I've been thinking, given everything that has happened with the coming of 8th, the launch of the primaris line, the big changes to parts of the lore, what is the likely hood that we will get an "End Times" Styled event in the coming years in the vain of what happened to WFB?
Primaris marines are a huge departure in design from the midget marine line, and they much more closely resemble Stormcast Eternals rather than what we thought of as the old "Grimdark" marines. Custodians, the Ad Mech, Imperial Knights all fit the aesthetic, and there is always a chance they'll reboot the guard line with hover tanks and caraparce armored troops in the near future. The New Chaos line keeps a lot of the old style, but updates it in subtle ways that make them really pop and fit in with the newer models from the imperial side.
Call me crazy but it just seems to me to be the direction they're going. They've rebranded WFB to AoS, Games Workshop to "Warhammer." The only thing left to be rebranded is the 40K game and line, and to be honest I think the likelihood of this happening is quite high.
Didn't that kind of happen towards the end of 7th, there were certainly vaild fears that it was the case. A lot of the Eldar coming together with both their own factions and major player of the human faction had massive parallels with Warhammer end times. They just didn't go the full hog as a)there was no need, 40k unlike Warhammer wasn't in a terrible place and b)they no doubt noted how many they annoyed on AoS launch (it wasn't solely due to completely different rules, no points etc)
Dai wrote: Didn't that kind of happen towards the end of 7th, there were certainly vaild fears that it was the case. A lot of the Eldar coming together with both their own factions and major player of the human faction had massive parallels with Warhammer end times. They just didn't go the full hog as a)there was no need, 40k unlike Warhammer wasn't in a terrible place and b)they no doubt noted how many they annoyed on AoS launch (it wasn't solely due to completely different rules, no points etc)
Possibly. But I don't buy into the whole argument that AoS came out because WFB was failing.
I think the plan has always been to completely restructure and rebrand the entire company from top to bottom. Creating a major shift with the 40K lore and moving past a lot of the old stories is something I'd really like to see happen in the coming editions.
I believe the game will be much better and allow players more ability to enjoy their games and factions when everyone has their primarchs, the emperor gets off the throne and is reborn and the really cringey parts of the lore are lost or retconned out of existence.
It really does seem to me that this is the direction they're going in as well, especially with the changes made to the black crusade, blackstone as a resource and so on over the last few books.
I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
I hope not, because it destroyed Warhammer fantasy for me. Completely lost interest in the new lore and my main faction was left hanging in the breeze and has been since the release of AoS.
40k End Times already happened, with roughly the same plot as the WHFB one.
Let's say book 1 of the End Times was Wrath of Magnus, in which an extremely powerful sorcerer lets loose his long schemed plan to destroy the nation of the monarch that humbled him in a previous life. Which isn't at all like Nagash.
Book 2 would be fall of Cadia, in which a Chaos attack is ultimately repelled by the arrival of a golden divine being in a pyrrhic victory that leaves the Empire of Man wide open for further attacks. Which isn't at all like Glotkin.
Now in book 3 we had an Eldar faction fissure but ultimately re-unite all 3 of the important factions under the rule of the newly summoned Incarnate/Yncarne after which it will send it's aid to the Empire of Man. Not at all like Khaine.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
I think one of the issues that GW is going to have to deal with is stagnation. You can't just keep releasing new editions forever. I think they have 40k in a space where they are pretty happy. I also think you are going to see a lot more renewed interest in their LOTR lines once the Amazon TV show hits. What I would really like GW to do would be to create a totally new Warhammer universe.
Warhammer: 40,000
Warhammer: Age Of Sigmar
Warhammer: Heroes?
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
See I sit in the opposite camp. Blow it up!
I've read the old world lore. It wasn't very good, but AoS has a fantastic fantasy setting. It's only gotten better in the intervening years.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
See I sit in the opposite camp. Blow it up!
I've read the old world lore. It wasn't very good, but AoS has a fantastic fantasy setting. It's only gotten better in the intervening years.
I find the Age of Sigmar lore to be awful. The Warhammer Fantasy universe had better stories and a well developed universe.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
See I sit in the opposite camp. Blow it up!
I've read the old world lore. It wasn't very good, but AoS has a fantastic fantasy setting. It's only gotten better in the intervening years.
WFB was way too generic, the slayer cult stuff for me was especially insufferable, terribly written and dull.
YMMV of course, but I much prefer AoS and its current list of factions and lore.
I find the Age of Sigmar lore to be awful. The Warhammer Fantasy universe had better stories and a well developed universe.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
See I sit in the opposite camp. Blow it up!
I've read the old world lore. It wasn't very good, but AoS has a fantastic fantasy setting. It's only gotten better in the intervening years.
or you could find another game if you dislike 40k. go play AOS if you like it better.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
See I sit in the opposite camp. Blow it up!
I've read the old world lore. It wasn't very good, but AoS has a fantastic fantasy setting. It's only gotten better in the intervening years.
or you could find another game if you dislike 40k. go play AOS if you like it better.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
See I sit in the opposite camp. Blow it up!
I've read the old world lore. It wasn't very good, but AoS has a fantastic fantasy setting. It's only gotten better in the intervening years.
or you could find another game if you dislike 40k. go play AOS if you like it better.
YMMV but if you stagnate too long, it will die.
The 40k universe as a setting has proven very popular, lasting decades and several great video games to boot. If they're wanting to tear that down, they better have something strong to propose. Because if it isn't popular, then Games Workshop could be finished. 40k has been their flagship for the past decade,
I agree with Grimtuff: the change you were talking about has already happened to 40k.
In 7th, there was 40k, and dex after dex after dex.
After 8th, we have campaign books with a story that is moving forward; we have Kill Team and Blackstone, which both work to augment 40k. Both of these ideas were test run on Sigmar while 8th was still in it's infancy; they are now a staple of 8th. The fact that the Eldar have a new god and that any primarchs are awakening should be a sign that we are in the Sigmar Reboot of 40k- we are getting new models and concepts for the first time in a very, very long time.
Minigames allow GW a chance to figure out what the next army will be. Think about it: release 5 brand new factions as Kill Teams. Whichever sells the most becomes the next army.
They still have enough material to keep us going for years. Give us back the 5 Eldar characters we've lost; give Corsairs and/ or Exodites a go. Emperor's Children, Traitor Guard, Kroot... So much potential.
A reboot would prevent any of that, and all of that intellectual property would be lost. 40K is the best it's been in a decade, easily. A world reboot wouldn't be blowing up one game- they'd be blowing up Necromunda, Kill Team, Blackstone, 40K, and Apocalypse; Forge World would cease to exist... Quite simply, the company would collapse before they could recover. If 40k hadn't been strong enough to hold the business while they rebuilt the fanbase for AoS, that reboot would have sunk them. Even now, AoS is not strong enough to tide the company over the risk and turn around time on a 40k world reboot.
I can tell you 8th is my last edition. I can take a rerelease of BRB and selected Codices that need an update for competitiveness - sort of an 8.5, but I won't follow a reboot of such magnitude that it invalidates everything that we have right now.
Once the sisters drop happens, I will have everything I need to keep playing THIS edition for the few decades I have left in me, so the only way GW gets my money is to continue supporting the game[s] I already have.
small_gods wrote: I think there will be a 40k rebrand in the next 10 years but it will be more subtle than the WFB/AoS rebrand. The focus does seem to be on a big imperium vs chaos event that may signal a rebrand.
It could be achieved by bringing back primachs and having an event that focuses on the maelstrom and possibly killing off the emperor. So that said it could take some time and at least one new edition. Hopefully then GW will be unshackled from old lore written in the 80s.
Although all that said with the money that GW is turning over at the moment they may not want to make big changes.
no no no no no no no. everyone who speaks of "unshackl;ing X from the lore" are in my experiance universally people who are just too lazy to learn the lore and writers too lazy to write to the lore. I don't want that. the Lore is what makes 40k for me. I don't mind moving forward, but "let's just wreck it so we can write whatever we want" is a horriable idea. I stopped following forgotten realms when they did that with 4e it's just no appeal to me, and when they decide to do that with a massive change to the came system, it results in losing a LOT of your fanbase. I know no battletechers who where thrilled with MWDA and very few played it
****amn Right!
Add to the universe, don't change the universe. Build on the setting, don't change the story.
Primarchs coming back, killing the Emperor. . . puuh-lease. The more it changes, the less interested in it I am.
there is a differance between not stagnating and blowing everything up. GW's already, as others have noted, made changes. in the past three years we've had a loylaist primarch return, an entire new type of space marine, Cadia was blown up. the Deathguard attacked Ultramarand inflicted serious damage, including destroying a famed garden world. Ohh and the Tau now have a jump gate enabling them to appear further from their homeworld, So yeah even if we dismiss vigilius as "ohh look it's another world that we've never heard of but is said to be important" (as GW tends to do often) then yeah a lot's been happening. Stuff like that is good. we do NOT however need entire factions, that are the loveingly painted armies of hundreds if not thousands of players, destroyed in a paragraph.
Imagine for a moment you have an Ultramarines army. You've loveingly collected, played etc it over a decades worth of time, and then suddenly GW destroys the ultramarines. you can't keep your army kinda canon by putting in that new kit you really like, because the unit was introduced in response to the fall of the Ultramarines etc. it'd "kill the mood" there is precisely nothing to be gained from doing those kind of massive massive changes. and everything to be lsot. and the rich background lore... that's a draw not a "impedimant to writing stories"
The emprah dying and ascending to some sort of proper godhood would be the next move IMO. At this point might as well...
The Grim dark feeling of being stuck in the dark ages standing on an eternal praecipe of Galaxy wide Armageddon is well and truly gone. We are now spoon fed the narrative and time line is being pushed forward and its really weird because we are talking millenia worth of culture and the never changing imperial behemoth which is stuck in its grim dark ways changing almost overnight. I'm not sure How I feel about it. I liked 40k because it allowed the mind to wonder and get imaginative. Now we don't get to wonder. We are being told what is happening...
Im sure GW would feth it up and make it so that storm casts can appear in 40k because space marines =$$$...By that point its a wrap for a huge portion of the fanbase so perhaps better they don't do it lol.
You won't risk a hail-mary attempt like the End Times with a game like 40K. You could pull off about a third of that and maybe keep the audience. 40K has long been GW's primary product - even when WFB was in full swing, 40K was almost always outselling it and strongly.
In the closing months, GW's paints and hobby supplies were outselling WFB kits. It was a prime time to pull the band-aid off and swing for the fences with a bizarre re-boot. In doing so they alienated a large portion of the existing fanbase, but...this was a fanbase that was ravenous, while not spending money/buying kits. GW figured a re-boot with a vastly different style would possibly attract new buyers, and hopefully enough to replace the withering sales of the old time fans.
They could risk this because WFB was in such dire straits it would be hard not to outsell it. They also could rely on 40K saving their bacon if it was a complete failure. They cannot risk the same thing with 40K. It is the big money maker. One of the reasons the fluff and lore hasn't changed much is because it doesn't need to. They haven't been at a point where they really needed to take strong action to continue sales.
The main issue with 40K lore is that, beyond novels, GW doesn't do anything with it. It's not part of their main model-selling business. Think about how excellent some 40K and 30K novels are, and how stupendous the old Forgeworld Imperial Armour books are. There is infinite space and opportunity in the 40K universe to produce compelling stories...but stories don't sell much plastic.
Vigilus was pretty weak narratively (spread way too thin, trying to sell too many armies). If GW put more effort into actual convincing and interesting narrative books (softback, even just 50-60 pages every couple of months) they could make the entire existence a lot more interesting.
As has been pointed out, the end times happened already. The Imperium is broken in half, Abaddons 13th crusade was successful and Daemons are everywhere.
