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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

? It is an alternative, sadly 40k will remain primaris spam, Cut appart and frankenstein fused together chaos, lackluster xeno support.

Atleast he would have the alternative.
Current state of 40k sucks but complaining that the alternative doesn't work on the marine side is a tad ironic.
And its not like he couldn't use the bolter Marines as legio or vets so he wouldn't realistically lose anything.
Contrary he'd gain on the infantry side quite a bit and on the hq side.

Heh. Well "lackluster xeno support" remains better than zero xeno support.

But yeah, I want the traditional setup of Tactical, Assault and Devastator. And not just Devastator by name, but the OG four heavies and a number of bolters. This is something I can still do not only in 10th, but in older rule sets and alternatives like OPR. I have an army I've built and I'd like to use it as my army.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^So what about Devastators? A clump of Heavies with a retinue of bolters.

only heavies, but up to 10

Well then, point 2 stands

Oh noes, still ample enough room for a normal chapter to be fit into though, so no, not really.

Yes, selling it as a viable alternative to people upset that they just lost units and options, go play this other game where you also lose units and options and receive no extra sympathy

? It is an alternative, sadly 40k will remain primaris spam, Cut appart and frankenstein fused together chaos, lackluster xeno support.

Atleast he would have the alternative.
Current state of 40k sucks but complaining that the alternative doesn't work on the marine side is a tad ironic.
And its not like he couldn't use the bolter Marines as legio or vets so he wouldn't realistically lose anything.
Contrary he'd gain on the infantry side quite a bit and on the hq side.

I mean, I play both games and I'm going to be honest it wouldn't be the same. I love heresy but 40k marines and Heresy marines operate differently.

It pains me to say it, but the classic marine doctrine of a core trio with supporting elements is dead at this point, it at least will be soon.

Not sure if indicative of current edition of the game, but I find the lack of new posts here regarding 40K far less than 8th and 9th.
Is the current game as enjoyable for the casual gamer of is their simply edition churn burnout? I do agree 9th was tough for a new player, so bloated in rules, but as a narrative gamer, it gave me the level of detail that 10th simply doesn’t have.
Myself and 5 buddies are playing some games this Friday to finish a campaign we started in 9th. We will be using 10th rules but choosing missions from the Vigilus books as the current narrative options simply don’t exist. Will see how it goes.

 kingpbjames wrote:


I know this thread is kind of all over the place but I'm considering getting 40k Apocalypse and I'm curious if there are any here that play it fairly regularly. I've only seen it mentioned once here so I'm assuming not.
I have no intention of collection Epic scale but Apocalypse seems like a better system than 10th for the games my group likes to play.

I haven't personally played, but I've never heard a bad word about it. I think your group would like it. One of the cool mechanics is that successful hits put a blast marker on a unit, and the damage from blast markers isn't resolved until the end of the round... So even if you get alpha-struck, you get to take the enemy with you... Which means your opponent is unlikely to gamble on alpha strike.

Action happens at the unit level, rather than the model level, so there are fewer dice. Movement trays for models make movement fast and smooth too.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

aphyon wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
32 months til 11th.

And 0 months until HH 2.0. Just sayin.

0 months to play any other fully complete older edition.

with many choices as to which to use.

Chances are lower where i am to get an oldhammer game rather than HH. And i rekon that's a general fact sadly.

That requires effort on your part. teaching and building community. i think you would be surprised at how many players who may have started post 8th would enjoy playing "edition of your choice" if you break out the books and have them give it a go, even with a bit of proxying.

Our group only started out with 4 or 5 veteran players when 8th dropped and we said FETH GW were gonna go back and play 40K when it was more fun. now we have over a dozen players who play it along with us, most of whom started post 8th.

 Insectum7 wrote:

But yeah, I want the traditional setup of Tactical, Assault and Devastator. And not just Devastator by name, but the OG four heavies and a number of bolters. This is something I can still do not only in 10th, but in older rule sets and alternatives like OPR. I have an army I've built and I'd like to use it as my army.

there is a good chance this won't be a thing in 40k either in future
and using "your" army in 40k over several Editions was always a problem because of those changes
(and you won't get any sympathy for that because there is always the solution of buying more and otherwise your are just a grumpy old veteran who does not like new stuff)

there is a reason OPR gets so much attention again, because you are not the only one

 aphyon wrote:


That requires effort on your part. teaching and building community. i think you would be surprised at how many players who may have started post 8th would enjoy playing "edition of your choice" if you break out the books and have them give it a go, even with a bit of proxying.

