PDA

View Full Version : pre-heresy ultras



H.LaFever
03-06-2011, 19:18
So we had a debate here....
A member of our group that shall remain un-named wants to do a pre-heresy Ultra army.

Some of us think that if he does a 'pre-heresy' army, he should have the ultras as a 3rd founding chapter rather than first so as to reflect the flavor of the game at the time. And in the beginning, UM werenít a founding chapter, they werenít even a 2nd, they were 3rd.

The thinking is that pre-heresy should have a more old timey RT feel to it.

So, not that it matters much in the scheme of things,

These are friendly games that do include some house rules

> Do any of you think itís a reasonable idea to have pre-heresy armies bound by older fluff?

> allow for only the latest and newest fluff and restrictions / benefits?

> or lastly, It has been floated that each army uses whatever codex/ rulebook version they want, as long as army is 'consistent' with the restrictions / benefits therein. so if you want to play your 2nd ed guard army against my 4th ed tau, youd use your book, id use mine, and the few differences our Gm will iron out.


(Yes, we play old style with 2 opponents and a game master to roll all 3rd party dice, etc, and to be a neutral judge)

were gonna try out all options and see what works best for us and is the most fun, its how we usually settle our debates,
but I was curious about what the other style of gamers think about this.

Col_Festus
03-06-2011, 20:19
Hrm, so he just wants to run a pre-hersey Ultramarines army? According to the current fluff they are a founding chapter. So much stuff as ben retconned into oblivion... I would just use the current codex and try and convert everything into a prehersey feel.

Charistoph
03-06-2011, 20:41
The difference between pre and post heresy Ultramarines? One is a Legion, one is a Chapter.

Better to try for pre-Primarch.

Magos Explorator
04-06-2011, 00:45
Some of us think that if he does a 'pre-heresy' army, he should have the ultras as a 3rd founding chapter rather than first so as to reflect the flavor of the game at the time. And in the beginning, UM werenít a founding chapter, they werenít even a 2nd, they were 3rd.

The thinking is that pre-heresy should have a more old timey RT feel to it.


Rogue Trader is not the same as pre-Heresy--although some of the artwork for vehicles is inspired by the RT/early 2nd edition designs. Ultramarines were third founding in Rogue Trader, but if you went by RT-era fluff that's not the same as going by current pre-Heresy fluff.

Personally my feeling is to go with current codices (e.g. I use the Space Marine one for my Thousand Sons) but either don't use wargear which wasn't around then, or else model them appropriately for counts-as (e.g. twin-linked bolters for storm bolters, or Reaper autocannons for assault cannons).

Archangel_Ruined
04-06-2011, 00:51
If you want a crusading UM army, pre heresy, you should be ready for a twenty man strong tac squad, rushing you packed into their raiders. It's what they want, feel helpless as they stamp on your face. It's what any pre-heresy marine army does, they conquered the galaxy godamnit.

RandomThoughts
04-06-2011, 07:37
It's funny, what you're saying implies, basically, that the Ultramarines were really a third founding chapter that pretends to be a first founding chapter these days. :)

As to the original question, I believe that with contradicting fluff around, the player in question should be free to use the stuff he likes. It's his army, after all. If people tried to tell me how I have to run my craftworld, I'd probably go to war against them... ;)

Gloryseeker
04-06-2011, 08:10
> Do any of you think itís a reasonable idea to have pre-heresy armies bound by older fluff?

who are you to say what i should and should not have in my army. I may choose to do a fluffy army but not bound to it.

> allow for only the latest and newest fluff and restrictions / benefits?
40k has almost 25 years of history which has shifted and changed as have the rules. Use the up to date rules and fluff.

> or lastly, It has been floated that each army uses whatever codex/ rulebook version they want, as long as army is 'consistent' with the restrictions / benefits therein. so if you want to play your 2nd ed guard army against my 4th ed tau, youd use your book, id use mine, and the few differences our Gm will iron out.

thats just gonna turn in to a big mess



As to the original question, I believe that with contradicting fluff around, the player in question should be free to use the stuff he likes. It's his army, after all. If people tried to tell me how I have to run my craftworld, I'd probably go to war against them... ;)

The thing i have a problem with is you telling him what should be in his army its his army he can include what he likes. He may choose to do a fluffy pre hearsy army but thats his choice. If he if doing a old 2ed/RT list does that mean he gets jetbikes?

