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.

My real issue with the galaxy isn't that its "small" - its that GW seemingly forgets what's going on.

II thought were were going to get "narrative" from the Gathering Storm onwards. But we didn't. We got "here's Guilliman and the Primaris, bye". 8th was dangerously close to stepping forward (what has your faction been up to over the past 100 years) - but then that was retconned and everything got locked down again.

I guess if I go digging there's stuff. But it feels like say the Lion coming back should matter in a way that it just doesn't seem to have. Necrons are waking up? Did anyone mention this after the opening 9th edition fluff? 10th is meant to be about Tyranids - but again, is it mentioned elsewhere?

Some people would hate it - but arguably 9th should have been "how's every faction coping with rising Necrons". 10th could be "how's every faction coping with seeming resurgent Tyranids". A bit reductive - but would suggest a galaxy spanning thing. It would give you scope to talk about new conflicts in new places. Instead... pretty sure GW are just regurgitating everyone's situation, and these threats are just the same as ever. But the videos were cool, looking forward to 11th's. (Dark Eldar pls.)

I'm with Tyel here. Everything after the Rift is the same stalemate as everything before the rift. The only character to ever get something done is Abaddon by winning the 13th Black Crusade. But even that didn't result in him shattering terra, instead he did something somewhere and then attacked Vigilus with a force already much weaker because CSM started splitting up everywhere.
Guilliman? Couldn't solve anything in the Imperium, Primaris were a joke and will be forgotten when 12th Edition arrives.
Mortarion? Came full force and created an empire of 3 Star systems. Wow, 3!

Open up lexicanum and look at the timeline of m41 and you'll see hundreds of events there compared to hardly anything in M39. There were narratives before the rift and there are narratives now, but in the grand scheme of things nothing changes because the galaxy is too big for anything to matter. The actual problem I see is that all the build ups GW did before 8th couldn't be solved, they wrote themselves in a corner there. Ghazghkull was supposed to do Ragnarork and then just... didn't. Abby collected items for the end of the galaxy and then just... forgot he had them. Guilliman returned and the Imperium just... didn't change at all aside from being ripped in half.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 ultimaratio wrote:
We're talking about a galaxy, so there's never going to be more or less room, but concentrating all the worldbuilding effort on a space opera seems like wasted potential. How long have the conflicts of certain two or three chapters of a thousand space marine chapters been the center attention?

I don't outright disagree with this, but it needs context, because the conversation here is mostly about how the storyline narrative that began with Gathering Storm in the transition to 8th is responsible for these conditions. But the question about how long certain factions have been involved in certain conflicts is WAY beyond the scope of how things changed in 8th. Wasn't Armageddon a conflict that took place from 2nd in the 90's to 7th in 2016?

The entire era of 8th-10th doesn't span as many years.

What do you mean by this? There are three Armageddon wars. The 3rd war appeared in 3rd edition lore with a global campaign, but otherwise the conflict has existed across multiple editions, but it hasn't been a narrative between 3rd and 8th. It was a setting (and mostly was in the global campaign to, although the outcome shaped the stalemate). 8th then progressed the narrative a little with Chaos joining the war. It stil exists in 10th. The conflict started in 998.M41 and is still ongoing.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Holy heck yes! The way you shrink a universe is not by having characters and an ongoing plot, but by removing more than half the factions from the game.

It's the founding myth of the Imperium. Complaining that HH has just Imperial factions is like complaining that the Mayans or Zhou Dynasty didn't get involved in the Trojan War.

Why weren't the Orks involved? Busy being dead after Ullanor.

Why weren't the Craftworlds involved? Because the biggest problem in the universe is beating itself up, and the entire race is reeling after it just had a massive cataclysm.

Why aren't there other Xenos? Busy being dead or unimportant to the story of the Horus Heresy and therefore not needed.

 Haighus wrote:
[
but it hasn't been a narrative between 3rd and 8th. It was a setting (and mostly was in the global campaign to, although the outcome shaped the stalemate).

