Switch Theme:

New HH Edition discussion.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 kirotheavenger wrote:
Gert, I don't know what point you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing against thin air.
You're going off about HH armies vs 40k armies and skirmish-tactics vs line-tactics. Just why?

I don't share your definition of skirmish, but whether or not a game of 40k is a "skirmish" is irrelevant to the point so I didn't oppose the definition you gave earlier.

I've granted you that these are "battles" not "skirmishes" but it doesn't change a single thing about the point of discussion.
60 Astartes is easily small enough that you could justify them all using rare equipment.

One poster said HH battles were tiny skirmishes. I said no that's not true. You said they are skirmishes and I provided you with the actual definitions of what a skirmisher is and what a skirmish battle is considered to be.
There doesn't need to be justification for anyone using MkVI because as it has been explicitly made clear in this last week, it's always been there and anyone arguing against it is a mushroom brain.
 Gert wrote:
Someone said that Heresy games are all tiny battles, which isn't true so that's why I'm being picky. It's true compared to the entire Heresy or events like the Titandeath but they are notable events for a reason.

That's it. That is the point I am making.
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

Alright, since it seems you do understand the point that was made just and are just making a point of ignoring it, now we know that I can humour your argument.

How large is a "tiny battle" in your definition - because by my definition ~60 marines + a little support is tiny.
I looked up the size of all the small battles I could think of in WW2 - all of them are multiple times larger than a 3k game of HH.
St Nazaire, Point Du Hoc, Villiers Bocage, St Mere Eglise.
I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!

It is far closer in size to engagements like Brecourt Manor which are explictly remembered as skirmishes.

I also took the liberty of getting the actual dictionary definition of skirmish, rather than Gert's own.
Google wrote:an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
.
40k battles are definitely a short "episode", they're pretty irregular with random units drawn from across their legion, and just 60+support is a small force.

Cambridge wrote:a fight between a small number of soldiers that is usually short and not planned, and happens away from the main area of fighting in a war

Again, I say it's a small group of soldiers, they're definitely short, and you only start to plan minutes before when you see the terrain.

Meriam Webster wrote:a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements

In the schemes of a legion 60+support is definitely a minor fight, and we both agree they're nothing compared to the large movements like Istvaan.

So I'm confident in saying that the battles on the tabletop fit the definition of a Skirmish.
And I certainly don't think you're as vindicated in your position as you seem to think.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 12:32:08


 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 kirotheavenger wrote:
Alright, since it seems you do understand the point that was made just and are just making a point of ignoring it, now we know that I can humour your argument.

I didn't ignore it, it was a different discussion because I don't see the need to continue the MkVI one yet again.

How large is a "tiny battle" in your definition - because by my definition ~60 marines + a little support is tiny.
I looked up the size of all the small battles I could think of in WW2 - all of them are multiple times larger than a 3k game of HH.
St Nazaire, Point Du Hoc, Villiers Bocage, St Mere Eglise.
I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!

The problem is the word "battle" itself. It can be used to describe a lot of things in a lot of different ways, from entire campaigns, such as the Battle for France or the Battle of the Atlantic, to single engagements such as the Battle of 42nd Street (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_42nd_Street) or the Battle of Thermopylae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_(1941)).

I would define skirmish before battle, which I (and most others) would define as something between 10 and 30 troops at most in the entire engagement, not just on one side. We also have to consider the difference between Astartes and a mortal army like Solar Auxilia or Militia. In a very very crude example, a battle between an Astartes force and a mortal force is more akin to Rorke's Drift i.e. (140ish British regulars vs 3-4k Zulus). Maybe not exactly that of course but it's the same kind of scale of a more militarily and technologically advanced army against a more numerous but inferiorly equipped and trained army. So it might well be you only have 60 Astartes with 3 supporting vehicles and 3 officers but your enemy could have upwards of 120 mortal troops, 10 or more supporting vehicles, and a command cadre of 15 soldiers.

Also, Quora can be useful but it took me no time at all to find battles in WW2 that weren't fought between 1000s of troops.


It is far closer in size to engagements like Brecourt Manor which are explictly remembered as skirmishes.

