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.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:To each his own indeed That's kind of the whole point with 40k.

The whole point of 40k is to sell miniatures. The setting is just extra and boy can I ever tell it.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
And I stand corrected on the Star Wars material, I don't know nearly as much about it as I do 40k. It's still, to me, a smaller setting, even if there's a greater volume of semi-official material written for it. It's a matter of how the background works, the interconnectedness and interdependence, and the tech level that hand-waves away the interstellar vastness of the setting. It makes the world seem small much as jet travel and the internet make today's world smaller. 40k is late Roman Empire/early medieval, where travel is slow and dangerous, communication is difficult, and the world is very sketchily mapped with a lot of "here be dragons" for good measure. Most efforts at codifying things within the setting just end up removing some of the allure of the game in the first place.

But see it covers a whole galaxy or most of it, has billions of different races, tech levels and cultures. It is a build your own Race wonder land. I am not sure how you can see it as smaller. I mean even on what period you speak of no one government controlled the whole of everything. Just the most of it. Much like IoM the republic and the Empire and the Alliance all had whole empires within the borders of the space they claimed that they did not control. The form of travel does not take away from the size of the setting, which is in reality larger then 40k in shear sandboxyness. Because you can make near anything and it has few "universal" laws. The real diffance is that everyone Must use those few laws.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Also: minor correction on the STC tech. It's by no means identical even for the same piece of equipment or class of technology. Given the same original plan (say for a battlecruiser) it can come down to local materials, local manufacturing level, the urgency with which it was made, and the degree of missing information in the STC fragment. Some forge worlds might have a more complete copy than others, and knowing the AdMech, would probably guard it jealously. Sometimes whole technologies are gradually lost, and as with Imperial battlecruisers, will undergo a shift in design as the missing pieces are filled in using different methods.

Yes I know STC tech is not all the same, however it all works the same way. A single ship design can be diffent per sector and so can lasrifles, however under the hood they all work the same way. If you have stated that a warp ship can not be made less then x size, then that is not locale differences. That is a technological limit. But the setting has a wonderful way to get around that, DA tech and Xeno tech both could do so. By not doing so to me it lessens the setting and shows that who ever done so really does not care about it all that much.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Anyway GW definitely does not police their fluff, and I will concede that what was originally an intended feature has slowly morphed into sheer laziness as the company has changed over the years. The people calling the shots now have no love for the game, only the money they can make off it. That said, the sandbox method of game setting is still working as intended - you just have to learn to ignore some of the more flagrant abuses of it. Refute Matt Ward's reality and substitute your own


Yet Another Edit: I agree with you about the special snowflake authors. I haven't read the material you're referencing, but if the author is blatantly making stuff like that up without taking any of the easy outs built into the setting, it's just bad writing. Just because you can step on the toes of well established fluff doesn't mean you should, especially since the "I am so special!" attitude is so out of place in a setting where the message is, pretty clearly, "no one is special and the whole universe hates you".

Some of those writers simply are not all that familer with 40k before they wrote whatever, that falls upon GW and lack of creative direction and a good setting bible. I Totally understand how the game started and was vague and in flux, however at some point you need to nail down the universal truths of your setting. How does the warp work? How does standard Imperial ship tech work? and so forth. Things that must be referenced many times can not be so influx.

Hunterindarkness wrote:
The whole point of 40k is to sell miniatures. The setting is just extra and boy can I ever tell it.

Just as the whole point of any of the mentioned settings is to sell a product, be it novels, toys, video games, or what have you. The setting is "extra" the same way everything outside the Star Wars movies could be considered "extra", and you can tell it by some of the ridiculous contortions that are necessary to make things "work".

Hunterindarkness wrote:
Some of those writers simply are not all that familer with 40k before they wrote whatever, that falls upon GW and lack of creative direction and a good setting bible. I Totally understand how the game started and was vague and in flux, however at some point you need to nail down the universal truths of your setting. How does the warp work? How does standard Imperial ship tech work? and so forth. Things that must be referenced many times can not be so influx.

You keep stating a need to nail down particulars of the 40k universe. I think there's a disconnect here, maybe because I grew up on 40k and you seem to be more influenced by other settings, but I don't see any need at all to nail down anything about the "science" of 40k, or any other particulars. Bad writing is bad writing, and you can fault GW for letting some particularly bad fiction get through. But in the end the open setting does more help than harm when it comes to having fun with the setting (and thus selling more models).