Really? Because I remember that in one of the three battles, Angron showed up... But he didn't have a model at the time. If he had, it would have been no different than when Guilliman takes part in a battle that has been written about in the 8th-10th era. Ghazkul was there, Yarrick was there, both leading battles written about in great detail, so what's the difference between that (which everyone loved) and Guilliman leading a battle (which is the worst thing ever, and fundamentally changed the way the game is played)?

In fact, while Ghazkul and Yarrick literally fought each other as leaders of massive armies, when I skimmed the Wikki on Guilliman, there didn't seem to be any record of him fighting a named character with a model, meaning the conflicts from 8th to 10th were actually LESS of a character driven drama than the Ghazkull/ Yarrick conflict, because at least in Indomitus, the antagonist force left room for YOUR DUDES.

BTW, as for historical battles (which are, again, just as possible now as they were then), if you played a historical Sisters battle with OoOML that took place BEFORE the third battle for 'Geddon you'd have to paint them a different colour, because the narrative that you swear up and down wasn't a thing that happened prior to the nasty 8th-10th era says that the Martyrdom of the order at that battle was why they changed their robe colours. And if you play OoOML historical battles in the Plague of Unbelief, you have to change their name to Fiery Heart, because they only changed their name when Katherine was Martyred. And those actual game-affecting, narrative imposed limitations and guidelines existed LONG before 8th.

So yeah... Lots of narrative happening 2nd-7th, including narrative led by named characters with models, narrative that received Black Library books, etc.

Now look, you don't have to twist yourself into knots trying to explain how the ongoing character driven narrative functions differently now than it did in "the good old days" in order to justify your dislike of the new lore: it's okay to not like the new Lore. But it doesn't actually seem to be true that the narratives of named characters didn't exist and guide the growth, development and pace of the game until 8th happened.

 PenitentJake wrote:

In fact, while Ghazkul and Yarrick literally fought each other as leaders of massive armies, when I skimmed the Wikki on Guilliman, there didn't seem to be any record of him fighting a named character with a model, meaning the conflicts from 8th to 10th were actually LESS of a character driven drama than the Ghazkull/ Yarrick conflict, because at least in Indomitus, the antagonist force left room for YOUR DUDES.

Guilliman has one-on-oned Mortarion, Magnus, and Kairos, just off the top of my head...

Pretty sure he punched Mortarion out of reality.

 Gert wrote:
Pretty sure he punched Mortarion out of reality.

I thought so too. I don't read a lot of BL, and I have zero interest in Marines that aren't connected to the Inquisition, but I was positive I had heard or read about that in a thread somewhere. I was shocked to not see it in the Wikki (though as I said, I was skimming, because again non-chamber marines bore me to tears).

Either way... GW has been letting named characters dominate their games, steer the plot of their galaxy and including them in battles as well as writing novels about the whole thing since LONG before 8th, which is my primary point. If you want to say otherwise, don't say it here- grab your Yarrick* off the shelf, stare into the Bale Eye* and tell him he didn't lead the 3rd battle of Armageddon because narrative only existed and and characters only started driving it in 8th.

* not intended as euphemisms... Honest.

It started with the success of BLs take on the Horus Heresy. Unfortunately a lot of people seemed to really like a soap opera centred around a bunch of superheroes. So now they have turned 40K into that too. Except in HH there at least was things changing and happening (even though we already knew the main points.) Characters would change sides or die, the whole nature of the Imperium would shift. With 40K none of that happens. We have battles and events that are nominally a big deal, but the status quo will not actually meaningfully shift, and big characters cannot die as GW wants to keep selling their expensive models.

 Crimson wrote:
It started with the success of BLs take on the Horus Heresy.

I'm sure the success of the HH novels accelerated the pairing of novels with minis, but again, the idea that named characters drive the narrative of the Galaxy started earlier with Yarrick and Ghaz.

The first Armageddon novel came out in 2003, but it was about obscure "Your Dudes" type folks, and it's description doesn't mention Yarrick or Ghaz at all. The first HH book was 2006. The Yarrick series of novels started in 2013, three years before Gathering Storm.

But even though they didn't get novels until 2013, Yarrick and Ghaz DOMINATED stories about Armageddon in dexes and Dwarf articles- their soap opera interactions began with the release of the first Commissar Yarrick model in 1992, 24 years before 8th and 14 years before the first HH novel.

