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

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I really like that the Haemonculi are utterly, utterly unrepentant. The eldest of their number are essentially the architects of the fall. They're the living embodiment of the excess of the old Eldar.

And they just don't care. They still wield vast power, and can still do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

Best bit is, I'm not even sure one can say they're actually insane. They seem fully aware of what they're doing. And just don't give a fig. Them over everything else.

Even if they are not repentant for moral reasons, I wonder whether any of them think that "Would I have been even more powerful if the Eldar empire had never fallen and Slaanesh never been born?" Instead of skulking away in the Webway and having to raid, they would have been part of the dominant empire of the galaxy, with the rest of the galaxy prostrate at their feet or posing no credible threat.

The Alpha Legion modus operandi, the lack of Agents as playable units, the lack of a explanation how the structure of the AL is after the Heresy. Instead they get abused as a memey plot excuse.

Primaris, i am torn on, would've prefered a bit more build up for cawl.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yes, and that unrepentant part is what makes them great.
However, once your try to add a tragic element to them, it just comes across as a trite attempt at drama
Just imagine a mad scientist who just skinned some guy, covered a wrack with said skin, then ordered the wrack to kick the guy in the nuts repeatedly all whilst saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!", and then at the end of it go "oh, woe is me how I must do these things, for reasons!"

That's what that tragic aspect of DE fluff feels like to me. Its dumb.

You have clearly not had to do anything desperate to survive in your life. Let me be clear, neither have I, but that is a pretty common reaction.

I watched a Vietnam war documentary where a former U.S army soldier talked about having to kill an NVA soldier by drowning him in a small puddle, because his squad was surrounded by NVA but they were hidden in the bush and a gunshot would have given away their position. The man was crying as he described how him and two squadmates held the guy down until he stopped struggling and then stuck him a bunch of times with bayonets afterward to make sure he was dead.

 Kelligula wrote:
One thing I hate about the lore is the small (but very vocal) part of the fandom that takes it too seriously.

I also hate how one of my favorite factions has fluff that sounds like it was written by an angsty teenager.

you're always going to get that in anything that remotely resembles a nerd culture. star wars, lord of the rings, the comic book universes. etc.

at the end of the day, most of us are adults, enjoying something that could be viewed in some eyes as silly, immature, lame etc. and while I dont think there's anything wrong with enjoying these things, you need to be able to accept that in the end they are only made up worlds/characters invented by people/companies for the purposes of entertainment. Enjoy the fantasy, read the books, but dont waste energy arguing with a randomer on the internet about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The Alpha Legion modus operandi, the lack of Agents as playable units, the lack of a explanation how the structure of the AL is after the Heresy. Instead they get abused as a memey plot excuse.

Primaris, i am torn on, would've prefered a bit more build up for cawl.

yeah considering how much the AL have going for them, they seem to have just been left in the dark post heresy. whether this is because some like to have them turned to chaos, and others like to keep their sneaky beaky side, who knows.

w1zard wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yes, and that unrepentant part is what makes them great.
However, once your try to add a tragic element to them, it just comes across as a trite attempt at drama
Just imagine a mad scientist who just skinned some guy, covered a wrack with said skin, then ordered the wrack to kick the guy in the nuts repeatedly all whilst saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!", and then at the end of it go "oh, woe is me how I must do these things, for reasons!"

That's what that tragic aspect of DE fluff feels like to me. Its dumb.

You have clearly not had to do anything desperate to survive in your life. Let me be clear, neither have I, but that is a pretty common reaction.

I watched a Vietnam war documentary where a former U.S army soldier talked about having to kill an NVA soldier by drowning him in a small puddle, because his squad was surrounded by NVA but they were hidden in the bush and a gunshot would have given away their position. The man was crying as he described how him and two squadmates held the guy down until he stopped struggling and then stuck him a bunch of times with bayonets afterward to make sure he was dead.

No, I understand that people have to do gakky things to survive at times. What separates them from complete psychopaths is that they feel remorse afterwards and don't enjoy doing it. In your very own example you said the soldier was crying. That was guilt. That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Dark Eldar do enjoy it and don't feel remorse. Ergo, they are psychopaths and the "tragedy" falls flat.

