Odds on seeing 30k expand beyond the Horus Heresy? (In reverse)

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.

**Insectum7**

Spoiler:

Gert wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Relevant examples for argument aren't whataboutism.

Considering HH is a specific event in the timeline and not just the name of a game system, comparing it to 40k isn't relevant. It's also a really stupid point to make. Just because I think A does not also mean I think B.

On what authority do you get to decide what is relevant? It's a game system, a game system that ITSELF grew out of a different game system. Just like Ash Wastes is now part of the Necromunda system.

Gert wrote:
I'm no expert

You can just stop here tbh. But let's continue for the fun of it, hm?

Well, are YOU an expert? I don't see anything to qualify it.

Gert wrote:
I'm no expert in historical wargames, but I'm fairly certain rulesets are built and expansions created which allow players to do exactly what you claim is not possible. That is, having different forces from different time periods that never would have met in history, but meet on the tabletop simply because players wanted to do it. So can it be a thing? Totally yes.

Yes but you are missing the forest for the trees. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean it should be the default. People play historical games to replay battles from history, they aren't picking up Hail Caesar to play the Roman Legions against French Knights. They're playing the Roman Legions to fight the enemies of Rome such as the Gauls, Greek states, or Celts.
The same goes for HH. I'm not playing to fight Orks or Aeldari, I'm playing to re-enact the Horus Heresy with my army and my characters.
I would also like to point out that I was very specific with my comparison, I didn't say HH was a historical wargame I said it was similar with regards to introducing anachronistic elements.

And you feel comfortable speaking for everyone in that regard? Nobody want's to play a "what-if" and nobody wants to use a Xenos army/play against a xenos army from that period, for example?

Gert wrote:
Also, I'd like to see some reason why you'd be so certain that HH is not simply a different sandbox. If GW is building HH into a third "tentpole" product to sit beside 40k and AoS, why would they constrain themselves by sticking to this very specific subset of possibilities, when there's clearly space for possible expansion.

Because GW knows that HH is a recognizable brand and branding is what matters. It's not Warhammer 40k: Historicals, it's Warhammer: The Horus Heresy. The Great Crusade and Unification Wars are not the Horus Heresy.

Conversely, Horus Heresy is a recognizable brand and therefore they use it as the aspirational starting point to launch further expansions (like other aforementioned GW products).

Gert wrote:
Let's turn that argument back around for a moment. Why push for official GW female Space Marines when fans can just swap heads and paint models however they want?
Utterly irrelevant to the conversation and very much a case of "whataboutism". See you do know what they are.

Relevant in the sense that you've pushed for "officialdom" in other places, yet choose to deride "officialdom" here. I'm pointing out that your own arguments elsewhere can be used against yourself right here.

Gert wrote:
Or as a different response, why can't you as a "HH purist" simply not use any faction/expansion you don't like? I use the Space Marine book in 40k, and just skip over any Primaris entry, myself.

You've established the position that maintaining Horus Heresy as a game about the Horus Heresy is something that should be defended. I'm not a purist for saying "no it shouldn't be made into something it isn't intended to be". People have yet to make a good argument as to why a game about a specific event should be genericised into "historical 40k" but the reality is that they just want a game system that isn't garbage which they can do without forcing it on everyone who doesn't want anachronistic elements. As soon as there are Xenos rules for HH, events either have to explicitly ban them and risk being called elitists or gatekeepers or allow them and run the risk of losing players who go to events to play a story or expand their own armies' story within the Horus Heresy.

Basically "I want GW to be my gatekeeper for me."

And again, why are you the authority on what Horus Hersey is intended to be by GW? If the product is successful, why would they not expand it into other areas where they se potential interest? I've seen many voices over the years looking for support for Thunder Warriors, for example.

Gert wrote:
LOL. Oh Gert, we'll make a grognard of you yet!

Again though, no. I don't have to prove why Horus Heresy should remain a game about the Horus Heresy. It's down to you to prove why it should be expanded, something you have consistently failed to do and have instead resorted to bait arguments, fallacies, and name calling.

"I don't have to prove something" in this case sure looks like just an excuse for lack of effort and evidence. You're arguing that somehow a big-ticket GW game shouldn't expand even though there may be a market for the expansion. Calling my arguments "fallacies" do not make them so. Providing examples of GW games expanding their lore to include new product releases is hardly a fallacy. It should be a giant "well duh."