You might have FELT that there was no soap opera in 1992 because you were 32 years younger, and your brain processed information differently when you were a teenager, but it honestly wasn't a whole lot different than G Man vs. whoever. And even if it was, 11 years later when the Armageddon dex dropped and Yarrick got his second model, we're STILL three years before the first HH book, and the soap opera between Yarrick and Ghaz was certainly very well established by then.

Y'all gotta stop pretending none of that happened, let me drop the mic and move on.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
[
but it hasn't been a narrative between 3rd and 8th. It was a setting (and mostly was in the global campaign to, although the outcome shaped the stalemate).

Really? Because I remember that in one of the three battles, Angron showed up... But he didn't have a model at the time. If he had, it would have been no different than when Guilliman takes part in a battle that has been written about in the 8th-10th era. Ghazkul was there, Yarrick was there, both leading battles written about in great detail, so what's the difference between that (which everyone loved) and Guilliman leading a battle (which is the worst thing ever, and fundamentally changed the way the game is played)?

In fact, while Ghazkul and Yarrick literally fought each other as leaders of massive armies, when I skimmed the Wikki on Guilliman, there didn't seem to be any record of him fighting a named character with a model, meaning the conflicts from 8th to 10th were actually LESS of a character driven drama than the Ghazkull/ Yarrick conflict, because at least in Indomitus, the antagonist force left room for YOUR DUDES.

BTW, as for historical battles (which are, again, just as possible now as they were then), if you played a historical Sisters battle with OoOML that took place BEFORE the third battle for 'Geddon you'd have to paint them a different colour, because the narrative that you swear up and down wasn't a thing that happened prior to the nasty 8th-10th era says that the Martyrdom of the order at that battle was why they changed their robe colours. And if you play OoOML historical battles in the Plague of Unbelief, you have to change their name to Fiery Heart, because they only changed their name when Katherine was Martyred. And those actual game-affecting, narrative imposed limitations and guidelines existed LONG before 8th.

So yeah... Lots of narrative happening 2nd-7th, including narrative led by named characters with models, narrative that received Black Library books, etc.

Now look, you don't have to twist yourself into knots trying to explain how the ongoing character driven narrative functions differently now than it did in "the good old days" in order to justify your dislike of the new lore: it's okay to not like the new Lore. But it doesn't actually seem to be true that the narratives of named characters didn't exist and guide the growth, development and pace of the game until 8th happened.

I'm still confused. For starters, the reason I say it wasn't a narrative between those editions, is that the bones of the conflict were the same in 3rd as they were in 7th. It started in 998.M41, and was still ongoing in 999.M41. it didn't progress during that time, but it was fleshed out. The campaign got wider, not longer (until 8th). You presented it as being some ongoing plot line, that started in 2nd and was still going until it stopped in 7th, which definitely isn't true (especially as it did continue in 8th with the involvement of Chaos forces). So the campaign had a narrative, but it wasn't progressing and therefore worked as a setting that you could fight your own battles within.

No one is claiming special characters didn't exist prior to ~5th edition*, or narratives. The point of contention is that the narratives used to occur within a setting, whereas now the setting seems to be becoming one big narrative driven by a handful of movers and shakers. The issue isn't named characters existing and having narratives, it is that those named characters are central to the wider galaxy in a way they were not previously and turn up in an improbable number of major events in short succession. Yarrick was a key character in Armageddon, he wasn't also at Cadia fighting Abaddon or fighting the Tyranids on the Eastern Fringe in the same two years. Even when the two figureheads left, the conflict continued. Meanwhile, the conflict included huge scope for your own commander and the early lore for the 3rd war encouraged converting some of the lesser known regiments, chapters, or warbands.

Angron appeared in the 1st War 500 years prior.

The Yarrick and Ghazghkull rivalry actually started out as a single White Dwarf battle report between the personal armies of two staffers, which is an amusing tidbit.

