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.

Setting advancement is not necessarily a good thing; lots of times the setting progresses, but people don't like the direction things take, or simply know where the old way is.

To use another game example, let's pick on Battletech, went through several iterations of history (through 3150 or so), but the part everyone knows and loves is around 3050 (Clan invasions, etc.)

Or how about Hollywood, which is rebooting pretty much everything to return to square 1 in trying to keep the most well-known, iconic elements.

If the story advanced, we'd probably end up with a setting reboot eventually.

Besides, the galaxy is pretty huge, it's very easy to introduce new fluff/story elements (here's a hive fleet/ork warlord/IG coommissar we hadn't mentioned before!)

Many decades have gone into making the setting that is current as of today. yes, progression would be nice, but GW has found itself a nice happy place where they can just rehash previous battles just mentioned in the previous releases. Keep in mind that GW has gone from being more of a hobbyists/ gamers company to being a money makers... which is fine as far as investors go. White Dwarf is a perfect example of the new direction GW has taken.
I remember when white dwarf would have tutorial on how to make terrain out of non GW stuff, rewarding creatvity (like a landspeeder made out of a roll on deoderant stick case)

40k isn't a story, it's a setting.

That said, no, I'm not concerned they haven't advanced the setting. There's a massive wealth of history to dig into, as well as exploring things happening in the current timeline, without needing to advance it.

In fact, advancing it is only going to upset people because there can be no real change. The Tyranids can't advance into the galaxy and eat it, the Imperium can't wipe the Tau off the galactic map, and the Eldar can never die, all because these sort of sweeping changes that the customer base what to happen with an advancing setting would invalidate miniature ranges. So without doing that, you wind up with the setting advancing, nothing actually happening, and thus no reason to advance it.

 -Loki- wrote:
40k isn't a story, it's a setting.

That said, no, I'm not concerned they haven't advanced the setting. There's a massive wealth of history to dig into, as well as exploring things happening in the current timeline, without needing to advance it.

In fact, advancing it is only going to upset people because there can be no real change. The Tyranids can't advance into the galaxy and eat it, the Imperium can't wipe the Tau off the galactic map, and the Eldar can never die, all because these sort of sweeping changes that the customer base what to happen with an advancing setting would invalidate miniature ranges. So without doing that, you wind up with the setting advancing, nothing actually happening, and thus no reason to advance it.

But that's the great thing about Black Library. They can do all this without invalidating anything. Hell, they could even present it as a bunch of different possible futures and release several books with different outcomes for the galaxy, like one where Chaos wins at Cadia, comes in and destroys the Imperium, one where the Imperium pushes them back, etc. Personally I'd rather just see one series where they pick a direction and stick with it, but if they really didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings that could be an option.

MandalorynOranj wrote:That's kind of a silly reason not to do it. Nobody's games "count" for anything beyond having fun or an outcome in a campaign or tournament. Just because a novel says something happens doesn't mean it invalidates the games anyone plays. Just because Ragnar lives through the Space Wolf series doesn't mean that anybody's game where he dies on the table is any less of a game than one where he lives. If they can put together a good story, they should do it. That's why Black Library was formed, so they could write stories without them impacting the game. Otherwise everything would just be in the codexes and rulebooks. [...]

But that's the great thing about Black Library. They can do all this without invalidating anything. Hell, they could even present it as a bunch of different possible futures and release several books with different outcomes for the galaxy, like one where Chaos wins at Cadia, comes in and destroys the Imperium, one where the Imperium pushes them back, etc. Personally I'd rather just see one series where they pick a direction and stick with it, but if they really didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings that could be an option.

I get what you're saying, and GW does want the Black Library to be perceived that way already, but this isn't how the majority of gamers think about it. Lexicanum for example would go crazy if they're confronted with that sort of material as it'd force them to acknowledge the way they've been handling things for years (regardless of what the authors of those books have publicly stated) has been wrong, or the staff would break out into arguments about which sources are "true" and which are "just possibilities".

It's a psychological thing, and GW's current approach is the safest one. You won't lose gamers just because the setting's timeline doesn't move forward, but you do risk losing them when it moves forward in a way that doesn't suit their expectations. A lot of fans really like their armies and the (imho) oftentimes exaggerated descriptions of their awesomeness.

ComTrav wrote:To use another game example, let's pick on Battletech, went through several iterations of history (through 3150 or so), but the part everyone knows and loves is around 3050 (Clan invasions, etc.)

