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.

I pretty much agree with all of Smudge's points. I also think that you might be taking too narrow a view of what the setting's themes are, RomulanSoldier, and too narrow a view of what Roboute's return has actually meant.

While most of the major factions do have elements of loss/decay, that definitely isn't the only theme going on in 40k, nor is it necessarily omnipresent. When the story you're zoomed in on is about an imperial fleet reconquering a sector and gaining lasting victories there, it feels like your characters are making progress even if the backdrop to their success is one of decay. Or you have stories like Ahriman making tiny bits of progress towards undoing the rubric or the much more short-term aspirations of your Necromunda gang or the ambitious pursuits and cursed exploits of a rogue trader who isn't particularly invested in primarchs and warzones except insomuch as they impact his own dynasty.

Basically, I think you've described one theme of the setting; not the theme of the setting. And I don't think Guilliman's return has even broken that. Despite all the power he wields and his impact on the galaxy at large, Guilliman's exploits are still ultimately a pretty small part of the setting. The imperium is still rotting despite his best efforst. The eldar and necrons are still likely to go extinct if things keep going as they have been. The tau are heavily implied to be on track to repeat a lot of the same mistakes the imperium made. The imperium is still full of greedy, zealous, short-sighted rulers wallowing in their own impotent stagnation. All the "dying empire" elements are still in play.

What Guilliman's return has done is add a story thread with a bit of hope and momentum behind it. Not in the sense that Guilliman is going to save the galaxy or whatever, but in the sense that there is a narrative you can choose to zoom in on that isn't just the same old humdrum pointless stagnation.

Like, the ynnari are cut from a very similar cloth, narratively. Before the ynnari, I often found it hard to get overly excited about any given narrative but there didn't seem to be any point to it. Who cares if another planet gets eaten by tyranids? There's no end game in sight. Which is all very satisfying to my inner 14-year-old edge lord, but it gets kind of dull after a while. Now with the ynnari, there's a (possibly false) hope for the future. The possibility that they might actually take out Slaanesh means that every eldar in the setting (even those who aren't ynnari) have a reason to keep fighting.

Both Guilliman and Yvraine basically serve as a focal point for stories that can give you the impression there are actual large-scale stakes. Whereas before, your great big Black Templar crusade (or whatever) was ultimately kind of pointless. Who cared if you conquered a sector? You were still going to get wiped out by daemons and/or 'nids eventually. But now? The possibility that humanity might pull through somehow means that conquering that sector might give long-term meaning to the people living there. Plus, Yvraine and Guilliman serve as fun "what-ifs" for the setting. What if someone forward-thinking could start wrestling the mess of the imperium into shape so that it started making use of some of its better tech, custodes, etc. What if the eldar said, "eff it," and made a grand, desperate attempt to take out Slaanesh?

Also, I'd point out that Lord Solar Macharius is a good example of a character who had a great deal of success in his time. While most of his gains have since been lost, there's never really been anything stopping another Macharius type from being born and adding some sand to the imperium's hourglass. Roboute can be seen as basically being the next Macharius.

 Gert wrote:
That's a good point actually. Abaddon couldn't keep his massed forces together after the Rift showed up because there was too much opportunity for mayhem and murder for his allies to ignore. The clout and rewards a Lord or Champion would achieve by killing a Loyalist Primarch would be unimaginable and could lead them to taking Abaddon's place as Warmaster.

The Daemon Primarchs especially here. I think we also need to remember Abaddon’s dominion is pretty tenuous overall - but he seems to know that, and accept those he’s directing can never be truly relied on not to go scuttling off on their own insane mission.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Spoiler:

Insectum7 wrote:The loyalist Primarchs should have all remained dead/missing. Legendary heroes of mythic times, and unattainable.

The Daemon Primarchs I'm totally cool with. Immortal and beyond time, cursed to plague humanity forever.

The idea that the only heroes left are mere mortals, living fleeting lives in comparison to the cursed Primarchs and Legions was thematically powerful, and the resurrection of Guilliman cheapens it.

How does this function with things like C'Tan, Avatars of Khaine and someone like Abaddon?

Furthermore, the Imperium is best when seen as a vast, nigh incomprehensible apparatus where no one wields anything close to central authority. Guilliman provides a locus of personality that just shouldn't exist, and even worse, shouldn't be anywhere near the tabletop, imo. The Emperor works well as the central figure because he's basically out of the picture.

Again though, does this not also apply to Abaddon or Ghazghkull? I mean, they don't command "central" power, but to be fair, neither does Guilliman, considering how incomprehensively vast and unwieldy the Imperium is.

Another factor is the singularity of Guilliman combined with the eroding character options provided for generic Captains/Chapter Masters. In the old days, game-wise, the named characters were presented more as individuals who were examples of what a player could develop themselves to use. It was easy to make your own Marneus Calgar or your own Chaos Lord to rival Abaddon, Dante, etc. Each Chapter Master, even the named ones, were still just one of a thousand. Guilliman is One of One. A supremely special case.

But your Chaos Lords kinda weren't ever the equal to Abaddon, the only person blessed by all four Chaos Gods, no Ork Warboss is equal to Ghazghkull, the prophet of the Waaagh!, from lore standpoints.

Guilliman is one of one, unless someone wants to take his profile and reflavour it as "this is the Lion, and these are his rules reflavoured" - there shouldn't be anything to stop player creativity and ingenuity in that way.