Blowing up the old World was a fiasco, GW alienated its whole WHF fanbase and it took AoS years to recover from that blow, it basically had to start from zero instead of using the existing WHF base. It probably was even worse than Finecast. Even GW admitted that when they outright stated at the end of 7th Edition, no, we will not blow up 40K, trust us.
Also, Stormcast Eternals were Fantasy Space Marines right from the start, even without Primaris (or Custodes). Turning it around seems... Illogical to me
Vigilus was pretty weak narratively (spread way too thin, trying to sell too many armies). If GW put more effort into actual convincing and interesting narrative books (softback, even just 50-60 pages every couple of months) they could make the entire existence a lot more interesting.
I agree, Vigilius felt like well... the storyline of Dawn of War: Soulstorm. a bit of a jumbled mess mostly created to allow as many factions as possiable to fight.
That's been more or less the issue with every single GW-Prime story-based releases. When you have 25-30 factions...you cram at least half of them into every single planet and it comes off like a jumbled mess. Forgeworld was fortunate in that they weren't really under such constraints. They really only need to sell a dozen new resin kits with each book. Their stories wandered on occasion but you generally felt like it was a plausible and concise narrative.
Reading Vigilus for the first time I more or less laughed each time they introduced another faction "Oh...and...uh...the Dark Eldar are up North in a snowstorm...because why not." etc. The justification for conflicts was even worse. GW-Prime has done a lot of that though, and that's why I'm fine if they would stay far far away from it.
Or...simply release four or five narrative campaign books each year, but keep the factions to 3-4 per book (ideally even fewer). Keep them softbound and relatively short, but throw in a good story, a few unique datasheets if you introduce models and some specialist detachments, and a couple missions. Basically about half of what Vigilus was. They just tried too hard there.
That was what I didn't understand about Vigilus...they could have stretched it over a dozen planets...but for some reason every faction involved showed up on one....it's always silly.
You can ad a lot to the setting without having to blow anything up. Even Huge events do not need to effect the universe in any significant way.
The primarchs returning, irrelevant to the whole. Tone them down rather than up, There political power is where the shifts start to happen.
Even something like the emperor dying could be way more interesting if it served to playing into the bleak setting as a whole. Than a major event where you buy a bunch of models, and fight some special games with crappy rules and that is the highlight. Tyranids and necrons probably not invited to that anyway.
I just feel people have mistaking momentum in the setting as some need for it to morph and change constantly. When it would be really interesting to see some of that story in how the Imperium keeps its grip.
How the factions within it with power work to keep that power.
And the plans they have around that D:
Rather it feels like its going the other way, Endless escalation until the themes, story and setting collapse under itself.
NinthMusketeer wrote: They could pull a Shamalamalan and reveal that big E has been dead the whole time.
That would be pretty cool. And the golden throne was maybe a machine planned for a long time to work as a navigation beacon. But its raw brutality required an extreme excuse to justify. That and the black ships...
I think that if such a reveal was made it would be kept secret by a select few. Imagine the average imperial citizen finding out. It would spell doom for the imperium...
NinthMusketeer wrote: They could pull a Shamalamalan and reveal that big E has been dead the whole time.
That would be pretty cool. And the golden throne was maybe a machine planned for a long time to work as a navigation beacon. But its raw brutality required an extreme excuse to justify. That and the black ships...
I think that if such a reveal was made it would be kept secret by a select few. Imagine the average imperial citizen finding out. It would spell doom for the imperium...
You can do a lot with that, Keeping the Horus heresy as myth and legend was so important to the settings tone. That i think 40k as more Super hero parody than science Fiction parody now days.
Even the Emperor as a myth, A corpse on the throne is more interesting for the setting than what it has sort of become. The Primarchs are losing there myth status and become just meh, another super hero in the setting. With even the space marines being relegated to just kinda unimportant, despite what GW keeps saying.
Too much Rule of Cool and not enough just cool stuff.
But i like the idea of there being a few thousand candidates to sit there, the emperor being special but with thousands of planets there are thousands of special people. They may have them, but no one wants to touch the switch anyway. And not every candidate will hold up. I huge risk, but they will keep putting people in untill they find the right one.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started to move the lore into a new status quo. It helps to sell models and lore shenanigans inspire the artists. However, they've learned their mistakes with AoS so the progression in 40k will be slower and more gradual.
We will see more Primarchs returning, I would say that's inevitable. They'll probably try to add some internal Imperium conflict because soapy drama sells.
Ultimately I think the reason GW is not opposed to soup is that soup helps to sell storylines for the most part. If you can run the Imperium as a whole, Chaos as a whole, or something like Aeldari as a whole, it becomes easier to release models as you can have "Grand Alliance" factions involved in the conflict and the models could potentially target a larger playerbase than just the players of a single mono-faction. It's one of the reasons the Genestealer Cult was a brilliant move business wise as it meant Tyranid players could "expand" into their own Grand Alliance. A release for either one faction can be considered a release for both factions(unless you are a diehard mono-player).
If you think about it you only have three factions(out of nearly 30) now that don't belong to a Grand Alliance and they could probably change that with a lore progression or adding smaller mono-factions(like Harlequins) to the existing one. So I think Grand Alliance-esque approaches are very possible in the near future.
I'd say they should only bring back more of the primarchs if they don't get on with eachother and it just fractures the Imperium further. There shouldn't be hope, there shouldn't be optimism. That's not the 40K setting.
40k was inspired by many things (Dune, Lord of the Rings, 80's political nightmare of the UK, 2,000 ad comic, and world history) that are sadly not as relevant to today's youth. I grew up in the 80's, 40k's lore feels very much a product of that time. It has since been expanded upon by so many new writers that the old thread no longer seem there, or as significant. There is also the drive to please share holders that has become the driving force, for example Tau are a race that simply don't fit in to one of the central themes of 40k, that theme being stagnation, whether that be technology, or cultural. Tau are dynamic and progressive. Sure it was nice to see a new race added, but it came at the expense of several other races that were killed off in the switch from 2nd to 3rd, or other races that had been hinted at.
40k's lore as it is now is too much of a mess, one foot trying to appeal and keep oldies like myself happy, while the other is trying to appeal to the modern world's take on sci-fi and also compete with video games.
The lore is going to shift and I suspect that we will see a few of the under performing races be killed off. The setting will advance and become something different. Primaris armour for example seem heavily inspired by the likes of Iron Man, where as old Space Marines were influenced by European mediaeval armour, that is to say it got to the point of being so protective that we went back to using weapons designed to smash instead of slice.
TL/DR: GW is no longer the GW of the 80's, so it will naturally change to better reflect modern tastes and trends.
I think the newer lore has been very good, provided you don't just read 40k campaign books.
Watchers of the Throne, Dark Imperium 1&2, Devastation of Baal, Spears of the Emperor have all been fantastic novels. The Primaris introduce another element of drama and conflict, whilst the severity of the great rift adds even more desperation to a crumbling empire that finally realises drastic actions and changes are required, but it might all be too late.
I don't share a sentiment that anything new is a mess in particular. The problem rests with the way the lore was written in the past - very much a dead end that wasn't conducive to new developments.
A lot of people who complain are reading slanted summaries from 1d4 chan or forums, and coming to conclusions with only limited information. Others are stuck in their ways and don't like any change.
The monumental success of GW and Black Library is the evidence that they are doing the right things, and that the outspoken and disenfranchised are a vocal minority.
"I don't share a sentiment that anything new is a mess in particular. The problem rests with the way the lore was written in the past - very much a dead end that wasn't conducive to new developments. " This i think is really interesting, since the old lore really was not. The old lore was very open and left a lot for expansion.
That New writing has not really used half as well as it could have. A great deal of the new is just Taking old ideas and using them as the players wanted for years.
As well as a lot of factions basically left in the dust, Seeming to be lucky to have a place in the current game at all.
Some like the sisters of silence really only need one extra unique kit, and some love and care put to the rules and could be fleshed out as a great faction to play.
And set them up for new kits, even if they are not the most popular army.
One of GWs big faults is a lot of there ideas they just half ass. And then seem to wonder why players are not entirely on board with it.
The problem for me with the old lore was we where rapidly reaching a point where there wasn't much room for new intreasting stories. I mean you can only write about the war for Armageddon, just for example, so often until it gets boring. This doesn;t mean there's no oppertunities for stories in the pre-GS era ADB's Black Legion orgin novels, and there's the War of the Beast novels that well of, intermediate quality was a good diea. but yeah, moving things ahead certainly helped. and I'll agree with Ishagu, the novels he's listed have all been AMAZING, some of the best 40k books I've read in ages. Most of the post great rift novels are amazing, not all of em, but yeah, there's some good ones out there.
In the old lore you were left to compose any battle you wanted, but you were incredibly limited in terms of any new ideas or changes to the status quo of the Imperium, the position of the Tau, etc
How can anything be left for expansion when using a new pattern of melta gun could lead to an exterminatus for tech heresy? lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: The problem for me with the old lore was we where rapidly reaching a point where there wasn't much room for new intreasting stories. I mean you can only write about the war for Armageddon, just for example, so often until it gets boring. This doesn;t mean there's no oppertunities for stories in the pre-GS era ADB's Black Legion orgin novels, and there's the War of the Beast novels that well of, intermediate quality was a good diea. but yeah, moving things ahead certainly helped. and I'll agree with Ishagu, the novels he's listed have all been AMAZING, some of the best 40k books I've read in ages. Most of the post great rift novels are amazing, not all of em, but yeah, there's some good ones out there.
Yes, you get what I'm talking about. Everything was starting to feel the same.
Also I really think people need to read those novels.
If you consider yourself a fan of 40k lore there are some seriously good pay-offs and stories there for you to enjoy. Some of the finest 40k fiction from BL.
Togusa wrote: I've been thinking, given everything that has happened with the coming of 8th, the launch of the primaris line, the big changes to parts of the lore, what is the likely hood that we will get an "End Times" Styled event in the coming years in the vain of what happened to WFB?
Nil, I reckon.
Call me crazy but it just seems to me to be the direction they're going.
You're crazy!
They've rebranded WFB to AoS, Games Workshop to "Warhammer." The only thing left to be rebranded is the 40K game and line, and to be honest I think the likelihood of this happening is quite high.
Yeah, but why would they? I mean, what would be the economic incentive for overhauling something that's already generating huge profits?
Ishagu wrote: In the old lore you were left to compose any battle you wanted, but you were incredibly limited in terms of any new ideas or changes to the status quo of the Imperium, the position of the Tau, etc
How can anything be left for expansion when using a new pattern of melta gun could lead to an exterminatus for tech heresy? lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: The problem for me with the old lore was we where rapidly reaching a point where there wasn't much room for new intreasting stories. I mean you can only write about the war for Armageddon, just for example, so often until it gets boring. This doesn;t mean there's no oppertunities for stories in the pre-GS era ADB's Black Legion orgin novels, and there's the War of the Beast novels that well of, intermediate quality was a good diea. but yeah, moving things ahead certainly helped. and I'll agree with Ishagu, the novels he's listed have all been AMAZING, some of the best 40k books I've read in ages. Most of the post great rift novels are amazing, not all of em, but yeah, there's some good ones out there.
Yes, you get what I'm talking about. Everything was starting to feel the same.
Also I really think people need to read those novels.
If you consider yourself a fan of 40k lore there are some seriously good pay-offs and stories there for you to enjoy. Some of the finest 40k fiction from BL.
How far are you going back ? Considering at least 20 years ago there was experimentation on tech. The 3rd edition necron book had some.
The 3rd edition eldar book also lists that the reason that its best to leave eldar tech alone is its often trapped, and often ends with the attempt at use causing death.
The imperium was even less stupid xenophobic, and more cautious xenophobic.