That was 23 US paras and 60 Wehrmacht soldiers. That's actually a skirmish using skirmisher tactics to overwhelm and confuse a larger enemy force.


I also took the liberty of getting the actual dictionary definition of skirmish, rather than Gert's own.
Google wrote:an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
.
40k battles are definitely a short "episode", they're pretty irregular with random units drawn from across their legion, and just 60+support is a small force.

A couple of things:
- I used that definition as the basis for mine and it is not accurate to your definition.
- Time in 40k games is not a concept that is known, you have no basis but your own opinion to base this point on.
- Where are you getting the idea that every single HH player's army is a collection of random units? Unless we're discussing the Shattered Legions (who are still largely organised by Legion or Company), Blackshields (who are organised by loyalty to individuals) and even in those cases, armies in HH don't just go "Send in these 3 squads from the 88th Company, 5 Dreadnoughts from the 3rd, 9th and 104th and get that dude from the 12th to lead them". In fact, the only time that happened was at Isstvan III and even then Tarvitz and Loken organised their forces into a cohesive structure that was able to resist the Traitors for some time until Horus got mad, sent in the Dies Irae, and then nuked the planet again.


Cambridge wrote:a fight between a small number of soldiers that is usually short and not planned, and happens away from the main area of fighting in a war

Again, I say it's a small group of soldiers, they're definitely short, and you only start to plan minutes before when you see the terrain.

You are confusing real-life planning with in-universe planning and also forgetting that Game =/= Background.


Meriam Webster wrote:a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements

In the schemes of a legion 60+support is definitely a minor fight, and we both agree they're nothing compared to the large movements like Istvaan.

Again, the Istvaan events being in the absolute minority with upwards of 1 million Astartes present.


So I'm confident in saying that the battles on the tabletop fit the definition of a Skirmish.
And I certainly don't think you're as vindicated in your position as you seem to think.

You've made more than a few erroneous assumptions on your part with regard to the passage of time within the game, the fact that the game itself does not always accurately reflect the background, and the constant misuse of exceptional events as common, among others.
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

 Gert wrote:

The problem is the word "battle" itself. It can be used to describe a lot of things in a lot of different ways, from entire campaigns, such as the Battle for France or the Battle of the Atlantic, to single engagements such as the Battle of 42nd Street (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_42nd_Street) or the Battle of Thermopylae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_(1941)).

I notice that both of those battles are substantially larger than your average 3k game, although exactly how large is hard to say as exact combatant numbers aren't given.
Bear in mind you're not just saying battles can be as small as ~3k points, you're saying ~3k points is normal for a battle.

I would define skirmish before battle, which I (and most others) would define as...

That's just a little presumptuous, any source for that?


It is far closer in size to engagements like Brecourt Manor which are explictly remembered as skirmishes.

That was 23 US paras and 60 Wehrmacht soldiers. That's actually a skirmish using skirmisher tactics to overwhelm and confuse a larger enemy force.

That's literally my point that it's a skirmish, I don't see what point you're trying to make here.
The point is 23/60 guys is far closer to what you see in 3k than the 1-2 battalions a side of guys in the battles you linked above.


you have no basis but your own opinion to base this point on.

Indeed I do - sound familiar? It should because you have but the same basis!


- Where are you getting the idea that every single HH player's army is a collection of random units? Unless we're discussing the Shattered Legions (who are still largely organised by Legion or Company), Blackshields (who are organised by loyalty to individuals) and even in those cases, armies in HH don't just go "Send in these 3 squads from the 88th Company, 5 Dreadnoughts from the 3rd, 9th and 104th and get that dude from the 12th to lead them". In fact, the only time that happened was at Isstvan III and even then Tarvitz and Loken organised their forces into a cohesive structure that was able to resist the Traitors for some time until Horus got mad, sent in the Dies Irae, and then nuked the planet again.
because that's what you commonly see.
Here's some tacticals, couple dreadnoughts, some terminators, Spartan with some of the primarch's personal bodyguard, vindicator and sicaran, grab some Destroyers as well, throw in a scorpius and a Basilisk whilst we're at it.