Just straightening out this one point for folks whose knowledge of Chaos doesn't stretch back to older editions: in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex a standard Chaos Lord could be "blessed by all four Chaos Gods", as it was possible to give them as many Marks of Chaos as you wanted, including all four.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Just straightening out this one point for folks whose knowledge of Chaos doesn't stretch back to older editions: in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex a standard Chaos Lord could be "blessed by all four Chaos Gods", as it was possible to give them as many Marks of Chaos as you wanted, including all four.

Ah, fair point - thank you for correcting me, I genuinely wasn't aware of that! Was Abaddon still regarded as "unique" at that time, or was he a much less important figure?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Just straightening out this one point for folks whose knowledge of Chaos doesn't stretch back to older editions: in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex a standard Chaos Lord could be "blessed by all four Chaos Gods", as it was possible to give them as many Marks of Chaos as you wanted, including all four.

Ah, fair point - thank you for correcting me, I genuinely wasn't aware of that! Was Abaddon still regarded as "unique" at that time, or was he a much less important figure?

Yes, he was a unique character, and had rules in the codex, along with Kharn, Bile, Huron, and Ahriman.

I have mixed views I admit about some of the characters. I find myself not actually disliking Guilliman's return like I thought I would originally. However at the same time I do not want him or others like him for other factions overshadowing other characters or player made characters. I don't want every significant action of a faction to revolved around what one character did or did not do as it makes the universe seem smaller if it just becomes the same bunch of special characters over and over again, never dying and always running into each other.

That's why I don't like these named characters being on the tabletop. Sure maybe in novels Guilliman might go and bash some heads, but he should not be in so many little tabletop skirmishes. He's got a crusade to run and he should be more like the quest giver character so that authors and players can have their own characters not be overshadowed by the returned Primarch.

I have similar views on for example Eldrad, who was (maybe still is?) being portrayed as the be all and end all of anything significant the Eldar get up to.

The idea that the primarchs should stay as legends was kind of killed off by the HH series form black library. That robbed the history of the setting of all of its mythology mystery. It was inevitable that some came back and I am sure more will too. It’s a shame though.

Iracundus wrote:
I have similar views on for example Eldrad, who was (maybe still is?) being portrayed as the be all and end all of anything significant the Eldar get up to.

Eldrad seems to be moving more towards the quest giver/support role for phoenix lords and Yvraine. He's still active (like when he rescued Ulthwe in the 8th edition codex to get un-exiled), but I've mostly seen him showing up in the first chapter of recent novels to point other characters towards the story. Yvraine is theoretically the character that aeldari would revolve around, except that the stuff she's doing won't really matter much unless she eventually succeeds in birthing Ynnead. So as-is, she just kind of goes around changing craftworld populations from low to lower as she grabs fresh recruits, but the status quo wouldn't change much if she got wiped out.

I think as others have touched on, the 40k setting isn't necessarily about "grimdark". That's just an internet theme which has taken over.

I would say that 40k is inherently about how far humanity can fall away from it's ideals and what really makes someone "human". The threat of Chaos is that it turns a human into something else or debases them into something animalistic. And yet simultaneously, we see humanity in 40k not as an ideal. It's a brutal regime that cares little for its inhabitants and uses faith in the God Emperor to keep the masses in line. The elite protectors of humanity are barely human themselves having been so enhanced by genetic mutation to strengthen them.

The Horus Heresy was always a mythological biblical analogy about God and his angels fighting Satan and his demons. God and the angels won and managed to push back the armies of darkness and saved the world. Except God was wounded and turned his light from humanity and nobody truly knows if he is alive or dead. Does he answer our prayers or are we left to fight the demons alone? In his absence, humanity has descended further into darkness and are barely surviving. The apocalypse was pushed back but the cost was that humanity is trapped in purgatory, constantly fighting for survival. Eternal war is the price of victory.

And now one of God's vaunted angels has returned at the end of times to try and pull humanity back from the brink. That's interesting, it's something new and hopefully the way they play it will constantly have Gullieman's ideals butting up against the dark heart of humanity.

So no I don't think it ruins the setting, if anything it provides a push in the right direction. The narrative of 40k had started to become stale and GW have rightly decided to do something about that.

Yes massive error. It was a decaying society in the shadow of legends. Now its superheroes.

Any fix is a radical change from the original setting. I don't know other than a soft reset/everyone dies type of thing you can go back to what was before. But you know have plastic kits that break the setting (hover tanks for marines), so it isn't going anywhere.

Just have cawl’s somewhat blatant use of weird ai like stuff come back to bite him and have some demons infest all the Primaris tech, bingo, problem solved.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Furthermore, the Imperium is best when seen as a vast, nigh incomprehensible apparatus where no one wields anything close to central authority. Guilliman provides a locus of personality that just shouldn't exist, and even worse, shouldn't be anywhere near the tabletop, imo. The Emperor works well as the central figure because he's basically out of the picture.

Again though, does this not also apply to Abaddon or Ghazghkull? I mean, they don't command "central" power, but to be fair, neither does Guilliman, considering how incomprehensively vast and unwieldy the Imperium is.

