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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 kodos wrote:
There is a difference between static lore that does not advance and ever changing lore

40k is static and everything has always be the same, so retcons are the only way to add anything new

But this also means the lore itself is limited to the codex books as anything else is outdated and obsolete the moment a new codex with new units is released

The opposite would be with Battletech where the timeline advances and a new edition is also a new time period

The setting of 40k is "nicer" for those who start fresh and don't stay long, which is GWs preferred audience, while BT works better for those who joined early and stayed because retcons every 3 year just to see the very same but different again gets boring after a while

Fair.

But if you wanna adopt the position of "40K retcons = bad ... should be the original", you're looking at 1987.

Going with "retcons before 1991 or 2001 or 2021 or whatever are cool, but those after date X are dumb", is neither here nor there and probably just brainrot.

Yeah calling it "bad" is really subjective. Although if GW does a "WFB nuked and turned into AoS" to 40k, then yes that is bad.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Issue is, static o.g. 40K lore is fething wild.

Marines are basically Starcraft-style criminals pressed into service. Calgar an escaped GSC patriarch (sex?) slave. Ultramarines just a random successor farming desert shrimp. Half Eldar marines. Etc..

People usually want to lore to be "static" to some random, arbitrary point in time where "changes before X" are cool and "changes after X" are the devil's work, but X just being different for everyone.

Don't want to say that this would or wouldn't be a good idea, but GW could easily do an entire alternative 40K setting based on Rogue Trader/1st ed lore & design, with half a dozen or more complete armies without any overlaps with current ranges ^^

They could, but they won't. Tamurkhan was originally supposed to be an alternate time line and the upper heads said no.

 Overread wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

People usually want to lore to be "static" to some random, arbitrary point in time where "changes before X" are cool and "changes after X" are the devil's work, but X just being different for everyone.

The static point is normally around when they either first get into Warhammer; or when they first start to properly engage with the lore. But it can also vary a lot; eg some want Necrons as they were presented in their first codex even if they joined the game way later.

I do prefer the killbots without a preset kill limit version myself, though I'm also very keen on the idea of their masters being able to take control as they awaken. I'm not super fond of the grunts having autonomy or banter though, but that doesn't preclude self awareness in a kind of "I have no mouth and must scream" sort of hell.

Tamurkhan was an alternate timeline with the End of the World actually happening instead of being frozen minutes before anything happens

guess the reason why the upper heads said no after the first book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 kodos wrote:
There is a difference between static lore that does not advance and ever changing lore
40k is static and everything has always be the same, so retcons are the only way to add anything new
But this also means the lore itself is limited to the codex books as anything else is outdated and obsolete the moment a new codex with new units is released
The opposite would be with Battletech where the timeline advances and a new edition is also a new time period

The setting of 40k is "nicer" for those who start fresh and don't stay long, which is GWs preferred audience, while BT works better for those who joined early and stayed because retcons every 3 year just to see the very same but different again gets boring after a while

Fair.
But if you wanna adopt the position of "40K retcons = bad ... should be the original", you're looking at 1987.
Going with "retcons before 1991 or 2001 or 2021 or whatever are cool, but those after date X are dumb", is neither here nor there and 100% arbitrary, subjective bias without any objective or logical foundation or any claim to validity over any other random date you pick as "your 40K" (including future versions of somebody picking 2031 or 2041 as "their definitive" version of 40K).

Because 40k as a lifestyle game wants you to care about the lore and the setting, as the rules aren't even worth buying for most people and with those changing every 3 years the lore is a stable for the people

hence for most the lore as it is when they started is the version they know and care, and any change to that with a "always been that way" feels bad, specially if it was something they really liked because unlike the rules, to lore was supposed to stay

people advertise 40k as the game with 40 years of lore that carry the whole thing despite the rules being mediocre and the models expensive
and when people realize that actually the lore is just 3 years and subject of change as well (and retconned on a regular basis) the main selling point is gone and that is why they don't like but also don't care about the retcons that happened before

and most should just be thankful that AoS crashed on release, otherwise 40k would have seen a bigger change with 8th instead of just blowing up Cadia

Meanwhile as a Tyranid player I really like the additions of new Hive Fleets like Kronos (best Hive Fleet) and new and bigger Tyranid units (I would hate to be limited to the old Carnifex and Hive Tyrant only monsters).

