Game wise I love that the Primarchs are coming back, however it hasn't done the lore any favours. I always liked the fact that the Primarchs where either dead gone or lost in the similar vein of the Emperors past been kept a secret. They've change the setting and after 20 odd years of the same story, which I agree its good for a change but after the Primarchs come back I hope they let another 5-10 years to develop the great crusade, I just hope that they haven't left a floodgate open where the lore severely suffers as some questions are best left unanswered. Like if they start bringing back Garviel Loken etc.
To me, it's a mixed bag. I actually really like the overall more hopeful tone that Roboute has created for the setting. I was getting sick of every narrative basically boiling down to, "Well, sure, you win the day, but it's ultimately pointless anyway." Exploring how the imperium interacts with a primarch after they've been away for so long is actually a neat plot hook. I'm just less fond of the primaris lore that came with him.
Allowing daemon primarchs to be out and about doing things just makes sense. If they're not "dead," then surely they should be utilizing those snazzy chaos powers of theirs.
You do lose a little of the mystique of having them all be distant, dead, or lost, but 40k has had decades to explore those angles. Plus, you can keep exploring them by simply setting your narrative prior to Guilliman being saved, the Khan /Vulkan returning, etc.
I'm ready for the story to advance, although I do hope they don't rush things.
Wyldhunt wrote: To me, it's a mixed bag. I actually really like the overall more hopeful tone that Roboute has created for the setting. I was getting sick of every narrative basically boiling down to, "Well, sure, you win the day, but it's ultimately pointless anyway." Exploring how the imperium interacts with a primarch after they've been away for so long is actually a neat plot hook. I'm just less fond of the primaris lore that came with him.
Allowing daemon primarchs to be out and about doing things just makes sense. If they're not "dead," then surely they should be utilizing those snazzy chaos powers of theirs.
You do lose a little of the mystique of having them all be distant, dead, or lost, but 40k has had decades to explore those angles. Plus, you can keep exploring them by simply setting your narrative prior to Guilliman being saved, the Khan /Vulkan returning, etc.
I'm ready for the story to advance, although I do hope they don't rush things.
I don't see the hope, just because Guilliman comes back I don't think he's going to do anything. The Imperium has the same resources as it did before the great rift, yeah Primaris are being made but that's a drop in the bucket. The eye has opened up all across the galaxy, Chaos can invade from any point it wan'ts now, they don't have to go through the webway or even worse the Cadian gate anymore, plus the Imperium is now cut off down the rift line. Its now worse than its ever been for the Imperium. I don't even think there is hope if the Emperor magically came back. Guilliman came back and so are the others coming back but Chaos has the Daemon Primarchs as well.
I don't have a problem with Gulliman being returned, in a sense he's us. He knows plenty about the Horus Heresy and knows what humanity has lost, he wants to see the sensiable thing done and rails when the Imperium is stuck in it's ways...
BrianDavion wrote: I don't have a problem with Gulliman being returned, in a sense he's us. He knows plenty about the Horus Heresy and knows what humanity has lost, he wants to see the sensiable thing done and rails when the Imperium is stuck in it's ways...
I'm not saying Guilliman himself coming back is bad, I mean all the Primarchs.
BrianDavion wrote: I don't have a problem with Gulliman being returned, in a sense he's us. He knows plenty about the Horus Heresy and knows what humanity has lost, he wants to see the sensiable thing done and rails when the Imperium is stuck in it's ways...
I'm not saying Guilliman himself coming back is bad, I mean all the Primarchs.
other then Gulliman no one else has COME back, thing is most of the talk about others coming back is fan driven because Ultramarines get their primarch, people who play other chapters want their primarch too. totally fair desire
I’m kind of with Delvarus on this, back in the day black library had carte Blanche on what they could write with a couple of notable exceptions, no primarchs and no advancing the timeline, that’s well and truelly gone now.
Now we have had the primarchs back and a timeline advance, it basically means that anything can happen, the absurd to the awesome and everything in between.
BrianDavion wrote: I don't have a problem with Gulliman being returned, in a sense he's us. He knows plenty about the Horus Heresy and knows what humanity has lost, he wants to see the sensiable thing done and rails when the Imperium is stuck in it's ways...
I'm not saying Guilliman himself coming back is bad, I mean all the Primarchs.
other then Gulliman no one else has COME back, thing is most of the talk about others coming back is fan driven because Ultramarines get their primarch, people who play other chapters want their primarch too. totally fair desire
Pretty sure GW said they'd be coming back, even if they didn't its pretty obvious, they are bringing back the daemon primarchs, plus they kinda hinted at it with Russ talking to Grimnar in warzone Fenris. If Guilliman was the only loyalist Primarch to come back, I would only believe that if Matt Ward was in charge lolGW have no reason not to bring the others back, it'll sell models and they've already started doing it anyways so there not worried about the lore.
BrianDavion wrote: I don't have a problem with Gulliman being returned, in a sense he's us. He knows plenty about the Horus Heresy and knows what humanity has lost, he wants to see the sensiable thing done and rails when the Imperium is stuck in it's ways...
I'm not saying Guilliman himself coming back is bad, I mean all the Primarchs.
other then Gulliman no one else has COME back, thing is most of the talk about others coming back is fan driven because Ultramarines get their primarch, people who play other chapters want their primarch too. totally fair desire
Pretty sure GW said they'd be coming back, even if they didn't its pretty obvious, they are bringing back the daemon primarchs, plus they kinda hinted at it with Russ talking to Grimnar in warzone Fenris. If Guilliman was the only loyalist Primarch to come back, I would only believe that if Matt Ward was in charge lolGW have no reason not to bring the others back, it'll sell models and they've already started doing it anyways so there not worried about the lore.
except if you only can bring back one primarch Gulliman makes sense because he's more then just a general.
Before 8th edition everyone wanted the story line moving forward. Now they want it leaving alone. Bringing back any of the primarchs isn’t changing any “lore”. It’s a new storyline in a time we haven’t been to before. It’s adding to the “lore”. And anyway the background changes all the time. In major ways. Just ask necrons fans. Roboute coming back hasn’t changed what happened in the past. He has always been in stasis and even healing about while in stasis. All the loyal primarchs have had a “could come back story” for a while. I for one would be happy to stick with 2nd edition fluff before blacklibrary made everyone take it too seriously.
[i use “lore” in “” as it is a silly term for the background to a huge open plan sandbox that is the 40k universe.]
BrianDavion wrote: I don't have a problem with Gulliman being returned, in a sense he's us. He knows plenty about the Horus Heresy and knows what humanity has lost, he wants to see the sensiable thing done and rails when the Imperium is stuck in it's ways...
I'm not saying Guilliman himself coming back is bad, I mean all the Primarchs.
other then Gulliman no one else has COME back, thing is most of the talk about others coming back is fan driven because Ultramarines get their primarch, people who play other chapters want their primarch too. totally fair desire
Pretty sure GW said they'd be coming back, even if they didn't its pretty obvious, they are bringing back the daemon primarchs, plus they kinda hinted at it with Russ talking to Grimnar in warzone Fenris. If Guilliman was the only loyalist Primarch to come back, I would only believe that if Matt Ward was in charge lolGW have no reason not to bring the others back, it'll sell models and they've already started doing it anyways so there not worried about the lore.
except if you only can bring back one primarch Gulliman makes sense because he's more then just a general.
Not really, any Primarch coming back would be better than none of them coming back and more interesting for the lore if they are just a general etc. Guilliman is too obvious, too perfect a chance for the Imperium in only him coming back. I just don't see GW only bringing back Guilliman, that makes no sense to me.
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
I doubt Russ has been turned just by being in the warp, the 13th survived in the warp for 10,000 years and they survived it due to the canis helix. The Lion isn't a heretic even though I like winding up DA's fans about him being one, He has done questionable things but there has been many books written from his perspective and he's obviously not a heretic. Would be really cool though if a loyalist did turn after all this time. If there was one it would have to be the Lion as they'd need an army which he would have the fallen, I doubt GW would make a whole loyalist army turn, maybe have would turn though and half would still be loyal, that would be cool. Should do a thread on who would people see turning traitor.
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
He eaither has flaws or he doesn't stop contridicting yourself.
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
He eaither has flaws or he doesn't stop contridicting yourself.
I mean flaws to his 'character', plus I said he has no interesting flaws, the only flaw he's ever shown is in being too rigid and dogmatic. I mean even Ultramarines players have to admit that, regardless of whether they like him or not.
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
He eaither has flaws or he doesn't stop contridicting yourself.
I mean flaws as a 'character', plus I said he has no interesting flaws, the only flaw he's ever shown is in being too rigid and dogmatic.
Nah Dorn is the rigid and dogmatic one, Gulliman's biggest flaw is he tends to plan things out too much which makes him potentially predictable.
A flaw doesn't need to be a rediculas idiotic level one, some of the Primarchs suffer from a pretty bad case of flanderization. The primarchs who escaped that are not weak
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
He eaither has flaws or he doesn't stop contridicting yourself.
I mean flaws as a 'character', plus I said he has no interesting flaws, the only flaw he's ever shown is in being too rigid and dogmatic.
Nah Dorn is the rigid and dogmatic one, Gulliman's biggest flaw is he tends to plan things out too much which makes him potentially predictable.
A flaw doesn't need to be a rediculas idiotic level one, some of the Primarchs suffer from a pretty bad case of flanderization. The primarchs who escaped that are not weak
Dorn was rigid, but as in rigid and dogmatic I am talking about his envisioning of the codex. That is the only failing he had and was the only interesting thing about him. The only other time I can think of is when he ran away from Angron on his hands and knees, but I mean he was fighting Angron so who wouldn't do that lol
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
He eaither has flaws or he doesn't stop contridicting yourself.
I mean flaws as a 'character', plus I said he has no interesting flaws, the only flaw he's ever shown is in being too rigid and dogmatic.
Nah Dorn is the rigid and dogmatic one, Gulliman's biggest flaw is he tends to plan things out too much which makes him potentially predictable.
A flaw doesn't need to be a rediculas idiotic level one, some of the Primarchs suffer from a pretty bad case of flanderization. The primarchs who escaped that are not weak
Dorn was rigid, but as in rigid and dogmatic I am talking about his envisioning of the codex. That is the only failing he had and was the only interesting thing about him.
What failing is that? you mean when the people who followed him centuries after he was interred in statis became dogmatic about it?
the man's got plenty of faults they're just not (like the vast majoriuty of real peoples faults) blindingly crippling
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
eh I dunno, questionable characters could be dull in their own way, Gulliman is actually kinda intreasting from a "..... what the hell have you done to the IoM?" sort of way
I think Guilliman is boring as hell, so predictable plus he's always been a boring character compared to the other Primarchs. He's the only one without having any interesting character flaws, Vulken would win second place even though I really like Vulken.
He eaither has flaws or he doesn't stop contridicting yourself.
I mean flaws as a 'character', plus I said he has no interesting flaws, the only flaw he's ever shown is in being too rigid and dogmatic.
Nah Dorn is the rigid and dogmatic one, Gulliman's biggest flaw is he tends to plan things out too much which makes him potentially predictable.
A flaw doesn't need to be a rediculas idiotic level one, some of the Primarchs suffer from a pretty bad case of flanderization. The primarchs who escaped that are not weak
Dorn was rigid, but as in rigid and dogmatic I am talking about his envisioning of the codex. That is the only failing he had and was the only interesting thing about him.
What failing is that? you mean when the people who followed him centuries after he was interred in statis became dogmatic about it?
the man's got plenty of faults they're just not (like the vast majoriuty of real peoples faults) blindingly crippling
The codex failed, he originally thought it would be a be it and end all, designed to beat any tactical situation, he thought he could write a perfect book in what would win every war. He even admitted he failed. I'm not a Ultramarines hater, I think 30k they are pretty cool and I would probably end up collecting them at some point but the lore on them is terrible, they need to have some flaw or show that their 'perfectness' is a flaw rather than just being the poster boys. Matt Ward is really to blame and I'm not saying that just to bag on him for no reason. He did it with GK's and I collect them, they are also too perfect without any real flaws.
*sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
yes I read that story, except my take away was Gulliman tried an idea, it failed and he didn't keep doing it
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
yes I read that story, except my take away was Gulliman tried an idea, it failed and he didn't keep doing it
Yea and the idea was to codify all possible outcomes for war, its explicitly said, there is no take away from it.
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
yes I read that story, except my take away was Gulliman tried an idea, it failed and he didn't keep doing it
Yea and the idea was to codify all possible outcomes for war, its explicitly said, there is no take away from it.
Yes except he realized that it didn't work, my point is that clearly this wasn't all of the codex, the bulk of the codex is orginizational. logistics.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline.
This is literally the opposite of "rigid and dogmatic".
Guilliman's 'flaws' are that he overthinks things and doubts himself more than he should (can't remember which book this is stated in - one of the early HH ones anyway); that he cares too much for appearances and 'honour' because deep down he's in denial about his own ambition (see The Unremembered Empire, his interactions with Euten and the Lion especially); and that he's too optimistic, idealistic, humanitarian and trusting for his own good (e.g. the Iax disaster in Dark Imperium and the attempted assassination in TUE).
The great thing about Guilliman as a character is that these are also some of his best qualities. He's not just a man out of his time (like a 21st century liberal transplanted to Mediaeval Europe), but also almost a hero from a different setting altogether. It's like if Golden Age Superman turned up in Alan Moore's Watchmen. The conflict between how he wants the world to work (where everyone cooperates for the greater good - and I use that term very deliberately) and how it actually works (too many selfish donkey-caves and a universe sliding inexorably into entropy) is delicious.
He's by far my favourite loyalist primarch, and I so want to see if he ends up cracking like my favourite 'traitor' primarch (Curze) did when his ideal (justice) turned sour...
I personally despise all of the new lore. Bringing the primarchs back takes away from the uniqueness of the horus heresy era. Humanity in 40k is supposed to be stagnant. There is just a lot of bad lore and writing surrounding Cawl and the primaris that is even more questionable than Guilliman returning. The state of the lore around when dawn of war 1 came out and before necrons were turned into space tomb kings was the best IMO.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline.
This is literally the opposite of "rigid and dogmatic".
Guilliman's 'flaws' are that he overthinks things and doubts himself more than he should (can't remember which book this is stated in - one of the early HH ones anyway); that he cares too much for appearances and 'honour' because deep down he's in denial about his own ambition (see The Unremembered Empire, his interactions with Euten and the Lion especially); and that he's too optimistic, idealistic, humanitarian and trusting for his own good (e.g. the Iax disaster in Dark Imperium and the attempted assassination in TUE).
