A shift from Historical Wargaming to Casual Wargaming

[TheTrans]

On 8/16/2022 at 3:13 AM, Dark Legionnare said:

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.

Thats the way to do it mate, the grey area are the most exiting in the setting! 

40k is certainly getting a bit too 'explained' for me at the moment and is becoming more of a narrative instead of a setting.

 

30k because we have good knowledge of the start and end points, but as long as (as you said) you abide by the big 'knowns' there is so much room to play around as its all sort of 'set' any way. 

[Spacefrisian]

Wouldnt call Horus Heresy a Historical wargame, just a continueation of the OG 40k rules with a new tag slapped on it. (not to mention the year 30.000 is in the future.)

 

I do play actuall historical wargames like Bolt Action, VAS and Saga, those are hitsorical based. Although Saga is more with a quick and go have fun aspect in it than truly historical, cause i can use my Samurai agains Romans...so not realy Historical.

 

 

[lansalt]

23 minutes ago, Spacefrisian said:

Wouldnt call Horus Heresy a Historical wargame, just a continueation of the OG 40k rules with a new tag slapped on it. (not to mention the year 30.000 is in the future.)

 

I do play actuall historical wargames like Bolt Action, VAS and Saga, those are hitsorical based. Although Saga is more with a quick and go have fun aspect in it than truly historical, cause i can use my Samurai agains Romans...so not realy Historical.

 

 

The point of the calling the HH "historical" is not just to reenact battles as they actually happened, but also to play what-if and alternate scenarios within a setting. The Lord of the Rings game also falls under this description.

[Sparika]

The club I was playing in many moons ago was mostly historical oriented. We played Bolt Action, Hail Caesar, Saga amongst other things. The game we played were far from historical recreation! I mean, with Saga the time period are all over the place but if just using Bolt Action as an example there would be no problem playing soviets against italians (or even allies). It was a small club and the games were organised by arranging an plausible opposition, but utlimately the end objective is to have a game, not engage into rethorical discussion about your opponent's army.

In my opinion, the common ground between historical wargaming and Horus Heresy lies in the aim to forge a mutual narrative between two or more players. I see it almost as a meta-game to research and build an "historical" or "fluffy" force in order to bring that shared narrative to life. This does not preclude competition when the dices are rolling but it works best with a continued discussion to share findings and prepare games.

With Horus Heresy, there is some tendency online to discuss what is and what is not acceptable. I understand it is an attitude born of necessity to distinguish the game from W40K proper (and I understand the reaction). But at the same time, I believe the hobby should not be about collecting approval over the internet. What is and what is not Horus Heresy depends on the player vision and its own community with which he or she can actually play games.

 

 

[ninjasuperspy]

For me personally the historicity of the Heresy in general has always been a bit of a shaggy dog. We know where Napoleon was on a certain day or how many StuG IIIs were at a given engagement because those are real things that really move through real time. The only reason Horus Aximand got an iced coffee on Fomalhaut b is because I made it up. The existing lore is mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive, you have quite a lot of leeway. Beyond stuff like Salamanders not having Destroyers there's very little that's out-and-out prohibited. Even then you could just build Blackshields (once they release them), paint them green and say they're outcasts driven to use everything they can to survive.

Conversely all of this agita about armor marks traces back to what, a single text box in Massacre? The sum totality of which being two or three sentences about Perturabo having a tantrum about participating in the tests for what was still being called Mark V armor in the middle of the Great Crusade. After which he was proven totally wrong by Corax, the armor was upgraded and finalized then production began prior to the outbreak of the Heresy. There are no sources anywhere in the canon that say anything at all about final version MK VI usage among Iron Warriors. Zero sources say he refused to resupply with it. If you ask me there is nothing more quintessentially Iron Warrior than being absolutely miserable, hating every minute of something but then doing it anyway. Not to mention it is vastly rarer & more unlikely that Perturabo is going to show up to have a fight with Ferrus (both wielding the same hammer) on behalf of some random Praetor like he's John Cena doing a Make-a-Wish visit.

End of the day you're painting 30-50 guys out of 100,000, less than one-hundredth of one percent of any given Legion. There's no way that there isn't that amount of special snowflakes exploring some doctrine outside of the Legion Stereotype in every force. Yes there are Blood Angels Armored Companies, World Eaters Recon Battalions, White Scars Fury of the Ancients & Space Wolves Jetbikers. Outside of some extreme outliers like MK VIII armor or even Primaris Marines there's just about nothing that you couldn't handwave with a simple "That is actually an artificer pattern from an obscure forge-world" or "My Legion was forced to adopt this proscribed equipment liberated from a forgotten vault on a world cut off since the Dark Age of Tech" or "We came upon a ghost ship of unknown pattern spat out of the Warp, lost with all hands and sporting unfamiliar livery but these jump packs interfaced with our gear and we've been years without resupply so we took them."