Another factor is the singularity of Guilliman combined with the eroding character options provided for generic Captains/Chapter Masters. In the old days, game-wise, the named characters were presented more as individuals who were examples of what a player could develop themselves to use. It was easy to make your own Marneus Calgar or your own Chaos Lord to rival Abaddon, Dante, etc. Each Chapter Master, even the named ones, were still just one of a thousand. Guilliman is One of One. A supremely special case.

But your Chaos Lords kinda weren't ever the equal to Abaddon, the only person blessed by all four Chaos Gods, no Ork Warboss is equal to Ghazghkull, the prophet of the Waaagh!, from lore standpoints.

As pointed out already, yes you could make your own Chaos Lord with all four Marks if you wanted. In fact you could make him a powerful Sorceror on top of that, decked out to be far superior than Abbadon if you wanted. In Chaos 3.5, you could make your Chaos Lord run the entire gamut from "Fallen Captain" all the way through Immortal Daemon Prince, with a whole bunch of options.

Orks I'm less certain about, and although while Ghazgull was an important figure, I don't believe he held the same stature in the lore in the way he currently does. He was more of an example of a particularly big Warboss, of which there could potentially be thousands.

Avatars? There's one for every Craftworld, basically Eldar Greater Daemons, potentially thousands (how many Craftworlds are there?). C'tan? Well it never sat right with me that THE Nightbringer could show up in a 40K game, and the concept of "shards" has made nice work with that. Bloodthirsters and the like also number in the thousands (millions?) lore wise. Likewise Chapter Masters, there's one Marneus Calgar, but there are a thousand other CMs with their own storied history, and even more, there's been even more of them through time since the founding of the Chapters themselves. The individuals perish but the institutions live on (or don't).

Guilliman is One of One.

unless someone wants to take his profile and reflavour it as "this is the Lion, and these are his rules reflavoured" - there shouldn't be anything to stop player creativity and ingenuity in that way.

I have not enough eye to roll.

Also, since C'tan and Avatars are brought up, table-top-wise Guilliman represents yet another instance where Marines get something that was formerly the purview of other factions. Now Marines have a BigMonsterBeatstick model too. It's been said before but could be said again, what Factions don't have is just as important to their identity as what they have.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

I pretty much agree with all of Smudge's points. I also think that you might be taking too narrow a view of what the setting's themes are, RomulanSoldier, and too narrow a view of what Roboute's return has actually meant.

While most of the major factions do have elements of loss/decay, that definitely isn't the only theme going on in 40k, nor is it necessarily omnipresent. When the story you're zoomed in on is about an imperial fleet reconquering a sector and gaining lasting victories there, it feels like your characters are making progress even if the backdrop to their success is one of decay. Or you have stories like Ahriman making tiny bits of progress towards undoing the rubric or the much more short-term aspirations of your Necromunda gang or the ambitious pursuits and cursed exploits of a rogue trader who isn't particularly invested in primarchs and warzones except insomuch as they impact his own dynasty.

Basically, I think you've described one theme of the setting; not the theme of the setting. And I don't think Guilliman's return has even broken that. Despite all the power he wields and his impact on the galaxy at large, Guilliman's exploits are still ultimately a pretty small part of the setting. The imperium is still rotting despite his best efforst. The eldar and necrons are still likely to go extinct if things keep going as they have been. The tau are heavily implied to be on track to repeat a lot of the same mistakes the imperium made. The imperium is still full of greedy, zealous, short-sighted rulers wallowing in their own impotent stagnation. All the "dying empire" elements are still in play.

What Guilliman's return has done is add a story thread with a bit of hope and momentum behind it. Not in the sense that Guilliman is going to save the galaxy or whatever, but in the sense that there is a narrative you can choose to zoom in on that isn't just the same old humdrum pointless stagnation.

Like, the ynnari are cut from a very similar cloth, narratively. Before the ynnari, I often found it hard to get overly excited about any given narrative but there didn't seem to be any point to it. Who cares if another planet gets eaten by tyranids? There's no end game in sight. Which is all very satisfying to my inner 14-year-old edge lord, but it gets kind of dull after a while. Now with the ynnari, there's a (possibly false) hope for the future. The possibility that they might actually take out Slaanesh means that every eldar in the setting (even those who aren't ynnari) have a reason to keep fighting.

Both Guilliman and Yvraine basically serve as a focal point for stories that can give you the impression there are actual large-scale stakes. Whereas before, your great big Black Templar crusade (or whatever) was ultimately kind of pointless. Who cared if you conquered a sector? You were still going to get wiped out by daemons and/or 'nids eventually. But now? The possibility that humanity might pull through somehow means that conquering that sector might give long-term meaning to the people living there. Plus, Yvraine and Guilliman serve as fun "what-ifs" for the setting. What if someone forward-thinking could start wrestling the mess of the imperium into shape so that it started making use of some of its better tech, custodes, etc. What if the eldar said, "eff it," and made a grand, desperate attempt to take out Slaanesh?

Also, I'd point out that Lord Solar Macharius is a good example of a character who had a great deal of success in his time. While most of his gains have since been lost, there's never really been anything stopping another Macharius type from being born and adding some sand to the imperium's hourglass. Roboute can be seen as basically being the next Macharius.

"Both Guilliman and Yvraine basically serve as a focal point for stories that can give you the impression there are actual large-scale stakes. Whereas before, your great big Black Templar crusade (or whatever) was ultimately kind of pointless."

". . .just the same old humdrum pointless stagnation."

