New Edition, or Just Horus Hearsay?

[Marshal Rohr]

Luckily that period of Primaris Gatekeeping Wars in the wider online Heresy community is over and now the only two factions are the people that hate the Horus Heresy and are for some reason still in all the social media groups and people that are excited for 3rd Edition. 

[Marshal Rohr]

17 minutes ago, Wispy said:

Jack sounds unhinged and unfun guy to do hobby with. That Post of his was cringe. Horus Heresy is a fictional setting and not a historical one. It's just another GW miniature game.

Yeah, now years after the fact it’s weird but people were being called chuds and bigots for saying you can’t take Primaris a Heresy campaign weekend. Like when heresy players got called mean names because of the “only boys can be super soldiers” passage from the 2.0 codex (that was copy and pasted from 1.0 on a crunch deadline by the layout team - confirmed by Louise on Juggz). It got politicized and all the normies caught strays because a trash YouTuber needed to boost their followers and engagement numbers after their speedpaint fiasco. 

[Matcap86]

15 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Luckily that period of Primaris Gatekeeping Wars in the wider online Heresy community is over and now the only two factions are the people that hate the Horus Heresy and are for some reason still in all the social media groups and people that are excited for 3rd Edition. 

 

There's also people still yelling about Legions Imperialis and it taking up manpower and release windows from the "true game" 

[Matcap86]

25 minutes ago, Wispy said:

Jack sounds unhinged and unfun guy to do hobby with. That Post of his was cringe. Horus Heresy is a fictional setting and not a historical one. It's just another GW miniature game.

 

Rivet counting can be detrimental, but the "it's just made up, what do you care about fiction?" Is at least as bad in my opinion. Sure have fun with whatever you do, but being dismissive because people hold some of the parts of the hobby more dear than others isn't great. 

[Redcomet]

Man some of you spend way too much time on the internet and it shows.

[Marshal Loss]

Moving back on topic...

 

Wonder if we'll see any special characters stealthily introduced into the new army books as we did from 2.0. Selfishly, I'd love to see Julius Kaersoron & Gabriel Santar inserted given the early focus of 3.0 is on Isstvan V. 

[Corswain]

2 minutes ago, Marshal Loss said:

Moving back on topic...

 

Wonder if we'll see any special characters stealthily introduced into the new army books as we did from 2.0. Selfishly, I'd love to see Julius Kaersoron & Gabriel Santar inserted given the early focus of 3.0 is on Isstvan V. 

 

I'd like that but I might slightly prefer them to go to the old Black Books characters who were never in the Black Library series and give them models.

 

I'm also waiting for the first Legion specific unit to be (re)done. I don't think we've had a new Legion specific models since Crusade.

Not that I'm complaining about what we are getting. It's just seeing new units models, of any Legion, was some of the most exciting moments I remember from that era of the hobby.

[Marshal Mittens]

Maybe they are holding off on some legion specific units until they get out the new Cataphractii and other MKs at the new scale, so legion specific stuff will be correct to the new scale?

 

There are several units i would love to see modernized. 

[Xenith]

=][= Some posts in poor taste and those quoting them have been removed. The team is discussing next steps. Please keep on topic. =][=

[Antarius]

This seems very much like an internet-fueled "all or nothing" exercise in trench digging, more than anything else. I think we've all been there at one time or another, but still, it's neither constructive nor a good look.

 

On the one hand, the idea that the hobby is under siege by an amorphous mass of secret haters that don't actually enjoy the hobby, but just want to destroy the objective truth and beauty of the True Hobby(tm) is very obviously not true. On the other hand, the idea that caring about a fictional universe that you've invested thousands of hours and pounds/dollars/etc. in is inherently silly and toxic, is obviously not true either. So let's try to take a slightly more nuanced look.

First off, we're all emotionally invested in this hobby and we all have an equal "right" to do whatever we want with our own hobby time and energy. However, we're not necessarily entitled to everybody else loving everything we do with our hobby and there is a (quite blurry) line between "doing our own thing" and "enforcing our view on others to their detriment".

While we may disagree where exactly this line is drawn and what exactly is/isn't a worthwhile addition to our shared hobby universe, there is simply no way that someone painting/converting/storytelling with their own personal army impacts your life negatively in any meaningful way. I mean, I personally dislike "joke armies" and I can't really fathom why anyone would put all that time and effort into (what I think of as) a bad parody that is essentially (again, in my opinion) a mockery of the hobby. But the thing is, I can just not care about that and go on with my own hobby, because no matter what the internet might say, we're not suddenly going to be in a situation where people come to my house and force me to put Hello Kitty heads on all my Marines, nor is the hobby as a whole suddenly going to become *insert whatever ideology you dislike* unless you take a stand against the latest power armour design.
The thing is, we all have our own conception of the 30/40K universe and we should lean into that headcanon, rather than go looking for people being wrong on the internet. I guarantee you that your hobby life will be much more pleasant if you concentrate on the aspects of the hobby you enjoy and work around the things you don't enjoy. I mean, I wouldn't be caught dead with those newish primaris with the huge guns ("Overcompensators" or whatever their name was) in my army, but it's easy enough for me to just not buy them and "tune them out". Should they suddenly pop up in an army I am going to play against, I will either have to overlook/tolerate their presence or decline the game - in which case that's 100% on me and the other person hasn't wronged me in any way (and I had damn well better be polite about it).

