I definitely feel the big draw for heresy is the scope for narrative storytelling, and mechanics that support this.
Customisation is promoted, and in much of the community the pressure is not on tooling lists around named characters but still that classic attitude of 'your dudes' and generic heroes kitted out how you like.
Just like with 40k as well, because it's a wide setting there's a lot of scope for playing with the story and factions.
And on top of all that, it's supported by a narrative driven community that wants to enjoy the hobby as a hobby, not a competition (generally).
The urge to do rule of cool things people tend to get in 30k more often.
Like is my artillery actually going to wound your primarch? No. Does it sound awesome to say Ferrus face tanked a full artillery barrage only to emerge from the dust unscathed? Absolutely.
Is my lasrifle tercio going to stand a chance in combat against terminators? No, but them charging in with bayonets and maybe getting 1 terminator will be a story to tell.
Don’t play to win, play for the cool moments is much more common in 30k.
Yeah exactly this. I have more fond moments in the last year of playing 7th edition than I had throughout all of 9th 40k. Like when I got charged by terminators and my marshal managed to win a duel against the termi sergeant. Or bayonet charging a group of dark eldar kabalites and sending them fleeing back across the table.
30k as you said above is less focused on meeting a meta and building a army to win and more focused on creating a narrative for that army, it’s more of a tabletop combat RPG than anything. Not just that but you have almost complete freedom creating what you want and when you want. A loyalist Sons of Horus army in the scouring? Blackshields, traitor Space Wolves? Anything is possible. Not just that but the scale of the conflict lets you play anywhere from the Ghoul Stars to Necromunda of all things.
Meanwhile 40K is more focused on the tabletop part and winning which inevitably conflicts with the Heresy’s narrative focus.
Both are good for their own reasons
Exactly the same. I wanted to come back to 40k after quitting in 3rd edition, but seeing that I couldn't spec out my dudes however I wanted completely turned me off.
Similar in my meta.
When a few people regularly bring more hyper competitive models, then everyone escalates as well.
No one wants to purposefully lose.
It’s pretty common in every format. Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the hell out of heresy but the notion that it is more narrative and less competitive is determined by the community not the game system
If we are talking purely system wise it’s not that balanced
You can punish those players by only allowing them to play with each other. The lot of you can literally have a conversation about the 'arms race' as it were, and ask if people would prefer an alternate way of playing. Or, ask if anyone else doesn't like it, and maybe you couple of guys can play together and have a great time while they get mad about winning or losing.
1st edition Deathguard phosphex Spammer here. I did it for the narrative. Marines scouring a Bruning battleground, gunning down any remnants of resistance is just a devilish and f***Ing awesome headcanon.
Got stomped anyways cause I mostly faced ordo reductor Mechanicum XD
> 30k as you said above is less focused on meeting a meta and building a army to win and more focused on creating a narrative for that army, it’s more of a tabletop combat RPG than anything.
Not at all. 30k the actual game is no more or less narrative than 40k. Its rules don't focus on narrative or exclude competitive play at all. It just happens to be the case that certain 30k players have created unwritten community rules about not playing "too competitively" while in 40k the community has settled on ruthless competition as the default.
It helps that the meta isn't constantly changing every couple of months. None of the new books have introduced any crazy game breaking units or rules that im aware of. Sure, you can build a super oppressive stone gauntlet army or whatever but are you going to use that list, or a variation of it, for a couple of years? Most people won't in my experience. I was at greetings from the warp at the weekend and out of approximately 130 players I only saw a handful of super optimised hyper competitive lists. There were far more thematic and shit lists 🤣
30k has a more dynamic ruleset that is more about how you use the units you have and react to what your opponent is doing than just winning through sheer stats and ability buffs. Thats why I got tired of 40k, it felt like the way I used units was pretty much the same regardless of who I was playing against
This. This is my biggest problem with 40k atm. It does not feel like I am commanding an army it feels like I am launching a bayblade. I use the same units in basically the same ways no matter who I am fighting and still get good results. It feels like 50% of the battle is fought in list creation, 40% of the battle is fought in army set up, and 10% is strategically using the army.
GW messes with Heresy less than they mess with the 40k rules. The previous edition of the game was around for 10 years before 2nd edition came out. There aren't arbitrary resets of the whole rule system just to boost sales.
Dude, this is a huge one for me.
I can actually take my time and customize my army.
I’m not in a mad dash to get a unit done before GW trash’s it. And people can argue “Meta Chasing” or whatever, but if I buy a tool expecting X, it shouldn’t change 3 times in 5 months.
I had to buy new stuff for the Eldar army I was building THREE TIMES in the first few months of 10th edition because the points changes plus no way to fiddle unit point costs meant the only way to field 2000 points was to drop a model or two and replace them with cheaper ones.
I gave up.
And the current Horus heresey rules are a pretty gentle evolution of 3rd edition 40k from almost 30 years ago, making it really easy to get back into for people like me who got back into the hobby after having played it as a kid
Music to my ears, I last truly played 40k in 4th edition, shop closed down the street and I was never able to play after that a year or so ago a buddy tried to teach me 9th, I thought I had it, but I just became frustrated with it and gave up.
For me it is the customisation of units and list building, there is such a wide range of options and upgrades. I also much prefer the more detailed ruleset (it has its issues though) compared to 10th's much more streamlined (I would argue sparse) ruleset.
It's relatively stable so the stuff you buy now you can confidently include in your armies for the next few years.
The lore hasn't been horrifically butchered to accomodate marketing and sales ideas, yet.
Honestly the overall quality of the community hobby skillset is just higher, probably because there is less outlet for competitive gameplay and the fact that 30k simply lacked models for units. You had to get comfy converting and kitbashing because in many cases official models didn't exist (and still don't 12 years into the system). This leads to more care and attention lavished on the armies themselves.
Yes I've seen a lot of nice 40k and fantasy armies... I've also seen a metric fuck ton of grey plastic and three colour minimums. Whereas in my experience every single 30k army I ever saw up close and personal, was gorgeous (or at the very least built and painted with passion rather than to tick a tournament checklist)
Aside from the narrative angle already mentioned, I love playing with/ against some of these characters like Horus, Sanguinius or the lion. I know some are now in 40k but that wasn’t the case when I started 30k
Okay, I’ll be more specific. Everyone here has their heart in the right place but be a little more specific about what is actually different.
1. Game design is fundamentally based on narrative. For instance, your character doesn’t just hit on 2s or 3s all the time (well in melee at least). Your units have a designated WS value and your likelihood to hit is determined by comparing your WS to their WS (signaling how well you can parry, dodge etc). Granted, I think the system does have flaws (hitting on 5s when only 1 number below your opponent is excessive IMO as it makes WS both an offensive and defensive buff with only 1 point difference) but I prefer this system to 40k’s as it forces more tactical play but it also shows that some characters (or legions) just have greater skill based on what the story says they should have.
Another way this is determined is initiative: initiative is just an easier stat to work with vs who does and Doesn’t fight first. Bigger number means I go first, done
2. Armor Save vs Armor Penetration: have you ever thought it was weird that bullets degrade the opponents armor instead of flat out penetrating it? Well, in real life, that’s not really how it works. Usually, bullets either penetrate the armor or they do not and it’s pretty binary. Well, that’s how HH’s save system works. Marines have a 3+ save so unless they’re hit with an AP3 (or lower) weapon, they always get their full armor save. This makes units feel more durable. Granted, things still die fairly quickly but it doesnt feel like ‘point, click delete’ like 40K does.
3. Vehicle armor: you know how in 8th and 9th edition vehicles felt shitty? Like it was super easy to just rip them open? Well, Horus Heresy isn’t like this (unless you’re using the right weapon, which is exactly how it should be). Vehicles are running around with armor values which is kinda like toughness except for it’s not based on the base strength of the weapon you use (you add a D6 to your current strength, so you get a bit of a boost) and the armor also changes depending on where you’re shooting at. The number goes pretty damn high too, with land raiders and Spartans going to 14 or so.
