New HH Edition discussion.

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.

**Gert**

Backspacehacker wrote:
People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.

Have you seen this be a consistent issue beyond players testing out the system or is this a made-up problem because I've seen the former but not the latter.

Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.

What's "not 30k stuff" though? Are we talking things like Centurion suits or Stormtalons? What do you actually mean?
As for the hodgepodge of armour types, guess that means my Iron Warriors and Shattered Legions, and our player groups Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Iron Hands, World Eaters, Thousand Sons, and Night Lords are all not proper HH armies because they don't exclusively use one pattern of Power Armour.

**Backspacehacker**

kodos wrote:
HH by all means is a historical tabletop

although it is a fictional history, you still play within the fictional historical setting, the outcome of the war is known and it is all about to re-create the different forces during a specific campaign of that war

being not so strict in specific models, like using the older 40k plastic models that look similar or converted armies of 40k plastic (I mean there are people who made Heresy Armies long before the HH was out and the specific details of the armour) to have an easy entry should be ok
(same as in napoleonics people allow 1812 uniforms in 1804 campaigns)
at the same time being strict about the colour scheme the Legions have should not be a problem for the new player (same as in Napoleonics the player knows that red Prussians won't be ok)

while doing a "must use official FW models to to have a demo game with the right armour mark, no early crusade models as we play late heresy here" is gate keeping

Pretty much 100% this, exalted.

**Gert**

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.

Only one of our players has ever used the FW weathering powders and I don't think it's as vital to the feel of the game as you make out.

**Backspacehacker**

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.

Eh, this is debating painting style, and Truth be told thats dealers choice on style. 'evy metal, table top, grim dark, its all dealers choice on how to do it.

That said, i would say grimdark is the most "Advanced" painting as in order to get it, it requiers a bit more knowledge then your average painter.

As long as they are painted, based, and follow the legion color scheme, its kosher in my book.
The issue with grimdark style painting, and espeically if you are using pigments for weathering, is that kind work is not the kind you wanna be playing with constantly.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim**

Gert wrote:
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
My one thing that I’m going to have to hold back as much as possible on being a total grog is that we’re going to see a gak load of full ‘eavy metal edge highlight type paintjobs now. I really hope all the big influential painters show how to paint the marines through more traditional HH methods. It’s just part of the tone of the game.

Only one of our players has ever used the FW weathering powders and I don't think it's as vital to the feel of the game as you make out.

You don’t need weathering powder, but Horus heresy is typically painted in a duller more grungy way that gives it that kinda epic historical battle feel. A stippling method could be really good for doing that type of paintjob with a beginning player.

**kirotheavenger**

I don't think the grimdark style is more advanced to do honestly - in fact if you follow the simpler techniques grimdark can get it looking good a lot easier and a lot faster than GW's style of edge highlighting everything.

Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.

But, although I massively prefer the weathered and grimdark style myself, I agree it's up the person.

**Gert**

Haven't highlighted ever or made my models look especially "grimdark" and I've never had anyone accuse me of not sticking to the feel of Heresy.

**Backspacehacker**

kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think the grimdark style is more advanced to do honestly - in fact if you follow the simpler techniques grimdark can get it looking good a lot easier and a lot faster than GW's style of edge highlighting everything.

Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.

But, although I massively prefer the weathered and grimdark style myself, I agree it's up the person.

I know that, you know that, but i would consider it "advanced" simply because you have to step well outside of the wheel house of GW traditional style painting. With things like Oil based paints, use of mineral spirits and wiping away part of where you painted them. ect ect.

To someone whos only worked with acrylics, and water, its a decent step out there in comfort zones.

**kirotheavenger**

The point I was going for really is oil paints and weathering powders aren't a necessary part of the grim and weathered look.
It's absolutely achievable with just washes and lightly drybrushing the model.

If GW wanted to encourage this style with tutorials for it, they definitely could.

**Toofast**

kirotheavenger wrote:

Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.

I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.

**Backspacehacker**

Toofast wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:

Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.

I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.

Thats kinda what its meant to do, its meant to make them pop really really brightly. Very common in 'evy metal.

**kirotheavenger**

Toofast wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:

Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.

I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.

Edge highlighting as a technique can work.
It picks out and exaggerates detail, it can look good.

It's GW's style of edge highlighting everything that looks so damned cartoony. If it's done on just the upper raised surface, such that it mimicks light in a somewhat realistic way, it can look good.
I'd consider it a supporting technique rather than a default like GW does.

**Hairesy**

By "grimdark" are we meaning Blanchitsu?

I have to agree with the consensus that edge highlighting is overdone. It also doesn't really make sense. How is light hitting every edge? And in the context of machinery and wargear, well the edges of things wear away faster. If anything edge highlighting should be part of weathering.

So for HH I do think that the weathered style is more appropriate, even for themes that aren't necessarily weather beaten, like say a Siege of Terra army where the troops have maybe had some time to do repairs and get gussied up. My RG are getting the heavy abuse treatment. My wife will get the gaudy 80s style for her 40k UM army though, I figure I do the weathering on everything might as well make the posterboys look like posterboys.