With references to both eldar and tau in diplomacy. Since if you do not need to start wars with very dangerous aliens, They did not. GW using all that badly is just what they did.
But current lore is in no way more open to progress, and has just forgot about a lot of what made the old stuff so imaginative as well.
I am going to echo Ishagu's sentiment. Even if I wasn't much into the novels I felt the setting becoming somewhat stale over the years. With all that has happened in the past three years I have felt more invested in the setting because I feel like my factions are playing their part in the grand scheme of the universe. Because of that I am more interested in weird narrative/open campaigns that don't revolve around min-maxing stuff. I feel more inclined to play out the scenarios that are shaping the current landscape. Hell, I loved the Konor event and played a lot during that summer because it felt like things were happening then and there in the 40k universe.
Ishagu wrote: In the old lore you were left to compose any battle you wanted, but you were incredibly limited in terms of any new ideas or changes to the status quo of the Imperium, the position of the Tau, etc
How can anything be left for expansion when using a new pattern of melta gun could lead to an exterminatus for tech heresy? lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: The problem for me with the old lore was we where rapidly reaching a point where there wasn't much room for new intreasting stories. I mean you can only write about the war for Armageddon, just for example, so often until it gets boring. This doesn;t mean there's no oppertunities for stories in the pre-GS era ADB's Black Legion orgin novels, and there's the War of the Beast novels that well of, intermediate quality was a good diea. but yeah, moving things ahead certainly helped. and I'll agree with Ishagu, the novels he's listed have all been AMAZING, some of the best 40k books I've read in ages. Most of the post great rift novels are amazing, not all of em, but yeah, there's some good ones out there.
Yes, you get what I'm talking about. Everything was starting to feel the same.
Also I really think people need to read those novels.
If you consider yourself a fan of 40k lore there are some seriously good pay-offs and stories there for you to enjoy. Some of the finest 40k fiction from BL.
right there's only so many ways you can tell the "space marine chapter and the guard fights a action agsinst a tyranid invasion" before it becomes "same story differant colour armor" situation. now we've got some new story telling possiabilities. like "how do Primaris Marines handle running agaisnt Necrons" "what happens when chaos lord so and so decides to carve out an empire of his own in an area of imperium nihlus that is guarded by a space marine chapter cut off from resupply and reinforcements?" (which BTW is the premise of the Emperor's Spears) All the old stories can be told, but there are chances for no ones, and new twists on old stories to be told
I don't share a sentiment that anything new is a mess in particular. The problem rests with the way the lore was written in the past - very much a dead end that wasn't conducive to new developments.
This is why the new lore is a mess, as it is forgets that the old lore wasn't a dead end. Throughout the codexes and editions new snippets of info were produced that expanded upon the established lore and kept the internal consistency of the themes. 40k was a setting of fallen from grace, decline, and stagnation. In that in mirrored a lot of Greek mythology, and a few world faiths. Even within that seeming limiting setting their was scope for creativity, due to the sheer scale of the galaxy, and also the age and mystery around events.
The new lore is undoing a lot of that, and even worse explaining the mystery... that has robbed the setting of a lot of its appeal and charm. The writers had no planned narrative for the setting to take, no arc or solution to the mysteries.
It is telling that of the original writers few of any remain, it feels like the new writers are wiping the slate clean, so they can tell their own stories.
surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
The setting has had a lot of the mystery and mysticism removed before the fall of Cadia. We have great insight into the warp, a highly detailed account of the Horus Heresy and the Primarchs, etc. What mystery are you referring to?
No one is saying that things haven't been changed. That doesn't mean it's a mess, it means it's changing. It had to, or it would remain in the same spiral of repetition.
BrianDavion wrote: surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
You mention 5th edition, which is ironic... as that is when 40k died.
The change to Necron background and models, Centurions, Tau Riptide, Grey Knights Dread Knight, etc. That was the start of the rot, the old guard had left, and the new blood wanted to put their stamp on it. That stamp showed a creative bankruptcy, which has only increased and been built upon.
GW learned from the death of WFB that a big dramatic change is too much of a risk, especially with their cash cow (40k), so instead, we'll see slow gradual changes... like all the old marines going to Direct Only, then not being restocked, then rules not being written for old models. Space Marines, namely Primaris Marines are the test bed, if they go well, we'll see the equivalent happen to most if not all the races... my money is on Eldar Aspect Warriors being the next thing GW replace with a new unit(s), then fade the old ones into history.
Most of the old stuff added to expand the lore was inconsequential fluff that had little to nothing that affected the universe at large. After several editions I just zoned out and said "whatever".
If I were to evaluate the old and new based on my own perceptions I would say that the old-style 40k was a good basis for a competitive tourney based game(even if the rules didn't support that) because the fluff was stale and unchanging for the most part. You were there to beat your opponent to pulp and the lore was - for all intents and purposes - a background noise. The new style is more supportive of fluff and narrative play.
It's why Horus Heresy felt better during 7th edition. It felt more progressive(storywise) compared to its 40k counterpart.
Ultimately I understand very well the desire of the game designers to want to evolve the story. There is nothing more uninspiring than working on a world that just never progresses any further than explaining what food delicacy is typical for a certain sector and why you have to sacrifice a battalion of Sororitas for that particular dish(just to make it grimdark enough for the teens). Even if they were to fire all the designers and hire new ones the new ones would still be in favour of evolving the story just to keep themselves interested. People want to be creators in a fantasy universe, not just its aging caretakers.
BrianDavion wrote: surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
You mention 5th edition, which is ironic... as that is when 40k died.
The change to Necron background and models, Centurions, Tau Riptide, Grey Knights Dread Knight, etc. That was the start of the rot, the old guard had left, and the new blood wanted to put their stamp on it. That stamp showed a creative bankruptcy, which has only increased and been built upon.
GW learned from the death of WFB that a big dramatic change is too much of a risk, especially with their cash cow (40k), so instead, we'll see slow gradual changes... like all the old marines going to Direct Only, then not being restocked, then rules not being written for old models. Space Marines, namely Primaris Marines are the test bed, if they go well, we'll see the equivalent happen to most if not all the races... my money is on Eldar Aspect Warriors being the next thing GW replace with a new unit(s), then fade the old ones into history.
A bit overly dramatic there. Clearly you don't like change.
BrianDavion wrote: surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
You mention 5th edition, which is ironic... as that is when 40k died.
The change to Necron background and models, Centurions, Tau Riptide, Grey Knights Dread Knight, etc. That was the start of the rot, the old guard had left, and the new blood wanted to put their stamp on it. That stamp showed a creative bankruptcy, which has only increased and been built upon.
GW learned from the death of WFB that a big dramatic change is too much of a risk, especially with their cash cow (40k), so instead, we'll see slow gradual changes... like all the old marines going to Direct Only, then not being restocked, then rules not being written for old models. Space Marines, namely Primaris Marines are the test bed, if they go well, we'll see the equivalent happen to most if not all the races... my money is on Eldar Aspect Warriors being the next thing GW replace with a new unit(s), then fade the old ones into history.
A bit overly dramatic there. Clearly you don't like change.
No, I like change, what I don't like is change for the sake of change and/or to sell new models. Case in point, when 5th edition hit the shelves Space Marines were already a complete product line, however GW's policy is to add something new to each faction for each edition, as Space Marines are always first inline, we got Centurions. They are just awful, from the models to the way they were shoehorned into the background, and also due to serving no role that was lacking. That is the sort of change I don't like, it adds nothing of value and just cheapens the overall product.
If those creative resources had been focused on fleshing out a previously mentioned race, say the Hrudd, that would have been much better, and kept within the pre established background, while also advancing the game.
BrianDavion wrote: surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
You mention 5th edition, which is ironic... as that is when 40k died.
Ironic, considering that the fanbase for 40k is at it's largest, the company's profits are through the roof, and community engagement is at an all time high.
Sounds like you really, REALLY don't like change.
The change to Necron background and models
For the better. Now your Necrons have personality and a degree of customisations beyond "hurr durr i'm the terminator" - you can still have that if you like, the lore still accepts that, but they're way more interesting now.
Of course, that's an opinion.
That was the start of the rot, the old guard had left, and the new blood wanted to put their stamp on it. That stamp showed a creative bankruptcy, which has only increased and been built upon.
Creative bankruptcy? What do you mean?
Again, sounds a lot like "anything that came after this arbitrary time period is automatically bad".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stonehorse wrote: No, I like change, what I don't like is change for the sake of change and/or to sell new models.
Hate to say it. but they are a company. Once they've sold a full army to someone, what then? Can't guarantee them doing another faction, so you update and create new stuff for an existing one.
Case in point, when 5th edition hit the shelves Space Marines were already a complete product line, however GW's policy is to add something new to each faction for each edition, as Space Marines are always first inline, we got Centurions. They are just awful, from the models to the way they were shoehorned into the background, and also due to serving no role that was lacking. That is the sort of change I don't like, it adds nothing of value and just cheapens the overall product.
But we also got Stormtalons, Stormravens and Stalkers/Hunters, as the aerial and anti-aerial units.
Centurions added a heavy fire support unit. And how else are you supposed to add in a unit, in a faction that is heavily anti-progress without introducing a shift in the setting?
People complained about Centurions being added with no fleshed out lore, and people complained about Primaris being added, saying there shouldn't have been any.
If those creative resources had been focused on fleshing out a previously mentioned race, say the Hrudd, that would have been much better, and kept within the pre established background, while also advancing the game.
And add to the saturation of too many races as it is? We don't need every race to be playable - leave that for homebrew and personal projects.
It's why T'au probably should be expanded more to incorporate more auxiliary elements.
It's true, my interest in Necrons dropped mightily with their 5th Ed codex. It was like a cartoon compared to the previous one.
Yes, you could still make an army based off the older lore, but the gravitas as a faction died for me.
And that's not "muuuh, you don't like change!". It's not, because the addition of the Necron 3rd ed Codex lore was a huuuge change. But it was change I appreciated.
GW will not go full off the deep end, end times (unless it starts to fail). They had the golden goose in 40k and at the time a failing shrinking game in warhammer fantasy. They relaunched because the risk was small, worse case it put it out of their misery best case they throw new models out, streamline the game and get 2 golden geese.
Lucky for them the gamble paid off and they get to move more plastic than ever.
In 40k we are seeing the story move, primarchs return etc, so we are getting a gradual shallow dip into 40k changes. I think we will seem more primarchs and legions fleshed out, more chaos forces and hopefully more xenos forces.
They do seem to be culling old discontinued or never existant kits in the indexes and I expect thosesame index options will not be in 9th edition indexes/codexes unless they decide to make new models for it.
Ishagu wrote: But Necrons were just metal Tyranids before that.
It's more scary in a way, more boring and uninspired in another.
That, obviously, is your opinion.
Imo the Necron threat was far greater, and far more sinister during the 3rd ed book. Tyranids wipe out all life, but the Necrons/Ctan would spiritually kill the galaxy by sealing of tge warp, and then keep life around, but harvest humans and other specis like cattle.
I think end times is a good way to put it. Just like the Endtimes the concept of advancing the story is a good one, but the way they did it was completely at odds with what made the original story cool
BrianDavion wrote: surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
You mention 5th edition, which is ironic... as that is when 40k died.
The change to Necron background and models, Centurions, Tau Riptide, Grey Knights Dread Knight, etc. That was the start of the rot, the old guard had left, and the new blood wanted to put their stamp on it. That stamp showed a creative bankruptcy, which has only increased and been built upon.
GW learned from the death of WFB that a big dramatic change is too much of a risk, especially with their cash cow (40k), so instead, we'll see slow gradual changes... like all the old marines going to Direct Only, then not being restocked, then rules not being written for old models. Space Marines, namely Primaris Marines are the test bed, if they go well, we'll see the equivalent happen to most if not all the races... my money is on Eldar Aspect Warriors being the next thing GW replace with a new unit(s), then fade the old ones into history.