[Ripper.McGuirl]

As someone who once got to "Make a Wish", I would just like to note that Perturabo bitterly granting "Make a Wish"s is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.

 

[TheNineteenth]

On 8/12/2022 at 9:55 PM, Testamentum_Veritas said:

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 

Playing a narrative that actually is set at a certain point with certain specific Legions (and other factions, ala the Black Book mission campaigns) at an event would be amazing. I am saying I haven't seen it, and have attended all of the largest Heresy events in North America. 

[TheNineteenth]

On 8/20/2022 at 3:34 AM, lansalt said:

The point of the calling the HH "historical" is not just to reenact battles as they actually happened, but also to play what-if and alternate scenarios within a setting. The Lord of the Rings game also falls under this description.

Playing through a canonical scenario as a what if in an organized play event would make it feel historical to me. I haven't seen an event do that in North America. 

[Xenith]

I think there's a quasi-historical aspect to all of GW's stuff, if you're into it - I mean, in 40k you aren't just blood angels, but you'll be Blood Angels 4th company under captain de Bossola incorporating elements of the 8th reserve; even the primaris stuff in the new books have instructions on ways to incorporate primaris into existing company structure (squads 11-20) without ruining the whole thing that you've probably spent years building.

The narrative aspect of 40k has just been thinned down over the years - less text is given in the rules as to why your forces are fighting. If you want the game to be narrative/historical, it can be.

HH is maybe lesser in that aspect, with more free reign and less formal [codex] structure to forces. Models can be a recon company one day, and a pride of the legion the next, while in 40k you'll always just be the 4th company, or the 1st company veterans. Maybe there's a less rigid structure to the forces in 30k? Less is prescribed, so the player has to do more work, with the benefit that there's more of a sandbox to go nuts.

Either way, it's possible to fight historical battles in both systems, but for pick up games, which are largely 40k dominated, this doesn't usually happen. As heresy is picked up by more people and pick up games occur, there will be less 'fluff justification' for battles. If you have a local group, maybe have an outline of a planet to fight over to give the game some meaning, if you want that aspect of the battle?

 

 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

I think there's a quasi-historical aspect to all of GW's stuff, if you're into it - I mean, in 40k you aren't just blood angels, but you'll be Blood Angels 4th company under captain de Bossola incorporating elements of the 8th reserve; even the primaris stuff in the new books have instructions on ways to incorporate primaris into existing company structure (squads 11-20) without ruining the whole thing that you've probably spent years building.

The narrative aspect of 40k has just been thinned down over the years - less text is given in the rules as to why your forces are fighting. If you want the game to be narrative/historical, it can be.

HH is maybe lesser in that aspect, with more free reign and less formal [codex] structure to forces. Models can be a recon company one day, and a pride of the legion the next, while in 40k you'll always just be the 4th company, or the 1st company veterans. Maybe there's a less rigid structure to the forces in 30k? Less is prescribed, so the player has to do more work, with the benefit that there's more of a sandbox to go nuts.

Either way, it's possible to fight historical battles in both systems, but for pick up games, which are largely 40k dominated, this doesn't usually happen. As heresy is picked up by more people and pick up games occur, there will be less 'fluff justification' for battles. If you have a local group, maybe have an outline of a planet to fight over to give the game some meaning, if you want that aspect of the battle?

 

 

I agree with this. I'm about to start a campaign in my city that focuses on a world that holds precious war resources and STLs of dark tech that was used during the Great Crusade.

Now the planet is in ruins as forces from every Legiones Astartes have amassed there, with elements of mechanicum etc. If loyalists A fight loyalists B, it's under the assumption that There is no trust and the armies come to blows. The spoils of war are unknown, only high command will be privy to the information of what is found in the opening battle.

In future events that will span a single day, then depending on if you want to play competitively, or tell a story then there will be more or less restrictions.

I can already tell you that my city has a lot of new blood that only has the competitive 40k mentality with an exhaustion of 40k rules. There's even been some of the younger hobbists that have stated they want rules for all the xenos factions in 30k...