 Hive City Dweller wrote:



Writing this up did make me think of how this could be ret-conned to make some "sort of " scientific sense and this is what I came up with:

Space marine aspirants are implanted with a SINGLE organ- the Progenitor gland. This is an autonomous tissue that contains primarch DNA and has been bio-engineered to regulate both itself and the host's body systems. When implanted it is attached behind the sternum (in the place of the old thymus gland), where it wont't get in the way and will be protected. It is linked up to the nervous system and to the blood supply so that it can communicate through both hormonal and neurologic circuits. It contains secretory cells that start to produce all necessary proteins and molecules foreign to the body which will help with growth, and enact all the super-human physiologic adaptations necessary to make the marine resillient. It would have to also be able to integrate specific parts of it's DNA into the host so that new bodily materials like proteins/hormones/structural proteins can be made. (Viruses and bacteria can do this already; incorporating bits of their genetic material into our DNA so that we can make their structural proteins for them. (look up life cysle of HIV virus if curious))

No major surgery to introduce extra organs like lungs/kidneys/poisonous glands, just a robust implanted organ which works the purposely vague science of the 41st millennium. When the marine dies, apothecary sticks his tool into the marine's sternum and extracts the gland. There you have it, nice and simple and purposely vague.

Why on earth didn't they consult a doctor before writing all that detailed gubbins about organs and such?

Or, just be prepared to be vague. If you're not sure about something write less not more.

It's why in general I don't read sci-fi novels - they potentially rely on the author describing a lot of technology which may be completely impossible.

Using a Star Wars example, I'm happy that light sabres exist and are powered by crystals. Now if George Lucas tried to write a detailed technical description of the manufacturing process of a lightsabre it'd just flag up all of the many different ways in which they are impossible.

yeah considering how much the AL have going for them, they seem to have just been left in the dark post heresy. whether this is because some like to have them turned to chaos, and others like to keep their sneaky beaky side, who knows.

I mean you have the only legion to maintain a foothold, permanently outside of the immaterium.
You have descriptions of their Elite operatives, yet you don't go into recruiting, organisation, cooperation and not even comunication? (beyond silly abuse of "for the emperor"?)

It's like they would have the perfect starting point for great lore if,IF, well handled, but no, instead they get used as a cheap magic wand to stop the imperium or other enemies just cause: not grimdark (really more grimderp) enough.

It also does not help that AL trait now is one of the most used ones especially for people that still run CSM.

Iracundus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I really like that the Haemonculi are utterly, utterly unrepentant. The eldest of their number are essentially the architects of the fall. They're the living embodiment of the excess of the old Eldar.

And they just don't care. They still wield vast power, and can still do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

Best bit is, I'm not even sure one can say they're actually insane. They seem fully aware of what they're doing. And just don't give a fig. Them over everything else.

Even if they are not repentant for moral reasons, I wonder whether any of them think that "Would I have been even more powerful if the Eldar empire had never fallen and Slaanesh never been born?" Instead of skulking away in the Webway and having to raid, they would have been part of the dominant empire of the galaxy, with the rest of the galaxy prostrate at their feet or posing no credible threat.

But they wouldn't be DE if Slaanesh was never born. They just be your average Eldar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RobS wrote:

 Hive City Dweller wrote:



Writing this up did make me think of how this could be ret-conned to make some "sort of " scientific sense and this is what I came up with:

Space marine aspirants are implanted with a SINGLE organ- the Progenitor gland. This is an autonomous tissue that contains primarch DNA and has been bio-engineered to regulate both itself and the host's body systems. When implanted it is attached behind the sternum (in the place of the old thymus gland), where it wont't get in the way and will be protected. It is linked up to the nervous system and to the blood supply so that it can communicate through both hormonal and neurologic circuits. It contains secretory cells that start to produce all necessary proteins and molecules foreign to the body which will help with growth, and enact all the super-human physiologic adaptations necessary to make the marine resillient. It would have to also be able to integrate specific parts of it's DNA into the host so that new bodily materials like proteins/hormones/structural proteins can be made. (Viruses and bacteria can do this already; incorporating bits of their genetic material into our DNA so that we can make their structural proteins for them. (look up life cysle of HIV virus if curious))

No major surgery to introduce extra organs like lungs/kidneys/poisonous glands, just a robust implanted organ which works the purposely vague science of the 41st millennium. When the marine dies, apothecary sticks his tool into the marine's sternum and extracts the gland. There you have it, nice and simple and purposely vague.

Why on earth didn't they consult a doctor before writing all that detailed gubbins about organs and such?

Or, just be prepared to be vague. If you're not sure about something write less not more.

It's why in general I don't read sci-fi novels - they potentially rely on the author describing a lot of technology which may be completely impossible.

Using a Star Wars example, I'm happy that light sabres exist and are powered by crystals. Now if George Lucas tried to write a detailed technical description of the manufacturing process of a lightsabre it'd just flag up all of the many different ways in which they are impossible.