A bit overly dramatic there. Clearly you don't like change.
No, I like change, what I don't like is change for the sake of change and/or to sell new models. Case in point, when 5th edition hit the shelves Space Marines were already a complete product line, however GW's policy is to add something new to each faction for each edition, as Space Marines are always first inline, we got Centurions. They are just awful, from the models to the way they were shoehorned into the background, and also due to serving no role that was lacking. That is the sort of change I don't like, it adds nothing of value and just cheapens the overall product.
If those creative resources had been focused on fleshing out a previously mentioned race, say the Hrudd, that would have been much better, and kept within the pre established background, while also advancing the game.
centurions where 6th edition not 5th edition. 5th edition IIRC gave us vanguard and sternguard veterns. Also yes GW was putting out new units for an army when a new codex came out. they've shifted that but they still need to put out new units for popular armies. (I've said it before but space Marines pay for everyone else's army) thing is had GW not gave use Primaris Marines, Centurions would be the way of the future. GW's a company first and foremost.
"Being a company first and foremost" isn't an issue. Obviously they have to figure out how to sell more models. There's nothing inherently wrong with adding models.
The WAY in which models are added, and WHAT models are added is where issues arise. I don't remember anybody complaining about Sternguard and Vanguard being introduced. Nor do I remember anybody having any issues with the Land Raider Crusader when it was first introduced, or the Land Raider Redeemer either. Did anyone complain about the Hunter and Stalker kit? It should be obvious that some additions/changes are more of a stickler than others.
Centurions stand out as being a less-than-ideal model launch in terms of community reception.
ohh I agree, Cneturions are awkward a bit silly etc. sadly however had Primaris not come out the centurion likely would have been the new norm. Basicly at the end of the day GW had run out of stuff they could bring into the Space Marine Range, this was IMHO getting obvious. So GW had two choices. 1: stop making Space Marines save the odd replacement kit for old models, or 2: essentially relaunch space marines.
Primaris are an obvious move, I agree. I just find it a little tasteless.
That said, it's not exactly clear to me that new kits for the Space Marines couldn't have been done. The Scouts and Terminators are pretty awful compared to current plastics. Imagine if Terminators had gotten some sweet new kits and some rules that made them competitive, with the new option of fielding an all Terminator army. I also recall that people went "truescale crazy" for a while, and also had a fit when the Deathwatch were released and stood a whole mm or two taller than the current Tacticals.
I honestly believe there are plenty of people looking for excuses to buy more Space Marines. Maybe that wouldn't have sold as many kits as the new Primaris line, but people looooove Space Marines, for better or for worse.
Personally I might have purchased Centurions if they didn't look so stupid. Same thing with the Storm Raven. I just think the models are particularly juvenile.
So you're suggesting that they just keep on re-releasing old kits?
I'd rather have the Primaris range, personally. People are very much correct when they point out that the classic Astartes range was completed. It was actually overly bloated and full of unnecessary redundancies and duplicate units.
This "re-boot/refresh" will be very good in the long run.
Insectum7 wrote: Primaris are an obvious move, I agree. I just find it a little tasteless.
That said, it's not exactly clear to me that new kits for the Space Marines couldn't have been done. The Scouts and Terminators are pretty awful compared to current plastics. Imagine if Terminators had gotten some sweet new kits and some rules that made them competitive, with the new option of fielding an all Terminator army. I also recall that people went "truescale crazy" for a while, and also had a fit when the Deathwatch were released and stood a whole mm or two taller than the current Tacticals.
I honestly believe there are plenty of people looking for excuses to buy more Space Marines. Maybe that wouldn't have sold as many kits as the new Primaris line, but people looooove Space Marines, for better or for worse.
Personally I might have purchased Centurions if they didn't look so stupid. Same thing with the Storm Raven. I just think the models are particularly juvenile.
and how many assault, tactical and devestator kits have your purchased in the last 5 years? because those kits have all been revamped in the last 5 years. Did you go out and buy a TON of new tactical marines?
Before the new releases of Tac and Devs I had ton of older marines. I haven't bought a single box of the new dev kits and the only new tac kits I have were one that came in some sort of bundle.
Only time I imagine people "might" want to buy a new kit to upgrade is if it is upgrading from metal/resin to plastic or the new kit is just of such different variety that it is actually enticing(Dark Eldar 3rd to 5th edition, the new Craftworld jetbikes).
I think people overestimate the amount of kits people are willing to rebuy. Sure, there are a few whales who keep on buying kits endlessly, but there is also a legion of people who only buy and keep what they need. For the people who want things static just have kits only upgraded Games Workshop would have to be a much smaller business that would probably charge a higher premium for their kits if they were to keep them as is and in plastic.
Eldarsif wrote: Before the new releases of Tac and Devs I had ton of older marines. I haven't bought a single box of the new dev kits and the only new tac kits I have were one that came in some sort of bundle.
Only time I imagine people "might" want to buy a new kit to upgrade is if it is upgrading from metal/resin to plastic or the new kit is just of such different variety that it is actually enticing(Dark Eldar 3rd to 5th edition, the new Craftworld jetbikes).
I think people overestimate the amount of kits people are willing to rebuy. Sure, there are a few whales who keep on buying kits endlessly, but there is also a legion of people who only buy and keep what they need. For the people who want things static just have kits only upgraded Games Workshop would have to be a much smaller business that would probably charge a higher premium for their kits if they were to keep them as is and in plastic.
exactly. people will buy upgraded kits if they need em sure. but most of the time they'd have bought the old kit. I mean if the kits are a MASSIVE increase in quality sure someone might buy new stuff (the new CSM kits are a great example) but yeah, by and alrge they won't. As it is since I got into 40K I've seen 4 seperate tactical squad boxes (the one active with 5th edition, the one introduced in 6th edition, the MK3 and the MK4.) and.. there's little real differance. I like having the MK3 and MK4 armor and it feels distinct, but the only change from the tac squad boxes where the inclusion of grav guns.
Eldarsif wrote: Before the new releases of Tac and Devs I had ton of older marines. I haven't bought a single box of the new dev kits and the only new tac kits I have were one that came in some sort of bundle.
Only time I imagine people "might" want to buy a new kit to upgrade is if it is upgrading from metal/resin to plastic or the new kit is just of such different variety that it is actually enticing(Dark Eldar 3rd to 5th edition, the new Craftworld jetbikes).
I think people overestimate the amount of kits people are willing to rebuy. Sure, there are a few whales who keep on buying kits endlessly, but there is also a legion of people who only buy and keep what they need. For the people who want things static just have kits only upgraded Games Workshop would have to be a much smaller business that would probably charge a higher premium for their kits if they were to keep them as is and in plastic.
exactly. people will buy upgraded kits if they need em sure. but most of the time they'd have bought the old kit. I mean if the kits are a MASSIVE increase in quality sure someone might buy new stuff (the new CSM kits are a great example) but yeah, by and alrge they won't. As it is since I got into 40K I've seen 4 seperate tactical squad boxes (the one active with 5th edition, the one introduced in 6th edition, the MK3 and the MK4.) and.. there's little real differance. I like having the MK3 and MK4 armor and it feels distinct, but the only change from the tac squad boxes where the inclusion of grav guns.
If you take that idea and run with it the only logical thing to do with 40k is to have a constant churn of new armies with no ongoing support for anything over a month old or just keep rehashing marines so that people have to buy a whole new army every year or two. Hey that sounds like AoS
Eldarsif wrote: Before the new releases of Tac and Devs I had ton of older marines. I haven't bought a single box of the new dev kits and the only new tac kits I have were one that came in some sort of bundle.
Only time I imagine people "might" want to buy a new kit to upgrade is if it is upgrading from metal/resin to plastic or the new kit is just of such different variety that it is actually enticing(Dark Eldar 3rd to 5th edition, the new Craftworld jetbikes).
I think people overestimate the amount of kits people are willing to rebuy. Sure, there are a few whales who keep on buying kits endlessly, but there is also a legion of people who only buy and keep what they need. For the people who want things static just have kits only upgraded Games Workshop would have to be a much smaller business that would probably charge a higher premium for their kits if they were to keep them as is and in plastic.
exactly. people will buy upgraded kits if they need em sure. but most of the time they'd have bought the old kit. I mean if the kits are a MASSIVE increase in quality sure someone might buy new stuff (the new CSM kits are a great example) but yeah, by and alrge they won't. As it is since I got into 40K I've seen 4 seperate tactical squad boxes (the one active with 5th edition, the one introduced in 6th edition, the MK3 and the MK4.) and.. there's little real differance. I like having the MK3 and MK4 armor and it feels distinct, but the only change from the tac squad boxes where the inclusion of grav guns.
If you take that idea and run with it the only logical thing to do with 40k is to have a constant churn of new armies with no ongoing support for anything over a month old or just keep rehashing marines so that people have to buy a whole new army every year or two. Hey that sounds like AoS
no, because some armies can be expanded. the logical thing to do would be to introduce new armies, in conjuction with welcome expansions to existing ranges. which is more or less what GW's been doing for 40k
If you take that idea and run with it the only logical thing to do with 40k is to have a constant churn of new armies with no ongoing support for anything over a month old or just keep rehashing marines so that people have to buy a whole new army every year or two. Hey that sounds like AoS
exactly. people will buy upgraded kits if they need em sure. but most of the time they'd have bought the old kit. I mean if the kits are a MASSIVE increase in quality sure someone might buy new stuff (the new CSM kits are a great example) but yeah, by and alrge they won't. As it is since I got into 40K I've seen 4 seperate tactical squad boxes (the one active with 5th edition, the one introduced in 6th edition, the MK3 and the MK4.) and.. there's little real differance. I like having the MK3 and MK4 armor and it feels distinct, but the only change from the tac squad boxes where the inclusion of grav guns.
People also don't realize that the second hand market for some of those lines is huge. So people can buy the new fancy kit for top dollar or buy the same unit, but older kit, for dirt cheap. Many of the old core kits are like glitter: it's all over the place.
Insectum7 wrote: Primaris are an obvious move, I agree. I just find it a little tasteless.
That said, it's not exactly clear to me that new kits for the Space Marines couldn't have been done. The Scouts and Terminators are pretty awful compared to current plastics. Imagine if Terminators had gotten some sweet new kits and some rules that made them competitive, with the new option of fielding an all Terminator army. I also recall that people went "truescale crazy" for a while, and also had a fit when the Deathwatch were released and stood a whole mm or two taller than the current Tacticals.
I honestly believe there are plenty of people looking for excuses to buy more Space Marines. Maybe that wouldn't have sold as many kits as the new Primaris line, but people looooove Space Marines, for better or for worse.
Personally I might have purchased Centurions if they didn't look so stupid. Same thing with the Storm Raven. I just think the models are particularly juvenile.
and how many assault, tactical and devestator kits have your purchased in the last 5 years? because those kits have all been revamped in the last 5 years. Did you go out and buy a TON of new tactical marines?
I did. I've bought at least 6 of the recent Tactical boxes, 2-3 Assaults, and maybe 4 of the new Devastator kits. I'm still planning on picking up a few more Assault kits. I build my army out of those, because they're still minimalistic in decoration compared to things like the Sternguard/Vanguard bling-marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: So you're suggesting that they just keep on re-releasing old kits?
I'm saying that's not necessarily a dead end, especially when some people were so eager to purchase Primaris models and then convert them to traditional marines. You could have increased the scale slightly on the older kits, advertised how cool they looked in comparison to the current human-scale models like Guardsmen or Cultists, and probably done fairly well with them. New Terminator kits and better rules would have gone plenty far, I think. Imo much of the resurgence of interest into the game was the change in marketing strategy, community engagement, and a refreshing rule set that wiped away the inaccessible state of 7th, and the tension brought about by the AOS fiasco. It's unclear to me how much interest in the game was brought about purely because of Primaris releases.
