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.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

They held it up through M32 (and it's a recent retcon that the seat was removed sometime later). Regardless he was running the Imperium completely at the time. Your arguement is invalid about his levels of authority.

Oh no, the seat ever existing is the retcon! The Composition of the High Lords of Terra has been known at least since the second edition. Also, he had authority over the military, just like the Lord Commander Militant, not the Imperium as a whole.

I remember the Lord Guilliman position existing in the lore long before Bobby ever made a return. Maybe not in 2nd, but 2nd got a lot of rewrites in 3rd as they tweaked the tone and setting further.

Go read Dark Imperium instead of crowing about stuff you clearly don't actually get. Guilliman is struggling to get stuff done. He declares the Indomitus Crusade a "victory" because the Imperium needs to feel that it can still win despite how the fight doesn't really end. He can't even stay and protect the 500 worlds from a plague seems to only be relieved by his presence because he knows it's a trap to keep him from taking charge and getting stuff done. He's forced to work with Cawl who he knows is lying to him but has no choice because no one else can supply the knowledge he needs to make an impact (Cawl running around to try and create new Blackstone Pylons). He has to make nice with a religious organization that goes against everything he knew before his death. One of the Primaris even muses that Guilliman might be lonely (describing him as a lonely demigod).

"Simplistic" my friggin boot. Just because you can't get past the memes doesn't mean there isn't something there worth looking at and looking forward to. Take your pointless projection and aim it somewhere else because you're so far off base you're not even describing the same person anymore.

None of this really translates into anything tangible in 40K, and it is still about him heroically fixing things, even though he cannot fix everything perfectly.

Right. So you like a simplistic shining giant hero saves the day and everybody loves narrative. Got it.

Except thats not what happens?

The universe was going to hell, RG is resurected and discovers that not only has everything he fought and died for has failed but it was built on lies.

He is now struggling to keep whats left together - much of which he is horrified by - thats a very different narrataive to the false one that you are seeing and stating and compeltey in tune with the grim dark of 40k.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Right. So you like a simplistic shining giant hero saves the day and everybody loves narrative. Got it.

Except thats not what happens?

The universe was going to hell, RG is resurected and discovers that not only has everything he fought and died for has failed but it was built on lies.

He is now struggling to keep whats left together - much of which he is horrified by - thats a very different narrataive to the false one that you are seeing and stating and compeltey in tune with the grim dark of 40k.

Pretty much my complaint about people complaining about RG coming back: they aren't even describing the actual person in their complaints, just a strawman they claim exists and when you prove them wrong they move goal posts and tell you your proof doesn't count.

I want more Primarchs because frankly not everyone wants to run Guilliman, and there is greater chances for infighting within the Imperium with more of them. Plus by allowing the Imperium to "power up" the rest of the setting can be allowed to increase their level of threat back again instead of being locked in this position where nothing is allowed to improve (despite three armies being based on improving themselves constantly (Nids who grow via food, Orks who grow via fighting, and Tau who grow via more experiences and developing counter measures) past a certain point lest they tip the power level too much and wreck the setting.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Right. So you like a simplistic shining giant hero saves the day and everybody loves narrative. Got it.

Except thats not what happens?

The universe was going to hell, RG is resurected and discovers that not only has everything he fought and died for has failed but it was built on lies.

He is now struggling to keep whats left together - much of which he is horrified by - thats a very different narrataive to the false one that you are seeing and stating and compeltey in tune with the grim dark of 40k.

Yes, that is an attempt to paint him as a tragic figure. Doesn't really work for me. He is still a big damn hero, everybody loves him and he wins most of the time. Sure, there are terrible obstacles, but overcoming (some of) them makes the hero to seem even greater. And even if one found Guilliman himself a compelling character, it doesn't mean that the resulting overall narrative is compelling. I think dysfunctional divided Imperium, High Lords scheming and having their own conflicting agendas, is far more interesting than everybody uniting under one shiny leader.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Right. So you like a simplistic shining giant hero saves the day and everybody loves narrative. Got it.

Except thats not what happens?

The universe was going to hell, RG is resurected and discovers that not only has everything he fought and died for has failed but it was built on lies.

He is now struggling to keep whats left together - much of which he is horrified by - thats a very different narrataive to the false one that you are seeing and stating and compeltey in tune with the grim dark of 40k.

Yes, that is an attempt to paint him as a tragic figure. Doesn't really work for me. He is still a big damn hero, everybody loves him and he wins most of the time. Sure, there are terrible obstacles, but overcoming (some of) them makes the hero to seem even greater. And even if one found Guilliman himself a compelling character, it doesn't mean that the resulting overall narrative is compelling. I think dysfunctional divided Imperium, High Lords scheming and having their own conflicting agendas, is far more interesting than everybody uniting under one shiny leader.

Except the Imperium is founded on following the guy in the shiniest armor (why else would the Emperor wear gold?).....

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want more Primarchs because frankly not everyone wants to run Guilliman, and there is greater chances for infighting within the Imperium with more of them.

Or how about having some characters who are not Primarchs (or even Space Marines) who have some agency? Shocking thought, I know.