Probably because a) its just fiction, which is already based on wildly unrealistic subjects and concepts, try explaining Orks with any realism, plus the internet wasn't what it was, they'd have to go to the effort of finding a doctor and interviewing him, plus they'd need more than that, they'd need neuroscientists, biologists geneticists etc.. and b) when they wrote that, the lore was nowhere near as extensive and realistic as it is now.

Andersp90 wrote:

 Hive City Dweller wrote:


All space marines start out as regular humans and become genetically engineered super soldiers! This premise is hard to accept because all we know about genetics doesn't allow you to take a fully formed organism (eg a human child) and transform it into something entirety different like a super-human adult marine.

That simply isn't true.

Firstly, a child is not a fully formed organism - that is why its called a child.

Secondly, the technology to edit genes in "fully formed organisms" already exists.

A good example is gene therapy.

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/131/9/952

I understand that we're in danger of taking this discussion too seriously and looking a bit silly when we start analyzing science journals to prove our favorite toy soldiers can exist. I'll reply to this just for the curious, but I think this is why I started off with an audible throat clearing about not taking this too seriously.

When I say fully formed organism I mean a human child is a fully formed organism because it is a genetically complete product of his parent's DNA. At that point no more genetic variation should be generated in the the child's own DNA and it's replication should be stable, not accounting for random errors of replication which may cause small mutations which usually are cleared out my host's immune function. In other words as soon as we are formed we are all we are ever going to be in terms of genetic makeup. What you're describing is a developmental stage of the child, but that's a function of genetic expression, not changes in the genome. Puberty and growth happen in stages as the DNA you have from the moment of conception starts to express parts of itself which were previously silenced. This is very different from suddenly incorporating large chunks of foreign genetic material into human DNA>

You are right that genetic therapy has been implemented in some diseases. The article you share discusses using a virus as a vector of introducing a bit of engineered DNA into the host's hepatocytes (liver cells) and the liver using this new bit of DNA to produce new protein (factor 8 in the clotting cascade in this case) This is essentially taking advantage of the virus's reproduction cycle which sneaks its own DNA into human host so that our machinery can be used to make more copies of the virus.

Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder in which factor 8 is deficient and therefore people's blood doesn't clot properly and they bleed/bruise a lot. Well if you insert the viral DNA into a person's own liver cells, and you've previously sneaked the gene for properly functioning factor 8 protein into the virus's genome you're essentially sneakily giving the person a functioning gene and he can now make his own factor 8 and won't be a hemophiliac anymore. This is the theory.

The paper you link did just this and it worked, but the problem is, as they state in the discussion, this is a transient phenomenon; meaning you'e using this new gene only as long as the virus is integrated into the host DNA. As soon as the virus leaves the host DNA the person is back to not being able to make factor 8 and is still hemophiliac. They also note the risk of messing up the host genome if this wasn't a transient event. SO although gene therapy does show promising signs it's eons away from being able to take a gene and cleanly insert it into a fully formed genome. Again I'm not saying we can't imagine the science of the 41st millennium didn't figure this out, I'm just saying they could have stated so.

Pretty much everything regarding Gav Thorpe's work on the Dark Angels due to his obsession with the Fallen and trying to even go for character assassination simply to suit his narratives - along without outright admitting he makes gak up as he goes along instead of trying to apply reason and consequences to things. And his habit for huge retcons in minor books that completely feths up the old lore. He's like a stealthy version of Matt Ward at this point; bad rules, terrible lore, yet people don't pay nearly as much attention to him.

But sentiments stated earlier regarding the Horus Heresy reflect mine as well. Although I don't think the "mystery" of the heresy holds much value, but what is atrocious is the Black Library's either lack of comprehension or complete surrender to corporate greed preventing them from being able to write a competent greek tragedy. Which is what the entire point of the Horus Heresy was, a tragedy. Only now it's one of direction as it's pumped full of worthless filler content that does nothing to further the story or grow characters. The HH is where depth and character development went to die in a hole.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I understand that people have to do gakky things to survive at times. What separates them from complete psychopaths is that they feel remorse afterwards and don't enjoy doing it. In your very own example you said the soldier was crying. That was guilt. That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Dark Eldar do enjoy it and don't feel remorse. Ergo, they are psychopaths and the "tragedy" falls flat.

That seems to be what the writers are going for with the whole "woe is me" angle with the DE. It is extremely possible to enjoy doing something horrible in the moment, and then feeling guilty or even ashamed about it later after it really hits you.