**kirotheavenger**

Blanchitsu is normally taken to be it's sub-genre of "grimdark".
The term is a bit meaningless and means different things to different people. As such I try to avoid using the term in and of itself, which is why I tried to clarify the term by using "weathered" as well.

**Albertorius**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Gert wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.

I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?

People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.

Funny, as I actualy prefer (and use) a hodge podge of armor types. It feels more logical, particularly for my army fluff.

**Togusa**

I know we're still wading through what is rumor and what is fact, but has there been any news on what will happen in the new edition to Shattered Legions? That is a project I have been interested in doing for quite some time.

**Backspacehacker**

Togusa wrote:
I know we're still wading through what is rumor and what is fact, but has there been any news on what will happen in the new edition to Shattered Legions? That is a project I have been interested in doing for quite some time.

Still unknown.
Allied chart does not show them, but allied chat also does not show Imperial knights but we know knights exist. so.

**Gert**

Knights fall under Mechanicum. Like how Cults/Militia and Solar Auxilia are both Imperial Army.
The allies chart wouldn't show Shattered Legions anyway as like Blackshields they are army themes rather than factions. It does mean that there is a significant chance that all the current army themes will be axed which means no Blackshields, Shattered Legions, or Armies of Dark Compliance. If of course, this is all real, which IMO it isn't.

**Togusa**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Togusa wrote:
I know we're still wading through what is rumor and what is fact, but has there been any news on what will happen in the new edition to Shattered Legions? That is a project I have been interested in doing for quite some time.

Still unknown.
Allied chart does not show them, but allied chat also does not show Imperial knights but we know knights exist. so.

That's fair. I was assuming they'd use an edition change to remove less popular elements for balance purposes.

**Backspacehacker**

I suspect we will see them in another book.

**Gert**

Togusa wrote:
That's fair. I was assuming they'd use an edition change to remove less popular elements for balance purposes.

I wouldn't define the army themes as not popular choices, especially not Shattered Legions, and I especially wouldn't assume their removal for "balance".

**Togusa**

Gert wrote:
Togusa wrote:
That's fair. I was assuming they'd use an edition change to remove less popular elements for balance purposes.

I wouldn't define the army themes as not popular choices, especially not Shattered Legions, and I especially wouldn't assume their removal for "balance".

Also fair. It sounds like for the time being there just isn't enough information about their place in the new edition.

**RazorEdge**

About the painting topic;

there were interesting "easy and fast" paint tutorials in White Dwarf April 2019 for the Legions of the Istvaan Campaign without edge highlighting.

as example:

Sons of Horus:
1. Base: SoH Green
2. Layer: Abadon Black / Relictor Gold /Ironnreaker
3. Varnish: Ard Coat
4. Wash: Athenian Camoshade (Armour) / Nuln Oil (Metal)
Completed

**Hairesy**

Speaking of new information has anyone come across a size comp for the new Mk6 yet?

**RazorEdge**

Backspacehacker wrote:
I suspect we will see them in another book.

Maybe White Dwarf; Index Legiones Astartes or something. The did similary stuff for 40k with Exorcists, Emperor's Spears or Fallen Angels and other Armies in the past.

**Backspacehacker**

Hairesy wrote:
Speaking of new information has anyone come across a size comp for the new Mk6 yet?

From /tg/ forensic scientists, they look to be about the size of rubrics/new CSM

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RazorEdge wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
I suspect we will see them in another book.

Maybe White Dwarf; Index Legiones Astartes or something. The did similary stuff for 40k with Exorcists, Emperor's Spears or Fallen Angels and other Armies in the past.

No i suspect an actual book, like a warzone book.

**Arcanis161**

Toofast wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:

Edge highlighting is a slog and if it's done poorly it frankly looks worse than if you hadn't bothered.
But anyone can attack a model with a sponge and a wash.

I HATE edge highlighting. I just don't think it looks very realistic, it's too cartoony. It gives the model contrast and makes things stand out but it's not worth the amount of hours involved just to take the realism out of the paintjob.

Last true edge highlight I did I immediately regretted as I felt it took away from, what I felt was (and sill feel is) my best painted model.

For the World Eater I painted immediately after, I started edge highlights but soon transitioned to just doing a whole layer on the upper facing surfaces. Then I smudged Brown and Gunmetal all over with a sponge.

(I really prefer Drybrushing now, specifically Artis Opus' method where you slightly dampen the brush beforehand while basecoating. Gives a super thin all over layer!)

Albertorius wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
Gert wrote:
Backspacehacker wrote:
As for the accuracy, i would also disagree, accuracy is super important, because HH has a big emphasis on it. Now im not saying being super crazy spergy about it like "OMG YOUR SQUAD MARKING ARE NOT 100% ACCURATE?!?!" or "you used the wrong shade of green or you cant run Mk VI iron warrios!" like that level of demand for accuracy is stupid.
But asking someone to follow standard cohesion of units and lore within the army is not being unruly. Which again, there are healthy ways to gate keep this as well.

I have to ask though, where have you seen it be a significant issue where people haven't used models that were appropriate for the era? And as to the bit about "standard", what does that mean?

People using full Mk VII, or using their 40k army for 30k.
Standard i mean, cohesion in the unit actually looking like they all belong together, not a hodge podge of armor types or using clearly not 30k stuff.

Funny, as I actualy prefer (and use) a hodge podge of armor types. It feels more logical, particularly for my army fluff.

Well, since I have a metric ton of Heresy stuff, for my planned armies (currently, may rethink soon):

Ultramarines: Reorganized shortly after Calth, so mix.
Alpha Legion. Hydra Dominatus. Mix.
World Eaters: High rates of attrition. Mix.
*Sons of Horus and Shattered Legions Zone Mortalis Forces: Tybalt Marr sends his best to take out Meduson. Mix.
*Blackshields force (The Sun Kings): Grab and salvage whatever they could, stole from Loyalists and Traitors both. Mix.

*: Unsure whether I will pursue these; they will be dependant upon whether or not Blackshields and/or Shattered Legions will still exist.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Not to quote anyone here, but on the topic of "we should expect people to stick to XYZ armour marks and colour schemes and Legion themes" - we've seen plenty of times in HH how there's nearly always been an exception to the standard rules, and that there's nearly always a way to explain why something is unexpected.

After all, someone fielding black armoured Marines? What Legion would you expect that to be? Dark Angels? Iron Hands? Raven Guard? Nope, Ultramarines.

And regarding gatekeeping, there's nothing wrong with setting a rod for your own back and having your own preferences - it's when you start telling *others* that their way of enjoying things is invalid when you have a problem (and moreover, gatekeeping is usually only the case when it's done pre-emptively).

**tauist**

About this gatekeeping topic. It's going to be a bit of a pickle for me.

I want to build my army 100% according to my aesthetic/fluff vision, born out of being involved with 40K since the 90's, and out of my own personal vision on how a Space Marine force might work "IRL" (yes I know, its a fictional setting..). This will mean that I will be fielding a certain mix of infantry, walkers & vehicles, with armour marks being 99% MkVI & Indomitus TDA, using classic RT-era vehicle patterns for the classics and so on. The exact model composition of squads isn't a concern, I can always group my special & heavy weapon models into separate legion support/heavy squads.

So my pickle is this - My army is about to become legended from current 40K sooner or later. Are you saying that just because I will not be adhering to the generic current HH fluff depiction of my chosen Legion, I am not going to be welcome in 30K either? I find this really hard to comprehend, aren't we talking about a time period of 10,000 years, spanning a vast area of the galaxy, featuring about a demicompany to a company of Marines from a total pool of 100's of thousands?

In my opinion, the setting of Horus Heresy is not exactly as definable as the Napoleonic war era, for example. The time & space scales are vastly different, therefore the expectation of adhering to a few hundred pages of lore at the most, seems smallminded and incomplete.

**chaos0xomega**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Well, i get flamed for this, but. This is an example of where gate keeping is a healthy thing.

HH generally is considered a more fluffy style game, where you are playing dramatic and thematic battles of the Horus Heresy. If you want to keep it that way. you have to gate keep. And gate keeping does not mean, random sperg moments and being an out right spiteful person.

Gate keeping in a healthy sense is operating under a mentality of "Hey....we dont do that here in Horus heresy" mentality to carefully guide people into what your local group, and what HH as a whole is about.
If someone comes in trying to be a massive WAAC type player that 40k has become very common with, you just politly guide them into the "Hey....we dont do that kinda thing here." mentality. Push for more fluffy armies, you can do things like playfully jabbing at their hyper tuned lists by just doing off handed comments like if you are about to play a game with them.
"Ehhh yeah i guess i can loose a game really quick."
This is not mean, this is not spiteful, but it casually gets the message across that your opponent is playing a kinda cheesy net list.

This is the kinda gatekeeping that helps prevent the things you are talking about, and what you said you dont want to happen.

Hobbies are like a flower garden, they are really fun to have, and very enjoyable, and even more enjoyable to share with others and invite them in. But the reason a gate exists and why it needs to be kept it to prevent the animals from running in and ripping the garden up.

Thats not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is very specifically the act of trying to stop people from entering a space and drive out those who do, based on their identity (i.e. immutable aspects of their being that cannot be changed). What you're describing is more management of expectations. Its not gatekeeping to say "your models need to be WYSIWYG and you can't use your Primaris marines for this" or "this is a fluff-driven game that we try to play casually, can you tone down your list", because the problem here is not the identity of the person, its their approach to engaging with the game (loosely speaking, their "behavior", but labeling it as such is frought with peril and not exactly accurate), and something that can easily be changed and is a strict matter of choice rather than an element of orientation, race/ethnicity, faith, etc.

As long as they are painted, based, and follow the legion color scheme, its kosher in my book.

Blackshields say "hi". What are the 'legion color scheme' for them? They are written very explicitly as having a widely diverse range of apperance, from those who are literal blackshields to those who essentially founded their own pseudo-legions with more distinctive livery, symbols, and traditions, etc.

And then you know you're going to get the lost legion fanclub who make up their own silly cthulhumarines legion or whatever that they are going to counts-as another legion rules wise.