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.

 Talys wrote:
This is actually pretty relevant to Forge World: Forge World and 30k as it exists today is not really for most people. For 99%+ of the world's population, and probably 99%+ of the wargaming population building a 2500 point army (the starting point around which the game is optimized) is totally unaffordable, really expensive books that make 40k codexes seem cheap, the inevitable "other pieces" you need in your army, large robot kits that are $1000+, resin gaming boards that cost $200 for a 2x2 and so forth. If you had asked me, I would have said, "no way, such a company could not survive."

And yet, Forge World thrives; it probably does as much in sales all by itself as a lot of small miniature wargaming companies.

They're an appendix of main GW in (40k) background and facilities. Sure, they make some good stuff, but they wouldn't be that successful (if at all) without the 40k universe (including 30k) and the 40k game - i.e. the 40k players and fanbase. So it's not useful to compare them to those 'small miniature wargaming companies' - they have a popular setting AND game for which they sell miniatures and books.

That and if one wants to play the rules are barely more expensive than any other posh version of a smaller company's rulebook, and about the same price of a codex.

Plus, thanks to the uniquely dumb way GW product is priced, there's a percentage of the world where the price difference is almost entirely irrelevant.

Plus, as its Marines v Marines, there's plenty of ways the budget conscious can improvise an army without paying a fortune.

Of course, one can use all the FW kits, but at least at this moment that remains a choice, not a necessity.

I don't disagree with any of this, Az and Dryak, but the prices are still what they are. I never actually thought that there would be enough people to support a product priced at this level, nevermind some thriving 30k communities.

Your point is well taken that in Australia, the price difference is much narrower though, I suppose making the choice between them less about price.

 Talys wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

The usual refrain is that GW wouldn't possibly be stupid enough to AoS-ify their other IPs, which are financially much more successful than Fantasy was at the end(due to GW's own incompetence and mismanagement of it more than anything else), but when have GW ever done anything other than go full-on with their latest whackaloonery?

While I'm firmly in the camp that 40k rules are superior to AoS rules in terms of what I'm looking for in a game... I wonder what people will think if, somehow, AoS turns out to be long-term profitable for GW? In other words, if GW makes something that's totally not for them (and not really for me), but it makes GW a lot of money, will people still think that they are foolish for doing so?

This is actually pretty relevant to Forge World: Forge World and 30k as it exists today is not really for most people. For 99%+ of the world's population, and probably 99%+ of the wargaming population building a 2500 point army (the starting point around which the game is optimized) is totally unaffordable, really expensive books that make 40k codexes seem cheap, the inevitable "other pieces" you need in your army, large robot kits that are $1000+, resin gaming boards that cost $200 for a 2x2 and so forth. If you had asked me, I would have said, "no way, such a company could not survive."

And yet, Forge World thrives; it probably does as much in sales all by itself as a lot of small miniature wargaming companies.

I specifically note in the bigger part of my post you cut away that we don't actually know how AoS will fare, and realistically won't know for at least a year or two yet. It may well be wildly successful, personally I doubt that, but the point of my post was to illustrate that this whole "GW would never just AoS-ify 40K/FW30K" is a nonsense because GW don't have and don't want the data needed to make an informed decision.

GW didn't replace WFB with AoS because Kirby had an indigestion.

If it sells, you make more of it. If it doesn't sell, you scrap it. Even GW can follow that kind of logic.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I specifically note in the bigger part of my post you cut away that we don't actually know how AoS will fare, and realistically won't know for at least a year or two yet. It may well be wildly successful, personally I doubt that, but the point of my post was to illustrate that this whole "GW would never just AoS-ify 40K/FW30K" is a nonsense because GW don't have and don't want the data needed to make an informed decision.

Yeah, I agree with your conclusion, though not the reason why. I think GW has as much or more data than most other companies in the miniature wargaming industry. They just don't care about the things they don't are about.

I can't see them fixing a wheel that isn't broken -- they might fix the parts of WH40k that aren't profitable, but certainly not the parts that are profitable. So the rules/codex system, for example, I don't think is going anywhere, nor the points system, imperfect as it is. For the same reason, I don't see them mucking with FW; it's in a happy place with its fanbase.

