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.

 Anemone wrote:
@Bobthehero: Why not? Just have the Imperium and another faction also engage in a conflict where the Imperium goes all out to destroy them but fails.

In neither the Horus Heresy or the Beast Waaagh!!! is a faction destroyed. So when I ask for a conflict of that nature I, of course, include the aspect of no faction being destroyed. Wanting a conflict of this nature does not mean it must be a clone, or a straight-reverse, it means it must narratively fulfill the same requirement for a faction other than the Imperium.

@1hadhq: We only use fluff provided. If you want to claim primacy of setting like Sgt_Smudge that's fine, but like Smudge you must also then accept you cannot claim our method to be invalid. We should simply cease having a discussion on the matter then.

More seriously, and not involved with that debate, I know many Ork players who complain about Armageddon because they feel the Orks never win anything in the fluff.

Why are you so against people other than the Imperium getting to enjoy fluff about major victories and achievements over the Imperium? Why can't they have that and enjoy it the way the Imperium players do?

Because GW DON'T WANT to make it happen.

It's a business perspective ( as much wrong or right it can be) the things happens because GW or more exactly the people running the Company want the history to showcase things as they wish. Not because the other races deserve it more or less not because they are better or worse than imperium it doesn't happen because the thinking heads on the upstairs ladders of management think that's no profitable.

So you can go round and round taking the lore at full face value and enjoy and embrace that stupid idea GW been pushing since long time about imperium and imperium and moar imperium and ignore any xenos lore because screw it that don't sell as good as moar posterboys.

 1hadhq wrote:

And that is?

How many fights does the IoM have that may count?
How many fights does the ones you want to compare have?

There's really not an exact figure here. Just look at the lore, and make comparisons. Compare by far the greatest Ork hero currently active, Ghazghull, who lost a major war with the imperium, won an important battle on Golgotha and was driven to a stalemate at best on Armageddon again, to only one of the greatest imperial heroes active, Marneus Calgar. Calgar breached a Hive Ship, held off an Ork horde by himself for a night and day and won the battle, defeated an Avatar of Khaine, beat a Daemon Prince and more. He won the 1st Tyrannic War, the war on Thrax, the siege of Zalathras, the Battle of Orar's Sepulchre, the Darkhold Ambush, the war of Ichar IV and more. If you want the hard data, Anemone's been providing it throughout this thread. Just look at those to see how skewed the amount of victories are.

Lets take Necrons. Necrons who fought as Necrontyr , who are one of the oldest space farers 40k lets us know about.
How many battles did they fight? How many wins / losses ?

I for one , doubt anyone is able to bring correct numbers because GW has not written those down.
So your proportion is based on? Guesswork? Love for your chosen Faction? Disdain for something you would never play?

Equality does not exist in this case. 60 Millions of years ( Necrons ) and given that time how many outcomes of battles do you know?
If I had to predict the numbers you are going to get from GW, I would aim for the kits they want to sell multiplied by the price range. Expansive kits surely deserve 3-4 mentions where those totally won that conflict. so YOU have to have them too.

What? Exactly, GW hasn't written them down. You seem to be argueing that overall, the numbers are unknown. And I suppose they are. This is about what the fluff shows us. This is about all the vast majority of major battles being won by the Imperium, which you can definitely look at and compare.

Can you provide all the battles since M30 and who won?
If you can't , what makes you think the IoM wins all the battles?


Somehow, I don't even see a all-encompassing point in winning "in universe" cause IMHo its the background of a tabletop wargame where the real persons are meant to win on this top of a table with the models of their choice.
WAAC fools pick up armies because those seem to "autowin". But in general, people seem to have more points which draw them towards an army than just "winning in the fluff".

Again, your point is invalid. The fluff is showing us primarily the imperials winning. The major battles are being won by the Imperium. Sure, there could easily be more Imperial losses than wins out there that aren't being mentioned, but so what? The original point still stands. Why should someone get invested when all the fluff shows is their faction losing, and they're only told that their team probably won somewhere else that's not getting shown.

Armageddon and the story of G & Y isn't a One-sided win.... but maybe thats your problem? You want one side to win? Seriously win, earthquake like, undoubted and thus something to....
Haven't heard complaints from Ork-players about Armageddon.

Yes, the Orks lost the second war, the one were they were wiped out in droves and the bulk of their force was forced to retreat.

The second Armageddon war was undoubtedly an Imperial win. So in the two biggest wars he's taken part in, the most powerful Ork character lost, and drew. So yeah, maybe the best Ork hero there is should be able to win a bit.

Challenge:

Provide every win of everyone and we can see if the IoM wins "a lot more than others".

Now, we both know you cannot.

Offscreen is NOT invalid, just because it sinks your boat. In - Universe every battle counts. It doens't matter if GW tells us, the readers, of a battle. It happened , it influenced events in universe.
So I have to disagree. Offscreen counts. Because it is what happens if we just get glimpses of a world. Our Picture is incomplete.

The background of 40k depends on the events :
a) GW creates to sell stuff
b) GW creates to tell stories and offer them printed or digitally.

It would be nice to have a overarching setup and GW sticking to some guidelines. But there is a lot of power beyond the creative heads nowadays and pushing product leads to priorities based on $ , € , etc.
But, as money focused as GW acted, I cannot believe anything is done to make one not buy in, to deny anyone wins.

Take the Imperial Guard. GW said billions of Regiments of IG exist ( codex ). GW could never do enough to make all of those equally interesting.
Is anyone going to claim only people who like to have their ass handed to them play IG ?
Because i havent seen codices of the IG filled with victories to the brim. Like you know, IG being part of the IoM and according to some in this thread: IoM wins, and has huge wins, and wins all the time, so the IG which makes up the bulk of the forces must have their share in this. Right?

Your point of "Provide every battle" is already proved invalid. Offscreen does not count. As you say, when we're only a getting a glimpse of this fictional universe. This glimpse mainly shows the Imperium kicking everyone elses ass. Hence, the original problem still stands. Why should the poster get involved when the glimpse shows his team constantly losing? That's all he'll get to see of the fluff, so it's all that matters.

What are you on about? Imperial Guard wins all the time. In pretty much every battle the Imperium fights, the Guard are there to some degree.

I'm impressed, 9 pages and no namecalling.

Anemone, you very kindly listed several battles in which IoM won. Now can you please list where these battles are detailed/sourced? Because I'm very certain that they were taken from an IoM centric publication, and that's the core problem that you're having in this thread. Lets take for example the Taros Campaign. A book written from a Tau viewpoint, and guess what the Tau won. And based on that alone its a fairly safe bet that my earlier statement is correct.

Take every codex written, in each codex the 'owner' wins. IIRC the only codex in which the 'owner' loses is the Imperial Guard. Granted it's an old codex but still the exception.

Now look at the rest of your source material, these are all books written to appeal to a market. But in order to appeal the reader has to be able to 'invest' in the protagonist. Can you as a person invest in an ork? For an entire book?

I'm now going to use a real life example (yeah that's right, so sue me )

Kim Jong-un is the wisest person alive. His knowledge of things is greater than anyone else and every word should be taken as truth and acted upon. Now is that true?

You would probably disagree because you have a world viewpoint and as such are aware of contradictory facts to the situation which would aid you in your decision, but the average Korean under his regime would disagree because they have nothing there to contradict the situation.

You're saying that because there has been no names then the battles don't count, but all the publications are an Imperium viewpoint because that's what sells. Its a blinkered worldview. You're like that Korean peasant accepting the wise a beneficent leader whereas others are sitting outside of Korea accepting that there are nuances going on that aren't recognised by the other parties.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm impressed, 9 pages and no namecalling.

Anemone, you very kindly listed several battles in which IoM won. Now can you please list where these battles are detailed/sourced? Because I'm very certain that they were taken from an IoM centric publication, and that's the core problem that you're having in this thread. Lets take for example the Taros Campaign. A book written from a Tau viewpoint, and guess what the Tau won. And based on that alone its a fairly safe bet that my earlier statement is correct.

Take every codex written, in each codex the 'owner' wins. IIRC the only codex in which the 'owner' loses is the Imperial Guard. Granted it's an old codex but still the exception.