Other races, like Eldar, have gotten along pretty well with just releasing and re-releasing older kits. People have been clamoring for plastic Aspect Warriors for at least a decade now.
That said, Marines can't really be equated with any other faction in terms of driving sales, so Marines remain a special case.
Insectum7 wrote: Primaris are an obvious move, I agree. I just find it a little tasteless.
That said, it's not exactly clear to me that new kits for the Space Marines couldn't have been done. The Scouts and Terminators are pretty awful compared to current plastics. Imagine if Terminators had gotten some sweet new kits and some rules that made them competitive, with the new option of fielding an all Terminator army. I also recall that people went "truescale crazy" for a while, and also had a fit when the Deathwatch were released and stood a whole mm or two taller than the current Tacticals.
I honestly believe there are plenty of people looking for excuses to buy more Space Marines. Maybe that wouldn't have sold as many kits as the new Primaris line, but people looooove Space Marines, for better or for worse.
Personally I might have purchased Centurions if they didn't look so stupid. Same thing with the Storm Raven. I just think the models are particularly juvenile.
and how many assault, tactical and devestator kits have your purchased in the last 5 years? because those kits have all been revamped in the last 5 years. Did you go out and buy a TON of new tactical marines?
I did. I've bought at least 6 of the recent Tactical boxes, 2-3 Assaults, and maybe 4 of the new Devastator kits. I'm still planning on picking up a few more Assault kits.
It is true that some people will always buy new kits and grow their armies. But that is probably not the majority. I know several people who still only run space marines and they are all original metal models, A lot of players build their army and once its done they just keep playing with it. Sure that is not the same type of person who probably plays tournaments or posts on dakkadakka all of the time, but they are probably more the majority than us. More common I would say in my experience for space marines is the player who bought 3 rhinos, 3 razerbacks, 3 drop pods, 6 tac squads, 15-20 terminators and one box of each release. those same players once centurians came out pretty much had everything they would ever need in their space marine line. Most of those same players are now picking up boxes of primaris to expand the army as they see them as new units with a major difference. That is good for GW business model as evident by their recent record profits.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Let me be clear, I am in no way saying that the Primaris line is a bad business decision. Far from it, I think it was very clever.
But it should also be clear that the recent profits for GW are not purely Primaris driven.
well yea, they are releasing a ton of new kits for other armies and whole new armies/ listening to community feedback sometimes. Thier return to using social media and responding to rules questions has gone a long way to improve things. I do think Primaris are a factor though. and it is smart how they are offering boxes where a lot of players are also getting chaos marine armies with primaris kits unavailable by themselves. Heck I have a bunch of deathguard now plus black legion and even more eldar than i had before from box sets this edition. I have not yet expanded those but I usually grab a kit a month and I am closely getting to the point where expanding deathguard will be happening.
It's true, I think that GW has been knocking it out of the park in most cases. There are a few things that bug me, and Primaris is one of them, though I can't begrudge GW for making the decisions that they've been making.
The Primaris thing is just a particular bother for a couple reasons.
A: GW is potentially signalling to me that my SM army as I've been collecting, is soon to be invalidated. Now, I know this has happened to other collections, sort of. . . for example, the All Terminator Deathwing Army that might have been available in one particular edition due to a character unlock (or something), and then is suddenly not playable a few years later as the rules move on. Certain niche builds have always run the risk of getting a "no-rules" treatment. But my collection is specifically based on units that were around since basically the dawn of 40K. Tactical Squads, Rhinos, Dreadnoughts, Land Raiders/Speeders, etc. the very basics of the Marine line. I really do not like the idea that THOSE units might go away.
B: Primaris rules, the sort of character of them, are really. . . simple? Basic? Crude? They come off as just "more-marine-ier-marines" in a way that merely doubles down on the most basic interpretation of marines. Bigger, tougher, etc. They seem like meatheads to me, and I really dislike that they upset what I think of as an old balance between the line-troopers of the various factions. An Aspect Warrior was roughly equivalent to a Marine, except more specialized. A Necron Warrior was roughly equivalent to a Marine, with a Necron-twist. Things like that. The Primaris statline throws that all out, and I hate it.
stonehorse wrote: This is why the new lore is a mess, as it is forgets that the old lore wasn't a dead end.
Um, no. It was. Stale, dead end mess that had a single year, 999 M41 see more war than ANY millennium before it, because that was the only year where anything was allowed to happen. You had Ultramarines or Blood Angels in like 20 war zones each, pretty much crushing any semblance of verisimilitude, you had Black Templar characters teleporting all over the galaxy in minutes to actually be in 5 places at once, GW even had to invent excuse 'it's all propaganda and lies' because the inconsistencies and contradictory events in a single year piled up that high. That pile of was already collapsing under its own weight for at least a decade, and the only way forward left before it all becomes comical was opening up M42.
stonehorse wrote: No, I like change, what I don't like is change for the sake of change and/or to sell new models. Case in point, when 5th edition hit the shelves Space Marines were already a complete product line, however GW's policy is to add something new to each faction for each edition, as Space Marines are always first inline, we got Centurions. They are just awful, from the models to the way they were shoehorned into the background, and also due to serving no role that was lacking. That is the sort of change I don't like, it adds nothing of value and just cheapens the overall product.
And this is doubly wrong because A) centurions were not added in 5th edition, B) 5th edition was one of the most brilliant and creative fleshing out of Space Marine range ever, with boring, bland "veterans" being given new roles, wargear and rules mirroring the tactical/assault split, new characters like master of the forge and chapter master being added, role swaps allowing you to represent different companies/chapters (bike troops, anyone?), special characters (with tons of flavor changes to better represent their chapters) being added to other SM successors as well, etc etc, it's telling 5th edition book saw dozen different army compositions being viable and played, from drop pod company to mechanized assault force or dreadwing, a feat no other edition managed to match...
And all of the above required zero new models and even explicitly told you to get kitbashing instead. Gee, what shoehorning!
Insectum7 wrote: It's true, my interest in Necrons dropped mightily with their 5th Ed codex. It was like a cartoon compared to the previous one.
Yes, you could still make an army based off the older lore, but the gravitas as a faction died for me.
What gravitas? Oldcrons were boring, one dimensional cardboard cutouts that could be summed up by two words: metal tyranids. Or skynet ripoffs. Such creativity, much wow. You could make army of bland, static metal skeletons with zero character or bland, static metal skeletons with some rust on them, led by something that was supposed to be a god (funny how people complaining about primarchs these days forgot that part...) but had pretty terrible stats on par with tyranid mooks. Oh, and you couldn't even make up your own 'god' as only two were left alive. Oops.
Newcrons were from the start supposed to be ultimate exercise in being 'your guys' allowing you to make any fluff you want (even oldcron-like), patched up inconsistencies (why Emperor was so dumb trying to replicate webway when he could just have asked dragon of mars for plans of necron mega-FTL and called it a day?) and stupidity in their fluff, plus expansion of their army from just metal skeletons (with variants like skeletons with really long fingers, or skeletons on surfboards) to a coherent, fully fleshed out faction. How is any of that worse than the oldcrons, I have no idea.
And funny you guys mention 3rd edition Necron book, because it was downright comical, full of immersions breaking moments. Like hyping up that one super-duper-mega gun with impossibly small energy source, which, if you flipped to the end of the book, was equivalent of lascannon, while being bigger and cruder looking. Wow, such advanced technology! Oh, and the 'impossibly small energy source'? Flip over to Cadian lascannon team, and you will see IG mooks in fact use smaller batteries than 'impossibly' advanced Necrons to power up smaller and more powerful guns than 'impossibly' advanced gun carried by half of a skeleton on a skateboard. Um...
Those "weapons" lacked the strength the technology would indicate, true. Because they weren't weapons. They were implements to harvest life-energy to beam to their living, reality-defying gods.
I've long pointed out I think most of the rest of the Primarchs are coming. Several of them are only supposed to return in Darkest Hour/Wolf/EndTimes prophetical apocalypses. Of course, nobody says how long that time lasts. They're not going to kill the whole world and start anew with Age of Sanguinius. They could bring everyone back and milk it for a few decades before they reset the Armageddon Clock.
Breton wrote: I've long pointed out I think most of the rest of the Primarchs are coming. Several of them are only supposed to return in Darkest Hour/Wolf/EndTimes prophetical apocalypses. Of course, nobody says how long that time lasts. They're not going to kill the whole world and start anew with Age of Sanguinius. They could bring everyone back and milk it for a few decades before they reset the Armageddon Clock.
alternatively the Primarchs return for an end times event, they play it up all big and the Primarchs and reforged legions prevail. "saving" the Emperor who stays on the golden throne and basically leaves the galaxy as it is.
Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
Voss wrote: I'm unclear how the latter is more 'stale' than the former. There is just as much room either way.
Because you've condensed down a massive galaxy spanning saga to just few dozen characters and it makes the world feel smaller and more claustrophobic as a result.
Argive wrote: The emprah dying and ascending to some sort of proper godhood would be the next move IMO. At this point might as well...
The Grim dark feeling of being stuck in the dark ages standing on an eternal praecipe of Galaxy wide Armageddon is well and truly gone. We are now spoon fed the narrative and time line is being pushed forward and its really weird because we are talking millenia worth of culture and the never changing imperial behemoth which is stuck in its grim dark ways changing almost overnight. I'm not sure How I feel about it. I liked 40k because it allowed the mind to wonder and get imaginative. Now we don't get to wonder. We are being told what is happening...
Im sure GW would feth it up and make it so that storm casts can appear in 40k because space marines =$$$...By that point its a wrap for a huge portion of the fanbase so perhaps better they don't do it lol.
No one sees change in history coming, either. Sometimes it IS very fast. I don't find the narrative of 30K-40K credible anyway. Such a period of stagnation is likely not possible for a variety of reasons.
Voss wrote: I'm unclear how the latter is more 'stale' than the former. There is just as much room either way.
Because you've condensed down a massive galaxy spanning saga to just few dozen characters and it makes the world feel smaller and more claustrophobic as a result.
Who's 'you?' The massive galaxy is still there. Even if GW were focusing on a few dozen characters in their novels (which they aren't) it has feth all to do with anyone playing the game or doing their own thing.
Don't wrap yourself in chains and claim its somebody else's fault.
Voss wrote: I'm unclear how the latter is more 'stale' than the former. There is just as much room either way.
Because you've condensed down a massive galaxy spanning saga to just few dozen characters and it makes the world feel smaller and more claustrophobic as a result.
Who's 'you?' The massive galaxy is still there. Even if GW were focusing on a few dozen characters in their novels (which they aren't) it has feth all to do with anyone playing the game or doing their own thing.
Don't wrap yourself in chains and claim its somebody else's fault.
Don't be so obtuse. You know exactly who "you" refers to in that context (GW).
It IS GW's fault though. They've come in "armed with canon" and started up a storyline that was never there to begin with. 40k was a setting. A setting to make your own stories in, occasionally GW made "official" ones such as Armageddon and EoT campaigns but they were added to the mix and never changed with a march of time. You could still do your own thing and not be constricted by canon. Now, the whole storyline thing would work IF GW had made 40k a storyline from the very beginning, you see it work in WMH and AoS as the writers knew what they wanted out of it from the get go. You can't just pull up a static setting and make a story out of it with a few dozen characters (like, why is Gulliman everywhere? Even though he is a Primarch he should be a insignificant blip in the grand scheme of things) in an unfathomably massive setting. Space is HUGE, indescribably so, yet we get the same characters bumping into one another again and again.
Martel732 wrote: They own the IP. They can do what they want with it. Space is huge, yet 40K was founded on the idea that it was tiny. Ie, 1000 man marine chapters.