Plus by allowing the Imperium to "power up" the rest of the setting can be allowed to increase their level of threat back again instead of being locked in this position where nothing is allowed to improve (despite three armies being based on improving themselves constantly (Nids who grow via food, Orks who grow via fighting, and Tau who grow via more experiences and developing counter measures) past a certain point lest they tip the power level too much and wreck the setting.

You don't need to power up to Imperium to increase the threat. that achieves nothing. Imperium is still controlling majority of the galaxy, no other faction comes even close. Imperium can easily take some serious beating without a danger of becoming extinct.

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want more Primarchs because frankly not everyone wants to run Guilliman, and there is greater chances for infighting within the Imperium with more of them.

Or how about having some characters who are not Primarchs (or even Space Marines) who have some agency? Shocking thought, I know.

We have dozens of them. Just because we have Primarchs doesn't invalidate them.

If anything it's the Ynarri character who is running around killing dramatic tension at the moment.

 Crimson wrote:

Plus by allowing the Imperium to "power up" the rest of the setting can be allowed to increase their level of threat back again instead of being locked in this position where nothing is allowed to improve (despite three armies being based on improving themselves constantly (Nids who grow via food, Orks who grow via fighting, and Tau who grow via more experiences and developing counter measures) past a certain point lest they tip the power level too much and wreck the setting.

You don't need to power up to Imperium to increase the threat. that achieves nothing. Imperium is still controlling majority of the galaxy, no other faction comes even close. Imperium can easily take some serious beating without a danger of becoming extinct.

Increasing the threat breaks the Imperium completely and then the setting is over. Go look at WFB which saw that exact thing balance out. The arms race between factions is stalled because the Imperium lacked a way forward to match that increased threat. Now we have Primarchs and Primaris to help correct it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Except the Imperium is founded on following the guy in the shiniest armor (why else would the Emperor wear gold?).....

Yes, that is why they followed him, he had the shiniest armour... *eyeroll*

Also, a big part of appeal of 40K is that the time of such shiny heroes is long past, the Emperor is a rotting corpse; it is the time of decline. Bringing them back ruins all that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want more Primarchs because frankly not everyone wants to run Guilliman, and there is greater chances for infighting within the Imperium with more of them.

Or how about having some characters who are not Primarchs (or even Space Marines) who have some agency? Shocking thought, I know.

We have dozens of them. Just because we have Primarchs doesn't invalidate them.

Yet you just said we need more Primarch to compete with Guilliman. Let some Inquisitor or a High Lord to do that!

Increasing the threat breaks the Imperium completely and then the setting is over. Go look at WFB which saw that exact thing balance out. The arms race between factions is stalled because the Imperium lacked a way forward to match that increased threat. Now we have Primarchs and Primaris to help correct it.

Absolute bollocks! Did you read nothing I wrote? Chaos can take over third of the Imperium and yet Imperium would control more space. And of course lorewise Chaos has not gotten upgrades, their Primarch have always been there, yet they somehow have never overrun the Imperium in all there years when there was no Primarchs or Primaris defending the Imperium.

Having just sold all my old Space Marines and sticking only with Primaris-related stuff for the future, I really would like to get some good dedicated anti-tank option.

Lascannons are just superior to Plasma Incinerators no matter how you slice it. The ability to get more damage with less risk to the firer is key, and plasma is the only anti-tank outside of a 300+ point tank that Primaris have.

Melee options would be nice, too. Give me something that can deepstrike like Terminators and actually hurt something. Aggressors with a dedicated Melee loadout and a deepstrike ability would be nice, even if they couldn't fire a single shot.

And finally, some cheaper options. Just anything to fill in the gaps in points you get after you pay 150+ for every kind of unit and have that random 50 points left over.

PS: Invulns would be nice. Everything else in the galaxy has invul saves these days but the newest and greatest Primaris marines don't? What's up with that?

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Except the Imperium is founded on following the guy in the shiniest armor (why else would the Emperor wear gold?).....

Yes, that is why they followed him, he had the shiniest armour... *eyeroll*

Also, a big part of appeal of 40K is that the time of such shiny heroes is long past, the Emperor is a rotting corpse; it is the time of decline. Bringing them back ruins all that.

Clearly sarcasm failed to convey over the internet once again.

40k has always had it's BIG DAMN HEROES (or else we wouldn't have named characters in the game), the thing is all of them (not you Cato) have lore that paint them as fallible (not you Cato) and struggling to make a difference (not you Cato).

This extends to the Primarchs, both before and after the Heresy, and even more so in the modern setting. During the Great Crusade they had the vision of the Emperor to bind them into a single entity, to drive them forward and give them them the limitless resources and momentum to conquer the galaxy.

Take the modern, broken Imperium and what do you have? No leadership. No cohesive vision. Petty squabbling and infighting. Ego tripping.

Heck, even during the Heresy we saw hints of what happens when you take away the Emperor's vision and let them do whatever. Imperium Secondus anyone?

To claim that to inject large names into the setting somehow makes it worse is to ignore everything that proves that it only adds new layers of squabbling and ego tripping while giving us a way to see the way different people react to being the "man out of time" in the new setting.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Right. So you like a simplistic shining giant hero saves the day and everybody loves narrative. Got it.