Imagine that if you died, you would be tortured for eternity in the worst ways imaginable. ETERNITY. Take the christian version of hell and ramp it up to 11. Now imagine there was a way to prolong your life indefinitely, INDEFINITELY so that you never had to die. All you had to do was torture a monkey to death. The harder you torture the monkey and the more you enjoy it, the more "time" you get. You would have to keep doing this, forever, but what is that compared to death and what waits after for you? The Dark Eldar have been doing this for so long it has driven them insane as a race, torn between basic empathy and the need to survive and escape "she who thirsts", they start to take pleasure in what they need to do to survive. Pretty fething terrifying and sad to be honest.

w1zard wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I understand that people have to do gakky things to survive at times. What separates them from complete psychopaths is that they feel remorse afterwards and don't enjoy doing it. In your very own example you said the soldier was crying. That was guilt. That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Dark Eldar do enjoy it and don't feel remorse. Ergo, they are psychopaths and the "tragedy" falls flat.

That seems to be what the writers are going for with the whole "woe is me" angle with the DE. It is extremely possible to enjoy doing something horrible in the moment, and then feeling guilty or even ashamed about it later after it really hits you.

Imagine that if you died, you would be tortured for eternity in the worst ways imaginable. ETERNITY. Take the christian version of hell and ramp it up to 11. Now imagine there was a way to prolong your life indefinitely, INDEFINITELY so that you never had to die. All you had to do was torture a monkey to death. The harder you torture the monkey and the more you enjoy it, the more "time" you get. You would have to keep doing this, forever, but what is that compared to death and what waits after for you? The Dark Eldar have been doing this for so long it has driven them insane as a race, torn between basic empathy and the need to survive and escape "she who thirsts", they start to take pleasure in what they need to do to survive. Pretty fething terrifying and sad to be honest.

Also you can be tragic and a monster. The tragedy is that the Dark Eldar have degenerated from being a grand and empathetic race that was set to inherit the galaxy - to degenerate barbarians squatting in the remains of their superior ancestors who would look down on them with a mixture of disgust and sorrow. And not only that, but in their degeneracy they have even lost species-cohesion, and instead slit each other's throats over trivial baubles and boasts, likely doomed to a fate of self-induced extinction by their own hand and not Slaanesh's. The last Dark Eldar standing will likely be holding the dagger that killed the other few remaining Dark Eldar.

They are sad and tragic not because they are sympathetic creatures, but because they were once sympathetic creatures, now fallen beyond the means of any (save possibly Ynnead) to redeem them and given in fully to sociopathy. There are still glimmers of hope within their kind (such as one archon who suffered an emotional meltdown when necrons killed his daughter), but it's not enough to save the lot from their chosen fate.

w1zard wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I understand that people have to do gakky things to survive at times. What separates them from complete psychopaths is that they feel remorse afterwards and don't enjoy doing it. In your very own example you said the soldier was crying. That was guilt. That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Dark Eldar do enjoy it and don't feel remorse. Ergo, they are psychopaths and the "tragedy" falls flat.

That seems to be what the writers are going for with the whole "woe is me" angle with the DE. It is extremely possible to enjoy doing something horrible in the moment, and then feeling guilty or even ashamed about it later after it really hits you.

Imagine that if you died, you would be tortured for eternity in the worst ways imaginable. ETERNITY. Take the christian version of hell and ramp it up to 11. Now imagine there was a way to prolong your life indefinitely, INDEFINITELY so that you never had to die. All you had to do was torture a monkey to death. The harder you torture the monkey and the more you enjoy it, the more "time" you get. You would have to keep doing this, forever, but what is that compared to death and what waits after for you? The Dark Eldar have been doing this for so long it has driven them insane as a race, torn between basic empathy and the need to survive and escape "she who thirsts", they start to take pleasure in what they need to do to survive. Pretty fething terrifying and sad to be honest.

 Wyzilla wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I understand that people have to do gakky things to survive at times. What separates them from complete psychopaths is that they feel remorse afterwards and don't enjoy doing it. In your very own example you said the soldier was crying. That was guilt. That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Dark Eldar do enjoy it and don't feel remorse. Ergo, they are psychopaths and the "tragedy" falls flat.

That seems to be what the writers are going for with the whole "woe is me" angle with the DE. It is extremely possible to enjoy doing something horrible in the moment, and then feeling guilty or even ashamed about it later after it really hits you.