That's true, they own the IP. Just like Disney owns the IP of Star Wars, and they can do what they want with it. . . .
They havent done nearly that poorly. The 90s grimdark cant last forever and satirical elements are mostly gone. Primaris is no more stupid than anything else theyve done. Its just unfortunate they suck in practice.
Martel732 wrote: They havent done nearly that poorly. The 90s grimdark cant last forever and satirical elements are mostly gone. Primaris is no more stupid than anything else theyve done. Its just unfortunate they suck in practice.
I am still convinced Primaris are only not powerful to appease classic marine players. I very much expect them to be in the good category in 9th. 13 point tactical are bad, 19 point intercessors are better but still weak. change those intercessors to 16 points each though... and yea suddenly good. 15 and you'd take as many as you can get
Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
I can´t argue with that. But I don´t care much at all because my collection of models are complete. Though I will still stand at the sideline and watch in amusement how the suits in Nottingham will ruin the setting with their ineptitude like they did with WHFB.
Martel732 wrote: They havent done nearly that poorly. The 90s grimdark cant last forever and satirical elements are mostly gone. Primaris is no more stupid than anything else theyve done. Its just unfortunate they suck in practice.
I am still convinced Primaris are only not powerful to appease classic marine players. I very much expect them to be in the good category in 9th. 13 point tactical are bad, 19 point intercessors are better but still weak. change those intercessors to 16 points each though... and yea suddenly good. 15 and you'd take as many as you can get
Primaris aren`t powerful because the underlying mechanics of 8th Edition simply aren`t kind to "medium-quality" stuff in general and 3+ armour and 2 wounds in particular. The game is so lethal, it skews towards the extremes of either flooding the table with bodies or stacking survivability with allt he invuls, negative modifiers, FNPs, extreme Toughness/Saves you can find.
Most people these days worry about singular Knights or Mortarion/Magnus being one-shotted too easily if there´s no threat saturation, etc.. There´s just not much design space for medium infantry until there is either a new edition or a "reverse engineering" where a second edition of Codexes adds defensive potential with more minus-hit modfiers to hit and wound, more minus-activations, more negate-rerolls/force the re-rolls of success for every bonus to hit/wound, every double activation order/strat/spell, every re-roll of failed hits/wound etc.. they introduced in the Codexes.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
The absurdity gets boring. And the stagnation presented in 40K is likely not possible, no matter what excuses they provide. God Emperor of Dune did this much better.
Martel732 wrote: They havent done nearly that poorly. The 90s grimdark cant last forever and satirical elements are mostly gone. Primaris is no more stupid than anything else theyve done. Its just unfortunate they suck in practice.
I am still convinced Primaris are only not powerful to appease classic marine players. I very much expect them to be in the good category in 9th. 13 point tactical are bad, 19 point intercessors are better but still weak. change those intercessors to 16 points each though... and yea suddenly good. 15 and you'd take as many as you can get
Primaris aren`t powerful because the underlying mechanics of 8th Edition simply aren`t kind to "medium-quality" stuff in general and 3+ armour and 2 wounds in particular. The game is so lethal, it skews towards the extremes of either flooding the table with bodies or stacking survivability with allt he invuls, negative modifiers, FNPs, extreme Toughness/Saves you can find.
Most people these days worry about singular Knights or Mortarion/Magnus being one-shotted too easily if there´s no threat saturation, etc.. There´s just not much design space for medium infantry until there is either a new edition or a "reverse engineering" where a second edition of Codexes adds defensive potential with more minus-hit modfiers to hit and wound, more minus-activations, more negate-rerolls/force the re-rolls of success for every bonus to hit/wound, every double activation order/strat/spell, every re-roll of failed hits/wound etc.. they introduced in the Codexes.
It's simpler than that. 3W units work. 2W units don't. It's about the common weapon profiles.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
The absurdity gets boring. And the stagnation presented in 40K is likely not possible, no matter what excuses they provide. God Emperor of Dune did this much better.
I love that book.
It's been noted, Martel, that there is much about this game that you don't like.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
Stagnation takes new form at every turn. One can only mine Thatcher-era material as much as Grant Morrison and Alan Moore. At some point things must change to reflect their modern times and considering all the political stuff going on now it would be fantastic if they'd implement some of it into the current setting. It would at least be true to form to the origin.
I would also argue that the stagnation is rampant still in the setting. It's just that when individuals - lest they be human, Aeldari, or biomorphs - will often go for broke when pushed into a corner, which is what I see in the current setting.
Martel732 wrote: Given that, I truly don't understand why Primaris is being singled out.
I'm not sure how anyone who loves God Emperor can give any kind of positive review to GW's half ass ripoff fiction.
Because it's possible to like different things for different reasons.
Primaris are singled out because there is appears to be a very real threat that traditional marines may soon no longer be a part of 40K. I also find them really. . . dumb. IMO they make even less sense than Marines.
Compared to starship troopers or starcraft marines, GW marines already make zero sense. You can't fall through the floor.
Putting them back into legions might make them slightly more relevant. But 200K is still pitifully small.
I forget the author now, but I've read a story where the casualties for a planet with rare thing X went into the billions. For one planet. Yeah, your marines don't matter. They end up a statistic in the butcher's bill.
And a few BA chapters can't hold out against trillions of bugs. No matter what GW says.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
Stagnation takes new form at every turn. One can only mine Thatcher-era material as much as Grant Morrison and Alan Moore. At some point things must change to reflect their modern times and considering all the political stuff going on now it would be fantastic if they'd implement some of it into the current setting. It would at least be true to form to the origin.
I would also argue that the stagnation is rampant still in the setting. It's just that when individuals - lest they be human, Aeldari, or biomorphs - will often go for broke when pushed into a corner, which is what I see in the current setting.
It's possible it will stabilize in a new form of stagnation. I'll give you that.
I'm not sure that the setting of 40K necessarily have to reflect "modern times". I think that, although 40K was founded in a particular era, it has long since outgrown the need to "reflect modern times". I think it can exist as it's own thing. Like, you wouldn't go back and re-write Tolkein to "modernize" it. And the movies have shown that it can still be relevant, even though it was spawned from a post WWI paradigm.
Martel732 wrote: Compared to starship troopers or starcraft marines, GW marines already make zero sense. You can't fall through the floor.
Putting them back into legions might make them slightly more relevant. But 200K is still pitifully small.
I forget the author now, but I've read a story where the casualties for a planet with rare thing X went into the billions. For one planet. Yeah, your marines don't matter. They end up a statistic in the butcher's bill.
And a few BA chapters can't hold out against trillions of bugs. No matter what GW says.
Marines control fleets of warships with nukes. It's fine. Marines can make enough sense for the universe of 40K.
Martel732 wrote: Compared to starship troopers or starcraft marines, GW marines already make zero sense. You can't fall through the floor.
Putting them back into legions might make them slightly more relevant. But 200K is still pitifully small.
I forget the author now, but I've read a story where the casualties for a planet with rare thing X went into the billions. For one planet. Yeah, your marines don't matter. They end up a statistic in the butcher's bill.
And a few BA chapters can't hold out against trillions of bugs. No matter what GW says.
Marines control fleets of warships with nukes. It's fine. Marines can make enough sense for the universe of 40K.
Tiny fleets that also don't matter. 40K ignores scale completely except when they don't want to. It's the worst combination of Mary Sues and deus ex machinas.
Martel732 wrote: Except Tolkien is brilliant and 40K was always a hack job.
I think 40K is brilliant, to be honest. A phenominal setting, far more interesting than Tolkein. 40K sorta grew into that organically, rather than spring from one mind. But I love it.
I *do* think 1000 Marines to a Chapter is stupid small. Like, humanity is comprised of billions of billions of people. If we assume just 0.0001% (1 in every 1 million) of those people are Marines, that should still be, at least, 1 trillion Marines. So either there would have to be 1 billion individual Chapters, or they should be MUCH larger.
Martel732 wrote: Compared to starship troopers or starcraft marines, GW marines already make zero sense. You can't fall through the floor.
Putting them back into legions might make them slightly more relevant. But 200K is still pitifully small.
I forget the author now, but I've read a story where the casualties for a planet with rare thing X went into the billions. For one planet. Yeah, your marines don't matter. They end up a statistic in the butcher's bill.
And a few BA chapters can't hold out against trillions of bugs. No matter what GW says.
Marines control fleets of warships with nukes. It's fine. Marines can make enough sense for the universe of 40K.
Tiny fleets that also don't matter. 40K ignores scale completely except when they don't want to. It's the worst combination of Mary Sues and deus ex machinas.
Thousands of tiny nuke-carrying fleets. Millions of them, really.
A thousand Chapters is four thousand "standard battle fleets" of a marine Battle Company, reserve elements, Strike Cruiser and potential support fleet. And that functions as a small arm of a larger Imperial Fleet with probably millions of nuke-carrying vessels. In the universe they've created, that's enough for me.
Martel732 wrote: They havent done nearly that poorly. The 90s grimdark cant last forever and satirical elements are mostly gone. Primaris is no more stupid than anything else theyve done. Its just unfortunate they suck in practice.
I am still convinced Primaris are only not powerful to appease classic marine players. I very much expect them to be in the good category in 9th. 13 point tactical are bad, 19 point intercessors are better but still weak. change those intercessors to 16 points each though... and yea suddenly good. 15 and you'd take as many as you can get
Primaris aren`t powerful because the underlying mechanics of 8th Edition simply aren`t kind to "medium-quality" stuff in general and 3+ armour and 2 wounds in particular. The game is so lethal, it skews towards the extremes of either flooding the table with bodies or stacking survivability with allt he invuls, negative modifiers, FNPs, extreme Toughness/Saves you can find.
Most people these days worry about singular Knights or Mortarion/Magnus being one-shotted too easily if there´s no threat saturation, etc.. There´s just not much design space for medium infantry until there is either a new edition or a "reverse engineering" where a second edition of Codexes adds defensive potential with more minus-hit modfiers to hit and wound, more minus-activations, more negate-rerolls/force the re-rolls of success for every bonus to hit/wound, every double activation order/strat/spell, every re-roll of failed hits/wound etc.. they introduced in the Codexes.
Think about how many armies have access to shoot twice abilities and then ask how that dynamic shifts when you apply it to a 30 man unit of termagants loaded out with devourers. The lethality of the game is so big that a lot of the mid tier armies just cant handle it. On the knight thing, it's a real concern. I saw my friend today destroy his opponents Warden with two basilisks and a hellhound. The Warden didn't get to shoot at anything.
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
It IS GW's fault though. They've come in "armed with canon" and started up a storyline that was never there to begin with. 40k was a setting. A setting to make your own stories in, occasionally GW made "official" ones such as Armageddon and EoT campaigns but they were added to the mix and never changed with a march of time. You could still do your own thing and not be constricted by canon. Now, the whole storyline thing would work IF GW had made 40k a storyline from the very beginning, you see it work in WMH and AoS as the writers knew what they wanted out of it from the get go. You can't just pull up a static setting and make a story out of it with a few dozen characters (like, why is Gulliman everywhere? Even though he is a Primarch he should be a insignificant blip in the grand scheme of things) in an unfathomably massive setting. Space is HUGE, indescribably so, yet we get the same characters bumping into one another again and again.
So you're complaining that instead of artificially injecting story material in between pre-existing story material, they added more on the end, forcing you to play with this new story material on the end in mind, instead of letting you pick some artificial story material they just added in the past which would allow you... to ignore... the story material... that comes after... the new stuff... in the past... you want to play... while ignoring everything after it....
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
Absolutely this.