Our group only started out with 4 or 5 veteran players when 8th dropped and we said FETH GW were gonna go back and play 40K when it was more fun. now we have over a dozen players who play it along with us, most of whom started post 8th.

What makes you think i didn't or don't play oldhammer occaisionally? That still doesn't however dispute the fact that HH is played more widely and overall on the rules side of things there's a lot going for its system over many older editions, the reaction system being f.e. one of that reasons. It also won't change the fact that 40k current edition tm is beeing communally insulated by efforts of gw itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

? It is an alternative, sadly 40k will remain primaris spam, Cut appart and frankenstein fused together chaos, lackluster xeno support.

Atleast he would have the alternative.
Current state of 40k sucks but complaining that the alternative doesn't work on the marine side is a tad ironic.
And its not like he couldn't use the bolter Marines as legio or vets so he wouldn't realistically lose anything.
Contrary he'd gain on the infantry side quite a bit and on the hq side.

Heh. Well "lackluster xeno support" remains better than zero xeno support.

But yeah, I want the traditional setup of Tactical, Assault and Devastator. And not just Devastator by name, but the OG four heavies and a number of bolters. This is something I can still do not only in 10th, but in older rule sets and alternatives like OPR. I have an army I've built and I'd like to use it as my army.

Which is entirely fair but let's not pretend that what ammounts to xenos support nowadays is worth more than a token effort until a faction is released. Or primarising certain units without primarising them, cue boyz and snaggas.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

? It is an alternative, sadly 40k will remain primaris spam, Cut appart and frankenstein fused together chaos, lackluster xeno support.

Atleast he would have the alternative.
Current state of 40k sucks but complaining that the alternative doesn't work on the marine side is a tad ironic.
And its not like he couldn't use the bolter Marines as legio or vets so he wouldn't realistically lose anything.
Contrary he'd gain on the infantry side quite a bit and on the hq side.

Heh. Well "lackluster xeno support" remains better than zero xeno support.

But yeah, I want the traditional setup of Tactical, Assault and Devastator. And not just Devastator by name, but the OG four heavies and a number of bolters. This is something I can still do not only in 10th, but in older rule sets and alternatives like OPR. I have an army I've built and I'd like to use it as my army.

Which is entirely fair but let's not pretend that what ammounts to xenos support nowadays is worth more than a token effort until a faction is released. Or primarising certain units without primarising them, cue boyz and snaggas.

What does this even mean? No army gets support without a release? In the last 6 years there have been notable releases for quite a few xenos armies, there's been plenty of effort into chaos and none-marine imperium as well.

Ork boyz are still ork boyz, beastsnaggaz was a weird choice but it's not "primaris" orks, no such units were introduced for nids, eldar, crons, admech, sisters, guard, any of the numerous chaos releases.

It means that individual xenos factions mostly get a medium-sized release once every >10 years and are on life support otherwise. "Xenos" isn't even really a thing organisation-wise, it's just a fancy label for "the rest". You can't ally in a carnifex when playing tau.

The fact that marines have been inflated to the point of being compared with "xenos", "chaos" and even "non-marine imperium" only underlines the point. In a healthier system you'd compare marines to other armies, not entire factions (or whatever organisational term we're supposed to use). But that ship sailed long ago I guess.

Dudeface wrote:


What does this even mean? No army gets support without a release? In the last 6 years there have been notable releases for quite a few xenos armies, there's been plenty of effort into chaos and none-marine imperium as well.

Ork boyz are still ork boyz, beastsnaggaz was a weird choice but it's not "primaris" orks, no such units were introduced for nids, eldar, crons, admech, sisters, guard, any of the numerous chaos releases.

Release, not faction release. Notable is entirely a point of debate, and effort into chaos is a joke considering WE launched with half a dex, TS are codex tzangoor still and CSM get ever more diluted by mortal chaos whilest mortal chaos has gone the way of the dodo as a standing force in and of itself.

Ork boyzs and snaggas just show the sad state of actual faction support is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

shortymcnostrill wrote:
It means that individual xenos factions mostly get a medium-sized release once every >10 years and are on life support otherwise. "Xenos" isn't even really a thing organisation-wise, it's just a fancy label for "the rest". You can't ally in a carnifex when playing tau.

The fact that marines have been inflated to the point of being compared with "xenos", "chaos" and even "non-marine imperium" only underlines the point. In a healthier system you'd compare marines to other armies, not entire factions (or whatever organisational term we're supposed to use). But that ship sailed long ago I guess.