I've had to take the neutral high ground a few times and just respectfully disagree without coming off as a gate keeper. 

I'm also trying to plan a large Heresy event in my city that will be inclusive for the entire state. If the Faet rumors are true competitive and matched play missions are coming to HH. Until then I'll plan for a narrative event and a competitive one, with no restrictions for the competitive event. I have no desire for an Iron Hands Fury of the Ancients with a knight house detachment in narrative games, and I don't have the competitive spirit i did in my 20s...so that's my parlay.

[Xenith]

2 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

There's even been some of the younger hobbists that have stated they want rules for all the xenos factions in 30k...

While not appropriate for the heresy setting (All Xenos soundly beaten by this time, or are in hiding during the heresy) no reason to not have them in a pre-heresy setting - I think the 6/7th ed codexes would be compatible to an extent with this edition, a rule of thumb was to allow 40k codexes to have 25% more points due to discounts in the HH marine lists. Xenos still won't stand a chance due to vokite, however that's the storytelling - 200 years of Xenos getting beaten down into nothing by the Crusade. They have only just recovered 10,000 years later and are getting aggressive. 

[lansalt]

4 hours ago, Xenith said:

The narrative aspect of 40k has just been thinned down over the years - less text is given in the rules as to why your forces are fighting. If you want the game to be narrative/historical, it can be.

Which is strange, since GW has really made an effort with the narrative Crusade rules in 9th to promote this side of the game, but sadly most people doesn't seem interested.

[Xenith]

There's still big chunks of the book saying 'design a thematic battlefield' and such, however I blame the tournament influence. It used to be that points based gaming was narrative gaming, however now that's changed to power level, which few use, and the loudest/whiniest voices complain in imbalanced, influencing common perception. 

There's also that 'narrative' seems to force you to use the crusade rules, which not everyone wants to. 

[apologist]

1 hour ago, lansalt said:

Which is strange, since GW has really made an effort with the narrative Crusade rules in 9th to promote this side of the game, but sadly most people doesn't seem interested.

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

There's still big chunks of the book saying 'design a thematic battlefield' and such, however I blame the tournament influence. It used to be that points based gaming was narrative gaming, however now that's changed to power level, which few use, and the loudest/whiniest voices complain in imbalanced, influencing common perception. 

There's also that 'narrative' seems to force you to use the crusade rules, which not everyone wants to. 

Good points here. It's worth considering that rules interactions, points values and similar statistical/empirical stuff – what GW calls 'Matched Play' – makes for more straightforward discussion, particularly online, as the boundaries are agreed-upon and different interpretations can be productively discussed. 

Conversely, (small-n) narratives have fewer guidelines in place, so it's harder to discuss in an engaging way – you can't argue with someone telling a story that 'that unit wouldn't be present at this battle' (at least, not politely!). Since (small-n) narrative gaming tend to be relatively more collaborative, it leans more on the unwritten social contract that makes up the face-to-face social side of gaming, rather than the sportslike competitive approach, which is much more streamlined and easy to engage with.

Just as no athletes discuss who should win a race beforehand, Matched Play renders moot a lot of the pre-game discussion that informs Narrative Play. That's not to say that lots of people aren't playing Narrative Play – just that you don't tend to hear about it as much online as Matched Play because of their natures.

To put it another way, it's much easier to discuss online the theory of whether or not a 25mm round based model can engage another across a wall (since the rules interactions are spelled out and agreed-upon) than it is to discuss online whether a specific model on a specific terrain-crammed table can engage, because applying the rules to the messy real world depends on lots of things – not least whether you want to prioritise competitive tactical simulation and applying the letter of the rules strictly, or whether you want to prioritise telling a story and fudging things to allow both players to better enjoy a collaborative past-time. 

***

I've never liked the hard binary divides between terms like 'Competitive vs Casual', 'Tournament vs Friendly', 'Historical and Fantasy' and so forth. They're reductive, and cause unnecessary arguments. While there are undoubtedly extremes in any camp, I don't think most tournament players would ruthlessly stomp someone playing their first game; nor do I think even the most hardcore narrative player doesn't occasionally enjoy a more straightforward even-field game.

GW has, I think, done a good job of breaking up the binaries with their three ways of playing, giving (big-N) Narrative Play a bit more of a spotlight by providing specific guidance – and crucially rules – to help bridge the gap between the extremes. 