Yes, you did have 10,000 years of history between M31 and M41, and you could play games set in any time between but only if you play Imperium (with no special characters other than Bjorn or maybe Dante if it's set in M40, and no Custodes or Sisters of Silence, unless it's set on Terra or the War of the Beast!), Chaos (but not Huron Blackheart!), Eldar (but not Prince Yriel), Dark Eldar, Orks (but no special characters!) and *maybe* just pure Genestealers as Ymgarl natives.
Basically, you can play anything that isn't Tau, Necrons, Ynnari, Primaris, Tyranids, or a special character. If you've got the people who are willing to play that, great, but for inclusivity (which is probably important for GW to consider when fleshing out their setting), moving the timeline onwards is a good move.
Most importantly, you can STILL do things in that 10,000 year time period even now, no-one's forcing you to play your narrative campaigns in M42.
I think it would have been neat if GW had introduced a document, even a simple, completely optional one which detailed the time frames that certain units/equipment/characters were alive/used.
I always enjoyed that small facet of Battlefront's WW2 games - the use of "periods" or "eras". A group aimed at narrative gaming should have no problem playing games throughout the recent 40K history - but that's asking a lot of meta-players, to knowingly set aside new or future units if they're doing a historical campaign, etc.
BrianDavion wrote: surte various codices put little side bars with new stuff there but let's face itm, it was never going anywhere. it's like that special box the grey knights have described in their 5E codex. sure it's fun to speculate, but it's clear that GW had no plans to go anywhere with it, it was meaningless
You mention 5th edition, which is ironic... as that is when 40k died.
The change to Necron background and models, Centurions, Tau Riptide, Grey Knights Dread Knight, etc. That was the start of the rot, the old guard had left, and the new blood wanted to put their stamp on it. That stamp showed a creative bankruptcy, which has only increased and been built upon.
GW learned from the death of WFB that a big dramatic change is too much of a risk, especially with their cash cow (40k), so instead, we'll see slow gradual changes... like all the old marines going to Direct Only, then not being restocked, then rules not being written for old models. Space Marines, namely Primaris Marines are the test bed, if they go well, we'll see the equivalent happen to most if not all the races... my money is on Eldar Aspect Warriors being the next thing GW replace with a new unit(s), then fade the old ones into history.
A bit overly dramatic there. Clearly you don't like change.
No, I like change, what I don't like is change for the sake of change and/or to sell new models. Case in point, when 5th edition hit the shelves Space Marines were already a complete product line, however GW's policy is to add something new to each faction for each edition, as Space Marines are always first inline, we got Centurions. They are just awful, from the models to the way they were shoehorned into the background, and also due to serving no role that was lacking. That is the sort of change I don't like, it adds nothing of value and just cheapens the overall product.
If those creative resources had been focused on fleshing out a previously mentioned race, say the Hrudd, that would have been much better, and kept within the pre established background, while also advancing the game.
centurions where 6th edition not 5th edition. 5th edition IIRC gave us vanguard and sternguard veterns. Also yes GW was putting out new units for an army when a new codex came out. they've shifted that but they still need to put out new units for popular armies. (I've said it before but space Marines pay for everyone else's army) thing is had GW not gave use Primaris Marines, Centurions would be the way of the future. GW's a company first and foremost.
My mistake, I honestly thought they were introduced in 5th edition, been playing since 2nd, so the editions tend to blur after a while.
I can´t argue with that. But I don´t care much at all because my collection of models are complete. Though I will still stand at the sideline and watch in amusement how the suits in Nottingham will ruin the setting with their ineptitude like they did with WHFB.
I dunno brother, I think AoS is far superior and I adore it.
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
Honestly, nobody I've ever played with has ever really seemed to care about "timeline accuracy".
And there's always the "They're not Tau, they're civilization 30012 in subsection 235 of quadrant B Sector Latinus. Encountered and warred with in millenia 34, prior to being cut off by warp storms four centuries later after stalemate brought about by Imperial bureaucratic error in fleet assignment."
10,000 years is a long time, and 250 billion stars is a lot of area to cover.
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
Honestly, nobody I've ever played with has ever really seemed to care about "timeline accuracy".
And there's always the "They're not Tau, they're civilization 30012 in subsection 235 of quadrant B Sector Latinus. Encountered and warred with in millenia 34, prior to being cut off by warp storms four centuries later after stalemate brought about by Imperial bureaucratic error in fleet assignment."
10,000 years is a long time, and 250 billion stars is a lot of area to cover.
ohh sure, I mean no one's going to say Boo if you field an army of Blood Angels Primaris Mariens lead by Captain Tycho. my point simply is that for all the claims of a huge amount of history to play with most of 40ks history is basicly a "humans, eldars and orks only" club. an aweful lot of the xenos races are new arrivals. And thus doing say a big campaign book set in M 36 risks excluding them, which would be fine every now and again, bu do that too much and you lead to players of those armies feeling even further like 2nd class citizens.
^Ok, but my point is that despite Orks and Eldar being the flagship races since the days of 2nd, that doesn't at all mean that there weren't/aren't other civilizations along that whole timeline, in the expanse of the galaxy. Galaxies are big.
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
Honestly, nobody I've ever played with has ever really seemed to care about "timeline accuracy".
And there's always the "They're not Tau, they're civilization 30012 in subsection 235 of quadrant B Sector Latinus. Encountered and warred with in millenia 34, prior to being cut off by warp storms four centuries later after stalemate brought about by Imperial bureaucratic error in fleet assignment."
10,000 years is a long time, and 250 billion stars is a lot of area to cover.
ohh sure, I mean no one's going to say Boo if you field an army of Blood Angels Primaris Mariens lead by Captain Tycho. my point simply is that for all the claims of a huge amount of history to play with most of 40ks history is basicly a "humans, eldars and orks only" club. an aweful lot of the xenos races are new arrivals. And thus doing say a big campaign book set in M 36 risks excluding them, which would be fine every now and again, bu do that too much and you lead to players of those armies feeling even further like 2nd class citizens.
You act like Tau are going to ever get in a campaign book anyway!
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
Honestly, nobody I've ever played with has ever really seemed to care about "timeline accuracy".
And there's always the "They're not Tau, they're civilization 30012 in subsection 235 of quadrant B Sector Latinus. Encountered and warred with in millenia 34, prior to being cut off by warp storms four centuries later after stalemate brought about by Imperial bureaucratic error in fleet assignment."
10,000 years is a long time, and 250 billion stars is a lot of area to cover.
ohh sure, I mean no one's going to say Boo if you field an army of Blood Angels Primaris Mariens lead by Captain Tycho. my point simply is that for all the claims of a huge amount of history to play with most of 40ks history is basicly a "humans, eldars and orks only" club. an aweful lot of the xenos races are new arrivals. And thus doing say a big campaign book set in M 36 risks excluding them, which would be fine every now and again, bu do that too much and you lead to players of those armies feeling even further like 2nd class citizens.
You act like Tau are going to ever get in a campaign book anyway!
they have,m we gopt warzone Damocles last edition.
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, I see someone's wheeled out the old "stale" argument.
10,000 years of history to play in on untold thousands of worlds with trillions of inhabitants is "stale"? Ten. Thousand. Years. This is longer than recorded human history so far. Do you know how much scope that gives you?
Instead we get a shoehorned in "story" to no-one asked for (well, someone did as apparently they have no imagination to make their own...) that revolves around a few big characters and no-one else. Now that is stale. 40k was a setting, a fething massive one with the scope for untold amounts of potential stories to be told in it. Who gives a feth if they're not "canon", we got along perfectly well with our own campaigns for the last 2 decades, what makes it any different now?
except we DON'T have 10 thousand years of history. first contact with the Tau was sometimes in the 700s M41, the first recorded contact with the Tyranids was likewise in the 700s M41. the Necrons had been stirring for awhile but Sanctuary 101 which is considered to be the "first battle" occured in the late 800s M41.
basicly well the IoM and Chaos have been around awhile. MOST of the armies in 40k, have actually only been active for a few hundred years.
Honestly, nobody I've ever played with has ever really seemed to care about "timeline accuracy".
And there's always the "They're not Tau, they're civilization 30012 in subsection 235 of quadrant B Sector Latinus. Encountered and warred with in millenia 34, prior to being cut off by warp storms four centuries later after stalemate brought about by Imperial bureaucratic error in fleet assignment."
10,000 years is a long time, and 250 billion stars is a lot of area to cover.
ohh sure, I mean no one's going to say Boo if you field an army of Blood Angels Primaris Mariens lead by Captain Tycho. my point simply is that for all the claims of a huge amount of history to play with most of 40ks history is basicly a "humans, eldars and orks only" club. an aweful lot of the xenos races are new arrivals. And thus doing say a big campaign book set in M 36 risks excluding them, which would be fine every now and again, bu do that too much and you lead to players of those armies feeling even further like 2nd class citizens.
You act like Tau are going to ever get in a campaign book anyway!
they have,m we gopt warzone Damocles last edition.
Yes, you did have 10,000 years of history between M31 and M41, and you could play games set in any time between but only if you play Imperium (with no special characters other than Bjorn or maybe Dante if it's set in M40, and no Custodes or Sisters of Silence, unless it's set on Terra or the War of the Beast!), Chaos (but not Huron Blackheart!), Eldar (but not Prince Yriel), Dark Eldar, Orks (but no special characters!) and *maybe* just pure Genestealers as Ymgarl natives.
You could have Bjorn for most of that time, but not the earliest part, you could have Dante(in M40), you could have Cassius (in most of M40) - You could have Lysander on both ends, but not the middle. You could have Gulliman on both ends but not the middle.
Martel732 wrote: They havent done nearly that poorly. The 90s grimdark cant last forever and satirical elements are mostly gone. Primaris is no more stupid than anything else theyve done. Its just unfortunate they suck in practice.
I am still convinced Primaris are only not powerful to appease classic marine players. I very much expect them to be in the good category in 9th. 13 point tactical are bad, 19 point intercessors are better but still weak. change those intercessors to 16 points each though... and yea suddenly good. 15 and you'd take as many as you can get
Intercessors are closer to 16 than they are 19 already.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
Its still grimdark. Just because Armageddon isn't being invaded this year, but Vigilus is and Cadia has fallen doesn't mean things are all puppy kisses and rainbows. To use your own expanded thought - It might matter on Armageddon, or Cadia, but on the galactic scale it doesn't matter which world it is, there is only war.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
Its still grimdark. Just because Armageddon isn't being invaded this year, but Vigilus is and Cadia has fallen doesn't mean things are all puppy kisses and rainbows. To use your own expanded thought - It might matter on Armageddon, or Cadia, but on the galactic scale it doesn't matter which world it is, there is only war.
Yes, it is still Grimdark. But now it's Grimdark with drama and galaxy-wide consequences. Before, nothing really changed. Now, the Galactic map is redrawn, and factions are potentially being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters.
I prefer the relative stagnation, where drama is almost meaningless beyond any particular world or war.
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the Grimdark is beautiful, and is what makes the 40K setting great. IMO it's absurdity is what gives 40K it's greatest defining character.
Also, I found the "stagnation" refreshing. As there is no drama. Or more precisely, the drama doesn't matter. It might matter in a little system in the corner of the galaxy, for a few years, or maybe even a thousand years. But on the galactic scale it doesn't matter. This is the 41st (or maybe 42nd) millenium. And There Is Only War.
Its still grimdark. Just because Armageddon isn't being invaded this year, but Vigilus is and Cadia has fallen doesn't mean things are all puppy kisses and rainbows. To use your own expanded thought - It might matter on Armageddon, or Cadia, but on the galactic scale it doesn't matter which world it is, there is only war.
Yes, it is still Grimdark. But now it's Grimdark with drama and galaxy-wide consequences. Before, nothing really changed. Now, the Galactic map is redrawn, and factions are potentially being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters.