For instance: look at the infamous "she'll make the kessel run in under 12 parsecs" line in Star Wars. It's just bad writing, not knowing what a parsec was but throwing it in anyway for a sci-fi feel. But you can't dismiss it, because it's in the movie, and it's the highest of high canon. So people have twisted themselves into knots coming up with an explanation for it that doesn't need to exist, because of a heavy-handed approach to what is "real" and what isn't. Deviate from that and risk the wrath of nerd-rage

Now look at Dan Abnett's writing. Easily among the Black Library's best authors, and I love just about every book he ever wrote. But his writing is notorious for existing in the "Abnett-verse", where there may be internal consistency between his own books, but it's definitely different from any other take on the setting. And that's ok. And when he writes that space marines are 9 feet tall, but I know they're only 7' 6" because I like that more, I don't have to go into nerd-rage. I just shake my head at his hyperbolic description and keep reading. It doesn't color my perception of the story, the story being the whole point of reading a novel anyway (and his stories tend to be good).

I guess what I've been trying to convey is, lighten up, Francis. If you're new, I heartily welcome you to the 40k community. The setting is a heck of a lot of fun to muck around in, and mucking around is highly encouraged. Just read what you like and ignore what you don't and have fun putting your own particular spin on whatever little patch of the 41st millenium you settle down in.

Yep I am new to 40k, but been RPG and wargames for over 20 years at this point. I know what good setting control is and when the lack of said control is a hindrance. 40K suffers from a server lack of control and it is worse for it, not better.

Just curious, but what ship size issue are you referring to?

Also, SW and ST don't really count for game-setting size. They were movies (and TV shows) first, and games were set in them after. How many actual games have a background on the scale of 40K?

I disagree, that is like saying 40k does not count as it has comics, novels and Video games about it. But pure sci-fi, game only (Which disqualifies 40k BTW)traveller

As for ship size issues. Not having one. Or stating in some books ( most) they have to be a Kilometer or better to have a warp drive and in others having them the size of guncutters or just at a few hundred meters long. saying the x class battle ship is 17 km long, then saying it is 22 , then saying it is 10 then 7 then 28 and so on.

If a ship is of say the tempest class, then it is the tempest class. No matter where it is built. a few things may have changed but double in size or halving size is not one of them.

Hunterindarkness wrote:I disagree, that is like saying 40k does not count as it has comics, novels and Video games about it. But pure sci-fi, game only (Which disqualifies 40k BTW)traveller

As for ship size issues. Not having one. Or stating in some books ( most) they have to be a Kilometer or better to have a warp drive and in others having them the size of guncutters or just at a few hundred meters long. saying the x class battle ship is 17 km long, then saying it is 22 , then saying it is 10 then 7 then 28 and so on.

If a ship is of say the tempest class, then it is the tempest class. No matter where it is built. a few things may have changed but double in size or halving size is not one of them.

But where have they done this? I mean, you've obviously got your knickers in a twist because you've read something and thought 'that contradicts what I read earlier' so what was it that you read?

Personally, I find the need to nail things down to be counter productive. Why can't a Gellar field be on smaller ships than previously thought possible? It's more like the real world that way. We can make blanket statements about what is possible and impossible, and then two years later some kid makes a breakthrough and we CAN do that.

First off 40k IoM tech does not, get smaller. They rediscover lost DA tech. I am fine with that, that however is not what they do.

I off hand can't give you much of a list. Most of this was found the hard way from other posters on diffetn forums point out a passage in x book, and passage in Y book, something written here and something written there.

I can in though the RPG side, Rogue trader and I'll tell you start researching star ship info. GW is bad about not pegging down sizes of ships or changing them, but BL is the worst.

I had this written down as I was trying to complied some fluff info for a RT game, but that was last year and my HD has since crashed ( Twice) If you dig bag though this forum on starships you should see some listings. I'll see what I can dig back up if you like. Not trying to avoid listing sources man, but I simply no longer have the list and its been over a year sense I looked hard into it. I recall the cutter sized ship 'Eye of something" was in a BL book, something about inquisitors. I do believe it was one of the far older books.

BFG lists sizes for ships as one thing, then BL comes about and list them as something else. I mean make a new freaking class, you don't have a dozen versions of the same ship all "canon" and all totally different

Kinda a side note but I just started reading "Salvation's Reach " by Dan Abnett and he totally used FFG Rogue Trader ships sizes has he base, size, crew, displacement, name and all.