Now, compare that to the current Octarius War, which was its own conflict in a stalemate. Current lore is that the planet was about to be lost by the Orks until Ghazghkull showed up and stomped some Tyranids, so the Orks are winning again. Ghaz leaves and the Swarmlord is deployed, who noms some Orks and now the Tyranids win and eat Octarius. Meanwhile, the Ork and Tyranid forces are prevented from finally escaping the Imperial cordon around Octarius by the appearance of... High Marshall Helbrecht. There are lots of new characters introduced in Octarius, but the focus has shifted to the soap opera of a handful of well-known characters rather than fleshing out the new ones. The well-known characters also have an outsized effect, easily dominating when they appear. Contrast that to Armageddon, where no single "legendary" character dominated the 3rd war and "lesser" characters were hugely important to the campaign (as they should be in such a large war).

TL;DR: the issue isn't characters and narratives existing within the setting, it is that a handful of characters are driving the key narratives and becoming the setting.


*This problem started well before 8th edition, the Ultramarines were probably the first to be afflicted with protagonism and appear all over the place at once. Actually, looking back at the thread no one else was hinging this on 8th edition, it isn't about the transition to 8th edition. The issue does seem to have become gradually worse from at least 5th edition, with 7th edition cementing the typical writing style of campaigns feeling like a badly-scripted wrestling match with dramatic reversal after dramatic reversal as new trump cards are deployed. I think that style naturally lends itself to the biggest trump cards being legendary characters showing up.

 Haighus wrote:

I'm still confused.

The argument isn't about "how narrative" pre 8th was vs. how narrative post 8th is - the argument is that the degree of narrative (whatever you feel it is) didn't change between pre 8th and post 8th as much as people are saying.

 Haighus wrote:

For starters, the reason I say it wasn't a narrative between those editions, is that the bones of the conflict were the same in 3rd as they were in 7th.

Is not the Ynarri situation the same in 10th as 8th? How bout Cicatrix? How bout Vigilus? How bout Pariah Nexus? Chalnath? Octarius? Check the thread to see how many people say nothing has changed in those places. Now personally, I would say things there did change,,, But no more or less than things changed in Armageddon, ie. my argument isn't about the degree of change, it's that whatever you perceive that degree of change to be, pre 8th and post 8th eras were the same. Some will say "lots of change" some will say "little" both are subjective, so I'm not arguing either. I'm arguing "same".

 Haighus wrote:

It started in 998.M41, and was still ongoing in 999.M41. it didn't progress during that time,

If the first battle of Armageddon didn't progress, how did a second one happen? And if the second one didn't progress, how could their be a third?

 Haighus wrote:

but it was fleshed out.

What is your take on the semantic differences between fleshed out "fleshed out" and "progressing"?

 Haighus wrote:

The campaign got wider, not longer (until 8th). You presented it as being some ongoing plot line, that started in 2nd and was still going until it stopped in 7th, which definitely isn't true (especially as it did continue in 8th with the involvement of Chaos forces). So the campaign had a narrative, but it wasn't progressing and therefore worked as a setting that you could fight your own battles within.

So this is where the vagueries of memory come in for me. I played VERY heavily in 2nd, 3rd and 4th, but I never really bothered linking my own campaigns to the story, and consequently I didn't read a lot of stuff about Armageddon. Did they write and release all of the events of Armageddon (ie. All three battles) at the same time?

Or did they write about one battle, then a few months later write about another battle, then a few months later, write about another? Because if so, that is a narrative sequence over time, just like we have now. And someone said there was a global campaign, right? And that it actually somewhat affected the lore, even if only in a limited way... Is that correct?

And again, where in time I play OoOML does actually determine how I have to paint them- at the beginning of the first battle, they had black robes; I don't remember if their mass Martyrdom happened in the 2nd or 3rd, but wherever it happened, that's when they changed the colour of their robes.

 Haighus wrote:

No one is claiming special characters didn't exist prior to ~5th edition*, or narratives. The point of contention is that the narratives used to occur within a setting,

The definition of narrative includes plot, setting, character and theme. You literally can't have a narrative without a setting, because nothing can happen unless it happens somewhere. Now, I think you know that, so obviously you're trying to express something deeper. I don't want to put words in your mouth either, but I can't take a stab at responding unless I try to figure out what you mean, so here goes:

I think you mean that events on Armageddon were contained within Armageddon and didn't impact the rest of the Galaxy.

