Heresy ain't narrative

[Razorblade]

Bit of a clickbaity title but I'm serious. 

 

There is nothing narrative about this game or at least nothing specifically narrative compared to any other GW game. In fact it is currently probably the most gamey for gaminess' sake. It's also pretty god awful at promoting "narrative" units for their respective factions. 

Now maybe "narrativeness" comes from the events, but they're all a bunch of randomly assembled forces, half of them incorrectly aligned. Even if the EOs went through the hastle to create a campaign system, there's always some dude who refused to learn the rules beforehand, so by the time that guys game finishes everyone's in too much of a hurry to get the next game started to care about campaign results.

Am I missing something fundamental?

[Marshal Rohr]

On 10/1/2026 at 3:43 PM, Razorblade said:

Am I missing something fundamental?

The events you’re poi-pooing are where the narrative is found. Take a gander at the Merchant Princlings events. Legion of Peterborough. The Gibraltar invitational. If you are finding your games to be no more narrative than your 40K games, you are the common denominator. 

[Razorblade]

8 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

The events you’re poi-pooing are where the narrative is found. Take a gander at the Merchant Princlings events. Legion of Peterborough. The Gibraltar invitational. If you are finding your games to be no more narrative than your 40K games, you are the common denominator. 

Couple things. If the events are where the narrative comes from, we agree that there is nothing inherently narrative about the ruleset? 

I haven't been to any of these events but I attended the tabletopbattles open (at the time the biggest heresy event in the uk) and literally every world Eaters army in their solar war event were loyalists. 

Which brings me back to my point. If you find your events to create compelling narratives please share how they do so, because the unifying experience of 20+ events across 3 countries in the past 3 years has been that of random armies being often nonsensical distributed across to factions that then play a series of games that isn't directly connected to the page of background put out by the EOs and at the end of 1-3 days one side is declared the winner. 

[kabaakaba]

No setting is narrative by itself. People make it's such. I know people who plays modrheim like its ultra competitive game. 

 

[Marshal Rohr]

12 hours ago, Razorblade said:

Couple things. If the events are where the narrative comes from, we agree that there is nothing inherently narrative about the ruleset? 

I haven't been to any of these events but I attended the tabletopbattles open (at the time the biggest heresy event in the uk) and literally every world Eaters army in their solar war event were loyalists. 

Which brings me back to my point. If you find your events to create compelling narratives please share how they do so, because the unifying experience of 20+ events across 3 countries in the past 3 years has been that of random armies being often nonsensical distributed across to factions that then play a series of games that isn't directly connected to the page of background put out by the EOs and at the end of 1-3 days one side is declared the winner. 

There is nothing inherently narrative in any ruleset. The Journals do a decent job providing some narrative add-ons. 11th edition 40K has no crusade rules right now. Old World needed its journals and even then the community just made a bunch of fan rules anyway. The narrative often comes from how you build your army so the Loyalist World Eaters you saw were narratively themed armies, but nobody coordinated across the even like Gibraltar or MPs events. Heresy is still the most narrative of the various GW games outside of Necromunda, but most of that comes from having a clear vision of what you’re trying to build on the table. 

 

[ThaneOfTas]

Its a hell of a lot easier to create your own characters and forces when your rule system actually allows you to make choices about them rather than being stuck the the same basic datasheet that everyone else has.

 

Those characters and units actually having identity is a large part of where the Narrative flavour comes from to me. On top of that, the fact that units are actually playing in manners that make sense for them, stuff like bolters only being worthwhile into other marines or easier, actually needing antitank to fight tanks, and anti-tank only being of limited use into infanty.

[Razorblade]

8 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

There is nothing inherently narrative in any ruleset. The Journals do a decent job providing some narrative add-ons. 11th edition 40K has no crusade rules right now. 

Hard disagree. Necromunda, BB, Mordheim, TC all have progression systems baked into their rules. 40k ditched it's progression system (which I think is smart for a larger scale game) but has its asymmetrical missions and terrain objectives instead of people standing in the same random 6" circles, and an entire campaign deck that looks tailor made for weekend events. 

8 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Heresy is still the most narrative of the various GW games outside of Necromunda, but most of that comes from having a clear vision of what you’re trying to build on the table. 

 

Even harder disagree here. In fact since the removal of RoWs heresy is probably the least narrative of GWs games, as elaborated above. 