This.

shortymcnostrill wrote:
It means that individual xenos factions mostly get a medium-sized release once every >10 years and are on life support otherwise. "Xenos" isn't even really a thing organisation-wise, it's just a fancy label for "the rest". You can't ally in a carnifex when playing tau.

The fact that marines have been inflated to the point of being compared with "xenos", "chaos" and even "non-marine imperium" only underlines the point. In a healthier system you'd compare marines to other armies, not entire factions (or whatever organisational term we're supposed to use). But that ship sailed long ago I guess.

9th challenged that status quo though.

Necrons, Orks and Craftworld Eldar all received a decent amount of updated kits and entirely new gubbins. And at this early stage? 10th has done the same for Tyranids.

That leaves Tau (who have traditionally done pretty well in terms of releases compared to other Xenos forces), Dark Eldar and Leagues of Votann. Oh, and Genestealer Cults who have, like the Tau, done better than most since their reintroduction in….I wanna say 7th Ed? Or was it 8th?

Orks have always gotten a decent insurgence of new models at steady intervals...
Just in plastic off the top of my head (may be missing a few):
5th edition Black Reach, Warbikes, Trukk, Battlewagon, Stormboys, Burnas/Lootas, Stompa, Killa Kanz, Deff Dread
6th edition:
Dakkajet, Burna Bomber, Blitza Bomber
7th edition:
Mek Guns, Mek, Shokk Attack, MANZ, Gorkanaut/Morkanaut, Flashgitz
8th edition:
5 Buggies, Deffkilla Wartrike, Ghazkull/makarai, Scrapyard
9th edition:
Boss Head bunker, beastsnaggas, new boyz, MANboss, Beastboss, Killrig, Squighog boys, Zogrog, snikrot, Squigasaur, Smasha Squig

To say that "xenos" doesn't get support is willfully ignoring releases (at least in orks case)

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Orks have always gotten a decent insurgence of new models at steady intervals...
Just in plastic off the top of my head (may be missing a few):
5th edition Black Reach, Warbikes, Trukk, Battlewagon, Stormboys, Burnas/Lootas, Stompa, Killa Kanz, Deff Dread
6th edition:
Dakkajet, Burna Bomber, Blitza Bomber
7th edition:
Mek Guns, Mek, Shokk Attack, MANZ, Gorkanaut/Morkanaut, Flashgitz
8th edition:
5 Buggies, Deffkilla Wartrike, Ghazkull/makarai, Scrapyard
9th edition:
Boss Head bunker, beastsnaggas, new boyz, MANboss, Beastboss, Killrig, Squighog boys, Zogrog, snikrot, Squigasaur, Smasha Squig

To say that "xenos" doesn't get support is willfully ignoring releases (at least in orks case)

Now do that with DE and SM. Go on.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Now do that with DE

For DE :
5th ed : basically the whole range we currently have
6th : ???
7th: new models for Archon, haemy, Succubi, Wracks and the voidraven bomber
8th : new Drazhar/Incubi
9th : new lelith

Not Online!!! wrote:

and SM

no

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

9th challenged that status quo though.

Necrons, Orks and Craftworld Eldar all received a decent amount of updated kits and entirely new gubbins. And at this early stage? 10th has done the same for Tyranids.

That leaves Tau (who have traditionally done pretty well in terms of releases compared to other Xenos forces), Dark Eldar and Leagues of Votann. Oh, and Genestealer Cults who have, like the Tau, done better than most since their reintroduction in….I wanna say 7th Ed? Or was it 8th?

GSC were indeed released end of 7th, so they got about 6 months with their dex before the edition reset.

I believe that 9th was at least somewhat kind to the Xenos. not just for the reasons above- I'd also say that Drukhari, Tau, GSC, Nids and Eldar all did pretty well on the Crusade front- their bespoke content for Crusade was fabulous. IMHO, Drukhari had the best Crusade rules in the game- Drukharimunda is just an awesome little minigame.

By contrast, Marine's Crusade content was pretty flat... The dreadnaught thing is cool, and the banner rules from Nachmund were decent. But in terms of long-term faction goals, 9th ed left a lot to be desired for Marines. Happily, the word is that 10th really improved Marines, and maintained the fairly high bar set for Nids.

It was really weird seeing so many Xeno factions get excellent Crusade content while some of the superstar factions in the game fared so poorly. I hear Orks had it bad, and I didn't pick up the 9th ed Votann dex, so I can't speak to their content either, but Drukhari, Tau and GSC were on a whole other level.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Now do that with DE and SM. Go on.