And name calling is a funny thing to be accused of from someone who seems so eager to throw "fascist" and "nazi" at people.

Gert wrote:
Well, that explains some human factions. But it doesn't give a reason for excluding the Xenos factions from HH, something Gert has also argued for.
It's not excluding them, it's just not including them. Excluding would imply they have a right to be there in the first place, which they don't.

That's a fun quote.

Honestly I'm not sure how much more "gatekeepy" you could get!

Some points I can make:
1: There are historical game systems that cover vast spans of time, and will inevitably include rules for units that would have never met in history, yet the system still provides for it.
2: There's a WWII system that takes place over just a few years, but still has rules for Early Stage, Mid-Stage, and Late-Phase of the war, (Flames of War maybe?), so again, an even more time-specific system that encompasses time periods and armies that would not have fought each other, yet still supporting it.
3: I've read of "what-if" scenarios being played out with historicals. Some of these are simply changing scenarios, but others are about non-contemporary forces clashing. There's at least some interest in it.
4: I've personally seen historical systems used to play forces against each other that did not actually fight.

And in Horus Heresy itself, I've mostly seen loyalist armies clashing with other loyalist armies in either 2K or 3K pitched battles, none of which strikes me as being particularly "historically accurate"!

Horus Heresy could easily be a jumping off point for non-strictly HH-centric products if GW decided there could be $$ in it. I think old GW would have been more likely to support it with rules (since they didn't have to make models to go with it), but modern GW has been quick to "scrape the barrel" for content, and their ability to release models quickly (if they're interested) is pretty apparent.

In fact I've played my 40K army against a HH army too, so there.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I’d say low. Really, really low.

The Great Crusade could be done as Epic Scale, due to the staggering size of the armies and redonkulous weapons in play.

Just….don’t expect much from the Eldar of any stripe. They’d just suffered The Fall, and were licking their wounds. What would become Dark Eldar were still pocket realms, as it would be some time before Vect rose to power and truly forged the Drukhari as we know them, Commoragh too. Craftworlds? Grief, grief and more grief. Better to run and hide as best they could. Exodites? Possibly, but rarely more than a planet’s worth at a time.

Orks? A possibility. The Triumph of Ullanor was their last hurrah, the largest Waaagh! ever known. It wouldn’t be until the Era of the Beast that they rose back to problematic numbers (and even then, there’s every chance a United, heresy never happened, Imperium would have ROFLstomped it.

Necrons still largely asleep. Nids Millenia off. Tau just not a thing.

Yes there would be other Xenos species, but knowing their ultimate fate might suck all the fun out of playing them.

**chaos0xomega**

Insectum7 wrote:

Gert wrote:
Well, that explains some human factions. But it doesn't give a reason for excluding the Xenos factions from HH, something Gert has also argued for.
It's not excluding them, it's just not including them. Excluding would imply they have a right to be there in the first place, which they don't.
That's a fun quote. Honestly I'm not sure how much more "gatekeepy" you could get!

Its not gatekeeping to say that a faction that has no place within the context of a game has no place being there, in the same way that its not gatekeeping to say that someones WW2 Brazilian Expeditionary Force army has no place in a WW1 game.

**ArcaneHorror**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Gert wrote:
Well, that explains some human factions. But it doesn't give a reason for excluding the Xenos factions from HH, something Gert has also argued for.
It's not excluding them, it's just not including them. Excluding would imply they have a right to be there in the first place, which they don't.
That's a fun quote. Honestly I'm not sure how much more "gatekeepy" you could get!

Its not gatekeeping to say that a faction that has no place within the context of a game has no place being there, in the same way that its not gatekeeping to say that someones WW2 Brazilian Expeditionary Force army has no place in a WW1 game.

But there were xenos around during the Heresy. They mostly didn't play a major role, but they were there and did have interactions with both sides.

**Gert**

Yes Xenos existed but within the context of the conflict they didn't get involved outside of personal headcanon. It's not even ambiguous it's very explicit.

**Togusa**

Tawnis wrote:
So, I never really got into 30k. While I really like the Horus Heresy series, I've got plenty of Marines and Chaos now and am totally fine playing them in 40k. It got me to thinking though, what would it take to get me into investing into a 30k army? I settled on two big things that would really draw me in that 40k doesn't have, more Xenos or a change in general aesthetic to feel very much like its own thing (outside of the rules).