4 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Its a hell of a lot easier to create your own characters and forces when your rule system actually allows you to make choices about them rather than being stuck the the same basic datasheet that everyone else has.

I don't really understand your point here since 40k datasets have weapon options? 

And it's not like having a gazillion weapon options does anything for variety when a maximum of two are good, or when is the last time you've seen a praetor with a power weapon. In fact where 40k rolls different weapons into a unified profile that's usually a huge win since you can now model your guy as you envision him instead of being stuck in 30ks thunder hammer land. 

4 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Those characters and units actually having identity is a large part of where the Narrative flavour comes from to me. On top of that, the fact that units are actually playing in manners that make sense for them, stuff like bolters only being worthwhile into other marines or easier, actually needing antitank to fight tanks, and anti-tank only being of limited use into infanty.

I'm not sure how you get to the bonkers conclusion that characters and units have an identity in 30k. Half of the Ultra Elite melee units are anti-troop bullies at best because they're stuck on power weapons (in 40k and power weapon on an elite unit would simply have a better statline) half tge characters are some flavour of basic beatstick (in 40k characters get unique leader abilities). Of the giant arsenal of 30k anti-tank weapons 3 or so are actually good against tanks. The Omega tank destroyer flat out can't harm most of them in the first place. Instead your anti-tank guns are and have been since 2E your go to infantry killers. 

The more I read the more I suspect that "narrative" comes down to "I just want my vehicle armor and care about literally nothing else" 

[Marshal Rohr]

I mentioned Necromunda, Blood Bowl is also a SGDS game, Mordheim is not supported anymore, and Trench Crusade isn’t a games workshop product. The designer hasn’t worked for GW in over twenty years. If your primary contention is that Heresy is just about armor values jog on, you’re a bad faith actor. If you can’t see how to make a narrative list in Herssy and just want to argue about the core rules, no one cares. That’s what the brain rotted Reddit is for. 

[SlickSamos]

21 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

No setting is narrative by itself. People make it's such. I know people who plays modrheim like its ultra competitive game. 

I think this is the best summary - it's the same with MESBG: you can do a massive linked campaign which goes through the whole book and film (or more realistically just play your favourite scenes with a mate); you can do a straight up tournament; or run a good vs evil tournament (selling good and evil tickets).  Also GW used to run a good and evil tournament where everyone brought both a good and evil list!  

[TheTrans]

Look I feel the initial post just needed a Tom Hardy 'Thats Bait' gif and left there in all honesty haha.

[Brother Ezra]

I understand that reaction, but I do feel like there's an interesting bit of discussion to be had here.

 

I've personally been very hesitant to delve deeper into the Horus Heresy, even though I'm very interested in the setting itself, because I often encounter a rather large disconnect between the narrative of a game and the actual playing of a game. A game like the Horus Heresy certainly offers you the tools to create a narrative for your force - not only through unique wargear options and force organization, but also the various narrative hooks you could pursue. You can make two armies from the same Legion that have utterly nothing in common, which is pretty damn amazing in my opinion!

 

However, much of that narrative seems to evaporate once armies actually hit the table, though, or at least that's how I've experienced it. It's no longer a fight of who is fighting who - it becomes what is fighting what, and how good are they at doing so. Your flavourful unit that you crafted with care may end up being largely useless because their weapon loadout is simply... not that functional in the game. And likewise, one of your units may end up being entirely busted simply because your narrative vision happens to align with what works efficiently according to the rules.

 

Is that a Horus Heresy problem? Is that a GW problem? I don't think so - I've had similar experiences with stuff like Turnip28, which is rather far removed from the corporate ecosystem that plagues GW's products. It seems like it's a problem of narrative vs function, background vs rules.

 

For me, the real question is - can we get around this disconnect? I think in the Horus Heresy, there's certainly more room for it, as people do seem to be more passionate about the setting. But I'm not sure what you'd need to do to bridge the gap properly.

 

 

[Marshal Rohr]

Is anything truly non-functional anymore? The new statuses and weapon effects seem like every can do a little something, which could do a little something else. I guess militia and cults can get stuck in tickle fights and that does suck. 

[Pacific81]

As an open question, how are the events running at the moment for HH? Are they being spun as narrative/soft score games or as pure comp events?

Generally event organisers want tickets to sell and so that should indicate how people play the game.