Cambridge wrote:a fight between a small number of soldiers that is usually short and not planned, and happens away from the main area of fighting in a war

Again, I say it's a small group of soldiers, they're definitely short, and you only start to plan minutes before when you see the terrain.

You are confusing real-life planning with in-universe planning and also forgetting that Game =/= Background.

We're literally talking about the game. If you want to pull out the "background" we established above that a game of 40k might be considered a pivotal moment in a larger battle.


Meriam Webster wrote:a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements

In the schemes of a legion 60+support is definitely a minor fight, and we both agree they're nothing compared to the large movements like Istvaan.

Again, the Istvaan events being in the absolute minority with upwards of 1 million Astartes present.

You're really missing the woods for the trees there ain't ya.
It's not just Istvaan, there's a million examples I could pull from the books and they're all significantly more than 60 marines plus some support.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 13:48:21


 
   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh




Salt Lake City

Actual on the table scalewise HH, and 40k, aren't small engagements but thematically they absolutely are. I'm not sure what's hard to grasp about that?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 13:55:49


This post brought to you by Monsanto™ 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I notice that both of those battles are substantially larger than your average 3k game, although exactly how large is hard to say as exact combatant numbers aren't given.

Those were examples of battles that were smaller than hundreds of thousands of soldiers you seemed to think didn't exist.


Bear in mind you're not just saying battles can be as small as ~3k points, you're saying ~3k points is normal for a battle.

No, I'm saying a 3k game isn't a skirmish, and tangentially yes 3k games are the average for HH since it allows the bells and whistles everyone likes while helping to represent the scale of the conflict.


That's just a little presumptuous, any source for that?

The definitions of skirmish, the discussions I've had with my gaming group, the AoS supplement called Skirmish that focused on about 10 models per player, Kill Team which is specifically billed as the skirmish game of 40k, Infinity being defined as a skirmish game where it seems to focus on about 10-20 miniatures. Do I go on?


The point is 23/60 guys is far closer to what you see in 3k than the 1-2 battalions a side of guys in the battles you linked above.

It's closer to 40k but not necessarily HH, especially at higher point levels.
You seem to be under the impression that I think no HH games can be skirmish level, which is not what I am saying at all. You can do a skirmish size game in HH, the system just doesn't support it well and you would be better using the Victory is Vengeance subgame.

Indeed I do - sound familiar? It should because you have but the same basis!

The difference being the exact point I was referring to is entirely based on opinion, unlike mine which are based on fact and definition.


because that's what you commonly see.
Here's some tacticals, couple dreadnoughts, some terminators, Spartan with some of the primarch's personal bodyguard, vindicator and sicaran, grab some Destroyers as well, throw in a scorpius and a Basilisk whilst we're at it.

So the only things there that would be specifically outside of a Legion Company would be the Primarch and their bodyguard (although not necessarily as they could be an honour guard chosen from veterans of the Company). So no, not random at all.


We're literally talking about the game. If you want to pull out the "background" we established above that a game of 40k might be considered a pivotal moment in a larger battle.

You can't bring up in-universe examples of battles and not expect me to also use the background as a basis for my arguments.


You're really missing the woods for the trees there ain't ya.
It's not just Istvaan, there's a million examples I could pull from the books and they're all significantly more than 60 marines plus some support.

Are they campaigns or individual engagements? Because the latter makes up the former and that is generally what games of HH represent.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Dudley, UK

I think the point being made is that sure, you can view a tabletop HH game as a tiddly tiny skirmish OR as the vital flash point of a wider engagement, AND BOTH OF THESE ARE VALID.
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

I remember playing Epic about 20 years ago, and that helped me understand the scale of most 40K games. A one-turn firefight between two small detachments within a larger Epic game is our six-turn game of 40K.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

 Gert wrote:

Those were examples of battles that were smaller than hundreds of thousands of soldiers you seemed to think didn't exist.

What on earth gave you the impression I didn't think they exist?
The closest I can think that would give that impression is when I said this...
Kiro wrote:I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!

Emphasis my own. I think that actually makes it clear I do believe smaller battles exist!


Bear in mind you're not just saying battles can be as small as ~3k points, you're saying ~3k points is normal for a battle.