Funny enough, I know more players that hate the Clan invasion than ones who like it.
It just depends on when someone has joined the Battletech franchise - but I could easily see the 40k fanbase splitting up into such sub-groups as well. In a way, it's already happening with all those people focused on the Horus Heresy, except that one doesn't really invalidate anything.

I just hated the ugly clan mechs, and the loss of all the lovely 3025 designs "borrowed from robotech and other anime", the Mad-3R Marauder was my absolute fav, followed closely by the warhammer..ahh the magic 70-75 ton range.

But anyway, advancement of the setting in a meaningful way leads to sour grapes for somebody, and advancement in pointless or "alternate timeline" ways is equally useless, just make your own histories with friends and write up some fluff, blog it post it here, or what not..I personally don't want some hamfisted BL moron writing some half baked and juvenile outcomes for my favorite races or armies..just leave the future to the players.

To reiterate, I actually like Battletech having such a dynamic setting (though I am currently experiencing the downsides of it by witnessing the fate of Katana Tormark, a character I've grown to like a lot). It's refreshing and adds a sense of drama to the narration, not to mention that you never know what will happen next.

I just think the success or failure of such an approach depends heavily on how the IP is already handled, and I don't see it working for 40k at all. Warhammer is too focused on being EPIC and constantly looking for ways to increase the level of "cool" in its fluff. Things like Draigo happen specifically because someone wanted to add to the fluff rather than deepen what is already there (small but important difference).

When you have gamers being turned away from Battletech because of the Clan invasion or the Jihad, I can only imagine the backlash that would follow if GW were to pull something like that.

40k's lack of consistency across the material only deepens the issue. With Battletech, you at least have the various books tying into each other perfectly, regardless of whether they're a rulebook or a novel. In contrast, 40k is a mess of individual interpretations, and "making the setting your own" is lauded as an important feature of the franchise. Writing how the timeline continues goes against this idea. It is up to the playerbase to decide whether they truly want this (with all the strings attached), and up to GW to listen. And then it'd likely require a reboot just to bring things into order.

The timeline was moving forward steadily right up til the 13th Black Crusade, at a rate of about 1 game year per real life year. This didn't destroy the setting and there is no reason why a similar slow crawl forward would suddenly destroy the setting. People keep acting as if moving the timeline forward were some dangerous never before tried thing, when in reality, it was the standard case until the last few editions. People also make the error of equating timeline advancement with stupendous overturning change such as the Emperor dying or Primarchs returning, when nothing of the sort needs to happen. The slow steady incremental advancement of the timeline in past editions did not involve this, and there is no reason rolling over into M42 could not do this incremental movement.

Not only did the setting not explode when the timeline moved forward in the past, but the advancement allowed for the advancement of individual character stories, even though the larger universe stayed largely status quo. For example, only when there was movement was Tycho able to evolve as a character, from a generic BA captain, to being disfigured as a result of being felled by a Weirdboy in a battle report, to then the masked Tycho, and finally to his death. Similarly, Yarrick developed through his defeat on Golgotha (an Epic Squat/Imperial vs. Ork battle report), heightening the rivalry between him and Ghazghkull. A lot of the background which gets taken for granted today did not spring up unchanging and set in stone, but developed in gradual steps as a result of timeline movement. Some people might question what is the point of incremental advancement if the larger picture is not radically changed, and the answer is it allows for individual stories to change and progress.

There have already been mentions in a couple of BL books, such as Cadian Blood, which take place in M42, and the Imperium hasn't fallen apart. In truth, even if GW had not wanted to radically upset the setting, it could have easily incorporated the results of the Eye of Terror campaign while still effectively maintaining the status quo. There were hints of this with mentions in the subsequent Space Marine and Tau Codex of the Tau border being stripped of Imperial forces to reinforce the Cadian Gate, resulting in the burst of Tau expansion. This reflected exactly what happened in the campaign itself which saw Imperial players ignoring the Tau front. If GW had wanted to they could have had Abaddon break out of the Gate successfully, then be bogged down before reaching Terra due to Imperial reinforcements from elsewhere, yet this still weakening the Imperium as a whole due to other factions taking advantage of the weaknesses exposed elsewhere. Even if Cadia had been written as fallen, it wouldn't have meant the end of the Cadian line. Creed and the Cadians could have been written as gearing up for a campaign to retake their homeworld. In fact, there are again mentions of this in the 13th Black Crusade BL publication, in which Creed calls upon Cadian regiments to return to contested Cadia and fight to free it from Abaddon. The quest to reclaim their home is also alluded to in the BL novel Cadian Blood which actually takes place in approximately 003.M42 (from the textual clues within the book itself). Just as Yarrick's character gained some depth and character development from what was in reality a solid pasting in a GW battle report, Creed and the Cadians could gain more depth through surviving defeat and adversity.