 

I agree with part of the OPs suggestion that there is nothing inherently within the mechanics of the game that pushes towards narrative play - contrast with the likes of Necromunda or Mordheim, which have much stronger campaign & RPG-lite elements allowed by their scale.

Outside of the GW stable the likes of Konflikt 47 & Trench Crusade have dedicated narrative sections in their rulebooks, alongside basic 'score to win' match-up games.

 

I definitely think its more that there is a strong narrative heritage to Heresy, stemming from the descriptive quality of the black books & the Heresy novels, and also it was seen as a port in the storm away from the increasingly comp-focussed 40k (I think most Heresy players look at the unpainted, symmetrical L-shaped terrain of that game and shudder). I think thats probably why this has become the most down-voted post we have seen here for some time, as there is a fear that the story-driven, almost historical-type gaming is not baked into the game and it may go down the 'dark path' :)

[ThaneOfTas]

On 10/9/2026 at 9:15 PM, Pacific81 said:

As an open question, how are the events running at the moment for HH? Are they being spun as narrative/soft score games or as pure comp events?

Generally event organisers want tickets to sell and so that should indicate how people play the game.

I'm headed to a Zone Mortalis event next weekend which is definitely marketed as a Narrative first event.

[Brofist]

My events are heavy on the narrative too. I even stopped running more mainstream gatherings like LVO because I wanted maximum freedom to scale down and double down on quality of experience.

[Brother Lutheriel]

Can someone who is saying that it IS good for narrative give me a little clearer explanation or definition? I’ve only played 40k, but I have discovered 2 things as I’ve done that:

1. I really like narrative play. 

2. 40k isn’t inherently good at encouraging narrative play. 
 

So why is 30k “better” at narrative? Is it just because of the background with the books? Like OP said, if there is nothing in the ruleset that makes it narrative then what do you do to enhance that narrative aspect? 
 

Some of you have commented that it’s easier to craft your army narratively. What exactly do you mean? I feel like I’ve invented a whole bunch of lore and backstory to my armies in 40k. So what makes that easier or better in 30k?

 

I’m genuinely curious because I wish my games had MORE narrative aspects. 

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Well, the current edition is not. It's steaming hot garbage.

 

So don't look at that for your 'narrative needs'.

 

If you can manage to get hold of the so-called 'Black Books', which were essentially the camapaign books for first edition, and start to browse the lore, background and campaign missions / setup presented therein, then you'll understand.

 

1.0 vs 3.0 is like having your favourite movie of all time with a great script written by a talented person swapped out for an unecessary remake where the writing is a piece of low-effort AI-assisted trash.

[Brofist]

I don't actually think its uniquely good at narrative as a system. Especially compared to older editions of itself. Coincidentally that's why many older players don't like it as much anymore.

 

Narrative is just a mindset you approach your hobby. Heresy started as a niche, difficult to access, love project from a specialist game studio. It drew people who liked the horus heresy lore, but also 40k refugees that were giving up on the mainline game. It self-selected for older hobbyists with the money, connections, or skills to get and work with niche models. A hipster game for hipster gamers who, over a decade, built a strong community identity focused on hobby over gameplay and *not* being 40k. Unsurprisingly this resulted in a very high bar for hobby.

 

Since it got rolled into GW this has been eroded over time, but that old narrative culture remains entrenched. Can you do the same with another game system? Sure bro. But not all systems have the same hobby focused culture as a baseline.

[Razorblade]

11 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

I'm headed to a Zone Mortalis event next weekend which is definitely marketed as a Narrative first event.

But how is that going to actually affect gameplay? 

Because 9 in 10 heresy events say they are narrative but what that usually adds up to in effect is not counting Ws and having a page of background lore on the event page. 

9 hours ago, Brofist said:

My events are heavy on the narrative too. I even stopped running more mainstream gatherings like LVO because I wanted maximum freedom to scale down and double down on quality of experience.

Again I would love to hear the specific measures you take to make those narrative events.

2 hours ago, Brofist said:

Narrative is just a mindset you approach your hobby.

I have to disagree on this one. You can make rules that make an army play in a way that feels *right* you can make rules that encourage armies that resemble forces from the lore and you can write missions that feel like they're part of a story instead of just 2 armies trying to stand in arbitrary 6" circles. It's just that heresy specifically does none of that. 