No, I'm saying a 3k game isn't a skirmish, and tangentially yes 3k games are the average for HH since it allows the bells and whistles everyone likes while helping to represent the scale of the conflict.

You didn't just say it wasn't a skirmish, you also said it wasn't a "tiny battle".


That's just a little presumptuous, any source for that?

The definitions of skirmish, the discussions I've had with my gaming group, the AoS supplement called Skirmish that focused on about 10 models per player, Kill Team which is specifically billed as the skirmish game of 40k, Infinity being defined as a skirmish game where it seems to focus on about 10-20 miniatures. Do I go on?

Well for a start I provided three different definitions of Skirmish and not one of them defined it as 20-30 guys tops.
If you're talking about skirmish games that's a very different thing. Skirmish games are where one model if a unit unto themselves, which then shakes out as a dozen or so miniatures in total. A separate concept to skirmishes as a military conflict.

The point is 23/60 guys is far closer to what you see in 3k than the 1-2 battalions a side of guys in the battles you linked above.

It's closer to 40k but not necessarily HH, especially at higher point levels.
You seem to be under the impression that I think no HH games can be skirmish level, which is not what I am saying at all. You can do a skirmish size game in HH, the system just doesn't support it well and you would be better using the Victory is Vengeance subgame.

I get the distinct impression you're not here to have an honest argument. I make a deliberate effort to specify "~3k" and you still respond like I'm saying no HH games can be skirmishes?
If you want to have this discussion read and understand what I say otherwise we're not going anywhere.

Indeed I do - sound familiar? It should because you have but the same basis!

The difference being the exact point I was referring to is entirely based on opinion, unlike mine which are based on fact and definition.

What facts and definitions might that be?
Last I counted I was the only one that's actually provided any definitions, you've just used Gert's own.
And as far as facts go... even the battles you yourself provided are substantially larger than the battles we play at 3k.


because that's what you commonly see.
Here's some tacticals, couple dreadnoughts, some terminators, Spartan with some of the primarch's personal bodyguard, vindicator and sicaran, grab some Destroyers as well, throw in a scorpius and a Basilisk whilst we're at it.

So the only things there that would be specifically outside of a Legion Company would be the Primarch and their bodyguard (although not necessarily as they could be an honour guard chosen from veterans of the Company). So no, not random at all.

No they're pretty random, you don't see many real life companies mixing different specialisms of infantry and multiple different classes and purposes of tank.

You're really missing the woods for the trees there ain't ya.
It's not just Istvaan, there's a million examples I could pull from the books and they're all significantly more than 60 marines plus some support.

Are they campaigns or individual engagements? Because the latter makes up the former and that is generally what games of HH represent.

Yes individual engagements, they all represent [/i]substantially[/i] more than a single ~3k game of HH.
Do you have any examples of major battles in novels that are just ~3k points?
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






Spoiler:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
What on earth gave you the impression I didn't think they exist?
The closest I can think that would give that impression is when I said this...
Kiro wrote:I also hopped on Quora to see what people saying was the "smallest battle of WW2" - the things they were coming up with had hundreds or thousands of combatants!

Emphasis my own. I think that actually makes it clear I do believe smaller battles exist!

It doesn't, it makes it look like you went on Quora and found stuff that supported your idea that a skirmish is a battle with hundreds of combatants.


You didn't just say it wasn't a skirmish, you also said it wasn't a "tiny battle".

It's not a "tiny battle", it is an average size battle between Demi-Company or greater size formations of Astartes or mortal/Mechanicum equivilants. It would be tiny compared to a campaign with 10k Astartes on each side but there is a significant difference between a campaign and an individual engagement, something you seem unable to understand.

Well for a start I provided three different definitions of Skirmish and not one of them defined it as 20-30 guys tops.
If you're talking about skirmish games that's a very different thing. Skirmish games are where one model if a unit unto themselves, which then shakes out as a dozen or so miniatures in total. A separate concept to skirmishes as a military conflict.