Jim
04-06-2011, 08:28
OP: I found your original post somewhat confusing... You are free to be 'bound' by any of the various iterations of fluff that WH40K has gone through over the years... Pre-Heresy is fairly recent terminology and its only in the last few years that I've seen a lot of people setting out to model appropriate Pre-Heresy armies. This is no doubt inspired by the excellent Horus Heresy series from BL.

I suggest you check out places like Bell of Lost Souls and The Great Crusade which have a wealth of Pre-Heresy info and members currently engaged in modelling WH30K armies.

I personally think sticking with the current fluff situation would be most consistent and create less ambiguity and treat the Ultra's as a First Founding chapter. Use the current marine Codex but just avoid certain units - for example try not to include landraider varients, razorbacks, too much plasma weaponry, limited jump packs, etc...

Forgeworld have also recently released the older armour varients which are a godsend for any pre-heresy modeller.

Have fun whatever you decide!

Jim

Excessus
04-06-2011, 08:30
pre heresy =/= rogue trader...

Dangersaurus
04-06-2011, 08:49
> Do any of you think it’s a reasonable idea to have pre-heresy armies bound by older fluff?
Nostalgia should be a personal choice. If you're really going to stick to RT-only fluff, there is no Heresy anyways.

Edit: Yes, the fluff rapidly changes after Realms of Chaos and Adeptus Titanicus are published, but with the introduction of the Heresy comes the introduction of primarchs, foundings, and the primarch of the Ultramarines "Gulliman" - pretty much the current canon with some peculiarities and different spellings.


> or lastly, It has been floated that each army uses whatever codex/ rulebook version they want, as long as army is 'consistent' with the restrictions / benefits therein. so if you want to play your 2nd ed guard army against my 4th ed tau, youd use your book, id use mine, and the few differences our Gm will iron out.
You have a patient GM. A few differences might be an understatement.

Woodsman
04-06-2011, 09:10
2nd ed had a few :D different rules though as I remember - cool?

I don't really see why you have any right to 'bind' anyone else to your fluff interpretation. As has been said if they're RTera and 3rd founding then by definition they're not pre-heresy. I'm not sure why RT is being equated with pre-heresy.

Let him takes what he wants - the fluff is so &$#"@+ anyways that you could justify absolutely any interpretation. If you want a RT era SM army make one, don't try and force it on someone else who wants to make something, that at the end of the day, is quite distinct.

Mojaco
04-06-2011, 09:28
Some of us think that if he does a 'pre-heresy' army, he should have the ultras as a 3rd founding chapter rather than first so as to reflect the flavor of the game at the time. And in the beginning, UM weren’t a founding chapter, they weren’t even a 2nd, they were 3rd.
Seems a bit like your group likes to think of themselves to be veteran fluff-purists, resulting in pre-heresy chapters. Which don't exist. I can imagine a single person coming to such a travesty, but a whole group? Wasn't there anyone who said "hey wait, this doesn't seem to make any sense".

Secondly, the whole point is mute. How would you model which founding they are? Only markerings are likely to be the Legion/Chapter symbol and the company they're in.

As for which rules to use, I'm with Magos Explorator. Just use current rules with restrictions, instead of mixing 2nd and 4th (which make absolutely no sense).

Emperors Teeth
04-06-2011, 09:59
Sounds a bit mean-spirited trying to tell someone how to make their own army, doesn't it? I'm in approval of suggesting ideas to the guy to help inspire him but imposing sanctions as a group upon his army choice sounds like something coming from a gaming-group I'd stay well clear of.

A guy I know has a RT era (v. old marine models) army painted purple with berries on their shoulders. They are the 'Ribena-Berry Marines'. Yes, I think it's silly, but I'd never tell him he should change it; That's none of my business.