 Talys wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I specifically note in the bigger part of my post you cut away that we don't actually know how AoS will fare, and realistically won't know for at least a year or two yet. It may well be wildly successful, personally I doubt that, but the point of my post was to illustrate that this whole "GW would never just AoS-ify 40K/FW30K" is a nonsense because GW don't have and don't want the data needed to make an informed decision.

Yeah, I agree with your conclusion, though not the reason why. I think GW has as much or more data than most other companies in the miniature wargaming industry

From where?

If you just mean "what they've sold" then, in isolation, that's meaningless when making decisions about where to take your product in the future.

Can we please get back on topic in here?

Thanks!

I'm completely unfamiliar with the 40k universe (doubly so for 30k), but I'm intrigued by the idea of second space marine game that isn't 40k. I mean, I've looked through the wiki and at forgeworld and stuff, and I have a basic idea about what this whole Horus Heresy thing is (like really basic), but if someone wouldn't mind explaining a few things to me...

How is Horus Heresy different from 40k? I mean, the lore is different, but it's still just space marines, right? Are there Eldar and Tau or whatever? Are the classic factions, like the Space Wolves and Blood Angels still part of it? I guess I'm asking how, being so similar (to an outsider like me) to 40k, how is this a different game that differentiates itself from 40k? Will new players even be able to tell them apart? Will Horus Heresy just cannibalize players from 40k, or are they targeting a new audience? Is there a fundamentally different style to the power armor?

I'm just finding it a little confusing because so far, the only things that seem to differentiate it against 40k are things that I'm unfamiliar with, and thus can't tell apart. I'm interested in it, assuming it is a new game and jumping on point, but I'm having a dickens of a time trying to figure it out without first becoming a 40k player and fluff expert.

The Second Founding has not happened yet, meaning all Space Marines are divided into the eighteen Legions. No thousand chapters here. Blood Angels and Space Wolves are two of these Legions.

Tau have not appeared yet, they do not evolve until much closer to the 41st millennium. Eldar are around, but have not been integrated into the actual game yet.

The power armour is recognisable for what it is, though mostly MK2/3/4 is used (with only a couple of legions using mk6, and mk7 being all-but non-existent) so it looks fairly different. The terminator armour marks are also different, mostly everything is either very or at least slightly different.

However, in addition to the many flavours of Space Marine, there are also different Mechanicus armies, as well as Solar Auxilia (30k MT) and Imperial Army/warp cults.

It's 10,000 years before 40k. The main forces during the Heresy itself are mostly SM legions against SM legions, with some Imperial Army and Mechanicum/Dark Mechanicum thrown in as well. There are a LOT of units/weapons that exist during the heresy that don't in 40k, and a lot of 40k era stuff that hadn't been invented at the time of the heresy.

Also, legion organization can be quite different than SM chapter organization. For example, the closest thing in structure to a 40k tactical squad are the 30k veteran squads. 30k tac squads are bigger (10-20) and have no special/heavy weapons. Support squads and heavy weapon squads are ALL armed with special/heavy weapons, rather than just a few guys in the squad.

Stuff like that.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'm completely unfamiliar with the 40k universe (doubly so for 30k), but I'm intrigued by the idea of second space marine game that isn't 40k. I mean, I've looked through the wiki and at forgeworld and stuff, and I have a basic idea about what this whole Horus Heresy thing is (like really basic), but if someone wouldn't mind explaining a few things to me...

How is Horus Heresy different from 40k? I mean, the lore is different, but it's still just space marines, right? Are there Eldar and Tau or whatever? Are the classic factions, like the Space Wolves and Blood Angels still part of it? I guess I'm asking how, being so similar (to an outsider like me) to 40k, how is this a different game that differentiates itself from 40k? Will new players even be able to tell them apart? Will Horus Heresy just cannibalize players from 40k, or are they targeting a new audience? Is there a fundamentally different style to the power armor?

I'm just finding it a little confusing because so far, the only things that seem to differentiate it against 40k are things that I'm unfamiliar with, and thus can't tell apart. I'm interested in it, assuming it is a new game and jumping on point, but I'm having a dickens of a time trying to figure it out without first becoming a 40k player and fluff expert.

start by reading Horus Heresy, fantastic read
as for the rest others will explain it better than me

shade1313 wrote:
It's 10,000 years before 40k. The main forces during the Heresy itself are mostly SM legions against SM legions, with some Imperial Army and Mechanicum/Dark Mechanicum thrown in as well. There are a LOT of units/weapons that exist during the heresy that don't in 40k, and a lot of 40k era stuff that hadn't been invented at the time of the heresy.