The great thing about Guilliman as a character is that these are also some of his best qualities. He's not just a man out of his time (like a 21st century liberal transplanted to Mediaeval Europe), but also almost a hero from a different setting altogether. It's like if Golden Age Superman turned up in Alan Moore's Watchmen. The conflict between how he wants the world to work (where everyone cooperates for the greater good - and I use that term very deliberately) and how it actually works (too many selfish donkey-caves and a universe sliding inexorably into entropy) is delicious.
He's by far my favourite loyalist primarch, and I so want to see if he ends up cracking like my favourite 'traitor' primarch (Curze) did when his ideal (justice) turned sour...
I'm glad someone else sees it. Gulliman isn't the most boring primarch, he's the one with the most depth. He's something other then a rediculas over the top character with the blindly obvious crippling weakness,
On the subject of Guilliman's flaws also being his best qualities, I should also have mentioned that his self-doubt and regard for appearances/honour are what prevent him from becoming another Horus.
Horus embraced his manifest superiority and all-consuming ambition. "Ruling humanity in order to save it" decayed pretty quickly into just plain "A God Am I" megalomania. Guilliman won't go that route because he desperately needs to pretend to himself that he really is saving humanity, that it's not just a cloak for arrogance and ambition.
That's pretty much the most 40K thing ever, though, isn't it? That humanity's new saviour can only remain thus by wilful self-deception. That being honest with himself would probably cause him to fall.
I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.
Despite being a filthy xeno only player, I also LOVE the fact that the Primarchs are returning. It's just so epic. These legends from 10,000 years ago are coming back into the foray..... too cool. For some reason I actually preferred the return of Girlyman to Magnus or Morty because he represented (for me at least) a complete shift in mindset of the Imperium.
I'm ready for another Loyalist Primarch now. Their return needs to have the same epic build up as the return of Girlyman though.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.
Despite being a filthy xeno only player, I also LOVE the fact that the Primarchs are returning. It's just so epic. These legends from 10,000 years ago are coming back into the foray..... too cool. For some reason I actually preferred the return of Girlyman to Magnus or Morty because he represented (for me at least) a complete shift in mindset of the Imperium.
I'm ready for another Loyalist Primarch now. Their return needs to have the same epic build up as the return of Girlyman though.
I suspect that will be the case, despite the fact that people would love to crack open codex space wolves and just see russ, I think they're going to have primarchs return for the IoM at least, be big events. (with chaos well.. they where always there)
For myself I wish they hadn't brought back Guilliman. I think it would have been better to bring back say Jaghatai Khan or even El'Johnsson.
Ultramarines have always been the darling of Games Workshop and now Guilliman makes them completely overpowered. And since his abilities only work with Ultramarine chapters you can't take say a force of Salamanders and Guillman with the same effect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the Chaos Primarchs returning........yes I like it. I like the idea that you have Magnus, Mortarion, Perturabo, Angron, Lorgar and Fulgrim at the head of chaos armies.
It means Chaos players finally can have the feeling that they overpower the Imperial players. It's always been Chaos armies are "worse" than Imperium armies.
Case in point: Land Raiders. Razorbacks. Plasma weaponry. Apothecaries.
I hope with the return of Guilliman and Others we see a shift in the Imperium as a whole. Ultimately, I want there to be a conflict internal to the Imperium that doesn't involve Chaos, another Civil War.
On one side, Guilliman hoping to turn Mankind back towards the Emperor's original designs of logic and truth, like we saw before the Heresy.
And on the other, the Inquisition and the other fanatics who want Humanity this bloated mess of bureaucracy so they can remain in charge.
You could even have it be Primarch v Primarch, with one of the other Loyalist Primarchs returning and agreeing with the way Mankind has gone, like the Lion. As Dad of the legion that has its own internal Inquisition style secret organisation, who work hard to keep the truth hidden and are fiercely fanatical to their beliefs. The Dark Angels work rather closely with the Ordos, and probably prefer the Imperium the way it is now.
Split the other various factions down the midle so nobody's favourite armies turn 'Evil", and bam, story progress that also helps work out the Fanatic nature of the Imperium
Andykp wrote: They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.
I doubt Russ has been turned just by being in the warp, the 13th survived in the warp for 10,000 years and they survived it due to the canis helix. The Lion isn't a heretic even though I like winding up DA's fans about him being one, He has done questionable things but there has been many books written from his perspective and he's obviously not a heretic. Would be really cool though if a loyalist did turn after all this time. If there was one it would have to be the Lion as they'd need an army which he would have the fallen, I doubt GW would make a whole loyalist army turn, maybe have would turn though and half would still be loyal, that would be cool. Should do a thread on who would people see turning traitor.
I dint think he will have been turned to chaos but he will probably not be his old self. The wolfen don’t exactly blend in. I think more the ones like Russ and lion would kick off with guiliman and jar with him. Dorn and vulken are dull as. At least guiliman has the whole 2nd empire thing going on and is he really trying take over (for good reasons in his head). Him coming back into 40k was interesting because of how he would see what they’ve done. Lion and wolf coming back would be the same but also clash with guiliman.
On turning a loyalist they wouldn’t have to go that far. They could just have a civil war because one primarch wants to return the imperium to more what it was supposed to be. Wipe out the imperial cult kind of thing. So you could have guiliman and an all new plastic sisters fighting a war against el’johnson and a load of die yards with maybe cypher and some fallen to make it even more annoying to DA fans
One of the reasons I lost interest in my dark angels army was that they answered too many questions about them in the novels. Took away the mystery. In second edition they were spot on. Some dark angels players get really angry when you suggest they were traitor. But I liked that bit of fluff. Gave them an edgyness.
I agree. Almost all of the lore they've added has been a less than good to me. I think GW doing campaigns is a good thing but they should be set in the past in M38 or something where they can do whatever plot wise but they can't ruin stuff in the setting.
If you don't like it, or want to play games before that, or campaigns etc etc - set it in the 10,000 years between the Heresy and the Fall of Cadia. Plenty of room.
If you don't like it, or want to play games before that, or campaigns etc etc - set it in the 10,000 years between the Heresy and the Fall of Cadia. Plenty of room.
Exactly, it’s your game. I ignore most fluff I don’t like.
A lot of people equate setting with story, as if stories could not be told without changing the setting itself, or bringing back the Primarchs.
Primarchs, the bloody Primarchs, as if everything in this universe has to circle around them, around their endless meandering personal drama that ultimately goes nowhere. As it will, since their the closest thing warhammer has for superheroes, and those are hot right now, and every important thing happening in superhero universes involves them..
As if stories couldn't be told about rise and fall of empires, of classical heroes, destined to greatness destroyed by their own hubris. Stories about great wars sweeping across the stars, like Gaunts Ghosts that didn't need contrivances, like the galaxy breaking in two.
Making meager little humans be capable of creating such damage as breaking the effin' galaxy(400 BILLION STARS!) apart makes the universe look so pathetically small. Things like that don't make the characters seem powerful, they makes the world seem small and frail.
Hardly fosters a feeling of space being a great vast mysterious unknown, filled with beuty and horror, let alone of existential horror of our own fleeting insignificanse.
No, "moving the story forward" ain't good if all it does is answers to question that didn't need them and makes the world revolve around, and always involve, a few superheroes. A World that is just the minis and nothing more.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: A lot of people equate setting with story, as if stories could not be told without changing the setting itself, or bringing back the Primarchs.
The story absolutely could be, but at the same time, there's nothing wrong with changing the future of the setting. All they've done is move the clock to after the Fall of Cadia. Previously to this, the 13th Black Crusade was the furthest point the setting had gone. Nothing was wrong with moving past that. If anything, by having a nebulous "current", your forces are more free. If you were playing a "current" game with your Salamanders in the timeline about two years ago, they'd probably be in Armageddon.
Now, yes, you could set your game before then - in M40, say, but you still can now.
Don't like the "current" setting? Play your scenarios in M40, or M39.
Primarchs, the bloody Primarchs, as if everything in this universe has to circle around them, around their endless meandering personal drama that ultimately goes nowhere. As it will, since their the closest thing warhammer has for superheroes, and those are hot right now, and every important thing happening in superhero universes involves them..
Having figureheads and personalities seems to be working very well for a lot of genres right now, superhero universes being one of them. You'd be foolish to think that character based events weren't popular to an ever-growing audience.
Realistically, the problem you have isn't with Primarchs. It's with any figurehead. Creed, Imotekh, Calgar, Farsight - they're fundamentally not different from Primarchs narratively. And seeing as character-driven stories are becoming far more popular, and the Primarchs being characters with lots of narrative potential, the history and relationships to other characters, and other story hooks, it's hard not to see why they're being pushed further into the limelight.
As if stories couldn't be told about rise and fall of empires, of classical heroes, destined to greatness destroyed by their own hubris. Stories about great wars sweeping across the stars, like Gaunts Ghosts that didn't need contrivances, like the galaxy breaking in two.
That's got nothing to do with the Primarchs. The galaxy breaking in two is a seperate event. Guilliman could have come into the setting again without that.
The Primarchs have already HAD those rise and falls of empires and classical heroes - and now we get to see what reaction those ancient heroes have in a setting which has twisted them, perverted beyond what they remember, and how they deal with that.
Gaunt's Ghosts, whilst brilliant, only supports my argument. It's CHARACTER driven. The fact that Guilliman is a demi-god and Caffran is a regular trooper is irrelevant, as the story will change it's stakes to suit the character. Stories written about scrub tier characters aren't always good, and stories about demi-gods can be very well done. What matters is the stakes of it, and the emotional investment of the reader in that.
Making meager little humans be capable of creating such damage as breaking the effin' galaxy(400 BILLION STARS!) apart makes the universe look so pathetically small. Things like that don't make the characters seem powerful, they makes the world seem small and frail.
When those "meagre little humans" are the vessels of ancient, impossibly powerful gods that feed on your emotions, and actually work, put in effort and achieve their goals, then I would think it was bad if they couldn't affect the setting.
This rises the stakes. It CHANGES dynamics. You might think it weakens the scale of the world. I think that it enhances the characters, the stakes, and actually gives us an idea of what could happen later. Of course, YMMV.
Hardly fosters a feeling of space being a great vast mysterious unknown, filled with beuty and horror, let alone of existential horror of our own fleeting insignificanse.
But it does foster an "Oh god, the Chaos Gods are THAT powerful?!".
The universe is still big. You can still explore it, because it's so big that even if it was reduced to JUST the Segmentum Solar, there would be enough worlds to do absolutely anything you wanted.
No, "moving the story forward" ain't good if all it does is answers to question that didn't need them and makes the world revolve around, and always involve, a few superheroes. A World that is just the minis and nothing more.
Moving the story is good for enhancing character driven relationships, which the setting and the world of media in general is moving closer to.
Good points, but mine still stands and soon 40k will be an endless charade where a small cast of charactes are the be-all and end-all of everything. Slowly becoming a merry-go-round where the same characters do the same thing again and again. One where the stakes keep rising till everything stops being meaningful.
"Will Rowboat and gang be able to stop Angryman before he punches the reality apart and reboots the entire universe (again)!! In the next exciting episode of Warhammer 40k! Same GW channel, Same GW time!"
I know, it's preference and some like 40k a ongoing story, and for others it is a place to tell stories in. I belong firmly to the latter and rather see the characters like historical figures and big events as distant rumors or half remembered legends. Further more, I believe that having 40k become more direct wastes one of its nicer hooks, the meta unreliable narrator aspect of 40k, allowing everyone to make it what they want, and most importantly, THE thing of 40k is...
40K is about your own group of soldiers. Your dudes(or dudettes) Not about GeeDubs dudes. YOUR DUDES, punctus The fluff is supposed to be background material. It exists to provide context for your own stories. Case and point, Tycho, who was just a generic captain in a White Dwarf battrep, and through cool emergent storytelling he's now in a codex with a mini.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Moving the story is good for enhancing character driven relationships, which the setting and the world of media in general is moving closer to.
But I don't want to have to suffer through official character's "character driven relationships", I just want a cool setting to create the stories of MY characters and my friends' characters and we'll handle the relationship part.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Moving the story is good for enhancing character driven relationships, which the setting and the world of media in general is moving closer to.
But I don't want to have to suffer through official character's "character driven relationships", I just want a cool setting to create the stories of MY characters and my friends' characters and we'll handle the relationship part.
You have a cool setting. There's 10,000 years between Heresy and the Fall of Cadia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: Good points, but mine still stands and soon 40k will be an endless charade where a small cast of charactes are the be-all and end-all of everything. Slowly becoming a merry-go-round where the same characters do the same thing again and again. One where the stakes keep rising till everything stops being meaningful.
"Will Rowboat and gang be able to stop Angryman before he punches the reality apart and reboots the entire universe (again)!! In the next exciting episode of Warhammer 40k! Same GW channel, Same GW time!"
I know, it's preference and some like 40k a ongoing story, and for others it is a place to tell stories in. I belong firmly to the latter and rather see the characters like historical figures and big events as distant rumors or half remembered legends. Further more, I believe that having 40k become more direct wastes one of its nicer hooks, the meta unreliable narrator aspect of 40k, allowing everyone to make it what they want, and most importantly, THE thing of 40k is...
40K is about your own group of soldiers. Your dudes(or dudettes) Not about GeeDubs dudes. YOUR DUDES, punctus The fluff is supposed to be background material. It exists to provide context for your own stories. Case and point, Tycho, who was just a generic captain in a White Dwarf battrep, and through cool emergent storytelling he's now in a codex with a mini.
There's still a whole universe out there. What Guilliman does doesn't affect Captain Genericus of the Marines Obscure out there in the middle of the Segmentum Pacificus.
Sure, the story might change, and some big events might occur, but there will always be room for you to do things. If you will, think of your guys as the characters in something like Marvel's Agents of Shield, and people like Abaddon, Guilliman, Calgar, Creed, etc etc as the Avengers. They might do things that affect the world around you, but you still can have your own stories.
Plus, I don't know why Primarchs is the line crossed here. 40k was being dominated by named characters from at least 5th, with Calgars, Abaddons, Tigurius', Draigos, etc etc. It doesn't fundamentally matter if the character is slightly bigger.
As for a repetitive storyline, old 40k was worse with that than the current one is. For a start, the setting constantly edging closer to 999.M41 was infuriating, and having to essentially reduce the timeframe down to the month level (443.998.M41 for example) was getting old quickly. Hardly anything important actually happened. Now? We have factions actually able to make gains, losses, and do more.
40k can still be about your guys. Just because other people are doing things doesn't mean you can't too.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: Good points, but mine still stands and soon 40k will be an endless charade where a small cast of charactes are the be-all and end-all of everything. Slowly becoming a merry-go-round where the same characters do the same thing again and again. One where the stakes keep rising till everything stops being meaningful.
"Will Rowboat and gang be able to stop Angryman before he punches the reality apart and reboots the entire universe (again)!! In the next exciting episode of Warhammer 40k! Same GW channel, Same GW time!"
