrent in the 90s and 00s to GW mainstream today, a diverse crowd is involved. Sure it's not as large as 40k, but it's got more 'clout' than most non-GW games, and has attracted a diverse group. Precisely because it is so evocative and attractive, it's brought in lots of very passionate people. Because the lore had – until recently – been less explored than 40k, it had also attracted a lot of very creative people. That has resulted in some wonderful armies – both in terms of compelling models and evocative lore, and I'm delighted to see that. I think HH is a broad church, and welcome in as many people as can come.

 

I can get behind this. I think likes of Apologist and myself among others have been doing Heresy in one for or another for longer than we'd care to admit. 

That is not to say we know better than anyone else but we have maybe a slightly broader view of how things have evolved from the early days of the likes of the Great Crusade forums, Will Hayes and Mark Bedford pushing behind the scenes to get Forge World to make models resulting in the Mk IV Red Scorpions kit which first previewed as Death Guard and got us all very excited.

The historical aspect came from our likeminded group of modellers that only had about three or four novels to work with and the likes of the original Space Marine and Andy Chamber's influences with the second edition Chaos Space Marine Codex. It was a time of so much research, kit bashing and discussion that was really a niche within a niche that not many beyond our circles were really interested in beyond the novels.

I'm not one to put words in anyone's mouths but I am sure that Apologist will agree when I say from our own perspective given how little we had to work with even compared to the height of Forge World it's pretty much this that sums it up from our era of Heresy fans perspective:

 

So my personal take is that historical accuracy for a setting set ten thousand years in the 40k past that may or may not be true may be what set the stage for the whole you can use this but not this attitude may have some routes from those very early days purely because otherwise you were just playing 40k. Then Forge World came along to pick up the torch and money became a big factor in who could and couldn't take part which I personally never saw as gatekeeping but more who had the bigger wallet and most disposable income.

 

[Pacific81]

That was probably the most effective piece of gatekeeping right there actually @doghouse! I myself and I think a number of other guys who were around from the Horus Heresy TCG days dropped out around that time; the 30k niche changed from being possibly one of the cheaper ways to play '40k' (kit-bashing & garage-cast sculpt bits) to the most expensive. And the new way, which consisted of £80 for the book (IIRC) before you had even started on the army, helped bring in an almost snobbishness against some of the old-style self built armies and homebrew rules (at least that's what I felt at the time, it may have been just me!) Went from being a hobby for the working man to the wealthy elite . It may be the new kits and starter box have brought things back within reach for gamers who don't want to spend a month's rent or mortgage on a force, which is great!

[Doghouse]

Oh yeah there certainly was that mate. I completely agree, the plastics are probably the best thing to happen in ages for Heresy. The Calth and Prospero sets were the first step in the right direction but this new range refresh is fantastic as like you rightly say it lowers the entry bar for people to play.

Mind you I would have killed for a 3D printer back when we were all on the Crusade forums. 

[Dark Legionnare]

On 8/10/2022 at 2:12 PM, Evil Eye said:

This is an interesting topic. I feel that the Heresy should fall a little closer to the "historical" side of the divide myself, HOWEVER I will also add the caveat that a large part of the Heresy's appeal (IMO anyway) is that nobody knows exactly what happened because it's more or less myth by the 41st Millennium. People know it happened, but very few know _what_ happened. So there's definitely room for some degree of creative liberty; overall I think 30K is better suited to the more "historical" approach just because whilst a lot of the specifics aren't known, what IS known is some of the most influential stuff to ever happen in 40K. It's a weird period that is simultaneously shrouded in mystery yet also has some very defined parts of it that, if changed, would completely affect the entire setting.

That said, "casual" and "historical" approaches can survive side by side just fine, and both are infinitely preferable to "tabletop videogame"...

That's a great mindset, and what all my buds and I subscribe to.  Play around and abide the "historical" (fluff) established "big stuff" like armor marks, tactics, legion temperaments, etc... while also letting you have some "unknown" fun.

For instance, my Luna Wolves. Who's to say, in the galaxy-wide war (Of hundreds of thousands of legionaries) , that there wasn't some small detachment of Luna Lads (Sub-100 lads) who hadn't yet had time to return to the fold of the Sons of Horus (either against them or siding with them) since Ullanor and the rebranding (not to mention the fall to Chaos) of the XVI'th legion.

• Playing traitors one game, they're a band of Horus loyalists that just dumped back into realspace, heard the news, kneejerk sided with big H, and started shiving some slaves of Emps before having the time to repaint themselves green.
• Playing loyalists the next. They're the Garviel Loken approach. "We wear the colors of unity and the Imperium. We were wolves first, wolves still." type affairs.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Dark Legionnare