Is 30k better than 40k?

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

If I ever did HH I'd probably do a rogue group of loyalists from a traitor legion so I could make the exuse they've forsaken their original colours and iconography. Perhaps Death guard as I really dig their terminator models.

As for Xenos in HH - i wouldn't mind if the Cabal were expanded on further in some way. They have some very interesting members.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

The little Xenos references in the FW Heresy books really do make me wish that Forgeworld would have a go at 'em. One of Alpharius's conflicting backgrounds makes references to being trapped in the "Stone Ships" of the Slaugth, and that one nutty Monstrous Creature Magos's background talks about how most of his flesh was liquefied by a creature known as a "Carnoplasm".

[pohanew]

A few days ago, Larry Vela posted an editorial about the potential rules change for Horus Heresy games before the release of book VII, and with that release rules for the last two legions to be given rules for (the Thousand Sons and the Space Wolves). Essentially Larry wants a complete rules set to field all 18 space marine legions within the 40 7th edition rules framework before any rules changes affects the whole of the Horus Hersey set up. The thing I noticed is his claim- a claim also made by others- is that 30k is perfect the way it is.

I am curious as to why that is the case.

Obviously there are good reasons to why people believe this. I'm not promoting that 30k is better than 40k or vice versa, or advocating any rules changes. I want to start a discussion on the differences between the two sets. Also I'm writing this article from a position of ignorance, having played little of 30k, and not owning books IV and V, so please bear with me and if I'm wrong about anything post it here. The point I'm trying to bring up is that 30k isn't its own game with its own rules, but an expansion of the 40k rules.

We all know that 40k has its problems; from broken armies to deathstars, invisibility to D-weapons, formations to superheavies. The thing is that everything wrong with 40k is also included in 30k too (well except formations, unless they got included in the newer books or something, someone will probably tell me I'm wrong). D-weapons in 30k? Yes. Knights in 30k? Yes. Deathstars in 30? Yes. Alternate force org charts in 30k? Yes.

So why is 30k so cherished while 40k is *****ed on about? Functionally, whatever you could do in 40k you could also do in 30k too. From my subjective point of view there are only two differences between 40k and 30k: the army lists, and the players.

First off, the army lists, and I say that, I mean space marines, the mechanicum, the solar auxilia, and the cults and militias. These are obviously an important reason people would suggest as to why 30k is good as it is game wise. Reading through the rules, the units and options available feel more balanced and tight than regular 40k lists. There is little that stands out as OP'ed or stupid. But like I said, every abusable option you could do in 40k you could do in 30k too. Except that it is harder to do so. Lords of War are restricted to 2000pt+ games with a percentage limit; allies are limited with fewer factions to choose from; hell even D-weapons have an optional nerf outside apocalypse. Harder, but not impossible. There are combos and rules that can be broken, you can face an army with some from of LOW that you can't deal with, and D-weapons can still wreck stuff if both players forget to use the optional nerf. Has anyone even tried to play 30k with a normal CAD or even unbound?

This brings me to my second point: the players. Are they different somehow to the rest of the regular 40k players? Do they care more about having a fun game than smashing their opponents' armies in as short a time as possible? Are there even any 30k jerks out there fielding jerk army lists? Do people who play 30k choose not to max out on the worst cheese possible? Honestly I don't know. Like I mentioned before I have little knowledge playing Horus Hersey with others, so my opinions here are purely subjective. From what I have seen people ***** more about how broken X rule is or how overpowered Y army is in 40k than what is said in 30k. Again I could be wrong about this, so say so if I am.

Before I finish this post I will ask my questions again and leave it to everyone else: why is 30k great right now even though it shares the exact same rules with 40k, which people consider a mess? Is 30k far more balanced with its army list building and difficultly in abusing them? Are the players attitudes different in that it's more play for fun rather than play to win to them?

And one final question that should be asked: for some reason people don't want 40 and 30k to be mixed. Many claim that 30k doesn't scale down well in smaller games. But with the average points sizes for games being 1850-2000pts, and 40k seemingly encouraging larger games, would scaling be a problem anymore? More importantly, how would the two different armies fare? Would a 30k list be fairer than a 40k list? Would a 30k army struggle against 40k shenanigans?

[Edit] I want to point out that while fluff/nostalgia are very good reasons why Horus Heresy is popular, I am only interested in comparing 30k to 40 purely from a rules and gameplay standpoint. The point I'm trying to bring up is to discuss whether or not 30k can be just as abusable as 40k is and if players are just as likely to abuse any loopholes or advantages as they are in 40k. Also suggesting that 30k is balanced because it's marines bs marines isn't as true as people think. Just because both sides can field the same options doesn't mean that they do, and when that happens is the game still as balanced, or does it then veer into "bad 40" territory where broken units and cheese rules.

30k seems better because its like a blank slate and if your opponent chooses broken units so can you its all level pegging

[Denzark]

30k seems better because its like a blank slate and if your opponent chooses broken units so can you its all level pegging

What, like unbound in 40K?

[Mr Mystery]

That's actually an interesting idea there. Of course of you going to create your own chapter that way, you would need some of the original legion markings/colours so to identify the parent legion, but otherwise it sounds like fun and something different to try.

Base it on colour theory, which to be fair is something I don't understand.

Legion Colours as spot colours, and keep the iconography. Beyond that, knock yourself out

Unless as you say you want to use Unification era markings for whatever reason, or something adopted by a stranded or otherwise rogue force, in which case pretty much anything goes.

I'd be interested to see alternate scheme for Traitors from otherwise Loyal legions. We know they existed pretty much across the board, indeed learning such things has been one of the many pleasures of the series so far. And as a Dark Angel player, I feel it deepens the tragedy of The Fallen. Their shame is far from unique, and we know there was forgiveness, or at the very least pragmatism about such things.....though that's assuming we know the whole of that particular story.......

[daboarder]

What, like unbound in 40K?

Hows that going for AoS?

[40kGamer]

Oh you can indeed.

There's Imperial Fists already in Black Armour, with only their Shoulder Pads in the heraldic Yellow.

Could be camo. Could skybluepink. They're your models dude.

If you go back to the ancient fluff Camo schemes were common and can look awesome. Even in more recent fluff, FW put my beloved Howling Griffons in solid dark armour with only the shoulder in their chapter colours. So another option would be to keep the parent colours and use the 'chapter' colours/heraldry on the knee pad or shoulder.

Even with the Legions there are a host of ways to paint the same colour. There are so many nuances in the primary colours that you can put your twist on them there.

let the noggin run wild... there's always a way to make things more personal.

[nsc]

Hows that going for AoS?

Very good, haven't had a bad game yet, that's more than I can say for 40k.

It'll come down to your opponent, and having the rules say "work it out with your opponent" is a pretty good thing (imo) because sure the rules allow you to be a bit of a dick and crush your opponent's list "with superior list building"

Does it make you a better strategist to buy Four Wraithknights and Thirty jetbikes? No, but you will win a lot of games.

30k being better than 40k is opinions, the game is more even because the units are more homogeneous, 3+ armour is fair in line with other 3+ armour. Taking a cheesey list against an "unoptimized" list will crush it, no matter what game you play, from historicals to chess (if you replace things with pawns etc).

30k has this too, however it has (imo) less "trap" options, things which look cool, but ultimately they're just too inefficient and hurt your list overall.