I know, it's preference and some like 40k a ongoing story, and for others it is a place to tell stories in. I belong firmly to the latter and rather see the characters like historical figures and big events as distant rumors or half remembered legends. Further more, I believe that having 40k become more direct wastes one of its nicer hooks, the meta unreliable narrator aspect of 40k, allowing everyone to make it what they want, and most importantly, THE thing of 40k is...
40K is about your own group of soldiers. Your dudes(or dudettes) Not about GeeDubs dudes. YOUR DUDES, punctus The fluff is supposed to be background material. It exists to provide context for your own stories. Case and point, Tycho, who was just a generic captain in a White Dwarf battrep, and through cool emergent storytelling he's now in a codex with a mini.
What annoys me is that they could have advanced the setting without the Primarchs or Primaris etc. They could have done a civil war with Imperium, a massive WAAAGH!,Even the Tau learning how to travel the warp etc. But now that they'd change it the way they have I'll just make the best of it, at least we'll never forget the old days, they'll become cherished memories like the funkyness of 2nd edition.
Guilliman's 'flaws' are that he overthinks things and doubts himself more than he should (can't remember which book this is stated in - one of the early HH ones anyway); that he cares too much for appearances and 'honour' because deep down he's in denial about his own ambition (see The Unremembered Empire, his interactions with Euten and the Lion especially); and that he's too optimistic, idealistic, humanitarian and trusting for his own good (e.g. the Iax disaster in Dark Imperium and the attempted assassination in TUE).
The great thing about Guilliman as a character is that these are also some of his best qualities. He's not just a man out of his time (like a 21st century liberal transplanted to Mediaeval Europe), but also almost a hero from a different setting altogether. It's like if Golden Age Superman turned up in Alan Moore's Watchmen. The conflict between how he wants the world to work (where everyone cooperates for the greater good - and I use that term very deliberately) and how it actually works (too many selfish donkey-caves and a universe sliding inexorably into entropy) is delicious.
He's by far my favourite loyalist primarch, and I so want to see if he ends up cracking like my favourite 'traitor' primarch (Curze) did when his ideal (justice) turned sour...
Not going to lie, that sounds really Mary Sue like. If someone's only flaws are "Too nice", "too optimistic" and "Greater than he believes himself to be" it sounds absolutely terrible. Someone's flaws shouldn't be someone's best qualities, because those aren't really flaws.. There's a reason Superman wasn't in Watchmen, and it's because he'd ruin it. That's a character that would ruin the tone of the entire setting if he was brought over. Unless we're going to see Guilliman cracking some time soon, he's just a brutal, terrible character that as we both agree, doesn't fit in this setting.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You have a cool setting. There's 10,000 years between Heresy and the Fall of Cadia.
Yeah, and I could before the lore advancement, except the new fluff wasn't about something that destroy some of the core themes of the settings, those that sets it apart and made it interesting.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What Guilliman does doesn't affect Captain Genericus of the Marines Obscure out there in the middle of the Segmentum Pacificus.
A giant open scar in the middle of the galaxy sure affects a lot of Captain Genericus. Same for Primaris.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 40k was being dominated by named characters from at least 5th, with Calgars, Abaddons, Tigurius', Draigos, etc etc. It doesn't fundamentally matter if the character is slightly bigger.
It was bad and it got worse!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For a start, the setting constantly edging closer to 999.M41 was infuriating, and having to essentially reduce the timeframe down to the month level (443.998.M41 for example) was getting old quickly. Hardly anything important actually happened.
The setting wasn't edging closer, it was staying at the same place, as a setting should.
If all the new fluff isn't some extra information on what you already had, that you can integrate in your character stories, but is instead some new stuff that is happening after some of your character died because they were just normal humans and the timeline was advanced 200 years in the future, it's not good.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.
A period of time longer than recorded human history so far on a galactic scale involving numerous races with untold trillions to have their stories told is "stagnant"?
M'kayyy.....
40k has only been a "story" since mid to late 7th ed. up until then it was a setting. A setting to make your own stories in with enough scope to keep you going for a lifetime.
Lots of really important things were happening in the setting all the time, the setting was just so big that the end result was stalemate, and the setting didn't change.... which was perfect.
I have been dealing with fluff changes for over 20 years so I am pretty much past losing sleep over it. I remember feeling annoyed the first time I came across a major retcon (the 3rd Ed rulebook stating that whole Starchild thing from Ian Watson's Inquisitor trilogy was just a Tzeentch plot).
These days I accept that fluff changes and grows. In many ways I think it is better than the stasis that set in after the original EoT campaign. I do feel that the introduction of the Primaris was a bit rushed though.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.
A period of time longer than recorded human history so far on a galactic scale involving numerous races with untold trillions to have their stories told is "stagnant"?
M'kayyy.....
40k has only been a "story" since mid to late 7th ed. up until then it was a setting. A setting to make your own stories in with enough scope to keep you going for a lifetime.
40k is both a collection of stories as well as a setting and has been since I've been playing (2nd Ed). And yes, the lore (aka the stories) has been stagnant for ages up until 8th Ed. Very few of these "untold trillions" ever actually told their story. We had the same old stories repeated again and again and again and again ad infinitum.
Here's how the previous "lore" was for me (best imagined in a movie announcers voice); 'Abaddon's causing trouble again, with his 100135735th Black Crusade and this time, he's serious! Better watch out Imperium!! Oh look here come the Goodmarines to save the day, but will they get there in time?!?! Join us as absolutely nothing happens and, you've guessed it, the story reverts back to exactly the same place it was before this event!! While Abaddon learns that Crusading, isn't all it's cracked up to be! Coming to a GW store near you - "100135735th Black Crusade", this time, it's personal!'
There's nothing stopping you making up your own stories in the new setting. The primary differences are; no Cadia, the Cicatrix Maledictum and a few Primarchs have returned.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You have a cool setting. There's 10,000 years between Heresy and the Fall of Cadia.
Yeah, and I could before the lore advancement, except the new fluff wasn't about something that destroy some of the core themes of the settings, those that sets it apart and made it interesting.
I'd say it still is, but that's just my opinion.
Regardless, nothing's been retconned about what used to be. You can have your core themes taking place in M36 as well as M41.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What Guilliman does doesn't affect Captain Genericus of the Marines Obscure out there in the middle of the Segmentum Pacificus.
A giant open scar in the middle of the galaxy sure affects a lot of Captain Genericus. Same for Primaris.
Captain Genericus is part of that 2% of Chapters which refused Primaris, or maybe his Chapter hasn't been found and reinforced yet, or maybe his company/taskforce is composed of non-Primaris brethren.
What's to say his Chapter's homeworld and operating zone isn't nice and far away in the galactic southwest, or maybe, this hasn't even happened yet because it's 999.M41.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 40k was being dominated by named characters from at least 5th, with Calgars, Abaddons, Tigurius', Draigos, etc etc. It doesn't fundamentally matter if the character is slightly bigger.
It was bad and it got worse!
In your opinion.
I don't have an issue with character driven stories. I don't have an issue with characters in the setting. I have an issue with bad characters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: For a start, the setting constantly edging closer to 999.M41 was infuriating, and having to essentially reduce the timeframe down to the month level (443.998.M41 for example) was getting old quickly. Hardly anything important actually happened.
The setting wasn't edging closer, it was staying at the same place, as a setting should.
But was 40k completely a setting? Because it felt a LOT like a story which had stagnated to the point of being a setting.
Don't forget they're not mutually exclusive.
ASOIAF is both a setting and a story. The story is of the Starks, the Lannisters, the Targaryens, and all the other disparate houses. But it's a setting at the same time, because House Genericus is still there, and they get to carve out their own story in the wider one around them. Don't want to have it take place during the War of Five Kings? Then set it before.
40k still exists as a setting. A setting which spans the Heresy, all 10,000 years between it and the Fall of Cadia, and even the Indomitus Crusade after that. If you don't like one of the stories that happens during that setting, you have plenty of room in the setting to do it.
As long as nothing about the setting as a whole was retconned, you've lost nothing.
If all the new fluff isn't some extra information on what you already had, that you can integrate in your character stories, but is instead some new stuff that is happening after some of your character died because they were just normal humans and the timeline was advanced 200 years in the future, it's not good.
But you said you didn't care about the story. You see it as a setting. If so, then the setting you already had hasn't changed. M41 is still M41. M36 is still M36.
Death is no excuse for characters not to show up. There's the Warp, rejuvenant treatments, and frankly just the universe GW has set up (wherein the short lived Tau are now living to at least 100 years).
If you don't like the way the story moved on, then that's a complaint I can understand. But complaining that it moved on and you didn't want it to, when it really doesn't affect what you could already do in your own stories, is something which I don't understand. I'm not saying you're wrong to have that view. I'm just saying I don't understand it myself. But then, you do you, and that's cool.
Insectum7 wrote: Lots of really important things were happening in the setting all the time, the setting was just so big that the end result was stalemate, and the setting didn't change.... which was perfect.
Guilliman's 'flaws' are that he overthinks things and doubts himself more than he should (can't remember which book this is stated in - one of the early HH ones anyway); that he cares too much for appearances and 'honour' because deep down he's in denial about his own ambition (see The Unremembered Empire, his interactions with Euten and the Lion especially); and that he's too optimistic, idealistic, humanitarian and trusting for his own good (e.g. the Iax disaster in Dark Imperium and the attempted assassination in TUE).
The great thing about Guilliman as a character is that these are also some of his best qualities. He's not just a man out of his time (like a 21st century liberal transplanted to Mediaeval Europe), but also almost a hero from a different setting altogether. It's like if Golden Age Superman turned up in Alan Moore's Watchmen. The conflict between how he wants the world to work (where everyone cooperates for the greater good - and I use that term very deliberately) and how it actually works (too many selfish donkey-caves and a universe sliding inexorably into entropy) is delicious.
He's by far my favourite loyalist primarch, and I so want to see if he ends up cracking like my favourite 'traitor' primarch (Curze) did when his ideal (justice) turned sour...
Not going to lie, that sounds really Mary Sue like. If someone's only flaws are "Too nice", "too optimistic" and "Greater than he believes himself to be" it sounds absolutely terrible. Someone's flaws shouldn't be someone's best qualities, because those aren't really flaws.. There's a reason Superman wasn't in Watchmen, and it's because he'd ruin it. That's a character that would ruin the tone of the entire setting if he was brought over. Unless we're going to see Guilliman cracking some time soon, he's just a brutal, terrible character that as we both agree, doesn't fit in this setting.
It's only Mary Sue, in my opinion, if it doesn't negatively affect the character. As we see with Guilliman, it really does affect him. His plans for the Imperium Secundus lead to the bombings of Macragge, and a strained relationship with the Lion. It also leads to his own near death at the hands of Fulgrim and the Alpha Legion death squad sent for him. He ends up losing Iax due to his humanitarianism, putting a strain on the morale and resources of his own homeland.
Someone's greatest assets can always be their flaw. It's only if it's written well enough. But as always, if something is written badly, then it will be bad, regardless of the intent.
We already also see Guilliman's resolve crack and him have to make sacrifices that really do tear him up inside (ceding power and influence to the Ecclesiarchy, for the sake of unity).
I absolutely think Guilliman doesn't belong in the setting - and THAT'S why he's a character who should be in it. Because he ISN'T from the setting, and in doing so, amplifies it.
Karhedron wrote: I have been dealing with fluff changes for over 20 years so I am pretty much past losing sleep over it. I remember feeling annoyed the first time I came across a major retcon (the 3rd Ed rulebook stating that whole Starchild thing from Ian Watson's Inquisitor trilogy was just a Tzeentch plot).
These days I accept that fluff changes and grows. In many ways I think it is better than the stasis that set in after the original EoT campaign. I do feel that the introduction of the Primaris was a bit rushed though.
Yeah it annoyed me when necrons and tau came into the galaxy, still never see them as a proper 40k army. I accept it changing, its not a massive deal, I just wish they kept some things sacred (which they have up until now), like if they bring back Sanguinius I'll vomit.
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
You mean exactly what the Tactica Imperium is? Same thing as the codex but for the guard. From Lexicanums page on the tactica: "The Tactica is not meant to be taken too literally though. In war, circumstances change too quickly to refer every decision to a book. Its virtue is that it provides reference for new officers and there is always a chance that guidance can be found on a critical issue." Want to know the big difference? "The collection of books comprising the Tactica is therefore constantly being updated, often at a different place, as the sheer size of the Imperium precludes any true standardization".
Anyway, on topic. I'm not a fan of bringing the setting forward. I do like it that Big G returned and that he's formed his own sub empire. I don't like it that he's trying to break the fanaticism and insane Emperor worship that's the staple of the Imperium. I also don't like how the Inquisition appears to be increasingly neglected in both the board game and the lore. I've never really cared much for the HH and always considered the primarchs a somewhat silly concepts. There should at the very least be primarch equivalents among the Eldar and Necrons (You know, that used to have literal gods on the tabletop). I have a hard time believeing that a primarch would be above an Avatar or an demon prince (of say Tzeentch) in terms of planning and physical power. They're basicly comic book super heroes in 40k. I did however very much like the idea that 10.000 years had exagerated what they where really like. That they where more inspirational then functional. Most of the early HH books where written from the percpective of space marines and/or humans who thought they where awesome so it was very open to interpretation. Now they're pretty much confirmed super heroes with quirky personalities.
Ah, didn't intend for this to become a primarch rant. In any case I actually do look forward to what will happen when the rest of them gets introduced (contradictory but be happy about what you get I guess). I hope they go the route of the Lion being traitor and Luther being loyalist, as well as making Russ a demon monster or something. Maybe even have one of the traitor primarchs go full pacifist, deciding that the constant wars is meaningless and be stripped of his demon powers. stuff like that. If you're going to change the setting from the ground up then at the very least change the primarchs. The setting hasn't been standing still in 10.000years (I'd love to debate this in a diffrent thread). Why should the primarchs have?
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
You mean exactly what the Tactica Imperium is? Same thing as the codex but for the guard. From Lexicanums page on the tactica: "The Tactica is not meant to be taken too literally though. In war, circumstances change too quickly to refer every decision to a book. Its virtue is that it provides reference for new officers and there is always a chance that guidance can be found on a critical issue." Want to know the big difference? "The collection of books comprising the Tactica is therefore constantly being updated, often at a different place, as the sheer size of the Imperium precludes any true standardization".
Anyway, on topic. I'm not a fan of bringing the setting forward. I do like it that Big G returned and that he's formed his own sub empire. I don't like it that he's trying to break the fanaticism and insane Emperor worship that's the staple of the Imperium. I also don't like how the Inquisition appears to be increasingly neglected in both the board game and the lore. I've never really cared much for the HH and always considered the primarchs a somewhat silly concepts. There should at the very least be primarch equivalents among the Eldar and Necrons (You know, that used to have literal gods on the tabletop). I have a hard time believeing that a primarch would be above an Avatar or an demon prince (of say Tzeentch) in terms of planning and physical power. They're basicly comic book super heroes in 40k. I did however very much like the idea that 10.000 years had exagerated what they where really like. That they where more inspirational then functional. Most of the early HH books where written from the percpective of space marines and/or humans who thought they where awesome so it was very open to interpretation. Now they're pretty much confirmed super heroes with quirky personalities.