Also not every faction has ten thousand years of history to play around with, which is why simply limiting things to the Imperium's past is not good as it leaves these players out permanently. The Tau were not a technological race until recently. When they were first encountered by the Imperium 6000 years ago they were stone age hunters, which is hardly suitable for a 40K game. The Tyranids did not really arrive on the scene til Behemoth. The Necrons did not really become more active until recently. Sure one can try to handwave it as an isolated tomb world or a splinter fleet that conveniently disappears again, but then you also relegate these to effectively never making any impact whatsoever on the background if they are forced to somehow be forgotten about or be made to go inactive again (so that the Imperium can be surprised when the Necrons or Tyranids really show up in late M41). Players usually like to play their armies as what their armies actually are, not handwaved "stand-in" armies or have deus ex machina negate any impact they might make on background.

The current static background creates problems with expansion of the armies. For example, the Tau have only been active and technological for a short period of time. Some of their weapons in their Codex are recent additions, such as the rail rifle. This creates problems for GW if more additions are added in future editions, as ever more stuff gets crammed into a narrow unchanging window of time. One thing GW has done is try to retcon stuff further back, such as the Tau's Custodian class carrier ship, but that only goes so far because it still runs into the barrier of when the Tau actually became a technological spacefaring race, and also creates problems with continuity. This is because the Tau are explicitly described as having inferior space forces in the Damocles Crusade, and the Custodian was part of a Tau naval expansion and modernization as a result of shortcomings uncovered during that Crusade. Retcon things too far back and you overturn the reason for the Custodian's existence. Don't retcon enough and you run into the barrier of the Damocles Crusade as the earliest time when one can even think about a Custodian class carrier existing, even if just on the drawing board. It also strains ever more suspension of disbelief if the Tau are shown as taking over more worlds or sectors given the small size of their empire and their limited resources.

Constrained by the existing timeline, the background of the Tau and certain other races is inherently limited to the last few centuries, something that might not be apparent for Imperial only players. Retcon has its limits and ultimately strains suspension of disbelief or creates more conflict with existing background. The only solution lies in one early M3 leader's catchphrase, "Forward". Having things in eternal stasis for edition after edition will cost GW players over the long run as with any product line in whatever industry that doesn't adapt and change.

In some limited instances, yes, there could be some descriptions of advancement. Especially the Tau, because they are to be honest a speck in the grand scheme of things. If they tripled the size of their empire the Imperium might not even notice for a hundred years. Or a new plot twist involving a specific character that doesn't actually affect the overall setting. GW actually does do those things occasionally; small advances or retcons in individual storylines to make codexes interesting.

Other than that though, the game is intentionally balanced on the edge of disaster for the Imperium such that almost any battle a player can think of could be occurring at or near the "current" year. This is honestly an important part of the game as it gives players unlimited freedom to play out the future as they see it. Any overall advancement in the game setting would just result in the exact same balance by necessity. What, you thought "eternal war" was just a tagline?

I disagree with the notion that moving forward while keeping the factions relatively the same would be pointless.

People act like the 13th Black Crusade has to end with some major players dying or being destroyed, but that's not exactly true. You want the conflict to seem really intense, but not kill off the Dark Angels or any of the other big names in the 13th BC of 3rd WoA?

Make up a bunch of chapter names, and say they perished in totality. Here, I'll make up a bunch:
Exalted Fists
Silver Swords
Flying Sharks
Vorpal Wolverines
Sanctified Slayers

5,000 marines, poof, dead. 5 chapters gone. Sufficiently large conflict, no? Add in that the rest of the chapters lost a few hundred each and you've got a body count in the high thousands for the Imperium's finest.

Same thing with IG regiments, you've got a few million of those lying around, go ahead and off a thousand or so regiments if you need to between 13th BC and 3rd War of Armageddon.

Keep the big names alive, like a few Cadian regiments, SW, DA, etc., but the conflict could be made sufficiently epic and impressive moving forward.

Sure, GW would likely write the end result so that things were still in stalemate, but that's fine. You could advance the story, tie up some loose ends elsewhere (BA conflict maybe gets resolved), add some more fluff, character development, and faction development for groups like Tau and Necrons.

 Smolo82 wrote:
Hello,
The subject. Discuss.