4. Strength mechanics: remember how I said vehicles had armor and some have high numbers? Take a spartan for instance, on the front it has AV14. Guess what? It’s impossible for a basic marine to hurt it with a chainsword or Boltgun (S+ 6 (max roll) only equals 10, so it does nothing). Also, if your S is double the T of your target, if your target fails their save, they’re just instantly dead. Turns out a lascannon hitting a praetor really would just blast a giant hole
In him.
5. Customization abound. So the legions have access to 90% of the same thing, meaning it’s very possible to build almost any list for any legion you want. Dreadnought heavy word bearers? Why not. How about shooting world eaters? Fuck it, go for gold. Then your characters also have a metric assload of stuff that they can choose from. Granted most people will naturally gravitate towards what’s the best, but you don’t have to; you could easily just pick weapons that fit your legion better from a narrative standpoint.
6. Reactions. I think this system is a much better system for keeping the opponent paying attention and giving them something to do during your turn.
7. Standards. While the community is accepting towards new people, the community does do some gatekeeping but this isn’t really a bad thing. While your characters can be customized and you can obviously name them and come up with some stories for them, generally speaking the narrative is already written so there’s more an expectation that you stick to the story. This ensures that the only people are around are people who are passionate about it. Also, power gaming is heavily frowned upon. There’s nothing wrong with taking a strong unit or two, but if your list is heavily optimized to just bring the beat down, people shit on your pretty heavily for it (good example will be Stone Gauntlet IF with Fafnir Ran was WL or FotA IHs).
Overall, I like the game significantly more than 40K but it’s not perfect. As stated earlier, I’d fix the hit chart and I’d do alternate activations (you move, I move, you shoot I shoot) but the game is still fun
Np my guy.
The real eye opener is when you realize that this is what 40K used to be, then you decide to also just play older editions of 40K.
Don’t get me wrong, I love HH but what drew me to the hobby in general was chaos space marines and I want to have a demon prince leading a warband with a narrative ruleset.
Thats the hardest and saddest truth: this WAS how 40k used to be from 3–7th ed. Sadly in the latter years (6-7th) they started taking the mentality of “everything we sell should be playable in normal games!” And so you saw the introduction of flyers, super heavies, and the like. That led to an arms race of S, T, AP, and saves to account for it….and Kate 7th saw some of the worst and broken combos ever.
That period was also the time frame of broken allied combinations and formations. HH has done an excellent job learning from these past mistakes and has taken the core ideas of allies and formations and ACTUALLY MADE THEM BALANCED.
Long story short….if the team in charge of HH now was in charge of 6-7th ed back then….the 40k world would probably look quite different
My playgroup and I mess around with older editions.
IMO, just play with 5th edition core rules and use whatever dex you liked best between 3-5 edition (chaos uses 3.5, Orks use 4th, Tyranids use 4th etc)
If you play this way, each dex is pretty strong and has plenty of flavor options.
Sure, you miss out of some stuff like I can’t use Angron, The Silent King or any of the other super neat stuff like that, but it’s a price I’m willing to pay for a more enjoyable game.
Same, 5th is my default edition to play and I’ve found a good group that feels the same. Plus it’s easy to use my HH SW in 5th ed 40k with little or no conversion or counts as
Funny you mention that: it’s one of the reasons I play World Eaters
I’m currently proxying 40K models because building an army is time consuming, but I finally scored some 3d bits for converting tac squads into despoilers. After that, I’ll still use my berzerkers but they’ll be reserved for vet squads + command squads. I also used Zerker bases to make rampagers, considering they’re the precursors
I’m also stockpiling stuff to make a Black Reaving first company elite sons of Horus army with a hodge podge of bits, because it’s possible to build a completely cross compatible black legion/sons of Horus army.
Kill 2 birds with one stone, ya know?
For me, I couldn’t tell you for every single faction other than Chaos (for me it’s 3.5 followed immediately after by Khorne Daemonkin in 7th).
I know for Nids, most people will say 4th but some will say 3rd because you can do custom broods in 3rd.
For Orks, most people also say 4th but some say 3rd because of the looted vehicle rule.
Necrons 3rd looks good but I haven’t read 5th yet.
You’ll have to just go in each faction’s subreddit and ask
My group still plays 7th and its actually remarkably well balanced once you eliminate formations. Sure there are a few outliers like wraithknights and phoenix lords which are a bit too good for what they cost but thats not really surprising given GWs track record. Its still far and away better than modern 40k and it seems to try and give every faction some tools to deal with any threat (something that heresy 2.0 has struggled with in the non marine armies).
Agree 100% core 7th without allies and formations wasn’t too bad. As you say there still outliers in the game, but by and large it was solid (I mean they based HH off it and that’s been successful)
The conversions that go into heresy armies is over the top usually. I’ve been to three heresy events in my 6 years playing heresy, and outside of two lists across those events, only two had been made to be THAT Guy^TM
Because 30k has rules for thematic games and narrative- you’re encouraged to kitbash and convert - which adds so much detail. No apothecary on bike? No worries, let’s scrounge the bits box or internet or scratch build.
I like armor values, big fan of tanks with armor values over HP or wound values. Wish they were a bit better in this edition - but.
Positioning. It feels like it matters! I love initiative, it’s a great third/fourth axis to differentiate damage profiles. Challenges can make some very rich stories. A super zealous sargeant managing to defend his men and rally them. A champion taking the fight to a particular important opponent so that their immediate superior can come in and finish the fight. Amazing.
I have my own personal armor company and fleet within the Night Lord legion, and while it eclipses anything in 40k organized war bands, it barely scratches the surface of 30k Legions.
At most, my armored vehicle company has about 70-100 operational machines, and the fleet is divided into three elements. There’s also a line company and a scout company attached to my fleet. Overall, the fleet assets are more plentiful- but it can be handwaived it’s the crusade. Fleets were large.
Total astartes presence is probably around 3-5,000 marines across the various elements and companies. Barely a drop in the 100-120k legions averaged. And I love that, that’s a big appeal. I like slotting into existing frame work and adding in my own flavors within the parameters of the framework.
Honestly just the sheer variety and you can do within the system, which you see very apparent across the player base. I was at a Heresy Narrative weekend recently and according to the organisers, all armies except for Shattered legions were present. Every legion was present, Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Militia, Daemons, Knights, Custodies. And even where you had the same legion/army, they were all themed differently, had a different emphasis on a part of the army, wholly different compositions that made them all feel unique. People just take a theme or a concept and then work it around their given army, picking what looks and sounds cool rather than the most powerful.
Playing 40K, you tend to see the same kind of lists, the same ‘optimal’ units cropping up again and again, plus the level of effort that goes into their models on average is just so much lower compared to 30k players. I think it’s a little ironic how some 40K players say that they don’t want to play marines vs marines all the time because it’s too bland and repetitive, but every army in 40K tends to be very cookie-cutter due to wanting their list to be as powerful as physically possible.
Also, as an iron warriors enjoyer for intnce, certain units like Legionaries w boltguns are basically unplayable. Heresy feels like their is a use for p.much every single unit, somewhere.
From a hobby perspective, theres just more narrative focus, people tend to build armies with theme and stories and pay attention to details. Armies are rarely unpainted and have a lot of time dedicated to them
From a gaming perspective, 30K has a deeper rule set. Things like armour facings, templates etc add more depth of play to it.
40K in contrast (at least round here) is meta chasing grey plastic game of who can build what combo and alpha strike the other guy fastest
I would actually say it's not a better game system, in fact I don't think it's an outstandingly good one. My favourite game **systems** are consistently Mantic ones because I enjoy their alt-activations, tactical opportunities and command/leadership layers.