But again, not true, because it wasn't just the OoOML at Geddon that changed their robes- in point of fct, none of them could, cuz every single one of them died. But everywhere else in the galaxy, they did.

 Haighus wrote:

whereas now the setting seems to be becoming one big narrative driven by a handful of movers and shakers. The issue isn't named characters existing and having narratives, it is that those named characters are central to the wider galaxy in a way they were not previously and turn up in an improbable number of major events in short succession. Yarrick was a key character in Armageddon, he wasn't also at Cadia fighting Abaddon or fighting the Tyranids on the Eastern Fringe in the same two years.

Okay, cool- this seems to confirm my previous interpretation- it's about confining the characters to a single series of narrative events in a single theatre of war. And you know what- I'll concede a little here... but within limits. First, I think that there is more connectedness between events- like the Cicatrix was a really big deal, and had an impact on most of the galaxy, in a way that maybe Geddon didn't. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the galaxy IS still big enough, and the game still flexible enough that you can choose to ignore it, but that doesn't invalidate your point.

I think the other thing that might be happening is that GW might be developing more ongoing conflicts at a time than they did pre 8th due to having a larger stable of writers. Conflicts may be separated by 20 or 50 of GAME time, but they are both being written about and developed simultaneously, so it doesn't FEEL that way.

And a final note: the higher the rank of the character, the more likely they are to be involved in a campaign- not necessarily deployed to fight in ground battles, but to be in-theatre to command and coordinate the Fleet and ground troops. Sometimes for sure they may deploy... But others, the writing only indicates that they order this deployment or that deployment. And yeah, if you're a Chapter Master, you won't be physically at every BATTLE, but every decision made by your army goes through a chain of command that ultimately leads back to you. And when you're a High Lord, this is even more significant.

In any case, I am seeing some of your points here, I just think its a little more complex than you're giving it credit for.

 Haighus wrote:

Even when the two figureheads left, the conflict continued. Meanwhile, the conflict included huge scope for your own commander and the early lore for the 3rd war encouraged converting some of the lesser known regiments, chapters, or warbands.

Angron appeared in the 1st War 500 years prior.

The Yarrick and Ghazghkull rivalry actually started out as a single White Dwarf battle report between the personal armies of two staffers, which is an amusing tidbit.

Great, confirmed my question from earlier; the conflict wasn't presented all at once, it did develop over time.

 Haighus wrote:

Now, compare that to the current Octarius War, which was its own conflict in a stalemate. Current lore is that the planet was about to be lost by the Orks until Ghazghkull showed up and stomped some Tyranids, so the Orks are winning again. Ghaz leaves and the Swarmlord is deployed, who noms some Orks and now the Tyranids win and eat Octarius. Meanwhile, the Ork and Tyranid forces are prevented from finally escaping the Imperial cordon around Octarius by the appearance of... High Marshall Helbrecht. There are lots of new characters introduced in Octarius, but the focus has shifted to the soap opera of a handful of well-known characters rather than fleshing out the new ones. The well-known characters also have an outsized effect, easily dominating when they appear. Contrast that to Armageddon, where no single "legendary" character dominated the 3rd war and "lesser" characters were hugely important to the campaign (as they should be in such a large war).

Okay, I just opened Octarius books from 9th. On the first two pages, I read about Kryptman, Planetary Governor Abrahoma Bentaal, Stugborg Face Grinda, Fabricator General Ezmeralda Brynlokh. All of these are characters that I could convert, like the ones you mention were a part of Geddon. I also read about Legio Crucius and Kopides, and knight house Feurus of Soebus. On pages 30 and 31, it names Dark Kraken marines (which got LOTS of development in WD flash points- I think a few pieces of wargear, and some named dudes, all of which we're encouraged to convert), as well as the Atlantean Spears and Obsidian Jaguars Chapters- you know, those lesser known forces that you praise Geddon for including, right? And the list goes on- knight houses, regiments, a DW Watch Fortess, etc. And to further encourage conversion, book 2 includes rules for looted vehicles. There are colour schemes for all the marine chapters mentioned above, etc.

Now, you say Ghaz shows up, and I don't doubt that. But in my skim so far, I don't see him mentioned yet. Funny, huh? Cuz I did see all the other stuff of written about. Could it be that you think Ghaz is the huge mover and shaker because he's the part you remember, rather than that he drove the plot?

