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.

Even as 40k seems to be getting stricter and stricter in terms of the 'no rules, no model' policy, with 30k, creative kitbashing is not only allowed but often required to get the optimum build for quite a few units. Does anyone here know why GW allows for this kind of modeling freedom in 30k when it's not allowed in 40k?

Random thought: maybe the team between boths are not as tightly watched over, as it is not the flagship rpoduct, and thus are not compelled to follow the same guidelines?
Conjecture only.

It's claimed that options were 'streamlined' in 40k to make it more beginner friendly, whereas 30k is a Specialist Game for experienced players.

Both of the above things are likely true.

For 40k and AoS having as few options for alternate products (i.e. competition) is the goal to promote maximum sales value for the range of kits.
For specialist games, they obviously need to sell but not nearly as much as the flagships so restrictions are less stringent.

As 40k and AoS are the mass-market games, they need to be as accessible as possible which in this case means that new players building their units out of the box rather than with rules in mind are the primary customers.
Making as few barriers as possible to the process of building the models (which are the product, not the game) is what NMNR is for, regardless of whether it is a good or bad idea.
On the flip side, the specialist games are just that, specialist. They are not supposed to be the games that get people into Warhammer and as such the various rules options are far broader because the customers don't need to be handheld anymore.

One other consideration here is that one of the main motivators for no model/no rules was the boom in bits resellers during 7th/8th. For much of its earlier history 40k wasn't often treated like a hardcore tournament game, so for GW putting the option to take four of a gun you only got one of in the kit (e.g. Scourges, Havocs) into the game was a thing they didn't need to worry about that much because most players wouldn't actually do it. With the influx of ex-Warmachine people in 7th/8th and the resultant push towards a more tournament-centric mindset we saw a big boom in people going out and buying extra frag cannons, arc rifles, etc. to load up their units, which meant there were a lot of extra bodies and small arms dumped on the bits market cheap.

Cynically this cuts into GW's profit margin, by letting the playerbase more efficiently distribute bits and therefore get the results they want without having to buy as many kits, which they might want to crack down on. Less cynically this is also bad for new players, since if you buy a kit and build it according to the directions you don't want to be at a gameplay disadvantage to the players who have done their analysis ahead of time and gone scrounging.

I'd say that's pretty revisionist. Ever since I came into the game things like the old metal havocs with 1 of each heavy weapon weren't taken as is but instead people searched for 4 of a kind (Kromlech and others were around before 7th edition to provide stuff). Older editions also penalized you for different weapons far more than 8th did, if anything since 8th edition a squad with 4 different heavy weapons wasn't a terrible choice for tge first time. It has nothing to do with die hard tournament players to see that having a squad with a heavy bolter and a lascannon is a bad choice when you can't splitfire.

GW is just a little more laid back when it comes to Forgeworld/ specialist games. Lotr also still has a lot of units that never had models and allows most characters to equip shields, horses or wargs when there never was a model for it. Some of the unit upgrades that were introduced with War of the Ring got models 10 years later (I think the Black Dragons that were introduced last year had rules since the time of War of the Ring, for example), others just never did (yet).

HH players should be happy they still aren't really treated like a main system and TOW players should hope so as well . All the specialist games are also save from edition churn apparently, which is a big plus.

somewhat save from edition churn.

Considering half the special units are now in a separate book and so are inductii and campaign things.

Different design studio, different design philosophy, different target market and audience.

It’s not a mystery - it’s based on an earlier edition of the game, so it retains all the old granularity as regards war gear and pointe (I hope that doesn’t change), and doesn’t have the resources devoted to it to have enough models to apply a ‘no models no rules’ policy.

It's not as though other GW's rules aren't also completely schizophrenic.

They flip-flop on what they think is good rules design with almost every new edition/game.

Not only weapon loadouts, but whole freaking units. I mean, Sisters of Silence have around 50% of the units that both have rules and models

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
...I'd say that's pretty revisionist. Ever since I came into the game things like the old metal havocs with 1 of each heavy weapon weren't taken as is but instead people searched for 4 of a kind (Kromlech and others were around before 7th edition to provide stuff). Older editions also penalized you for different weapons far more than 8th did, if anything since 8th edition a squad with 4 different heavy weapons wasn't a terrible choice for tge first time. It has nothing to do with die hard tournament players to see that having a squad with a heavy bolter and a lascannon is a bad choice when you can't splitfire....

In my experience pre-7th the norm was to have one army and keep playing it, rather than hopping armies as rules changed. Buying whole extra Devastator kits when you're running one army wasn't as much of an issue if you weren't buying a whole new army every 6-8 months, and people would have big collections of extra bodies, while the competitive culture in 7th changed more to trying to buy just the stuff you needed for one list and nothing else, because you didn't want to put more money than you had to into buying an army you knew you were going to be playing for 6-8 months and then shelving or selling.