Also, legion organization can be quite different than SM chapter organization. For example, the closest thing in structure to a 40k tactical squad are the 30k veteran squads. 30k tac squads are bigger (10-20) and have no special/heavy weapons. Support squads and heavy weapon squads are ALL armed with special/heavy weapons, rather than just a few guys in the squad.

Stuff like that.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but I gotta be honest, being unfamiliar with both the 40k game and fluff, none of that makes any sense to me. I think I'll start with the first Horus Heresy novel and see how that goes. I'm not sure the rumors about 30k being a third pillar to replace LotR makes sense, as the lay person (like me) can't tell them apart. It's like trying to explain the difference between Power Rangers to someone. This one has dinosaurs, man. That one also has dinosaurs, but it's like, different dinosaurs.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page

This is your friend. Search about anything that confuses you.

 Sqorgar wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
It's 10,000 years before 40k. The main forces during the Heresy itself are mostly SM legions against SM legions, with some Imperial Army and Mechanicum/Dark Mechanicum thrown in as well. There are a LOT of units/weapons that exist during the heresy that don't in 40k, and a lot of 40k era stuff that hadn't been invented at the time of the heresy.

Also, legion organization can be quite different than SM chapter organization. For example, the closest thing in structure to a 40k tactical squad are the 30k veteran squads. 30k tac squads are bigger (10-20) and have no special/heavy weapons. Support squads and heavy weapon squads are ALL armed with special/heavy weapons, rather than just a few guys in the squad.

Stuff like that.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but I gotta be honest, being unfamiliar with both the 40k game and fluff, none of that makes any sense to me. I think I'll start with the first Horus Heresy novel and see how that goes. I'm not sure the rumors about 30k being a third pillar to replace LotR makes sense, as the lay person (like me) can't tell them apart. It's like trying to explain the difference between Power Rangers to someone. This one has dinosaurs, man. That one also has dinosaurs, but it's like, different dinosaurs.

Fair enough. I know I could write something much more in-depth, but I just quickly glossed over some of the setting differences, and some of the in-game differences.

Oh, and as others have said, regarding other forces...Tau are still primitive, if they've even evolved into recognizable versions of their species yet. Tyranids have not yet made it to the galaxy. Necrons have not started waking, yet. The traitor legions are proto-Chaos Space Marines, so are still very much similar to the loyalists. The Age of Apostasy has not yet happened (hell, the Ecclesiarchy doesn't exist yet), so no Sisters of Battle, yet. The Inquisition also doesn't yet exist, nor the Gray Knights.

 Alpharius wrote:
Can we please get back on topic in here?

Thanks!

I don't see how discussing the potential rules for an HH game and how that impacts FW's HH product line is 'off topic'.

shade1313 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
It's 10,000 years before 40k. The main forces during the Heresy itself are mostly SM legions against SM legions, with some Imperial Army and Mechanicum/Dark Mechanicum thrown in as well. There are a LOT of units/weapons that exist during the heresy that don't in 40k, and a lot of 40k era stuff that hadn't been invented at the time of the heresy.

Also, legion organization can be quite different than SM chapter organization. For example, the closest thing in structure to a 40k tactical squad are the 30k veteran squads. 30k tac squads are bigger (10-20) and have no special/heavy weapons. Support squads and heavy weapon squads are ALL armed with special/heavy weapons, rather than just a few guys in the squad.

Stuff like that.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but I gotta be honest, being unfamiliar with both the 40k game and fluff, none of that makes any sense to me. I think I'll start with the first Horus Heresy novel and see how that goes. I'm not sure the rumors about 30k being a third pillar to replace LotR makes sense, as the lay person (like me) can't tell them apart. It's like trying to explain the difference between Power Rangers to someone. This one has dinosaurs, man. That one also has dinosaurs, but it's like, different dinosaurs.

Fair enough. I know I could write something much more in-depth, but I just quickly glossed over some of the setting differences, and some of the in-game differences.

Oh, and as others have said, regarding other forces...Tau are still primitive, if they've even evolved into recognizable versions of their species yet. Tyranids have not yet made it to the galaxy. Necrons have not started waking, yet. The traitor legions are proto-Chaos Space Marines, so are still very much similar to the loyalists. The Age of Apostasy has not yet happened (hell, the Ecclesiarchy doesn't exist yet), so no Sisters of Battle, yet. The Inquisition also doesn't yet exist, nor the Gray Knights.

As of the Newcron fluff there are some Necrons that are awake. Very few (only a few worlds or few individuals), but there are some that have started awaking.

Whatever one may think about AoS, that style would work absolutely perfectly for 30k. If a Age of Horus type game came out, it would in no way preclude either continued support for 40k or FW HH stuff. If anything, all these things would synergize wonderfully. If you have an Age of Horus army, you would basically have a 40k army as well -- just as if you have a FW HH army now, you basically have a 40k army as well.

 Manchu wrote:
Whatever one may think about AoS, that style would work absolutely perfectly for 30k.

Because of...?
Due to...?

Most obviously, SM against SM battles would pose basically no balance issues. I don't want to get in a debate about AoS here but I think its set-up rules fit HH battles, too, especially since folks love to buy SM models. The open-ended army building in AoS would also fit nicely with the multi-Legion forces involved in some of the great HH-era battles. Finally, I think it is a great way to make the HH, which is a very popular aspect of the 40k IP, accessible to customers in a way that FW just is not.

I don't think it being SM vs SM means there's no balance issues. It makes it easier yeah, but you still have to balance the different units, weapons, characters etc with each other. I mean FWs rules aren't exactly perfectly balanced (though they aren't bad) even though it's SM vs SM.

Plus you just have to look at previous GW Space Marine codexes, they can't even balance them with each other most of the time. Look at DA in 6th edition, or BA now. I don't have much faith for GW to be able to balance even just Space Marines.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't think it being SM vs SM means there's no balance issues. It makes it easier yeah, but you still have to balance the different units, weapons, characters etc with each other. I mean FWs rules aren't exactly perfectly balanced (though they aren't bad) even though it's SM vs SM.

Well, but if this is a board game with mostly identical (and identical numbers of?) miniatures on either side (except Cataphractii & Contemptor?), moving (shooting, fighting) on board game squares? It's Space Hulk with mirror-factions! It'd be hard not to end up balanced.

You don't even need to tweak the missions ala Space Hulk, except where players use an asymetrical set-up. And even there, the capabilities per model (Power Armour + Bolter) are (nearly?) identical, so the basis to work from should be easier, no?

Wonderwolf wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't think it being SM vs SM means there's no balance issues. It makes it easier yeah, but you still have to balance the different units, weapons, characters etc with each other. I mean FWs rules aren't exactly perfectly balanced (though they aren't bad) even though it's SM vs SM.

Well, but if this is a board game with mostly identical (and identical numbers of?) miniatures on either side (except Cataphractii & Contemptor?), moving (shooting, fighting) on board game squares? It's Space Hulk with mirror-factions! It'd be hard not to end up balanced.

You don't even need to tweak the missions ala Space Hulk, except where players use an asymetrical set-up. And even there, the capabilities per model (Power Armour + Bolter) are (nearly?) identical, so the basis to work from should be easier, no?

But that's different to the AoS system that Manchu reckons would be perfect for a Heresy game.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't think it being SM vs SM means there's no balance issues.

Well, first off,

 Manchu wrote:
SM against SM battles would pose basically no balance issues.

But sure, it won't be as balanced as rock-paper-scissors. I just don't see that as a meaningful concern. To the extent that any faction has options that others don't, there could be a balance issue; this isn't exclusive to AoS or GW games. But by and large, what is available to one Legion will be available to all.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't have much faith for GW to be able to balance even just Space Marines.

Well, that's a problem that has nothing to do with AoS or a HH game in its style. (Although I do wonder what precision-balanced GW games the folks who hate AoS because it's so "unbalanced" have been playing LOL.)

 ImAGeek wrote:


But that's different to the AoS system that Manchu reckons would be perfect for a Heresy game.

Sorry. My bad. I thought it was about the rumoured Heresy board game.

Wonderwolf wrote:
I thought it was about the rumoured Heresy board game.