Now remind us how this is "token support" and not worth it compared to HH despite having checks notes 0 xenos factions.

You cite how stupid the volume of marine releases are whilst recommending people play a game centred around.... marines.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Now do that with DE and SM. Go on.

Now remind us how this is "token support" and not worth it compared to HH despite having checks notes 0 xenos factions.

You cite how stupid the volume of marine releases are whilst recommending people play a game centred around.... marines.

No, that is willfull misinterpretation, i reccomend those that don't want to play current 40k primaris to consider HH.

Xenos insofar however as a reason to not play HH or any other system above 40k is an argument that is in a poor state in and of itself.

Which is entirely fair but let's not pretend that what ammounts to xenos support nowadays is worth more than a token effort until a faction is released. Or primarising certain units without primarising them, cue boyz and snaggas.

Which is preciscly a problem, a new faction get's more support understandably, but comparativly to upkeep other factions require the list for those other xenos is lackluster in itself. Why not then consider importin xenos rules in a better system? Why not pick up OPR or oldhammer.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Xenos insofar however as a reason to not play 40k, and that is the bit that is important, comparativly to marines in 40k don't get as much support, as they deserve which lowers it as an argument to not consider HH or OPR or Oldhammer.

Oldhammer Xenos had even less support than modernhammer, HH as noted has ZERO Xenos support. So it is only really an argument for playing OPR.

 Tyran wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Xenos insofar however as a reason to not play 40k, and that is the bit that is important, comparativly to marines in 40k don't get as much support, as they deserve which lowers it as an argument to not consider HH or OPR or Oldhammer.

Oldhammer Xenos had even less support than modernhammer, HH as noted has ZERO Xenos support. So it is only really an argument for playing OPR.

Which is fair, isn't it?
At some point the community (more accuratly any of our communities) will have to be responsible for their own actions and playstyle. And the fact remains that from a rules system point HH does the warhammer universe a better service on the rules side mechanically, OPR does the same.

But as soon as people suggest that maybee players and their communities do something on their own, that get's shut down understandable, afterall as i said, getting a match of HH in is easier than oldhammer...

it's a sad fact.

We are all responsible for the choices we make... And most communities chose to stick with 10th.

That point came and went a long time ago.

There's no xenos support in age of sigmar either, clearly gw is xenophobic and hates xenos players.

Thats how ridiculous it sounds when you guys refer to the lack of xenos in HH. There's no xenos because they aren't part of the scope or context for the game. It's irrelevant to bring it up in this argument

chaos0xomega wrote:
There's no xenos support in age of sigmar either, clearly gw is xenophobic and hates xenos players.

Thats how ridiculous it sounds when you guys refer to the lack of xenos in HH. There's no xenos because they aren't part of the scope or context for the game. It's irrelevant to bring it up in this argument

It's as irrelevant as telling people with xenos collections to play HH, which gets brought up here.

PenitentJake wrote:

 kingpbjames wrote:


I know this thread is kind of all over the place but I'm considering getting 40k Apocalypse and I'm curious if there are any here that play it fairly regularly. I've only seen it mentioned once here so I'm assuming not.
I have no intention of collection Epic scale but Apocalypse seems like a better system than 10th for the games my group likes to play.

I haven't personally played, but I've never heard a bad word about it. I think your group would like it. One of the cool mechanics is that successful hits put a blast marker on a unit, and the damage from blast markers isn't resolved until the end of the round... So even if you get alpha-struck, you get to take the enemy with you... Which means your opponent is unlikely to gamble on alpha strike.

Action happens at the unit level, rather than the model level, so there are fewer dice. Movement trays for models make movement fast and smooth too.

It could have been a great system... but unfortunately the design team had a number of mechanics they had to include which limited the design space considerably. So you have the madness of choosing whether or not to fit a heavy stubber onto your tanks, while the stat line for a Leman Russ and chimera in terms of survivability was the same. The cards were meant to bring in tactical options the rules design pushed out, but had their own problems.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There's no xenos support in age of sigmar either, clearly gw is xenophobic and hates xenos players.