Ah, didn't intend for this to become a primarch rant. In any case I actually do look forward to what will happen when the rest of them gets introduced (contradictory but be happy about what you get I guess). I hope they go the route of the Lion being traitor and Luther being loyalist, as well as making Russ a demon monster or something. Maybe even have one of the traitor primarchs go full pacifist, deciding that the constant wars is meaningless and be stripped of his demon powers. stuff like that. If you're going to change the setting from the ground up then at the very least change the primarchs. The setting hasn't been standing still in 10.000years (I'd love to debate this in a diffrent thread). Why should the primarchs have?
No one is talking about the Tactica...
There shouldn't be an Eldar or necron equivilant, they are two vastly different species and armies, that's just wishful thinking. Eldar already have two avatars and the necrons have shards and a transcendental, its completely ridiculous to give them a Primarch equivalent, we have a rich game because the armies are so different, I don't want them all to have the same stuff but just with different paint. do you also believe that there should be an Imperial version of a phoenix lord?, a Primarch can be as powerful as an avatar, they are pretty much demi-gods and the avatar is just that and 'avatar' he isn't Kaela Mensha Khaine and the lore shows that the Primarchs are just as powerful what is their to 'believe'. The Emperor could fart on the avatar to kill it, not surprising that his sons could. Your logic is just, I want my stuff to be the most awesome.
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
You mean exactly what the Tactica Imperium is? Same thing as the codex but for the guard. From Lexicanums page on the tactica: "The Tactica is not meant to be taken too literally though. In war, circumstances change too quickly to refer every decision to a book. Its virtue is that it provides reference for new officers and there is always a chance that guidance can be found on a critical issue." Want to know the big difference? "The collection of books comprising the Tactica is therefore constantly being updated, often at a different place, as the sheer size of the Imperium precludes any true standardization".
Anyway, on topic. I'm not a fan of bringing the setting forward. I do like it that Big G returned and that he's formed his own sub empire. I don't like it that he's trying to break the fanaticism and insane Emperor worship that's the staple of the Imperium. I also don't like how the Inquisition appears to be increasingly neglected in both the board game and the lore. I've never really cared much for the HH and always considered the primarchs a somewhat silly concepts. There should at the very least be primarch equivalents among the Eldar and Necrons (You know, that used to have literal gods on the tabletop). I have a hard time believeing that a primarch would be above an Avatar or an demon prince (of say Tzeentch) in terms of planning and physical power. They're basicly comic book super heroes in 40k. I did however very much like the idea that 10.000 years had exagerated what they where really like. That they where more inspirational then functional. Most of the early HH books where written from the percpective of space marines and/or humans who thought they where awesome so it was very open to interpretation. Now they're pretty much confirmed super heroes with quirky personalities.
Ah, didn't intend for this to become a primarch rant. In any case I actually do look forward to what will happen when the rest of them gets introduced (contradictory but be happy about what you get I guess). I hope they go the route of the Lion being traitor and Luther being loyalist, as well as making Russ a demon monster or something. Maybe even have one of the traitor primarchs go full pacifist, deciding that the constant wars is meaningless and be stripped of his demon powers. stuff like that. If you're going to change the setting from the ground up then at the very least change the primarchs. The setting hasn't been standing still in 10.000years (I'd love to debate this in a diffrent thread). Why should the primarchs have?
No one is talking about the Tactica...
He's suggesting that eaither 1: the codex isn't much differant from the tactica. or he's suggesting that the short story wasn't about the orgin of the codex but the orgin of the Tactica.
The thing we have to remember is that the game and the background are connected. And the game had stagnated along with the back ground. It’s not so bad for background but GW needed to sell more new marines and they had run out of normal marines to do. Hell, they even put marines inside other marine suits. The line was full. So...primaris and a way to make that happen. Yes the primaris fluff is a bit iffy (or shocking, depending on your ability it ignore it) but I think the rift and the dark imperium and chaos getting a win is great. It opens up huge story line potential, from big galaxy shifting things to small things. Our groups battles are all fought on a world we made up that happened to be on the dark side of the rift. It’s thrown our narrative on its head and we have had 100+ Years. We now have renegades and religious cults. Chaos is popping up and it’s great. We are making lots of home brewed rules and units. It’s really moved it up a gear.
I think they skipped a few years ahead so that things could settle down, the astronomicon could spark up and the setting is similar to before in terms of power balance but it’s on a knife edge. After the codexs are done I hope they move things forward again. They have done it well with AOS. And I’m now into that setting where as pre malign portents I couldn’t get into it.
BrianDavion wrote: *sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.
Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.
You mean exactly what the Tactica Imperium is? Same thing as the codex but for the guard. From Lexicanums page on the tactica: "The Tactica is not meant to be taken too literally though. In war, circumstances change too quickly to refer every decision to a book. Its virtue is that it provides reference for new officers and there is always a chance that guidance can be found on a critical issue." Want to know the big difference? "The collection of books comprising the Tactica is therefore constantly being updated, often at a different place, as the sheer size of the Imperium precludes any true standardization".
Anyway, on topic. I'm not a fan of bringing the setting forward. I do like it that Big G returned and that he's formed his own sub empire. I don't like it that he's trying to break the fanaticism and insane Emperor worship that's the staple of the Imperium. I also don't like how the Inquisition appears to be increasingly neglected in both the board game and the lore. I've never really cared much for the HH and always considered the primarchs a somewhat silly concepts. There should at the very least be primarch equivalents among the Eldar and Necrons (You know, that used to have literal gods on the tabletop). I have a hard time believeing that a primarch would be above an Avatar or an demon prince (of say Tzeentch) in terms of planning and physical power. They're basicly comic book super heroes in 40k. I did however very much like the idea that 10.000 years had exagerated what they where really like. That they where more inspirational then functional. Most of the early HH books where written from the percpective of space marines and/or humans who thought they where awesome so it was very open to interpretation. Now they're pretty much confirmed super heroes with quirky personalities.
Ah, didn't intend for this to become a primarch rant. In any case I actually do look forward to what will happen when the rest of them gets introduced (contradictory but be happy about what you get I guess). I hope they go the route of the Lion being traitor and Luther being loyalist, as well as making Russ a demon monster or something. Maybe even have one of the traitor primarchs go full pacifist, deciding that the constant wars is meaningless and be stripped of his demon powers. stuff like that. If you're going to change the setting from the ground up then at the very least change the primarchs. The setting hasn't been standing still in 10.000years (I'd love to debate this in a diffrent thread). Why should the primarchs have?
No one is talking about the Tactica...
He's suggesting that eaither 1: the codex isn't much differant from the tactica. or he's suggesting that the short story wasn't about the orgin of the codex but the orgin of the Tactica.
It was about the Codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: The thing we have to remember is that the game and the background are connected. And the game had stagnated along with the back ground. It’s not so bad for background but GW needed to sell more new marines and they had run out of normal marines to do. Hell, they even put marines inside other marine suits. The line was full. So...primaris and a way to make that happen. Yes the primaris fluff is a bit iffy (or shocking, depending on your ability it ignore it) but I think the rift and the dark imperium and chaos getting a win is great. It opens up huge story line potential, from big galaxy shifting things to small things. Our groups battles are all fought on a world we made up that happened to be on the dark side of the rift. It’s thrown our narrative on its head and we have had 100+ Years. We now have renegades and religious cults. Chaos is popping up and it’s great. We are making lots of home brewed rules and units. It’s really moved it up a gear.
I think they skipped a few years ahead so that things could settle down, the astronomicon could spark up and the setting is similar to before in terms of power balance but it’s on a knife edge. After the codexs are done I hope they move things forward again. They have done it well with AOS. And I’m now into that setting where as pre malign portents I couldn’t get into it.
They could have just made truescale marines. I would have liked that so much more. The 2 wounds are great but I think all marines should be 2 wounds and they could have just made normal marines W2.
Andykp wrote: Before 8th edition everyone wanted the story line moving forward. Now they want it leaving alone. Bringing back any of the primarchs isn’t changing any “lore”. It’s a new storyline in a time we haven’t been to before. It’s adding to the “lore”. And anyway the background changes all the time. In major ways. Just ask necrons fans. Roboute coming back hasn’t changed what happened in the past. He has always been in stasis and even healing about while in stasis. All the loyal primarchs have had a “could come back story” for a while. I for one would be happy to stick with 2nd edition fluff before blacklibrary made everyone take it too seriously.
[i use “lore” in “” as it is a silly term for the background to a huge open plan sandbox that is the 40k universe.]
I think the general consensus people wanted was for bad things to happen to the Imperium and things generally to go to s***. For example, the opening of the Great Rift was a great move, but the issue is that we skipped over the entirety of that part by advancing it to the end of the Indomitus Crusade. Its also not great because of the introduction of Primaris Marines and Guilliman. Suddenly, the Imperium has a singular leader to follow and obey the likes of which haven't been seen since the Great Crusade when the Emperor still walked. They have bigger, tougher, better Space Marines and vehicles, a revised Codex Astartes, a more reactive and proactive ruling body because Guilliman has taken over. Despite the Great Rift, things have never looked more optimistic for the Imperium. The big bag Tyranids have been scattered and stopped in their tracks, the Tau are still a tiny faction, the Eldar are even more fractured and some soft-allied to the Imperium after the Ultramar Campaign. The Orks have seemingly dissappeared because I've heard nothing about them since 8th dropped, as have Necrons.
The only thing 8th did was forcefully establish Chaos as the big bad of the universe in a big way, which is great, but it really feels like the Imperium has a better chance now than it did in any previous edition.
I think the route that most people wanted was to see what happens when the Tyranids start munching huge chucks of the Segementum Solar and the Thirteenth Black Crusade smashes past Cadia, the Tau finally discover FTL, all the Orks unite under Ghazghkull, the Eldar start wiping out systems for breakfast and the Imperium literally doesn't have enough enough Space Marines and Imperial Guard. There was talk of a broken Imperium where the Imperials are on the backfoot, in hiding and on the defensive, or a divided Imperium of those close to Terra being safe and those in the North or East being royally screwed by Xenos on all sides. There was hope with the Great Rift splitting the Galaxy but GW ruined that to save the Blood Angels with the Crusade.
A much better version in my opinion, would be to have the Blood Angel Chapters split in half, with a loyal side led by Dante and a few other special characters, and a rebel half that turned to Chaos in return for saving them from Tyranids. The rebel half control the Northern Imperium, and the surviving loyalists flee to the South and have a proper division. No Guilliman and certainly no Primaris.
Andykp wrote: Before 8th edition everyone wanted the story line moving forward. Now they want it leaving alone. Bringing back any of the primarchs isn’t changing any “lore”. It’s a new storyline in a time we haven’t been to before. It’s adding to the “lore”. And anyway the background changes all the time. In major ways. Just ask necrons fans. Roboute coming back hasn’t changed what happened in the past. He has always been in stasis and even healing about while in stasis. All the loyal primarchs have had a “could come back story” for a while. I for one would be happy to stick with 2nd edition fluff before blacklibrary made everyone take it too seriously.
[i use “lore” in “” as it is a silly term for the background to a huge open plan sandbox that is the 40k universe.]
I think the general consensus people wanted was for bad things to happen to the Imperium and things generally to go to s***. For example, the opening of the Great Rift was a great move, but the issue is that we skipped over the entirety of that part by advancing it to the end of the Indomitus Crusade. Its also not great because of the introduction of Primaris Marines and Guilliman. Suddenly, the Imperium has a singular leader to follow and obey the likes of which haven't been seen since the Great Crusade when the Emperor still walked. They have bigger, tougher, better Space Marines and vehicles, a revised Codex Astartes, a more reactive and proactive ruling body because Guilliman has taken over. Despite the Great Rift, things have never looked more optimistic for the Imperium. The big bag Tyranids have been scattered and stopped in their tracks, the Tau are still a tiny faction, the Eldar are even more fractured and some soft-allied to the Imperium after the Ultramar Campaign. The Orks have seemingly dissappeared because I've heard nothing about them since 8th dropped, as have Necrons.
The only thing 8th did was forcefully establish Chaos as the big bad of the universe in a big way, which is great, but it really feels like the Imperium has a better chance now than it did in any previous edition.
I think the route that most people wanted was to see what happens when the Tyranids start munching huge chucks of the Segementum Solar and the Thirteenth Black Crusade smashes past Cadia, the Tau finally discover FTL, all the Orks unite under Ghazghkull, the Eldar start wiping out systems for breakfast and the Imperium literally doesn't have enough enough Space Marines and Imperial Guard. There was talk of a broken Imperium where the Imperials are on the backfoot, in hiding and on the defensive, or a divided Imperium of those close to Terra being safe and those in the North or East being royally screwed by Xenos on all sides. There was hope with the Great Rift splitting the Galaxy but GW ruined that to save the Blood Angels with the Crusade.
A much better version in my opinion, would be to have the Blood Angel Chapters split in half, with a loyal side led by Dante and a few other special characters, and a rebel half that turned to Chaos in return for saving them from Tyranids. The rebel half control the Northern Imperium, and the surviving loyalists flee to the South and have a proper division. No Guilliman and certainly no Primaris.
excep everything Gulliman's done... isn't eneugh. the IoM has still lost a ton with the fall of Cadia. the problem is Cadia falls and X falls etc. and people just go... "............... WELL TERRA IS STILL THERE! THOSE LOSSES ARE IRRELEVANT" no factions gonna win a total victory in 40k's time line guys... ever. or if they do we might as well perpare for "age of sigmar, 40k edition"
Andykp wrote: Before 8th edition everyone wanted the story line moving forward. Now they want it leaving alone. Bringing back any of the primarchs isn’t changing any “lore”. It’s a new storyline in a time we haven’t been to before. It’s adding to the “lore”. And anyway the background changes all the time. In major ways. Just ask necrons fans. Roboute coming back hasn’t changed what happened in the past. He has always been in stasis and even healing about while in stasis. All the loyal primarchs have had a “could come back story” for a while. I for one would be happy to stick with 2nd edition fluff before blacklibrary made everyone take it too seriously.
[i use “lore” in “” as it is a silly term for the background to a huge open plan sandbox that is the 40k universe.]