A setting that doesn't change can be revisited and reimagined by the players/community ad-infinitum. You can leave it and come back and it is ultimately still the same. Like returning to your favorite bar or something. Additionally not having a "primary narrative" leaves more room for the texture of the setting to be explored. In fact I would argue that having an evolving galactic narrative actually lessens the importance of players telling their own stories, because it means that their story will get wiped out and overshadowed by larger actions. The former "stagnant" setting did a good job of making the universe feel big, which is appropriate, since we're talking about an entire galaxy.

Plus, the whole "Fate of the Galaxy" is pretty effin played out, imo. "Save the galaxy" is far more humdrum.

When you say "pointless stagnation" I would say "stagnation was the point", even. It's a great way of setting the 40K-verse apart.

 Olthannon wrote:
I think as others have touched on, the 40k setting isn't necessarily about "grimdark". That's just an internet theme which has taken over.

I would say that 40k is inherently about how far humanity can fall away from it's ideals and what really makes someone "human". The threat of Chaos is that it turns a human into something else or debases them into something animalistic. And yet simultaneously, we see humanity in 40k not as an ideal. It's a brutal regime that cares little for its inhabitants and uses faith in the God Emperor to keep the masses in line. The elite protectors of humanity are barely human themselves having been so enhanced by genetic mutation to strengthen them.

The Horus Heresy was always a mythological biblical analogy about God and his angels fighting Satan and his demons. God and the angels won and managed to push back the armies of darkness and saved the world. Except God was wounded and turned his light from humanity and nobody truly knows if he is alive or dead. Does he answer our prayers or are we left to fight the demons alone? In his absence, humanity has descended further into darkness and are barely surviving. The apocalypse was pushed back but the cost was that humanity is trapped in purgatory, constantly fighting for survival. Eternal war is the price of victory.

And now one of God's vaunted angels has returned at the end of times to try and pull humanity back from the brink. That's interesting, it's something new and hopefully the way they play it will constantly have Gullieman's ideals butting up against the dark heart of humanity.

So no I don't think it ruins the setting, if anything it provides a push in the right direction. The narrative of 40k had started to become stale and GW have rightly decided to do something about that.

Very insightful! Have an exalt.

A setting that doesn't change can be revisited and reimagined by the players/community ad-infinitum. You can leave it and come back and it is ultimately still the same. Like returning to your favorite bar or something. Additionally not having a "primary narrative" leaves more room for the texture of the setting to be explored. In fact I would argue that having an evolving galactic narrative actually lessens the importance of players telling their own stories, because it means that their story will get wiped out and overshadowed by larger actions. The former "stagnant" setting did a good job of making the universe feel big, which is appropriate, since we're talking about an entire galaxy.

Plus, the whole "Fate of the Galaxy" is pretty effin played out, imo. "Save the galaxy" is far more humdrum.

When you say "pointless stagnation" I would say "stagnation was the point", even. It's a great way of setting the 40K-verse apart.

I acknowledge the usefulness and importance of keeping the setting stable enough to facilitate everyone fighting each other. I'm definitely not in a big rush to see Ynnead kill Slaanesh or whatever. However, you can still have stories with a sense of momentum that make the setting feel alive without having to overhaul the setting entirely. For instance, I'd love to see Malys screw Vect over in a big way and move that plot forward. But even if she did that, you'd still have drukhari launching slave raids and being space elf crime bosses. Heck, Commorragh underwent a ton of physical and political changes in the wake of Yvraine's ascension, but the faction has remained largely unchanged. That's the sort of forward narrative momentum I like to see. I don't need to see Ynnead actually take out Slaanesh. At least, not any time soon. But I do want to see how Yriel is handling being an honorary ynnari after dying (he got better). I do want to see how Ahriman responds to the realization that Yvraine can undo the rubric.

And for the most part, I think GW has done a good job of that with Guilliman's return. The primaris lore is super awkward, but things like the indomitus crusade or the sicatrix maledictum? Those shake things up and create interesting plot hooks without damaging the bones of the setting.

^Short on time, but I'd argue you could have done an Indomitus Crusade without Guilliman. He's not necessary.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Short on time, but I'd argue you could have done an Indomitus Crusade without Guilliman. He's not necessary.

That's true. I'd probably get about as much out of an indomitus crusade that didn't involve Guilliman as I did one with him. I guess I just don't feel like Guilliman's presence has really caused any damage to the setting (even though I feared it would), and seeing how bummed out he is by the imperium and how he tries to wrangle it into a usable shape anyway is kind of interesting to me. So like, having Guilliman around has lead to a couple interesting bits of fluff and hasn't really changed anything in a way that bothers me. So he's got more pros than cons on my list.

That's assuming we ignore the primaris fluff. Not fond of the primaris fluff, but it also feels like a thing that GW would have forced through with or without Guilliman's involvement. Can't have new models being awkwardly tall, after all. Gotta explain that in-universe with a brand new super genius you've never heard, a top secret primarch order that no one ever mentioned, and some new organs that took 10,000 years to develop but don't really do much other than make you taller (and thus presumably easier to hit.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Short on time, but I'd argue you could have done an Indomitus Crusade without Guilliman. He's not necessary.

