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.

 catbarf wrote:


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.

I think a third expectation is the one that makes balancing this impossible; they also want the game done in 2.5 hours, so they can cram 3 games in a day for a tournament.

I am fortunate enough to have a group of pals to play second edition with, with all its attendant detail, and we’ve still had the massive battles with knights and Gorkanauts stomping next to our Sergeants with their personalised side arms because we’ve accepted they are the special sort of day long games that you just can’t do every session.

I got a first game of 10th in the other night, and while not as bad as 9th (where I couldn’t wait for the game to end), it’s a hollow sort of game after coming from the richness of 2nd Ed. It’s not even a comparable experience anymore. It’s a shame it’s so difficult to get folks to try out older editions (or, heaven forbid, non-GW games) as there is a lot of better things out there and that pressure to improve could only make the current version better.

Luke82 wrote:

I think a third expectation is the one that makes balancing this impossible; they also want the game done in 2.5 hours, so they can cram 3 games in a day for a tournament.

Doesnt even need to be for tournaments, having games be short-ish allows us to play weeknights instead of weekends only.

Did I stutter?

"Ergo the recommendation to HH is to basically play a different game where the complaints you have are not relevant or impactful."

This isn't a xenos players issue. Its true of any player. They can pretend that their 40k marine army works for Horus Heresy, it doesn't and theres a lot of people that won't agree to play someone trying to pull that nonsense (but thats a different topic for another thread).

Its a different game. The advice being given is not "go take your army and use it this way instead", its "if you're so unhappy with the game and don't like it, you can try playing this completely different game which does not suffer the same issues you are complaining about". Its called a "recommendation" - it shouldn't be that difficult a concept to grasp. That different game in this example is Horus Heresy, but it could be Age of Sigmar, Team Yankee, Warmachine, Bolt Action or whatever is appropriate to address the issues the complainant has.

This line of discourse is quite frankly completely asinine.

There is a thematic aspect that makes many if not most xenos players unlikely to want to play HH.

Many of us play 40k because we like the lore, themes, aesthetic, etc. If we are to try a new game, we are more likely to try one that has a faction that is thematically similar to our xenos factions.

So we would be looking for space orcs, space elves, space bugs, space robots, etc when considering other games.

chaos0xomega wrote:


They can pretend that their 40k marine army works for Horus Heresy, it doesn't and theres a lot of people that won't agree to play someone trying to pull that nonsense (but thats a different topic for another thread)..

You literally told Insectum their army would work in HH and said the loss of specific 40k squad structures was a non-issue due to gaining options?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a thematic aspect that makes many if not most xenos players unlikely to want to play HH.

Many of us play 40k because we like the lore, themes, aesthetic, etc. If we are to try a new game, we are more likely to try one that has a faction that is thematically similar to our xenos factions.

So we would be looking for space orcs, space elves, space bugs, space robots, etc when considering other games.

This in a nut shell. The majority of people who aren't marine players (loyalist or chaos) get fed up of "bolter porn" and hence HH is a different game but not one that has much for them.

^And even playing Marines, ideally I'd like to spend my time fighting xenos of various types. The most dull times in 40k I've had is when 9 out of ten players at the club are playing Marines. . . which is basically the billing of HH. No thanks.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^And even playing Marines, ideally I'd like to spend my time fighting xenos of various types. The most dull times in 40k I've had is when 9 out of ten players at the club are playing Marines. . . which is basically the billing of HH. No thanks.

Thats because all marines play the same in 40k, in HH every legion feels like its own standalone faction.

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


They can pretend that their 40k marine army works for Horus Heresy, it doesn't and theres a lot of people that won't agree to play someone trying to pull that nonsense (but thats a different topic for another thread)..

You literally told Insectum their army would work in HH and said the loss of specific 40k squad structures was a non-issue due to gaining options?

where did I say that?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^And even playing Marines, ideally I'd like to spend my time fighting xenos of various types. The most dull times in 40k I've had is when 9 out of ten players at the club are playing Marines. . . which is basically the billing of HH. No thanks.

Thats because all marines play the same in 40k, in HH every legion feels like its own standalone faction.

I'll press X to doubt. I'm sure a lot of people will argue that SW and RG don't exactly fight the same in 40k either.