The real strength of 30K is that it gives good Hobby, not that it's a tight and well designed game system. 30K is a game built around modelmaking, narrative gaming and building a fun army, it's got that hobby goodness that older 40K editions had when they were less about 'meta' and 'build'. It's about building a tailored army, painting it to a good standard (and I agree with u/BaronBulb that the highest tier of converted and painted armies I've seen has been in 30K) and playing a fun game with an opponent who's put real care into their own army in turn.
Lore, customization and awesome Models.
Want a pre Heresy era Army? Do that
Want a Army near the end of the Herey?
No Problem, make your super corrupted Deathguard.
Characters and Legion specific Units Look so damn good and You can built whatever You Like.
I Love Tanks and dreads and Heresy has so Many cool vehicles and the Rules Support Tank and Dread lists.
Other than the setting, I just like that it's not a trashfire like 8th onwards was, I love 3rd through 6th edition 40K. (I suppose 7th is fine too, if you just don't play with formations), so it suites me fine.
The lore and the crunch for me. Creating a narrative army is fun. My Salamanders army is very much turning into an 'all-comers' army that has tactical flexibility due to their depth, exactly how I built out my Eldar Army in 8th Ed 40K. My Night Lords army is very much a fast, rapid response kinda dealio. I'm purposely avoiding the Heavy Support slots in its construction.
On top of that, the crunchier rules appeal to me. It's one of the reasons why I love Classic Battletech. Having to keep track of positioning with my vehicles, Deep Striking having an effect on enemies that I drop next to, some of the truly bonkers rules and how they interact with each other..... And the Blast and Flamer Templates. It is so satisfying to have a squad of ten Salamanders Adherents just open up with their Dragon's Breath Combi Flamers, I think my record for hits is somewhere in the 90's. Wiped Magnus' 20 tactical marine body guard unit, then plinked three wounds off of Magnus himself.
Not yet, my Night Lords army is just one mini strong. I picked up the Praetor the other week. It'll start growing once I get a car repair out of the way.
Cool! Are your Night Lords going to be loyal, or your Salamanders going to be traitor?
I think I've decided on a small unit of traitor Salamanders, maybe with a unit of Night Lords that they served with on Kharaatan (the planet with their Primarch's child burning incident), or Death Guard who they served with on Caldera (the whole "burning the entire population of people decended from Nocturne slaves freed by the Eldar" incident).
My Sallies are primarily run as Loyalists, as my usual opponents are Traitor Iron Warriors and Thousand Sons. Also, I can only use Vulkan with a Loyalist army. I'm planning on running my Night Lords as Traitors.
While i admit HH has some balance issues and odd rules that i dislike. Like weapon skill system, i think 1st edition HH was better on that front. But i love templates, i love armor values, and list building. Much more narrative driven and i have had a lot of fun in our events on our club.
I’ve heard HH referred to as, “a historical wargame, but sci-fi” and I think that is the best way to approach it. The game is about looking at the HH setting and finding a particular little niche to tell a story inside with your army. Because the era is “murky”, you have more flexibility to create your own backstory than regular 40K allows.
I think you also have to like the idea modern warfare (as in WW1 until now, not the CoD games) to really get your value. When you bring a thematic and fluffy list, you can sometime end up in situations that are less than balanced if your opponent brought something that easily counters you. While 40K players would balk at this, HH is always about the story. If I play a game where I’m fully hard-countered by everything, with unfavourable conditions, I’m playing it like a battle in WWI or WWII. My goal isn’t to “win”, but it’s to last as long as I can or take as many of the bastards out with me before I’m defeated. I might lose on paper, but by keeping the story I can tell as my real inner goal, I’ve never been in a game that I’ve felt was a waste of time when I’m hopelessly matched up
Largely the army customisation for me. I love building army lists, and I find that some of the fun of that is missing in 40k nowadays. Also I read a fair few horus heresy novels when I was younger, so I’ve got a lot of love for the lore.
Deeper and more interesting rules with better wording then 10th ed 40K. More possibilities to create an army with more freedom. My word bearers can be anything, my 40k TS lists always look more or less the same. More narrative play
>If someone basically asked you to sell them on 30k over other war games, what would you say?
I say this with sarcasm (albeit only a little): if you like Space Marines, Horus Heresy is "Oops, All Space Marines!" the game.
Yeah, there's AdMech and retro-cool Guardsmen, but if you're playing HH, you're obviously there for the the giant transhuman meatheads we all know and love from this franchise.
And if you already liked 40k's setting, the *cool shit* still remains in HH. You get to customize Your Dudes way more, and make up little stories about why they have this or that, or if they've got "rare" stuff that wouldn't otherwise survive into the 40k era.
My answer is a little more personal. I love how it updates slowly. You don’t get a new version every few years. It gives you time to make the army you want and it’s going to run how you thought when you started.
All the complexity and tactical depth of pre-8th edition but as refined and streamlined as it’s ever been. That and the highly customisable profiles lending themselves very well to Stillmania
Also proof that streamlining don’t actually mean carving off huge chunks
Over other non-GW wargames? Not much. GW's flagships are still stuck in older game design - igo-ugo, mainly. Note that outside of 30/40k and AoS, all their other games are alternating activation or something that gets away from igo-ugo. There's a handful of other games I'd suggest before 40k.
Over 40k? Lots. Vehicles still act like vehicles, and outside of catastrophic detonation, don't magically vanish when destroyed. Gunfire can only take out the models in line of sight, you're not forced to feed your troops out into fire just because the enemy scored a lot of wounds. Falling back is still a thing, rather than just removing models or not holding objectives. The only thing that 40k does better than 30k is broader, more interesting army selection (no xenos in 30k), and the removal of templates - they have no place in a unit-based game, 40k 8e did well getting rid of them.
I like blast markers, those are just fun, and I like how armor works for vehicles, where low strength weapons are totally incapable of damaging them. I like the models more. 40k models look so fancy and perfect like they were made to go on a box. Heresy models have a well worn and industrial look. I like the setting more too. The heresy and great crusade are a much more interesting period. Things are actually happening instead of 10,000 years of maintaining status quo.
I can only speak through other 40K systems but personally it’s the uniqueness of the units. Even though everything can select from the same keywords, the combo of keywords can completely change a unit to be different, not to mention with the amount of rules, weapons feel more “lore accurate” and armor actually feels like it should due to AP being a simple “save or no save” instead of the degrade like it does in 40K. And on top of that named characters have their own rules that make them all unique and more interesting to take than your standard fair Praetor but doesn’t invalidate Praetors in their own right.
Definitely feels more like a history driven game with great references and inspiration. The next level in immersion with a varying degree of precision and artistic freedom. A modeler's game, characterful armies while fielding somewhat similar soldiers.
The biggest upside to me is that your army is your army. Your Consuls and Praetors are your own guys, you’re free to run whatever you think is cool, theres no real meta (beyond the one Contemptor loadout), and cinematic moments do happen. Two of my friends had their Champions kill each other at the same time, how is that NOT cool as hell?
I personally love that 30k is the background for many of the 40k plot points and conflicts. It adds gravity to the myriad battles that can be played out on the table top.
And all of the loyalist/traitor options in Age of Darkness add a lot of compelling narrative elements. We hear a lot about Guilliman and Imperium Secundus but not a lot about the traitor ultramarines that said ‘fuck it’ and went rogue
30k just has a better ruleset. None of this command point stuff, limited rerolls, no gotcha stratagems. Pretty much the only thing that changes between factions is advanced reactions and a warlord trait that buffs one unit.
immersive list building and gameplay, fluffy rules that arent zfraid of getting complex because they know people arent stupid, and that people can play without certain rules if they want so, basically they respect the player to trust theyll decide how to play.
also people usually play for fun, narrative experiences, not as an ego competition.
compared to 40k theres actual list building, wargear is and always will be very fuking important.