I have to wrap up this post because of work, but I'll be back. Thank you for encouraging me to reread my two 40k Octarius books, the dozen or so WD flashpoints and the KT Octarius book more deeply than I did the first time. Honestly, I bought them for rules cuz MY DUDES, and didn't read much of the lore. But I do want to see just how much of that material is devoted to Helbrecht and Ghaz and how much is devoted to those other minor players in the conflict.

If you've got the books, I'd encourage you to do the same. It might be eye openning for both of us.

 Haighus wrote:

*This problem started well before 8th edition, the Ultramarines were probably the first to be afflicted with protagonism and appear all over the place at once. Actually, looking back at the thread no one else was hinging this on 8th edition, it isn't about the transition to 8th edition. The issue does seem to have become gradually worse from at least 5th edition, with 7th edition cementing the typical writing style of campaigns feeling like a badly-scripted wrestling match with dramatic reversal after dramatic reversal as new trump cards are deployed. I think that style naturally lends itself to the biggest trump cards being legendary characters showing up.

Which was EXACTLY my whole point, right?

Will reply to the rest later, but you are the first person to raise 8th as an inflection point for this. The conversation prior to that was talking about overall trends. Choosing to focus on 8th is a bit weird.

 Gert wrote:

It's the founding myth of the Imperium.

Part of the problem is that the HH series was sold as "the real historical truth behind the myth", so it isn't just a funding myth of the Imperium.

But also the whole plot cancers that were the Perpetuals and the Dark King and Enuncia (you know, Dan Abnett's plot cancers).

I mean, the whole siege of Terra becomes an afterthought to the "Infinite Chaos Horus vs Dark King Emperor for the multiverse* or something", everyone else literally doesn't matter.

*Also the ridiculously rising of the stakes, they no longer are fighting for humanity or the Imperium, they are fighting for the ("multi)universe and reality itself". The whole thing absurdly escalated beyond "founding myth of the Imperium" and if you are going to fight for the entirety of reality then yeah the other factions should be included.

Part of the problem is just that as theoretically open as a big universe is, if you don't focus on a small piece of it you quickly exhaust the real storytelling possibilities.

The main problem with 40k stories is they're essentially a mad lib: "The Space Marines arrived to defend ______ from the forces of ______. It turns out that the planet was developing a super weapon and the real villains are Chaos." Even if the planet is saved, the Inquisition arrives at the end and blows up everything anyway.

The main issue just comes down to the IoM itself. It's the only thing "at stake" but as long as it remains fundamentally unchangeable there's nothing left to put on the table. They've lost legions and worlds and sectors and while the "nothing matters or will be missed" is cool in theory, the reality is it robs stories of purpose.

We're just REALLY feeling it now because they flirted with the possiblity of change and we're now stuck with the reality that its an empty promise. There's a ton of incredible things they COULD do with the rift and the primarchs and the emperor and everything, but now that we've seen that all of that changes nothing, the reality of "nothing actually matters" makes it hard to get invested in any of it.

The Eye of Terror campaign, 2002, late 3rd edition, seemed kind of "special/fluff relevant character focused". It also had narrative consequences - but that fueled hostility. (I.E. Eldar have done okay vs Chaos - I know, lets perma kill Eldrad, oh wait hang on, bring him back...).

You then had the Storm of Chaos campaign for WHFB which prompted even more negativity/outrage from the fans. I think it contributed in part (along with a litany of other complaints) to the death of the official GW forums around this time.

At this point GW seem to have decided that they can't win, so tried some campaigns mostly with a bunch of newish non-Codex characters (I think they got expanded narratives over the previous few years in White Dwarf etc) they could kill off for narrative effect. I think that's how The Fall of Medusa V went down anyway. But... again, partly because it was a bunch of new(ish) characters I don't think as many people cared.

Anyway then the campaigns ended.

I guess you can argue at this point "its a setting not a story" had triumphed - but I'm not sure that was ever GW's intention. Roll on 5th, roll on Ward's Ultramarines, and the rest is history.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The response 'you can do x' kinda misses the point. The criticism is about the companies approach to its setting. We can obviously do anything at any time. Up to and including rewriting the rules and setting.