1) The Great Crusade:
All the models are around for loyalist legions with the exception of a few chaos corrupted ones, it wouldn't be hard to have them play as their loyalist versions pre-heresy. Having some other races to play like the Interex, Rangda, Eldar, Orks, Lear? Megarachnids? Hrud?, okay that might be stretching it a bit, but the Eldar and Orks are already around so given them 30k version wouldn't be that hard. Doing a Great Crusade style campaign where you helm an expeditionary fleet (or oppose one) would certainly draw me in.

2) The Unification Wars:
There's enough broad strokes information about this that you could build upon it for some Technobarbarian armies and Thunder Warriors, though the Astartes from 30k proper were present here as well. I feel like the armies would have kind of a Fallout Sytle astatic to them that would be pretty cool and it would be a fun era to play in. There are a lot of interesting crazy factions that are touched on in the lore that I think would look really cool on the tabletop and could play in some interesting ways.

I figure that both of these are terribly unlikely given that 30k is already far less popular than 40k, but I had the thought so I wanted to see if this was something that anyone else would be interested in.

Let's just focus on getting all the models out and available to folks, and getting new plastics for the generic units still missing (Breachers, Despoilers, Destroyers, Assault Marines, Consuls, Bikes and Speeders) before we worry about going into more game territory.

**Strg Alt**

People are "gatekeeping" now, if they want to keep the setting free from unnecessary bloat?!

Remember insults won´t win you any debates.

40K is a mess because of 20+ factions. 30K has none of those problems and I am pretty sure that this time GW won´t f*** it up by including scores of obscure xenos factions out of thin air that only HH novel readers are familiar with. Furthermore I have started reading the HH series myself with Dan Abnett´s introduction novel as the first book. You have the megarachnids mentioned who are confined to a single planet and the Orks were soundly beaten during the Ullanor campaign which was finished before the heresy began. So both are irrelevant to be represented in model form.

**chaos0xomega**

Gert wrote:
Yes Xenos existed but within the context of the conflict they didn't get involved outside of personal headcanon. It's not even ambiguous it's very explicit.

This.

There were Brazilians around during WW1 too - but they certainly weren't WW2 Brazilian Expeditionary Force, and they didn't play much of a role since Brazil was neutral for most of the war and when Brazil did change their position they only really served as observers embedded into French units so that officers could familiarize themselves with the way the war was being fought, which is to say they basically weren't involved.

**westiebestie**

I would LOVE to play either side in a Great Crusade or even post-Heresy setting (31k-39k). Oh the Joy of seeing early era Eldar/Ork armies with new retro-inspired sculpts! I still have some chainmail wearing space elfs, mind you.

**BrianDavion**

westiebestie wrote:
I would LOVE to play either side in a Great Crusade or even post-Heresy setting (31k-39k). Oh the Joy of seeing early era Eldar/Ork armies with new retro-inspired sculpts! I still have some chainmail wearing space elfs, mind you.

if you want to play post Heresy there's this game called Warhammer 40k, perhaps you've heard of it?

**westiebestie**

BrianDavion wrote:
westiebestie wrote:
I would LOVE to play either side in a Great Crusade or even post-Heresy setting (31k-39k). Oh the Joy of seeing early era Eldar/Ork armies with new retro-inspired sculpts! I still have some chainmail wearing space elfs, mind you.

if you want to play post Heresy there's this game called Warhammer 40k, perhaps you've heard of it?

Heard of that and dabbed with it a little, probably a few hundred times and 5 armies since 3rd Ed, late 90s..

On a serious note I'm put off by 9th Ed, currently introducing my kids and their Friends but using bare bones 8th Ed + Indexes only.

On a serious note I get your point but I wouldnt mind playing the time period closer to M31 rather than M41, i.e. with HH miniatures and matching early Xenos.

So maybe I should have written M31-35 to be more clear.

**Gert**

westiebestie wrote:
On a serious note I get your point but I wouldnt mind playing the time period closer to M31 rather than M41, i.e. with HH miniatures and matching early Xenos.

So maybe I should have written M31-35 to be more clear.

Firstly, there's nothing stopping you from doing this with any edition of 40k (with the exception of a lack of Kratos tanks) because FW has been giving rules for HH-era units to Marines since before HH was a thing. There is no requirement for you to buy the 40k Tactical Squad if you want your Marines in HH-era armour instead (although on a technicality Mk7 is HH-era just right at the end).