That's true. I'd probably get about as much out of an indomitus crusade that didn't involve Guilliman as I did one with him. I guess I just don't feel like Guilliman's presence has really caused any damage to the setting (even though I feared it would), and seeing how bummed out he is by the imperium and how he tries to wrangle it into a usable shape anyway is kind of interesting to me. So like, having Guilliman around has lead to a couple interesting bits of fluff and hasn't really changed anything in a way that bothers me. So he's got more pros than cons on my list.

That's assuming we ignore the primaris fluff. Not fond of the primaris fluff, but it also feels like a thing that GW would have forced through with or without Guilliman's involvement. Can't have new models being awkwardly tall, after all. Gotta explain that in-universe with a brand new super genius you've never heard, a top secret primarch order that no one ever mentioned, and some new organs that took 10,000 years to develop but don't really do much other than make you taller (and thus presumably easier to hit.)

^Not to mention the fact that the Primaris seemingly operate under a completely different combat and logistical doctrine than Guilliman himself laid out in the Codex Astartes. No mixed-weapon squads, everyone is using different specialized ammunition. Fkin weird move.

The overarching motivations for GW regarding the whole affair just seems like $$$.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You are a wee bit late to this party but yes it does.

Will just repeat this..

Absolutely. The return of Guilliman, the Cawl/Primaris developments, new tech etc are also fundamentally contradictory to what was the original/central tenet of 40k as a setting.
The loss of hope, the death of heroes, the slow rise of darkness as mankind's futile efforts are lost.

GW were prepared to destroy one setting (WHFB) to sell more new minis, background be damned, and they have now done the same with the 40k universe. I honestly think that's it and all about it.

 Pacific wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You are a wee bit late to this party but yes it does.

Will just repeat this..

Absolutely. The return of Guilliman, the Cawl/Primaris developments, new tech etc are also fundamentally contradictory to what was the original/central tenet of 40k as a setting.
The loss of hope, the death of heroes, the slow rise of darkness as mankind's futile efforts are lost.

GW were prepared to destroy one setting (WHFB) to sell more new minis, background be damned, and they have now done the same with the 40k universe. I honestly think that's it and all about it.

I disagree.

Cawl’s tech isn’t new, as such. There is nothing presented to suggest they’re original designs. They’re still clearly part of a STC Lineage shared with existing Marine vehicles.

That Cawl has been able to build so many isn’t Lore Breaking either. Sure, anti-Grav is pretty rare in the Galaxy. That’s down to the necessarily materials being comparatively rare, and the knowledge of how to build it even rarer. No dispute there.

But what folk overlook is that Cawl has had the thick end of 10,000 years on this particular project. And throughout it, he’s only stockpiled the resultant products. Now. Let’s say each Chapter has 5 Repulsor Chassis per company. That’s still only 50,000 Repulsor chassis in service. Which is a pretty low number overall. As ever, the numbers are for illustrative purposes. I’m not aware of any set background number. Please focus on the wider argument and not the nitty gritty bits.

If that number can be taken as accurate, you’re looking at an average of 5 built each year. Roughly. And there’s again nothing to say Cawl was working as a one man band. Not only is it possible he had an STC machine capable of manufacture, but even if he didn’t, we know he has the ability to effectively clone his mind, and pop it into another body. Who knows how many times he can do that? It’s entirely within the realm of possibility he had dozens of copies working away to build what needed building, even without any further level of automation.

And I would further argue stockpiling superior weapons and equipment was a more immediately rewarding project than improving the Astartes Template.

See, it all comes down to The Great Crusade being, fundamentally, a rush job. With the Primarchs scattered, the Astartes as knew them were a Bodge Job. A solid effort, but by no means the intended final product. The Emperor couldn’t wait any longer. And as the basic Astartes themselves were Best Of A Bad Situation, so was their equipment. This is clearly seen in the roll out of ever more sophisticated Power Armour as the Crusade ground on, as well as different models of Bolters.

Cawl had something The Emperor didn’t. Time. And lots of it. 10,000 or so years to beaver away on these specific products, with knowledge and resources available to too few within the Mechanicus. So yes, the Impulsor and Repulsor are more advanced vehicles than the Rhino and Landraider chassis. But that doesn’t make them new. There’s no evidence at all their STC’s weren’t available to The Emperor. Rather, their greater complexity and the pressing timescale likely saw them overlooked in favour of equally robust, but more simple and reliable machinery to equip The Legions.

Cawl is, in my opinion, an excellent example of just how dangerous The Imperium could be when not subjected to constant, unavoidable attrition. They’ve always had the better stuff - but the need to constantly replace losses saw simpler vehicles come to precedence.

This is also why I believe the Traitors don’t have the same level of tech as Loyalists. They stick to lower equivalents precisely because they’re easier to maintain, and therefore less draining on their limited resources. To give a crappy example? Why spend £100 to maintain an Assault Cannon, when you could spend the same £100 maintaining 4 Reaper Autocannon.

Edited because apparently I cannot maths this morning.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


This is also why I believe the Traitors don’t have the same level of tech as Loyalists. They stick to lower equivalents precisely because they’re easier to maintain, and therefore less draining on their limited resources. To give a crappy example? Why spend £100 to maintain an Assault Cannon, when you could spend the same £100 maintaining 4 Reaper Autocannon.

Ruggedness and ease of maintenance were exactly the reasons given in the 2nd edition Chaos Codex for why the Traitor Legions stuck with their older gear. As the Dark Mechanicus fell further into the realm of mixing the daemonic with everything, the refining, building, and maintenance of "boring" conventional technological gear seems to have become a lesser priority. In 2nd edition, Chaos Terminators were without in-built targeter systems that loyalist Terminators had. The reason given was they did originally though bulkier more temperamental versions, and over the Long War they have broken down and not been replaced. It is also mentioned that the Traitor Legions hang on to their older gear as a way of not moving on from the Heresy. It's the same old trope of the old guy grumbling about how much better/more talented/more rugged they were in the old days compared to all the weak pampered young ones today.

Andy Chambers' designer notes at the back of the Codex said the goal was to give the Traitor Legions an archaic feel compared to the 40K loyalist Marines. Again, the Traitor Legions have never moved on from the Heresy mentally, and are still fighting it, hence the term the Long War. For the loyalists, the Heresy is the stuff of myths and legends, and a tale that had its narrative end with Horus's death and the Scouring.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Short on time, but I'd argue you could have done an Indomitus Crusade without Guilliman. He's not necessary.

How? Let's break it down for a situation with no Guilliman.
- The Ynarri fail to resurrect Guilliman and are all executed on the spot, no more Ynarri.
- Without Guilliman to assist the defence of Terra, the home of Mankind is damaged even more beyond repair with the Custodes and Sisters of Silence taking massive casualties.
- The Custodes, without orders from an appropriate proxy of the Emperor, never leave Terra to lend their might to retaking Humanity's lost domains.
- The Indomitus Crusade never happens because no other single individual has the logistical, diplomatic, and military skills to organise the undertaking.
- Cawl attempts to unveil the Primaris and is executed as a Heretic with his entire project destroyed.
- The Imperium has no way to effectively combat the encroaching enemies of Mankind and is destroyed.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The overarching motivations for GW regarding the whole affair just seems like $$$.

In other news, sky blue and water wet.

 Pacific wrote:
Will just repeat this..

Absolutely. The return of Guilliman, the Cawl/Primaris developments, new tech etc are also fundamentally contradictory to what was the original/central tenet of 40k as a setting.
The loss of hope, the death of heroes, the slow rise of darkness as mankind's futile efforts are lost.

GW were prepared to destroy one setting (WHFB) to sell more new minis, background be damned, and they have now done the same with the 40k universe. I honestly think that's it and all about it.

That is one interpretation of a theme for 40k but it is not the only one. The theme you are describing is just the one the vocal edgelords have latched onto and it is the theme that is used to excuse gakky real-life behaviour because they are just playing "in character".

Yes, it fundamentally changed the setting and to me pretty much ruined it.

Guilliman is a heroic messianic figure of a lost era that has returned to make things better. He is mostly portrayed as noble and competent, and he is fully in charge.

Yes, he is struggling, but heroic struggle of a noble demigod is not grimdark. Grimdark is not just about things being difficult, it is about corruption, decay and dark satire.

I'm not sure there is a realistic way to fix this. The options would be to either show the Guilliman being an incompetent hypocritical tyrant, or if he is good, the Imperium turning against him because they would rather have a dead but silent mythological messiah than one that is running around and saying thing they don't want to hear.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, it fundamentally changed the setting and to me pretty much ruined it.

Guilliman is a heroic messianic figure of a lost era that has returned to make things better. He is mostly portrayed as noble and competent, and he is fully in charge.

Yes, he is struggling, but heroic struggle of a noble demigod is not grimdark. Grimdark is not just about things being difficult, it is about corruption, decay and dark satire.

I'm not sure there is a realistic way to fix this. The options would be to either show the Guilliman being an incompetent hypocritical tyrant, or if he is good, the Imperium turning against him because they would rather have a dead but silent mythological messiah than one that is running around and saying thing they don't want to hear.

You do understand that most of the Imperium is still that right? And that Guilliman's reforms haven't just been sunshine and rainbows? You're doing what the OP has done and focused on just Guilliman and not the boatload of other awful things that are going on. Guilliman showing up hasn't stopped the corruption or the decay in the Imperium, it slows it down sometimes but it is still there and it's already been shown that when Guilliman leaves to go on the Indomitus Crusade things start to revert. Hell, the High Lords he fired did an entire coup against Guilliman and there are a large number of high-ranking Imperials who are literally just along for the ride, waiting to see how hard Guilliman is going to push.
The Mechanicus doesn't trust him because he backs Cawl (to a degree), the Ecclesiarchy reveres him but Guilliman hates the Ecclesiarchy, the Inquisition has contingencies if Guilliman doesn't fit "The Plan", and the Custodes don't trust him because he's a Primarch. As for the Space Marines? Just because you can take Primaris in your armies doesn't mean everyone is singing campfire songs and sharing smores. The Wolftime is entirely dedicated to the Firstborn saying to the Primaris "Yeah you have our colours and you fight good, but you aren't Space Wolves and never will be". The Chapters accepting the Primaris are at the end of a very large golden gun and the owner has a very itchy trigger finger.
The lords of the Imperium tolerate Guilliman because he suits there needs at this moment. They need him to return stability to the Imperium so they can keep on trucking with their politics and personal agendas.