But also they still look like mirror matches. Dudes in PA vs dudes in PA. Chaos Marines in 40k even appear to add more variety than HH has, and they're still dudes in PA. Tyranids? Orks? Eldar? Now that's some variety in texture.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^And even playing Marines, ideally I'd like to spend my time fighting xenos of various types. The most dull times in 40k I've had is when 9 out of ten players at the club are playing Marines. . . which is basically the billing of HH. No thanks.

Thats because all marines play the same in 40k, in HH every legion feels like its own standalone faction.

This is a largely evangelical claim rooted in a combination of legitimate rules nuance and collective imagination. From an outsiders perspective, Horus Heresy legions appear less functionally differentiated from one another than the current Tyranid Assimilation Swarm is from the Vanguard Infiltrator detachment.

 Tyran wrote:
There is a thematic aspect that makes many if not most xenos players unlikely to want to play HH.

Many of us play 40k because we like the lore, themes, aesthetic, etc. If we are to try a new game, we are more likely to try one that has a faction that is thematically similar to our xenos factions.

So we would be looking for space orcs, space elves, space bugs, space robots, etc when considering other games.

Why do you self-identify so strongly with fictional tropes? I don't know what to tell you, except that theres no such thing as a "xenos player", only "player who play xenos factions". People like what they like, I get that, but saying "I only play elves in this one game, so I'm only going to play elves in any game" is a bizarre mindset to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^And even playing Marines, ideally I'd like to spend my time fighting xenos of various types. The most dull times in 40k I've had is when 9 out of ten players at the club are playing Marines. . . which is basically the billing of HH. No thanks.

Thats because all marines play the same in 40k, in HH every legion feels like its own standalone faction.

This is a largely evangelical claim rooted in a combination of legitimate rules nuance and collective imagination. From an outsiders perspective, Horus Heresy legions appear less functionally differentiated from one another than the current Tyranid Assimilation Swarm is from the Vanguard Infiltrator detachment.

I would agree, that was my perspective on the matter... until I actually played the game.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Why do you self-identify so strongly with fictional tropes? I don't know what to tell you, except that theres no such thing as a "xenos player", only "player who play xenos factions". People like what they like, I get that, but saying "I only play elves in this one game, so I'm only going to play elves in any game" is a bizarre mindset to me.

If I didn't strongly identify with the fictional tropes I wouldn't be playing 40k, or fiction based games in general.

To be honest I struggle to understand a mindset that discard themes and still seeks to play fictional games.

So yes, I self-identify as a "xenos player".

chaos0xomega wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


They can pretend that their 40k marine army works for Horus Heresy, it doesn't and theres a lot of people that won't agree to play someone trying to pull that nonsense (but thats a different topic for another thread)..

You literally told Insectum their army would work in HH and said the loss of specific 40k squad structures was a non-issue due to gaining options?

where did I say that?

On this comment chain, cba chopping apart the whole thing, but basically over the last 2 pages

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.

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


They can pretend that their 40k marine army works for Horus Heresy, it doesn't and theres a lot of people that won't agree to play someone trying to pull that nonsense (but thats a different topic for another thread)..

You literally told Insectum their army would work in HH and said the loss of specific 40k squad structures was a non-issue due to gaining options?

where did I say that?

On this comment chain, cba chopping apart the whole thing, but basically over the last 2 pages

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.

which for the record wasn't even brought up by me HH. It was brought up preciscly as a comparative game some pages back again.

 Tyran wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Why do you self-identify so strongly with fictional tropes? I don't know what to tell you, except that theres no such thing as a "xenos player", only "player who play xenos factions". People like what they like, I get that, but saying "I only play elves in this one game, so I'm only going to play elves in any game" is a bizarre mindset to me.

If I didn't strongly identify with the fictional tropes I wouldn't be playing 40k, or fiction based games in general.

To be honest I struggle to understand a mindset that discard themes and still seeks to play fictional games.

So yes, I self-identify as a "xenos player".

I concur, i play with a guy who must play dwarves in any game system that has them-WHFB, warmachine (rhulic) etc...

Many times in various games i have started a faction because of just how cool the minis look, 40K specifically when i had to choose which chapter of marines i wanted to play it was all about the lore/thematic rules. one can play any game system, but what keeps people playing/interested in coming back to the game is the setting/lore/background that draws your interest. it is why houses/clans/units have such die hard fan boys in classic battle tech for example.