The flipside of this is, of course, that there is a point where you need to respect other people and their equal right to hobby enjoyment. This is usually, but not always, when you venture out into the dreaded "real world" and have to (brrr!) interact with people in their physical manifestation. Sometimes, the line may become very blurry and subjective in these situations, but I find that a good rule of thumb is to a) consult any official guidelines/documents that outline the framework for your hobby interaction and b) have a brief, respectful chat about your expectations and agree to play with someone else, if you can't overlook any disagreements.
So, yeah, if you're going to a narratively focused event, maybe don't bring your Hello Kitty army. If you're going to the store for a pick-up game, by all means bring it, but be prepared for the eventuality that people might not enjoy playing against it, if they're more focused on the narrative aspect of the hobby. Conversely, if someone brings a Hello Kitty army to a pick-up game, don't forget their basic humanity when you chat with them about the possibility of a game.

Obviously, there is a level of disagreement about the lore-appropriateness of armies that is less immediately obvious than "joke armies" (or "political armies" etc.), where people simply don't have the same interpretation and ideas about what is "realistic" (for lack of a better term) in the 30K/40K settings and in this case I think it behooves everybody to observe the same two basic rules but also c) get over yourself (if at all possible). If there's a lore-inaccurate helm in an army, will it really impact your enjoyment of the game to a degree where you need to bring it up? If so, consider whether you might need to chillax a bit and/or seek out a smaller circle of like-minded people to play with.
Conversely, if you are going to engage in shared storytelling, consider the degree to which you may make it easier for people to look past your headcanon if it deviates from the mainstream view of the lore in fundamental ways.



tl;dr: be excellent to each other, don't sweat the details too much, but don't go out of your way to ruin people's view of the setting either.

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

On the one hand, the idea that the hobby is under siege by an amorphous mass of secret haters that don't actually enjoy the hobby, but just want to destroy the objective truth and beauty of the True Hobby(tm) is very obviously not true.

 

 

Ehhhh... I do think there is a real and significant element of people that hate anything that diverges from their vary narrow and pre-approved set of peramiters. The community is kind of famouse for it. This also stretches to people that perpetuate outdated hatreds and dislikes over things that happened 20+ years ago.

 

I wish it wasn't the case, but I've walked away from more than one forum/chat/discord because of it.

[StratoKhan]

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

This seems very much like an internet-fueled "all or nothing" exercise in trench digging, more than anything else. I think we've all been there at one time or another, but still, it's neither constructive nor a good look.

Spot on, let’s try to devote more time to discussing HH 3.0 and its imminent release.

Because like it or not (I have my thoughts) it’s coming.

 

And the question is, what shall this strange beast really be like? I’m really hoping a clearer picture of the rules is going to form prior to launch.

[Cyrox]

1 minute ago, StratoKhan said:

Spot on, let’s try to devote more time to discussing HH 3.0 and its imminent release.

Because like it or not (I have my thoughts) it’s coming.

 

And the question is, what shall this strange beast really be like? I’m really hoping a clearer picture of the rules is going to form prior to launch.

 

Supposedly we'll be getting a look at some rules tidbits on Warhammer Community this week, hopefully today!

 

I'm eager to see what the army building is going to be like for this edition

[Stitch5000]

7 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

Dropping that in 2.0 was a mistep in my opinion because it removed it from the context of it being history being compiled by one fallible person and presented it from a more omniscient viewpoint that was a severe blow to the flavor of the game.

They didn't drop it, Cthonia, Beta-Garmon and the Martian Civil War all have a preface initialled by a different fictitious author. 

[DuskRaider]

7 hours ago, BitsHammer said:

Well, speaking of history: "history" changes as we expand out understanding of history through additional accounts and get more perspectives and details. Basically the the way I see it is that the Heresy isn't changing, our understanding of the Heresy is changing as we learn more stuff. I get that the platonic ideal of history is that we'd be get the perspectives we need from the start and not need to find new information or perspectives to have a complete picture, but that's not how it actually works.

 

And the fact that 30k is presented as a historical actually works to it's favor, or at least did in 1.0 when they wrote it as the collective accounts cataloged by a single scribe since it meant that we didn't have "retcons" but rather new information that corrected accounts, or new information collected and cataloged by him. Dropping that in 2.0 was a mistep in my opinion because it removed it from the context of it being history being compiled by one fallible person and presented it from a more omniscient viewpoint that was a severe blow to the flavor of the game.