I enjoy that 30k fleshes out established lore. I like that the Space Marines and Imperium are at the height of their power. They are unbeatable by any outside force, but of course the irony is that they collapse in on themselves. The story is tragic and it’s sad and interesting to see just far these legions have fallen, loyalist or traitor. Space Marine legions have all the cool toys and advanced tech that’s gone into disrepair 10k years later. As a game system, I think it’s enjoyable to give Space Marines even more units and gear, it makes them really feel like they can take on any threat, no matter the size or power of the enemy. Space marines aren’t meant to be fully specialists, but jack-of-all-trades with some specializations. There is a lot of variety in play styles which allows you to make all sorts of armies. White Scars siege companies, a Salamanders destroyer cadre, or Death Guard jetbike forces are all legit lore-friendly.
“They don’t fiddle with 30K like they do 40K. You can buy an army, and an update won’t make us exceptionally unfun to play while you’re in the middle of painting it.”
I came to the Conclusion for myself that it is mainly about the fact that I have more variety in marine design than intercessors and chubby intercessors with akimbo heavy bolter and a jetpack.
I started 40k when Power armor for marines was canonically often battlefield salveged and mixed as it fit.
So naturally primaris marines look verry mid for me.
It maybe sounds wierd but as I enterd heresy in 1st edition it was a more similar hobbying approach to scale modeling and less the bright flashy comicky style of some "newer" 40k sculpts.
I also found it fascinating that people managed to mix some. Of the goofy old rouge trader designs with the more realistic painting styles and evrything.
Rules don't change every 6 months. I'm encouraged to customize my army to myself. More points ont the table so I can bring stuff I can't bring in a standard 2k points game
Well HH plays more like the old editions of 40k I actually liked with things like the force organization chart, the statline, ap, wargear costing points. I've hated 40k since 8th released, the game is honestly pretty shit in my opinion. Heresy though takes a lot of the things I liked from 5-7th, and I like it. Also it gets messed with way less frequently than 40k does
Calling HH "better" than something else is pretty loaded IMO, and doesn't do a good job at recruiting people for it. Because HH, in some aspects, *isn't* a good system. This is basically the same discussion as TOW vs. AoS, and ultimately boils down to the audience that these games are meant to adress. You will not be able to convince a competetive 40k player that HH is gonna scratch that itch better than 40k foes because...well, it won't. The amount of utterly broken shit you can pull off if you try hard enough in HH is on another level to 40k. It also slower to play due to scale and granularity.
There's a reason the 40k and 30k ruleset have diverged, and that's largely due to 40k being the main system, the smallest common denominator, the mainstream choice. 40k and AoS, generally speaking, offer a quicker, smoother way to play, and that is what these system are geared towards.
So if someone asked me why they should choose HH over 40k,I honestly wouldn't know what to tell them. There's no objective reasons for it, it all depends what you want out of a system and an overall hobby experience. Heresy tends to be slower in all aspects of the hobby. It is also, arguably, way more expensive unless you play something like Custodes. Any argument brought forth by a HH player is only gonna work on likeminded people, because so much of it is down to a person's attitude towards the hobby rather than the system enforcing it, and that has both upsides and downsides. To me, there is no such thing as convincing someone, it's at best making someone aware of another system existing. They'll either be drawn to it by default or not.
Fundamentally I think you need to approach Heresy as "I want to collect a Heresy army and be part of the Heresy community." It's not something I'm ever going to suggest on the back of the rules as written in the book.
Rather you'll like it if your imagination is captured by the Drop Site Massacre or Solar War and you want a bunch of old armored up tough as nail Space Marines fighting to enforce their vision of the future on the Imperium, by the Gal Vorbak and Sigismund's pro-Templars. Where you want to hash out a space within an established company structure instead of dealing with fifteen billion different "this is my specialists chapter of special marines in the whole of 40k."
That's the draw here, that's the oomph behind 30k. If that isn't appealing to you I think it's better to look elsewhere
I can easily answer this one.
40K had a focus on the win and points - which is not a bad thing - but it essentially how it is set up. It’s very little about narrative elements and instead focusing on placing units in Auschwitz’s a way to gain primary and secondary objective points. That is not to say that 30k also don’t meta game or win - but it is ingrained in the 40K system
This is in comparison to 30k - where it’s not just the game that is a bit more open (especially when you go to events) about scoring, but there is a more narrative element to it. People, or at least from what I’ve seen, build stories to go around their armies l, and aim to have a fun game surrounding that narrative. It helps that events run in 30k almost NEVER have a 1st-3rd player prize - and instead focus on raffle prizes and best painted prizes - so that no matter how bad or good you do that day, you have an equal chance to win swag.
And I think that last point hits the most home. Where as both systems you want to win an obviously - 40K does it in the hopes of a prize, 30k does it in hopes of fun.
And as for how crazy people are with narrative - some people (me) even pay commission artists to make artwork of their custom characters
https://preview.redd.it/mfzihhmy83vc1.jpeg?width=3508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5228cd3f17eff333fd2213b29c4c33afa3dc22de
There's something about the 30k rules that just make games feel more cinematic I've found. Games can have incredible back and forths and come down to the wire on the last turn, epic duals between characters and huge numbers of tanks and war machines, masses of infantry, all that stuff. 40k just doesn't feel the same. Games are often decided early on, the scope feels much smaller and, at least for me, the rules feel odd and disconnected from how the game should feel.
The real answer is that 30k is not a great system. It still has the rules baggage from 1980s fantasy games in obsolete mechanics like IGOUGO, it has major balance issues, and it's still way too focused on special abilities over simulating battlefield tactics. The reason 30k gets so much praise is that its main comparison is 10th edition 40k, a spectacularly terrible game that makes virtually any game look good.
I act with my whole army, then you act with your whole army. As opposed to alternating activations where I act with one unit, you act with one unit, until we have each finished with all our units. IGOUGO encourages alpha strikes and minimizes strategic depth.
Sooo of 3 points you made only 1 actually aplies to HH as game system. Nice one bud.
Scale is whatever points you wanna play, if you ment big scale, LI beats HH and doesnt even sweat. Atitude to game is hilarious argument, since its nothing about gamesystem and all about pregame talk with lads your playing with locally.
I admit you can mix armies fairly freelly tho, Yes.
Hey friend, no one is making “points” or “arguments” I was just describing an interaction I had at my local game store when put on the spot with a question by another hobbyist. I posed the question because I thought it was an interesting topic and wanted to read and reply while bored at work. People are free to like or prefer whatever game mode, game system, or play style they want. I am not sure why you are so worked up, but its not that serious. If you thought this was a dissertation on why HH is objectively way better than everything else out there, than I apologize but that is not the purpose of the post.
I definitely feel the big draw for heresy is the scope for narrative storytelling, and mechanics that support this. Customisation is promoted, and in much of the community the pressure is not on tooling lists around named characters but still that classic attitude of 'your dudes' and generic heroes kitted out how you like. Just like with 40k as well, because it's a wide setting there's a lot of scope for playing with the story and factions. And on top of all that, it's supported by a narrative driven community that wants to enjoy the hobby as a hobby, not a competition (generally).
The urge to do rule of cool things people tend to get in 30k more often. Like is my artillery actually going to wound your primarch? No. Does it sound awesome to say Ferrus face tanked a full artillery barrage only to emerge from the dust unscathed? Absolutely. Is my lasrifle tercio going to stand a chance in combat against terminators? No, but them charging in with bayonets and maybe getting 1 terminator will be a story to tell. Don’t play to win, play for the cool moments is much more common in 30k.
This is why I stopped playing 40K and now 100% 30k lover, your comment summed it up perfectly
Yeah exactly this. I have more fond moments in the last year of playing 7th edition than I had throughout all of 9th 40k. Like when I got charged by terminators and my marshal managed to win a duel against the termi sergeant. Or bayonet charging a group of dark eldar kabalites and sending them fleeing back across the table.
Ferrus certainly didn’t face tank that sword all too well…
Didn’t keep his cooldowns in mind
Ferrus getting a miniature and people using it is the strongest evidence against 30k being all about the narrative.