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
04-06-2011, 12:40
I think the OP is using this (specifically under all marines are equal): http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?autocom=ineo&showarticle=494

If you read it, there is an example given of how all fluff is both a truth and a lie using the Ultramarines original fluff and new fluff as an example. It's interesting stuff.

Regarding the players army, it is his army and he should have a say in the fluff. If the whole group is using something more like what I linked to as their background for the setting, he may need to adapt to it, but it is still ultimately his army and he needs to be happy with it.

Sir_Turalyon
04-06-2011, 18:14
OP: I found your original post somewhat confusing... You are free to be 'bound' by any of the various iterations of fluff that WH40K has gone through over the years... Pre-Heresy is fairly recent terminology and its only in the last few years that I've seen a lot of people setting out to model appropriate Pre-Heresy armies. This is no doubt inspired by the excellent Horus Heresy series from BL.


Wrong and wrong; the "pre-heresy" term is (at least) as old as the excellent Index Astrates articles, almost decade old now and 3-5 years older than Horus Heresy novels. Which are not excellent.

As of original question, there is so much different background that however you chooose to make your pre-Heresy Legion some people will be dissapointed. RT is a great theme (one of better availiable) and geting lot of model coverage by Forgeworld nowadays. Persinaly, I'd use Index astrates as primary reference, through.

yabbadabba
04-06-2011, 18:31
pre heresy =/= rogue trader... This. Thank you.

The evolution from RT era background, rules stats etc to 2nd Ed background, rules stats etc has meant a disconnection between what was originally written by GW et al, and what has slowly evolved from 1994ish. One question I would ask is would you allow robots again, mole mortars, thudd guns, jetbikes etc. The problem with using the Horus Heresy as a time point is that it does start to create all sorts of problems with definitions. As GW history is clearly not linear, I would stick to editons to create your boundaries.

1201307
05-06-2011, 04:58
If the ultramarines are a 3rd founding chapter, then they would have been formed after the heresy. Therefore could not be made in a pre heresy style.

If someone is making a pre-heresy army, then it has to be a 1st founding, otherwise it wouldn't have existed pre-heresy.

Leftenant Gashrog
05-06-2011, 19:08
As GW history is clearly not linear, I would stick to editions to create your boundaries.

The problem there is the fluff revisions generally don't match up with the 40k editions. IE: Ultramarines were retconned into 1st Founding halfway through RT, the Dark Millenium Suppliment for 2nd edition stated the Grey Knights were the only known product of the mysterious 2nd Founding whilst the Codex: Ultramarines presented it as it is now (also note that the Big Four as they are today were first defined as such in the Armies of the Imperium supplement for EPIC in 1991).



> Do any of you think itís a reasonable idea to have pre-heresy armies bound by older fluff?
> allow for only the latest and newest fluff and restrictions / benefits?

There is a difference between letting someone go by older fluff and forcing them to use the oldest fluff only (Personally I regard the Horus Heresy Space Marine Regiments article in WD126 as being the definitive source for Pre & Mid-Heresy marine armies, and that depicted the Ultras as 1st Founding with a fondness for armoured warfare).

yabbadabba
05-06-2011, 19:24
The problem there is the fluff revisions generally don't match up with the 40k editions. IE: Ultramarines were retconned into 1st Founding halfway through RT, the Dark Millenium Suppliment for 2nd edition stated the Grey Knights were the only known product of the mysterious 2nd Founding whilst the Codex: Ultramarines presented it as it is now (also note that the Big Four as they are today were first defined as such in the Armies of the Imperium supplement for EPIC in 1991). Its still a far less difficult way of doing things than trying to pick which particular mad prophet's description of the 40K universe you want to use.

Leftenant Gashrog
05-06-2011, 19:57
Its still a far less difficult way of doing things than trying to pick which particular mad prophet's description of the 40K universe you want to use.

What I mean't be problematic is that its often not possible to just say "I'm using X edition fluff", eg: you could say "I'm doing a 3rd edition fluff Dark Angel force" to which someone could ask if you were going by the first or the revised Codex (Jervis seems to be of the opinion - starting with Armies of the Imperium - that Dark Angels do not have bikes outside of the Ravenwing, so his Codex doesn't have them whilst the other one did)

H.LaFever
06-06-2011, 19:18
ok, to be clear, there are some here who want to use an outdated dex/list.
the debate is on if its allowed, should the person be confined to just that particular list/ ed.? so my buddy want to use a 3rd ed list., if he does, then he would be bound by that list, and not beable to pick something better from another edition to offset a problem in the used list.

basically, we decided that you could use an out of date list, but you cant codex jump, and everyone has to know what rules you are playing with ahead of time, and also, you have to have the codex your using WITH you. lol

hope that clears it up

Archangel_Ruined
06-06-2011, 21:11
Everyone will just pick the 4th ed codex, it lets you do nasty stuff with no penalty. 3rd ed space wolves was particularly nasty too, free drop pods for everyone! If it's just pre heresy armies you're after then I'd say go with 2nd edition space marine lists (there are enough for some variety), they've got some post heresy stuff but they're missing a lot of the things that creep in later. Everyone will be on a roughly equal footing too.

mightymconeshot
07-06-2011, 15:28
I know this is not really the right place but where is Ultramarines 3rd founding. I have seen it thrown around in a few threads before and really wanted to know where it was so I can back it up if I use it. thanks

As to the topic. As someone said. Your army do what you want. Just agree beforehand with you your playing on exact rules and any unclear issues. Like using a previous codex with an outdated test or modifier what would happen

FabricatorGeneralMike
07-06-2011, 16:11
I know this is not really the right place but where is Ultramarines 3rd founding. I have seen it thrown around in a few threads before and really wanted to know where it was so I can back it up if I use it. thanks

As to the topic. As someone said. Your army do what you want. Just agree beforehand with you your playing on exact rules and any unclear issues. Like using a previous codex with an outdated test or modifier what would happen

I believe it was WD97 or around there-ish. Also I think it was for the Ultramarines bored game not RT. I might be wrong on this. It was retconned relativley fast as Space Marine ( 1st ed Epic) and Adeptus Titanicus changed the fluff and introduced us to the Horus Heresy.

Archangel_Ruined
07-06-2011, 19:45
RT era fluff makes no sense in relation to modern 40k, Leman Russ and Roboute Guilliman were Imperial Army (not guard) officers and the Space Wolf home world was Lycan. A big part of all this was a lack of joined up thinking from the writers, it was all new and cool so they just published everything. Nowadays they check stuff over to try and limit unintended nerd rage. Note that I said try.

Woodsman
07-06-2011, 23:16
Check stuff - are we buying the same books? :D

I understand the OP a little more now. Yeah I wouldn't mind playing a dex from another ed and yeah I would say you can't mix and match really. Although we create a lot of our own units and houserule them so...

I think things generally work better if everyone is reading from the same hymnsheet. I.e. all play with 'dexes from the same edition and then agree on houserules to add in units that you feel are needed to make a particular theme.

Leftenant Gashrog
08-06-2011, 10:49
RT era fluff makes no sense in relation to modern 40k, Leman Russ and Roboute Guilliman were Imperial Army (not guard) officers and the Space Wolf home world was Lycan. A big part of all this was a lack of joined up thinking from the writers, it was all new and cool so they just published everything. Nowadays they check stuff over to try and limit unintended nerd rage. Note that I said try.

Lol. Hardly, the discrepancies from RT mostly stem from GW doing one thing then deciding it'd be cool to do something different (ie: Russ and Guilliman were named as 'Founders' before GW came up with the idea of Primarchs), discrepancies due to lack of joined up thinking is far more common now (ie: Emperor's Swords chapter being annihilated by Alpha Legion in the chaos codex and Necrons the marine codex).

PS: It was Lucan not Lycan. He was Lord Lucan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bingham,_7th_Earl_of_Lucan).