I find it sad that with the Newest Edition that just came out for 40k that there wasn't much progression story wise. I would have like to see something regarding the false emperor eating people, how the imperium has been handling all the bad, or even a big bad. While it kinda seems as though the Nids might kinda be that the main story stayed the same.

not at all. The story is set up in such a way that it cannot really progress and it need not progress. No one wants their favorite characters to die, they favorite chapters to turn traitor or be destroyed.

DogofWar1 wrote:
Make up a bunch of chapter names, and say they perished in totality. Here, I'll make up a bunch:
Exalted Fists
Silver Swords
Flying Sharks
Vorpal Wolverines
Sanctified Slayers

Now I want the Flying Sharks and Vorpal Wolverines to be real things...

DogofWar1 wrote:
I disagree with the notion that moving forward while keeping the factions relatively the same would be pointless.

People act like the 13th Black Crusade has to end with some major players dying or being destroyed, but that's not exactly true. You want the conflict to seem really intense, but not kill off the Dark Angels or any of the other big names in the 13th BC of 3rd WoA?

Make up a bunch of chapter names, and say they perished in totality. Here, I'll make up a bunch:
Exalted Fists
Silver Swords
Flying Sharks
Vorpal Wolverines
Sanctified Slayers

5,000 marines, poof, dead. 5 chapters gone. Sufficiently large conflict, no? Add in that the rest of the chapters lost a few hundred each and you've got a body count in the high thousands for the Imperium's finest.

How is this story advancement? You've just made up something completely new and said it died. You've just added to the setting.

What WOULD be story advancement is if you wrote in the fluff one edition that there was a chapter called the Vorpal Wolverines, and then you wrote in the next edition that they'd died out.

 The Shadow wrote:

How is this story advancement? You've just made up something completely new and said it died. You've just added to the setting.

What WOULD be story advancement is if you wrote in the fluff one edition that there was a chapter called the Vorpal Wolverines, and then you wrote in the next edition that they'd died out.

It'd be story advancement in that you'd resolve the 13th BC or 3rd WoA, or at least move them forward beyond their current stalemate.

The point I was making was in response to a lot of people saying that factions or groups within the game would be destroyed, lose, etc., and that it would anger players. After all, if you said every Cadian regiment was destroyed, I imagine a not insignificant group of IG players would be annoyed, or if the DA were destroyed, I imagine many DA players would riot. And then the point was made that if casualties didn't happen, it would result in a not sufficiently epic battle and result.

The solution I offered was that you move the story forward in terms of the 13th BC or 3rd WoA, and then destroy a bunch of groups that aren't vital to the fluff. That way, everyone is happy in that their models aren't invalidated, the result of the conflict was sufficiently epic, and the story moves forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

Now I want the Flying Sharks and Vorpal Wolverines to be real things...

Well too bad, they're dead now. Abbadon and Ghahzgkull got them respectively.

But you run into the same thing I've been banging on about, DogofWar, that's not significant change. It's name dropping and utterly weightless in terms of supporting the plot.

It is incredibly LOUSY writing. It is just as bad as some homebrew fluff where somebody's personal new Tyranid invasion kills 15 unnamed chapters of Space Marines. It means nothing, it carries nothing and it ultimately DOES nothing.

He's not saying that killing those Chapters would be all that would happen. I think what he's getting at is, say, at Cadia, Chaos breaks through and now has a bigger foothold in the galaxy. Many Imperial planets are now threatened, etc, etc. Lots of Chapters and regiments are dead, it just so happens that they aren't the main playable ones. Chaos is still more powerful than they were, but the Dark Angels/Cadians/Ulthwe are still alive, maybe took heavy casualties, but are still alive.

However, I think I'd kind of like to see a couple major characters killed off. It would change things up and give them a chance to write in new characters instead of rehashing the same ones with every codex.

See my earlier post on the balance of power.

Filling it with the literary equivalent of packing peanuts does not change that.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

How is this story advancement? You've just made up something completely new and said it died. You've just added to the setting.

What WOULD be story advancement is if you wrote in the fluff one edition that there was a chapter called the Vorpal Wolverines, and then you wrote in the next edition that they'd died out.

It'd be story advancement in that you'd resolve the 13th BC or 3rd WoA, or at least move them forward beyond their current stalemate.

The point I was making was in response to a lot of people saying that factions or groups within the game would be destroyed, lose, etc., and that it would anger players. After all, if you said every Cadian regiment was destroyed, I imagine a not insignificant group of IG players would be annoyed, or if the DA were destroyed, I imagine many DA players would riot. And then the point was made that if casualties didn't happen, it would result in a not sufficiently epic battle and result.