Now look at the rest of your source material, these are all books written to appeal to a market. But in order to appeal the reader has to be able to 'invest' in the protagonist. Can you as a person invest in an ork? For an entire book?

I'm now going to use a real life example (yeah that's right, so sue me )

Kim Jong-un is the wisest person alive. His knowledge of things is greater than anyone else and every word should be taken as truth and acted upon. Now is that true?

You would probably disagree because you have a world viewpoint and as such are aware of contradictory facts to the situation which would aid you in your decision, but the average Korean under his regime would disagree because they have nothing there to contradict the situation.

You're saying that because there has been no names then the battles don't count, but all the publications are an Imperium viewpoint because that's what sells. Its a blinkered worldview. You're like that Korean peasant accepting the wise a beneficent leader whereas others are sitting outside of Korea accepting that there are nuances going on that aren't recognised by the other parties.

Cheers

Andrew

This. GW themselves have claimed that the stuff published as stories are "Propaganda" to avoid consistency problems. So every pro-imperial publication is Imperial propaganda, on the same level as North Korean or Nazi World War 2 propagangda.

@bobthehero: Yes the Siege of Vraks was an Imperium victory. They destroyed their foe, and achieved their objective, as stated in the book.

Even if you don't want to call it a 'Imperium Victory' it was certainly not a 'Chaos Victory' so it clearly isn't comparable to the type of scenario sketched out by Rocket Scientist.

Personally what Rocket Scientist said was fine; why not have a narrative scenario in which major characters of the Imperium (Logan, Azrael, Dante, Marneus, Kantor, Creed) and such engage in an an enormous and epic military conflict with a non-Imperium faction (a Craftworld, Dynasty, Waaagh!!!) and despite trying their hardest are just defeated and forced to flee, incapable of gaining any ground, forced to fallback or face destruction and just give a epic victory to the non-Imperium faction?

The fact that you mention the Siege of Vraks is indicative of the problem I'm talking about. Even if you dispute its a 'Imperium Victory' it still isn't a Chaos victory either. Additionally it was limited to one planet unlike the great Imperium victories.

What I'm asking is that factions other than the Imperium be permitted to gain large-scale, unambiguous and decisive victories over the Imperium's best as well.

Lord Perversor: Well yeah this part of the problem I have, for sure.

@AndrewC: It's already been pointed out, in a discussion between bobthehero and Ynneadwraith I believe, that simply dismissing the Imperium-centered fluff (which is 80% of all 40k fluff) as all 'propaganda' and thus not reliable is very unfair.

Secondly if we were to do so we would rob ourselves of almost all ability to discuss fluff. If very little to nothing of the Imperium-focused fluff can be reliable then we can make almost no claims because the vast majority of our knowledge of the setting comes purely from that fluff.

Additionally I, personally just, don't really think comparisons between reality and stories in terms of 'extent of knowledge' are appropriate. In reality multifarious ways exist to access information, within a story we can only access knowledge based on the information provided by the story and thus must depend on that information to form knowledge of the setting.

Finally, even if we accept this premise, of it being dismissed as 'propaganda' it does not change the core issue; players for factions other than the Imperium also should be permitted to have similar amounts of cool and victorious moments of significance for themselves to enjoy.

Okay, so now you're first question, I'm going to briefly provide battles which are lost by a faction within their own Codex to the Imperium (this won't be an exhaustive list though) I'll put the battle name and then the Codex it is in afterwards;

Fist of the Machine God-Codex Craftworld Eldar
Fear the Shadows-Codex Dark Eldar
The Sin of Damnation-Codex Genestealer Cults
A Deathly Gift-Codex Genestealer Cults
Return to Damnos-Codex Necrons
Tragedy at Lagan-Codex Tau Empire
Death Masque Supplement (is as least as Eldar-centric as Imperium-centric)

Now I haven't read through all the codexes yet, or supplements or fluff so if you want more I shall do so.

EDIT: My goodness I put the Doom of Malan'tai down, apologies that was a very silly mistake

Rocket Scientist wrote:
Why not have some Imperium big wigs, like Dark Angles, Slace Wolves, Creed and such get into a huge fight with Biel-tan but Biel-tan wins and sends the Imperium running in an epic confrontation like the Traitor legions were sent running?

This has actually kind of happened before, with the Battle of Rasilena. Biel-Tan kicked the Imperium off a maiden world despite the latter throwing two battlefleets and ten Space Marine chapters at them.

If we could get a novel of that, it would be awesome. The chapters in question weren't named, either, so you could even have some of the big wigs turn up to take their beating.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

And that is?

How many fights does the IoM have that may count?
How many fights does the ones you want to compare have?

There's really not an exact figure here. Just look at the lore, and make comparisons. Compare by far the greatest Ork hero currently active, Ghazghull, who lost a major war with the imperium, won an important battle on Golgotha and was driven to a stalemate at best on Armageddon again, to only one of the greatest imperial heroes active, Marneus Calgar. Calgar breached a Hive Ship, held off an Ork horde by himself for a night and day and won the battle, defeated an Avatar of Khaine, beat a Daemon Prince and more. He won the 1st Tyrannic War, the war on Thrax, the siege of Zalathras, the Battle of Orar's Sepulchre, the Darkhold Ambush, the war of Ichar IV and more. If you want the hard data, Anemone's been providing it throughout this thread. Just look at those to see how skewed the amount of victories are.

Don't you think its unfair to put Mr Bossman of the posterboys aka Papa Smurf against Ghazzy ?
Your comparision is like Cpt Kirk vs redshirt N°9 and the redshirt is never going to get the same spotlight.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

Lets take Necrons. Necrons who fought as Necrontyr , who are one of the oldest space farers 40k lets us know about.
How many battles did they fight? How many wins / losses ?

I for one , doubt anyone is able to bring correct numbers because GW has not written those down.
So your proportion is based on? Guesswork? Love for your chosen Faction? Disdain for something you would never play?

Equality does not exist in this case. 60 Millions of years ( Necrons ) and given that time how many outcomes of battles do you know?
If I had to predict the numbers you are going to get from GW, I would aim for the kits they want to sell multiplied by the price range. Expansive kits surely deserve 3-4 mentions where those totally won that conflict. so YOU have to have them too.

What? Exactly, GW hasn't written them down. You seem to be argueing that overall, the numbers are unknown. And I suppose they are. This is about what the fluff shows us. This is about all the vast majority of major battles being won by the Imperium, which you can definitely look at and compare.

If the correct and complete set of data is unknown, the result is always extremly flawed. Agreed?

What I am questioning is, it seems to be about the fluff you want to acknowledge, not the possible and very likely not so unbalanced "reality" in universe.

The Problems with the fluff are maybe quality and consistence, but your line of thinking leads to the Problem beeing the people who read and interpret what they get.
Sure, limit the usable fluff to your set of allowed fluff pieces and feel right. It just doesn't fit with the basic "fact" of 40k that many things are meant to be forgotten in-universe , especially major battles, Heroes greater than Calgar, etc.

So No, this is about what the fluff is made for, its about what happens when you write about 1 Imperium but have to offer fluff for multiple parts of this Imperium.
Obviously to fill books with "positive news" you are going to hand more victories to those who got more books. But dex vs dex, I don't believe you get more wins if it is an "Imperial" codex.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

Can you provide all the battles since M30 and who won?
If you can't , what makes you think the IoM wins all the battles?


Somehow, I don't even see a all-encompassing point in winning "in universe" cause IMHo its the background of a tabletop wargame where the real persons are meant to win on this top of a table with the models of their choice.
WAAC fools pick up armies because those seem to "autowin". But in general, people seem to have more points which draw them towards an army than just "winning in the fluff".

Again, your point is invalid. The fluff is showing us primarily the imperials winning. The major battles are being won by the Imperium. Sure, there could easily be more Imperial losses than wins out there that aren't being mentioned, but so what? The original point still stands. Why should someone get invested when all the fluff shows is their faction losing, and they're only told that their team probably won somewhere else that's not getting shown.

My point stands.
Your sad excuse of calling something i wrote is invalid is not going to help you.

The range of Products if you enter 40k is?
The fluff found inside tells you?

The original point is no good point at all.
Its subscribing to Star Trek and wondering why the federation has the spotlight. Its like joining Star Wars and complaining about too much Jedi and Sith.
Its just silly.