Imagine that if you died, you would be tortured for eternity in the worst ways imaginable. ETERNITY. Take the christian version of hell and ramp it up to 11. Now imagine there was a way to prolong your life indefinitely, INDEFINITELY so that you never had to die. All you had to do was torture a monkey to death. The harder you torture the monkey and the more you enjoy it, the more "time" you get. You would have to keep doing this, forever, but what is that compared to death and what waits after for you? The Dark Eldar have been doing this for so long it has driven them insane as a race, torn between basic empathy and the need to survive and escape "she who thirsts", they start to take pleasure in what they need to do to survive. Pretty fething terrifying and sad to be honest.

Also you can be tragic and a monster. The tragedy is that the Dark Eldar have degenerated from being a grand and empathetic race that was set to inherit the galaxy - to degenerate barbarians squatting in the remains of their superior ancestors who would look down on them with a mixture of disgust and sorrow. And not only that, but in their degeneracy they have even lost species-cohesion, and instead slit each other's throats over trivial baubles and boasts, likely doomed to a fate of self-induced extinction by their own hand and not Slaanesh's. The last Dark Eldar standing will likely be holding the dagger that killed the other few remaining Dark Eldar.

They are sad and tragic not because they are sympathetic creatures, but because they were once sympathetic creatures, now fallen beyond the means of any (save possibly Ynnead) to redeem them and given in fully to sociopathy. There are still glimmers of hope within their kind (such as one archon who suffered an emotional meltdown when necrons killed his daughter), but it's not enough to save the lot from their chosen fate.

Those are some pretty good points and I can understand that approach.
Do they provide context though? It would be pretty effective from a story telling standpoint if you can see the gradual decrease into depraved insanity.
Like, in the first century the Dark Eldar don't really like doing it, a century later they still don't like it but are more open to it than they used to be, and a century after that they are super into nailing babies onto trees or something.
I suppose my problem boils down to a lack of comparison

 Wyzilla wrote:
Pretty much everything regarding Gav Thorpe's work on the Dark Angels due to his obsession with the Fallen and trying to even go for character assassination simply to suit his narratives - along without outright admitting he makes gak up as he goes along instead of trying to apply reason and consequences to things. And his habit for huge retcons in minor books that completely feths up the old lore. He's like a stealthy version of Matt Ward at this point; bad rules, terrible lore, yet people don't pay nearly as much attention to him.

But sentiments stated earlier regarding the Horus Heresy reflect mine as well. Although I don't think the "mystery" of the heresy holds much value, but what is atrocious is the Black Library's either lack of comprehension or complete surrender to corporate greed preventing them from being able to write a competent greek tragedy. Which is what the entire point of the Horus Heresy was, a tragedy. Only now it's one of direction as it's pumped full of worthless filler content that does nothing to further the story or grow characters. The HH is where depth and character development went to die in a hole.

To be fair though, its because GW don't get involved in planning the HH novel series, the writers pretty much have free license to write what they want. You see this a lot, take the Ruinstorm, that was written without thought that the Ultramrines would be stuck in Ultramar and therefore their story arc would be stagnated, so they came up with the Pharos idea, if GW actually planed anything the Ruinstorm would happen near the end of the series thereby trapping the Ultramarines, So Guilliman goes in and out of Ultramar and before the time of the Siege he goes back to Ultramar and the Pharos just becomes broken and he's stuck there.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Pretty much everything regarding Gav Thorpe's work on the Dark Angels due to his obsession with the Fallen and trying to even go for character assassination simply to suit his narratives - along without outright admitting he makes gak up as he goes along instead of trying to apply reason and consequences to things. And his habit for huge retcons in minor books that completely feths up the old lore. He's like a stealthy version of Matt Ward at this point; bad rules, terrible lore, yet people don't pay nearly as much attention to him.

But sentiments stated earlier regarding the Horus Heresy reflect mine as well. Although I don't think the "mystery" of the heresy holds much value, but what is atrocious is the Black Library's either lack of comprehension or complete surrender to corporate greed preventing them from being able to write a competent greek tragedy. Which is what the entire point of the Horus Heresy was, a tragedy. Only now it's one of direction as it's pumped full of worthless filler content that does nothing to further the story or grow characters. The HH is where depth and character development went to die in a hole.

To be fair though, its because GW don't get involved in planning the HH novel series, the writers pretty much have free license to write what they want. You see this a lot, take the Ruinstorm, that was written without thought that the Ultramrines would be stuck in Ultramar and therefore their story arc would be stagnated, so they came up with the Pharos idea, if GW actually planed anything the Ruinstorm would happen near the end of the series thereby trapping the Ultramarines, So Guilliman goes in and out of Ultramar and before the time of the Siege he goes back to Ultramar and the Pharos just becomes broken and he's stuck there.