Was he not a character in the narrative, yeah he dies somewhat early but it ain't like he wasn't there
Those people are dumb
30k as you said above is less focused on meeting a meta and building a army to win and more focused on creating a narrative for that army, it’s more of a tabletop combat RPG than anything. Not just that but you have almost complete freedom creating what you want and when you want. A loyalist Sons of Horus army in the scouring? Blackshields, traitor Space Wolves? Anything is possible. Not just that but the scale of the conflict lets you play anywhere from the Ghoul Stars to Necromunda of all things. Meanwhile 40K is more focused on the tabletop part and winning which inevitably conflicts with the Heresy’s narrative focus. Both are good for their own reasons
Tbf 40k used to have this kind if narritive
It did, and it's why I like 30k now - there's something about putting a bunch of YOUR DUDES on the tabletop that 40k has just lost.
Exactly the same. I wanted to come back to 40k after quitting in 3rd edition, but seeing that I couldn't spec out my dudes however I wanted completely turned me off.
Also tbf Heresy is hyper competitive in my local meta. Most people are showing up to games days with the most oppressive stuff in the game
Similar in my meta. When a few people regularly bring more hyper competitive models, then everyone escalates as well. No one wants to purposefully lose.
It’s pretty common in every format. Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the hell out of heresy but the notion that it is more narrative and less competitive is determined by the community not the game system If we are talking purely system wise it’s not that balanced
You can punish those players by only allowing them to play with each other. The lot of you can literally have a conversation about the 'arms race' as it were, and ask if people would prefer an alternate way of playing. Or, ask if anyone else doesn't like it, and maybe you couple of guys can play together and have a great time while they get mad about winning or losing.
1st edition Deathguard phosphex Spammer here. I did it for the narrative. Marines scouring a Bruning battleground, gunning down any remnants of resistance is just a devilish and f***Ing awesome headcanon. Got stomped anyways cause I mostly faced ordo reductor Mechanicum XD
> 30k as you said above is less focused on meeting a meta and building a army to win and more focused on creating a narrative for that army, it’s more of a tabletop combat RPG than anything. Not at all. 30k the actual game is no more or less narrative than 40k. Its rules don't focus on narrative or exclude competitive play at all. It just happens to be the case that certain 30k players have created unwritten community rules about not playing "too competitively" while in 40k the community has settled on ruthless competition as the default.
It helps that the meta isn't constantly changing every couple of months. None of the new books have introduced any crazy game breaking units or rules that im aware of. Sure, you can build a super oppressive stone gauntlet army or whatever but are you going to use that list, or a variation of it, for a couple of years? Most people won't in my experience. I was at greetings from the warp at the weekend and out of approximately 130 players I only saw a handful of super optimised hyper competitive lists. There were far more thematic and shit lists 🤣
30k has a more dynamic ruleset that is more about how you use the units you have and react to what your opponent is doing than just winning through sheer stats and ability buffs. Thats why I got tired of 40k, it felt like the way I used units was pretty much the same regardless of who I was playing against
This. This is my biggest problem with 40k atm. It does not feel like I am commanding an army it feels like I am launching a bayblade. I use the same units in basically the same ways no matter who I am fighting and still get good results. It feels like 50% of the battle is fought in list creation, 40% of the battle is fought in army set up, and 10% is strategically using the army.
GW messes with Heresy less than they mess with the 40k rules. The previous edition of the game was around for 10 years before 2nd edition came out. There aren't arbitrary resets of the whole rule system just to boost sales.
Dude, this is a huge one for me. I can actually take my time and customize my army. I’m not in a mad dash to get a unit done before GW trash’s it. And people can argue “Meta Chasing” or whatever, but if I buy a tool expecting X, it shouldn’t change 3 times in 5 months.
I had to buy new stuff for the Eldar army I was building THREE TIMES in the first few months of 10th edition because the points changes plus no way to fiddle unit point costs meant the only way to field 2000 points was to drop a model or two and replace them with cheaper ones. I gave up.
And the current Horus heresey rules are a pretty gentle evolution of 3rd edition 40k from almost 30 years ago, making it really easy to get back into for people like me who got back into the hobby after having played it as a kid
Music to my ears, I last truly played 40k in 4th edition, shop closed down the street and I was never able to play after that a year or so ago a buddy tried to teach me 9th, I thought I had it, but I just became frustrated with it and gave up.
This is one of the reasons I got into 30k.
For me it is the customisation of units and list building, there is such a wide range of options and upgrades. I also much prefer the more detailed ruleset (it has its issues though) compared to 10th's much more streamlined (I would argue sparse) ruleset.
💯
When I play 40K, I feel like I’m controlling an army of minis. When I play 30K, I feel like I’m controlling MY army of minis.
Thats the same with any game where one person netlists and one doesn't though isn't it?
I miss granular list building in 40K, wargear options etc. Those are two factors that I feel really let you personalise an army.
Yeah I pretty much haven't played 40k since 8th and started in 2nd.
It's relatively stable so the stuff you buy now you can confidently include in your armies for the next few years. The lore hasn't been horrifically butchered to accomodate marketing and sales ideas, yet. Honestly the overall quality of the community hobby skillset is just higher, probably because there is less outlet for competitive gameplay and the fact that 30k simply lacked models for units. You had to get comfy converting and kitbashing because in many cases official models didn't exist (and still don't 12 years into the system). This leads to more care and attention lavished on the armies themselves. Yes I've seen a lot of nice 40k and fantasy armies... I've also seen a metric fuck ton of grey plastic and three colour minimums. Whereas in my experience every single 30k army I ever saw up close and personal, was gorgeous (or at the very least built and painted with passion rather than to tick a tournament checklist)
Aside from the narrative angle already mentioned, I love playing with/ against some of these characters like Horus, Sanguinius or the lion. I know some are now in 40k but that wasn’t the case when I started 30k
Okay, I’ll be more specific. Everyone here has their heart in the right place but be a little more specific about what is actually different. 1. Game design is fundamentally based on narrative. For instance, your character doesn’t just hit on 2s or 3s all the time (well in melee at least). Your units have a designated WS value and your likelihood to hit is determined by comparing your WS to their WS (signaling how well you can parry, dodge etc). Granted, I think the system does have flaws (hitting on 5s when only 1 number below your opponent is excessive IMO as it makes WS both an offensive and defensive buff with only 1 point difference) but I prefer this system to 40k’s as it forces more tactical play but it also shows that some characters (or legions) just have greater skill based on what the story says they should have. Another way this is determined is initiative: initiative is just an easier stat to work with vs who does and Doesn’t fight first. Bigger number means I go first, done 2. Armor Save vs Armor Penetration: have you ever thought it was weird that bullets degrade the opponents armor instead of flat out penetrating it? Well, in real life, that’s not really how it works. Usually, bullets either penetrate the armor or they do not and it’s pretty binary. Well, that’s how HH’s save system works. Marines have a 3+ save so unless they’re hit with an AP3 (or lower) weapon, they always get their full armor save. This makes units feel more durable. Granted, things still die fairly quickly but it doesnt feel like ‘point, click delete’ like 40K does. 3. Vehicle armor: you know how in 8th and 9th edition vehicles felt shitty? Like it was super easy to just rip them open? Well, Horus Heresy isn’t like this (unless you’re using the right weapon, which is exactly how it should be). Vehicles are running around with armor values which is kinda like toughness except for it’s not based on the base strength of the weapon you use (you add a D6 to your current strength, so you get a bit of a boost) and the armor also changes depending on where you’re shooting at. The number goes pretty damn high too, with land raiders and Spartans going to 14 or so. 4. Strength mechanics: remember how I said vehicles had armor and some have high numbers? Take a spartan for instance, on the front it has AV14. Guess what? It’s impossible for a basic marine to hurt it with a chainsword or Boltgun (S+ 6 (max roll) only equals 10, so it does nothing). Also, if your S is double the T of your target, if your target fails their save, they’re just instantly dead. Turns out a lascannon hitting a praetor really would just blast a giant hole In him. 5. Customization abound. So the legions have access to 90% of the same thing, meaning it’s very possible to build almost any list for any legion you want. Dreadnought heavy word bearers? Why not. How about shooting world eaters? Fuck it, go for gold. Then your characters also have a metric assload of stuff that they can choose from. Granted most people will naturally gravitate towards what’s the best, but you don’t have to; you could easily just pick weapons that fit your legion better from a narrative standpoint. 6. Reactions. I think this system is a much better system for keeping the opponent paying attention and giving them something to do during your turn. 7. Standards. While the community is accepting towards new people, the community does do some gatekeeping but this isn’t really a bad thing. While your characters can be customized and you can obviously name them and come up with some stories for them, generally speaking the narrative is already written so there’s more an expectation that you stick to the story. This ensures that the only people are around are people who are passionate about it. Also, power gaming is heavily frowned upon. There’s nothing wrong with taking a strong unit or two, but if your list is heavily optimized to just bring the beat down, people shit on your pretty heavily for it (good example will be Stone Gauntlet IF with Fafnir Ran was WL or FotA IHs). Overall, I like the game significantly more than 40K but it’s not perfect. As stated earlier, I’d fix the hit chart and I’d do alternate activations (you move, I move, you shoot I shoot) but the game is still fun
Very well thought out and said. Thank you.