The solution I offered was that you move the story forward in terms of the 13th BC or 3rd WoA, and then destroy a bunch of groups that aren't vital to the fluff. That way, everyone is happy in that their models aren't invalidated, the result of the conflict was sufficiently epic, and the story moves forward.

Except that GW already walled itself in with the 13th in the last Chaos dex. It states that this is the point the previous ones were building to and that it will be the decisive push. Saying just some random Chapter got destroyed isnt very good story advancement. Youre just leaving Chaos players more Failbaddon jokes and removing them as one of the major threats. They already retconned the victory the Eye of Terror campaign achieved, doing what you propose is just kicking Chaos players while their down. Another meaningless and hollow 'victory' for Chaos, without consequences for the Imperium. Saying one faction lost on a battlefield like Armageddon or Cadia is a big step. Victory for Chaos cant be achieved without sacking the Cadian gate, but that would dissapoint IG players. Result: no story advancement beyond the point which they have build up as one of the most pivotal moments for Chaos and the Imperium. Same could be said for places like Octarius and Armageddon.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
He's not saying that killing those Chapters would be all that would happen. I think what he's getting at is, say, at Cadia, Chaos breaks through and now has a bigger foothold in the galaxy. Many Imperial planets are now threatened, etc, etc. Lots of Chapters and regiments are dead, it just so happens that they aren't the main playable ones. Chaos is still more powerful than they were, but the Dark Angels/Cadians/Ulthwe are still alive, maybe took heavy casualties, but are still alive.

However, I think I'd kind of like to see a couple major characters killed off. It would change things up and give them a chance to write in new characters instead of rehashing the same ones with every codex.

I'm kind of torn on this. I want to see an advancement of story but some people are right, if you take something out that could upset some people and could move people away from the game. But what was suggested a few post up is what FW does all the time. They make up new chapters just so Necrons have a moon to crash into a planet to kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

How is this story advancement? You've just made up something completely new and said it died. You've just added to the setting.

What WOULD be story advancement is if you wrote in the fluff one edition that there was a chapter called the Vorpal Wolverines, and then you wrote in the next edition that they'd died out.

It'd be story advancement in that you'd resolve the 13th BC or 3rd WoA, or at least move them forward beyond their current stalemate.

The point I was making was in response to a lot of people saying that factions or groups within the game would be destroyed, lose, etc., and that it would anger players. After all, if you said every Cadian regiment was destroyed, I imagine a not insignificant group of IG players would be annoyed, or if the DA were destroyed, I imagine many DA players would riot. And then the point was made that if casualties didn't happen, it would result in a not sufficiently epic battle and result.

The solution I offered was that you move the story forward in terms of the 13th BC or 3rd WoA, and then destroy a bunch of groups that aren't vital to the fluff. That way, everyone is happy in that their models aren't invalidated, the result of the conflict was sufficiently epic, and the story moves forward.

Except that GW already walled itself in with the 13th in the last Chaos dex. It states that this is the point the previous ones were building to and that it will be the decisive push. Saying just some random Chapter got destroyed isnt very good story advancement. Youre just leaving Chaos players more Failbaddon jokes and removing them as one of the major threats. They already retconned the victory the Eye of Terror campaign achieved, doing what you propose is just kicking Chaos players while their down. Another meaningless and hollow 'victory' for Chaos, without consequences for the Imperium. Saying one faction lost on a battlefield like Armageddon or Cadia is a big step. Victory for Chaos cant be achieved without sacking the Cadian gate, but that would dissapoint IG players. Result: no story advancement beyond the point which they have build up as one of the most pivotal moments for Chaos and the Imperium. Same could be said for places like Octarius and Armageddon.

Well you can say Chaos has taken the gate and now the guard have a reason to take their planet back. But i'm bias against cadia.

 Deacis657 wrote:
Well you can say Chaos has taken the gate and now the guard have a reason to take their planet back. But i'm bias against cadia.

This would be my biggest fear actually. The tiny advancement this would bring. Cadia is still the flagship IG planet for GW. Meaning it cant be under Chaos control long, so a counter attack in a few years. Off course we cant have the Cadians lose right? Unless GW wants to scrap the Cadian line, not likely but most IG fans would be most dissapointed and maybe switch armies if they used Cadians. But on the other hand, we cant have Chaos possibly lose right? They just got there, if they dont win after already having taken Cadia its never going to happen for them. So we end up with the stalemate, or pissing off a player base from 2 of the more popular armies.