But for a commercial product that attracts customers that we play games with, if they move heavily towards 'massive galaxy altering actions of the skywalker family in no time at all', you doing your own thing diverges more and more into alternative fan fiction as with their customer base harder to engage others.

Even the biggest things like Cadia falling or the cicatrix maledictum doesn't mean you can't narrative something in a rando system that is mostly untouched by those events.

Do you NOT want the story of 40k to have characters? Because every single story is centered around characters.

I think I mostly agree with Vlad here. If you want to tell stories about your guys fighting over small stakes or even pointless stakes in an ultimately unimportant corner of the galaxy, that's still totally possible! This 40k-as-setting approach still works.

It's just that, in addition to that small-stakes stuff that we're all used to from pre-8th, we're now also occasionally moving a few plot threads forward to give the impression that the setting isn't 100% static and to tell some new, potentially cool stories.

Your chapter of marines can still be fighting warbands no one has ever heard over for control of mcguffins that don't matter to the wider setting just like they did in the past. But while your guys are doing that, there's a (very slowly moving) storyline going on that you can choose to tie your own armies into if you're so inclined.

My craftworlders can be hunting down mcguffins and harvesting spirit stones to hold out one more day or I can say that they're doing a job for Yvraine in hopes of eventually making a difference. Yvraine's exploits can be as (ir)relevant to the stories I'm telling with my craftworld as I want. If I were a Biel-Tan player, I'd have to acknowledge in my fluff that my craftworld was a little worse for wear following Yvraine's introduction, but that's just a thing that sometimes happens when your faction gets new lore.

Similarly, some Salamanders would have to acknowledge that primaris exist, but can otherwise carry on beating up xenos and treasure hunting Vulkan's artefacts. Or they can send some bodies to help with the Indomitus Crusade if I want to feel like I'm connected to the "main story."

tldr; people who want their stories/battles to not matter to the larger setting can still have that. There just also happens to be a few "main" stories going on in the galaxy, and those stories happen to involve a lot of the big-name movers and shakers of the galaxy.

Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

Yet nothing prevents you from creating your own warboss leading his own waagh away from what Ghaz is doing...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

Yet nothing prevents you from creating your own warboss leading his own waagh away from what Ghaz is doing...

Though the rules are VERY slim on customization for said Warboss.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

Yet nothing prevents you from creating your own warboss leading his own waagh away from what Ghaz is doing...

That's just the narrative equivalent of 'It doesn't matter if GW's rules are bad because you can go off and write your own', or 'It doesn't matter that new Corteaz is a terrible model because you can sculpt your own'.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

Yet nothing prevents you from creating your own warboss leading his own waagh away from what Ghaz is doing...

Perhaps much of the complaint here is that these characters are more integral to the game itself. Historically they've been kind of terrible, but nothing really does what Ghaz does in Ork armies and Calgar is basically the only reason to run a compliant chapter.

 LunarSol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

Yet nothing prevents you from creating your own warboss leading his own waagh away from what Ghaz is doing...

Perhaps much of the complaint here is that these characters are more integral to the game itself. Historically they've been kind of terrible, but nothing really does what Ghaz does in Ork armies and Calgar is basically the only reason to run a compliant chapter.

Thats a more reasonable (although very different) argument than what OP brought up IMO.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

That's just the narrative equivalent of 'It doesn't matter if GW's rules are bad because you can go off and write your own', or 'It doesn't matter that new Corteaz is a terrible model because you can sculpt your own'.

And yet old 40k pretty much worked on that logic with its heavy emphasis on model conversion, narrative forging and scratch building.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ghazghkull is a good example of a character who has suffered 'protagonist syndrome' as time has gone on: He started off as an example of an Ork warlord who was special essentially because the narrative of Armageddon (or, the narrative window through which the reader happened to be viewing the 40K'verse) focussed on him. Now though, he's the leader of all Ork-kind, converses with the Ork gods, literally teleports around the galaxy, only becomes stronger when he gets decapitated, Armageddon is actually Ullanor in disguise... Now the narrative window is following Ghazghkull because he's the most important character in universe..