I can get behind that idea. I wish they would go back to the format they had in the 1st Edition, though I think that ship sailed with Alan Bligh’s passing. It always reminded me of the old war books that were on my grandfather’s shelf, particularly the detail that went into battle descriptions and whatnot. The Siege of Vraks was the same way, if not even more so and to this day is still my favorite series FW ever made.

Edited Monday at 11:00 AM by DuskRaider

[Marshal Rohr]

17 minutes ago, Cyrox said:

 

Supposedly we'll be getting a look at some rules tidbits on Warhammer Community this week, hopefully today!

 

I'm eager to see what the army building is going to be like for this edition

I hope we get a more serious deep dive than the normal Warhammer Community “teehee im

just a silly little marketing guy” jokes and memes. 

[Fire Golem]

35 minutes ago, Cyrox said:

 

Supposedly we'll be getting a look at some rules tidbits on Warhammer Community this week, hopefully today!

 

I'm eager to see what the army building is going to be like for this edition

They were actually fairly specific about what we’d see so while I was also hoping for army building info, I wouldn’t expect that this week. 
 

Quote

Here at Warhammer Community, we get to answer the burning question “How Cool is 7 Cool?” in an exciting first look at new rules from Warhammer: The Horus Heresy, including the new characteristics for units and weapons, and the mysterious Tactical Statuses. 

(I’d also probably expect it Thursday)

Edited Monday at 11:31 AM by Fire Golem

[jaxom]

15 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

I hope we get a more serious deep dive than the normal Warhammer Community “teehee im

just a silly little marketing guy” jokes and memes. 

I watch Auspex Tactics on mute for that.

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Fire Golem said:

They were actually fairly specific about what we’d see so while I was also hoping for army building info, I wouldn’t expect that this week. 
 

(I’d also probably expect it Thursday)

This is kind of important for me, we will get to see if the additional stats are irrelevant bloat, or fundamental cornerstones. Also, how many random USRs and rule interactions will need tracking.

[apologist]

I'm optimistic about the expansion/changes in the statlines of units and weapons, as it offers opportunities to streamline elsewhere. Having meaningful subtleties baked into the core statline should allow the removal of all-or-nothing exceptions, and create character through variation.

 

A weapon Damage stat, for example, allows for greater granularity than a set of Instant Death, Brutal etc. special rules, and doesn't require separate reference.

 

You can get meaningful distinction in specialists: Librarians can be better at casting psychic powers, Techmarines better at understanding equipment, and Commanders better at leading men by adjusting just the relevant stats, rather than having to raise the LD and then add a further layer of rules.

[Marshal Rohr]

8 minutes ago, apologist said:

I'm optimistic about the expansion/changes in the statlines of units and weapons, as it offers opportunities to streamline elsewhere. Having meaningful subtleties baked into the core statline should allow the removal of all-or-nothing exceptions, and create character through variation.

 

A weapon Damage stat, for example, allows for greater granularity than a set of Instant Death, Brutal etc. special rules, and doesn't require separate reference.

 

You can get meaningful distinction in specialists: Librarians can be better at casting psychic powers, Techmarines better at understanding equipment, and Commanders better at leading men by adjusting just the relevant stats, rather than having to raise the LD and then add a further layer of rules.

Making everyone pass an intelligence check to use the Augury Scanner benefits or something and tying reactions to other stats is a great way to address reaction issues without just torching the whole thing. 

Edited Monday at 11:57 AM by Marshal Rohr

[01RTB01]

5 hours ago, Marshal Loss said:

Moving back on topic...

 

Wonder if we'll see any special characters stealthily introduced into the new army books as we did from 2.0. Selfishly, I'd love to see Julius Kaersoron & Gabriel Santar inserted given the early focus of 3.0 is on Isstvan V. 

 

Seeing a hyper dynamic model of Julius would be great to see. He could have a dual pack of himself in terminator armour and mkiv. Pipe dream perhaps but would be fun. 

[BitsHammer]

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

They didn't drop it, Cthonia, Beta-Garmon and the Martian Civil War all have a preface initialled by a different fictitious author. 

They dropped it out of the core rulebook and the other large rulebooks though.

[BitsHammer]

2 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I can get behind that idea. I wish they would go back to the format they had in the 1st Edition, though I think that ship sailed with Alan Bligh’s passing. It always reminded me of the old war books that were on my grandfather’s shelf, particularly the detail that went into battle descriptions and whatnot. The Siege of Vraks was the same way, if not even more so and to this day is still my favorite series FW ever made.

Yeah, Bligh clearly had a love for historical wargames he put into his work.

[Stitch5000]

26 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

They dropped it out of the core rulebook and the other large rulebooks though.

An AK signed preface was in the red rulebook from HH1 but there was no background or lore section for it to support.

So, I'm sorry, but they didn't actually drop anything. and instead used the idea more widely, since there are multiple in-universe "witnesses" in the current run of books as opposed to 1 in the first edition.