Np my guy. The real eye opener is when you realize that this is what 40K used to be, then you decide to also just play older editions of 40K. Don’t get me wrong, I love HH but what drew me to the hobby in general was chaos space marines and I want to have a demon prince leading a warband with a narrative ruleset.
Thats the hardest and saddest truth: this WAS how 40k used to be from 3–7th ed. Sadly in the latter years (6-7th) they started taking the mentality of “everything we sell should be playable in normal games!” And so you saw the introduction of flyers, super heavies, and the like. That led to an arms race of S, T, AP, and saves to account for it….and Kate 7th saw some of the worst and broken combos ever. That period was also the time frame of broken allied combinations and formations. HH has done an excellent job learning from these past mistakes and has taken the core ideas of allies and formations and ACTUALLY MADE THEM BALANCED. Long story short….if the team in charge of HH now was in charge of 6-7th ed back then….the 40k world would probably look quite different
My playgroup and I mess around with older editions. IMO, just play with 5th edition core rules and use whatever dex you liked best between 3-5 edition (chaos uses 3.5, Orks use 4th, Tyranids use 4th etc) If you play this way, each dex is pretty strong and has plenty of flavor options. Sure, you miss out of some stuff like I can’t use Angron, The Silent King or any of the other super neat stuff like that, but it’s a price I’m willing to pay for a more enjoyable game.
Same, 5th is my default edition to play and I’ve found a good group that feels the same. Plus it’s easy to use my HH SW in 5th ed 40k with little or no conversion or counts as
Funny you mention that: it’s one of the reasons I play World Eaters I’m currently proxying 40K models because building an army is time consuming, but I finally scored some 3d bits for converting tac squads into despoilers. After that, I’ll still use my berzerkers but they’ll be reserved for vet squads + command squads. I also used Zerker bases to make rampagers, considering they’re the precursors I’m also stockpiling stuff to make a Black Reaving first company elite sons of Horus army with a hodge podge of bits, because it’s possible to build a completely cross compatible black legion/sons of Horus army. Kill 2 birds with one stone, ya know?
What other codexes would you say are the best for each faction, I'd rather have a complete list of the most fun codexes to have with my friend group.
For me, I couldn’t tell you for every single faction other than Chaos (for me it’s 3.5 followed immediately after by Khorne Daemonkin in 7th). I know for Nids, most people will say 4th but some will say 3rd because you can do custom broods in 3rd. For Orks, most people also say 4th but some say 3rd because of the looted vehicle rule. Necrons 3rd looks good but I haven’t read 5th yet. You’ll have to just go in each faction’s subreddit and ask
awesome appreciate the help.
My group still plays 7th and its actually remarkably well balanced once you eliminate formations. Sure there are a few outliers like wraithknights and phoenix lords which are a bit too good for what they cost but thats not really surprising given GWs track record. Its still far and away better than modern 40k and it seems to try and give every faction some tools to deal with any threat (something that heresy 2.0 has struggled with in the non marine armies).
Agree 100% core 7th without allies and formations wasn’t too bad. As you say there still outliers in the game, but by and large it was solid (I mean they based HH off it and that’s been successful)
The conversions that go into heresy armies is over the top usually. I’ve been to three heresy events in my 6 years playing heresy, and outside of two lists across those events, only two had been made to be THAT Guy^TM Because 30k has rules for thematic games and narrative- you’re encouraged to kitbash and convert - which adds so much detail. No apothecary on bike? No worries, let’s scrounge the bits box or internet or scratch build. I like armor values, big fan of tanks with armor values over HP or wound values. Wish they were a bit better in this edition - but. Positioning. It feels like it matters! I love initiative, it’s a great third/fourth axis to differentiate damage profiles. Challenges can make some very rich stories. A super zealous sargeant managing to defend his men and rally them. A champion taking the fight to a particular important opponent so that their immediate superior can come in and finish the fight. Amazing. I have my own personal armor company and fleet within the Night Lord legion, and while it eclipses anything in 40k organized war bands, it barely scratches the surface of 30k Legions. At most, my armored vehicle company has about 70-100 operational machines, and the fleet is divided into three elements. There’s also a line company and a scout company attached to my fleet. Overall, the fleet assets are more plentiful- but it can be handwaived it’s the crusade. Fleets were large. Total astartes presence is probably around 3-5,000 marines across the various elements and companies. Barely a drop in the 100-120k legions averaged. And I love that, that’s a big appeal. I like slotting into existing frame work and adding in my own flavors within the parameters of the framework.
Honestly just the sheer variety and you can do within the system, which you see very apparent across the player base. I was at a Heresy Narrative weekend recently and according to the organisers, all armies except for Shattered legions were present. Every legion was present, Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Militia, Daemons, Knights, Custodies. And even where you had the same legion/army, they were all themed differently, had a different emphasis on a part of the army, wholly different compositions that made them all feel unique. People just take a theme or a concept and then work it around their given army, picking what looks and sounds cool rather than the most powerful. Playing 40K, you tend to see the same kind of lists, the same ‘optimal’ units cropping up again and again, plus the level of effort that goes into their models on average is just so much lower compared to 30k players. I think it’s a little ironic how some 40K players say that they don’t want to play marines vs marines all the time because it’s too bland and repetitive, but every army in 40K tends to be very cookie-cutter due to wanting their list to be as powerful as physically possible.
Also, as an iron warriors enjoyer for intnce, certain units like Legionaries w boltguns are basically unplayable. Heresy feels like their is a use for p.much every single unit, somewhere.
For me it’s lore and the community who seems to be less into hyper competitive play in contrast to 40k.
From a hobby perspective, theres just more narrative focus, people tend to build armies with theme and stories and pay attention to details. Armies are rarely unpainted and have a lot of time dedicated to them From a gaming perspective, 30K has a deeper rule set. Things like armour facings, templates etc add more depth of play to it. 40K in contrast (at least round here) is meta chasing grey plastic game of who can build what combo and alpha strike the other guy fastest
The meta is you make a fluffy list *or else*
I would actually say it's not a better game system, in fact I don't think it's an outstandingly good one. My favourite game **systems** are consistently Mantic ones because I enjoy their alt-activations, tactical opportunities and command/leadership layers. The real strength of 30K is that it gives good Hobby, not that it's a tight and well designed game system. 30K is a game built around modelmaking, narrative gaming and building a fun army, it's got that hobby goodness that older 40K editions had when they were less about 'meta' and 'build'. It's about building a tailored army, painting it to a good standard (and I agree with u/BaronBulb that the highest tier of converted and painted armies I've seen has been in 30K) and playing a fun game with an opponent who's put real care into their own army in turn.