If I want my team to win, I am going to score that win myself. Why should I wait for GW to grant me this ?

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

Armageddon and the story of G & Y isn't a One-sided win.... but maybe thats your problem? You want one side to win? Seriously win, earthquake like, undoubted and thus something to....
Haven't heard complaints from Ork-players about Armageddon.

Yes, the Orks lost the second war, the one were they were wiped out in droves and the bulk of their force was forced to retreat.

The second Armageddon war was undoubtedly an Imperial win. So in the two biggest wars he's taken part in, the most powerful Ork character lost, and drew. So yeah, maybe the best Ork hero there is should be able to win a bit.

The Ork Hero beat every other Ork to get to his position. Seems he can win.
He also beats any contender in 1 vs 1.
Tell me about those who beat him, can't remember anyone.

Plus, the victory the great Crusade IoM deemed most important, was against Orks, the post-BiG E one was against Orks again and maybe is against Orks in the future.
Not conquering Armageddon doesn't turn Orks into punching bags.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

Challenge:

Provide every win of everyone and we can see if the IoM wins "a lot more than others".

Now, we both know you cannot.

Offscreen is NOT invalid, just because it sinks your boat. In - Universe every battle counts. It doens't matter if GW tells us, the readers, of a battle. It happened , it influenced events in universe.
So I have to disagree. Offscreen counts. Because it is what happens if we just get glimpses of a world. Our Picture is incomplete.

The background of 40k depends on the events :
a) GW creates to sell stuff
b) GW creates to tell stories and offer them printed or digitally.

It would be nice to have a overarching setup and GW sticking to some guidelines. But there is a lot of power beyond the creative heads nowadays and pushing product leads to priorities based on $ , € , etc.
But, as money focused as GW acted, I cannot believe anything is done to make one not buy in, to deny anyone wins.

Take the Imperial Guard. GW said billions of Regiments of IG exist ( codex ). GW could never do enough to make all of those equally interesting.
Is anyone going to claim only people who like to have their ass handed to them play IG ?
Because i havent seen codices of the IG filled with victories to the brim. Like you know, IG being part of the IoM and according to some in this thread: IoM wins, and has huge wins, and wins all the time, so the IG which makes up the bulk of the forces must have their share in this. Right?

Your point of "Provide every battle" is already proved invalid. Offscreen does not count. As you say, when we're only a getting a glimpse of this fictional universe. This glimpse mainly shows the Imperium kicking everyone elses ass. Hence, the original problem still stands. Why should the poster get involved when the glimpse shows his team constantly losing? That's all he'll get to see of the fluff, so it's all that matters.

What are you on about? Imperial Guard wins all the time. In pretty much every battle the Imperium fights, the Guard are there to some degree.

Your attempts to evade are invalid, and thats the only thing deserving of the term invalid ITT.

But nice to have you admit, the IG works hard for its victories, and thus deserves every single one of them. Am happy you see it now, the IoM doesn't achieve unfair super huge wins but just accepts the fruits of the IG efforts.
Go IG go

Shouldn't you suggest to the OP to play IG.? I mean the IG is a winner, and he wants the winning team, so go IG I say

And before you return to that fascinating idea of the 40k universe put into stasis whenever you go "offscreen", consider this:

40k makes a lot of sense as a sandbox for creative and imaginative people to put their own efforts in. if someone expects GW to hold their hand however, disappointment is guaranteed.
Take the battles as examples. Treat them like the "selling points" they are. Pick up the IG material and use that mountain of fluff to decide if the IoM wins as many times as you think.
Because it doesn't.

@1hadhq: How is it unfair to put Ghazghkull against Marneus? Both are the primary characters for their respective codexes (Space Marines & Orks) so what's unfair about it?

Besides compare Ghazghkull to any of the Chapter Masters of the main codexes and his feats will pale by comparison, so who exactly are you willing to compare Ghazghkull to, seeing as he is the primary Ork Character of the entire setting?

Seriously why all this 'go make it yourself' stuff? What's so abhorrent about players of non-Imperium factions wanting the sort of attention and awesome fluff the Imperium gets handed? Your entire argument seems to be once again revolving around telling non-Imperium players who want their factions to also get major and significant victories to just be 'satisfied' with background comments. That seems completely unfair to me.

Additionally I object to the Star Trek analogy. I certainly don't believe the Imperium is the only point of view within the setting, whilst within Star Trek the Federation explicitly is.

You realize their are players of factions other than the Imperium who invest in said factions and want to see them also score major victories over the Imperium the way the Imperium achieves over them?

Uhh...Ghazghkull lost a war to Dante, Azrael and Tu'shan, not to mention Yarrick. You do realize Ghazghkull lost both the battle of Piscina and the 2nd War for Armageddon right? Ghazghkull has only ever won 1 battle against the Imperium; Golgotha.

Also how does pointing out that the Orks suffered numerous huge defeats (Ullanor/Goro/Beast Waaagh!!!) possibly prove they aren't a punching bag? You've just pointed out that the Orks are consistently defeated in major engagements by the Imperium, by pointing out that they lose all their high-profile conflicts with the Imperium you're proving the Orks do serve as a punching bag. You realize all three those conflicts you mentioned the Orks lose, right?

Why are you so opposed to fluff granting more victories for the non-Imperium factions? Particularly more significant victories?

EDIT: Also, yeah, the OP's already said that what he takes from this discussion is there's no point in playing a non-Imperium faction, so the IG are part of the Imperium and would match his criteria.

 1hadhq wrote:


Don't you think its unfair to put Mr Bossman of the posterboys aka Papa Smurf against Ghazzy ?
Your comparision is like Cpt Kirk vs redshirt N°9 and the redshirt is never going to get the same spotlight.

Hell, you're basically confirming my point here. One of the best Imperial Characters is Captain Kirk, while the very best Ork Character still around is just some redshirt. The comparisons could not be more accurate, as they're the best of their respective races.

What? Exactly, GW hasn't written them down. You seem to be argueing that overall, the numbers are unknown. And I suppose they are. This is about what the fluff shows us. This is about all the vast majority of major battles being won by the Imperium, which you can definitely look at and compare.

If the correct and complete set of data is unknown, the result is always extremly flawed. Agreed?

What I am questioning is, it seems to be about the fluff you want to acknowledge, not the possible and very likely not so unbalanced "reality" in universe.

The Problems with the fluff are maybe quality and consistence, but your line of thinking leads to the Problem beeing the people who read and interpret what they get.
Sure, limit the usable fluff to your set of allowed fluff pieces and feel right. It just doesn't fit with the basic "fact" of 40k that many things are meant to be forgotten in-universe , especially major battles, Heroes greater than Calgar, etc.

So No, this is about what the fluff is made for, its about what happens when you write about 1 Imperium but have to offer fluff for multiple parts of this Imperium.
Obviously to fill books with "positive news" you are going to hand more victories to those who got more books. But dex vs dex, I don't believe you get more wins if it is an "Imperial" codex.

This by far is the most frustrating thread I have ever read.

Not because I disagree with it, it's because I actually agree 100% with the idea that the Imperium gets way too much focus. I mean look at the Black Library, center of all lore. What series is getting the most attention currently? Horus Heresy. Books with a Xenos focus probably number less then the books in the Horus Series alone.

The problem I have with the entire fething thread is that the arrogance displayed by the 'Anti-Imperium' side. The main arguements seem to boil down to "Imperium always wins so therefore all xenos are stupid and useless". Which is just insulting. We bring up evidence, say "Hey now, things aren't all bad", and you ignore it or deem it irrelevant. Anytime someone mentions the Tau, you say the ENTIRE RACE is irrelevant! How are the Tau fething irrelevant?! Because they could be killed by the Imperium? The Imperium could have been wiped out by the Eldar or Necrons when they were young too, doesn't mean Mankind is not relevant. Tau went from rocks to Laser Weapons and Mech suits in the same time it took us to go from Rocks to TV. On the line graph of Technology, Mankind is declining at like a 2* angle, while Tau is a 90* angle straight up.

Tau Rant over, the argument still sucks. Saying the other races are gak because they don't get the spotlight is a really defeatist approach to this whole argument. Mankind sells the most product. Therefore Mankind gets the most spotlight. Mankind wins more, sells more product, rinse repeat.

