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.

Gatekeeping is just trying to keep people out for any reason. There's not necessarily anything racial about it.

It generally has negative connotations though - with the term almost exclusively used to refer to keeping people out in a way that the speaker thinks they shouldn't.

No one ever says you're gatekeeping if you say it's not appropriate to use a coke can as a drop pod. They do say you're gatekeeping if you say you don't think their Primaris fit into Horus Heresy.

Gatekeeping is very specifically about attempting to ration, control, limit, or prevent access to a hobby or community by directly excluding individuals or groups, or by setting unreachable and unrealistic standards for inclusion that are designed to block or obstruct individuals or groups from entering (especially when those standards are designed in such a way as to prevent specific demographics from being able to meet said criteria). Nobody is ever accused of gatekeeping a hobby if they tell someone who is casually throwing homophobic or racist slurs to leave their gaming club - and theres a reason for that, because its understood that the removal was warranted on the basis that their behavior did not conform to expected behavioral and societal norms - the standard for inclusion here is fairly basic, don't act like an asshat and don't behave in a discriminatory or derogatory manner. Likewise, nobody would be accused of gatekeeping if a TO kicked someone out of a tournament after they showed up and demanded to borrow somebody elses dice, tape measure, rulebooks, and army because they don't own any of their own - the standard for inclusion here is fairly basic as well, make the same minimum buy-in and effort into a commercialized hobby and community that everyone else has made in order to participate in it (while there are definitely discussions to be had with regards to socio-economic access limitations inherent to the games pricing scheme, there are also ways to dramatically reduce the buy-in cost and attain access to both 40k and other games at negligible cost that is affordable to even some of the most impoverished individuals, a good friend managed to start 40k last year after he was rendered both homeless and jobless - not necessarily the wisest use of his limited resources at the time but he managed to make more money than he spent by trading odds and ends for peoples junk minis, refurbing them, and selling the things he didn't need at a profit so he could buy bigger and better lots on eBay, etc.). The reason this isn't defined as gatekeeping is because the standards for inclusion in both cases are realistic, reachable, and attainable by all and are in the interest of fairness to others within the community and hobby.

Telling people "you can't use your Primaris marines" or "please tone down your list" isn't trying to keep anyone out. You're not keeping or forcing anyone out of the hobby space or game community, you're encouraging conformance to fairly reasonable standards and norms and maintaining the common etiquette within the tabletop miniatures hobby space, no different than if you told someone that they can't use their 15mm Flames of War minis to play 40k or if you told someone that you aren't interested in playing their homebrew army of 5 point Leman Russ Battle Tanks. All what they have to do to participate in Horus Heresy is to do the bare minimum of what is expected of a player of any tabletop game - acquire the appropriate materials and follow the community guidelines on gameplay etiquette - if they don't want to do that, they can always find another player or gaming group that will tolerate their approach to the game or find another game to play entirely.

Of course, you can still be *accused* of gatekeeping - but an accusation isn't automatically valid. In reality, the only reason we are having this discussion is because people have a tendency to think in terms of "Space Marines are Space Marines", but thats kinda like saying an Ancient Roman Legionnaire is the same as a WW2 Italian Bersaglieri. They might both be residents of the Italian Peninsula but they clearly are not the same. No reasoable person would attempt to bring their Roman Legionnaires to a game of Bolt Action and insist on the validity of their play, no reasonable person would tolerate someone who attempted to do so. The same standard holds for Horus Heresy and Space Marines. If you were really gatekeeping, instead you would insist that in order for a person to play Horus Heresy they would first need to collect at least 10,000 points of Space Marines from their chosen legion, organized around a pre-approved TO&E or ORBAT selected from a specific campaign or conflict that the legion fought in, and painted using paints that are an exact pantone color match for the official paint scheme and using only the official insignia, markings, and symbols used based on official artwork and documentation sourced from official publications, with no room for customization or artistic embellishment or variation based on personal style. That would certainly meet the criteria of setting an unrealistic standard (if the average game size is 3k points, you have no right to demand people collect 10k points first, you have no right to dictate what people choose to buy and build, you have no right to insist that they collect a fully "fluff accurate" force that conforms to the published description of a unit in a novel or black book vs one which they created for themselves, you have no right to disqualify people for choosing to reinterpret an official color scheme with slightly different shades or tones of color or for painting using the 'Eavy Metal style instead of your preferred grimdark style, or for creating a custom campaign badge, etc. - yeah, some of you guys are cutting it pretty close with your ridiculous insistence that HH minis must be painted in a certain style OR ELSE, good luck enforcing that one at anything other than the most localized level).