But I guess Tyranid lore is one of the best suited to constant change.

Bob Lorgar wrote:
What some of us are getting at is that originally, when he was first introduced in 2nd Edition, Dante didn't have AN Inferno Pistol, he had THE Inferno Pistol. As in one, singular. There was one and only one Inferno Pistol, and it belonged to Dante. This should never have been changed. They could call everybody else's a melta-pistol or something. When you take something unique about an important character and start handing it out to anybody with a pulse, it cheapens the setting.

While, I'm really glad that you and your space marine privilege feel that way, but SoB's entire schtick (also since second ed) was the Holy Trinity- as in Melta is baked into the fiber of the very faction, rather than just being a silly name pun for a guy who belongs to a faction that has more than twice as many kits as most other factions, AND he belongs to a bespoke subfaction with its own supplement and bespoke units.

So forgive me if my heart fails to pump purple piss for the poor, hard-done-by, deprived Space Marines.

Again, giving the weapon he has an actual name makes it stand out more than attaching an adjective to the word pistol. Arthur's sword was Excalibur- a name- not the Shimmer Sword, not the Sword of the Lake and not the Arthurian sword.

FWIW, when they let Sisters slide into obscurity a LOT of their aesthetics got scooped up by Blood Angels so the overlap is pretty historically driven.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Again, giving the weapon he has an actual name makes it stand out more than attaching an adjective to the word pistol.

Dante's weapon DID have an actual name - then the special name was expanded to actually be a generic weapon name, and then his weapon was given a DIFFERENT name to make it moar special again.

This is a lot of fuss over some random special characters pistol name.

 PenitentJake wrote:

While, I'm really glad that you and your space marine privilege feel that way, but SoB's entire schtick (also since second ed) was the Holy Trinity- as in Melta is baked into the fiber of the very faction, rather than just being a silly name pun for a guy who belongs to a faction that has more than twice as many kits as most other factions, AND he belongs to a bespoke subfaction with its own supplement and bespoke units.

The Holy Trinity is also a retcon. Plasma pistols were perfectly kosher for Sororitas back in the day (and still to this day, incredibly!) Someone decided to double down on the Big Three to justify giving out Storm Bolters for third edition. It could just have easily ended up being Plasma Guns that were added as the third of three..

Li'l melta pistols are cool, and welcome to all, but I'd just have preferred for Dante to keep something special name-wise. Truth be told, I'd prefer it if melta weapons were called meltER weapons, given that the name as is sounds very ork-y!

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Issue is, static o.g. 40K lore is fething wild.

Marines are basically Starcraft-style criminals pressed into service. Calgar an escaped GSC patriarch (sex?) slave. Ultramarines just a random successor farming desert shrimp. Half Eldar marines. Etc..

People usually want to lore to be "static" to some random, arbitrary point in time where "changes before X" are cool and "changes after X" are the devil's work, but X just being different for everyone.

To be fair, Rogue Trader lore is better than the current lore.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Issue is, static o.g. 40K lore is fething wild.

Marines are basically Starcraft-style criminals pressed into service. Calgar an escaped GSC patriarch (sex?) slave. Ultramarines just a random successor farming desert shrimp. Half Eldar marines. Etc..

People usually want to lore to be "static" to some random, arbitrary point in time where "changes before X" are cool and "changes after X" are the devil's work, but X just being different for everyone.

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born you started playing is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five your first and second edition of the game is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it make an army from it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five that is against the natural order of things.”
― Douglas Adams, as edited by me.

All of which is a great topic for conversation in the 40K General section, so this thread can get back to 40K News and Rumours...