No, it isn't, they are exactly the same thing. If it's a skirmish wargame then how is the definition different from that of the military definition? And again to go back to the definitions where it is specified that a skirmish is a engagement of irregular (which BTW does not mean random but rather units that engage in indirect or asymmetrical warfare) or unpremeditated (as in two forces suddenly coming upon one another by accident) fighting between small or outlying parts of an army. How is the greater part of an Astartes Company with armour support small in any context but the deployment of a huge force such as a full Chapter?

I get the distinct impression you're not here to have an honest argument. I make a deliberate effort to specify "~3k" and you still respond like I'm saying no HH games can be skirmishes?
If you want to have this discussion read and understand what I say otherwise we're not going anywhere.

Quite the opposite, it seems you keep insisting every HH game is a skirmish.

What facts and definitions might that be?
Last I counted I was the only one that's actually provided any definitions, you've just used Gert's own.
And as far as facts go... even the battles you yourself provided are substantially larger than the battles we play at 3k.

You're choosing to ignore the fact that the comment was based on you stating games of HH were within a specific timescale. You made something up and I called it nonsense. The definitions you provided are perfectly fine, you just aren't applying them to HH properly and using your personal opinion as fact whereas I am not.


No they're pretty random, you don't see many real life companies mixing different specialisms of infantry and multiple different classes and purposes of tank.

This isn't real life and you are objectively wrong in this instance. Maybe do some research into the way armies work in HH before you make another utterly wrong statement.


Yes individual engagements, they all represent [/i]substantially[/i] more than a single ~3k game of HH.
Do you have any examples of major battles in novels that are just ~3k points?

Alexis Polux's boarding of the Contrador, Amandus Tyr's boarding of the Iron Blood, the boarding of the Furious Abyss, the Daemonic incursion on the Maccrages Honour, Saul Tarvitz and Lucius's defeat of Charmosian on Istvaan III, Autek Mor's assault on Bodt's spaceport, Ferrus Manus's last stand on Istvaan V, etc.
You seem to not understand the difference between a campaign and an individual engagement within that campaign.

I'm done having this discussion with you. You've made a bunch of claims based on incorrect facts or personal opinions and tbh I'm sick of this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 17:53:15


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

Yeah, we're done here, you've responded to everything except what I've actually said.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Someone planing Legiones Astartes "Space Marine '89" Style?



 Albertorius wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
 tauist wrote:
The origins of Horus Heresy come from 1st edition Space Marine, a game in 6mm epic scale in which all the marines were MkVI. Get off my lawn.

It is you HH only players who are eating up retconned lore from my days

(Its OK, I'll still play your dudes, regardless of armour Mk)


What I was going to say! Mk6 is the original Horus Heresy mark of armour, thanks to the first Space Marine boxset, as far as I am concerned


Technically it was the original mark of armor for the HH and 40k. As there was no other.


Also the illustrations in Index Astartes Books from c. 2002 gave the impression and implied that the MkVI war the most common armour for most of the legions during the Heresy, except some exceptions (WE had MkV, DG MkIII ect.).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/10 19:15:19


 
   
Made in gb
Preparing the Invasion of Terra






That's interesting to see that certain Legions were shuffled about number-wise. Even better that most kept their OG numbers and colours.
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

RazorEdge wrote:
Someone planning Legiones Astartes "Space Marine '89" Style?



Part of me really wants to do my Ultramarines in the old style with bright red bolters, blue armor, and goblin green bases. I do have the Coat d'Arms Marines Blue paint, but it's just not my style of painting to be quite that bright and clean. And I'm not that good enough to pull it off.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh




Salt Lake City

Yeah the old school bright 90s style of painting is really hard to do in a way that doesn't look excessively gaudy. I mean let's face it, it's going to look gaudy but there's certainly a limit

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 19:01:08


This post brought to you by Monsanto™ 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I thought gaudy and quaint was the whole point of doing it again nowadays!
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




In the "Space Marine '89" style, the UM woud have black Bolter Cases like every other legion alsa has, so I don't see the problem about painting bolter cases red.

Funny that the Death Guard was lighter than the White Scars.

