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.

Are you more interested in The Horus Heresy or the 40k time period? This goes for books, models and games

For right now? Horus Heresy. More interesting characters, an established timeline of events, and the Civil War aspect provides OK drama.

Arcanis161 wrote:
For right now? Horus Heresy. More interesting characters, an established timeline of events, and the Civil War aspect provides OK drama.

Same here...just look at the models and the books (lore) is superb.

40k generally because of the variety of factions, but really pre-indomitus because Primaris are hella dumb.

What's the difference at this point? 40k recently feels like a blend of 30 and 40k to me. If I had to choose though it would be 40k because Tyranids are 40k. The only thing I'm interested in from the 30k timeline are the Primarchs and what the emperor may have thought about some 40k scenarios. Like the Emperor and the Tau. Or getting some examples of him actually interacting with the Eldar.

Kya_Vess wrote:
What's the difference at this point? 40k recently feels like a blend of 30 and 40k to me. If I had to choose though it would be 40k because Tyranids are 40k. The only thing I'm interested in from the 30k timeline are the Primarchs and what the emperor may have thought about some 40k scenarios. Like the Emperor and the Tau. Or getting some examples of him actually interacting with the Eldar.

Yeah that's exactly that: they blurred the lines so much...so stupid. So many units and characters from 30k in 40k nowadays. What a waste of both universes...

I don't find the recent 40k lore as interesting or as well developed as it has been in the past, I preferred when it was more of a setting than the story it is now, so while 30k/Horus Heresy is a story, it can only be fleshed out and has been way more interesting in recent times.

Even the recent Aeldari codex was very light on actual lore, no maps, no history of events, just brief blurbs in favour of big art pages.

40k always had a bunch of HH characters though. Abaddon, Kharn, Lucius, Bile, Ahriman and Typhus are all Heresy era Astartes and Bjorn the Fellhanded is as well. The only additions character wise have been Guilliman and to a degree Cawl (who doesn't really count because he wasn't important back then).
The Chaos Primarchs were still mostly alive this whole time and had been active post-Heresy anyway, now they just have some models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
40k generally because of the variety of factions, but really pre-indomitus because Primaris are hella dumb.

+1

I like them both rather equally, prior to the cawl/primaris garbage. if they had just released the pretty new models as say MKXII "primaris armor" and left the idiotic story line out of it, just to get the copywrite stuff taken care of it would have been fine.

But they basically did the same garbage with 30K in the books, giving the emperor a name, a wife, somebody with a personal name "astartes" etc....

Nothing like GW going out of their way to destroy the setting. it is about the same as how the star wars fans were feeling when Disney killed the EU, and replaced it with such "masterpieces" like the last jedi and a Mary Sue

I'm not really interested in one more than the other on it's own books.

I am, however, more drawn to a style of writing/presentation which is more popular in HH than 40k.
Forgeworld specifically seems to go for a grittier, more grounded, and more realistic depiction - models are darker and dirtier, novels like the Imperial Armour series show a genuine to-and-fro of competent armies exploiting one another's weaknesses.

Contrast that to 40k, it's all very "ho-rah" chest beating. Novels and battles often revolve not on military tactics but expressing who has the most faith/belicosity/whatever to somehow win the day.
Characters are larger than life, the models are larger than life, brighter than life.
That's before I get started on Primaris...

Although I don't like the trend of many of the HH novels to explain ever-ry-thing about the universe. Did we need to know exactly why the Tyranids were coming? No. Did we need to know exactly how much of an incompetent arsehole The Emperor was? No. They have lessened the universe imo, so I don't dabble in those books.

I'm into Rogue Trader -era lore, so 40K I guess? Haven't really kept up on the lore, I don't read BL as I'm not a fan of the books, the ones I bothered to read as a youuf were already cheesy paperback dross, I'm not convinced this hasn't changed. I'm that guy who usually doesn't bother to read the lore sections from the rulebooks — I'd actually prefer it if all GW rulebooks were just about the rules. You can leave the miniature photos to the dedicated magazines (Citadel Journal) and the lore to the separate fictional books and videos, thanks.

Imperial Armour type of books are much more interesting to me. It's a more "grown up" angle, and describes the battles instead of the lore. I could see myself being into that stuff if they'd make more of it; Since the games are about fighting the battles and not much else, the stories about the bigger picture of those battles is useful and can give valuable insight into custom Campaign building and so on. It has a clear scope and a setting, instead of the "heroic propaganda tales" which just seem to "epic" and abstract for my sensibilities.

Still, I'd say that at this point I'm much more into the models and the games than the backstory itself. If the lore was written more like Mr Clansman's texts, I could maybe be arsed.

40k all the way.

HH is just a marine party that other marines tried to crash. Marines, marines MARINES!

As for Indomitus, it took Torchbearer Fleet Crusade rules and Fortis, Indomitor and Spectrus Kill Teams to make me like Primaris... But GW got there eventually.

As for Lore in New dexes... And specifically the Eldar dex:

I think the new book did okay on Lore- it named and gave details for Harlequin Masques and Corsair Fleets even though there were no rules for those things- which pleasantly surprised me.

Beyond that though, I do agree that 9th ed dexes are generally lighter on lore than the dexes of previous editions. However, these days when I cruise for lore, I tend to find it in the Bespoke Crusade content more than anywhere else.

I've said it before: Lore is kinda Bull$#!+. Lore says a marine can solo a guard platoon (he can't); Lore says a lot of things that just aren't true.

I know more about Commorragh having read the list of Territories and what they can be used to do than I ever learned from Lore. Hell, I now know three of the plays that Harlequins perform, and I know what they have to do to rehearse for them. I know all of the trials a Sister has to go through to be declared a Saint, and how each of those trials impacts her upon completion. This is WAY more than Lore ever taught me. And best of all, 0% of it is bull$#!+ because ALL of it actually happens in games.

40k

I really don't care about Marines

 Bobthehero wrote:
40k

I really don't care about Marines

Yeah, mostly this. I mean it's kind of cool how they fleshed out those Marines and DG were my first love, but overall 30K feels kind of bland and dialing up GWs marine-fetish up to 11.

HH has more interesting characters and the story but 40k has my beloved Tyranids. Hard choice but I am gravitating more toward HH.

HH is all well and good, but I feel like it's sort of played out. Like, I really like some of the arcs in the HH novels, but we know the broad strokes of most of the important elements of the setting, and I don't think the setting is particularly outside of those broad strokes.

So like, it was cool to get more of a feel for each of the primarchs and to see the Tragedy of Prospero and all that. But I don't need to read 20 more books about the primarchs displaying their lack of emotional intelligence or about the minutia of that one time marine #5 got to look at Russ's spear for a second. That's the kind of thing the Star Wars franchise has kind of done to its detriment. A galaxy is a huge setting. Use that. Not everything has to come back to the same ground we've already covered.

In comparison, 40k has more variety. More stories whose endings haven't been written. Alien factions that were basically bludgeoned into irrelevance during the great crusade are relatively influential on the galactic stage. You've got chaos factions that have had time to evolve post-Heresy and spread their influence. You've got a baby eldar god trying to be born. You've got all the subfactions that resulted from the Horus Heresy (the ecclesiarchy, inquisition, etc.) all bouncing off of each other in pursuit of radically different goals.

Basically, 40k is big enough and diverse enough that you can tell all sorts of stories. HH is mostly just about telling the same overarching story, hopefully adding one or two interesting nuances to what we already know, and inevitably making one of the primarchs go back to Tatooine.

In terms of space marine I would have picked the HH. As others have said, the space marines and their characters, both traitor and loyalist, are just a little more interesting. A personal favorite are the Iron Hands and their borderline fall to insanity.

However 40k has everyone. Humans are sympathetic, Orks are funnier and the other xenos races really adds more variety to the storytelling.

Wyldhunt wrote:
. A galaxy is a huge setting. Use that. Not everything has to come back to the same ground we've already covered.

I agree with that hugely, not just for the 30k timeline but 40k as well.

One of the things I really liked about the old Imperial Armour books was that they were set on, essentially, butt-feth nowhere in some random era. That means anything is fair game. The good guys could lose and it'll be okay, the commander could get assassinated and that'd be okay. It means you really don't know how the story is going to end and there can be genuine surprises.

Contrast that to stories that take place on major worlds with major characters - I'll use Vigilus as my example. They set up these huge dramatic stakes, if the Imperium loses chaos will connect the Maledictum and complete their goal to rip apart the galaxy! Okay, all that tells me is right from the start Chaos is going to lose, because they're not going to blow up the entire universe in a minor book like that. Boring.
Marneus Calgar has an epic duel with Abaddon! Okay, I know immediately the game is going to be a draw by some twist or another, because they're not going to kill off either of the two most major characters in the setting. Boring.
Because of the location, characters, and stakes that Vigilus started with I knew the ending before I even read it.
Every other book I've read has been the same for the same reasons. They focus on setting up these super massive mega awesome stakes backed up by the biggest and most famous characters in the setting. Not only does it strain belief that the same guy is everywhere but it's boring because they constrain themselves in how the story can go.

I like the Horus Heresy right now because Primaris Marines don't exist yet. Oh, no wait that's right. They do.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only facepalm.

 Hairesy wrote:
I like the Horus Heresy right now because Primaris Marines don't exist yet. Oh, no wait that's right. They do.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only facepalm.

Nah your still good, just consider anything after 7th ed lore wise to be fan fiction.

 aphyon wrote:
Nah your still good, just consider anything after 7th ed lore wise to be fan fiction.

Raptor project and homo sapiens novus fluff bits date to 2nd/3rd edition, not that I expect people repeating 4chan whine memes as 'fluff' to actually know it

For me, M42, because it's actually interesting period, unlike disbelief breaking garbage that was "setting" 40K that failed to show Imperium having any problems (even with 50 retcons trying to drum up Armless) and developments that actually make sense, instead of having to cram a few centuries worth of events into 999.M41 because new content has a historic hard limit. Now if only the Tau and Eldar lore in reaction to that was handed to someone competent who can write believable stories instead of Phil Kelly...

Uh, it's all unbelievable garbage written by drunk adolescent English boys. Or at least it was, they've all grown up now! You can't complaint about Armless Abbey retcons and then be okay with Primary Sue retcon. Well, you can it's your hobby, but...

 aphyon wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
I like the Horus Heresy right now because Primaris Marines don't exist yet. Oh, no wait that's right. They do.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only facepalm.

Nah your still good, just consider anything after 7th ed lore wise to be fan fiction.

That's how I feel... except it's anything after Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness.

40k. Heresy books should have never been written. Fight me IRL.

 Grimtuff wrote:
40k. Heresy books should have never been written. Fight me IRL.

The first half dozen or so were actually really good. having a guy who loves chaos and hates the imperium story wise and then assigning him to write about key aspects of the imperium and its characters, probably not the best choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
I like the Horus Heresy right now because Primaris Marines don't exist yet. Oh, no wait that's right. They do.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only facepalm.

Nah your still good, just consider anything after 7th ed lore wise to be fan fiction.

That's how I feel... except it's anything after Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness.

Cadia still stands! the emperor is still the nameless "god emperor" who did all the things, mary sue(cawl)/primaris do not exist.

 aphyon wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
40k. Heresy books should have never been written. Fight me IRL.

The first half dozen or so were actually really good. having a guy who loves chaos and hates the imperium story wise and then assigning him to write about key aspects of the imperium and its characters, probably not the best choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
I like the Horus Heresy right now because Primaris Marines don't exist yet. Oh, no wait that's right. They do.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only facepalm.

Nah your still good, just consider anything after 7th ed lore wise to be fan fiction.

That's how I feel... except it's anything after Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness.

Cadia still stands! the emperor is still the nameless "god emperor" who did all the things, mary sue(cawl)/primaris do not exist.

Kurita did nothing wrong on Kentares! Whoops, sorry wrong game.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
. A galaxy is a huge setting. Use that. Not everything has to come back to the same ground we've already covered.

I agree with that hugely, not just for the 30k timeline but 40k as well.

One of the things I really liked about the old Imperial Armour books was that they were set on, essentially, butt-feth nowhere in some random era. That means anything is fair game. The good guys could lose and it'll be okay, the commander could get assassinated and that'd be okay. It means you really don't know how the story is going to end and there can be genuine surprises.

Contrast that to stories that take place on major worlds with major characters - I'll use Vigilus as my example. They set up these huge dramatic stakes, if the Imperium loses chaos will connect the Maledictum and complete their goal to rip apart the galaxy! Okay, all that tells me is right from the start Chaos is going to lose, because they're not going to blow up the entire universe in a minor book like that. Boring.
Marneus Calgar has an epic duel with Abaddon! Okay, I know immediately the game is going to be a draw by some twist or another, because they're not going to kill off either of the two most major characters in the setting. Boring.
Because of the location, characters, and stakes that Vigilus started with I knew the ending before I even read it.
Every other book I've read has been the same for the same reasons. They focus on setting up these super massive mega awesome stakes backed up by the biggest and most famous characters in the setting. Not only does it strain belief that the same guy is everywhere but it's boring because they constrain themselves in how the story can go.