People army hopping for flavor of the month was the norm well before 7th. I remember witnessing the behavior as far back as 5th Ed, and was probably also around in 4th even though I don't remember it as clearly

The limitation on customization by GW is a relatively new thing, so I think it just hasn't infected the HH range/rules yet.

chaos0xomega wrote:
People army hopping for flavor of the month was the norm well before 7th. I remember witnessing the behavior as far back as 5th Ed, and was probably also around in 4th even though I don't remember it as clearly

Yes, it goes back to at least 3rd Edition, when tournaments became a thing. I remember people switching from Eldar to Tyranid to Blood Angels to Iron Warriors. I don't think this overly rigid approach to wargear and models is anything to do with that. It looks to me like an unfortunate example of the marketing people prevailing over the game design people. I think there would be a massive outcry if they tried to port this over to HH.

First, apologies if this sounds snobbish or elitist. It’s not my intent, but I fear it could be read that way.

But as other have said? Heresy is a specialist game. And for a good decade, one mostly available solely in Forgeworld Resin, at Forgeworld prices.

And from what I’ve seen? Its main appeal was to gamers of a similar vintage and situation as me. That is, older (no, not mature. Knob gags and fart jokes show I am not mature) persons, typically in a Profession, with a decent amount of disposable income. Certainly enough we could fund a boutique level game with a higher price tag.

The folks I know are long, long term GW players. From a period where conversion was required, because GW just could put out all the options all the time. A period of “here’s your new White Dwarf, page 69* includes nets and measurements and notes to let you turn a Rhino into a Whirldwind, or Claymore, or Vindicator”.

Taken together, kitbashing and conversions were and are common in Horus Heresy. Because many of the players love that part of the hobby. Which means there are extensive collections out there with characters and units pieced together from odds and sods to that player’s preference.

The onus doesn’t seem to be “I am mek Smash Kaptain, call self jeenyus”. Rather “oh man, I want a jump assault army, because that would look cool”.

40K? It’s the big game, it benefits from being easily accessible. I do understand and don’t disagree with “how about our options, man!”. But I also understand the benefit of “buy a box, and you’ve got a unit” for newcomers.

In a sense, it levels the playing field. It’s true it does so by removing player agency and freedom of choice. But it’s still a levelling, where victory won’t necessarily go to he with the deepest pockets, who can afford to arm his squads with all the best weapons which involves bits orders etc to achieve.

The wonky bit is where it’s not necessarily evenly applied. For instance, Devastators I understand retain all the flexibility to have 4 of any Heavy Weapon, or a mix of all etc. But Chaos Chosen? Nope, just what’s in your box, screw you.


*see earlier comment about maturity.

Because 40K is a sad, pale shadow of its glory days, and HH is still cool

From what I remember from the first era of HH, it is essentially a legacy of bad planning and product management. They set out lists and characters with the intention of producing all of those options, so we'd have just been buying them, rather than modelling them ourselves. Some legions had character options that made sense, some that did not (Iron Warriors being a prime example.) Many of those characters and options (for example combat shields and jump packs) never got made, as suddenly big ticket items like random tanks that had never been mentioned in the novels all of a sudden started appearing instead.

Luckily, they seemed to have kept some of the flexibility that those unintentional gaps created, although they have also removed quite a few as well.

chaos0xomega wrote:
People army hopping for flavor of the month was the norm well before 7th. I remember witnessing the behavior as far back as 5th Ed, and was probably also around in 4th even though I don't remember it as clearly

If you don't remember the sudden uptick of Relictors armies in 4th edition (they're even grey already!), can you even call yourself a pro player?

It was already happening as far back as 3rd Edition - I had a regular opponent who switched every time the meta shifted. But I don’t think that has much to do with the topic.

HH is an actual wargame intended to be played by an older demographic who’re looking for a fun and cinematic experience with a degree of self regulation / gentlemen’s agreement to keep things fun on both sides.

WH40k is a MTG wannabe with hyper-expensive tokens intended to be played by gremlins who want to cobble together the most broken combination of units as a grey horde and use it to smash everyone they can until it gets nerfed, at which point they sell it on eBay and pick up the next fad.

 morganfreeman wrote:
HH is an actual wargame intended to be played by an older demographic who’re looking for a fun and cinematic experience with a degree of self regulation / gentlemen’s agreement to keep things fun on both sides.

WH40k is a MTG wannabe with hyper-expensive tokens intended to be played by gremlins who want to cobble together the most broken combination of units as a grey horde and use it to smash everyone they can until it gets nerfed, at which point they sell it on eBay and pick up the next fad.