I prefer the relative stagnation, where drama is almost meaningless beyond any particular world or war.
the problem with that is, if before hand, you didn't feel the IoM was invested in winning a conflict, and that it was an important conflict.. then GW had failed as a story teller. we're constantly told how important Armageddon is, how Important planet X is etc. but... GW never showed it. now GW's making the stakes of these conflcits they SAY are important, clearer.
Yes, it is still Grimdark. But now it's Grimdark with drama and galaxy-wide consequences. Before, nothing really changed. Now, the Galactic map is redrawn, and factions are potentially being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters.
I prefer the relative stagnation, where drama is almost meaningless beyond any particular world or war.
The galaxy map is always being redrawn, if just to put The Rock in a new place and to highlight this new planet that gets to be Campaign Flavor Of The Month. Factions are always potentially - especially potentially - being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters. The world is no more or less stagnant than ever before, the only thing changing is the artwork, not a meaningful detail.
Yes, it is still Grimdark. But now it's Grimdark with drama and galaxy-wide consequences. Before, nothing really changed. Now, the Galactic map is redrawn, and factions are potentially being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters.
I prefer the relative stagnation, where drama is almost meaningless beyond any particular world or war.
The galaxy map is always being redrawn, if just to put The Rock in a new place and to highlight this new planet that gets to be Campaign Flavor Of The Month. Factions are always potentially - especially potentially - being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters. The world is no more or less stagnant than ever before, the only thing changing is the artwork, not a meaningful detail.
It should be fairly obvious that the Cicatrix Maledictum is a far more substantial change to the galaxy than the position of The Rock.
Thing is they got the point where the lore of 40k was in a pretty good place, around the time dawn of war 1-dawn of war 2 were a thing. It's a setting/backdrop for games, a sandbox. By turning it into an evolving story we could watch this game become something else entirely, and not in a good way.
Yes, it is still Grimdark. But now it's Grimdark with drama and galaxy-wide consequences. Before, nothing really changed. Now, the Galactic map is redrawn, and factions are potentially being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters.
I prefer the relative stagnation, where drama is almost meaningless beyond any particular world or war.
The galaxy map is always being redrawn, if just to put The Rock in a new place and to highlight this new planet that gets to be Campaign Flavor Of The Month. Factions are always potentially - especially potentially - being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters. The world is no more or less stagnant than ever before, the only thing changing is the artwork, not a meaningful detail.
It should be fairly obvious that the Cicatrix Maledictum is a far more substantial change to the galaxy than the position of The Rock.
It should be fairly obvious the fictional position of a fictional navigational hazard mcguffin subject to the whims of plot armor is a far more substantial change that the fictional position of the fictional headquarters of a fictional group subject to the needs of a campaign writer who needs an Imperiall deus ex machina mcguffin? You keep talking like any and every one of these details is more powerful than the story needs and whims of the people who control every detail of a fictional world, down to the cholesterol count of Abaddon or the existence/discovery of another Pharos artefact.
I've mentioned this before. Go watch the movie Speed. Watch how often something good happens is followed by something bad, is followed by something good. You know what an action thriller is? It's two hours of a writer giving you emotional ups and downs for maximum effect. They're doing the same thing, but it's the longest Action Thriller movie ever.
Thargrim wrote: Thing is they got the point where the lore of 40k was in a pretty good place, around the time dawn of war 1-dawn of war 2 were a thing. It's a setting/backdrop for games, a sandbox. By turning it into an evolving story we could watch this game become something else entirely, and not in a good way.
This.
People seem to be forgetting that 40K's lore was primarily a setting to facilitate endless conflict, it was never meant to be a story.
The setting was meant to be frozen in time of galaxy wide conflict, this allows players to justify their battles, as there was no consequence or advancement in the setting. Wiping out your opponents Tau army didn't advance the setting, it may advance the campaign you may be in. Having the setting paused and on a massive scale with impersonal characters allowed players to breathe their own creative ideas and narratives, because their actions couldn't be at loggerheads or disrupt the setting.
What GW have done is turn the setting into a story, as we all know stories have a beginning, middle, and an end. It could be that this change is what people feel the most jarring. It is asking of the lore to be something it was never meant to be, and treads the very real possibility of undoing/losing/killing off a part of the lore that people have liked for decades.
The setting was meant to be frozen in time of galaxy wide conflict, this allows players to justify their battles, as there was no consequence or advancement in the setting. Wiping out your opponents Tau army didn't advance the setting, it may advance the campaign you may be in. Having the setting paused and on a massive scale with impersonal characters allowed players to breathe their own creative ideas and narratives, because their actions couldn't be at loggerheads or disrupt the setting.
What GW have done is turn the setting into a story, as we all know stories have a beginning, middle, and an end. It could be that this change is what people feel the most jarring. It is asking of the lore to be something it was never meant to be, and treads the very real possibility of undoing/losing/killing off a part of the lore that people have liked for decades.
The setting never meant to have a Second War of Armageddon, or a Third War of Armageddon? Or Tyranids, Necrons, Tau, Custodes, Sisters of Battle, Whirlwinds, Razorbacks, Land Raider Variants, Drukhari, Ursarkr Creed and a host of other IG characters, and legions, and so on? I've still got the 2nd edition army list. Anything not in that book was never meant to be?
Citation? Try 25+ years of fluff prior to the Gathering Storm books. With the exception of worldwide events like Armageddon and EoT there was no “story” in 40k. It was a setting and always had been prior to the publication of the Gathering Storm books.
All of things you mention are either rectons/additions that were always there and “just off camera” or came after the above events.
Grimtuff wrote: Citation? Try 25+ years of fluff prior to the Gathering Storm books. With the exception of worldwide events like Armageddon and EoT there was no “story” in 40k. It was a setting and always had been prior to the publication of the Gathering Storm books.
All of things you mention are either rectons/additions that were always there and “just off camera” or came after the above events.
I have not read many books of black library, but the few i read have been chapters of a "story" which ultimately led to big war shaking events. Case in point the series of Baal, which ultimately led to the devastation of Baal, and the first books predate gathering storm by quite a good time.
I'd day the 3 major Nid invasions are story rather than settings.
Tau expansions / Farsights renegades.
Badab War.
Necron awakening (on a large scale e.g Orpheus campaign).
13 Crusades.
All of them formed major, major stories in the previous fluff and definitely were not "just a bit of setting".
And those are the ones just off the top of my head.
Edit: Taros campaign, Orpheus, Damnos campaign, World Engine campaign, The Beast wars.
Grimtuff wrote: Citation? Try 25+ years of fluff prior to the Gathering Storm books. With the exception of worldwide events like Armageddon and EoT there was no “story” in 40k. It was a setting and always had been prior to the publication of the Gathering Storm books.
All of things you mention are either rectons/additions that were always there and “just off camera” or came after the above events.
I'm pretty sure EoS is a retcon/addition that was always there and just "off camera" the same as anything else you just classified as such. Sisters of Battle are not in the 2nd Edition Codex Army List that game with the boxed game. They had to be retconned, and added off camera, and the story for who they are and what they do had to be added... thus advancing the story.
For that matter, claiming 25+ years of fluff means the world is supposed to be a single moment snapshot in time as we read about the continuing adventures of Uriel Ventris rising from Squad Sergeant, to Captain, to exiled penitent crusader and back isn't a very strong argument.
If you want to say the Black Library doesn't count, do you want me to get out a few Codexes? Who is the Captain of the Ultramarine's first company? Is Lord Solar Macharius alive or dead? Did the Story Advance when Darnath Lysander returned from the Warp, and we suddenly had a whole lot more fluff about the Imperial Fists? How did everyone else get Land Raider Crusaders from the Black Templar chapter that doesn't exist in an event that doesn't exist because we didn't advance the story for 25+ years? Don't get me started on the Land Raider Redeemers that don't exist because the Salamanders affinity for flame doesn't exist.
What has shifted in 40k is the setting, which was previously front and centre to make your own stories in and even had stories in it (but were not huge things that would shake up the main backdrop) has now been shoved to the side to focus on a massive galactic scale story that includes a couple dozen characters and effects everything around it.
Frankly, no.
The current story is just one HUGE story within the setting of the 40k universe.
It'll continue until 9th when GW will mix it all up again.
Terra will still be Terra and Chaos will still be Chaos and Nids will still eat stuff.
Ratius wrote: Frankly, no.
The current story is just one HUGE story within the setting of the 40k universe.
It'll continue until 9th when GW will mix it all up again.
Terra will still be Terra and Chaos will still be Chaos and Nids will still eat stuff.
That's about what I figure, but apparently being surrounded on all sides in a warp storm just outside of Chaos is somehow earthshatteringly different than being surrounded on all sides in a warp storm next to Cadia.
I'm sorry but whats the differance between Armageddon and Vigilus? yes the gathering storm changed things, but occasionally making somer changes in the setting isn't a bad thing, 40ks been stagnant for awhile. GW had told all the stories they could tell within the setting and thus decided to have things happen that would enable changes to be made. even the return of Gulliman is, in the grand scheme of things.. kinda irrelevant.
I'm sorry but whats the differance between Armageddon and Vigilus? yes the gathering storm changed things, but occasionally making somer changes in the setting isn't a bad thing, 40ks been stagnant for awhile.
You appear to answer your own question by acknowledging there IS a difference.
GW had told all the stories they could tell within the setting and thus decided to have things happen that would enable changes to be made. even the return of Gulliman is, in the grand scheme of things.. kinda irrelevant.
How "grand" is the reference in "grand scheme of things"? Heat death of the universe? Or just "no more marines as we know them, because of Primaris". I'm not sure we do know how much will change. But there IS change, and there is a threat of more change. Because we don't know the extent of any coming changes, it's hard to say weather or not these changes will be irrelevant. I don't think we're going to be full on AOSing, but it's possible it could still be happening at just a slower pace.
As for having "told all the stories they could tell" I'll never believe that to be true. The 40K setting is gigantic. There is so much room for for story in that setting, and so much space to add more flavor or nuance, etc.
Yes, it is still Grimdark. But now it's Grimdark with drama and galaxy-wide consequences. Before, nothing really changed. Now, the Galactic map is redrawn, and factions are potentially being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters.
I prefer the relative stagnation, where drama is almost meaningless beyond any particular world or war.
The galaxy map is always being redrawn, if just to put The Rock in a new place and to highlight this new planet that gets to be Campaign Flavor Of The Month. Factions are always potentially - especially potentially - being redefined, all centered around the actions of a couple characters. The world is no more or less stagnant than ever before, the only thing changing is the artwork, not a meaningful detail.
It should be fairly obvious that the Cicatrix Maledictum is a far more substantial change to the galaxy than the position of The Rock.
It should be fairly obvious the fictional position of a fictional navigational hazard mcguffin subject to the whims of plot armor is a far more substantial change that the fictional position of the fictional headquarters of a fictional group subject to the needs of a campaign writer who needs an Imperiall deus ex machina mcguffin? You keep talking like any and every one of these details is more powerful than the story needs and whims of the people who control every detail of a fictional world, down to the cholesterol count of Abaddon or the existence/discovery of another Pharos artefact.
I've mentioned this before. Go watch the movie Speed. Watch how often something good happens is followed by something bad, is followed by something good. You know what an action thriller is? It's two hours of a writer giving you emotional ups and downs for maximum effect. They're doing the same thing, but it's the longest Action Thriller movie ever.
Abaddons cholesterol count? Really? You appear to be so nonsensically misrepresenting my argument that it's really not worth responding to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratius wrote: Frankly, no.
The current story is just one HUGE story within the setting of the 40k universe.
But you would say that a big story is different than the addition of Hunters/Stalkers to the Space Marine army, no?
was already collapsing under its own weight for at least a decade, and the only way forward left before it all becomes comical was opening up M42.