The issue is that firstly multiple authors working on a single story is always a horrific idea that will lead to an immense clusterfeth of inconsistent nonsense and radical changes in character behavior (look at any major comic series, which has far more money to throw at the problem than GW yet still fails spectacularly), and if you absolutely must have multiple authors working on one thing there must be precise and authoritarian editors keeping everything in line. Probably the worst example of this is at the start of the Horus Heresy itself where Abnetts writes Horus as this fantastic, sensitive character. Who then radically switches emotional gears under McNeil for no damn reason that makes it impossible to stay immersed or care about any characters at all when they never emotionally act in the same manner. This gets worse the more authors that are brought on board, until some primarchs come off as downright schizophrenic. And as I mentioned in a prior thread, the HH doesn't even make sense because STARTING with Horus' fall is fething up the start of the series itself. Horus' Fall in Greek structure should be the CLIMAX of the entire Horus Heresy with the Battle of Terra merely being the conclusion of the fall. The series starting off with the Fall to Chaos puts everything out of thematic beat, and causes filler content to exist in the first point. There would be no need for Secundus if the series started off only 100 years into the Great Crusade and spent 75% of the Horus Heresy in the Great Crusade to build up the tragedy of Horus' fall.

I agree that there is a lot of cram in the HH series. I think each divergent arc (Shattered legions, The Fallen, Raven guard biology experiments, Fulgrims and Perturabos quest etc) should only have a novels worth to cover the information, with the series focusing on the main story arc. they need to stop making books that are collections of short stories aswell. keep it a novel series and cull some of the chaff.

Yup, HH has been bloated for years with side arcs/plots and some genuinely gak ideas (oh hello Pharos).
At least they are wrapping it up now.

there have been some decent books though. I enjoyed the first heretic, and betrayer. I'll probably check out the novels featuring blood angel, dark angels/fallen, and death guard too.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
there have been some decent books though. I enjoyed the first heretic, and betrayer. I'll probably check out the novels featuring blood angel, dark angels/fallen, and death guard too.

Have you read Kharn; The Red Path and if so what did you think of it compared to other BL books?

 RobS wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
there have been some decent books though. I enjoyed the first heretic, and betrayer. I'll probably check out the novels featuring blood angel, dark angels/fallen, and death guard too.

Have you read Kharn; The Red Path and if so what did you think of it compared to other BL books?

I havent. I've read the free short story which I believe is the start of it, 'Furnaces of Haeleon' which was ok, but didnt give away much. I want to read it but I'm torn as to whether to pick up that or read Eater of Worlds, which has better reviews online, first. I loved Kharns portrayal in betrayer, and hope he isn't ruined in the new books. I've got a lot to get through though. my mrs has got me Lords of Silence for christmas, and I wouldnt mind reading the word bearers trilogy.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yes, and that unrepentant part is what makes them great.
However, once your try to add a tragic element to them, it just comes across as a trite attempt at drama
Just imagine a mad scientist who just skinned some guy, covered a wrack with said skin, then ordered the wrack to kick the guy in the nuts repeatedly all whilst saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!", and then at the end of it go "oh, woe is me how I must do these things, for reasons!"

That's what that tragic aspect of DE fluff feels like to me. Its dumb.

I see it as them being deliberately melodramatic about things. Imagine the above scenario, but the 'oh woe is me' thing being hammed up, entirely for the Haemonculi's own personal amusement, like some awful drama queen.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 RobS wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
there have been some decent books though. I enjoyed the first heretic, and betrayer. I'll probably check out the novels featuring blood angel, dark angels/fallen, and death guard too.

Have you read Kharn; The Red Path and if so what did you think of it compared to other BL books?

I havent. I've read the free short story which I believe is the start of it, 'Furnaces of Haeleon' which was ok, but didnt give away much. I want to read it but I'm torn as to whether to pick up that or read Eater of Worlds, which has better reviews online, first. I loved Kharns portrayal in betrayer, and hope he isn't ruined in the new books. I've got a lot to get through though. my mrs has got me Lords of Silence for christmas, and I wouldnt mind reading the word bearers trilogy.

Without giving away too much, I'd go for Eater of Worlds.

There isn't much in The Red Path apart from a lot of Kharn hacking people apart. I know that's kind of his thing but you can have too much of a good thing and the way it's written didn't really do much to convince me of how scarily effective in combat Kharn is. To be honest, in a lot of the combat scenes (so that's a lot of the book) I couldn't imagine from the descriptions what was actually going on.

I've liked the bits of writing I've seen from ADB (that 'maybe, maybe' post he wrote for Bolter and Chainsword is just a perfect imagining of the life of a Chaos Space Marine) so I have high hopes for Betrayer, however.

 Ratius wrote:
Yup, HH has been bloated for years with side arcs/plots and some genuinely gak ideas (oh hello Pharos).
At least they are wrapping it up now.

I actually liked Pharos as a concept. The warp pretty much requires some manner of navigation, and it makes sense some species would build what is effectively a lighthouse so they can get around.

Much more sane than hoping for navigator mutations and eating souls to maintain a super-saiyan aura bubble.

I understand that we're in danger of taking this discussion too seriously and looking a bit silly when we start analyzing science journals to prove our favorite toy soldiers can exist. I'll reply to this just for the curious, but I think this is why I started off with an audible throat clearing about not taking this too seriously.

That is always a danger.

To me, it just doesn't seem that far fetched. We even have organisms living here on earth that undergo far more extreme tranformations than a space marine. Fx butterflies.

Then again, I might be damaged by my occupation.

At that point no more genetic variation should be generated in the the child's own DNA and it's replication should be stable, not accounting for random errors of replication which may cause small mutations which usually are cleared out my host's immune function. In other words as soon as we are formed we are all we are ever going to be in terms of genetic makeup. What you're describing is a developmental stage of the child, but that's a function of genetic expression, not changes in the genome. Puberty and growth happen in stages as the DNA you have from the moment of conception starts to express parts of itself which were previously silenced. This is very different from suddenly incorporating large chunks of foreign genetic material into human DNA>

So by your definition, an unborn child is a fully formed organism simply because no more genetic recombination occurs within its genome? Or a fertilized egg?

You are right that genetic therapy has been implemented in some diseases. The article you share discusses using a virus as a vector of introducing a bit of engineered DNA into the host's hepatocytes (liver cells) and the liver using this new bit of DNA to produce new protein (factor 8 in the clotting cascade in this case) This is essentially taking advantage of the virus's reproduction cycle which sneaks its own DNA into human host so that our machinery can be used to make more copies of the virus.

Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder in which factor 8 is deficient and therefore people's blood doesn't clot properly and they bleed/bruise a lot. Well if you insert the viral DNA into a person's own liver cells, and you've previously sneaked the gene for properly functioning factor 8 protein into the virus's genome you're essentially sneakily giving the person a functioning gene and he can now make his own factor 8 and won't be a hemophiliac anymore. This is the theory.

I am fully aware of that.

The paper you link did just this and it worked, but the problem is, as they state in the discussion, this is a transient phenomenon; meaning you'e using this new gene only as long as the virus is integrated into the host DNA. As soon as the virus leaves the host DNA the person is back to not being able to make factor 8 and is still hemophiliac. They also note the risk of messing up the host genome if this wasn't a transient event. SO although gene therapy does show promising signs it's eons away from being able to take a gene and cleanly insert it into a fully formed genome. Again I'm not saying we can't imagine the science of the 41st millennium didn't figure this out, I'm just saying they could have stated so.

The article refferencs 3 different studies. The patients from the 2011 study still have high efficacy. Hepatocytes turn over is slow, so hopefully they have many medicine-free years to come.

 Grimskul wrote:
Not a fan of GW's issue with number scaling regarding how small chapters are. 1000'sh (not including command staff, support guys, etc.) guys were always hard to take seriously as a force capable of doing much on most planets, much less just a company of 100 marines. Makes them come off as more "elite", but also harder to explain losses or how they can even attempt to pacify/occupy areas. Definitely an instance of just adding a few zeroes to the number to make it more feasible. That or make it explicit they have an entire army of serfs with them at all times handling the logistics of these things.

I think that's a deliberate thing though. Within the 40k setting are supposed to be an elite force, used for specific purposes. Some of the Imperial Armour books paint a great job of the real military-esque examples, like in IA3 (the Taros Campaign) where the Raptors carry out an action to rescue the planetary governor, and get in and out before the Tau can capture them, or when some assault troops come down from orbit to take out some AA installations. The actual ground-war, large scale battles, and occupation you describe could never be carried out by Marines as they just don't have the numbers and instead are undertaken by the guard.