Thats how ridiculous it sounds when you guys refer to the lack of xenos in HH. There's no xenos because they aren't part of the scope or context for the game. It's irrelevant to bring it up in this argument

Pretty sure Seraphon are technically Xenos

But yes, agree.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 kingpbjames wrote:


I know this thread is kind of all over the place but I'm considering getting 40k Apocalypse and I'm curious if there are any here that play it fairly regularly. I've only seen it mentioned once here so I'm assuming not.
I have no intention of collection Epic scale but Apocalypse seems like a better system than 10th for the games my group likes to play.

I haven't personally played, but I've never heard a bad word about it. I think your group would like it. One of the cool mechanics is that successful hits put a blast marker on a unit, and the damage from blast markers isn't resolved until the end of the round... So even if you get alpha-struck, you get to take the enemy with you... Which means your opponent is unlikely to gamble on alpha strike.

Action happens at the unit level, rather than the model level, so there are fewer dice. Movement trays for models make movement fast and smooth too.

It could have been a great system... but unfortunately the design team had a number of mechanics they had to include which limited the design space considerably. So you have the madness of choosing whether or not to fit a heavy stubber onto your tanks, while the stat line for a Leman Russ and chimera in terms of survivability was the same. The cards were meant to bring in tactical options the rules design pushed out, but had their own problems.

I really liked the look of it when it came out, but the price of the book and movement trays and so forth was just too high of a barrier to entry. I kind of suspect I might prefer it to10th (at least 2k games of 10th) if I ever tried it out.

I do feel like I'm in this odd place where what I really want is either a more abstract game that plays smoother and captures the feeling of maneuvering entire armies rather than feeling like a football play... or else a smaller scale game (with like, 500ish points to a side) with more detailed unit customization, flanking mechanics, etc.

10th plays smoothly on the table, but so far I'm struggling to really "get into" games the way I have in the past. I'm having trouble forging that narrative.

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
There's no xenos support in age of sigmar either, clearly gw is xenophobic and hates xenos players.

Thats how ridiculous it sounds when you guys refer to the lack of xenos in HH. There's no xenos because they aren't part of the scope or context for the game. It's irrelevant to bring it up in this argument

It's as irrelevant as telling people with xenos collections to play HH, which gets brought up here.

This. It's not like xenos players are bringing up HH to whinge about it out of the blue. It's just a well-worn conversation track.

'I don't like how 40K has developed'
'You should try HH then, it's more like oldhammer'
'But I play xenos and they aren't supported'
(cue another page of nitpicking minutiae)

Maybe people should stop recommending HH2.0 to xenos players feeling burned? It's about as relevant as suggesting AOS as an alternative.

As it stands if you don't play Marines or something you can viably proxy as Solar Auxilia or Militia, or don't like 30K Marine organization, or don't like how HH2.0 is written (because, frankly, it's kind of a mess), the only reasonably popular alternative is OPR. Which I recommend giving a go if you can find like-minded players, because it is free and readily available, but YMMV and it's not for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I do feel like I'm in this odd place where what I really want is either a more abstract game that plays smoother and captures the feeling of maneuvering entire armies rather than feeling like a football play... or else a smaller scale game (with like, 500ish points to a side) with more detailed unit customization, flanking mechanics, etc.

I don't think that's an odd take at all. I've posted a few times over the years about how modern 40K doesn't know what scale it wants to operate on. Picking a single scale and assuming the necessary abstractions and scope limitations would almost certainly allow a cleaner ruleset.

But it will never happen, because the amount of backlash to either stripping out chrome (to optimize for larger games) or limiting what you can field (to optimize for smaller games) would be massive. 40K players expect to be able to choose exactly what sort of sidearm their officer carries and also to field superheavy tanks, damn the consequences.

Anyways, I like Apocalypse. It's a bit rough around the edges but the core mechanics make for an engaging and fast-playing experience, and you can play it at the equivalent to 2000pts of 40K without issues. It's just a shame that it was basically dead on arrival and hasn't been updated with new models.

Or there's always Epic- if you have a community that will invest in it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I do feel like I'm in this odd place where what I really want is either a more abstract game that plays smoother and captures the feeling of maneuvering entire armies rather than feeling like a football play... or else a smaller scale game (with like, 500ish points to a side) with more detailed unit customization, flanking mechanics, etc.

10th plays smoothly on the table, but so far I'm struggling to really "get into" games the way I have in the past. I'm having trouble forging that narrative.

This has been the major decline of interest in 40k for my play group as well since 4th.

It seems every iteration they keep inflating the scale of the game but are trying to maintain the intricacies of the smaller skirmish roots. To our group, this is just making the game feel needlessly tedious. We pretty much barely play 40k anymore it seems, constantly playing Battletech, Sigmar, Conquest:TLAOK, or now Warmachine Mk4. At some point when you have 60 models on the table, then having 15 flavors of rifle becomes tedious to keep track of and resolve.