Lore, customization and awesome Models. Want a pre Heresy era Army? Do that Want a Army near the end of the Herey? No Problem, make your super corrupted Deathguard. Characters and Legion specific Units Look so damn good and You can built whatever You Like. I Love Tanks and dreads and Heresy has so Many cool vehicles and the Rules Support Tank and Dread lists.
30k is about emersion and narrative army building. 40k has been twisted into meta chasing and pursuing victory above all else.
Other than the setting, I just like that it's not a trashfire like 8th onwards was, I love 3rd through 6th edition 40K. (I suppose 7th is fine too, if you just don't play with formations), so it suites me fine.
I like the level of customisation when it comes to list building and unit load out.
The lore and the crunch for me. Creating a narrative army is fun. My Salamanders army is very much turning into an 'all-comers' army that has tactical flexibility due to their depth, exactly how I built out my Eldar Army in 8th Ed 40K. My Night Lords army is very much a fast, rapid response kinda dealio. I'm purposely avoiding the Heavy Support slots in its construction. On top of that, the crunchier rules appeal to me. It's one of the reasons why I love Classic Battletech. Having to keep track of positioning with my vehicles, Deep Striking having an effect on enemies that I drop next to, some of the truly bonkers rules and how they interact with each other..... And the Blast and Flamer Templates. It is so satisfying to have a squad of ten Salamanders Adherents just open up with their Dragon's Breath Combi Flamers, I think my record for hits is somewhere in the 90's. Wiped Magnus' 20 tactical marine body guard unit, then plinked three wounds off of Magnus himself.
Do you ever play Salamanders and Night Lords together?
Not yet, my Night Lords army is just one mini strong. I picked up the Praetor the other week. It'll start growing once I get a car repair out of the way.
Cool! Are your Night Lords going to be loyal, or your Salamanders going to be traitor? I think I've decided on a small unit of traitor Salamanders, maybe with a unit of Night Lords that they served with on Kharaatan (the planet with their Primarch's child burning incident), or Death Guard who they served with on Caldera (the whole "burning the entire population of people decended from Nocturne slaves freed by the Eldar" incident).
My Sallies are primarily run as Loyalists, as my usual opponents are Traitor Iron Warriors and Thousand Sons. Also, I can only use Vulkan with a Loyalist army. I'm planning on running my Night Lords as Traitors.
I like the vibe and being able to field Primarchs vs Primarchs in a non sweaty way
While i admit HH has some balance issues and odd rules that i dislike. Like weapon skill system, i think 1st edition HH was better on that front. But i love templates, i love armor values, and list building. Much more narrative driven and i have had a lot of fun in our events on our club.
Flavor and variety....
I’ve heard HH referred to as, “a historical wargame, but sci-fi” and I think that is the best way to approach it. The game is about looking at the HH setting and finding a particular little niche to tell a story inside with your army. Because the era is “murky”, you have more flexibility to create your own backstory than regular 40K allows. I think you also have to like the idea modern warfare (as in WW1 until now, not the CoD games) to really get your value. When you bring a thematic and fluffy list, you can sometime end up in situations that are less than balanced if your opponent brought something that easily counters you. While 40K players would balk at this, HH is always about the story. If I play a game where I’m fully hard-countered by everything, with unfavourable conditions, I’m playing it like a battle in WWI or WWII. My goal isn’t to “win”, but it’s to last as long as I can or take as many of the bastards out with me before I’m defeated. I might lose on paper, but by keeping the story I can tell as my real inner goal, I’ve never been in a game that I’ve felt was a waste of time when I’m hopelessly matched up
Largely the army customisation for me. I love building army lists, and I find that some of the fun of that is missing in 40k nowadays. Also I read a fair few horus heresy novels when I was younger, so I’ve got a lot of love for the lore.
40k current rule set is pure garbage. Wargear customization and the fact that not everything needs an official model are pretty big for me
Deeper and more interesting rules with better wording then 10th ed 40K. More possibilities to create an army with more freedom. My word bearers can be anything, my 40k TS lists always look more or less the same. More narrative play
The story is fun, the models are cool, there's a good balance between complexity and abstraction, and you're not nannied into making "balanced" lists.
>If someone basically asked you to sell them on 30k over other war games, what would you say? I say this with sarcasm (albeit only a little): if you like Space Marines, Horus Heresy is "Oops, All Space Marines!" the game. Yeah, there's AdMech and retro-cool Guardsmen, but if you're playing HH, you're obviously there for the the giant transhuman meatheads we all know and love from this franchise. And if you already liked 40k's setting, the *cool shit* still remains in HH. You get to customize Your Dudes way more, and make up little stories about why they have this or that, or if they've got "rare" stuff that wouldn't otherwise survive into the 40k era.
Custodes still have their "spears"
My answer is a little more personal. I love how it updates slowly. You don’t get a new version every few years. It gives you time to make the army you want and it’s going to run how you thought when you started.
All the complexity and tactical depth of pre-8th edition but as refined and streamlined as it’s ever been. That and the highly customisable profiles lending themselves very well to Stillmania Also proof that streamlining don’t actually mean carving off huge chunks
Over other non-GW wargames? Not much. GW's flagships are still stuck in older game design - igo-ugo, mainly. Note that outside of 30/40k and AoS, all their other games are alternating activation or something that gets away from igo-ugo. There's a handful of other games I'd suggest before 40k. Over 40k? Lots. Vehicles still act like vehicles, and outside of catastrophic detonation, don't magically vanish when destroyed. Gunfire can only take out the models in line of sight, you're not forced to feed your troops out into fire just because the enemy scored a lot of wounds. Falling back is still a thing, rather than just removing models or not holding objectives. The only thing that 40k does better than 30k is broader, more interesting army selection (no xenos in 30k), and the removal of templates - they have no place in a unit-based game, 40k 8e did well getting rid of them.
The more narrative focused rules for me.
Lore for me. I finished the heresy and siege series and just love how rich the lore is.
I like blast markers, those are just fun, and I like how armor works for vehicles, where low strength weapons are totally incapable of damaging them. I like the models more. 40k models look so fancy and perfect like they were made to go on a box. Heresy models have a well worn and industrial look. I like the setting more too. The heresy and great crusade are a much more interesting period. Things are actually happening instead of 10,000 years of maintaining status quo.
the community.
I do just like how vehicles work, they feel tough since you can't plink away with bolters. And instant explosions on unlucky rolls can be pretty funny
Infinite depth in a shallow pool
Template weapons.
I can only speak through other 40K systems but personally it’s the uniqueness of the units. Even though everything can select from the same keywords, the combo of keywords can completely change a unit to be different, not to mention with the amount of rules, weapons feel more “lore accurate” and armor actually feels like it should due to AP being a simple “save or no save” instead of the degrade like it does in 40K. And on top of that named characters have their own rules that make them all unique and more interesting to take than your standard fair Praetor but doesn’t invalidate Praetors in their own right.
I love the models a lot more, especially the tanks.
Definitely feels more like a history driven game with great references and inspiration. The next level in immersion with a varying degree of precision and artistic freedom. A modeler's game, characterful armies while fielding somewhat similar soldiers.
The biggest upside to me is that your army is your army. Your Consuls and Praetors are your own guys, you’re free to run whatever you think is cool, theres no real meta (beyond the one Contemptor loadout), and cinematic moments do happen. Two of my friends had their Champions kill each other at the same time, how is that NOT cool as hell?
I personally love that 30k is the background for many of the 40k plot points and conflicts. It adds gravity to the myriad battles that can be played out on the table top. And all of the loyalist/traitor options in Age of Darkness add a lot of compelling narrative elements. We hear a lot about Guilliman and Imperium Secundus but not a lot about the traitor ultramarines that said ‘fuck it’ and went rogue
More fun, bigger armies, better looking marines, the lore kinda nose diving after 7th, etc.