I am really hoping it isn't a board game. Execution Force was a mess. Sure, the assassin miniatures were okay (even if I personally dislike the mini-statue approach) but the component quality was very disappointing. Plus board games live and die on the strength of their rules ... and inventing innovative, robust mechanics is not GW's strong suit. AoS is the best they have done since LotR IMO (and I'm not saying AoS is marvelous, either).

 Manchu wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't think it being SM vs SM means there's no balance issues.

Well, first off,

 Manchu wrote:
SM against SM battles would pose basically no balance issues.

But sure, it won't be as balanced as rock-paper-scissors. I just don't see that as a meaningful concern. To the extent that any faction has options that others don't, there could be a balance issue; this isn't exclusive to AoS or GW games. But by and large, what is available to one Legion will be available to all.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't have much faith for GW to be able to balance even just Space Marines.

Well, that's a problem that has nothing to do with AoS or a HH game in its style. (Although I do wonder what precision-balanced GW games the folks who hate AoS because it's so "unbalanced" have been playing LOL.)

Balance is more than just the external 'oh all legions have access to the same things' though. The units within the legion should be balanced against each other too. Otherwise you get some units never taken and some which are no brainers. That's just as unbalanced as one faction being better or worse than the others, in a different way.

And I don't think most people who don't play AoS because it's unbalanced play GW games at all.

 Manchu wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
I thought it was about the rumoured Heresy board game.

I am really hoping it isn't a board game. Execution Force was a mess. Sure, the assassin miniatures were okay (even if I personally dislike the mini-statue approach) but the component quality was very disappointing. Plus board games live and die on the strength of their rules ... and inventing innovative, robust mechanics is not GW's strong suit. AoS is the best they have done since LotR IMO (and I'm not saying AoS is marvelous, either).

But "normal" Heresy rules (i.e. FW) are just GW 40K 7th Edition rules with alt. army lists.

I strongly doubt they'd use a Heresy-box to launch 40K 8th/AoS-edition (nor have I seen rumours to that end)?

Also, Tau are allegedly coming out just before Heresy? Wouldn't it make sense to do Heresy first and Tau afterwards, if they'd use that release to AoS-ify 40K core rules? Otherwise, Tau would be outdated, no backward-compatibility, within a month or so. A tough sell even for GW.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Balance is more than just the external 'oh all legions have access to the same things' though.

Agreed but that is irrelevant to the point about AoS being a good fit. Internal balance issues plague many miniatures games, especially ones that emphasize game mastery design/list building.

 ImAGeek wrote:
And I don't think most people who don't play AoS because it's unbalanced play GW games at all.

Not true. Check out the AoS sub-forum ... or even threads where 40k players bemoan the idea that their game might get "AoS'd." Remarks to that effect have even been posted ITT.

Wonderwolf wrote:
But "normal" Heresy rules (i.e. FW) are just GW 40K 7th Edition rules with alt. army lists.

Yep, 40k 7E, FW HH books, and FW HH models already exist and they need not vanish if GW were to make an Age of Horus box/plastics line. In fact, the plastics would be entirely compatible with these existing products. More ways to use your toys! More incentive to expand your collection! Including into expensive resin models from FW!

Wonderwolf wrote:
to AoS-ify 40K core rules

We're talking about different things. I am not suggesting that GW is going to 'AoS-ify' 40k by releasing 30k models and a AoS-style ruleset to play with them.

 Manchu wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
Balance is more than just the external 'oh all legions have access to the same things' though.

Agreed but that is irrelevant to the point about AoS being a good fit. Internal balance issues plague many miniatures games, especially ones that emphasize game mastery design/list building.

Fair enough, good point. I just don't see how AoS is any better a system than any other system for balancing basically identical armies. Should it not be just as easy in any? Is your reasoning just based on the simplicity of AoS, or is there something else?

 ImAGeek wrote:
And I don't think most people who don't play AoS because it's unbalanced play GW games at all.

Not true. Check out the AoS sub-forum ... or even threads where 40k players bemoan the idea that their game might get "AoS'd." Remarks to that effect have even been posted ITT.

Well, that is pretty silly. Well, I can get why people wouldn't want a 40k ruleset like AoS, but not from a purely balance point of view because 40k can't get much worse there.