Also dice bloat... 40k has serious dice bloat problem. I think this partially due to the limitation of the d6, and more-so with the new to hit/to wound charts, but having to roll 30+ dice for one unit three times (hit, wound, save) not counting any rerolls is too much. It's rather obvious a system has a huge core issue when one of their balance levers they start to lean into is roll more dice.

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
There's no xenos support in age of sigmar either, clearly gw is xenophobic and hates xenos players.

Thats how ridiculous it sounds when you guys refer to the lack of xenos in HH. There's no xenos because they aren't part of the scope or context for the game. It's irrelevant to bring it up in this argument

It's as irrelevant as telling people with xenos collections to play HH, which gets brought up here.

This. It's not like xenos players are bringing up HH to whinge about it out of the blue. It's just a well-worn conversation track.

'I don't like how 40K has developed'
'You should try HH then, it's more like oldhammer'
'But I play xenos and they aren't supported'
(cue another page of nitpicking minutiae)

Maybe people should stop recommending HH2.0 to xenos players feeling burned? It's about as relevant as suggesting AOS as an alternative.

As it stands if you don't play Marines or something you can viably proxy as Solar Auxilia or Militia, or don't like 30K Marine organization, or don't like how HH2.0 is written (because, frankly, it's kind of a mess), the only reasonably popular alternative is OPR. Which I recommend giving a go if you can find like-minded players, because it is free and readily available, but YMMV and it's not for everyone.

Yeah this is all bs. I don't have a 40k marine army. I still play horus heresy because I started a 30k marine army.

People aren't recommending HH to you because you're burned as a result of being a Xenos player, they are recommending it to you because you are burned being a 40k player. Your core complaints are complaints that impact all players of all factions. Ergo the recommendation to HH is to basically play a different game where the complaints you have are not relevant or impactful.

 bullyboy wrote:

Myself and 5 buddies are playing some games this Friday to finish a campaign we started in 9th. We will be using 10th rules but choosing missions from the Vigilus books as the current narrative options simply don’t exist. Will see how it goes.

I am setting up a large scale Planetstrike mission for my brother and his friends to play during the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend using BA & GK as defenders and Tyranids and CSM as attackers. Will have Bunkers, Turrets, Power Generators, all destroyable terrain with special rules.

We will be using the 9th edition rules, some terrain rules from them, and the 9th Mission books which include PlanetStrike rules.

I don't personally feel there is enough in 10th to actually use to create the same in depth gameplay as what 9th has. My friends have just decided to skip 10th and keep having fun with our 9th edition books.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
There's no xenos support in age of sigmar either, clearly gw is xenophobic and hates xenos players.

Thats how ridiculous it sounds when you guys refer to the lack of xenos in HH. There's no xenos because they aren't part of the scope or context for the game. It's irrelevant to bring it up in this argument

It's as irrelevant as telling people with xenos collections to play HH, which gets brought up here.

This. It's not like xenos players are bringing up HH to whinge about it out of the blue. It's just a well-worn conversation track.

'I don't like how 40K has developed'
'You should try HH then, it's more like oldhammer'
'But I play xenos and they aren't supported'
(cue another page of nitpicking minutiae)

Maybe people should stop recommending HH2.0 to xenos players feeling burned? It's about as relevant as suggesting AOS as an alternative.

As it stands if you don't play Marines or something you can viably proxy as Solar Auxilia or Militia, or don't like 30K Marine organization, or don't like how HH2.0 is written (because, frankly, it's kind of a mess), the only reasonably popular alternative is OPR. Which I recommend giving a go if you can find like-minded players, because it is free and readily available, but YMMV and it's not for everyone.

Yeah this is all bs. I don't have a 40k marine army. I still play horus heresy because I started a 30k marine army.

People aren't recommending HH to you because you're burned as a result of being a Xenos player, they are recommending it to you because you are burned being a 40k player. Your core complaints are complaints that impact all players of all factions. Ergo the recommendation to HH is to basically play a different game where the complaints you have are not relevant or impactful.

Respectfully, if you're acknowledging that xenos players' current armies (probably) can't be used in HH, then that means they'd have to:

1. Buy a new army.
2. Buy new books for HH.

Which does sound exactly like what they'd have to do if you told them to go play AoS instead. Catbarf's analogy seems apt.