Fair points. I guess that I perceive 40k's recent stories focusing on special characters to be a (not great) choice whereas Horus Heresy kind of has to focus on the primarchs and the Heresy. Like, whatever the eldar are up to in that time period is probably pretty neat, but trying to discuss the early adoption/evolution of the Path System is kind of hard when you have the Heresy loudly happening in the background. Plus, most xenos societies are theoretically on the brink of extinction at that point in time due to the great crusade. You could tell stories about orks and eldar in the 31st millenium, but I feel like that time period adds more limitations to the stories you can tell than hooks.

Whereas 40k could just stop focusing on named character grudge matches and open itself up to a lot of fun stories.

(That said, Lukas the Trickster is sort of a grudge match narrative, and yet it's one of my favorite 40k novels. They nailed the pesonalities of the named characters.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
. A galaxy is a huge setting. Use that. Not everything has to come back to the same ground we've already covered.

I agree with that hugely, not just for the 30k timeline but 40k as well.

One of the things I really liked about the old Imperial Armour books was that they were set on, essentially, butt-feth nowhere in some random era. That means anything is fair game. The good guys could lose and it'll be okay, the commander could get assassinated and that'd be okay. It means you really don't know how the story is going to end and there can be genuine surprises.

Contrast that to stories that take place on major worlds with major characters - I'll use Vigilus as my example. They set up these huge dramatic stakes, if the Imperium loses chaos will connect the Maledictum and complete their goal to rip apart the galaxy! Okay, all that tells me is right from the start Chaos is going to lose, because they're not going to blow up the entire universe in a minor book like that. Boring.
Marneus Calgar has an epic duel with Abaddon! Okay, I know immediately the game is going to be a draw by some twist or another, because they're not going to kill off either of the two most major characters in the setting. Boring.
Because of the location, characters, and stakes that Vigilus started with I knew the ending before I even read it.
Every other book I've read has been the same for the same reasons. They focus on setting up these super massive mega awesome stakes backed up by the biggest and most famous characters in the setting. Not only does it strain belief that the same guy is everywhere but it's boring because they constrain themselves in how the story can go.

Fair points. I guess that I perceive 40k's recent stories focusing on special characters to be a (not great) choice whereas Horus Heresy kind of has to focus on the primarchs and the Heresy. Like, whatever the eldar are up to in that time period is probably pretty neat, but trying to discuss the early adoption/evolution of the Path System is kind of hard when you have the Heresy loudly happening in the background. Plus, most xenos societies are theoretically on the brink of extinction at that point in time due to the great crusade. You could tell stories about orks and eldar in the 31st millenium, but I feel like that time period adds more limitations to the stories you can tell than hooks.

Whereas 40k could just stop focusing on named character grudge matches and open itself up to a lot of fun stories.

(That said, Lukas the Trickster is sort of a grudge match narrative, and yet it's one of my favorite 40k novels. They nailed the pesonalities of the named characters.)

Actually I would disagree. The Phoenix Lord novels are set mostly immediately post-Fall. I think it would be worthwhile to see how the various Aspects and the Path system developed and crystallized into their present form.

Overall though I do think the current era offers more potential for development, though I too disagree with the focus on special character vs special character. Things like the current schism in Eldar society or Guilliman's uneasy struggle to reform the Imperium without precipitating full internal civil war are more interesting for me than rehashing the Heresy. We know how the Heresy ended so there is no suspense or real surprise, just filling in the details, whereas the 40K era offers more unknown blank slate territory for potential development. That is, if GW is actually daring enough to do it, as they seem to be just dragging things right now with stalemate campaigns like Vigilus. Note development does not mean total upheaval of the setting, but something better than yet another stalemate of special character vs special character.

Hairesy wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
40k. Heresy books should have never been written. Fight me IRL.

The first half dozen or so were actually really good. having a guy who loves chaos and hates the imperium story wise and then assigning him to write about key aspects of the imperium and its characters, probably not the best choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Hairesy wrote:
I like the Horus Heresy right now because Primaris Marines don't exist yet. Oh, no wait that's right. They do.

In the grim darkness of the far future there is only facepalm.

Nah your still good, just consider anything after 7th ed lore wise to be fan fiction.

That's how I feel... except it's anything after Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness.

Cadia still stands! the emperor is still the nameless "god emperor" who did all the things, mary sue(cawl)/primaris do not exist.

Kurita did nothing wrong on Kentares! Whoops, sorry wrong game.

That is correct citizen, glory to the combine, glory to the coordinator.

The novel series has completely killed the Horus Heresy for me, I have zero interest in it anymore.