Is 10th soulless. All I know is I was vey happy the rules were free. Better that than buyers remorse. I would really like to roll dice again but from looking at 10th I'ma pass.

What I find most or rather least cool, yes least, is how it looks like combi weapons are handled.

That's the one that jumps out at me the most. Does it really matter?
That's a tough one. But then I am in the "I like templates" camp.

All that said and based on my first skilling of the rules, followed by re reading 5th edition, which I did not enjoy, 5th looks better to me.

Wish I could try OPR but I don't know anyone interested and I don't know now if my HH friends are playing new HH or the previous edition but either of those looks more inviting right now.

In a way it feels like 40K has moved on without me. Maybe it has. I think the larger problem is that people chase editions and don't seem interested to even look at older editions which a lot of older games could facilitate for newer players, just to have a go every now and then. I really do not like being so negative about a hobby I have enjoyed for going on more than 27 years.

 Tyran wrote:
There is a thematic aspect that makes many if not most xenos players unlikely to want to play HH.

Many of us play 40k because we like the lore, themes, aesthetic, etc. If we are to try a new game, we are more likely to try one that has a faction that is thematically similar to our xenos factions.

So we would be looking for space orcs, space elves, space bugs, space robots, etc when considering other games.

That seems like a stretch... I play 5 different wargames, and not once was my thought put in to "picking a faction that is thematically similar to my xenos faction." My playgroup I cannot think of anyone who has thought that they need to play something similar among all games they play, generally most people I know would go out of their way to play something different for variety sake.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a thematic aspect that makes many if not most xenos players unlikely to want to play HH.

Many of us play 40k because we like the lore, themes, aesthetic, etc. If we are to try a new game, we are more likely to try one that has a faction that is thematically similar to our xenos factions.

So we would be looking for space orcs, space elves, space bugs, space robots, etc when considering other games.

Why do you self-identify so strongly with fictional tropes? I don't know what to tell you, except that theres no such thing as a "xenos player", only "player who play xenos factions". People like what they like, I get that, but saying "I only play elves in this one game, so I'm only going to play elves in any game" is a bizarre mindset to me.

For my part, the reason is that Xeno armies are the ones I like and own and have invested a great deal of time and effort into.

If I was going to move from 40k to 30k, it would be with the hope of using the models I already own - not starting a new Marine army and shelving all my Xeno armies.

In that instance, there's no difference between starting HH and starting Malifaux or Infinity (save that the latter are almost certainly substantially cheaper ) - all require me to buy an entirely new army and shelve my existing ones.

Telling people disillusioned with 40k's rules to play HH doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even before we get into the Xenos side of things.

People like 40k because they like 40k.

You don't say "Well, just watch Star Trek!" to someone who's had enough of current Star Wars.

If we all agree that HH isn't a like substitute to 40K, I don't see the relevance in bringing it up to begin with. I play HH because I like HH, but if someone who is disillusioned with 40K is looking for a new game and isn't expecting either thematic relevance to their 40K faction or the ability to use their 40K models, I'd sooner recommend Chain of Command, Infinity, or Battletech. For using their existing 40K army, then the two main options are OPR or older editions of 40K.

I guess if you really like Space Marines and you don't mind how they're different in 30K or that HH is a significantly different game and you're comfortable with re-buying your army, then shifting from 40K to HH makes sense.

Otherwise suggesting HH amounts to 'hey, did you know that games other than 40K exist and you can play them?'. Okay, sure. Nobody needed that reminder.

Lets all play chess, perfectly balanced* since the 15th century

*Lets ignore the whole first-move advantage that has troubled chess theorists for over a century, maybe they should faq it by giving black some cover

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Telling people disillusioned with 40k's rules to play HH doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even before we get into the Xenos side of things.

People like 40k because they like 40k.

Ok, but wich 40k do they like? RT? 2e? 3e-7e? 8e-10e? Some subdivision of 3e-7e/8e-10e? Some mix?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't say "Well, just watch Star Trek!" to someone who's had enough of current Star Wars.

1) Most of those people will have already watched ST anyways.
2) On the off chance they haven't, why not? Am I supposed to recommend something else to them?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a thematic aspect that makes many if not most xenos players unlikely to want to play HH.