I think the general consensus people wanted was for bad things to happen to the Imperium and things generally to go to s***. For example, the opening of the Great Rift was a great move, but the issue is that we skipped over the entirety of that part by advancing it to the end of the Indomitus Crusade. Its also not great because of the introduction of Primaris Marines and Guilliman. Suddenly, the Imperium has a singular leader to follow and obey the likes of which haven't been seen since the Great Crusade when the Emperor still walked. They have bigger, tougher, better Space Marines and vehicles, a revised Codex Astartes, a more reactive and proactive ruling body because Guilliman has taken over. Despite the Great Rift, things have never looked more optimistic for the Imperium. The big bag Tyranids have been scattered and stopped in their tracks, the Tau are still a tiny faction, the Eldar are even more fractured and some soft-allied to the Imperium after the Ultramar Campaign. The Orks have seemingly dissappeared because I've heard nothing about them since 8th dropped, as have Necrons.
The only thing 8th did was forcefully establish Chaos as the big bad of the universe in a big way, which is great, but it really feels like the Imperium has a better chance now than it did in any previous edition.
I think the route that most people wanted was to see what happens when the Tyranids start munching huge chucks of the Segementum Solar and the Thirteenth Black Crusade smashes past Cadia, the Tau finally discover FTL, all the Orks unite under Ghazghkull, the Eldar start wiping out systems for breakfast and the Imperium literally doesn't have enough enough Space Marines and Imperial Guard. There was talk of a broken Imperium where the Imperials are on the backfoot, in hiding and on the defensive, or a divided Imperium of those close to Terra being safe and those in the North or East being royally screwed by Xenos on all sides. There was hope with the Great Rift splitting the Galaxy but GW ruined that to save the Blood Angels with the Crusade.
A much better version in my opinion, would be to have the Blood Angel Chapters split in half, with a loyal side led by Dante and a few other special characters, and a rebel half that turned to Chaos in return for saving them from Tyranids. The rebel half control the Northern Imperium, and the surviving loyalists flee to the South and have a proper division. No Guilliman and certainly no Primaris.
excep everything Gulliman's done... isn't eneugh. the IoM has still lost a ton with the fall of Cadia. the problem is Cadia falls and X falls etc. and people just go... "............... WELL TERRA IS STILL THERE! THOSE LOSSES ARE IRRELEVANT" no factions gonna win a total victory in 40k's time line guys... ever. or if they do we might as well perpare for "age of sigmar, 40k edition"
Exactly my point. The series is supposed to be grimdark as can be but any meaningful victory for the antagonists is rendered meaningless. Cadia fell but what has that really done? Abaddon's forces havent steamrolled their way to Terra and they certainly havent gone for any other big targets like Ultramar, Armageddon, etc.
Whenever it looks like something is finally going to break the Imperium, GW pulls an Ex Machina out of their ass to save it. Whether its a complete destruction and restarting of the universe (Age of Sigmar) or a legendary hero to lead a new revolution (Guilliman and his Primaris marines). Progression is good but only if there actually feels like there is conflict. Right now, 40k feels like the Imperium is winning, not losing, and its not good.
I'm trying to avoid quote-dissecting your message too much, it's a bad default I have. I'm still a bit quoty here, even after edits, sorry about that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Captain Genericus is part of that 2% of Chapters which refused Primaris, or maybe his Chapter hasn't been found and reinforced yet, or maybe his company/taskforce is composed of non-Primaris brethren.
But then Chapter Master Genericus is just someone who made a conscious decision to refuse to integrate Primaris Marine into his forces, rather than someone who is part of a universe where stagnation has taken hold, scientific progress has been replaced by scientific regression, and the current gear is just a worst version of older gear, made by following blindly instructions that are mistaken as religious rites and not at all understood.
That's formally similar but thematically very very different.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because it felt a LOT like a story which had stagnated to the point of being a setting.
40k wasn't a story. There was no progression, there was a description of a galaxy. We were never following the progression of a few individuals. We had the description of a world, with half-remembered legend that people believed about the history that brought them to this state, and with the history of a few famous historical figures of the time being described. That was worldbuilding. ASOIAF is a story. It focuses on specific characters and plots. Like pretty much all sci-fy and fantasy stories, ASOIAF take place in its own specific setting, but it is a story.
The two aspects I am unhappy about are ;
a) I don't like the transition of being a setting to being a story: the new material that is going to get released is going to focus on how the story is evolving and on a few specific characters instead of focusing on adding more depth and flavor and details to the world in general, and
b) I don't like the evolution of the fluff: All new published material will be in some universe where the theme I mentioned earlier, of scientific and intellectual decadence and decay, is gone, as pointed out above.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I'm trying to avoid quote-dissecting your message too much, it's a bad default I have. I'm still a bit quoty here, even after edits, sorry about that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Captain Genericus is part of that 2% of Chapters which refused Primaris, or maybe his Chapter hasn't been found and reinforced yet, or maybe his company/taskforce is composed of non-Primaris brethren.
But then Chapter Master Genericus is just someone who made a conscious decision to refuse to integrate Primaris Marine into his forces, rather than someone who is part of a universe where stagnation has taken hold, scientific progress has been replaced by scientific regression, and the current gear is just a worst version of older gear, made by following blindly instructions that are mistaken as religious rites and not at all understood.
That's formally similar but thematically very very different.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because it felt a LOT like a story which had stagnated to the point of being a setting.
40k wasn't a story. There was no progression, there was a description of a galaxy. We were never following the progression of a few individuals. We had the description of a world, with half-remembered legend that people believed about the history that brought them to this state, and with the history of a few famous historical figures of the time being described. That was worldbuilding. ASOIAF is a story. It focuses on specific characters and plots. Like pretty much all sci-fy and fantasy stories, ASOIAF take place in its own specific setting, but it is a story.
The two aspects I am unhappy about are ;
a) I don't like the transition of being a setting to being a story: the new material that is going to get released is going to focus on how the story is evolving and on a few specific characters instead of focusing on adding more depth and flavor and details to the world in general, and
b) I don't like the evolution of the fluff: All new published material will be in some universe where the theme I mentioned earlier, of scientific and intellectual decadence and decay, is gone, as pointed out above.
Of course it was a story, just because the fictional clock didn't move on as much as it has now doesn't mean it wasn't a story. If it stagnated then black library would just stick to publishing HH novels. Its the exact same setting now, just that the rift has opened and the Primarchs are coming back.
This is a little bit of a wall of text, but please give it a chance :
On the scale of the Imperium/Primarchs:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I think the greatest flaw 40k has as a setting and a story, is the concept that the Imperium owns all of the Galaxy. Obviously, the idea is that in fact the IoM only claims to own it all, with much of the territory coloured 'Imperium' on the map actually being held by various other factions, however by presenting the Imperium as holding the whole map, there is no space left for a serious rival. Yes, there are accounts of pocket-Empires of Orks, dynasties of Necrons and of course the realm within the Eye of Terror - but none of these remotely match the IoM in terms of scale. This disparity in scale only serves to magnify the sense of irrelevancy 'enemy' factions have in the overall setting and the impermanence their own victories have. There can be losses of whole sectors, ravages of Orks, the utter desolation wreaked by Tyranids - but the map never changes. It's always Imperium territory. Alternatively, if the Imperium were depicted as still vying for territory within the Galaxy, with other Xenos Empires having clearly defined territories on a scale that when combined could definitely rival the IoM, the fortunes and reverses depicted in the lore would have more meaning.
In some ways, this is why I welcome the concept of the 'Dark Imperium', however I feel that it should have been implemented in a much grander, and much more brutal, manner - with literally half the Imperium wiped out, and only small, besieged enclaves (To conveniently preserve of favourite Chapters/Forgeworlds/Regiments ) dotted about in an overwhelming tide of strong hostile nations. Furthermore, in that type of setting, the revival of Primarchs would make sense, because there would be a need for them - no longer does Humanity hold ultimate sway, so if it is to regain control, or merely survive, it will need it's greatest 'heroes'. In that setting, the challenge is of a similar magnitude to the power of a Primarch. However, the 'grimdark' nature can still be preserved, because no longer do the Primarchs have the guiding will of the Emperor to unite their strong individualistic wills or to provide them with the direction and vision in reconquering the IoM. It would be far more uncertain as to whether the Primarchs could even accomplish the feat without Him.
Regarding Primaris:
Spoiler:
As for Primaris, the main problem they have is just their size and tech. Sounds stupid, but as far as I see it (IMHO), GW should simply have said - 'Gene-seed upgrade, true-scaled models, business as usual'. However, in making Primaris bigger than standard SM in the lore, it introduced a raft of problems with players finding their tabletop armies obsolete in terms of the ongoing setting. Now, their favourite characters, armour marks, weapons and vehicles are rendered utterly useless in the 42nd Millenium, because, to be frank, the new guys don't fit. Love Mk III armour and want some guys in the 42nd Millenium? - no can do because your old marines are all dead now, and the new guys can't wear it. Want a newly founded Primaris Chapter riding around in the traditional Land Speeders - nope, because the footwell is too small, and the Primaris booty is just too big for the seats. Even the timeless bolter is now irrelevant - because it's inferior to the new bolt-rifle and the new guys won't use it.
It's not that Primaris are a bad concept, because they open up vast potential for story-telling on how they will interact with older SMs, it'd that their physical attributes combined with their superior genes and tech, have rendered the traditional SM as a thing of the past - forever locked to M41. Eventually, all those traditional SM will die, and if players wish to create forces that are situated in the new setting, then they cannot utilise the older models. Personally, I feel GW should simply have true-scaled the existing marine models. Instead of a release of Intercessors/Hell-Blasters, Reivers et al, we should have just had new Tactical, Devastator, Assaults - the traditional line-up, true-scaled. That way, even on the table-top, people could simply point to older models and say 'Same marines, older models' or newer models as 'Same marines, wearing new armour'. Over time, we could have then had upgrade packs for relic marks of armour, and possibly some new ones - but the new models could represent anySM character, because the size change was not clearly tied to a new, exclusive faction of marines in the lore.
Anyway, that's my two bob - feel free to rip it apart Oh and as an aside - it would be interesting if the Primarchs this time round were implemented as fulfilling the roles the Emp. intended for them. In the GC/HH, the Emps vision had not been realised - what would happen this time in each loyalist Primarch becomes the tools they were intended to be...
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Of course it was a story, just because the fictional clock didn't move on as much as it has now doesn't mean it wasn't a story.
You are confusing “This is a story” and “This is a setting with stories set in it”. Warmachine has a story. You get the main story of Warmachine in the rulebooks and faction books, and in Skull Island, which is the equivalent of Black Library, you get more stories, some of which are directly related to the main story of the settings, some which are stand-alone, unrelated stories in the same settings. Warhammer 40k didn't have a main story for 7 edition. All the lore was just defining the identity of a faction, not a plot advancing. You were never waiting for the next edition to discover what happened to whichever character or what the resolution of whatever conflict was!
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Its the exact same setting now, just that the rift has opened and the Primarchs are coming back.
It's the same except for the part where it's different and now you wait for next edition to discover what happened to Guiliman and his crusade and the alliance with the Ynari and all that jazz, and you get the small world effect where special characters all happen to be in the same place all the time, and it sucks$.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Of course it was a story, just because the fictional clock didn't move on as much as it has now doesn't mean it wasn't a story.
You are confusing “This is a story” and “This is a setting with stories set in it”. Warmachine has a story. You get the main story of Warmachine in the rulebooks and faction books, and in Skull Island, which is the equivalent of Black Library, you get more stories, some of which are directly related to the main story of the settings, some which are stand-alone, unrelated stories in the same settings. Warhammer 40k didn't have a main story for 7 edition. All the lore was just defining the identity of a faction, not a plot advancing. You were never waiting for the next edition to discover what happened to whichever character or what the resolution of whatever conflict was!
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Its the exact same setting now, just that the rift has opened and the Primarchs are coming back.
It's the same except for the part where it's different and now you wait for next edition to discover what happened to Guiliman and his crusade and the alliance with the Ynari and all that jazz, and you get the small world effect where special characters all happen to be in the same place all the time, and it sucks$.
Warpig1815 wrote: This is a little bit of a wall of text, but please give it a chance :
On the scale of the Imperium/Primarchs:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I think the greatest flaw 40k has as a setting and a story, is the concept that the Imperium owns all of the Galaxy. Obviously, the idea is that in fact the IoM only claims to own it all, with much of the territory coloured 'Imperium' on the map actually being held by various other factions, however by presenting the Imperium as holding the whole map, there is no space left for a serious rival. Yes, there are accounts of pocket-Empires of Orks, dynasties of Necrons and of course the realm within the Eye of Terror - but none of these remotely match the IoM in terms of scale. This disparity in scale only serves to magnify the sense of irrelevancy 'enemy' factions have in the overall setting and the impermanence their own victories have. There can be losses of whole sectors, ravages of Orks, the utter desolation wreaked by Tyranids - but the map never changes. It's always Imperium territory. Alternatively, if the Imperium were depicted as still vying for territory within the Galaxy, with other Xenos Empires having clearly defined territories on a scale that when combined could definitely rival the IoM, the fortunes and reverses depicted in the lore would have more meaning.
In some ways, this is why I welcome the concept of the 'Dark Imperium', however I feel that it should have been implemented in a much grander, and much more brutal, manner - with literally half the Imperium wiped out, and only small, besieged enclaves (To conveniently preserve of favourite Chapters/Forgeworlds/Regiments ) dotted about in an overwhelming tide of strong hostile nations. Furthermore, in that type of setting, the revival of Primarchs would make sense, because there would be a need for them - no longer does Humanity hold ultimate sway, so if it is to regain control, or merely survive, it will need it's greatest 'heroes'. In that setting, the challenge is of a similar magnitude to the power of a Primarch. However, the 'grimdark' nature can still be preserved, because no longer do the Primarchs have the guiding will of the Emperor to unite their strong individualistic wills or to provide them with the direction and vision in reconquering the IoM. It would be far more uncertain as to whether the Primarchs could even accomplish the feat without Him.
Regarding Primaris:
Spoiler:
As for Primaris, the main problem they have is just their size and tech. Sounds stupid, but as far as I see it (IMHO), GW should simply have said - 'Gene-seed upgrade, true-scaled models, business as usual'. However, in making Primaris bigger than standard SM in the lore, it introduced a raft of problems with players finding their tabletop armies obsolete in terms of the ongoing setting. Now, their favourite characters, armour marks, weapons and vehicles are rendered utterly useless in the 42nd Millenium, because, to be frank, the new guys don't fit. Love Mk III armour and want some guys in the 42nd Millenium? - no can do because your old marines are all dead now, and the new guys can't wear it. Want a newly founded Primaris Chapter riding around in the traditional Land Speeders - nope, because the footwell is too small, and the Primaris booty is just too big for the seats. Even the timeless bolter is now irrelevant - because it's inferior to the new bolt-rifle and the new guys won't use it.