Secondly, you (and many others) are misunderstanding how different the forces of the Imperium are almost immediately post-Heresy. It didn't take two thousand years for the Astartes Chapters to find their footing, it was done in the almost immediate aftermath of the Siege of Terra during the early years of the Scouring. Before the end of M31, the Primarchs were all gone and the Third Founding had been conducted. Any real reminders of the Heresy, including the idea that the Traitor Legions were still alive, were long gone by the Imperium's next crisis during 544.M32, the War of the Beast. It's discussed as an event long forgotten, only referred to as the Great Heresy by many, with even the High Lords not really knowing what happened or who instigated the rebellion.
As for Xenos, the Orks and Aeldari were the same post-Heresy as they are now with the exception of Ork characters and a lack of Ynarri, and the Drukhari emerged prior to the War of the Beast.
Imperial conflicts prior to the emergence of the newer Xenos races were against these races, the forces of Chaos, and often other Imperial factions during events such as the Age of Apostasy or the War of the False Primarch. There were minor Xenos races but GW isn't going to make entire model ranges for enemies that don't exist in "Current Year M41" to sell in 40k.

**westiebestie**

Some stickly responses here aye.

What I want is the visual experience of retro sculpts of roughly period matching Xenos models. Call that what you will.

**Gert**

Cool but why does that need a whole game when it's just 40k with Marines in HH gear? The Xenos are the same, the 40k Marine rules are what represents the time period, just use an edition you like.

**westiebestie**

I did not mean to say I needed new rules for that, it's mainly new Xenos miniatures I am after. The rules I could patch together using either ruleset as you rightly point out. It would however be cool of some now (M41) forgotten weaponry made its way in though. So maybe a new army list.

Would Eldar (sic) and/or Orks need HH specific rules to play during the Great Crusade? (I am aware of the Eldar fall and thus multitude of splinter factions so maybe Orks would be easier as I believe they were mostly the same, except with looted period gear)

**Gadzilla666**

Would Orks/Eldar really look that different in M35 than M41? And I don't think either race would have any "forgotten" weaponry/technology. Orks don't really "forget" anything. Their knowledge is intuitive. Get enough Mekboyz together, and they can build it.

**westiebestie**

Probably not in m35, but during the GC?

**Tyran**

Orks should look different and have cooler toys at least during the War of the Beast.

But the big issue here is that it is unlikely to be economically feasible for GW to invest in such models because the Ork player base is a fraction of the Marine one.

As always the big problem is that Space Marines are so damn popular.

**aliensurfer**

Out of curiosity, I see people saying why it would be no fun playing any of the mentioned xenos species as they get wiped out/lose. If that is a factor, why play any of the marine legions - you know who wins, you know which primarchs die, you know Horus died, the traitors flee and are forced to hide in the eye of chaos. Why play one of those factions when you already know you are going to lose, and exactly which battles your forces did lose as it's all written out already. It doesn't seem any different to playing a xenos force you know loses. It's not like any of the games you play are going to change the HH at all one jot, it will still have the same outcome as it's a 'historical' setting with a known outcome.

**Backspacehacker**

Unification wars?
No, i think thats kind of a dream.
However, i very much could see it pushing past the battle of Terra and include the scouring, along with both orks, and eldar. Because iirc Orks were one of the most fought xeno races during the great crusade.

**Tyran**

aliensurfer wrote:
Out of curiosity, I see people saying why it would be no fun playing any of the mentioned xenos species as they get wiped out/lose. If that is a factor, why play any of the marine legions - you know who wins, you know which primarchs die, you know Horus died, the traitors flee and are forced to hide in the eye of chaos. Why play one of those factions when you already know you are going to lose, and exactly which battles your forces did lose as it's all written out already. It doesn't seem any different to playing a xenos force you know loses. It's not like any of the games you play are going to change the HH at all one jot, it will still have the same outcome as it's a 'historical' setting with a known outcome.

A big difference is that pretty much all the HH factions survived at least in some degree. They may have suffered loses, but they were not wiped out.