Many of us play 40k because we like the lore, themes, aesthetic, etc. If we are to try a new game, we are more likely to try one that has a faction that is thematically similar to our xenos factions.

So we would be looking for space orcs, space elves, space bugs, space robots, etc when considering other games.

Why do you self-identify so strongly with fictional tropes? I don't know what to tell you, except that theres no such thing as a "xenos player", only "player who play xenos factions". People like what they like, I get that, but saying "I only play elves in this one game, so I'm only going to play elves in any game" is a bizarre mindset to me.

All the armies are fictional - even those based on humans are fictional when we deal with fictional settings.


Thing is yes some people do like the styles, ambiance, lore, artwork etc.. of fictional elves over fictional space marines. Heck whilst I enjoy Marines in lore, art, video games and more they've never been an army I wanted to build as a whole force.

For some the story behind a faction is as much a part of their choice as the art style or the game stats and if a game has great rules but no faction that "clicks" then that's a big deal in wargaming. You're going to spend a lot of money and hours just building let alone painting time before the models see the table (and if you play unpainted you've still got that building time).

Lore, art, style, game mechanics, game performance - all are in the melting pot and for different people different bits are important. And heck sometimes people vary - they might have that army they only like for its game performance and nothing else; but they might well have a second that they love the visuals of even if its game performance is poor etc...

All I'm seeing are two separate arguments here.

1: the 40k game rules are crap, so play a different game like HH with different rules

2: the 40k support for my xenos army, that I specifically enjoy playing and want to continue to play, is making it very hard for me to continue to play with it.

They are completely separate.

If all you care about is game mechanics and playing a 'better game', then sure HH is a legitimate alternative to a game as a whole.

But if you specifically like a particular faction of 40k and are looking for ways to play games WITH that faction, then no, HH is irrelevant to the conversation.



My assumption is that most people that play Xenos factions do specifically because they want to play that faction on the table, not because it's part of some abstract game system that they enjoy... gamingly.


You certainly have to have somewhat of a different attitude and thick skin to want to play non marine armies in 40k, because GW make no bones about how unimportant you and your money is.

I suppose you could always write up HH rules for your xenos factions if the local HH crowd is cool enough to let you use them!

Is HH 2.0 significantly different from 7th edition? I know HH 1.0 was pretty similar, and I got the impression that most of the appeal was:
A.) Basically chapter tactics. This was before most armies had subfaction rules.

B.) It was perceived to be better balanced; probably due a combination of mostly only needing to balance marines against each other and also not having 7th's Formation problems.

its weird, having played more of 10th.. is it soulless? maybe, but you can add the soul to it yourself for your army, give your army its own history etc

there is enough background there, 40 10th is more of a rules framework, it feels incomplete, like how you need the card mission deck to get a good game from it

HH2.0 has a lot of USRs that exist both to fix issues with the 3rd-7th rules and are crucial to the HH2.0 gameplay.

So the core is pretty much the same but the stuff built on top is as different from 7th as 7th is from 5th or even 3rd.

leopard wrote:
its weird, having played more of 10th.. is it soulless? maybe, but you can add the soul to it yourself for your army, give your army its own history etc

And then you put your army on the table and watch it instantly revert to a soulless, grey blob.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Telling people disillusioned with 40k's rules to play HH doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even before we get into the Xenos side of things.

People like 40k because they like 40k.

You don't say "Well, just watch Star Trek!" to someone who's had enough of current Star Wars.

It's more akin to telling someone to watch the prequels who liked Episodes IV-VI but hated VII+ and is complaining about it.

If you said to that person "you should try the prequels, they're not as bad and the setting is the same", and they turned around and said "sorry, Leia isn't in that trilogy, you might as well have told me to watch Twister, I only watch Carrie Fisher content", you might be right to be confused.

 vipoid wrote:

leopard wrote:
its weird, having played more of 10th.. is it soulless? maybe, but you can add the soul to it yourself for your army, give your army its own history etc

And then you put your army on the table and watch it instantly revert to a soulless, grey blob.

well yes and no, though I usually watch it revert to back in its box and end up with points for the tidiest side of the table.

soul and narrative is where you find it, even if its just to yourself, I have armies who follow their glorious leader out of a sense of wonder, wondering just how %^$ing bad it can get?