It's not that Primaris are a bad concept, because they open up vast potential for story-telling on how they will interact with older SMs, it'd that their physical attributes combined with their superior genes and tech, have rendered the traditional SM as a thing of the past - forever locked to M41. Eventually, all those traditional SM will die, and if players wish to create forces that are situated in the new setting, then they cannot utilise the older models. Personally, I feel GW should simply have true-scaled the existing marine models. Instead of a release of Intercessors/Hell-Blasters, Reivers et al, we should have just had new Tactical, Devastator, Assaults - the traditional line-up, true-scaled. That way, even on the table-top, people could simply point to older models and say 'Same marines, older models' or newer models as 'Same marines, wearing new armour'. Over time, we could have then had upgrade packs for relic marks of armour, and possibly some new ones - but the new models could represent anySM character, because the size change was not clearly tied to a new, exclusive faction of marines in the lore.
Anyway, that's my two bob - feel free to rip it apart Oh and as an aside - it would be interesting if the Primarchs this time round were implemented as fulfilling the roles the Emp. intended for them. In the GC/HH, the Emps vision had not been realised - what would happen this time in each loyalist Primarch becomes the tools they were intended to be...
The Imperium does not own the galaxy, the orks do and pretty much always have. also the Primarchs always acted as the Emperor intended.
It would be more apt to say the Orks occupy more of the galaxy and the humans control the largest empire in the galaxy, were the Orks to unite it would be them that had the larrgest empire.
Formosa wrote: It would be more apt to say the Orks occupy more of the galaxy and the humans control the largest empire in the galaxy, were the Orks to unite it would be them that had the larrgest empire.
Not really, the Imperium can't get rid of them, even when they win a battle or war against them they come back like cockroaches, just because they haven't had a mega-WAAAGH! for ages and just because they aren't united doesn't make them any less of a threat. They don't have a society and culture like the Imperium, not real infrastructural or space travel etc. but you have to take into the account that the Orks don't want to be like the Imperium, they lived to fight among all other things, we can't really judge them by human standards.
40k is suffering from its own size and from its most media sexy characters being too…too big, with the things they do having to be big and loud and "OMG! Can our heroes stop the Badguy before his mad schemes unfold!" People know these characters and so want to see them do things, but they are just, too big, too mass marketable, for their own good, to not affect the setting, which suffers because entropy and cyclicality of existense are some of its themes.
The slow decay of the Imperium can't really be depicted without a big investment on, say, a long sprawling Romance-of-the-Three-Kingdomsy epic about how Imperium slowly through multiple generations looses control on some area of space, giving readers chance to see the same locales across a long period of time. Like, at the beginning characters marvel the capitals shiny new basilicas, and at the end an alien garrison uses it as a dingy warehouse. And at the very end, when people have been invested in places and characters for years, it's all noted by an far away imperial clerk to be nothing but a few decimal dip in a sectors annual tax report. Or something, I dunno.
But why do such things when it's easier to make more easily marketable sensationalistic media like "Russ Returns" or "Clash of Angels". Those fit better on modern age, where media is produced and consumed at an ever increasing rate, with people binging entire season off of Netflix in one go. Which has, by the by, has already been noted to have affected quality of serialized media in a negative way, since feedback can no longer be take in to account midseason. And so the setting and its themes suffer. Pity.
And the "Empire of a Million Worlds" is nothing in a galaxy of 400 Billion stars. It may be able to be touted as the largest single empire through a vaguely similar shared faith, and some barely remembered sense of obligation to humanitys homeworld, but thats about it.
Delvarus Centurion wrote:The Imperium does not own the galaxy, the orks do and pretty much always have. also the Primarchs always acted as the Emperor intended.
Which is exactly why I said, the Imperium 'claims' to own the Galaxy. The problem I'm trying to highlight, is that on a map, in the lore, in the stories, the Imperium is presented as owning everything, with these other factions being things that pop up and are dealt with, then the status quo returns, with the Imperium reigning supreme. The lack of a separate, sovereign state in a position to rival the Imperium on it's own scale is, in my own estimation, the factor that prevents the setting from truly capitalising on the potential of the other factions to have more relevance within the setting. In anycase, Orks no more 'own' the Galaxy, than bacteria 'own' the Earth. Numbers are not proof of a common unity or desire. For example, Great Britain doesn't own America, Australia or Canada - despite the majority of the population being of British descent.
As for Primarchs acting as the Emperor intended - that isn't entirely true. Each were created with a specific task in mind, aside from simply being generals. For example, Magnus was perhaps intended to be the warden of the Imperial Webway - a role he never fulfilled, and there are hints throughout the books that the other Primarch had similar defined tasks, hence their different traits and aptitudes. This is mimicked by their Legions. If it wasn't the case, then why would three Legions have been hidden away during their creations. Of course, for us, it's GW adding a touch of mystique, but in the spirit of the engaging with the setting, there must be an in-universe point. If the Emperor wanted bland, uniform generals, he would have made bland, uniform generals. But he gave each one a distinct personality or a distinct set of traits.
Formosa wrote: It would be more apt to say the Orks occupy more of the galaxy and the humans control the largest empire in the galaxy, were the Orks to unite it would be them that had the larrgest empire.
Not really, the Imperium can't get rid of them, even when they win a battle or war against them they come back like cockroaches, just because they haven't had a mega-WAAAGH! for ages and just because they aren't united doesn't make them any less of a threat. They don't have a society and culture like the Imperium, not real infrastructural or space travel etc. but you have to take into the account that the Orks don't want to be like the Imperium, they lived to fight among all other things, we can't really judge them by human standards.
Yep really, newer fluff shows what happens when you unite orks, they end up out teching the imperium by a large margin, new oddboyz turn up and as a race they become a lot more organised, build cities and actually have a culture (not Kulture) of their own, a united ork race stops being what we recognise as orky and starts to resemble a normal species in terms of empire building.
its looking like Ghazghul is heading in that direction, a new "beast" that if able to continue to its logical conclusion then the Orks will be the biggest threat to everyone, even the nids.
@Formosa - And if that becomes a reality, paired with some proper Chaos realms coming into existence outside of Warp Rifts (Such as Huron Blackheart establishing himself outside of the Maelstrom), Tau expansion and possibly the re-establishment of Eldar Maiden Worlds, then the lore would become somewhat more balanced. The trouble with 40k's focus on the Imperium, is that the Imperium lacks a counter-foil of sufficient magnitude.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Formosa - And if that becomes a reality, paired with some proper Chaos realms coming into existence outside of Warp Rifts (Such as Huron Blackheart establishing himself outside of the Maelstrom), Tau expansion and possibly the re-establishment of Eldar Maiden Worlds, then the lore would become somewhat more balanced. The trouble with 40k's focus on the Imperium, is that the Imperium lacks a counter-foil of sufficient magnitude.
Oh I couldn’t agree more, I actually get the feeling that the beast series was a set up for ghazghul to do something just like this, so it no longer just focuses on the imperium but now we have the main nid fleet coming in, the Orks uniting, eldar getting its gak together, chaos ripping the galaxy apart, tau doing tau stuff and the imperium stuck in the middle just preying for a miracle... the biggest wild card to me at least is the necrons
I don't care much for returning primarchs from the dead, but I do like seeing the daemon primarchs making a comeback. With the exception of Angron, all they've done is mope for 10 000 years.
I think it's time we saw Angron make another strike for Armageddon, that would be cool.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I'm trying to avoid quote-dissecting your message too much, it's a bad default I have. I'm still a bit quoty here, even after edits, sorry about that.
No worries, what you're putting makes sense to me!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Captain Genericus is part of that 2% of Chapters which refused Primaris, or maybe his Chapter hasn't been found and reinforced yet, or maybe his company/taskforce is composed of non-Primaris brethren.
But then Chapter Master Genericus is just someone who made a conscious decision to refuse to integrate Primaris Marine into his forces, rather than someone who is part of a universe where stagnation has taken hold, scientific progress has been replaced by scientific regression, and the current gear is just a worst version of older gear, made by following blindly instructions that are mistaken as religious rites and not at all understood.
That's formally similar but thematically very very different.
But it still allows someone to have a faction that still exists in a situation where to them, the "old ways" are the only way. He may still hold to the old beliefs and refuse to change - being one of the 2% who do.
Alternatively, there is also the option for Captain Genericus to be Captain Genericus in M36, or in M41 just before Cadia fell.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because it felt a LOT like a story which had stagnated to the point of being a setting.
40k wasn't a story. There was no progression, there was a description of a galaxy.
Not quite true. It was a setting, with stories in it. However, those stories had slowed, stagnated, and remained in almost a state of suspended animation for IRL years to the point where they were almost indistinguishable from the setting.
The 13th Black Crusade and Armageddon are examples of this.
We were never following the progression of a few individuals.
Pedro Kantor's story as he rebuilt his Crimson Fists. Lysander and his story (from Malodrax to refusing to lead the Fists after Pugh was killed), Ghazghkull Thraka and Yarrick's growth together, the tale of Tycho.
We had the description of a world, with half-remembered legend that people believed about the history that brought them to this state, and with the history of a few famous historical figures of the time being described. That was worldbuilding. ASOIAF is a story. It focuses on specific characters and plots. Like pretty much all sci-fy and fantasy stories, ASOIAF take place in its own specific setting, but it is a story.
40k has excellent worldbuilding, but has stories within the setting built. It has plots, plot arcs, and players within those arcs. Armageddon, Damocles Gulf Crusade, the Black Crusades, the Badab War, etc etc - stories and arcs within the wider setting. It's not that different to ASOIAF in my eyes.
The two aspects I am unhappy about are ;
a) I don't like the transition of being a setting to being a story: the new material that is going to get released is going to focus on how the story is evolving and on a few specific characters instead of focusing on adding more depth and flavor and details to the world in general, and
Personally, to me, the setting had always had stories in it. 40k was a set of stories within a wider setting. That setting is still there.
b) I don't like the evolution of the fluff: All new published material will be in some universe where the theme I mentioned earlier, of scientific and intellectual decadence and decay, is gone, as pointed out above.
I wouldn't say it's gone. It's like 21st Century being set back to the Stone Age, and then a Renaissance coming along, then going BACK to the Stone Age, and reaching the Bronze Age. Despite reaching the Bronze Age, it's still a far cry away from the 21st Century.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Formosa - And if that becomes a reality, paired with some proper Chaos realms coming into existence outside of Warp Rifts (Such as Huron Blackheart establishing himself outside of the Maelstrom), Tau expansion and possibly the re-establishment of Eldar Maiden Worlds, then the lore would become somewhat more balanced. The trouble with 40k's focus on the Imperium, is that the Imperium lacks a counter-foil of sufficient magnitude.
Tau ca't expand, they can't travel faster than light, It would take us 4 years to get to the nearest star travelling at the speed of light. Even just going from system to system, it would take 100,000 years to get from one end to the other side of the galaxy traveling at the speed of light. Until they master warp travel they are no threat whatsoever.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Formosa - And if that becomes a reality, paired with some proper Chaos realms coming into existence outside of Warp Rifts (Such as Huron Blackheart establishing himself outside of the Maelstrom), Tau expansion and possibly the re-establishment of Eldar Maiden Worlds, then the lore would become somewhat more balanced. The trouble with 40k's focus on the Imperium, is that the Imperium lacks a counter-foil of sufficient magnitude.
Tau ca't expand, they can't travel faster than light, It would take us 4 years to get to the nearest star travelling at the speed of light. Even just going from system to system, it would take 100,000 years to get from one end to the other side of the galaxy traveling at the speed of light. Until they master warp travel they are no threat whatsoever.
The Fourth Sphere of Expansion created a wormhole through the Warp "in the heart of Imperial space (pg22-23 of the Tau Codex)" which the Tau have begun to exploit. Considering that they managed that, I think it's completely possible that they've not master warp travel, but are harnessing it to a better degree than ever before.
One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
HoundsofDemos wrote: One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
I tend to belive that a LOT happened over the past 10,000 years just GW's not fleshed it out, that said I'd LOOOVE to see a "historical" series. that covered past conflcits etc
the problem is so many of the adversaries didn't come around till m 41. prior to M41 you had Imperium, Orks, eldar, and chaos. the Tau, Tyranids and Necrons are all "not avaliable"
HoundsofDemos wrote: One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
I tend to belive that a LOT happened over the past 10,000 years just GW's not fleshed it out, that said I'd LOOOVE to see a "historical" series. that covered past conflcits etc
the problem is so many of the adversaries didn't come around till m 41. prior to M41 you had Imperium, Orks, eldar, and chaos. the Tau, Tyranids and Necrons are all "not avaliable"
Aha! And there comes another problem, the minis. The galaxy of, like, 400 billion stars sure has a lot of wiggleroom for more factions, but making minis for them is harder, and a big investment. And making media for something that has none of "'em toys" to sell is hardly money well spent in the eyes of bigwigs. So on with just the existing faction we go, with only passing mentions for all those interesting events too costly to invest further in. For example The Beast Rising had to, according to rumours, cut the Men of Iron that were supposed to feature because of their lack of miniatures to sell, and the ending was turned into Imperium defusing the whole situation with a Deus Ex Machina. Pity.
The codex was constantly updated as well as new foes were faced and new tactics emerged. The entire point was to be an organizational guide and the collected wisdom of Guilliman and later Imperial military thinkers.
I'd like them to stop the lore changes, but then again it doesn't really matter any more; the settings is already ruined. The only way they could even somewhat salvage it is to have Inquisitor Karamazov to put a bullet in Guilliman's shiny oversized noggin ASAP.
HoundsofDemos wrote: One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
I tend to belive that a LOT happened over the past 10,000 years just GW's not fleshed it out, that said I'd LOOOVE to see a "historical" series. that covered past conflcits etc
the problem is so many of the adversaries didn't come around till m 41. prior to M41 you had Imperium, Orks, eldar, and chaos. the Tau, Tyranids and Necrons are all "not avaliable"
Aha! And there comes another problem, the minis. The galaxy of, like, 400 billion stars sure has a lot of wiggleroom for more factions, but making minis for them is harder, and a big investment. And making media for something that has none of "'em toys" to sell is hardly money well spent in the eyes of bigwigs. So on with just the existing faction we go, with only passing mentions for all those interesting events too costly to invest further in. For example The Beast Rising had to, according to rumours, cut the Men of Iron that were supposed to feature because of their lack of miniatures to sell, and the ending was turned into Imperium defusing the whole situation with a Deus Ex Machina. Pity.