Yup, absolutely no bias here. 100% accurate and clear explanation of reality as it is, in its purest form.

Ideally, a game (war or other) shouldn't require gentleman's agreements to be fun. It should operate well just by playing by the rules as they're written.
And considering Horus Heresy is still made by Games Workshop... Yeah, it's far from the best game on the market from a rules point of view. I like the rules a damn sight more than the current rules for 40k, but that speaks more to 40k's descent than Horus Heresy being some marvel of gameplay.

Did the old Fantasy players in their cravats and smoking jackets all take up Horus Heresy?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Did the old Fantasy players in their cravats and smoking jackets all take up Horus Heresy?

Maybe? But the old Chaos Space Marines players, in their ancient biker jackets and death/black metal t-shirts definitely did. Death, to the False Emperor.

speaking as the mythical "New Player", i can fully say, i appreciate 40k's streamlined approach. older editions are a novelty to me, with a lot of good and interesting ideas i can appreciate, and a lot of things that just make me groan. i don't really have interest in playing older editions as anything more than a novelty. i have more interest in playing fantasy (9th edition, specifically, but also tow)

i also have no interest in something like heresy. the dense army construction rules are fun, but not something i would always want to have to deal with. the space marine focus is also a turnoff, as someone who can't tell primaris apart from normal marines and doesn't understand what all the fuss is about

heresy (and tow) are games for old players. these are the games for people who think 8th/9th/10th edition are the worst thing ever (or AOS, for tow). heresy is the game for people who think primaris ruined the game. that is its niche for gw. as others have said, being focused on veteran players, with a focus on singular armies, makes it easier for things like kitbashing to be a big focus of the game. tow even brings it up directly in their rulebooks. it's a different audience, plain and simple. GW isn't confused or stupid, they're aware of player demographics. and i think warhammer as a whole is better for the split. people who like the crunchier rules and more complicated everything can play heresy, whereas people who want a streamlined game can play 40k. neither way of playing is bad, and there's a lot of merit to both kinds of games. my girlfriend is into heresy so i'll probably end up building out my custodes so i can play games with her (or build out my genestealers to use as a militia mob (love that i can do something like that in this game)). besides that? i'm happy with the games i choose to play. i think more old players would be happier if they similarly focused on the game that appeals to them, instead of the one that doesn't

I think you're missing some points:

-Horus Heresy as a game is marine centered. Not every older 40k Player plays space marines. They may most certainly even have got armies that unfortunately are not meant to be played in heresy and thus collect dust as the game isn't fun to them anymore. They're not fully interchangeable sets of rules out of the box as far as I'm aware.

-40k ist the most widespread of both. Depending on where you live, it might get harder to get heresy players than 40k Players overall.

-You can't blame people who have spent a wargaming life time playing 40k being sad that their voices are not heard and the game changes without taking any of what makes them happy about it in concerns.

In a future years, if 40k shifts again, maybe you'll be the one in this position being disappointed at how the game you knew changed to something you don't appreciate anymore, and told by others to get positive.

That being said, I'll stand with you thinking that as it is a hobby, one shouldn't get overinvested in it. But with GW overwhelming the market, keeping wargaming with non GW stuff is sometimes easier said than done.

To summarize, 30k cannot be used as a solution and excuse for 40k being trash. Folks have non-marine collections going back 30+ years too.

I don’t know why there is so much hate for the marine centric focus of the Horus Heresy. The core narrative focus was half of the space marine legions became traitors and marched on Terra. The balance in the game is based on the fact each legion has access to the same units and options at the same cost. To provide variability between legions, there are a handful of special characters, units, traits, and rules. They are adding humans to the game after 3 years of marines. Eventually they will add the forces from the Mechanicum and we will have robots. For a total of 6 factions. Not bad since it is supposed to be a civil war so I would not expect to see xenos factions. We should see rules dropping for Black Shields soon too which are a traitors to their legion vs traitors to Terra. Should be interesting to see how these play out. I really liked the Shadrack Medusson stories so it sounds interesting.

Human forces were added in the fourth Black Book like 6 years ago, then again in book five.

Hell if you count Mechanicum as "human" then human forces were in book one.

 Snord wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
People army hopping for flavor of the month was the norm well before 7th. I remember witnessing the behavior as far back as 5th Ed, and was probably also around in 4th even though I don't remember it as clearly

Yes, it goes back to at least 3rd Edition, when tournaments became a thing.

Excuse me? I was winning tournaments in 2nd ed!

I've even got a 2nd ed White Dwarf featuring two national tournament players facing off for a battle report. Both playing Eldar, of course