 Gert wrote:

You do understand that most of the Imperium is still that right? And that Guilliman's reforms haven't just been sunshine and rainbows? You're doing what the OP has done and focused on just Guilliman and not the boatload of other awful things that are going on. Guilliman showing up hasn't stopped the corruption or the decay in the Imperium, it slows it down sometimes but it is still there and it's already been shown that when Guilliman leaves to go on the Indomitus Crusade things start to revert. Hell, the High Lords he fired did an entire coup against Guilliman and there are a large number of high-ranking Imperials who are literally just along for the ride, waiting to see how hard Guilliman is going to push.
The Mechanicus doesn't trust him because he backs Cawl (to a degree), the Ecclesiarchy reveres him but Guilliman hates the Ecclesiarchy, the Inquisition has contingencies if Guilliman doesn't fit "The Plan", and the Custodes don't trust him because he's a Primarch. As for the Space Marines? Just because you can take Primaris in your armies doesn't mean everyone is singing campfire songs and sharing smores. The Wolftime is entirely dedicated to the Firstborn saying to the Primaris "Yeah you have our colours and you fight good, but you aren't Space Wolves and never will be". The Chapters accepting the Primaris are at the end of a very large golden gun and the owner has a very itchy trigger finger.
The lords of the Imperium tolerate Guilliman because he suits there needs at this moment. They need him to return stability to the Imperium so they can keep on trucking with their politics and personal agendas.

Nothing you say changes the fact that a mythological messiah demigod has returned, is portrayed as noble and competent and is in charge of the imperium. Sure, he is is heroically struggling, but that doesn't make it grimdark. No wonder the GW has to make statements about Imperium being evil as their fiction fails at doing so and instead comes across as glorification.

In that same novel where some of the old High Lords try to launch a coup, one of the High Lords supporting Guilliman reveals that it is not because he believes in Guilliman's reforms. No, he believes the Imperium is the way it is because the Emperor willed it to be so, otherwise it would never have become so in the first place, so therefore the old Imperium was as the Emperor intended it to be. He supports Guilliman only because he thinks the old High Lords have had their time. He is more than willing to help Guilliman start the Indomitus Crusade and get off Terra, because he is confident that the Imperium is so vast and its inertia so great that it is beyond even Guilliman's power to change (since this person also believes the Imperium is as the Emperor willed it, it also means all attempts to change it are thus futile). He believes Guilliman, if he survives, would return humbled and talk less of reform and more about how to work with the High Lords and the existing institutions as they are. So he basically supports Guilliman in what is thought to be a futile quest in order to humble the Primarch.

Now so far the novels have focused more on the military victories that Guilliman has achieved, pushing back Chaos incursions and getting the Indomitus Crusade in motion. We only get shown fleeting subtle hints of how his military campaigns are distracting him from reform. One example is when he has to put off attempts to reform the calendar system in order to reconcile differing dating system discrepancies and figure out just what year it is supposed to be. I wish they would show more of this kind of behind the scenes thing rather than just the latest cookie cutter story template of SM vs Chaos. The difficult dilemma of Guilliman trying to reform but running into obstacles or negative effects, and maybe then either backing down or suffering military setbacks as a result. Examples offhand might be for example seizing noble assets on a planet to redistribute to the poor, only to have any remaining nobles of that planet rise in revolt and maybe other similar noble classes elsewhere revolt, leading to diversion of forces to put down these revolts instead of being able to proceed with their crusade. Maybe an attempt to improve working conditions or reduce working hours on a hive world or industrial world leads to a drop in productivity which leads to a military defeat due to a shortage or interruption in the supply chain. Eliminating wasteful redundant administrative departments in order to streamline the bureaucracy may mean hereditary workers suddenly become unemployed and may be tempted to revolt or turn to Chaos. Maybe if Guilliman stayed put in an area he could resolve these problems, but he keeps being driven to keep going and moving on, so he moves on and in his wake is either chaos (little c) or things revert to the old ways and status quo.

Guilliman is, to borrow from Asimov's Foundation series, trying to stop the fall of the Galactic Empire but there is so much societal inertia, he is a man wading through quicksand. He will slow down, and start to sink. Guilliman's idealism is sort of getting the better of him. He is trying to save the whole Imperium. He might be able to save a portion of it, like maybe Ultramar, or some other similar small pocket realm, but in trying to save all of it, he may lose all of it.

Now since GW is a company and likely will want to milk the Indomitus era for as long as possible, I suspect what will happen is Guilliman may slow and sink but the quicksand will never close over his head entirely. He will always be there struggling, never quite sinking, never quite getting free, and offering that temptation to hope that he might succeed. That is where I think GW will keep the overall galactic status quo at for the foreseeable future.

 Crimson wrote:
Nothing you say changes the fact that a mythological messiah demigod has returned, is portrayed as noble and competent and is in charge of the imperium. Sure, he is is heroically struggling, but that doesn't make it grimdark. No wonder the GW has to make statements about Imperium being evil as their fiction fails at doing so and instead comes across as glorification.

That depends on how you personally define "Grimdark" as it is not an objective definition. I already discussed this earlier in the thread but in a nutshell, the suggested definitions are:
1 - Adding dark realism to a setting i.e. politics and amorality.
2 - Having 3 main components being a grim and dark tone, a sense of realism (i.e. monarchs are useless or heroes are flawed), and a sense of agency for characters (i.e. they have to choose to do the right thing).
3 - Fiction where there is no honour and Might Makes Right, although this is more to do with again adding a sense of realism as opposed to High Fantasy where things are generally good.
4 - Darkness for darkness' sake, and nihilism that portrays morally good actions as impossible or futile. (This one is the definition that chuds tend to cling to in order to justify their bad IRL behaviour by pretending they are in character.)
An important thing to consider is that "Grimdark" is often just applied to fiction that doesn't follow the average tropes and is considered by some to be an unfair definition.