Except thats not what happens?

The universe was going to hell, RG is resurected and discovers that not only has everything he fought and died for has failed but it was built on lies.

He is now struggling to keep whats left together - much of which he is horrified by - thats a very different narrataive to the false one that you are seeing and stating and compeltey in tune with the grim dark of 40k.

Yes, that is an attempt to paint him as a tragic figure. Doesn't really work for me. He is still a big damn hero, everybody loves him and he wins most of the time. Sure, there are terrible obstacles, but overcoming (some of) them makes the hero to seem even greater. And even if one found Guilliman himself a compelling character, it doesn't mean that the resulting overall narrative is compelling. I think dysfunctional divided Imperium, High Lords scheming and having their own conflicting agendas, is far more interesting than everybody uniting under one shiny leader.

As opposed to say the Space Wolves? and their untarnsihed aura of awesomeness

The High Lords are still scheming, the Imperium is not literally divided physcially and the agendas of those pledging allegiance to RG are various.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


40k has always had it's BIG DAMN HEROES (or else we wouldn't have named characters in the game), the thing is all of them (not you Cato) have lore that paint them as fallible (not you Cato) and struggling to make a difference (not you Cato).

This extends to the Primarchs, both before and after the Heresy, and even more so in the modern setting. During the Great Crusade they had the vision of the Emperor to bind them into a single entity, to drive them forward and give them them the limitless resources and momentum to conquer the galaxy.

Take the modern, broken Imperium and what do you have? No leadership. No cohesive vision. Petty squabbling and infighting. Ego tripping.

Heck, even during the Heresy we saw hints of what happens when you take away the Emperor's vision and let them do whatever. Imperium Secondus anyone?

To claim that to inject large names into the setting somehow makes it worse is to ignore everything that proves that it only adds new layers of squabbling and ego tripping while giving us a way to see the way different people react to being the "man out of time" in the new setting.

First of, it has not been about heroes, it has been about terrible people, some of them quite powerful.

You seem to understand that internal conflict is a feature, but then how you can fail to see that having a Primarch to be (or a least representing him as) such a ludicrously influential figure that no-one dares to challenge him kills a lot of that?

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


40k has always had it's BIG DAMN HEROES (or else we wouldn't have named characters in the game), the thing is all of them (not you Cato) have lore that paint them as fallible (not you Cato) and struggling to make a difference (not you Cato).

This extends to the Primarchs, both before and after the Heresy, and even more so in the modern setting. During the Great Crusade they had the vision of the Emperor to bind them into a single entity, to drive them forward and give them them the limitless resources and momentum to conquer the galaxy.

Take the modern, broken Imperium and what do you have? No leadership. No cohesive vision. Petty squabbling and infighting. Ego tripping.

Heck, even during the Heresy we saw hints of what happens when you take away the Emperor's vision and let them do whatever. Imperium Secondus anyone?

To claim that to inject large names into the setting somehow makes it worse is to ignore everything that proves that it only adds new layers of squabbling and ego tripping while giving us a way to see the way different people react to being the "man out of time" in the new setting.

First of, it has not been about heroes, it has been about terrible people, some of them quite powerful.

You seem to understand that internal conflict is a feature, but then how you can fail to see that having a Primarch to be (or a least representing him as) such a ludicrously influential figure that no-one dares to challenge him kills a lot of that?

3rd edition was nicknamed "Herohammer" and Space Wolves are all about their heroes. Claiming it's not about heroes is like spitting on my and telling it's raining. The thing is that everyone takes sides on whose heroes are actually wrong (see every: Magnus did nothing wrong claim).

Primarchs are just as hypocritical, petty and reprehensible as everyone else in the setting but you want to claim they're somehow the knight in shining armour which is just laughable.

Banville wrote:
Holy moly, Clockwork, people sniping at Guilliman has really got your goat, hasn't it? Just for the record, I have nothing against Bobby G or the Ultima Founding, I just think the story needs complication and a reason for the Primaris to exist alongside regular marines. I'd also like an angle so that you get some Badab War style internecine strife.

Also, as far as I'm aware, the Imperium doesn't rule by bloodline. It never had the chance. The Imperium is ruled pretty much by bureaucracy and assassination. Kind of like an exaggerated 15th Century Florence or Roman Senate.

It's because the hyperbole courtesy of 1d4chan is silly and has no place in this discussion. They do more harm than good.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's because the hyperbole courtesy of 1d4chan is silly and has no place in this discussion. They do more harm than good.

There has been no such, I don't frequent that site. My impression of the things is based solely on GW studio material.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's because the hyperbole courtesy of 1d4chan is silly and has no place in this discussion. They do more harm than good.

There has been no such, I don't frequent that site. My impression of the things is based solely on GW studio material.

You clearly don't read much into just that either if your hatred is that strong.

Well I'm glad you shut me up and got this thread right back on subject, Clockwork.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But hey, you're right about one thing; I do love artisanal garlic butter, and will testify about its healing ways. And of course, death hex is doubly irrelevant to a primaris discussion as a) their version can't hold a candle to it and b) they're immune to it, having no invulns to negate