Well said, though I will say that I think a better approach to "you can't use primaris marines" is that if they're a new player and that's all they have, play a game with them so they can get the ropes then just make a polite, but firm, statement along the lines of "that was a fun game, you should think about XYZ because it fits a little better."

 tauist wrote:
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?

Horus Heresy is very specifically a time period of about ~10 years (as it excludes the ~200 year period of the Great Crusade and the ~1000 year period of the Scouring that occurred before and after it). It spans the galaxy in the same way World War 2 spanned the globe - there were events occurring across the globe, but that doesn't mean the Germans were fighting tank battles against the Soviets in South America.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AdmiralRon wrote:
Well said, though I will say that I think a better approach to "you can't use primaris marines" is that if they're a new player and that's all they have, play a game with them so they can get the ropes then just make a polite, but firm, statement along the lines of "that was a fun game, you should think about XYZ because it fits a little better."

Agreed. Thats the approach I would take, if the player in question is clearly of the stance "I want to try before I buy" then I'm fine playing a few proxy test battles using their 40k minis. If the player in question is instead of the stance of "I already have this 40k chaos space marine/Primaris/custom post-Codex Astartes chapter and I don't see any reason why I shouldn't just continue to use this same army with no meaningful or reasonable attempt made to try to make them fit within the quasi-historical context of the setting", then they are welcome to that opinion but they will have to find someone else to play with because I will not be participating in a game like that with them. I'm not going to be a gakhole about it, but I'm not going to enable or encourage that behavior either.

EDIT - That being said, if someone were to convert 40k marines into 30k marines and had a good reason for it, like if they built and collected a pre-Heresy type army years before Forgeworld released an official model range, or if they had some neat fluff about how their force are meant to be legion special forces and they got kitted out in early prototype Mk 7 armor, etc. but made a reasonable effort to convert them with period-appropriate chapter badges, colors schemes, weapons, iconography, etc. then I would be cool with it. But my tolerance expires at the point that these decision are motiviated by laziness and/or stinginess. If you're not going to put a minimum level of effort and investment into it then you shouldn't expect to be able to participate - its unfair and disrespectful to those who do put the time investment and monetary effort into attempting to do the setting justice to take the cheap and easy route here.

If we weren't getting a big box, my entry point would probably be using the less chaos mutated torsos from the CSM kits with MK IV helmets arms and packs since you can buy giant lots of those bits on ebay for fairly cheap.

Ok, so it's roughly ten years instead of 10,000.. That still leaves quite a lot of ground to cover spatially and by the numbers of Marines.

If my "Historic" interpretation of the Horus Heresy comes from GW circa 1990, how is it any less valid than the 2022 interpretation? We all know History does not equal truth, and truth is always the first cassualty of any war.

My History interpretation is that the MkVI is THAT Armour of the Heresy and was used wide spread under the 18 Legions. I "grow up" with the IA Books and have bit of a "romantic" view on RT-Era 40k.

In c. 2006 - 2014, I had a Heresy-Era World Eaters Army mixed with what was available at this time.

From today's Exemplary Battles article:

Now we’ve announced the upcoming edition of the Horus Heresy game, players will be pleased to note that all of the Exemplary Battles units we’ve published in this series will have their profiles updated to work with the new rules – stay tuned for more, but rest assured they will remain usable. In fact, they were all written for the new edition and then reverse-engineered to fit the current one – it’s almost like we had a plan all along…

Hope prevails.

I have no idea what your interpretation is, I was just clarifying scale. I think if you're talking about building your HH army around RT era depictions of the Heresy then its a valid choice/interpretation as long as its actually, yknow a Horus Heresy era legion and not Blood Ravens that you're trying to count as Blood Angels or whatever and that you're using appropriate Heresy era equipment for it. If current or previous fluff says Mk VI and Indomitus pattern TDA was used during the Heresy, then you're fine. If it doesn't (and never has), then you're not. Simple as.

I understand you are saying its not gate keeping, but i said it before.

We live in the hobby age where any barrier of entry is considered gate keeping by a lot of people in the community now.
If i were to say, "Hey i expect you to bring 30k models to play 30k." i would be called out for gatekeeping because i dont want someone using primaris marines or the baby walker as a dread.

Thats considered gatekeeping.

Hell i was told i gate kept because i told some one i would not play with them until they read the rules for their army.

We live in very strange times where common things to the hobby are now considered gatekeeping.

If I call a dog a dolphin does it make it a dolphin?

 Gert wrote:
If I call a dog a dolphin does it make it a dolphin?

No because a dolphin or a dog are not an idea or a concept. Its a thing.
A dog is a dog a dolphin is a dolphin

What people consider gatekeeping is a subjective matter, and its definition over time has changed. Meanings change.

Ideas that people at one point did not consider as gatekeeping, are now considered gatekeeping tactic, there is nothing really controversial about that. But because what is considered gate keeping has changed, its now lumping a lot of people into it.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No because a dolphin or a dog are not an idea or a concept. Its a thing.
A dog is a dog a dolphin is a dolphin

What people consider gatekeeping is a subjective matter, and its definition over time has changed. Meanings change.

Or it's people who have gotten their way all their life and are throwing a hissy fit about not being allowed to do what they want all the time and have just latched onto a buzzword.
An actual instance of HH gatekeeping would be preventing younger fans from joining in your games because they're too young to know why HH is so cool or some other nonsense.

 Gert wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No because a dolphin or a dog are not an idea or a concept. Its a thing.
A dog is a dog a dolphin is a dolphin

What people consider gatekeeping is a subjective matter, and its definition over time has changed. Meanings change.

Or it's people who have gotten their way all their life and are throwing a hissy fit about not being allowed to do what they want all the time and have just latched onto a buzzword.
Actual instances of HH gatekeeping would be preventing younger fans from joining in your games because they're too young to know why HH is so cool or some other nonsense.

Effectively yes, that's why near everything is called gate keeping. So in that sense, If I, were to say, "Hey If you wanna play dont bring net lists, and try to have your army lore accurate" any more thats considered gate keeping. When in actuallity, thats just adhering to what the hobby/game is about.

I agree its really not gatekeeping its just asking someone to follow the rules, but if people wanna call me a gatekeeper for that, then im a gate keeper.

Trying to keep someone out for no reason other then "because i said so" is peak stupidity no one wins there.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Effectively yes, that's why near everything is called gate keeping. So in that sense, If I, were to say, "Hey If you wanna play dont bring net lists, and try to have your army lore accurate" any more thats considered gate keeping. When in actuallity, thats just adhering to what the hobby/game is about.

I agree its really not gatekeeping its just asking someone to follow the rules, but if people wanna call me a gatekeeper for that, then im a gate keeper.

Trying to keep someone out for no reason other then "because i said so" is peak stupidity no one wins there.

But by agreeing with them and using the term you are giving it a power it doesn't actually have. You're not gatekeeping so don't apply the term to yourself. Do you know the kind of people who use the term to describe themselves? Because it isn't people who don't want Primaris used in a HH game.

Its the vocal minority vs the silent majority situation.

Side note though, think we will get expanded psyker power? right now there are only 6 and only 2 spells in each school right now. Seems pretty light, so hope we see more.

I like the fewer psychic powers.
It's much easier to come up with a full array of powers that are all unique, interesting, useful, and balanced.

If you try and make like 8 tables of 7 like they had before that just flies out the window.

Biomancy, Pyromancy, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Malefic, and Sanctic seems enough. I really don't want to go back to the Angels of Death supplement days with its like 6 more disciplines, one of which made Iron Hands even harder to kill than before.

Oh i can fully agree on the sheer amount of powers that were present in 7th and HH being a bit over the top.
Butwould be nice to maybe have like 1 more for each school. Seems super light right now is all.

There's that word again, "lore accurate". In order to reach a consensus on what this actually means, we would have to first reach a consensus as on what exactly constitutes as "lore".

I always liked 40K because even if lore for it existed, there was also freedom to expand on the existing lore. This seems a concept alien to 30K fans it seems? So only valid things are what GW says. If GW introduces new aspects to existing HH lore, such as new units or formations, vehicle patterns, armour marks or doctrines of fighting, only they are acceptable, all else is discouraged. Its like a big middle finger to creativity, unless the outlet of such creativity falls in line neatly with existing, current (rights reserved for any retcons obvs) GW definitions.

Perhaps I'll just be better off avoiding 30K altogether. When 40K legends Firstborn, I can fall back to just playing Rogue Trader with my miniatures.

A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.

..Until GW rewrites the history and now you have to catch up on what actually happened. Right. You look at this from a timescale of years, I look at it from timescale of decades. The lore of HH has always been a moving target.

 tauist wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.

..Until GW rewrites the history and now you have to catch up on what actually happened. Right. You look at this from a timescale of years, I look at it from timescale of decades. The lore of HH has always been a moving target.

As long as they appear in some scheme that, that army either currently does, or has existed as, at some point in GW lore.
Thats considered lore accurate in my book.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 tauist wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
A big portion of 30k’s appeal is that it’s like a historical game, you know the forces and what they did.

..Until GW rewrites the history and now you have to catch up on what actually happened. Right. You look at this from a timescale of years, I look at it from timescale of decades. The lore of HH has always been a moving target.

As long as they appear in some scheme that, that army either currently does, or has existed as, at some point in GW lore.
Thats considered lore accurate in my book.

Yeah but what if the meaning of the word accurate shifts over time and then you have to repaint your army to be politically correct or no one will play you?

This is such a non discussion.
Is it not the consensus that outside of test games overly 40k armies (i.e. full Primaris or obviously post-HH colour schemes) aren't HH armies? What else is there to discuss.

Can we go back to bashing edge highlighting? I'm a recent convert to a more "military modelling" style aesthetic. I think the sort of painting styles covered in books such as this "Sci-Fi FAQ" (considering buying it btw) suit the Horus Heresy much better than the trad. 'Eavy Metal style.




You already had me @ "Legion colourschemes" (Legion BA are not Vermillion but Red) so don't worry, I will not be playing yall

Speaking of lore appropriate colour schemes, I am a bit enamoured with the shiny new beakies and have been wondering how I could use them. One thing I was considering was to go super retro and paint them in garish Rogue Trader era colours.



Might not go down so well with the HH crowd?

 Crimson wrote:
Might not go down so well with the HH crowd?

Just say they're Blackshields (renegade marines). I have some Iron Hands painted very, very dark blue (Incubi Darkness base) and if anyone questions it I just say it's their original Storm Walkers scheme.

 Crimson wrote:

Speaking of lore appropriate colour schemes, I am a bit enamoured with the shiny new beakies and have been wondering how I could use them. One thing I was considering was to go super retro and paint them in garish Rogue Trader era colours.



Might not go down so well with the HH crowd?

If it appeared as official GW then i say do it.
If someone showed up with an old school salamander army my only response would be....Nice.

As for edge highlighting, its a style that upclose loose kinda gross, but on table top it looks fine. The whole reason to do it is to make the details of the model pop when you are looking at it from the table..
Thats why the style is so popular because when you are looking at your models from like....3 feet away or more, you can see detail of the model, but up close it looks like dookie.