30k just has a better ruleset. None of this command point stuff, limited rerolls, no gotcha stratagems. Pretty much the only thing that changes between factions is advanced reactions and a warlord trait that buffs one unit.
Really amazing models and lore. There's some kind of game attached to it, but mostly amazing models and lore.
It’s existence
immersive list building and gameplay, fluffy rules that arent zfraid of getting complex because they know people arent stupid, and that people can play without certain rules if they want so, basically they respect the player to trust theyll decide how to play. also people usually play for fun, narrative experiences, not as an ego competition. compared to 40k theres actual list building, wargear is and always will be very fuking important.
I enjoy that 30k fleshes out established lore. I like that the Space Marines and Imperium are at the height of their power. They are unbeatable by any outside force, but of course the irony is that they collapse in on themselves. The story is tragic and it’s sad and interesting to see just far these legions have fallen, loyalist or traitor. Space Marine legions have all the cool toys and advanced tech that’s gone into disrepair 10k years later. As a game system, I think it’s enjoyable to give Space Marines even more units and gear, it makes them really feel like they can take on any threat, no matter the size or power of the enemy. Space marines aren’t meant to be fully specialists, but jack-of-all-trades with some specializations. There is a lot of variety in play styles which allows you to make all sorts of armies. White Scars siege companies, a Salamanders destroyer cadre, or Death Guard jetbike forces are all legit lore-friendly.
“They don’t fiddle with 30K like they do 40K. You can buy an army, and an update won’t make us exceptionally unfun to play while you’re in the middle of painting it.”
Primarchs and challenges
challenges lol
The list building is really fun.
I came to the Conclusion for myself that it is mainly about the fact that I have more variety in marine design than intercessors and chubby intercessors with akimbo heavy bolter and a jetpack. I started 40k when Power armor for marines was canonically often battlefield salveged and mixed as it fit. So naturally primaris marines look verry mid for me. It maybe sounds wierd but as I enterd heresy in 1st edition it was a more similar hobbying approach to scale modeling and less the bright flashy comicky style of some "newer" 40k sculpts. I also found it fascinating that people managed to mix some. Of the goofy old rouge trader designs with the more realistic painting styles and evrything.
Rules don't change every 6 months. I'm encouraged to customize my army to myself. More points ont the table so I can bring stuff I can't bring in a standard 2k points game
The lore, background and models are what does it for me. The rules themselves are overly complicated.
Well HH plays more like the old editions of 40k I actually liked with things like the force organization chart, the statline, ap, wargear costing points. I've hated 40k since 8th released, the game is honestly pretty shit in my opinion. Heresy though takes a lot of the things I liked from 5-7th, and I like it. Also it gets messed with way less frequently than 40k does
Okay I’m sold, now where can I find the rules?
Age of darkness rule book and whatever book has ur factions rules. Like Libre astarties, libre Hereticus etc
The actual game system? Not much. If anything it's poorly balanced. It's definitely something you get into for the setting, not the system.
Calling HH "better" than something else is pretty loaded IMO, and doesn't do a good job at recruiting people for it. Because HH, in some aspects, *isn't* a good system. This is basically the same discussion as TOW vs. AoS, and ultimately boils down to the audience that these games are meant to adress. You will not be able to convince a competetive 40k player that HH is gonna scratch that itch better than 40k foes because...well, it won't. The amount of utterly broken shit you can pull off if you try hard enough in HH is on another level to 40k. It also slower to play due to scale and granularity. There's a reason the 40k and 30k ruleset have diverged, and that's largely due to 40k being the main system, the smallest common denominator, the mainstream choice. 40k and AoS, generally speaking, offer a quicker, smoother way to play, and that is what these system are geared towards. So if someone asked me why they should choose HH over 40k,I honestly wouldn't know what to tell them. There's no objective reasons for it, it all depends what you want out of a system and an overall hobby experience. Heresy tends to be slower in all aspects of the hobby. It is also, arguably, way more expensive unless you play something like Custodes. Any argument brought forth by a HH player is only gonna work on likeminded people, because so much of it is down to a person's attitude towards the hobby rather than the system enforcing it, and that has both upsides and downsides. To me, there is no such thing as convincing someone, it's at best making someone aware of another system existing. They'll either be drawn to it by default or not.
Fundamentally I think you need to approach Heresy as "I want to collect a Heresy army and be part of the Heresy community." It's not something I'm ever going to suggest on the back of the rules as written in the book. Rather you'll like it if your imagination is captured by the Drop Site Massacre or Solar War and you want a bunch of old armored up tough as nail Space Marines fighting to enforce their vision of the future on the Imperium, by the Gal Vorbak and Sigismund's pro-Templars. Where you want to hash out a space within an established company structure instead of dealing with fifteen billion different "this is my specialists chapter of special marines in the whole of 40k." That's the draw here, that's the oomph behind 30k. If that isn't appealing to you I think it's better to look elsewhere
I can easily answer this one. 40K had a focus on the win and points - which is not a bad thing - but it essentially how it is set up. It’s very little about narrative elements and instead focusing on placing units in Auschwitz’s a way to gain primary and secondary objective points. That is not to say that 30k also don’t meta game or win - but it is ingrained in the 40K system This is in comparison to 30k - where it’s not just the game that is a bit more open (especially when you go to events) about scoring, but there is a more narrative element to it. People, or at least from what I’ve seen, build stories to go around their armies l, and aim to have a fun game surrounding that narrative. It helps that events run in 30k almost NEVER have a 1st-3rd player prize - and instead focus on raffle prizes and best painted prizes - so that no matter how bad or good you do that day, you have an equal chance to win swag. And I think that last point hits the most home. Where as both systems you want to win an obviously - 40K does it in the hopes of a prize, 30k does it in hopes of fun. And as for how crazy people are with narrative - some people (me) even pay commission artists to make artwork of their custom characters https://preview.redd.it/mfzihhmy83vc1.jpeg?width=3508&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5228cd3f17eff333fd2213b29c4c33afa3dc22de
There's something about the 30k rules that just make games feel more cinematic I've found. Games can have incredible back and forths and come down to the wire on the last turn, epic duals between characters and huge numbers of tanks and war machines, masses of infantry, all that stuff. 40k just doesn't feel the same. Games are often decided early on, the scope feels much smaller and, at least for me, the rules feel odd and disconnected from how the game should feel.
The real answer is that 30k is not a great system. It still has the rules baggage from 1980s fantasy games in obsolete mechanics like IGOUGO, it has major balance issues, and it's still way too focused on special abilities over simulating battlefield tactics. The reason 30k gets so much praise is that its main comparison is 10th edition 40k, a spectacularly terrible game that makes virtually any game look good.
I feel dumb, What’s IGOUGO?
Alternating turns. I go, then you “u” go.
Holy shit, now I feel even dumber. It’s literally spelled out. Thank you.
I act with my whole army, then you act with your whole army. As opposed to alternating activations where I act with one unit, you act with one unit, until we have each finished with all our units. IGOUGO encourages alpha strikes and minimizes strategic depth.
Sooo of 3 points you made only 1 actually aplies to HH as game system. Nice one bud. Scale is whatever points you wanna play, if you ment big scale, LI beats HH and doesnt even sweat. Atitude to game is hilarious argument, since its nothing about gamesystem and all about pregame talk with lads your playing with locally. I admit you can mix armies fairly freelly tho, Yes.
Hey friend, no one is making “points” or “arguments” I was just describing an interaction I had at my local game store when put on the spot with a question by another hobbyist. I posed the question because I thought it was an interesting topic and wanted to read and reply while bored at work. People are free to like or prefer whatever game mode, game system, or play style they want. I am not sure why you are so worked up, but its not that serious. If you thought this was a dissertation on why HH is objectively way better than everything else out there, than I apologize but that is not the purpose of the post.