Right. He is basically and ork primarch now. I liked it more when the special characters were just detailed examples of similar characters there were generic version of. Now we have these unique super beings that warp the setting around them and are several orders of magnitude more important and special than your generic chapter masters, warbosses etc.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

With few exceptions, unique characters should be a specific build of a generic character.
Calgar? Chapter Master with Master Crafted Fists and Storm Bolter.
Rotigus? Fancy GUO with the sorcery options.
Haarken? Lord with Jump Pack and Master Crafted Power Lance or something.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I think I mostly agree with Vlad here. If you want to tell stories about your guys fighting over small stakes or even pointless stakes in an ultimately unimportant corner of the galaxy, that's still totally possible! This 40k-as-setting approach still works.

It's just that, in addition to that small-stakes stuff that we're all used to from pre-8th, we're now also occasionally moving a few plot threads forward to give the impression that the setting isn't 100% static and to tell some new, potentially cool stories.

Personally I agree with that- but when those major plot threads are being driven by the same limited roster of characters showing up again and again, it makes the setting feel trite, contrived, and small. The setting is so big that they could easily invent Macharius-esque Guard commanders, rising Chaos warlords, unexpected Hive Fleets, minor Craftworlds, Inquisitors, and so on and have them plausibly effect significant change.

Instead it's always Guilliman or Mortarion or Abaddon or Vect or Ghazghkull or whoever behind it. Only the stars get to make any major impact, and everyone else is just window dressing.

Have any of those characters actually made a meaningful change? They get a lot of spotlight, but in terms of actual accomplishments they've done as much as any major character the game has ever fixated on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again:

With few exceptions, unique characters should be a specific build of a generic character.
Calgar? Chapter Master with Master Crafted Fists and Storm Bolter.
Rotigus? Fancy GUO with the sorcery options.
Haarken? Lord with Jump Pack and Master Crafted Power Lance or something.

Making more characters 1 per army like Epic Heroes would go a long way to help with stuff like this.

 Haighus wrote:
Will reply to the rest later, but you are the first person to raise 8th as an inflection point for this. The conversation prior to that was talking about overall trends. Choosing to focus on 8th is a bit weird.

No one explicitly said 8th- that's true. But ANY reference to Gulliman is 8-10, any reference to Gathering Storm is 8-10. A reference to Votann is 8-10.

And sorry, I take it for granted that "Modern 40k" is understood to be 8-10 simply because 3rd-7th were compatible, and 8th blew it all up with printed Indexes and ushered in Primaris. Kind of a "tell me you're talking about 8-10 without telling me you're talking about 8-10" kinda thing.

You mentioned Octarius, and both Octarius campaign books were 9th. We've talked about Pariah, which had books in 8th, 9th and 10th.

 LunarSol wrote:
Have any of those characters actually made a meaningful change? They get a lot of spotlight, but in terms of actual accomplishments they've done as much as any major character the game has ever fixated on.

This highlights a big part of my problem with them, and the current trend in 40k's background.

GW seems to have created this weird paradox, where we get the Big Important Characters plastered all over the setting at every opportunity, giving it the Saturday morning cartoon feel, yet simultaneously refusing to actually progress the storyline in any meaningful way. It feels like the worst of both worlds. The big characters overshadow what would have been big events, either through their presence making everything else seem inconsequential, or the lack of their presence meaning GW tend to treat it as such.

Two solid examples spring to mind. Firstly, the return of Guilliman had the potential to genuinely progress the narrative and crate conflict within the Imperium itself. Having such a pivotal character return, with direct knowledge of the Emperor's non-divinity suggested loads of really interesting conflicts and schisms within the Imperium. But none of that happened, because GW seem scared of making such a big narrative change. Secondly, look at the Rubicon Primaris, the "dangerous" process of allowing GW to continue to sell established....no, sorry, the "dangerous" process of turning a firstborn Marine in to a Primaris. The success rate for named characters is 100%. Would it have been too much to ask for one or two to die during the process? Would it really have hurt the bottom line all that much if Shrike, for example, died and a new Raven Guard character had to be created? Or Corbulo, who no longer has a model anyway?