Why should you invest in a Xeno race? BECAUSE YOU FIND THEM INTERESTING. You like the models! You like the art! You like their underdog lore! You don't always have to be on the winning side. If in the next book Ghaza and Abaddon teamed up and tagteamed the Imperial Palace, would that mean everyone should just dump all their Space Marine Armies? Hell no.

Every race has it's place in the universe. In the lore, in the setting. Trying to discredit an entire faction simply because they don't win is kinda silly.

TLDR; I agree with the statement that other races don't get enough limelight and don't seem to do much against the massive behemoth that is the Imperium. But the way you use this argument to then prove that the other races are worthless is rude. Boiled down this whole thing is "My race is better then yours because numbers"

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
This by far is the most frustrating thread I have ever read.

Not because I disagree with it, it's because I actually agree 100% with the idea that the Imperium gets way too much focus. I mean look at the Black Library, center of all lore. What series is getting the most attention currently? Horus Heresy. Books with a Xenos focus probably number less then the books in the Horus Series alone.

The problem I have with the entire fething thread is that the arrogance displayed by the 'Anti-Imperium' side. The main arguements seem to boil down to "Imperium always wins so therefore all xenos are stupid and useless". Which is just insulting. We bring up evidence, say "Hey now, things aren't all bad", and you ignore it or deem it irrelevant. Anytime someone mentions the Tau, you say the ENTIRE RACE is irrelevant! How are the Tau fething irrelevant?! Because they could be killed by the Imperium? The Imperium could have been wiped out by the Eldar or Necrons when they were young too, doesn't mean Mankind is not relevant. Tau went from rocks to Laser Weapons and Mech suits in the same time it took us to go from Rocks to TV. On the line graph of Technology, Mankind is declining at like a 2* angle, while Tau is a 90* angle straight up.

Tau Rant over, the argument still sucks. Saying the other races are gak because they don't get the spotlight is a really defeatist approach to this whole argument. Mankind sells the most product. Therefore Mankind gets the most spotlight. Mankind wins more, sells more product, rinse repeat.

Why should you invest in a Xeno race? BECAUSE YOU FIND THEM INTERESTING. You like the models! You like the art! You like their underdog lore! You don't always have to be on the winning side. If in the next book Ghaza and Abaddon teamed up and tagteamed the Imperial Palace, would that mean everyone should just dump all their Space Marine Armies? Hell no.

Every race has it's place in the universe. In the lore, in the setting. Trying to discredit an entire faction simply because they don't win is kinda silly.

TLDR; I agree with the statement that other races don't get enough limelight and don't seem to do much against the massive behemoth that is the Imperium. But the way you use this argument to then prove that the other races are worthless is rude. Boiled down this whole thing is "My race is better then yours because numbers"

I think I can get behind this.

 TheoreticalFish wrote:
This by far is the most frustrating thread I have ever read.

Not because I disagree with it, it's because I actually agree 100% with the idea that the Imperium gets way too much focus. I mean look at the Black Library, center of all lore. What series is getting the most attention currently? Horus Heresy. Books with a Xenos focus probably number less then the books in the Horus Series alone.

The problem I have with the entire fething thread is that the arrogance displayed by the 'Anti-Imperium' side. The main arguements seem to boil down to "Imperium always wins so therefore all xenos are stupid and useless". Which is just insulting.

Sometimes, the truth hurts.
For sure, stupid and useless may be a bit too much, but the picture that is painted in the fluff of the Imperiums major opponents does not make them look very competent or threatening. And I think that is a shame because it makes rhe fluff one-sided and boring. Maybe your standards are different than mine, maybe you have no problem with the fact that the non-Imperium factions never win any major victories in the same way the Imperium does. But I do.
If that insults you than that is your problem.

The argument made by me and others in this thread is that
1. Of all the many battles in the fluff, the vast majority is won by the Imperium, including all major ones.
2. The battles that are won by other factions rarely receive any attention in the fluff, nor do they have any lasting impact on the setting and they are rarely referenced more than once in the fluff.
3. The lack of detailed, major achievements and lasting victories for non-Imperium characters and factions (like we do have for the Imperium and most of its characters) makes them look incompetent and insignificant compared to the Imperium.
In the end, the problem boils down to that these are supposed to be the Imperiums most feared foes. They are supposed to be dangerous and competent, but there is no fluff to actually justify this status. The vast majority of fluff shows them losing time and time again. This makes them look anything but dangerous and competent. If these truly are the fearsome threats they are stated to be, then why do they not look like it?

Again, this one-sided representation may not be an issue to some. But to those that like their fluff to be more than a which-villain-will-the-heroic-defenders-of-mankind-defeat-this-week-cartoon it is.

Anemone wrote:@1hadhq: How is it unfair to put Ghazghkull against Marneus? Both are the primary characters for their respective codexes (Space Marines & Orks) so what's unfair about it?

Calgars 2nd job as leader of GW's poster boys for the whole 40k game makes Ghazzy a little bit incapable as competitor.
Calgar gets his 'honors' from beeing the one who leads the Ultramarines, if the Ork klan of Ghazkull was GW's "flagship" he would get the same treatment. It's a decision we can't change IMO. They picked someone, they stick with that.

Anemone wrote:
Besides compare Ghazghkull to any of the Chapter Masters of the main codexes and his feats will pale by comparison, so who exactly are you willing to compare Ghazghkull to, seeing as he is the primary Ork Character of the entire setting?

GW gave to Space Marine Chapter Masters because they compete with each other. ( the big 4 ). OtoH , what did the Chapters get who have to share a book with MC?
Azrael isn't listed as winning here, there and over there too. Or take some 2nd tier, like Helbrecht. Space Marines suffer from the Super-hero nonsense some people have to have. It is unnecessary to make a Chapter Master to wipe the floor with Eldar Avatars, because basically the strength of the Humans and their teammates is teamplay. But to sell product you have to adapt to expectations. I would assume different people expect different things and GW sells worldwide.

Anemone wrote:
Seriously why all this 'go make it yourself' stuff?

Why not ?

Anemone wrote:
What's so abhorrent about players of non-Imperium factions wanting the sort of attention and awesome fluff the Imperium gets handed?

Are you sure the fluff the Imperium gets is awesome?
Do you walk into a store, see 20 Books and 10 of them are part of the same team and expect to see the same attention put towards to 1 book you bought than 10 others got?
There is nothing abhorrent in sharing attention. But we know GW likes the easy way. A basic figure in PA grants them loads of options. A basic figure like IG in its Human form and you have to invest to make more than just Cadians.
Attention is given to things who make money. Attention isn't granted as a gift to everyone just to be fair.
So I assumed we use the motivation of the company behind the game, instead of theoretical exercises based on how it could be.

Anemone wrote:
Your entire argument seems to be once again revolving around telling non-Imperium players who want their factions to also get major and significant victories to just be 'satisfied' with background comments. That seems completely unfair to me.

When is a victory considered major, when significant ? By your definition? By mine? GW?
The non-Imperium players bought a Rulebook, yes? Seen how much space is spent on non-Imperium? I can't help but unfair doesn't come to mind when you put money on the table and know who has a lot of attention beforehand. No one has to be surprised.
Now, lets believe someone didn't ask anyone and just bought a box of models. Bought a codex, had his choice painted in a very positive way there. Is it unfair if the lack of info misleads said person to hope for equal attention? Possibly.
Is it really fair to tell other people their choice has to win less so yours can shine? Doesn't this behaviour put the blame on fellow Hobbyist instead of the company responsible for this?
I won't tell anyone to be satisfied. But I'll tell anyone who listens to adress the one who is responsible and not "the fluff" like the fluff wrote itself....

Anemone wrote:
Additionally I object to the Star Trek analogy. I certainly don't believe the Imperium is the only point of view within the setting, whilst within Star Trek the Federation explicitly is.

Mostly yes. There maybe examples where additional POV come into play at STar Trek. But the IoM is a main POV if you don't ignore the facts. Buy a starter box without IoM inside. At least half of the story does belong to the IoM...

Anemone wrote:
You realize their are players of factions other than the Imperium who invest in said factions and want to see them also score major victories over the Imperium the way the Imperium achieves over them?

Am not blind and deaf
But again, what score would satisfy? Each time faction X wins, faction Y gets a win next time? or could one get ahead?

Anemone wrote:
Uhh...Ghazghkull lost a war to Dante, Azrael and Tu'shan, not to mention Yarrick. You do realize Ghazghkull lost both the battle of Piscina and the 2nd War for Armageddon right? Ghazghkull has only ever won 1 battle against the Imperium; Golgotha.

How many Imperial leaders gathered against him? Did he lose to each of them 1 time or was it a great effort of a whole crusade that stopped him? Did the IoM invest as many combatants as Ghazzy?

Anemone wrote:
Also how does pointing out that the Orks suffered numerous huge defeats (Ullanor/Goro/Beast Waaagh!!!) possibly prove they aren't a punching bag?

Humans had to bring a God-Emperor , Primarchs and Legions of Space Marines for the first one. To deal with punching-bags, you just call the PDF.

Anemone wrote:
You've just pointed out that the Orks are consistently defeated in major engagements by the Imperium, by pointing out that they lose all their high-profile conflicts with the Imperium you're proving the Orks do serve as a punching bag. You realize all three those conflicts you mentioned the Orks lose, right?

You realize the Orks didn't act as easy push-overs ?
Ullanor was created as a victory in the HH series, what chance did the Orks have ? the Beast was created to threathen but we are at M40 and a threat of M32 had a chance to win? Don't we know the status quo of M41?
Orks aren't loosers just because they took part in stories they had no chance of success. Orks got a role to play there. And Armageddon was available as campaign, so Orks had their shot. You seem to ignore the chances and focus on things which didn't offer an open end.

Anemone wrote:
Why are you so opposed to fluff granting more victories for the non-Imperium factions? Particularly more significant victories?

Where am I opposed to fluff? Yes I don't like bad fluff and yes I don't think it possible to please everyone.

Anemone wrote:
EDIT: Also, yeah, the OP's already said that what he takes from this discussion is there's no point in playing a non-Imperium faction, so the IG are part of the Imperium and would match his criteria.

There is a point:
- you like the models, you like the playstyle, you don't hope GW offers the whole history of every faction of a whole Galaxy.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
Hell, you're basically confirming my point here. One of the best Imperial Characters is Captain Kirk, while the very best Ork Character still around is just some redshirt. The comparisons could not be more accurate, as they're the best of their respective races.

How could I dare to confirm your point? Its yours, i won't touch it... Kirk and the redshirt are in the same team...
What I was trying to say is, one picked as main actor has a lot going for him/her . That is what makes Calgar superior to Gahzzy. GW chose MC and the UM as their "flagship-line".
You want Orks and Ghazzy? Your chances are like picking one of the IG commanders, oh you didn't chose Cadians? Bad luck. Now you don't get much and your minis are metal and online only. GW isn't fair.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
Yeah, GW doesn't tell us about them. I'm not arguing that in the actual "reality" of 40k, victories are skewed one way or the other, because you're right, I don't know. It is entirely the fluff I want to talk about, because that's what we're seeing. That's what's being given to us. If all we get to see is our teams losing, we have no reason to get invested. You keep argueing about the reality of the universe, but I don't care. That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm argueing that the vast majority of the fluff is about Imperium kicking their enemies' ass. Whether that's what's going on in the unseen universe is irrelevant.

So if you don't care for the background ( the whole story ), why should I care for the fluff pieces you cherry-picked?
You want fair? Then go fair and square.

GW releases GSC. Tzentch stuff too.
Surely all of them get their asses kicked by mean Imperials who unfairly claim all the glory. Right?

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
And you pretty much admit that the poster's right.

No...

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
What the hell was the point of all the argueing if you're just going to admit that yes, the Imperium does get all the spotlight?

A lot =/= all of it.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
This is the issue here. Star Trek was not something where I was asked to pick teams, neither was star wars.

I am pretty sure Star Wars is black and white...

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
40K is something where you pick which faction you like.

According to GW, you could pick them all

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
If all the fluff focuses on one choice, why should someone play when that choice isn't theirs?

The fluff does not. The fluff just doesn't deliver what YOU want.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
In Fantasy, all factions get the spotlight, so there's a reason to join any faction.

And no one restarted Fantasy... oh wait.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
In 40k, the spotlight is permanently on the Imperium, so the original post is right. Why should he be invested in his faction when GW won't do likewise?

Is he GW? Or is he a person which makes his own choices?
Your false assumption a company has to spend equal amounts of attention to every product has no leg to stand on. Give me an example of a company who supports every product equally. Will you?

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
Orks beating other orks isn't a win for orks.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
If you can only win against other orks, the ork faction isn't winning. If all Malneus Calgar's victories were against other forces of the Imperium, that'd be comparable, but it just isn't.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
Are you showing another huge imperial victory over the Orks? So? I never said the Orks are punching bags, it's that they're primarily losers. You've shown another example of them losing. Well done.

Calling the Orks losers is your idea. Not mine. So please stop making Orks players feel bad.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
I've not evaded. I've explained clearly the case.

Clear to whom? to me? Does my post sound like you explained something successfully?

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
You admit that the spotlight is on the Imperium and its their wins being shown. If literally every battle not shown was lost by the Imperium, that would change nothing about the arguement.

And? An argument based on illusions is still crap.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
The Imperial Guard aren't real, so they've not worked hard, and deserve nothing.

Oh were trying to diss the IG ?
Pissing on the IG's parade won't convince anyone.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
This isn't a sport, where I'm complaining my team never win.

But it sounds like it.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
This is where GW constantly decides that the Imperium wins. Sure, the battles are hard fought because otherwise they'd be boring, but so what? The Imperium hasn't "earned" a single victory, they've been given them by GW.

And wins given to anyone else wouldn't be "not earned but given by GW" ???

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
The OP does not want the winning team. He wants his team to win occassionaly.

And GW changes its ways because one posts at dakka....

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
This response is basically "Piss off, I don't care, pick something else". It's telling him that no, unlike Fantasy or other games, you either pick Imperium or lose, get over it. This attitude just reinforces his original issue of the game not being worth investing anything in as you'll just lose, if you don't play imperium.

It was never intended this way. But you need this to fit your narrative,yes?

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
No one expects hand holding here. They expect not to have their ass kicked in the fluff on every occassion. If you're going to take that approach, than every Imperium player has been given special treatment and had their hand held through everything. If you're so against this want for fluff, why aren't you the biggest complainer that GW has hand-held Imperium players through all the fluff?

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
Overall, your entire case seems to be a certain self-indulgent yelling that the Imperium SHOULD be the ones winning and getting all the attention, and that non-Imperium should just be satisfied with having their wins implied, and should do it all themselves.

Way to imagine things..

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:
Which the obvious response is "No, a game shouldn't give you a choice of factions, and then ignore you if you choose outside the Imperium in fluff". Otherwise, why even let people choose outside the Imperium?

Being inside the Imperium is no guarantee of care, you may have heard of this.

TheoreticalFish wrote:This by far is the most frustrating thread I have ever read.

Not because I disagree with it, it's because I actually agree 100% with the idea that the Imperium gets way too much focus. I mean look at the Black Library, center of all lore. What series is getting the most attention currently? Horus Heresy. Books with a Xenos focus probably number less then the books in the Horus Series alone.

The problem I have with the entire fething thread is that the arrogance displayed by the 'Anti-Imperium' side. The main arguements seem to boil down to "Imperium always wins so therefore all xenos are stupid and useless". Which is just insulting. We bring up evidence, say "Hey now, things aren't all bad", and you ignore it or deem it irrelevant. Anytime someone mentions the Tau, you say the ENTIRE RACE is irrelevant! How are the Tau fething irrelevant?! Because they could be killed by the Imperium? The Imperium could have been wiped out by the Eldar or Necrons when they were young too, doesn't mean Mankind is not relevant. Tau went from rocks to Laser Weapons and Mech suits in the same time it took us to go from Rocks to TV. On the line graph of Technology, Mankind is declining at like a 2* angle, while Tau is a 90* angle straight up.

Tau Rant over, the argument still sucks. Saying the other races are gak because they don't get the spotlight is a really defeatist approach to this whole argument. Mankind sells the most product. Therefore Mankind gets the most spotlight. Mankind wins more, sells more product, rinse repeat.

Why should you invest in a Xeno race? BECAUSE YOU FIND THEM INTERESTING. You like the models! You like the art! You like their underdog lore! You don't always have to be on the winning side. If in the next book Ghaza and Abaddon teamed up and tagteamed the Imperial Palace, would that mean everyone should just dump all their Space Marine Armies? Hell no.

Every race has it's place in the universe. In the lore, in the setting. Trying to discredit an entire faction simply because they don't win is kinda silly.

TLDR; I agree with the statement that other races don't get enough limelight and don't seem to do much against the massive behemoth that is the Imperium. But the way you use this argument to then prove that the other races are worthless is rude. Boiled down this whole thing is "My race is better then yours because numbers"

So I am back again.... Sigh...

So majority of the people in this thread can acknowledge that the game of warhammer 40k is set with the Imperium of Man being in the spotlight. That the majority of the stories are Imperium centric with the good old 5 minutes to midnight "there is only war" setting. You could also say that any battle that doesnt take place at the rnd of M41 is history and ergo we know the outcome, no faction has been wiped out (bar squats), the Imperium and Terra still stands.

No where in the fluff does it state that two opppoding sides in a war cannot each claim victory.

12 Black Crusades - CSM and Black Legion supplement states them as being victories for Chaos. The Imperium also says they won as well.

Neither side is wrong!

Ghazzy and his mates reckon Armaggedon is a good old romp and a great 'eadstomping time for all. (Translation - a win for the orks). The Imperium, not being booted of and losing Armaggedon also class it a win.

Again neither side is wrong.

If the only fluff you are willing to take as gospel truth is that of the Imperium, then yes all you will see is the imperial "victories".

The simple fact is, one side claiming victory doesnt stop another side claiming victory, and thats all there is, "claims" of victory and "claims" of defeat

 Anemone wrote:

@AndrewC: It's already been pointed out, in a discussion between bobthehero and Ynneadwraith I believe, that simply dismissing the Imperium-centered fluff (which is 80% of all 40k fluff) as all 'propaganda' and thus not reliable is very unfair.

For this I'll leave Marc Gasgoine

Marc Gascoigne of the Black Library;

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note that answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nuclear war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

Anemone wrote:Secondly if we were to do so we would rob ourselves of almost all ability to discuss fluff. If very little to nothing of the Imperium-focused fluff can be reliable then we can make almost no claims because the vast majority of our knowledge of the setting comes purely from that fluff.

Additionally I, personally just, don't really think comparisons between reality and stories in terms of 'extent of knowledge' are appropriate. In reality multifarious ways exist to access information, within a story we can only access knowledge based on the information provided by the story and thus must depend on that information to form knowledge of the setting.

Finally, even if we accept this premise, of it being dismissed as 'propaganda' it does not change the core issue; players for factions other than the Imperium also should be permitted to have similar amounts of cool and victorious moments of significance for themselves to enjoy.

However that is a position that should be considered by that player and not one where you tell everyone else that they shouldn't play other armies because they're all losers.

Anemone wrote:
Okay, so now you're first question, I'm going to briefly provide battles which are lost by a faction within their own Codex to the Imperium (this won't be an exhaustive list though) I'll put the battle name and then the Codex it is in afterwards;

Fist of the Machine God-Codex Craftworld Eldar The Bio-purge, The Roar of the Beast, The Death of Gnosis Prime
Fear the Shadows-Codex Dark Eldar
The Sin of Damnation-Codex Genestealer Cults
A Deathly Gift-Codex Genestealer Cults
Return to Damnos-Codex Necrons
Tragedy at Lagan-Codex Tau Empire Mu'gulath Bay, T'ros
Death Masque Supplement (is as least as Eldar-centric as Imperium-centric)

Now I haven't read through all the codexes yet, or supplements or fluff so if you want more I shall do so.

This is slightly dishonest and a deflection on your part. When I posed the question originally I was trying to get you to acknowledge that the source material was Imperium centric and not likely to portray anyone else fairly, but looking at the list above you failed to be balanced. I don't have the other codecii and so I'll just assume that the defeats have been cherry picked as well. However, using the same criterion as you we can get the following from Deathwatch.

The Thief Inquisitor and Rise of the Alien. One a loss and the other stating that the Deathwatch has reached breaking point.

Cheers

Andrew

@TheoreticalFish: For what its worth, if for different reasons, I share the sentiment concerning frustration.

Your problem seems to rest solely with me stating that the non-Imperium factions are pathetic by comparison to the Imperium in lore (particularly from the point of engaging outside audience investment). I'm sorry but I stand by that point.

I feel players of non-Imperium factions have a right to feel aggrieved by the complete disparity in attention and success between the Imperium and everyone else and also have a right to want it to change. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Additionally, to clarify again, I did not say the Imperium 'always wins' I am stating it wins overwhelmingly often, as compared to all other non-Imperium factions, and that it wins virtually all major narrative engagements. That is what I'm stating.

As I said to Robin5t and Ynneadwraith earlier, I am truly sorry if it offends anyone, truly, I do like the non-Imperium factions greatly (I only feel this aggrieved because I like them) but they are my feelings and opinions on the matter. I am sorry that they upset you.

I stand by the irrelevance of the Tau though; a brief perusal of major fansites for Warhammer such as /tg/ and 1d4chan will also show this sentiment is very widespread, coupled usually with the sentiment that they will soon be 'nommed' by 'nids, so I am not changing my opinion there yet. Also I don't know, particularly following Mont'ka, if I can paint Tau development in as good a light as you are. With that said I still do like Tau! They are still among my favourite factions in the entire game.

As for a 'defeatist' attitude, honestly that isn't what I mean to do. What I mean to do is point out the empirically unfair state of affairs in order to build a broad consensus among the fanbase that it should change. However, I cannot build this consensus that things are unfair for the other non-Imperium factions if I spend all my time arguing that the non-Imperium factions are not being unfairly treated.

You, for example, agree with the principle idea I've put forward, so how would you want me then to argue against people who insist it is not the case? I have to bring it up because that's the only way to make the point, raise awareness and, hopefully one day, change the state of affairs.

Hypothetically, with the goal I've just stated, what would you then do differently? I am actually genuinely interested to hear.

Also I feel trying to state that we shouldn't want equalish representation in fluff of the factions, particularly in terms of major narrative victories, is silly and insensitive to players of non-Imperium factions.

Ultimately there is no intention to be rude, though, to a person, I simply wish to build consensus for a need to be more fair towards the non-Imperium factions by concluding that affairs as they are now are distinctly unfair.

@1hadhq: Your argument is just that 'this is how things are because of commercial reasons'.

Yes, I know that, I'm arguing in favour of changing them to be more fair to non-Imperium players.

@Casti: But there you've illustrated part of the problem, there are numerous large engagements which the Imperium wins in which the other side does not claim victory.

Why can other factions not receive that same treatment? I have no problem with you stating the Imperium doesn't always win (or even having a different estimation to me concerning the imbalance) but do you really disagree that the fluff right now is unbalanced in favour of the Imperium? I just want to make sure.

@AndrewC: In that extract doesn't he state he's talking for himself and no other?

Also, just to be clear, so you feel there is no imbalance in the fluff right now?

I'm not trying to tell anyone not to play any armies! I'm trying to say that the fluff as is now should change to better accommodate and support players of non-Imperium armies as well. What is wrong with that?

As for the list; apologies you didn't specify I had to show that they won more than they lost in their own codex (no-one does that) you simply asked for defeats in their own codex and so that's what I did. My misunderstanding.

However, if you're question is 'does anyone in their own codex lose more than they win,' then no, certainly that is not true.

However, I believe simply winning more in your own Codex isn't the standard by which fluff is gauged in 40k.

Do you genuinely believe there's no call for more focus and victories for non-Imperium factions in the game?

I do reckon there is a disparity in the stories published by GW, skewed towards the Imperium. This is also something I believe is only natural as many have stated, it is a human centric setting and the Imperium faction sells well. The main problem I am having with your stance is that you appear to use the imperium's standard of victory as the common standard of victory for all other factions. We end up running around in circles, because you are stating that non imperials and xenos never win. Other posters have stated examples of these victories which you counter by saying its an imperial victory. As I have said earlier, an imperial victory doesn't negate a non imperial victory on the same battlefield. The setting is not black and white.