I just simply do not see how pinning down something vital to the setting is anything but a boon.

So I concede that there are some benefits to having some details spelled out somewhere, but the benefits are small. It's mostly to keep a small segment of the population from getting all hot and bothered over seeing conflicting accounts in different sources. Personally, I don't believe that's worth the risk that brings, which is thus:

If you put total control over aspects of the fluff in the hands of someone, especially some of the knuckleheads at GW, you are forced to accept whatever garbage they may or may not write. If you need that kind of certainty in your gaming, more power to you, but you're not gonna find it here. Pick the facts and details you like best and use those in your RT games. You can't really be "wrong".

GW explicitly avoids saying what is and isn't canon for a reason. It's not just poor management, and you really would have a hard time arguing so considering the extreme success of their franchise and the popularity of the setting. 40k is very organic, the setting is shaped and changed through convergence and evolution of ideas.

It's a laissaz-faire approach to science fiction that lives and breathes in response to the player base. If someone publishes a crap novel, or makes completely ridiculous claims, the ideas fail to gain traction. If a story or character in a codex is widely panned or ignored, you're likely to see a shift in the next edition of the publication, either making them cooler or ditching them altogether. Like you said, Dan Abnett started using FFG ship data in his stories. Eventually those numbers may be so widely accepted that anything else can be dismissed as an outlier. That's convergence without any official action required, and in my opinion that collaborative, consensus-based approach is preferable to fiat handed down from on high that may or may not be hated by the player base.

In the end, you're free to embrace or ignore whatever parts of the setting you choose to. I see no problem with this, but if you're particularly OCD about your gaming, I can see how it would be frustrating.

Ya know they have said it was all canon at one point or another man. It confuses even folks working and dealing with it and makes it very woobly to read. Kinda like watching a movie and the people have one color cloths on , then the camera pans left, then back to them with a different shirt and does this a couple dozen times in five mins. Its Jarring and takes away while adding nothing.

That is my issue, its Lazy , sloppy and a crap way to manage a product you are selling. Its Not OCD but frustration over a settings total and utter mismanagement and lack of give a damn by the company that put it out.

Hunterindarkness wrote: I just simply do not see how pinning down something vital to the setting is anything but a boon.

Some things ARE pinned down. Or, at least as much as they need to be.

For example, in the Eisenhorn books Dan Abnett constantly refers to people carrying Autocannons as if they were Lasguns. We all know an Autocannon is a massive heavy weapon requiring two people to carry and use effectively, not a man-portable SAW equivalent like maybe a heavy stubber would.

I have two choices when faced with this erroneous usage. I can assume thats what Dan Abnett meant, that we have a whole bunch of guys toting around 7 foot long anti-tank rifles for use against infantry in confined spaces, or I can assume he simply got it wrong, or I can assume that, 700 years ago, in the Helican sub-sector, autocannon actually referred to an autoGUN.

Pinning things down gives a setting consistency, for sure, but it also locks in stupid things. Like, Greedo shot first. Like that stupid cabaret scene in Jabba's palace, like Midichlorians, like the NOOOOOOOO! for example. It often lessens the setting rather than enhances it.

Hunterindarkness wrote:

jareddm wrote:What do you mean by consistant? In the opening example, it's easily explained by different forgeworlds using different design methods. One world's staple technology is another world's tech heresy.

If you're talking about two characters or armies being in two different locations at the same time, then yes, that is inconsistant. But that also doesn't happen all that often.

I mean about basic stuff of the setting. ship size is one they often get wrong. 'Warp ships are huge' then they go and someone writes "This warp ship is the size of a Guncutter". Something works this way, then someone else has it working another way. GW have very, very little control over the setting at all really. somethings should be in a setting bible and made sure everyone uses and follows.

Yes, but then you have FFG what makes the ships huge and forgets to adjust the tonnage, so you have ships with such low densities that they would float to the ground rather than fall or totally forgets that Torpedoes actually can be fired to the sides by some Imperial ships. (Cardinal Class Heavy Cruiser [BFGM Issue 2 and Imperial Armor 10])

And lets not forget the magic harpoon cannons that can chain two ships together and allow the boarding parties to travel at over 10,000kmph to them. I was unaware that people pulped by the required acceleration would be worth a boarding bonus...

I'm a fan of FFG, but I'm also going to call them out when they publish something that reaches Draigo levels of absurdity...

I agree, however at lest they use the same scale across the board.