They did at one time, during the Great Crusade, they had the hundreds of thousands of troops, which as you say are the quantities necessary to take a world, to garrison areas, protect supply lines etc. But the events of the Heresy showed that it wasn't advisable to have all of that power held in one place, and the marines were effectively stripped of concentrated power. So now they can only ever be the knife-edge of a military action, where it absolutely must succeed and you need your very best soldiery taking part.

The problem is that in the game setting, everyone and their wife wants to play Space Marines - so you see a massively disproportionate amount of them on the tabletop. If we were to have a ratio of players that matched the volumes of those troop types as found in the 40k universe, you'd probably have a thousand or so Guard players for every Marine player!

 Wyzilla wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I understand that people have to do gakky things to survive at times. What separates them from complete psychopaths is that they feel remorse afterwards and don't enjoy doing it. In your very own example you said the soldier was crying. That was guilt. That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Dark Eldar do enjoy it and don't feel remorse. Ergo, they are psychopaths and the "tragedy" falls flat.

That seems to be what the writers are going for with the whole "woe is me" angle with the DE. It is extremely possible to enjoy doing something horrible in the moment, and then feeling guilty or even ashamed about it later after it really hits you.

Imagine that if you died, you would be tortured for eternity in the worst ways imaginable. ETERNITY. Take the christian version of hell and ramp it up to 11. Now imagine there was a way to prolong your life indefinitely, INDEFINITELY so that you never had to die. All you had to do was torture a monkey to death. The harder you torture the monkey and the more you enjoy it, the more "time" you get. You would have to keep doing this, forever, but what is that compared to death and what waits after for you? The Dark Eldar have been doing this for so long it has driven them insane as a race, torn between basic empathy and the need to survive and escape "she who thirsts", they start to take pleasure in what they need to do to survive. Pretty fething terrifying and sad to be honest.

Also you can be tragic and a monster. The tragedy is that the Dark Eldar have degenerated from being a grand and empathetic race that was set to inherit the galaxy - to degenerate barbarians squatting in the remains of their superior ancestors who would look down on them with a mixture of disgust and sorrow. And not only that, but in their degeneracy they have even lost species-cohesion, and instead slit each other's throats over trivial baubles and boasts, likely doomed to a fate of self-induced extinction by their own hand and not Slaanesh's. The last Dark Eldar standing will likely be holding the dagger that killed the other few remaining Dark Eldar.

They are sad and tragic not because they are sympathetic creatures, but because they were once sympathetic creatures, now fallen beyond the means of any (save possibly Ynnead) to redeem them and given in fully to sociopathy. There are still glimmers of hope within their kind (such as one archon who suffered an emotional meltdown when necrons killed his daughter), but it's not enough to save the lot from their chosen fate.

It kind of bothers me that they are not in decline. As it stand now, they chose the dark route without consequence.

- ignoring khaine's gate, ofc.

Andersp90 wrote:
It kind of bothers me that they are not in decline. As it stand now, they chose the dark route without consequence.

- ignoring khaine's gate, ofc.

That bothers me a lot too. There used to be this quote in the 3rd eddition DE Codex: ''I dance in blood toward the precipice of annihilation.''. I thought it represented perfectly their culture and their knowledge that ultimately, they will all die, that they can't delay the inevitable.

On subject of numbers and Space Marines, I'm also bothered by the fact there is only one Apothecary per Company. That wouldn't be such a big issue, but they sometime deploy a single squad or a demi-company. What if a Marine needs medical assistance in those situations? How do they retrieve the geneseed of fallen brothers? It really should be up to one per squad (plus it could also help on the tabletop).

In 4th edition you actually could field Apothecaries as Sergeants to squads.

I tend to think in other circumstances marines have some basic medical training and equipment to help deal with wounds.

Can't say I'm too fond of the Primaris lore... or the new lore regarding Guilliman's return.

Guilliman showing up out of nowhere, putting himself in charge, and introducing new tech out of nowhere seems like it could shake up elements of the Imperium.

For example, I could imagine a situation where the Ecclesiarchy and parts of the Administratum turn around and say "You're an imposter! This is not the Imperial Truth! What you're suggesting is heresy!" and go into crusade mode, starting a civil war within the Imperium. Certain guard regiments would probably also fall into line with the Ecclesiarchy, so the fight would by no means be a small one. As an added bonus, certain forge world's would probably go into combat mode over new, potentially non-STC technologies.

As a pet gripe, I dislike the introduction of the primaris. GW had an ideal origin in the Sons of Antaeus and the high lords ongoing heretical attempts to improve the geneseed in the past 10000 years through experiments like the cursed founding.

Would have given them better grounding in the universe and scope for much broader strife and suspicion.