I think the problem with the Imperium claiming more victories than the other factions would be the differences in the Imperium classifies a victory to how each other faction classifies a victory.

So ill pop out some theories on how a few example factions classify a victory.

The Imperium
So these guys first. They seem to have the "easiest" definition of a victory. So taking ground: whether it be on a battlefield, a world, system or sector, any ground taken, the Imperium sees it as a victory. Maybe not the dudesmen on the ground but the higher ups that control the history and reports. Losing ground, its ok for the Imperium to lose ground as long as the enemy doesn't keep it, Exterminatus, destroying planets, cities, suns, whatever works. As long as the enemy doesn't keep it, they call it a victory. Stopping the enemy from going further regardless of what was taken before (ie Black Crusades, Tyranid attack on Macragge).
These victory conditions are often bought at incredible cost to the imperium in manpower and resources, sometimes losing irreplaceable individuals and tech in the process.

Eldar and by extension Dark Eldar
These guys are all about preservation of a species, either by using the monkeys to take the hit, or monkeys to serve as slaves and victims to fuel their pain. Rarely does the Eldar species hold ground unless its a craftworld, Cammoragh (sp) or a maiden world. So for these factions it is all about preservation of the species and that is the main determination of victory, when the losses of the Eldar in the war outweigh those that would be saved by it.

Tyranids
This one is a fun one. They really don't lose as such, its all about the biomass and I guess it just comes down to a ratio of biomass obtained vs biomass lost for a particular hive fleet. The fact is, there is more where it came from (going by the fluff) so these are the scouts, gathering intel for the incoming army.

Orks
They love a good scrap, its what they exist for. The quote earlier about orks never losing is pretty accurate, as long as they are fighting and they don't care who against, its a victory for them.

Necrons
Ill let someone else touch this one, not a big fan of newcron fluff

Tau
These guys seem most like us in terms of victory conditions, if they lose too many lives, they retreat and regroup. they are about minimising the cost to themselves while gaining ground and territory. They prefer diplomacy to preserve the lives of their citizens when the Imperium uses lives as a soldier uses bullets and armour. So for tau, they have the harshest victory conditions, and only a gain of monumental proportions will see the Tau expend lives in a way like the Imperium.

Chaos
These guys, simply put, are terrorists, they know that fighting the Imperial juggernaut head on is a futile gesture (they still do it, mainly for misdirection and giggles). Instead they use subversion, distractions and being self serving, will retreat if the cost becomes too high. So these guys main goal as a faction is to serve the dark gods, they care not where the blood comes from, as long as its spilled. Gaining personal power, through sacrificial rituals, retrieving artefacts and killing their enemies to attain daemon hood is the goal of the individual chaos worshipper. It is all about the hit and run, get in get out, steal the stuff you can and get home to the hideout in the woods.

Here is a fun story so lets say you have 6 lollies that are unique and irreplaceable. I come along and take 4 from you. You retaliate and destroy two of them causing me to run away with 2 and leaving you with 2. Who won here?

(in case you haven't noticed, its the same as the Gothic WAr and the blackstone fortresses)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The imperium sorta reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python. It may have a leg or arm cut off, but its denying the victory of its opponent out of sheer stubbornness and claims victory because it still has another arm or leg left.

@Casti: I just don't agree with that, at all, particularly in the case of the Craftworld Eldar.

As you've said though we've already done this, so I'm not going to repeat my arguments and instead simply leave it at expressing my disagreement since I don't want to go through the same circle which arrives simply at the conclusion of agreeing to disagree.

That's cool if you don't want to reiterate your arguments. But do me the favour and answer my question that I posed:

So lets say you have 6 lollies that are unique and irreplaceable. I come along and take 4 from you. You retaliate and destroy two of them causing me to run away with 2 and leaving you with 2. Who won here?

Its ok if you wanna dodge the question, but it weakens your argument because the above scenario is played out again and again in the fluff with the Imperium being the holder of the lollies. The Imperium would count themselves the winner as they stopped you getting 4 lollies and they still have two. The thief would count themselves the victor as they started with none and ended up with 2 and in the bargain robbed you of control of a further two.

 Anemone wrote:

@AndrewC: In that extract doesn't he state he's talking for himself and no other?

No, he is quite clear when he's talking for himself and when he's talking for BL. Note the use of I, we, our.

Anemone wrote:
Also, just to be clear, so you feel there is no imbalance in the fluff right now?

I'm not trying to tell anyone not to play any armies! I'm trying to say that the fluff as is now should change to better accommodate and support players of non-Imperium armies as well. What is wrong with that?

Imbalance? No, because I can look at what's produced in relation to the setting and see that 'Bolter Porn' sells. If that's your market then that's what you produce. The majority of readers want to read about humans, not aliens or orks. And yes, while you use words like pathetic, losers and implying that investing in a Xenos army is a waste of time then you are telling people not to play certain armies. And if your aim is to get more Xenos stuff written, complain/write to GW/BL not us we don't produce it. Or write it yourself, put it out there and see what feedback you get.

Anemone wrote:
As for the list; apologies you didn't specify I had to show that they won more than they lost in their own codex (no-one does that) you simply asked for defeats in their own codex and so that's what I did. My misunderstanding.

However, if you're question is 'does anyone in their own codex lose more than they win,' then no, certainly that is not true.

However, I believe simply winning more in your own Codex isn't the standard by which fluff is gauged in 40k.

Do you genuinely believe there's no call for more focus and victories for non-Imperium factions in the game?

That's okay, I was referring to your earlier list which I didn't recognise and as pointed out earlier I was wanting you to acknowledge that those details came from Imperium centric publications. And I think that you need to be more exact in what you consider fluff, because there are some truly awful books out there.

Lastly, no I don't believe there is a need for more focus and victories for Xenos factions. Why? because if there was then it would have been produced.

Cheers

Andrew

Well, someone has to be the bad-guy.

@Casti: If you want me to answer your question very well;

The analogy doesn't work in my opinion at all. Attempting to reduce all conflicts in 40k fluff as being simply an affair of two parties ending up with an equivalent 'stuff' isn't true in all scenarios at all and thus I don't see any universal property to this analogy.

@AndrewC: I do complain to GW. I have written emails before. I do not know how one complains to BL to be honest, if you'd inform me how I'd appreciate it.

Yeah you see I'm very cautious about just 'choosing' my fluff since that seems to embroil any discussion of fluff on 40k into pointlessness since everyone can dismiss whatever they do not want and, thus, whatever points the person they're discussing with brings up. So...I'm very uncertain about vetting fluff in that manner.

Also how is the lack of a thing evidence that there is not a need for it? Or that it would not be an improvement?

Honestly though if this is your position then we don't have more to discuss. I think it is totally fair for players of factions other than the Imperium to want more role in the story and more success. I'm not going to abandon that principle.

Lol i never said this analogy represents all 40k conflicts. You are deliberately misinterpreting my question to avoid answering it. It is a simplified example of the 12th Black Crusade, which i stated when i first posed the question.

So what i get from you not answering the question is that the rational and logical answer goes against everythinf you have been on about. The imperium (lolly holder) loses thatfight. As i said there many similar examples in the fluff, but you have gone off the deep end and reckon i was attempting to reduce the entirety of the 40k battles into one analogy. Again i think it is an attempt to avoid answering the question.

 Anemone wrote:
@123ply: So now we're back at arguing that the Imperium doesn't overwhelmingly win all major engagements? *sigh* I just wish which few consensus points we reached could at least remain.

Okay, first of all, the Imperium does not lose 'quite a fair bit' compared to every faction. I have counted, the Imperium loses less than any other faction. They have a positive win-loss ratio in their favour with every other faction.

Additionally the Imperium has never lost a single major engagement.

If we're going to look at the Tau then 2 things must be noted;

1) The Imperium still has a win-loss ratio in their favour when compared to the Tau

2) The Tau are completely irrelevant and so pointless to this discussion.

The Tau have also not won in every campaign supplement. In the Armageddon Damocles supplement their was a strict parity of 1 win to 1 loss on both sides, thus a tie.