That Illustration is missing the Emperors Children in a pink scheme. As I know other legions weren't listed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 19:20:39


 
   
Made in gb
Moustache-twirling Princeps




United Kingdom

Painting guide:
[Thumb - 1560643_636444286420712_1484864810_n.jpg]
Legion Colours

   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh




Salt Lake City

I adore how some schemes have ink washes and others don't haha

This post brought to you by Monsanto™ 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Here are the depictions of the Legiones Astartes as they were shown in the Index Astartes Books arround 2002 - most in MkVI:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
beast_gts wrote:
Painting guide:


Dark Angels and World Eaters - just paint them as Salamanders

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/04/10 19:47:25


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

The lore behind Mk.VI has sort of done a yo-yo move.
Come the launch of HH as it's own spin-off game in late 6th I think it was established in the books that Mk.VI was rare.
This contradicted earlier fluff, but that earlier fluff was established in the wild west early days of 40k, a lot of it got changed.

That's why even though it was canon once, people take Mk.VI to be a canonically rare armour and the last retcon (back to the origins as it may be) uncouth.
   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh




Salt Lake City

Another layer of the story that can't go unmentioned is that the original version of MKVI lore was established for far longer than the 2014 retcon has been.

This post brought to you by Monsanto™ 
   
Made in ca
Troubled By Non-Compliant Worlds






RazorEdge wrote:
Here are the depictions of the Legiones Astartes as they were shown in the Index Astartes Books arround 2002 - most in MkVI:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
beast_gts wrote:
Painting guide:


Dark Angels and World Eaters - just paint them as Salamanders


What the heck is that Imperial Fist wearing?!
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

That's Mk.VIII!
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Index Astartes says "Pre-Heresy Imperial Fist in Crusade Armour".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/10 21:41:20


 
   
Made in us
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh




Salt Lake City

It's such a trip because that backpack is identical to MKVIII. I wonder if there was a miscommunication between artist and editor?

This post brought to you by Monsanto™ 
   
Made in ca
Troubled By Non-Compliant Worlds






Yeah that looks like Mk8 to me too!
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I believe that was done before armour marks were established in the same way that they are now.
It's not necessarily a mistake, rather times have changed.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Gert wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
The hh games are tiny skirmishes. More like spec op's than battles. Short of viii you can easily justify any mark as legions are so huge that even rare marks are in ample supply for the tiny forces game is played with

That's not actually true though. HH games are usually larger due to the price difference in unit costs compared to 40k.
For 3 similar lists from HH, 7th Ed 40k and 9th Ed 40k we have as follows:
HH - Centurion (50pts), 2x Legion Tacticals of 10 models (250pts) = 300pts
7th - Captain (90pts), 2x Tactical Squads of 10 models (280pts) = 370pts
9th - Captain (85pts), 2x Tactical Squads of 10 models (360pts) = 445pts

Now obviously different rules come into play here. The Legion Tacticals gain access to Fury of the Legion however, the 40k Tacticals all have Combat Squads meaning that the player's zone control is much more effective. Even so, a 145pt difference between HH and 9th Ed 40k is quite significant. I could add a Tactical Support Squad with Volkite Chargers and an Apothecary to my Legion list to equal out with the 9th Ed one, giving me more killing power and some damage reduction for a unit of my choice. Even with the 70pt difference to 7th Ed there a quite a few units I could throw into the list to give me an advantage.


Oo gee. Couple dozen guy when actual real battles would be in their thousands. Woooooooooo! SOOOO HUGE! You have 50 marines there! I'M SO IMPRESSED! And then actual battle involves more like 10000 marines and aux stuff. Have fun with your 50 marines.

Seriously do you have any idea of scale of battles? 50 guys would be tiny blip in the battlefield. 200 would be tiny blib.

Get back claiming your HH games represent something actual skirmish rather than spec op when you have 4 digit # of guys on one side.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/11 08:08:18


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:
I believe that was done before armour marks were established in the same way that they are now.
It's not necessarily a mistake, rather times have changed.


We had the Marks in the 1st and 2nd Edition, but in the Index Astartes Books (late 3rd Edition) their types are only named as "Crusade Armour", "Corvus Armour" ect. while Bolter types are named as MkI or MkII.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/11 09:18:14


 
   
 
Forum Index » The Horus Heresy
Go to: