Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Initial post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
So what would the Adeptus Mechanicus get - the Void Dragon?

They get lumped in with all the imperial factions kinda like all eldar do with ynnead avatar.
The best a new imperial guard can hope for is a new "Solar" Creed character which still isn't the same power level as primarchs, avatars, silent King, ghaz character. Tyranids have thier rumoured hive mind bug.

Oh I was just musing. Having the Void Dragon wake up would be rather an interesting concept...

This is a genuine enquiry, not snark, because it baffles me and perhaps you can explain: why do people find fluff advances that fundamentally change the nature of their subject appealing? I don't mean edge-tinkering "advancement" of a storyline or soft-retcons to introduce new elements to support model releases, I mean theme-and-tone-shattering shifts that must inevitably alter most if not all of the things that characterise the subject of the changes.

There's no way GW confirming 100% no-ambiguity that the Dragon is on Mars, did actually cause the AdMech, and has now awoken could do anything other than fundamentally change the faction, perhaps even destroy it utterly in favour of multiple new and very different factions - so where on earth is the appeal of that for someone who actually likes the Adeptus Mechanicus for what they are?

Reply.

 Moopy wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


This is a genuine enquiry, not snark, because it baffles me and perhaps you can explain: why do people find fluff advances that fundamentally change the nature of their subject appealing? I don't mean edge-tinkering "advancement" of a storyline or soft-retcons to introduce new elements to support model releases, I mean theme-and-tone-shattering shifts that must inevitably alter most if not all of the things that characterise the subject of the changes.

This is a terrific question. It's a topic that I discussed with one of the Black Liberary writers a couple months ago.

The answer: Currently 40k feels like professional wrestling.

I've been playing since 1988 and at this point I'm not excited about any big conflicts at this point.

Orks hit Armaggeddon and are making a mess of things. So what? There's no reprocussions for the lost output of the Forgeworld.
Tyranids hit the Shield Worlds, made a mess of things and weren't stopped. So what? There's no reprocussions to the Blood Angels for losing so many warriors in that fight.
13th Black Crusade where Chaos gets on Cadia. So what?

None of it changes the way the game is played or fundamentally alters the structure of the universe. The Imperium is still bloated and endlessly big, Eldar are still "waining" or whatever that means, Chaos is still plotting to get back in. There's huge fights with heroics and trechery, and secrets are revealed or knowledge lost! But nothing really changes in the big picture- it means nothing. Oh sure there's some fluff text here and there about how "desperate" things are or "teatering on the edge" but all those vauge words haven't altered a thing for a very long time. My army composition isn't changed, etc... etc...

Just like the Imperium fluff, the setting has become static and imobile while only sounding vaguely new. If these events aren't going to actually effect things, then all the excitement is drained out of it. Thus the wrestling example. There's lots of promises of events that could happen, or might happen, but for over twenty years, they haven't happened; you an only tease people so much with a posibility before they stop paying attention to it.

If this is a change, a REAL change, then I'm very excited for it.

My response:

Right, OK, I just find that mindset utterly alien. If I get bored of something, I stop doing it and do something else instead, I don't hope it will stop being what it is. I will specifically never understand criticism of 40K for being "too static", given that "slowly-crumbling cultural, social, and technological stasis" is the core theme of the setting, and that wasn't just the milieu of 80's British social alienation and 90's antiheroism seeping through, relative-stasis is also a core feature of the setting in terms of its utility to the game system; it's meant to provide the canvas on which we paint the stories, with our games and models as the brush. Making fundamental changes to the setting can invalidate big chunks of "head-canon" that local groups have spent years, even decades building up through their games - that little mention that caught your eye in a page-corner fluff blurb a few years ago that you used as a jumping-off point for a decade's worth of gaming and storytelling could be picked up by the design studio and ran with in a direction that flatly-contradicts all of your own work(and despite what some may argue there is a difference between everything existing within a Heisenbergian haze of equivalent probability, and one official story being canon while everything else is fanfic, both in terms of how you feel about it as the creator and how easy it is to persuade new people to go along with "your" version), which is hugely dispiriting, and the more changes you make, the wider their scope, the more you undermine the validity of fan contributions.

"What ifs" are inherently less interesting without the thrill of possibility.

Well, I guess that's what makes everyone different.

I like the 40k setting because of the elements that have brought it up to where it is now. It all resonates more than Star Trek/Wars ever seemed to.

However, I don't see any reason to stop adding elements. Life doesn't stop, things change. So does the setting. And before we get into saying brutally stupid things such as "you're confusing story with setting" crap again, yes, settings can AND DO change. If we followed that logic we never would have the Tau. They weren't there to begin with, but they are now and I don't see how that stopped anyone from daydreaming awesome narratives about 40k. Quite the contrary, it's only added to the narrative.

I think it's a matter of how much/when to do it. I do like stability so I can know what I'm talking about when it comes to my favorite topics. I don't want to have to check in every day or so to see what the skinny is. Pushing it forward every few years is healthy because it generates new interest- attracts new blood, which is better for us all because we get to meet more cool people and it lets us use all the models we've already spent a lot of money on, in new ways. I love that part. Yes, occasionally, some units get invalidated. That sucks and I won't take that away from people that have it happens to them- that's a bad design choice. If a named character gets killed in a world wide event, there should be another character who takes it's place. That's the thrill of being able to say, "I was there when it happened." Ultimately a slow push forward is exciting when done correctly, because a setting that makes promises that can never deliver on (because are always in the future) are completely irrelevant and might as well not exist; if you won't follow up on something stop teasing people with it. Example: "If the 7 once again walk the lands all will be fire!" sounds cool and spooky, but if we never change the setting to have the 7 actually walk the land then it's anticlimactic.

Fans ALWAYS are in for a risk if they invest their energy into anything. However, that's pretty much emotional caveat emptor. It's not the responsibly for the IP holder to hold whatever thousands of stories that they've never heard of before as more important than keeping their IP vibrant. They should be aware that changes they make may effect their audience, and that's the design challenge: to make the new changes appealing so that people want to move forward; it's their job.

Ultimately people should never, ever, expect the stuff they make up on the side to somehow hold the development of the IP back in any way. I really don't like the huge "rise of the fan" where they think that what they like should take precedence. That's way too much bad ego for me and it gets ugly quickly with people becoming loudly self entitled. I'm not saying that about you Yodhrin, not at all, we're having a nice discussion. I've just seen it happening too much in movies, video games, and comics where people think their opinion should be held in the highest regard.

Lets remember that I love making up stories about my Blood Angels. I've done it a lot. However if they were find a cure for the insanity that's ravaging them, my head isn't going to explode because it invalidates my work; I don't remember any designer asking my opinion on the topic. I won't be happy about it, but I'll get over it, and I'll make up some new stories about noble hero's restored to their rightful glory. Take that Inquisition!

I think that's part of the problem- fans aren't willing to be flexible. I mean, if you can't roll with changes and come up with another cool idea, then you better do some self reflecting. There's billions of tales to tell, so don't limit yourself!

I think the people who have been playing for a long time have already told most of their own stories that they want to tell in the current setting. So even though they like that setting and they have created a lot of their own great stories in it, they'd like something new to rejuvenate their interest and inspire some new stories.

Not something completely different, like starting a totally new game, which wouldn't have anything about the current setting that they like. Someone might already have collected all the armies they are interested in collecting. But if something major changes, like a new army like the Tau get introduced, that may generate some renewed interested and maybe starting a new army. Or at least a new enemy for some new stories.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Initial post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
So what would the Adeptus Mechanicus get - the Void Dragon?

They get lumped in with all the imperial factions kinda like all eldar do with ynnead avatar.
The best a new imperial guard can hope for is a new "Solar" Creed character which still isn't the same power level as primarchs, avatars, silent King, ghaz character. Tyranids have thier rumoured hive mind bug.

Oh I was just musing. Having the Void Dragon wake up would be rather an interesting concept...

This is a genuine enquiry, not snark, because it baffles me and perhaps you can explain: why do people find fluff advances that fundamentally change the nature of their subject appealing? I don't mean edge-tinkering "advancement" of a storyline or soft-retcons to introduce new elements to support model releases, I mean theme-and-tone-shattering shifts that must inevitably alter most if not all of the things that characterise the subject of the changes.

There's no way GW confirming 100% no-ambiguity that the Dragon is on Mars, did actually cause the AdMech, and has now awoken could do anything other than fundamentally change the faction, perhaps even destroy it utterly in favour of multiple new and very different factions - so where on earth is the appeal of that for someone who actually likes the Adeptus Mechanicus for what they are?

Just to clarify, I was speculating about the Void Dragon in response to the rumour that Primarchs and Primarch level creatures would make an appearance in 40k. As each faction has an obvious legendary figure, with the exception of possibly the Tyranids, I was simply trying to imagine who the Mechanicus's legendary character would be - so I thought that it would be interesting if it was the currently imprisoned Void Dragon. Now, I must clarify that this doesn't mean they must start worshiping it and change up the whole of 40k by having the Mechanicus reject the Omnissiah and follow the Void Dragon etc. It could be as simple as the use it as a weapon the same as the Necrons have C'tan Shards. So, confirming the Void Dragon doesn't necessarily mean that the faction has to change fundamentally - although the potential for a factional split would also be very interesting as there are already multiple factions and houses within the Mechanicus.

As for your genuine enquiry - 'Why do people like fundamental changes?' For my part, I'm not keen on retcons, such as the 13th Black Crusade not happening, but I'm fine with story advancement. Why? - Because it offers scope for interesting events to occur. I think people want it to advance because so much has been crammed into M41 that it's starting to feel a bit bloated. If GW were to put M41 on hold and do some serious work on, for example, M35 or M37, so we get some scope for storytelling there, then the setting needs no advancement. However, as they are unlikely to do that, then people want to see 'What happens next?' - because people are like that. Humans are curious and always want to see what happens next and as GW isn't fleshing out the time between the HH and M41, then it's natural that people want to see what effect M41 will have on M42 as they have invested themselves in the events of M41 and feel like they're being cheated of the next chapter in the story.

Now if we take Age of Sigmar as an example of fundamental change then we will be disappointed - but that is mainly due to the fact that they threw out the setting to advance the story and got rid of everything and everyone that people had loved about WHFB. If they had instead shattered the Empire into warring states, pushed the Brettonians into a disparate wandering faction of mercenaries and had Chaos ruling the Old World, then people would probably have accepted it because even though it tipped everything on it's head, the old factions were still there and people could still have hope that the Empire could rule again and Brettonia could re-unite etc.

Ultimately, whilst 40k is a setting, it has to have stories that run inside it - or else it becomes a faceless and uninviting setting that has no lure. It's not the world or galaxy that draws you in, but the people surviving in it and their trials and tribulations, triumphs and defeats that engage you - that is why people want the story advancement - because it satisfies their curiosity.

EDIT: Just to say; at this point, IMHO the best thing we could have is some serious story-writing for the Xenos Factions, an expansion of the major events of the 10,000 years between the HH and M41, a halt on the ridiculous glut of stories written about the Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Blood Angels and an advancement of the events of M42. The Status Quo can be kept, but that doesn't mean we have to have the whole two-minutes to midnight feel - after all midnight comes along once a day and it won't be the first or last time the IoM has been on the brink. Some people may find the brink of destruction theme engaging, but the 'New Hope' theme is just as interesting - ask the Tau players.

Agreed- having a huge civil war in the Mechanicum over the Ominissiah vs Void Dragon would be a LOT of fun.

I will also agree that while the End Times was VERY cool leading up to the end, completely destroying the world was a huge shock. I applaud them for being brave enough to do it, but THAT much change, all at once, was too much for many to bare.

In GW's defence, it must have been very hard to change up WHFB. You have only one world, the whole of which is already explored, populated by relatively few factions that preside over almost the entirety of that small landmass. With that kind of setting, the scope for stories must have been getting thin. I can see why they shattered the realms - to give them more landmass to slot factions into and to reduce the area of influence each faction has.

To give a real world example: The story of Greece in the setting of the Roman Empire is rather dull - not much happens because it's united, nobody is fighting each other to destruction, and all of Greece is known to everybody else in Greece (IE. WHFB) However the story of Greece in the Peleponnessian War is far more interesting - multiple factions, owning small city states, each vying for total domination with large tracts of land up for grabs and plenty of smaller factions who's fate is decided by the side they pick - plenty of scope for storytelling (AoS). AoS would have probably gone down better, if they had gradually introduced change. If the world had gradually shattered and the Gods had gradually reappeared then it would have been easier to stomach it - but as with everything, they gave us too much, with too little explanation, in too short a time period. Conversely 40k has been to little change, too much explanation, over too long a time period.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
In GW's defence, it must have been very hard to change up WHFB. You have only one world, the whole of which is already explored.....

They only explored a fraction of the WHFB world. They probably explored a quarter or so (at a guess) of the landmass in any detail, and even the areas they did explore they often left regions that weren't detailed to the point you could easily have new cities, environments, subfactions or factions pop up right in the middle of them.

They must have very unimaginative writers if they couldn't expand a fantasy setting in any way they want.

I have to confess, I was never into WHFB - I knew that Cathay never really featured much, but I didn't realise that the Empire and the other factions's possessions were as small as they appear compared to the rest of the Old World. As this map pretty much shoots my previous comment down,I have to concede that possibly they were just lazy when it came to changing things up. When you look at that map, they could have come up with a least a few new factions and armies - Cathay, Nippon, Kuresh, Ind, Albion, Eastern Steppes Tribes. Huh - guess they were just lazy...

A lot of those nations were humans though, with not a lot of fleshing out done over the years other than "hurrrr durrrr here be fantasy Japanese, here be fantasy Chinese" and so on.

On fans and their driven fandom: this is a very real and unfortunate plight of IP right now. With easy access to social media and communities of like-minded minorities, it is now easy for vocal groups to astro-turf against a new creative direction.

How many people raged against powerful women in Star Wars, Captain America being black/an agent of Hydra, Thor a female (but never so much about it being a frog). You have to be thankful of fans, they pay your wages, but you still have to be able to stand up to them.

if i may interject fellows. The imperium is supposed to not move it is such a monolithic entity that even huge conflicts such as the EOT or Arm barely chip away at it. their are supposedly 100 space marine chapters give or take, if they loose one they just make a new one.

if they loose a planet they have possibly have hundreds of thousands more. if they loose Cadia it would have an effect in that area. if they loose Arm it would again effect that system. the Imperuim is so vast that it would redirect and retake slowly. that is why the setting cant change because it would take a huge and i mean huge like destroying a significant portion of planets / resources for it to be fundamentally changed

@migooo - Exactly. The setting cannot change. However the stories can change. As you've said, loosing Cadia doesn't really affect the Imperium so much - so why do we need to be 2-minutes-to -midnight about it? Let Cadia fall and move on with that particular story. When the 13th Black Crusade is resolved, one way or another, create a new story. People seem to think that 40k is either a setting or a story - but in reality it is a series of different, isolated, stories within a much grander setting. Hence, we can move on with the stories, but still retain the overall feel of the setting.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
On fans and their driven fandom: this is a very real and unfortunate plight of IP right now. With easy access to social media and communities of like-minded minorities, it is now easy for vocal groups to astro-turf against a new creative direction.

How many people raged against powerful women in Star Wars, Captain America being black/an agent of Hydra, Thor a female (but never so much about it being a frog). You have to be thankful of fans, they pay your wages, but you still have to be able to stand up to them.

To be fair, I have heard almost no one rage against powerful women in Star Wars (there's always been powerful female characters in Star Wars so that'd be a bit stupid), specifically I've heard people rage against Rey being a Mary Sue character. I don't really follow comic books so I can't really comment on the Captain America or Thor thing other than to say people like characters to be consistent, if you want a black/female character, write one, don't just rewrite or copy/paste an existing character.

Fans can be harsh, but often the the things they're harsh about are genuinely stupid things to do with established franchises.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@migooo - Exactly. The setting cannot change. However the stories can change. As you've said, loosing Cadia doesn't really affect the Imperium so much - so why do we need to be 2-minutes-to -midnight about it? Let Cadia fall and move on with that particular story. When the 13th Black Crusade is resolved, one way or another, create a new story. People seem to think that 40k is either a setting or a story - but in reality it is a series of different, isolated, stories within a much grander setting. Hence, we can move on with the stories, but still retain the overall feel of the setting.

The defenders would fall back, possibly the GK would create a massive ring around he fallen sector and just throw millions of guard at it, then witle down the harder targets themselves, they can do this, and they probably have done similar tactics in the past, they would even probably drag every other race just to throw them at chaos to buy them time to hit the harder / more important targets.

while stories can change i hope the fact that certain writers fundamentally change things like fulgrim in a painting is a thing of the past. worlds can fall, even fenris, they would just move or become space bound.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
On fans and their driven fandom: this is a very real and unfortunate plight of IP right now. With easy access to social media and communities of like-minded minorities, it is now easy for vocal groups to astro-turf against a new creative direction.

How many people raged against powerful women in Star Wars, Captain America being black/an agent of Hydra, Thor a female (but never so much about it being a frog). You have to be thankful of fans, they pay your wages, but you still have to be able to stand up to them.

It was nothing to do with that. For Thor.

Multiple other people have used Mojinr all have never taken the name Thor. The fact the story smashed SJW feminism into your head was the problem.

It was never the fact Thor was a woman, it was that it went against established canon I.e. having the powers but never taking the name.

Falcon


Falcon taking the name Captain America was again never the problem. Steve was now old due to shenanigans and Falcon always was going to take the mantle. The fact he basically used both sets of powers, even though he never was injected with the super soldier serum was.

The Captain / Hydra madness.

The story was poor, it was not well written. It was ill received and they backtracked that was it. It was an awful awful story.

I want to add one more because I'm sure it's going to be dragged up. Iron Man being replaced by a woman.

Let's ignore the fact the writer openly admitted they don't know anything about Comics.

Let's ignore the fact that Iron Mans whole character is a redemption story.

The fact that he can be outstripped by someone simply because of their gender and race is stupid.
Let alone she did not have any training.

Don't say she's just being mentored by him because the team have openly admitted she's smarter and better than Stark.

They have an agenda its being bashed into everyone who reads. I have no wish to be subjected to that agenda.

Rey in star wars

Again nothing to do with the character the fact she is able to resist a Sith Lord with little or no training that's a stretch too far sorry.

Mon Mothma you know the leader of the Rebel Alliance is a woman, and she commands respect and admiration without her having any silly abilities.

I'm tired of being labelled a monster simply for wanting new things to respect established rules of the IP it is adding to.

GW should have just created a new IP and abandoned the old at least I could have respected that . But this awful horrible abomination is just so bad.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@migooo - Exactly. The setting cannot change. However the stories can change.

No.

The setting can change but it will take a tremendous event for that to happen. Stories are like taking cups of water out of the sea- you'll see nothing alter.

But it can happen.

There was a time when dinosaurs walked the earth. That was the setting and it changed.
There was a time in table top 40k before the Tau empire exploded on the scene as a playable race. That was the setting and it changed.

Things CAN change and they should. It's just a matter of how and when.

I think for me, any discussion of "story changes" (especially as it relates to 40k), brings up a couple of important things before I pass judgment:

1) Is it a change that is logical? That is, does it move the story forward or change its direction in a way that meshes seamlessly with the themes, tone, and content which came before? Or is it just a complete erasure of the previous setting to make room for something else. The former I am usually okay with, while the latter almost always annoys me (since it usually goes hand-in-hand with poor writing).

2) Is it actually a "change" or is it just unnecessary exposition which removes all tension and mystery? This is a really common pitfall with 40k story shifts. Too often, authors will spend an excessive amount of time picking apart a setting, explaining every ounce of minutia down to an absurd level of detail. This is especially bad when it is a new author diving into an older story, and they fail to see how what isn't told can be as interesting and motivating as what is told. See "The Phantom Menace" for a great example of this kind of bland storytelling. Alternatively, a movie like "Mad Max" does an amazing job of dodging this problem.

Regarding 40k, I look at something like the Newcrons. On the one hand, they hit point (1) reasonably well, if a little awkwardly. There was always a sense of Tomb-Kings-esque dynastic zombie warrior feel to the Necrons, so it's not unusual to have seen that aspect of their faction expanded upon in their new rulebook. But boy did they miss the mark on point (2). IMHO, one of the most fascinating and motivating themes of the Necrons was their air of mystery - the way they would travel and attack unpredictably, with an agenda only vaguely described as "go places, kill people, harvest their essence maybe." Not to mention the nebulous relationship they had with their "gods," the C'Tan. The Newcrons have none of their predecessors' mysteriousness. Their history, motivations, and personalities are all fully explained, as is their precise relationship with the C'Tan, all the way down to their various petty squabbles. By the end of the new codex, they feel and sound just like any other Human or Xenos faction, but with robo-bodies. Far from the implacable horrors spoken of in the old fluff.

It's this kind of tone-deaf writing that bugs me in a lot of new 40k fluff. Rather than building on what came before, making the shifts (even large, dramatic ones) feel like they belong in the setting, and keeping a good balance of exposition vs. mystery and reliable vs. unreliable storytellers, the new books take the easy route of just laying out a dissertation of exactly what is, was, and will be, in a way that makes it sound more like a strategic marketing plan than an actual narrative. (Which, admittedly, could be the point).

 Moopy wrote:
[
Things CAN change and they should. It's just a matter of how and when.

The overall setting, especially its tone and timbre, on the otherhand cannot. Well of course it can but that is just going to cheapen the whole thing and annoy people.

The setting should advance but it needs to be done in a controlled way with the big cataclysmic events happening to places that were previously only marginal to the setting. For example a giant warpstorm has just engulfed sector plotarmourum that was mentioned in passing a handful of times in the fluff and is now threatening to be become a new Eye of Terror. That way no one's personal stake in the fluff has been damaged but it still significantly alters the 'politics' of the setting.

Personally I really like the way that Hawk Wargames have handled the fluff for their Dropzone game. Each faction has their established core fluff and the games themselves take place during (most of) mankind's reconquest of the 'cradle worlds' from an alien race. Hawk is bringing out 'campaign' books that deal with approximately a year of time.
The main rulebook has the basic fluff and faction building, the phase 1 book dealt with the initial invasion up to around day +250 and the basic background of each cradle world as well as the main events on and around it. The phase 2 book (out on Friday!) will deal with the next year and so on. This allows significant changes to occur without altering the essential qualities of the setting nor its inhabitants and it allows the controlled release of new units for all factions which prevents interfaction power creep.

Another thing to remember is that change doesn't necessarily invalidate gaming in the previous situation. Look at the popularity of Horus Heresy/30K gaming. Everyone knows how it turned out and it involves massive changes but they enjoy it anyway. Or all the historical gamers out there. The change has happened and yet the games are still fun and interesting.

A setting that changes satisfies both the fiction buff who enjoys having a story actually progress as well as anyone interested in a static moment/situation to game in. They can simply choose their moment.

It's also possible to screw it up. The destruction of the Old World went way too far and we must also remember that it was done for crass commercial reasons. WHFB had too much stuff that GW couldn't claim as their original intellectual property.

frozenwastes wrote:
Another thing to remember is that change doesn't necessarily invalidate gaming in the previous situation. Look at the popularity of Horus Heresy/30K gaming. Everyone knows how it turned out and it involves massive changes but they enjoy it anyway. Or all the historical gamers out there. The change has happened and yet the games are still fun and interesting.

A setting that changes satisfies both the fiction buff who enjoys having a story actually progress as well as anyone interested in a static moment/situation to game in. They can simply choose their moment.

It's also possible to screw it up. The destruction of the Old World went way too far and we must also remember that it was done for crass commercial reasons. WHFB had too much stuff that GW couldn't claim as their original intellectual property.

GW rarely admits mistakes, when they reverse decisions they do something like .. oh it was a transitional period or other such excuse. AoS has been not doubled down but tripled. the one army that might get me to do something via a start collecting hasn't even been released.

My thoughts on the original question, why do I want an advance in the story?

I've been playing the game for 20 years. The story has not moved in that time frame. It's shuffled a bit to the left or right, but never gone a step forward.

It's grown stagnant for me. It's got a large part to do with why I've latched onto 30K so hard, in that it is "new". We all knew the basic premise of the story, but it's being fleshed out now in ways it never was before, and it's fresh.

Having always been a 'setting over story' player, I've never quite understood why people wanted things to be resolved – i.e. for things to be played out in the background. That's what I always took the game to be – essentially similar to historical gaming: 'Can I save Tantris II?', 'What would have happened if Commander So-and-So was in system?'.

It's grown stagnant for me. It's got a large part to do with why I've latched onto 30K so hard, in that it is "new". We all knew the basic premise of the story, but it's being fleshed out now in ways it never was before, and it's fresh.

This is at the core of the split, and I can see where the 'story over setting' approach comes from now, even if I disagree with it.

Essentially, there are already ten thousand years of past campaigns to investigate – millions of worlds, billions of characters and trillions of soldiers. I'd love to see GW look at some of the many galaxy-wide events like the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Beast Arises, the Pale Wasting or the Age of Apostasy. Each of these has the potential to be as broad, creative and interesting as the Horus Heresy or the Dark Millennium (i.e. the 'default' 40k) period; and they don't undermine what's at the heart of the Warhammer 40,000 setting.

 Apologist wrote:
Essentially, there are already ten thousand years of past campaigns to investigate – millions of worlds, billions of characters and trillions of soldiers. I'd love to see GW look at some of the many galaxy-wide events like the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Beast Arises, the Pale Wasting or the Age of Apostasy. Each of these has the potential to be as broad, creative and interesting as the Horus Heresy or the Dark Millennium (i.e. the 'default' 40k) period; and they don't undermine what's at the heart of the Warhammer 40,000 setting.

This! There's so many blanks they can still fill up, even if it is just a campaign book or two.

They made a story/setting change to Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Let's see how that turns out.

 Apologist wrote:
Having always been a 'setting over story' player, I've never quite understood why people wanted things to be resolved – i.e. for things to be played out in the background. That's what I always took the game to be – essentially similar to historical gaming: 'Can I save Tantris II?', 'What would have happened if Commander So-and-So was in system?'.

It's grown stagnant for me. It's got a large part to do with why I've latched onto 30K so hard, in that it is "new". We all knew the basic premise of the story, but it's being fleshed out now in ways it never was before, and it's fresh.

This is at the core of the split, and I can see where the 'story over setting' approach comes from now, even if I disagree with it.

Essentially, there are already ten thousand years of past campaigns to investigate – millions of worlds, billions of characters and trillions of soldiers. I'd love to see GW look at some of the many galaxy-wide events like the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Beast Arises, the Pale Wasting or the Age of Apostasy. Each of these has the potential to be as broad, creative and interesting as the Horus Heresy or the Dark Millennium (i.e. the 'default' 40k) period; and they don't undermine what's at the heart of the Warhammer 40,000 setting.

I typed out responses to a lot of folk, but frankly it was just a less eloquent version of the above.

I think this is just going to have to be an agree to disagree thing, but I appreciate people sharing their views, I at least now have a better understanding of exactly why you're all wrong (yes, that is a joke, in case the emoticon was insufficient)

 Apologist wrote:
Having always been a 'setting over story' player, I've never quite understood why people wanted things to be resolved – i.e. for things to be played out in the background. That's what I always took the game to be – essentially similar to historical gaming: 'Can I save Tantris II?', 'What would have happened if Commander So-and-So was in system?'.

It's grown stagnant for me. It's got a large part to do with why I've latched onto 30K so hard, in that it is "new". We all knew the basic premise of the story, but it's being fleshed out now in ways it never was before, and it's fresh.

This is at the core of the split, and I can see where the 'story over setting' approach comes from now, even if I disagree with it.

Essentially, there are already ten thousand years of past campaigns to investigate – millions of worlds, billions of characters and trillions of soldiers. I'd love to see GW look at some of the many galaxy-wide events like the Nova Terra Interregnum, the Beast Arises, the Pale Wasting or the Age of Apostasy. Each of these has the potential to be as broad, creative and interesting as the Horus Heresy or the Dark Millennium (i.e. the 'default' 40k) period; and they don't undermine what's at the heart of the Warhammer 40,000 setting.

But that's exactly why this irrational fear of anything changing makes no sense. Even if they moved the story forward like 1000 years, and all kinds of things changed, and even if those changes did "undermine what's at the heart of the Warhammer 40,000 setting" (which I'm not sure why you assume they would), could you not still play out stories that took place in what is the current setting? You could just as easily as people now play games that take places during the Horus Heresy. Or before the Tau appeared, or the Necrons awoke, or before hive fleet Kraken showed up. There have been all kinds of changes to the setting. It only adds new story hooks for telling new stories.

I think the heart of the issue isn't really whether we should go forward or expand previous areas. I think the core of it all is that people just want to see something a little different. They don't want the whole thing blown up in their face, but at the same time, we're bored of seeing the same generic events churned out with different characters, but the same feel, and all crammed into one tiny span of time. M41 is just about as full as it can be now, but GW mercilessly cram more in. That's probably the appeal of the HH - it's something different and, because it's still being written, people are curious for the next chapter.

Half the time, I think discussions like this are just between those who game and those who don't - The gamers are there for the 'setting' to make up their games within, but the others are there for the 'story' to explore the 'setting'. Personally, I'm not really fussed. I can see both sides and whilst I don't think it's particularly necessary to advance to M42, if GW won't expand on the past 10,000 years then we may as well. Either way, the 41st Millennium is getting full.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
M41 is just about as full as it can be now

The Imperium has a million inhabited worlds, that is more than enough scope to keep 40k varied and viable essentially for ever. Its just a shame that GW keeps rehashing the same old gak.

A minor problem concerning this is that both the Tau and the Tyranids weren't properly encountered / interesting enough until the current millennium.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
M41 is just about as full as it can be now

The Imperium has a million inhabited worlds, that is more than enough scope to keep 40k varied and viable essentially for ever. Its just a shame that GW keeps rehashing the same old gak.

I find the scale to be to much. It's hard to find meaning, when the sheer size just means there is no meaning. The fluff goes to such lengths to point out that the Imperium is so large, that nothing short of a segmentum falling will really hurt it. So how does our 40 man skirmishes have any real impact on anything?

So to compensate, we fall back on the story. The setting is to much, so what about the overall story? Oh, that story that hasn't changed in 3 decades.

@Silent Puffin - I totally agree, I just don't get why everything has to happen in 999.M41 -we get the 2-min-to-midnight thing, so why not do something different? Anyway, no disrespect to you Silent Puffin, but I've said my piece in my previous comments and I feel like I'm hogging the thread so I'm going to quietly retire from it now.