**ArcaneHorror**

aliensurfer wrote:Out of curiosity, I see people saying why it would be no fun playing any of the mentioned xenos species as they get wiped out/lose. If that is a factor, why play any of the marine legions - you know who wins, you know which primarchs die, you know Horus died, the traitors flee and are forced to hide in the eye of chaos. Why play one of those factions when you already know you are going to lose, and exactly which battles your forces did lose as it's all written out already. It doesn't seem any different to playing a xenos force you know loses. It's not like any of the games you play are going to change the HH at all one jot, it will still have the same outcome as it's a 'historical' setting with a known outcome.

If you think about it, Orks and Eldar have somewhat more of a right to be in the game than Ferrus Manus.

Tyran wrote:
aliensurfer wrote:
Out of curiosity, I see people saying why it would be no fun playing any of the mentioned xenos species as they get wiped out/lose. If that is a factor, why play any of the marine legions - you know who wins, you know which primarchs die, you know Horus died, the traitors flee and are forced to hide in the eye of chaos. Why play one of those factions when you already know you are going to lose, and exactly which battles your forces did lose as it's all written out already. It doesn't seem any different to playing a xenos force you know loses. It's not like any of the games you play are going to change the HH at all one jot, it will still have the same outcome as it's a 'historical' setting with a known outcome.

A big difference is that pretty much all the HH factions survived at least in some degree. They may have suffered loses, but they were not wiped out.

The big ones that are important also survived.

**Gert**

aliensurfer wrote:
Out of curiosity, I see people saying why it would be no fun playing any of the mentioned xenos species as they get wiped out/lose. If that is a factor, why play any of the marine legions - you know who wins, you know which primarchs die, you know Horus died, the traitors flee and are forced to hide in the eye of chaos. Why play one of those factions when you already know you are going to lose, and exactly which battles your forces did lose as it's all written out already. It doesn't seem any different to playing a xenos force you know loses. It's not like any of the games you play are going to change the HH at all one jot, it will still have the same outcome as it's a 'historical' setting with a known outcome.

Because it's part of the story, the entire point actually. The point of playing HH is to take a side in the story and some people want to play the Traitor Legions. It's like asking someone why they would play France in a Napoleonic game or Japan in a WW2 game. It's harder to tell a story without a villain, and people love a good villain.
When people suggest adding Xenos in, then the story is removed in favour of "I want my thing".

ArcaneHorror wrote:
If you think about it, Orks and Eldar have somewhat more of a right to be in the game than Ferrus Manus.

Ferrus Manus fights in one of the defining moments of the Heresy. The Orks and Eldar didn't fight in the Heresy. Even though Manus dies in the opening acts he still has far more reason to be in the game than any Xenos faction.

The big ones that are important also survived.

And didn't take part in the conflict so it literally doesn't matter who survives or not.
Seriously, what is so hard to get about "Xenos literally didn't fight in the Horus Heresy"? I've still yet to see an example of an army-sized Xenos force present at any Heresy battle outside of headcannon.

**Tyran**

I think it is important to remember that 40k and HH are fundamentally different games.

HH is a fictional wargame in which the recreation and simulation of a fictional history is the whole point of it.

Modern 40k meanwhile is a game designed towards competitive play and tournament support.

**westiebestie**

aliensurfer wrote:Out of curiosity, I see people saying why it would be no fun playing any of the mentioned xenos species as they get wiped out/lose. If that is a factor, why play any of the marine legions - you know who wins, you know which primarchs die, you know Horus died, the traitors flee and are forced to hide in the eye of chaos. Why play one of those factions when you already know you are going to lose, and exactly which battles your forces did lose as it's all written out already. It doesn't seem any different to playing a xenos force you know loses. It's not like any of the games you play are going to change the HH at all one jot, it will still have the same outcome as it's a 'historical' setting with a known outcome.

Exactly, I have no issues playing a later deador losing faction, as part of recreating the story of there and then. In historical ww2 games I play (amongst others) France in 1940 and Germany in 1944. They all lost, but there were tight battles and instances where they won, which can be re-imagined in a game.

Similarly I wouldnt mind playing Xenos against marines during the Great Crusade.

Its not strictly HH though so maybe that is why some here take a hard stance against it..?

Tyran wrote:I think it is important to remember that 40k and HH are fundamentally different games.

HH is a fictional wargame in which the recreation and simulation of a fictional history is the whole point of it.

Modern 40k meanwhile is a game designed towards competitive play and tournament support.

Well, I would argue most people globally play it friendly, semi-competitive among friends, at clubs or even in campaign/narrative mode. Competitive tournament play seems like something for a very small part of the hobby community.