Guilliman is Grimdark.

He is the mastermind behind the 500 Worlds of Ultramar. Ultramar is, or at least was vision close to the The Emperor wanted for Humanity. Safe havens, free of Xenos etc.

He promises much, but will never be able to deliver beyond successful military campaigns.

He is false hope. There’s no way for him to turn things around. War is eternal. It’s bloody calculations prevent him changing anything in any meaningful, let alone lasting way.

He is facing something The Emperor never did. And that is the sheer, crushing stagnation and inertia of The Imperium as it stands. Plus he needs to deal with the other High Lords of Terra as peers. The Emperor never did. Yes he had advisors, but he was a Singular Leader in the way Guilliman can now never be - including by his own edict. An edict he cannot overturn without colossal suspicion, especially given he went off on Crusade with a literal Legion of new and improved Astartes with new and improved toys.

He cannot be The New Broom That Sweeps Clean. That’s simply not an option right now, and may never be.

He’s not a beacon. He’s a guttering candle in the dark. If anything, his light solely serves to deepen the shadows and show just how utterly hopeless it all is.

His talent is as a Statesman. That’s how he first forged Ultramar. The Imperium is so mind bogglingly vast, ignorant and even outright stupid, with far too many voices and opinions for him to reform alone.

Just want to point out to everyone, that I never said I believe Warhammer 40,000 is only grimdark. Tolkien for example is heavily predicated on a decaying world, but full of wonder and joy. The decaying theme in classical religion and literature is a potent archetype, but it is not without hope. Like I say, mini golden ages are possible even in a Dark Age, and all the more heroic for their effort because of it.

Wyldhunt wrote:
While most of the major factions do have elements of loss/decay, that definitely isn't the only theme going on in 40k, nor is it necessarily omnipresent. When the story you're zoomed in on is about an imperial fleet reconquering a sector and gaining lasting victories there, it feels like your characters are making progress even if the backdrop to their success is one of decay. Or you have stories like Ahriman making tiny bits of progress towards undoing the rubric or the much more short-term aspirations of your Necromunda gang or the ambitious pursuits and cursed exploits of a rogue trader who isn't particularly invested in primarchs and warzones except insomuch as they impact his own dynasty.

Basically, I think you've described one theme of the setting; not the theme of the setting. And I don't think Guilliman's return has even broken that. Despite all the power he wields and his impact on the galaxy at large, Guilliman's exploits are still ultimately a pretty small part of the setting. The imperium is still rotting despite his best efforst. The eldar and necrons are still likely to go extinct if things keep going as they have been. The tau are heavily implied to be on track to repeat a lot of the same mistakes the imperium made. The imperium is still full of greedy, zealous, short-sighted rulers wallowing in their own impotent stagnation. All the "dying empire" elements are still in play.

I agree completely, I am just exploring these thoughts out loud. What I would point out to people is that a Primarch is a different class of entity from a 'supernatural monster', being a (very powerful) human being, is not in the same category of being, as say a Daemon Prince, or Avatar of a God, which is inherently immortal; or even Abaddon in thematic terms because he is like a "eternally wandering" restless villain. It's always been much more the realm of antagonists. This is perhaps part of the reason I have questions about the wisdom of his return. What you are all telling me is that Guilliman has actually been handled surprisingly well by Black Library, so this gives me hope.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Short on time, but I'd argue you could have done an Indomitus Crusade without Guilliman. He's not necessary.

How? . .

They change events and write it without him. GW proved with Primaris (and Guilliman) they can pull a lot of gak out their asses if they need to.

The Great Rift doesn't happen so abruptly. Consensus if formed among the High Lords that Chapters can increase their recruitment beyond the 1000. The Emperor himself unleashes the Custodes through divine decree. Guard recruitment explodes. Whatever.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The overarching motivations for GW regarding the whole affair just seems like $$$.

In other news, sky blue and water wet.

Decisions can be made with profits in mind, or decisions can be ruled by profit motive. The difference is important.

 Gert wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Will just repeat this..

Absolutely. The return of Guilliman, the Cawl/Primaris developments, new tech etc are also fundamentally contradictory to what was the original/central tenet of 40k as a setting.
The loss of hope, the death of heroes, the slow rise of darkness as mankind's futile efforts are lost.

GW were prepared to destroy one setting (WHFB) to sell more new minis, background be damned, and they have now done the same with the 40k universe. I honestly think that's it and all about it.

That is one interpretation of a theme for 40k but it is not the only one. The theme you are describing is just the one the vocal edgelords have latched onto and it is the theme that is used to excuse gakky real-life behaviour because they are just playing "in character".

Your Fascdar is acting up again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

He’s not a beacon.

Have you seen the cover of the rulebook?

 Crimson wrote:
the Imperium turning against him because they would rather have a dead but silent mythological messiah than one that is running around and saying thing they don't want to hear.

This, I would really like to see and I think would be thematically appropriate. Or at least, a good portion of the Imperium deciding that full-bore hyperfascism is what they want, not Guilliman's pragmatism, and a civil war coming from that.