[Brother Lutheriel]

2 hours ago, Brofist said:

I don't actually think its uniquely good at narrative as a system. Especially compared to older editions of itself. Coincidentally that's why many older players don't like it as much anymore.

 

Narrative is just a mindset you approach your hobby. Heresy started as a niche, difficult to access, love project from a specialist game studio. It drew people who liked the horus heresy lore, but also 40k refugees that were giving up on the mainline game. It self-selected for older hobbyists with the money, connections, or skills to get and work with niche models. A hipster game for hipster gamers who, over a decade, built a strong community identity focused on hobby over gameplay and *not* being 40k. Unsurprisingly this resulted in a very high bar for hobby.

 

Since it got rolled into GW this has been eroded over time, but that old narrative culture remains entrenched. Can you do the same with another game system? Sure bro. But not all systems have the same hobby focused culture as a baseline.

This is a great answer to my other thread topic about why the bar to entry seems so high in HH. It feels like HH was designed for 3rd-7th edition 40K fans. Which actually makes me want to get into it.

 

I also think you just gave a great answer to this thread. It’s narrative in culture because it’s been eroded in actual design. 
 

@Unknown Legionnaire my buddy was able to get several of the out of print books in PDF form and shared one with me because I’m interested in the lore for the Thramas crusade. I didn’t realize how important those books were to good narrative gameplay. 

[TheTrans]

5 hours ago, Brofist said:

I don't actually think its uniquely good at narrative as a system. Especially compared to older editions of itself. Coincidentally that's why many older players don't like it as much anymore...

**brilliant take continues**

 

@BrofistI think you absolutely hit the butchers nails on the head.

 

Excellent rundown and explanation, I don't think anyone has explained the shift so concisely!

 

Bravo sIr, bravo!

[Griefbringer]

3 hours ago, Brother Lutheriel said:

 It feels like HH was designed for 3rd-7th edition 40K fans. Which actually makes me want to get into it.

 

My understanding is that the early Forge World gaming material (ca. 2012-2016) for Horus Heresy was simply written as supplements to go with the then commercially available WH40K 6th/7th edition rules. When WH40K took the jump to 8th edition (which was not compatible with earlier material) in 2017, the Horus Heresy team of the time (which tragically that year also lost its primus motor designer) decided to stick to the previous rules mechanisms, and released their own version (nowadays knows as Horus Heresy 1.0 rulebook) of them in late 2017. The later versions of Horus Heresy 2.0 (2022) and 3.0 (2025) have retained the basic mechanisms of those 1.0 rules, but have also introduced swathes of brand new changes (to a mixed reception from the players of earlier editions).

 

As for narrative style gaming, the most important thing you need is one or more other players who are also interested in narrative style gaming of some form. Even the best rulebooks are just tools to the end, though there is a fair bit that they can encourage or inspire those interested in the narrative aspects. An interesting example is the Adeptus Titanicus (2018) rulebook, which contains sections about both narrative and matched play. The narrative part contains six quite varied "historical" scenarios, with their background and interesting special rules, covering two pages each (for a total of 12 pages of scenario material). The matched play section, which only comes after the narrative scenarios, is on contrast only five pages long.

[Pacific81]

For a bit of additional background on this Heresy being based on 3rd-7th edition games and narrative play, you can almost draw a straight line back to the 'founding fathers' of Priestley, Jervis, Chambers & co who were had initially designed 40k to play as that sort of game - Rick Priestley in particular had always said about games telling a story, there is a lot of reference to historical events & in some cases they were actually writing the game's background as they played WD battle reports (Captain Tycho's background was created after Andy Chambers had a super unlucky save to a weirdboy psychic attack in 2nd edition's first battle report). Lots of other games had unbalanced scenarios, you got short stories written for them etc.

 

So I think you had a game written by those guys who grew up on history at uni, 2000AD, Dune, Asimov & created and played through that universe, and that carried all the way forward to Heresy and the way Bligh & co made that game, very much of the same spirit.

And I think by the time 8th rolled around you had games written by guys who grew up on Warhammer, have a very narrow field to work in, and are being instructed how to direct the game.

 

At least that is my take on it. And there is a smaller (and growing older) group who grew up into those games alongside that original core of writers, and want that to persist in Heresy, even though modern 40k has very much left them behind. At least, that is my simplistic take on it.