I agree to a certain extent, however the introduction of new factions isn't really dependant upon a supporting miniatures range. Indeed, I'd kind of suggest that a successful miniatures range (At least within the 40k arena) can only come about if people are willing to invest in the lore presented first. If a concerted effort was made to create a new faction which was well-balanced with flaws and advantages, an interesting aesthetic or a unique culture, then I can't see why people wouldn't get on board. I think most SM players wouldn't kick up a fuss if a new faction got a little time in the limelight - SM already have a pretty much comprehensive range of minis for them to be going on with. The main problem is that GW's financial departments have equated a lack of enthusiasm to buy models from other ranges (Which, in the case of Eldar, CSM and Orks are slightly to severely outdated) to a general lack of enthusiasm in the faction. For example, I'd love to start off a Napoleonic Themed IG Force - but am I going to buy a bunch of 3rd Party bits, which are relatively more expensive by dint of being specialised, to customise the dumpy, aged sculpts of the Cadian range - am I what! It would ruin the effect altogether. However, if we got a new range of IG Guardsmen, with better proportions, possibly some female representation and a greater degree of customisation - then I'd jump at the chance.
HoundsofDemos wrote: One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
I tend to belive that a LOT happened over the past 10,000 years just GW's not fleshed it out, that said I'd LOOOVE to see a "historical" series. that covered past conflcits etc
the problem is so many of the adversaries didn't come around till m 41. prior to M41 you had Imperium, Orks, eldar, and chaos. the Tau, Tyranids and Necrons are all "not avaliable"
Aha! And there comes another problem, the minis. The galaxy of, like, 400 billion stars sure has a lot of wiggleroom for more factions, but making minis for them is harder, and a big investment. And making media for something that has none of "'em toys" to sell is hardly money well spent in the eyes of bigwigs. So on with just the existing faction we go, with only passing mentions for all those interesting events too costly to invest further in. For example The Beast Rising had to, according to rumours, cut the Men of Iron that were supposed to feature because of their lack of miniatures to sell, and the ending was turned into Imperium defusing the whole situation with a Deus Ex Machina. Pity.
I agree to a certain extent, however the introduction of new factions isn't really dependant upon a supporting miniatures range. Indeed, I'd kind of suggest that a successful miniatures range (At least within the 40k arena) can only come about if people are willing to invest in the lore presented first. If a concerted effort was made to create a new faction which was well-balanced with flaws and advantages, an interesting aesthetic or a unique culture, then I can't see why people wouldn't get on board. I think most SM players wouldn't kick up a fuss if a new faction got a little time in the limelight - SM already have a pretty much comprehensive range of minis for them to be going on with. The main problem is that GW's financial departments have equated a lack of enthusiasm to buy models from other ranges (Which, in the case of Eldar, CSM and Orks are slightly to severely outdated) to a general lack of enthusiasm in the faction. For example, I'd love to start off a Napoleonic Themed IG Force - but am I going to buy a bunch of 3rd Party bits, which are relatively more expensive by dint of being specialised, to customise the dumpy, aged sculpts of the Cadian range - am I what! It would ruin the effect altogether. However, if we got a new range of IG Guardsmen, with better proportions, possibly some female representation and a greater degree of customisation - then I'd jump at the chance.
Indeed, whole things a chicken and egg situation, where, to get GW models we'd need the lore to invest in, but in order to get that lore from GW we would need models to buy.
GeeDub's been very hesitant to release anything truly new, choosing to dust off old pieces of lore and only to add into existing faction. I mean, last big new intependent faction was Tau.
I've been for a long time of firm belief that the best faction GW could release would be Mercenaries, giving us a faction that everybody, regardless of their minis, could buy, since in the current state any new release is going to interest only a portion of the player base. With Mercs they could also test the water on new stuff more safely, ideas that could later be expanded on.
@Morgasm - I'd agree fully there. Mercs, or something like an 'Enemies of the Imperium' grouping would be perfect for a series of smaller releases of one-offs. And, it's not as though it's any more expensive to produce the CAD and mould for a box of Xenos than it is for a box of Space Marines. The design process and tooling is the same, only the financial risk is larger. That said, if the one off proved to be a flop, then they've only lost the cost of that one box's CAD and tooling, as against multiple boxes of a fully fledged faction. However, if it's a success, it gives them a clear indication of which direction they could go to keep people hooked - and for both them and us, that can only be a good thing.
HoundsofDemos wrote: One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
I tend to belive that a LOT happened over the past 10,000 years just GW's not fleshed it out, that said I'd LOOOVE to see a "historical" series. that covered past conflcits etc
the problem is so many of the adversaries didn't come around till m 41. prior to M41 you had Imperium, Orks, eldar, and chaos. the Tau, Tyranids and Necrons are all "not avaliable"
Aha! And there comes another problem, the minis. The galaxy of, like, 400 billion stars sure has a lot of wiggleroom for more factions, but making minis for them is harder, and a big investment. And making media for something that has none of "'em toys" to sell is hardly money well spent in the eyes of bigwigs. So on with just the existing faction we go, with only passing mentions for all those interesting events too costly to invest further in. For example The Beast Rising had to, according to rumours, cut the Men of Iron that were supposed to feature because of their lack of miniatures to sell, and the ending was turned into Imperium defusing the whole situation with a Deus Ex Machina. Pity.
I agree to a certain extent, however the introduction of new factions isn't really dependant upon a supporting miniatures range. Indeed, I'd kind of suggest that a successful miniatures range (At least within the 40k arena) can only come about if people are willing to invest in the lore presented first. If a concerted effort was made to create a new faction which was well-balanced with flaws and advantages, an interesting aesthetic or a unique culture, then I can't see why people wouldn't get on board. I think most SM players wouldn't kick up a fuss if a new faction got a little time in the limelight - SM already have a pretty much comprehensive range of minis for them to be going on with. The main problem is that GW's financial departments have equated a lack of enthusiasm to buy models from other ranges (Which, in the case of Eldar, CSM and Orks are slightly to severely outdated) to a general lack of enthusiasm in the faction. For example, I'd love to start off a Napoleonic Themed IG Force - but am I going to buy a bunch of 3rd Party bits, which are relatively more expensive by dint of being specialised, to customise the dumpy, aged sculpts of the Cadian range - am I what! It would ruin the effect altogether. However, if we got a new range of IG Guardsmen, with better proportions, possibly some female representation and a greater degree of customisation - then I'd jump at the chance.
This BTW is why I've argued we see so many new IoM armies, and almost no new Xenos armies. Doing Custodes or Admech is pretty easy, the fan base knows them and has a built in there is already oodles and oodles of art that can be made into concept art fast etc.
Contrast this with an ENTIRELY new alien race. even if they've been named dropped a few times like the Hrud, there's a lot less of an eistablished fanbase for them they'd need entirely new concept art, and people couldn't pick up a small patrol detachment and plug it into a wider force like they could with a new IoM army.
The counterpoint to that is that with a new alien race you can explain where they come from and how they've risen to prominence now for example a species that uses Warp energy to power their civilisation receiving a power boost from the Rift would be a fairly logical way to introduce a new faction.
But by just unveiling SoS and Custodes it feels a lot like shoehorning in some new factions to make the most of the 30k models.
In one hand its nice to see stuff from the bowels of fluff given makeovers, but its also worrysome on a long run. 40k's too big and profitable for GW for its own good, since it makes them scared or greedy or both to do anything new. So it keeps getting more and more saturated with power armored imperials and knights, since the charts say that those are most profitable.
Compare recent 40k releases with AoS releases, it seems that the creative team's been given a lot more freedom with AoS. GW sees trying any new ideas on their cashcow as potentially too disruptive.
Nice for 40k on a short run but harmful for it on a long run.
It might also be a factor in the recent rise of specialist games, to a certain extent atleast.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: In one hand its nice to see stuff from the bowels of fluff given makeovers, but its also worrysome on a long run. 40k's too big and profitable for GW for its own good, since it makes them scared or greedy or both to do anything new. So it keeps getting more and more saturated with power armored imperials and knights, since the charts say that those are most profitable.
Compare recent 40k releases with AoS releases, it seems that the creative team's been given a lot more freedom with AoS. GW sees trying any new ideas on their cashcow as potentially too disruptive.
Nice for 40k on a short run but harmful for it on a long run.
It might also be a factor in the recent rise of specialist games, to a certain extent atleast.
why is it worrysome to see GW bringing stuff thats been in the fluff for ages into the game? people have wanted Admech for ages, Knights are popular because at the end of the day people LOOVE big centerpiece units. These are things people can get excited for. Ansd it's not like we've ONLY gotten PA armies (genestealer cults and Admech anyone?) but the thing is, you've got oodles of factions that exist, why would you pull new ones out of your ass?
that said I think GW's begun to run out of low hanging fruit to grab that way, so I'd be expecting "newish" stuff sooner or later
GW were damned if did and damned if they didn’t. Biggest criticism of AOS was it killed the old world and went to far. Given time it’s coming good and the new armies are stunning. Now people say 40k end times didn’t go far enough.
I think the stalemate of halting after the indomitus crusade is only temporary while they get the codexs out. Things will move on and new armies will be born.
HoundsofDemos wrote: One problem is that GW simply put to much at the end of the calendar. It's roughly 10,000 years between the siege of Terra and the fall of Cadia, yet I feel like more and more was shoved into M41 to the point of it almost being comical. It's like every other day it's dooms day.
I tend to belive that a LOT happened over the past 10,000 years just GW's not fleshed it out, that said I'd LOOOVE to see a "historical" series. that covered past conflcits etc
the problem is so many of the adversaries didn't come around till m 41. prior to M41 you had Imperium, Orks, eldar, and chaos. the Tau, Tyranids and Necrons are all "not avaliable"
Aha! And there comes another problem, the minis. The galaxy of, like, 400 billion stars sure has a lot of wiggleroom for more factions, but making minis for them is harder, and a big investment. And making media for something that has none of "'em toys" to sell is hardly money well spent in the eyes of bigwigs. So on with just the existing faction we go, with only passing mentions for all those interesting events too costly to invest further in. For example The Beast Rising had to, according to rumours, cut the Men of Iron that were supposed to feature because of their lack of miniatures to sell, and the ending was turned into Imperium defusing the whole situation with a Deus Ex Machina. Pity.
I agree to a certain extent, however the introduction of new factions isn't really dependant upon a supporting miniatures range. Indeed, I'd kind of suggest that a successful miniatures range (At least within the 40k arena) can only come about if people are willing to invest in the lore presented first. If a concerted effort was made to create a new faction which was well-balanced with flaws and advantages, an interesting aesthetic or a unique culture, then I can't see why people wouldn't get on board. I think most SM players wouldn't kick up a fuss if a new faction got a little time in the limelight - SM already have a pretty much comprehensive range of minis for them to be going on with. The main problem is that GW's financial departments have equated a lack of enthusiasm to buy models from other ranges (Which, in the case of Eldar, CSM and Orks are slightly to severely outdated) to a general lack of enthusiasm in the faction. For example, I'd love to start off a Napoleonic Themed IG Force - but am I going to buy a bunch of 3rd Party bits, which are relatively more expensive by dint of being specialised, to customise the dumpy, aged sculpts of the Cadian range - am I what! It would ruin the effect altogether. However, if we got a new range of IG Guardsmen, with better proportions, possibly some female representation and a greater degree of customisation - then I'd jump at the chance.
This BTW is why I've argued we see so many new IoM armies, and almost no new Xenos armies. Doing Custodes or Admech is pretty easy, the fan base knows them and has a built in there is already oodles and oodles of art that can be made into concept art fast etc.
Contrast this with an ENTIRELY new alien race. even if they've been named dropped a few times like the Hrud, there's a lot less of an eistablished fanbase for them they'd need entirely new concept art, and people couldn't pick up a small patrol detachment and plug it into a wider force like they could with a new IoM army.
I stilll don’t accept tau and have only recently come round to dark eldar.
I stilll don’t accept tau and have only recently come round to dark eldar.
right, and you certainly didn't rush out and buy them. meanwhile it's much easier to buy into admech, custodes death guard etc. because they've been there awhile so you've always accepted them as part of the setting, and you can run em as part of an allied force.
What I would like to see is existing Xenos factions become as diverse as the Imperium; Eldar are already close.
A kroot army needs to happen. Vespid too. That should give the Tau enough- three full dexes of army options.
I'm not sure how to take the Tyranids to the place they need to be- one option would by to put out a few more GSC models that are tyranidy and a few nid models that are more culty so that the break between the two isn't so severe. With GSC, you could also add more that blends with the imperium side. What about a box of genestealer/ork hybrids, a box of genestealer/ Tau Hybrids?
Grots as a playable army to round out Orks?
People have talked a lot about SM being the most popular force in 40k, but of course they are- there are 140+ models to choose from and there will be dexes for 5 chapters (including Deathwatch, Greyknights) plus the generic SM dex, which I guess also counts as Ultramarines.
If every army had as many options, maybe SM wouldn't be the face of the game.
BTW, fear is not the only factor that keeps GW from growing the range and adding factions- it's also the stupid twisted desire to rewrite the whole damn rules set every 2-3 years.
8th might be my favourite edition, but would I rather be playing second ed with 200 models and 6 dexes for each of 8 different factions?
Hell yeah. In a heartbeat. Some editions have been better than others, sure. But the truth is, any edition (with the possible exception of the original Rogue Trader) would have been good enough if they had just stuck with it and expanded the range.
The more editions you have, the harder it gets to satisfy a community, because at a certain point, everyone will have a rule that they liked better in a previous edition. This is why, although it's not perfect, I hope 8th is the last version.
keep in mind the more factions we have the less minis your faction gets. People like to poo poo whenever the blood angels, dark angels etc get something new as "OHH MA GAWD! MORE MARINES" But they are differant armies. it's unfair to them to complain in that way,
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: In one hand its nice to see stuff from the bowels of fluff given makeovers, but its also worrysome on a long run. 40k's too big and profitable for GW for its own good, since it makes them scared or greedy or both to do anything new. So it keeps getting more and more saturated with power armored imperials and knights, since the charts say that those are most profitable.
Compare recent 40k releases with AoS releases, it seems that the creative team's been given a lot more freedom with AoS. GW sees trying any new ideas on their cashcow as potentially too disruptive.
Nice for 40k on a short run but harmful for it on a long run.
It might also be a factor in the recent rise of specialist games, to a certain extent atleast.
why is it worrysome to see GW bringing stuff thats been in the fluff for ages into the game? people have wanted Admech for ages, Knights are popular because at the end of the day people LOOVE big centerpiece units. These are things people can get excited for. Ansd it's not like we've ONLY gotten PA armies (genestealer cults and Admech anyone?) but the thing is, you've got oodles of factions that exist, why would you pull new ones out of your ass?
that said I think GW's begun to run out of low hanging fruit to grab that way, so I'd be expecting "newish" stuff sooner or later
While it is nice to see older fluff getting pushed into limelight the point is that it's not healthy for the franchice to not add some new stuff to the lore. All those silly funky obscure pieces of fluff that GW suddenly noticed people like a lot are from a time when GW was more willing to try out new things with 40k, which no longer happens. 40k is curling up on itself, and is just sticking to it's more creative past instead of making new creative things in a good way. And no, I'm not talking few units here and there, like metamorphs or dunecrawlers, let alone the Primarchs, bringing those back ain't creative for sure. Maybe i'm an cynical, but as long as 40k as big for GW as it is now, I just don't see us getting much more that rehashes of older, more inventive lore, sprinkled with the Primarchs and superioris marines. And that ain't going to be a recipe for success forever.