Matched Play and Narrative Play get lots of material, which is great. It expands the options for everyone. Having said that, both still hold as core to the experience a sense of 'evenness = fairness' – which I think is not necessarily true. Points and Power Levels are intended to create a balanced game, but doesn't allow for the experience of (say) the Dropsite Massacre or the Siege of Terra. Indeed, most of the stories we read set in the Age of Darkness are of battles with uneven chances of victory.

***

For me, the missing piece of the puzzle is Open Play. Largely ridiculed for being 'easy mode' or dismissed as neither one thing nor the other, I think more focus on Open Play could really expand wargaming horizons for a lot of people. That's what @Xenith alludes to being missing – instructive examples and explanations of how to design a thematic battlefield. Unfortunately, it's much harder to codify than a set grid of how to set up a table for Matched Play.

Articles and examples of asymmetrical (i.e. not matched in points of Power Level) wargaming have popped up in White Dwarf in the past – and those are much more representative of the stories we read. For me, that's a better representation of narrative gaming – and far closer to traditional historicals, where 'what-if' scenarios, simulations or refights or actual battles with uneven sides are the go-to.

If you've never tried that sort of gaming, it's easy to think that it's less enjoyable that an even game; but that's the point of the scenario – to provide fair – not even – chances of victory for both sides. The best 'Open Gaming' will allow everyone to walk away with a smile, having had their own objectives to pursue.

Edited August 26, 2022 by apologist

[SickSix]

On 8/9/2022 at 5:59 PM, OttoVonAwesome said:

It's almost like people forget the scouring is also a major part of the Horus Heresy.

I always viewed The Scouring as, The Scouring. Not part of the Horus Heresy. Being that the Heresy ended when Horus was vaporized and the traitors fled Terra.

But maybe that's just me.

 

As for the OP, a little bit of rivet counting is what separates 30k from 40k though. A new player should be granted leeway to get them in. But they should be gently encouraged to appropriate models. But that's basically anything pre-MkVII for infantry. And with Pre-Mars pattern tanks now in plastic, there's not much excuse for not using them.

The Legion Aesthetic I think is a big part of the draw to Heresy, and should be encouraged, but not a barrier to entry.

[Mike8404]

I'm kind of in the same spot as most.  I love the lore and stuff behind 30k, but I'm but a fan of the imposed limitations I see.  I have an idea for traitor a Dark Angels force stripping their armor white as a you to their former legion.  I don't want a traitor Dark Angels army that looks identical to their loyalist brothers, but an army that stands in contrast to them.  

I can completely justify this change, but wouldn't talk about it anywhere online (besides just now) because I don't want to be flamed for it.

 

The community should find a happy medium between accuracy and small adjustments for smaller forces

Edited August 26, 2022 by Slips
Use the cuss emote when censoring or let the automated filter do it for you

[WrathOfTheLion]

There's all sorts of room for stuff like alternative paint schemes such as that. The main thing I would think is that there's some thought or reasoning put into it. You can see they explore this even with the PDF knights, where they have a white paint scheme instead of the Legion black paint scheme.

In the art of some of the books, you'll see interesting cross paint schemes as well, like the mixed Luna Wolves/Sons of Horus heraldry, or the Word Bearers slate grey with only some red accents. I think they try to hammer in that the Legions are massive, and even if restricted, you push those confines and have some creativity with it.

On the topic of the Scouring, I don't really view it as part of the Heresy, and I'm split on whether you can easily do much in it without a hard split post-Codex. To me, post-Legionnes Astartes organization of Space Marines is what definitively places it outside the Heresy in totality, it loses even the army continuity at that point.

Edited August 26, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion
added art paragraph

[Noserenda]

Yeah narrative gaming in 40k is still huge, just as Apologist says, its just discussed less online. Even a fairly competitive focused site like goonhammer had a significant amount of narrative players complete their survey for example. If anything its the actual default method of play for most people, even if they dont exactly identify as such.

The scouring is very much part of the heresy, do we end WW2 when the allies conquer Normandy? Or even at the fall of Berlin? No, a war keeps going until you get a significant period of peace, so in this case the quiet post scouring even if for obvious reasons there is never a formal peace.

[Slave to Darkness]

Heresy is historical in my eyes, I was there before GW started producing the minis sculpting and kitbashing as did many others to make the forces look legit. But at the end of the day if lil timmy wants to throw down with his Mk7 Ultrasmurfs then thats fine by me. Hell even the HH1st ed black books had plastic Mk7 Death Guard in a few pictures. 

 

Basically for pick up games who cares, for dude night its era specific marks.