Edited 8 hours ago by Pacific81

[Marshal Rohr]

1 hour ago, Pacific81 said:

For a bit of additional background on this Heresy being based on 3rd-7th edition games and narrative play, you can almost draw a straight line back to the 'founding fathers' of Priestley, Jervis, Chambers & co who were had initially designed 40k to play as that sort of game - Rick Priestley in particular had always said about games telling a story, there is a lot of reference to historical events & in some cases they were actually writing the game's background as they played WD battle reports (Captain Tycho's background was created after Andy Chambers had a super unlucky save to a weirdboy psychic attack in 2nd edition's first battle report). Lots of other games had unbalanced scenarios, you got short stories written for them etc.

 

So I think you had a game written by those guys who grew up on history at uni, 2000AD, Dune, Asimov & created and played through that universe, and that carried all the way forward to Heresy and the way Bligh & co made that game, very much of the same spirit.

And I think by the time 8th rolled around you had games written by guys who grew up on Warhammer, have a very narrow field to work in, and are being instructed how to direct the game.

 

At least that is my take on it. And there is a smaller (and growing older) group who grew up into those games alongside that original core of writers, and want that to persist in Heresy, even though modern 40k has very much left them behind. At least, that is my simplistic take on it.

No that’s 100% correct. The new heresy models reference older models, not aesthetic or functional influences from outside sources. When Mark 7 gets here, mark my words, it’s going to be the gem in the chest round tube helmet vent versions. The first range of heresy miniatures for each legion looked wild and zany until about Conquest. Then it started pulling back. 

[Brother Ezra]

13 hours ago, Brother Lutheriel said:

Can someone who is saying that it IS good for narrative give me a little clearer explanation or definition? I’ve only played 40k, but I have discovered 2 things as I’ve done that:

1. I really like narrative play. 

2. 40k isn’t inherently good at encouraging narrative play. 
 

So why is 30k “better” at narrative? Is it just because of the background with the books? Like OP said, if there is nothing in the ruleset that makes it narrative then what do you do to enhance that narrative aspect? 
 

Some of you have commented that it’s easier to craft your army narratively. What exactly do you mean? I feel like I’ve invented a whole bunch of lore and backstory to my armies in 40k. So what makes that easier or better in 30k?

 

I’m genuinely curious because I wish my games had MORE narrative aspects. 

 

In the case of 30k, I think the Rites of War are - or were - the biggest contributor to the "narrative" feel. A Rite of War let you change the way you built your army, and gave you bonuses and limitations accordingly. Want to run a tank column? Sure - your Predators are now troops, but you'll have to stick all your infantry in tanks, too. Want to do a drop pod assault like in Dawn of War? You've got it, but you'll have to etc. etc. On top of that, you'd have your choice of Legion, with its own set of advantages and drawbacks, which could (but not always) synergize with a certain Rite of War.

 

This made it easier to build an army that not only played as it should both from a functional perspective, but also aligned with the narrative of your specific Legion force. That way you could, for example, make a Night Lords armoured column, or a Death Guard recon company, or a Blood Angels underground assault force, that would still work within the game without your choices immediately handicapping you. Sure, some things might be less effective, but never entirely ineffective either. 

 

In short, the Rites of War seemingly bridged the gap between rules and narrative, giving you the tools to turn a narrative into a functional army. But I'll leave it to people who have actual gaming experience to tell us whether it did so successfully  

 

40k has this to a far lesser extent, I think (bear in mind, I have very little experience with the current edition - my last game was back in 5th!). There used to be Formations and such things, but those seemed to break the game a lot, and some of them clearly weren't as good as other options. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

 

As for narrative style gaming, the most important thing you need is one or more other players who are also interested in narrative style gaming of some form. Even the best rulebooks are just tools to the end, though there is a fair bit that they can encourage or inspire those interested in the narrative aspects. An interesting example is the Adeptus Titanicus (2018) rulebook, which contains sections about both narrative and matched play. The narrative part contains six quite varied "historical" scenarios, with their background and interesting special rules, covering two pages each (for a total of 12 pages of scenario material). The matched play section, which only comes after the narrative scenarios, is on contrast only five pages long.

 

Emphasis mine - I think this is ultimately the way to do it. A narrative can make the game more interesting by providing either additional rules, or by imposing limitations. I'm not sure how feasible that is in a 'tournament' style event, though, as you'd have to take into account the variety of armies that will be playing...