Off course GW could do another campaign and retcon it afterwards, at least it would be a bit of fun again.

Edit: GW's story fluff is like a dog chasing its own tail, pointless, but it doesnt offend anyone watching it do it.

DogofWar1 wrote:
I disagree with the notion that moving forward while keeping the factions relatively the same would be pointless.

People act like the 13th Black Crusade has to end with some major players dying or being destroyed, but that's not exactly true. You want the conflict to seem really intense, but not kill off the Dark Angels or any of the other big names in the 13th BC of 3rd WoA?

Make up a bunch of chapter names, and say they perished in totality. Here, I'll make up a bunch:
Exalted Fists
Silver Swords
Flying Sharks
Vorpal Wolverines
Sanctified Slayers

5,000 marines, poof, dead. 5 chapters gone. Sufficiently large conflict, no? Add in that the rest of the chapters lost a few hundred each and you've got a body count in the high thousands for the Imperium's finest.

Same thing with IG regiments, you've got a few million of those lying around, go ahead and off a thousand or so regiments if you need to between 13th BC and 3rd War of Armageddon.

Keep the big names alive, like a few Cadian regiments, SW, DA, etc., but the conflict could be made sufficiently epic and impressive moving forward.

Sure, GW would likely write the end result so that things were still in stalemate, but that's fine. You could advance the story, tie up some loose ends elsewhere (BA conflict maybe gets resolved), add some more fluff, character development, and faction development for groups like Tau and Necrons.

That's how it's been for 25 years. Planets are lost, planets are gained. People die, new heroes rise. This hasn't actually moved the story forward at all, it's just shuffling names around.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Deacis657 wrote:
Well you can say Chaos has taken the gate and now the guard have a reason to take their planet back. But i'm bias against cadia.

This would be my biggest fear actually. The tiny advancement this would bring. Cadia is still the flagship IG planet for GW. Meaning it cant be under Chaos control long, so a counter attack in a few years. Off course we cant have the Cadians lose right? Unless GW wants to scrap the Cadian line, not likely but most IG fans would be most dissapointed and maybe switch armies if they used Cadians. But on the other hand, we cant have Chaos possibly lose right? They just got there, if they dont win after already having taken Cadia its never going to happen for them. So we end up with the stalemate, or pissing off a player base from 2 of the more popular armies.

Off course GW could do another campaign and retcon it afterwards, at least it would be a bit of fun again.

Edit: GW's fluff is like a dog chasing its own tail, pointless, but it doesnt offend anyone watching it do it.

But that's what keeps happening with Armageddon, those poor poor Steel legion..... The green skins keep coming back. Just show that IG push back. If Cadia is lost theres nothing to say that There arnt surviving legions of of cadians and that they dont take a new planet to start NEW CADIA.... In hopes of one day taking back their home planet. Win win in my eyes.

 Deacis657 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Deacis657 wrote:
Well you can say Chaos has taken the gate and now the guard have a reason to take their planet back. But i'm bias against cadia.

This would be my biggest fear actually. The tiny advancement this would bring. Cadia is still the flagship IG planet for GW. Meaning it cant be under Chaos control long, so a counter attack in a few years. Off course we cant have the Cadians lose right? Unless GW wants to scrap the Cadian line, not likely but most IG fans would be most dissapointed and maybe switch armies if they used Cadians. But on the other hand, we cant have Chaos possibly lose right? They just got there, if they dont win after already having taken Cadia its never going to happen for them. So we end up with the stalemate, or pissing off a player base from 2 of the more popular armies.

Off course GW could do another campaign and retcon it afterwards, at least it would be a bit of fun again.

Edit: GW's fluff is like a dog chasing its own tail, pointless, but it doesnt offend anyone watching it do it.

But that's what keeps happening with Armageddon, those poor poor Steel legion..... The green skins keep coming back. Just show that IG push back. If Cadia is lost theres nothing to say that There arnt surviving legions of of cadians and that they dont take a new planet to start NEW CADIA.... In hopes of one day taking back their home planet. Win win in my eyes.

Im sorry, I should have been a little bit more clear. If Chaos breaks trough the Cadian gate it will be a massacre. At least according to the latest Chaos dex. Having them stopped after Cadia is just a loss for Chaos. Chaos has to hit hard and fast, if the Imperium gets the chance to start pushing back its already over, they have numbers on their side. For Chaos players this would just be chalked up as another failed Black Crusade, one of the biggest ones yet, also failling to clear the Cadian gate again. IG players might come to terms with losing Cadia and getting Cadia 2.0, but many will also still be dissapointed. Its a lose-lose situation for both sides. If this would happen you could just scale Chaos down to a minor power, the 13th was the greatest yet, if they cant now will they ever be able? Now Chaos is just a minor power like the Tau, needing to wait for a huge Ork Waaagh or Nid invasion to draw away enough forces to make it further.

003.M42: Tyranid scouts make it to Catachan, and are promptly eaten. The Hive Fleet veers away in terror.

 curran12 wrote:
See my earlier post on the balance of power.

Filling it with the literary equivalent of packing peanuts does not change that.

It might be packing peanuts, since you'd basically just be shuffling worlds around, but it could make for some quite interesting battles.

No reason not to explore Cadians being forced to abandon Cadia, and then fighting to get it back, or the conflict on Baal, or the battle for Armageddon.

Sure, ultimately, the story in the grand scheme of the galaxy doesn't move, the planet would change hands then likely switch back a few game years later, but we can get some awesome and heroic stories out of it. Who doesn't want to read about Dante fighting Tyranids on Baal, or Azrael fighting Chaos Lords on Cadia, or about the giant naval battles that will undoubtedly happen, or Sammael fighting Night Lords jump infantry while on his jetbike?

They might be packing peanuts in the grand scheme of things, but they're darn awesome packing peanuts.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Now Chaos is just a minor power like the Tau, needing to wait for a huge Ork Waaagh or Nid invasion to draw away enough forces to make it further.

Now see, this gives me an idea. Let the Imperium win. Have Chaos get pushed back into the Eye. No major characters or Legions have to be killed, but have the Crusade fail. Have Chaos fade a little bit and have other threats like the Necrons and Tyranids step up more as the big bads. Have the Tau expand a little. Give Chaos an edition out of the sun. The armies will still play the same because not every battle is fought as part of the Crusade. Then, in another edition or so, do exactly what you just said. Have the Imperium be distracted by a big Nid or Cron or Ork attack, and then Abaddon comes back with 14, and this is the one that breaks through. Maybe he comes through the Maelstrom or something this time. Boom, major advances to the story, no armies invalidated. Sure, some people might get butthurt about their favorite faction losing, but in the grand scheme of the game, things don't change, conflicts just get moved around.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Now Chaos is just a minor power like the Tau, needing to wait for a huge Ork Waaagh or Nid invasion to draw away enough forces to make it further.

Now see, this gives me an idea. Let the Imperium win. Have Chaos get pushed back into the Eye. No major characters or Legions have to be killed, but have the Crusade fail. Have Chaos fade a little bit and have other threats like the Necrons and Tyranids step up more as the big bads. Have the Tau expand a little. Give Chaos an edition out of the sun. The armies will still play the same because not every battle is fought as part of the Crusade. Then, in another edition or so, do exactly what you just said. Have the Imperium be distracted by a big Nid or Cron or Ork attack, and then Abaddon comes back with 14, and this is the one that breaks through. Maybe he comes through the Maelstrom or something this time. Boom, major advances to the story, no armies invalidated. Sure, some people might get butthurt about their favorite faction losing, but in the grand scheme of the game, things don't change, conflicts just get moved around.

But this is a major advance. Implementing this would mean the Imperium loses a significant chunk of its manpower and territory. Great, they pushed back Chaos, while stripping other sectors of their defences to do it. These worlds will fall very quickly (to nid/cron/ork) before the forces at Cadia are redeployed and suffer severe casualties again after those inflicted on and around Cadia. Now we have a significant chunk of Imperial manpower which is being killed off in wars of attrition, in which it isnt the only army with that advantage. Now we have another Armageddon scale war (or even larger), pulling in forces.

Now Abbadon comes out of the woodworks again. Assuming he isnt a complete donkey-cave (still not so sure ), he will most likely destroy all the chapters that could threaten his 'rear', like the Dark Angels. While the Imperium has to divide its forces again, but not before Abbadon also captures quite an amount of sectors. In the end this fluff kills the Imperium's side. The Imperium may say they have unlimited manpower, but they arent going to win against 2 Armageddon scaled wars and another Black Crusade with reduced forces. Think about it, the forces on Armageddon alone could most likely eleminate the Tau as a serious faction. The Imperium not having done so already means they already cant spare the manpower on such a scale (even though they say its not a problem). The strain from world and manpower loss this fluff would put on the Imperium would basicly make it game over for the 40K setting. The Imperium is done for, segmentum Solar and Obscurus will have lost a disastrous amount of its fleets. Now 40k hangs in the balance, implementing this would push the Imperium over the edge and end the cliffhanger they have created, will or will they not barely hold on?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But this is a major advance. Implementing this would mean the Imperium loses a significant chunk of its manpower and territory. Great, they pushed back Chaos, while stripping other sectors of their defences to do it. These worlds will fall very quickly (to nid/cron/ork) before the forces at Cadia are redeployed and suffer severe casualties again after those inflicted on and around Cadia. Now we have a significant chunk of Imperial manpower which is being killed off in wars of attrition, in which it isnt the only army with that advantage. Now we have another Armageddon scale war (or even larger), pulling in forces.