Similarly a minority seems to do the opposite, ie play HH competitively.

To each their own, make of the hobby what gives you joy.

**Tyran**

westiebestie wrote:

Well, I would argue most people globally play it friendly, semi-competitive among friends, at clubs or even in campaign/narrative mode. Competitive tournament play seems like something for a very small part of the hobby community.

Similarly a minority seems to do the opposite, ie play HH competitively.

To each their own, make of the hobby what gives you joy.

IMHO, "semi-competitive" is just a way of saying "I'm playing competitive but I don't want to appear WAAC".

Sure most people don't play on tournaments, but even in friendly games most people tend to play to win, instead of playing for the simulation factor.

**westiebestie**

Now its going off topic, so a short reply:

I really dont think its that black or white.

Most friendly games have two players trying to win with varying tools and scenarios at their disposal.

Semi-competitive to me just means agreeing with your group how "hard" lists you want to play so both players end up with fairly balanced lists.

In other games systems with better balance, there is less need to do this of course.

**Insectum7**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Gert wrote:
Well, that explains some human factions. But it doesn't give a reason for excluding the Xenos factions from HH, something Gert has also argued for.
It's not excluding them, it's just not including them. Excluding would imply they have a right to be there in the first place, which they don't.
That's a fun quote. Honestly I'm not sure how much more "gatekeepy" you could get!

Its not gatekeeping to say that a faction that has no place within the context of a game has no place being there, in the same way that its not gatekeeping to say that someones WW2 Brazilian Expeditionary Force army has no place in a WW1 game.

To be honest I hate the term "gatekeeping". I use it only because Gert has used it in the past (and in this thread), and the quote he gives is a hilarious one to take into a different context. Like Primaris. Or Fem Space Marines.

But the quote is even pretty silly in this context. As shown, historical games have dealt with different time periods or armies which never even faced each other, because they're just rule sets. And the HH game could literally just be using the HH brand to launch a new line of products and their own expansions. (See Necromunda, and the Necromunda Ash Wastes. . . or even 40K, and then HH)

Strg Alt wrote:
People are "gatekeeping" now, if they want to keep the setting free from unnecessary bloat?! Remember insults won´t win you any debates.

It's just icing on the cake.

Strg Alt wrote:
40K is a mess because of 20+ factions. 30K has none of those problems and I am pretty sure that this time GW won´t f*** it up by including scores of obscure xenos factions out of thin air that only HH novel readers are familiar with. Furthermore I have started reading the HH series myself with Dan Abnett´s introduction novel as the first book. You have the megarachnids mentioned who are confined to a single planet and the Orks were soundly beaten during the Ullanor campaign which was finished before the heresy began. So both are irrelevant to be represented in model form.

A different GW might think differently about releasing rules for microfactions. They used to do so, prior to no-model-no-rules.

But you know what current GW LOVES to do? They love to sell you books. They're sitting on an opportunity to release a book for Orks or Eldar to represent HH or Crusade era armies, and they don't even need new model lines for it. They could do new models, or release army-mod packs if they wanted. But they could literally just sell you a book and be done with it.

Gert wrote:
Cool but why does that need a whole game when it's just 40k with Marines in HH gear? The Xenos are the same, the 40k Marine rules are what represents the time period, just use an edition you like.

I mean, the real question is why does HH need to be a separate game in the first place? "Cool, but why do you nee a whole game when it's just 40k with Marines in HH gear." indeed.

**BrianDavion**

as others have said before one of the appeals of the HH is everything are marines and a few "related factions" which tends to keep the pwoer creep down a little as GW no longer needs to develop rules for a dozen differant "standard alien guns" including eldar and orks would simply make HH "40k 7th edition with all the problems inherant therein"

**Insectum7**

BrianDavion wrote:
as others have said before one of the appeals of the HH is everything are marines and a few "related factions" which tends to keep the pwoer creep down a little as GW no longer needs to develop rules for a dozen differant "standard alien guns" including eldar and orks would simply make HH "40k 7th edition with all the problems inherant therein"

A loaded statement for sure. Many would argue that the core of 7th ed was solid, while things like Formations, certain psychic powers and specific additions were what broke it down. One wouldn't blame the mere inclusion of Xenos.

Well, some might say the mere inclusion of Eldar. heh. But any serious examination would point to specific egregious units and interactions in that case. It's all about execution, obviously.