In the Warzone Damocles Narrative Supplements the Tau won in Kauyon but, as explicitly stated by the book itself, lost in Mont'ka. Indeed Mont'ka even described the Tau defeat in it as 'enormous' stating 'the Tau had never suffered such a complete defeat before'.

With that said, again, the Tau are irrelevant.

I'm not going to discuss the Black Crusades again, I feel people more competent to do so already have in this thread and don't see anything in what you provide which sways me from those positions.

Every single border is not a warzone, we know areas of space not at war exist.

I'm not sure exactly what you're stating in relation to the point though. That there shouldn't be more efforts to give factions other than the Imperium victories of significance and narrative importance in the fluff?

@Casti: Its fine, I think you're right to say 'I'm done', personally I should follow your example I sincerely believe.

I am sorry that my way of looking at this is upsetting for you, really, I'd love it if the fluff of the setting did actually paint the forces of Chaos as truly dangerous and they had numerous feats and achievements of lasting import to their name. I just don't see very many at all compared to those of the Imperium.

I still do like Chaos a lot though, I just want it to have better representation in fluff along with the other non-Imperium forces.

@Lusall: So then the Imperium won. Cool.

Also did the Imperium lose over half their worlds? I did not know this. As for losing great generals, that happens. The Orks in the Beast Waaagh!!! lost all 6 their strongest and best leaders we have ever seen.

If the Imperium is losing show me where. Show me these numerous instances of its borders shrinking, of its primary armies losing in battle. If it is a failing Empire these should exist. Provide me with these examples and I will find your position more convincing. And, again, doesn't the latest rulebook state the Imperium is larger now than it has ever been?

Yes, it lost half its worlds. At the beginning of the Horus Heresy, the Imperium had over 2 million worlds. It's now an empire of 1 million worlds. That's... big loss.

And really? Great generals die all the time? We're relegating primarchs to "great generals"? lol okay dude.

Casti wrote:
So I am back again.... Sigh...

So majority of the people in this thread can acknowledge that the game of warhammer 40k is set with the Imperium of Man being in the spotlight. That the majority of the stories are Imperium centric with the good old 5 minutes to midnight "there is only war" setting. You could also say that any battle that doesnt take place at the rnd of M41 is history and ergo we know the outcome, no faction has been wiped out (bar squats), the Imperium and Terra still stands.

No where in the fluff does it state that two opppoding sides in a war cannot each claim victory.

12 Black Crusades - CSM and Black Legion supplement states them as being victories for Chaos. The Imperium also says they won as well.

Neither side is wrong!

Ghazzy and his mates reckon Armaggedon is a good old romp and a great 'eadstomping time for all. (Translation - a win for the orks). The Imperium, not being booted of and losing Armaggedon also class it a win.

Again neither side is wrong.

If the only fluff you are willing to take as gospel truth is that of the Imperium, then yes all you will see is the imperial "victories".

The simple fact is, one side claiming victory doesnt stop another side claiming victory, and thats all there is, "claims" of victory and "claims" of defeat

Well if you're going to start using what the own factions consider a win or not, you'll get no where. By those standards, the Orks have never lost a single conflict due to their great saying "Orks never lose. When we win we win, when we die we die fighting so it don't count and when we retreat, we'll be back to fight another day so that's not losing." When an Ork WAAAGH! fails to take a world, that's not a win. When a Black Crusade ends with one side retreating desperately after a plan failed, that's not a win.

@Casti: Apologies I must have missed the part where you specified you were only referring to the 12th Black Crusade. I'll have to then go read up about the 12th Black Crusade before I can tell you if the analogy is accurate or not.

Regardless, what does it matter? That one battle saw a non-Imperium faction winning (even if only in a limited sense) doesn't change my point at all, so what's the purpose of quibbling over the 12th Black Crusade?

@Lusall: Could you give me the source for this please? I would genuinely be interested.

Furthermore the latest rulebook states the Imperium to be larger than ever so...yes, I don't see how this changes anything.

Are you saying the Horus Heresy was a loss for the Imperium? Cause I'm not sure exactly what you're saying now.

As for the Primarchs, well yeah, they're great generals. Like I said the Orks lost all six their greatest leaders we've ever seen in the same explosion, didn't even take Primarch-tier characters, so I don't really see what the problem is.

EDIT: Just to be clear, so is this now again about arguing that the fluff doesn't overwhelmingly favour the Imperium and give them the overwhelming number of victories? Is this now again about claiming that other non-Imperium factions have in the fluff had anywhere near the same success? Or is this just more specific 'don't rag to much on the non-Imperium factions'? Since I can't tell and this distinction's kinda important for how I respond.

@ Solar, treating everyone with the imperium victory conditions is also a waste of time. The fact is that orks don't see themselves losing battles or wars, its not in their nature to see it that way. The 12 Black Crusades, they are victories according to the chaos marine faction, regardless of the imperium's claims. That is written in black and white in the Chaos Codex and Black Legion Supplement

@ Anemone, again we see changing of goal posts on your behalf. People state solid reasons and give good examples of battles and campaigns that have been won against the imperium, you always fall back on the comment "the Imperium has more" (that's not verbatim, just a loose translation). When I asked about the victory conditions, you get bogged down in semantics and try to avoid the question. The analogy is there to provide the uninformed reader (in this case, you) an easy to interpret scenario.

Here is a challenge for both Solar and Anemone, come up with what you believe are the victory conditions for each faction, because using the imperial standards is doing the other factions a great injustice and is insulting to other people with a more logical and rational view of the fluff

Casti wrote:
@ Solar, treating everyone with the imperium victory conditions is also a waste of time. The fact is that orks don't see themselves losing battles or wars, its not in their nature to see it that way. The 12 Black Crusades, they are victories according to the chaos marine faction, regardless of the imperium's claims. That is written in black and white in the Chaos Codex and Black Legion Supplement

I'm hardly using Imperial victory conditions. I'm using logical conditions. If right before Hitler had blown his brains out he had decided that the war had been won for whatever reasons, that wouldn't have made him the winner. The fact is, when the Orks attack and fail to take a single world, that's not a win. As Asterios said, the Imperials might regard this as a loss as as long as there's a single Xenos was on the world it was lost, but that wouldn't matter, because we're not using the standards of the factions here.

Here is a challenge for both Solar and Anemone, come up with what you believe are the victory conditions for each faction, because using the imperial standards is doing the other factions a great injustice and is insulting to other people with a more logical and rational view of the fluff

I don't see why you're adament that we use independent victory conditions for each faction. If an Ork WAAAGH! was crushed by a single Space Marine, to use a hugely exaggerated example, that would not be a victory for the Orks. Though the Orks previously mentioned rule of them being inable to lose would still apply, it doesn't really apply to someone reading the fluff. An Ork player will not consider this a victory, (s)he'd consider this his or her getting their ass handed to them. Really, the victory conditions stand as accomplishing something, such as gaining territory, relative to the force involved. If one side was forced to retreat and that ended the conflict, they'd have lost.

Casti wrote:
@ Solar, treating everyone with the imperium victory conditions is also a waste of time. The fact is that orks don't see themselves losing battles or wars, its not in their nature to see it that way.

That is one hell of a crazy argument. Sure, the Orks never admit it when they lose, but are we Orks?
The only thing that matters is how we, the readers and players perceive something, not how fictional in-universe creatures perceive something (which additionally changes greatly depending on the writer).

Beyond that, the argument is also invalid from an in-universe pov since the Orks do in fact have clear concepts of victory and defeat. They just dont like admitting their losses so they say it "doesnt count". Just the fact that they say things like that shows that they have a concept of defeat and are aware when they are defeated. When an Ork warlord fails to take a planet, is killed and has his warband destroyed or scattered, no Ork in the galaxy would consider that a victory, even if it was a mighty fine scrap.

Solar, we have to use independent victory conditions because anything else becomes a pissing contest.

For example, please tell me if this is a victory or a loss. An IG armoured convoy along with an SoB detachment drive deep into nid infested territory and then leave losing all vehicles bar the SoB Rhino and nearly all personnel bar the crew of one tank and the SoB. They rescued no-one. And the nids took the planet.

Win or Loss?

Andrew