Now Abbadon comes out of the woodworks again. Assuming he isnt a complete donkey-cave (still not so sure ), he will most likely destroy all the chapters that could threaten his 'rear', like the Dark Angels. While the Imperium has to divide its forces again, but not before Abbadon also captures quite an amount of sectors. In the end this fluff kills the Imperium's side. The Imperium may say they have unlimited manpower, but they arent going to win against 2 Armageddon scaled wars and another Black Crusade with reduced forces. Think about it, the forces on Armageddon alone could most likely eleminate the Tau as a serious faction. The Imperium not having done so already means they already cant spare the manpower on such a scale (even though they say its not a problem). The strain from world and manpower loss this fluff would put on the Imperium would basicly make it game over for the 40K setting. The Imperium is done for, segmentum Solar and Obscurus will have lost a disastrous amount of its fleets. Now 40k hangs in the balance, implementing this would push the Imperium over the edge and end the cliffhanger they have created, will or will they not barely hold on?

Yes, the Imperium will be at a disadvantage here, what I'm saying is that it's ok for a faction to be at a disadvantage. I can think of two fixes off the top of my head to keep the Imperium from being destroyed, though. One: at least one Primarch comes back. Two: make things a little less Imperium-centric. Maybe after the 13th Black Crusade fails, the Imperium actually gets a bit of a breather as, say, a Hive Fleet comes into contact with a massive Waaugh! and creates another Armaggedon, but one that the Imperium isn't involved in. Let the Tau advance for a while until they can start taking part in galactic events, too. Maybe when Abbadon comes back, he comes up against massed Xenos opposition. Not to say that the Imperium isn't involved in any conflicts at this time, just that not everything in the galaxy is attacking them and only them.

As long as they keep exploring new bits of history instead of reliving old bits (see: horus heresy), I don't mind.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Yes, the Imperium will be at a disadvantage here, what I'm saying is that it's ok for a faction to be at a disadvantage. I can think of two fixes off the top of my head to keep the Imperium from being destroyed, though. One: at least one Primarch comes back. Two: make things a little less Imperium-centric. Maybe after the 13th Black Crusade fails, the Imperium actually gets a bit of a breather as, say, a Hive Fleet comes into contact with a massive Waaugh! and creates another Armaggedon, but one that the Imperium isn't involved in. Let the Tau advance for a while until they can start taking part in galactic events, too. Maybe when Abbadon comes back, he comes up against massed Xenos opposition. Not to say that the Imperium isn't involved in any conflicts at this time, just that not everything in the galaxy is attacking them and only them.

But putting the Imperium at such a disadvantage would ruin the 40K setting, which revolves around the Imperium. If youre really taking it this way, its clear that in the endgame the Imperium will lose. Thats story progression at the cost of one of the most popular factions. Just check this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/546676.page, 56% of the votes in this poll are Imperial (counting CSM as part of the Imperium centric game really) and only 40% Xenos. Thats quite a significant player base to potentially upset. Look at the uproar lesser pieces of fluff caused around this forum for less popular factions. You are making the story progress at the cost of the slight majority of the armies played. Also on the hive fleet and waagh part, check out Octarius http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Octarius_War#.UhVZQJKpqfU, which will also end badly for the Imperium no matter who wins. Wh40K is about Mankind, so making it less man-centric would result in a different game. On the point of the Primarch returning, that wouldnt help at all in this new fluff. Abbadon is trying to expand the Eye of Terror, meaning we potentially have a whole bunch of Deamon-Primarch coming out to play, and seeing how it ended for Guilleman/Dorn/Manus fighting for the returned Primarch might not be such a good idea. Xenos wouldnt be that much of a problem, seeing how Abaddon bought off the only real Xenos threat which then turned into the Green Krusade. You have to think of a way to preserve the cliffhanger while advancing the story and that is really difficult with GW having put themselves up against the wall with all the impending doom wailing in the books.