Amusingly 40k's like the Imperium, inwards looking and pining for the good old days. Kinda like what Hollywood has become, with its endless remakes and adaptations.
Andykp wrote: GW were damned if did and damned if they didn’t. Biggest criticism of AOS was it killed the old world and went to far. Given time it’s coming good and the new armies are stunning. Now people say 40k end times didn’t go far enough.
Many people including me thing it went WAY too far.
BrianDavion wrote: keep in mind the more factions we have the less minis your faction gets. People like to poo poo whenever the blood angels, dark angels etc get something new as "OHH MA GAWD! MORE MARINES" But they are differant armies. it's unfair to them to complain in that way,
Given the number of chapter-agnostic models that Marines have, it's actually fair.
There shouldn't be an Eldar or necron equivilant, they are two vastly different species and armies, that's just wishful thinking. Eldar already have two avatars and the necrons have shards and a transcendental, its completely ridiculous to give them a Primarch equivalent, we have a rich game because the armies are so different, I don't want them all to have the same stuff but just with different paint. do you also believe that there should be an Imperial version of a phoenix lord?, a Primarch can be as powerful as an avatar, they are pretty much demi-gods and the avatar is just that and 'avatar' he isn't Kaela Mensha Khaine and the lore shows that the Primarchs are just as powerful what is their to 'believe'. The Emperor could fart on the avatar to kill it, not surprising that his sons could. Your logic is just, I want my stuff to be the most awesome.
There's a massive difference between "We should all have identical armies" and "All factions should have characters equivalent to Primarchs in their ability. The idea that it's about keeping factions unique is fairly ludicrous. No, these other factions should absolutely get to have Primarch-level characters, because yeah, the logic is all the factions should have awesome stuff, not just the Imperials.
Warpig1815 wrote: @Formosa - And if that becomes a reality, paired with some proper Chaos realms coming into existence outside of Warp Rifts (Such as Huron Blackheart establishing himself outside of the Maelstrom), Tau expansion and possibly the re-establishment of Eldar Maiden Worlds, then the lore would become somewhat more balanced. The trouble with 40k's focus on the Imperium, is that the Imperium lacks a counter-foil of sufficient magnitude.
Tau ca't expand, they can't travel faster than light, It would take us 4 years to get to the nearest star travelling at the speed of light. Even just going from system to system, it would take 100,000 years to get from one end to the other side of the galaxy traveling at the speed of light. Until they master warp travel they are no threat whatsoever.
The Tau CAN expand, pretty easily Just have them establish FTL. If you're going to have them expand, there's no reason they can't just quickly master that and that's the reason they expand. But yeah, Warpig's 100% right, I would absolutely love the proper establishment of other races actually having empires themselves. Chaos aren't just hiding in the Warp, Eldar can actually control land, the Tau can be made far bigger so they can actually take some hits.
BrianDavion wrote:, you've got oodles of factions that exist, why would you pull new ones out of your ass?
I wouldn't say there are too many factions really, and as someone who doesn't play 40k (Only collect and read the lore), I wouldn't equate Codex factions with in-universe factions. As it stands, in terms of lore (Not the model range, which is endlessly strung out with different flavours) there are relatively few 'alignments' considering the scale of the galaxy:
Imperium of Man
Necrons
Tyranids
Orks
Tau
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Chaos
Obviously, before anyone jumps down my neck, there significant differences between the various sub-factions and the Imperium of Man is particularly diverse, but in terms of general alignments in the Galaxy - there aren't that many. We're talking about an area of space filed with 400 billion stars, potentially 4 Trillion planets and the potential to host as many species again. So, IMHO, it does seem daft that there are only 8 real powers in the Galaxy. We consistently hear of areas such as the Halo Stars, Ghoul Stars, Veiled Region and the Eastern Fringe (Areas the Imperium doesn't fully understand) and yet nothing seems to dwell there. How many obscured areas in the main body of the galaxy exist, passed over by the Great Crusade, hidden by nebulae, lost in the warp or simply undiscovered - and yet again, nothing lives there.
Linked into my previous comments, I feel one of the reasons people avoid Xenos races, is just the fact that they always seem to be irrelevant. The reason SM or IoM is the most profitable is not because the other factions are uninteresting - it's because they're quite simply playing second fiddle to the IoM all the time. They'll never become popular, because lore-wise, they're never permitted to make significant gains on the IoM. Hence circling back to my belief that the 'Dark Imperium' should have been implemented more ruthlessly, giving Xenos players, and newcomers, more of a stake in the setting.
BrianDavion wrote:keep in mind the more factions we have the less minis your faction gets. People like to poo poo whenever the blood angels, dark angels etc get something new as "OHH MA GAWD! MORE MARINES" But they are differant armies. it's unfair to them to complain in that way,
While I do agree with the more factions=less minis point, I've long thought that BA, SW and DA are all undeserving of the attention. They're only popular because they've been given attention, which in turn fuels their popularity. But there are just as many other diverse and interesting chapters that could easily be as unique. Black Dragons, Carcharadons, Salamanders, Minotaurs and White Scars to name but a few. Those 3 should have simply been rolled into the main line, with a few upgrade packs or a FW line if you ask me (Although I do often utilise BA stuff for my models ). Same for Deathwatch - a single box set and upgrade pack would have sufficed.
Problem with bringing in new xenos factions now is the issue of where they have come from. Why haven’t we heard of them before now. So it’s better to drag ones from the depths of old fluff than to imagine fully new ones. Tau being stuck in the eastern fringe is an issue for them but they needed to come from somewhere outside the known galaxy, hence why ypghey aren’t in previous fluff.
We know an entire sphere expansion was lost to the Warp Storms - but there are suggestions at least they survived, and were spat out elsewhere.
That brings the very real possibility of them getting their hands on Warp Travel. At the moment, the Kroot have it, but aren’t sharing it for some reason.
If they’re in a new sector, who knows what Warp Capable minnow species they might bring into the fold - and that offers interesting ramifications, and certainly allows them to break out their protective bubble of the Damocles Rift...
As I recall Humanity has the most effective warp travel because of the combination of the Astronomicon and Navigators, meaning they can hold together a galactic empire with relative ease (Narrator: "It wasn't easy at all.").
Where people are making less well-guided warp jumps, I'd imagine nobody wants to be on a T'au ship when it attempts to translate into warp without a gellar field or equivalent. Likewise I'd imagine the Kroot wouldn't be able to explain to the T'au why they need warding, or how to adapt it to the T'au psyche.
Nurglitch wrote: As I recall Humanity has the most effective warp travel because of the combination of the Astronomicon and Navigators, meaning they can hold together a galactic empire with relative ease (Narrator: "It wasn't easy at all.").
Where people are making less well-guided warp jumps, I'd imagine nobody wants to be on a T'au ship when it attempts to translate into warp without a gellar field or equivalent. Likewise I'd imagine the Kroot wouldn't be able to explain to the T'au why they need warding, or how to adapt it to the T'au psyche.
Tau Warp travel is completely safe because they don't enter the Warp enough to be at risk but they tradeoff is they're way slower than everyone else.
Andykp wrote: Problem with bringing in new xenos factions now is the issue of where they have come from. Why haven’t we heard of them before now. So it’s better to drag ones from the depths of old fluff than to imagine fully new ones. Tau being stuck in the eastern fringe is an issue for them but they needed to come from somewhere outside the known galaxy, hence why ypghey aren’t in previous fluff.
Eh, not really. We have very, very little information on most of the galaxy comparatively. We could easily just be told "There's this militaristic race over here, we haven't dealt with them in lore but they've been here", or "This race is now joining the fray as they took a massive amount of land over in the timeskip. Easy peasy.
Andykp wrote: Problem with bringing in new xenos factions now is the issue of where they have come from. Why haven’t we heard of them before now. So it’s better to drag ones from the depths of old fluff than to imagine fully new ones. Tau being stuck in the eastern fringe is an issue for them but they needed to come from somewhere outside the known galaxy, hence why ypghey aren’t in previous fluff.
Eh, not really. We have very, very little information on most of the galaxy comparatively. We could easily just be told "There's this militaristic race over here, we haven't dealt with them in lore but they've been here", or "This race is now joining the fray as they took a massive amount of land over in the timeskip. Easy peasy.
you'd think but the fanbase would bitch all the same, consider how everytime something new comes out the internet goes crazy with grognards screaming "HOW DARE THEY SLIDE THIS IN!"
Andykp wrote: Problem with bringing in new xenos factions now is the issue of where they have come from. Why haven’t we heard of them before now. So it’s better to drag ones from the depths of old fluff than to imagine fully new ones. Tau being stuck in the eastern fringe is an issue for them but they needed to come from somewhere outside the known galaxy, hence why ypghey aren’t in previous fluff.
Eh, not really. We have very, very little information on most of the galaxy comparatively. We could easily just be told "There's this militaristic race over here, we haven't dealt with them in lore but they've been here", or "This race is now joining the fray as they took a massive amount of land over in the timeskip. Easy peasy.
You could say that their race advanced by millions of years due to the timeskip around their homeworld and they carved out a massive territory on the Eastern Fringe that makes them an issue...
Also with this thing of new aliens just appearing you end up like with the tau, how do they get about. How would they fight on the other side of the universe if they only are around the one side. They have just fixed it with tyranids and are trying with tau being able to faster than light travel. More factions might not be the answer.
The Interex return! Remnants of their empire have been hiding in the globular clusters above the galactic disc for 10K years, and now with the rift opening up they are convinced of what they originally believed, that the IoM is in fact in league with 'Kaos' and that they can save mankind from itself. highly technologically advanced, they descend a large outer section of the IoM and convert whole worlds/systems to their cause, creating a huge empire in a very short span of time. Tearing down religious stuffs, convincing the populace it was all a lie and replacing it with techno-stuffs.
Kcalehc wrote: The Interex return! Remnants of their empire have been hiding in the globular clusters above the galactic disc for 10K years, and now with the rift opening up they are convinced of what they originally believed, that the IoM is in fact in league with 'Kaos' and that they can save mankind from itself. highly technologically advanced, they descend a large outer section of the IoM and convert whole worlds/systems to their cause, creating a huge empire in a very short span of time. Tearing down religious stuffs, convincing the populace it was all a lie and replacing it with techno-stuffs.
This is the problem with lots of the HH alien races. They are very doctor who and cheesy. Xenobia? Mega-arachnids, a planet called murder that is a prison world for dangerous aliens. It doesn’t feel right to me for 40k and that’s from one wiki page. Hrudd, ambuls, zoats. They all feel ok but aren’t full armies. Except maybe hrudd. Kroot also aren’t known for being widespread. Scraping the barrel after sisters. Dark mech, renegade guard. Yep.
Kcalehc wrote: The Interex return! Remnants of their empire have been hiding in the globular clusters above the galactic disc for 10K years, and now with the rift opening up they are convinced of what they originally believed, that the IoM is in fact in league with 'Kaos' and that they can save mankind from itself. highly technologically advanced, they descend a large outer section of the IoM and convert whole worlds/systems to their cause, creating a huge empire in a very short span of time. Tearing down religious stuffs, convincing the populace it was all a lie and replacing it with techno-stuffs.
This is the problem with lots of the HH alien races. They are very doctor who and cheesy. Xenobia? Mega-arachnids, a planet called murder that is a prison world for dangerous aliens. It doesn’t feel right to me for 40k and that’s from one wiki page. Hrudd, ambuls, zoats. They all feel ok but aren’t full armies. Except maybe hrudd. Kroot also aren’t known for being widespread. Scraping the barrel after sisters. Dark mech, renegade guard. Yep.
keep in mind the planet was called murder because after campajging on it a Space Marine commented "this world is murder" (refering to the hard fought campaign) and the name stuck.
And the idea of a alien race that was insanely deadly being trapped on one world because the power that beat them was unwilling to commit genocide isn't that nuts. The Interex is basicly Star Trek's federation in 40k (who, suprise suprise, met a bad end)
I still think the heresy was best left as myth and legend. All these enemies don’t sound too bad in brief snippets but any more depth to them and it gets dodgy. My opinion only, I know it’s very much horses for courses with this stuff. Hrudd are the only random xenos I could see them making an army out of that made sense over the whole galaxy.
Andykp wrote: Problem with bringing in new xenos factions now is the issue of where they have come from. Why haven’t we heard of them before now. So it’s better to drag ones from the depths of old fluff than to imagine fully new ones. Tau being stuck in the eastern fringe is an issue for them but they needed to come from somewhere outside the known galaxy, hence why ypghey aren’t in previous fluff.
Eh, not really. We have very, very little information on most of the galaxy comparatively. We could easily just be told "There's this militaristic race over here, we haven't dealt with them in lore but they've been here", or "This race is now joining the fray as they took a massive amount of land over in the timeskip. Easy peasy.
You could say that their race advanced by millions of years due to the timeskip around their homeworld and they carved out a massive territory on the Eastern Fringe that makes them an issue...
Oh wait that' the Tau.
Was it the timeskip? I've heard that, but I've only ever heard that as a theory. Other than that, I thought it was just that the Tau were very fast at technologically advancing?
Andykp wrote: Problem with bringing in new xenos factions now is the issue of where they have come from. Why haven’t we heard of them before now. So it’s better to drag ones from the depths of old fluff than to imagine fully new ones. Tau being stuck in the eastern fringe is an issue for them but they needed to come from somewhere outside the known galaxy, hence why ypghey aren’t in previous fluff.
Eh, not really. We have very, very little information on most of the galaxy comparatively. We could easily just be told "There's this militaristic race over here, we haven't dealt with them in lore but they've been here", or "This race is now joining the fray as they took a massive amount of land over in the timeskip. Easy peasy.
You could say that their race advanced by millions of years due to the timeskip around their homeworld and they carved out a massive territory on the Eastern Fringe that makes them an issue...
Oh wait that' the Tau.
Was it the timeskip? I've heard that, but I've only ever heard that as a theory. Other than that, I thought it was just that the Tau were very fast at technologically advancing?
I'm a bit behind on fluff, last time I delved deep into Tau history was the 5th Ed rulebook. What I remember from then was that a AdMech explorator fleet crashed on the Tau homeworld when they were just savages fighting over gak and rocks. Shortly after a warp storm cut the planet off from the rest of the galaxy for a few hundred years and when it cleared, the Tau had morphed into a sophistocated technological society with technology millennia ahead of where they should be, likely developed by study of the crashed Imperials.
Its not exactly a time skip, but having an alien race advance rapidly while hidden behind the Warp and suddenly because a big threat worthy of a Codex is just the Tau's schtick
:
