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.

In traditional societies, history is seen as a decline. It proceeds from a high age of understanding to a lower one where truth is increasingly obscured, and degeneracy rules. An example is the Greeks concept of a Golden Age, descending to a Dark Age. Another example is the descent toward Norse Ragnarok, or the Hindu Kali Yuga. In physics, systems do lose energy, and need renewal from a source outside of themselves which traditional peoples believe is the 'eternal'. This view of reality is captured wonderfully by Tolkien, who shows the Elves leaving Middle Earth, and enchantment being washed out of the lands. There can be Golden Ages even within a Dark Age, where wise rule triumphs, but the trend is downward.




For this reason I'm not a huge fan of Guilliman returning, because to me, Warhammer 40,000 wonderfully captured the spirit of one particular traditional view of the decline of the world, the medieval one. I think having big personalities re-emerge instead of remaining a long dead legend of mythic veracity reduces the setting. It leans toward 'comic book' melodrama, where comics often bring people back from the dead many times, invalidating any consequences. In the old Warhammer 40,000 lore, pilgrims visiting Guilliman's preserved body, would sometimes claim that they could see his wounds slowly healing. It was left to us, a reader, to interpret whether this was their fervor or if something more miraculous taking place.

What's is done is done, Guilliman is back now, but perhaps there is a way to solve? How would you do so?

I would perhaps martyr Guilliman in one last triumphant battle, but have him somehow close The Great Rift.

Thus would the mythic atmosphere of the Horus Heresy and the decline of the Imperium of Man be affirmed.

You are a wee bit late to this party but yes it does.
GW from the end of 7th on, made the big mistake that many companies that own a IP are doing.
They are trying to turn a setting into a narrative. Warhammer was and should have remained a setting that stories take place in, not the story itself.

The thing with him coming back is, it hasn’t really improved anything. The rift happened, cadia fell, Terra was swarmed with daemons. He is dying still (he was never dead) and things are still hopeless.

It all follows the pattern with GW of taking away the nuance and dumbing down the setting, the Hersey series is a classic example of this.

The pros of bring guiliman back into the setting is, I suppose from a narrative point of view it shines a light on how bad the imperium is and far from their goal it has ended up, almost doubling down on the hopelessness.

These are all arguments form a devils advocate stance, I personally dislike the obsession with names characters, and this is that on steroids. The novels with him in awful and the only good things to come from it all are primaris and the rift for me. But has it ruined and changed the ethos of the setting, not really. Things are still desperate, they just a different perspective for stories now.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You are a wee bit late to this party but yes it does.
GW from the end of 7th on, made the big mistake that many companies that own a IP are doing.
They are trying to turn a setting into a narrative. Warhammer was and should have remained a setting that stories take place in, not the story itself.

I couldn't agree more that this has become common. We study these IPs because of their organic breadth; their study is half the fun, for millions. Star Trek, Star Wars, and various others, have been damaged by taking an IP that worked as a setting, a coherent universe in which many millions lived, but reducing it to one person's narrative, for some inconceivable reason, and the bringing back of characters instead of creating new epics. An example of this is how Star Wars used to have projects like "Dark Forces" in which Kyle Katarn has an adventure entirely separate from the films, but just as important, and now browsing Marvel comics everything is named after a specific film character. "Luke", "Leia", "Lando" instead of "Knights of the Old Republic" or "Shadows of the Empire". It's so obviously detrimental that I cannot fathom why it is done, time after time, reducing the long term value of the IP.

Anyway, Warhammer 40,000 can still be saved, but GW need to understand that they won't have a franchise worth anything, in 20 years, if they follow the route of gamifying their setting into something like an MMO or comic.

Make Guilliman's reform and reconquest efforts a futile struggle, swamped in a quagmire of internal strife, rigmarole and a flood of external enemies.

Make Cawl's new products be a malinvestment of resources on a horrendous scale for the Imperium, putting too many eggs into a rare special forces basket when ramped up mass production of low and medium-level technology for massed horde armies should have been the correct route.

Show it. Often and much. Draw inspiration deeply from the late antique Roman empire and Byzantium.

Subsume the narrative under an effectively static setting of decay.

And release some plastic Imperial zealot kit, to show the increased desperate resorting to fanatic rabble given the cheapest possible weaponry. With juves amid the horde. And maybe even a blocking detachment unit for the Imperial Guard, inspired by such hits as the NKVD and other unsavoury bastards. Give the Imperial Commissariat some company.

Highlight the sheer doomed state of the Imperium by showing how even the most brilliant genius saviour cannot stem the tide and rot, despite titanic efforts and clever ploys. Make it a Justinianic tragedy, a tragedy of Mauricius, and a tragedy of Heraclius; where some "what ifs" of history do play out and are shouldered by the best and the brightest, and still they ultimately fail, dragged down by the darkness and decay of their wretched era.

I'll have some future writings on how Guilliman's return could work without breaking the overarching theme of the setting, with a humorous twist in one case. I'm skeptical to the chosen approach from Games Workshop, but I do not see it as unsalvagable at the moment. A different twist is needed. A Byzantine twist.

The choice to return figures of legend is a fundamentally flawed one, and perhaps the setting can never be better off in a net positive way however well you spin it. In that case: Remember that head canon rules supreme at the end of the day: What you do not like at all, you will ignore.

I don't think it does, purely because, as mentioned by users above, Guilliman *hasn't* fixed everything, and by including Guilliman, we actually get a much greater and personal appreciation for "oh god everything's gone so badly wrong".

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but some of Guilliman's first words on being unfrozen and seeing the mess of the Imperium were "better we had all died in the fires of Horus' ambition". He's not saved the Imperium in a meaningful way. His reforms aren't suddenly changing every aspect of Imperial culture. Guilliman's own beliefs are needing to be compromised to keep the faith in line, and being just as villainous and complicit in the Imperial atrocity engine as any other leader.
As mentioned, looking at it from a surface level, I can see why people might think it's all shiny and great, but just peeling back the surface layer does show that Byzantine catastrophe and decay waiting to happen.

I disagree that there's now a sudden focus on names. We always had named characters, and they always inexplicably showed up at the biggest events and smallest ones alike. The characters are bigger and bolder, but they're just name changes from the characters we've always had.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think it does, purely because, as mentioned by users above, Guilliman *hasn't* fixed everything, and by including Guilliman, we actually get a much greater and personal appreciation for "oh god everything's gone so badly wrong".

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but some of Guilliman's first words on being unfrozen and seeing the mess of the Imperium were "better we had all died in the fires of Horus' ambition". He's not saved the Imperium in a meaningful way. His reforms aren't suddenly changing every aspect of Imperial culture. Guilliman's own beliefs are needing to be compromised to keep the faith in line, and being just as villainous and complicit in the Imperial atrocity engine as any other leader.
As mentioned, looking at it from a surface level, I can see why people might think it's all shiny and great, but just peeling back the surface layer does show that Byzantine catastrophe and decay waiting to happen.

I disagree that there's now a sudden focus on names. We always had named characters, and they always inexplicably showed up at the biggest events and smallest ones alike. The characters are bigger and bolder, but they're just name changes from the characters we've always had.

This is an interesting perspective, thanks. I don't really have a good overview of the new Guilliman/Dark Imperium/Indomitus era, since most of my friends are not 40K fans, and I've only just got back into the hobby. Okay, perhaps his return isn't as disruptive as I thought, in terms of theme and atmosphere. How do you feel about bringing ancient heroes back from a death-like state however? I am very wary of this, as it comes dangerously close to comic book superheroes; I was a fan of Guilliman's body being a kind of "Shroud of Turin", where you get a sense of the mystical, which his return obviously ends. It also might not be such a good precedent if Lion el'Jonson and and Rogal Dorn start returning....

It may also be worth mentioning that we are still in the early stages of this new era. I am cautiously optimistic so far: Marketable statuesque Marines aside (we've had those since at least 2nd edition, so no real change there), things have been better handled than one could have expected. Sgt_Smudge touches on some of it above.

The big question marks still lie in the future developments to be revealed.

It might be advisible to eat the cake and keep it, by enjoying two different timelines simultaneously: Both the stagnant setting of 999.M41, and the Indomitus era. Perhaps one will reign as headcanon over the other, but that is no hindrance to sip from both glasses. The same goes for WHFB and AoS.

By the way, I could have a splendid large dinner if I had a pound for each time someone over on Reddit gave my drawings and writings a compliment by saying it's so much more true to 40k than current developments in the setting. As someone who keeps an eye on new GW art and keeps up with some new background via an interested friend, my own view of newer 40k art and background is not at all that negative. Skeptical, sure, but the current assessment is not a bad one, considering the chosen direction.

Time will tell how well or ill it plays out.

TBF OP history is rarely objective and especially the terms Golden and Dark Age. For example, the Imperium calls the zenith of Mankind's technological prowess the Dark Age of Technology. The Golden Age of Piracy in our own history isn't exactly a time of higher understanding or learning, but rather one of lawlessness and danger on the seas.

As for the theme of 40k, it's difficult to actually say what this really is. Early work was satire, showing how authoritarianism and fascism were stupid and that blind faith and obedience were bad things, generally mocking the entire Thatcher style of governance. Modern 40k instead has so much dystopianism, violence, and amorality that it inspired the term Grimdark, although there are issues with how that term is applied. Grimdark is seen as different things by different people. Some say it's applying a sense of realism to fantasy/SciFi, where heroes are flawed and rulers are often useless and the agency of the characters is important, i.e. they have to choose to do the right thing. Others say that it is to be without hope, that everything always leads to suffering and there can never be an escape from the darkness. The latter definition is believed to cause the effect of resolving the characters and readers of any moral responsibility.
Lots of fans try to peg 40k as the latter (you'll see the lack of moral responsibility creep in with this) but in reality, the former is where it sits. There are a lot of bad people in 40k, yet the ones that stand out the most are those who actively try to be good people within the various flawed systems. Characters like Ibram Gaunt, who is an executioner sanctioned by the highest authority and a leader of soldiers in the meatgrinder of war, or Talos Valcoran, a Night Lord Legionary, still make the effort to do right by those they "care" about. For Gaunt, he tries his hardest to ensure the Tanith 1st are used as proper soldiers rather than just numbers and is always searching for their prize of a new homeworld. And Talos, for all his murder and torture, tries his hardest to keep his brothers alive and (mostly) treats his slaves with respect. It doesn't really matter that Gaunt is a Commissar leading the Tanith to their deaths because he doesn't do it recklessly or callously. Yes, he fights for a horrific fascist theocratic dystopian empire that doesn't care if he lives or dies but he still does right by his men. Yes, Talos horrifically tortures people but he was also never given a chance to be anything better and he at the very least tries to keep his "family" (for lack of a better word) alive.
There can still be villains and terrible people but as long as someone is doing something morally admirable then the theme works. There can be a Marines Malevolent who murder civilians for getting in the way a bit because the Salamanders are there defending 20 civilian shelters from the Orks. Balance is vital and GW hasn't tipped the balance either way quite yet.

I'd also like to note my disagreement about the whole "turning settings into stories" thing. The thing about characters is overblown IMO. If we just take Marneus Calgar, he is without a doubt a major character that does a lot of stuff. However, that stuff is almost always within Ultramar. He didn't fight on Armageddon, he didn't fight at the Cadian Gate, and he didn't get involved in the Damocles Gulf. The Ultramarines might have carted about a bit but Calgar himself was pretty well contained within the 500 Worlds. But you would expect Calgar to be a focal point in stories set in the 500 Worlds, just as you would expect a story centred around the Enterprise to feature James Kirk. Calgar wasn't even the first 40k comic, just the most recent.

RomulanSoldier wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think it does, purely because, as mentioned by users above, Guilliman *hasn't* fixed everything, and by including Guilliman, we actually get a much greater and personal appreciation for "oh god everything's gone so badly wrong".

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but some of Guilliman's first words on being unfrozen and seeing the mess of the Imperium were "better we had all died in the fires of Horus' ambition". He's not saved the Imperium in a meaningful way. His reforms aren't suddenly changing every aspect of Imperial culture. Guilliman's own beliefs are needing to be compromised to keep the faith in line, and being just as villainous and complicit in the Imperial atrocity engine as any other leader.
As mentioned, looking at it from a surface level, I can see why people might think it's all shiny and great, but just peeling back the surface layer does show that Byzantine catastrophe and decay waiting to happen.

I disagree that there's now a sudden focus on names. We always had named characters, and they always inexplicably showed up at the biggest events and smallest ones alike. The characters are bigger and bolder, but they're just name changes from the characters we've always had.

This is an interesting perspective, thanks. I don't really have a good overview of the new Guilliman/Dark Imperium/Indomitus era, since most of my friends are not 40K fans, and I've only just got back into the hobby. Okay, perhaps his return isn't as disruptive as I thought, in terms of theme and atmosphere. How do you feel about bringing ancient heroes back from a death-like state however? I am very wary of this, as it comes dangerously close to comic book superheroes; I was a fan of Guilliman's body being a kind of "Shroud of Turin", where you get a sense of the mystical, which his return obviously ends. It also might not be such a good precedent if Lion el'Jonson and and Rogal Dorn start returning....

Heroes have always been able to 'return' in 40k. Daemon Primarchs are immortal, characters like Mephiston and Calgar have been mortally wounded many times before and returned, you have things like the Legion of the Damned or the Sanguinor, and what are things like the C'Tan, Avatars of Khaine and Greater Daemons if not "ancient heroes brought back from death"?
The issue with comic book heroes is that death is used for cheap manipulation, and then reverted. It's not the character coming back that's the problem, it's that it often subverts why the hero was killed. With characters who very frequently return from death (Solomon Grundy, Deadpool, Ra's), death or mortal injury is just part of their character. It's only when a character is "killed", and revived, it removes the impact of their death. However, in 40k, this has already been subverted in so many cases already, and ancient heroes or figures of myth and legend have returned so many times already.

At the end of the day, things like Guilliman's "miraculous healing" serves the purpose of that "mystical" sense, but also provides the avenue for the development of his return. Nearly every Primarch, even the "dead" ones have rumours of how they could return in some fashion - and that works! The real question is IF they do, but there's always been that "what if" factor about them, and if someone wants to run their own headcanon AU where they do all return, is that not part of the glory of the setting being a setting, and open to personal development?

You can totally run a "what if Guilliman never returned" AU, and that's a valid alternate universe to have. It just so happens that GW chose to have this particular thread get pulled on, and so Guilliman returned - and I think that they've done pretty well in giving it that bittersweet twist necessary.

I’m gonna say….no.

40K has of course long been a permanent Two Minutes To Midnight. Despite the sheer size and industry of the Imperium, and it’s oddly cohesive nature (especially compare to most of its foes), it was constantly being pushed to breaking point. A noticeable tipping of the scales in either direction would lead to a pretty different galaxy in terms of who’s top dog etc.

Abaddon’s success in opening up the Cicatrix was such a tipping of the scales. Chaos was ascendant. With nothing on the other scale? 40K as we knew it would be done.

Instead, we got Guilliman and the manifold fruits of Cawl’s Labours. And literally all that’s done is enabled The Imperium to claw back some of the status quo. It continues to Hold The Line, but no more - because Abaddon widened that line considerably.

Hell, had either happened without the other (which is possible. Yes Cawl would still have created the Primaris, but he needed Guilliman’s Living Authority to let them off the chain. No Guilliman returning? No Primaris joining the fight.

Had Abaddon failed to knack Cadia? There’d arguably be enough Primaris to properly bottle up Chaos in the Eye of Terror, greatly reducing the threat of the Traitors breaking out in enough numbers to be a particular pain, and potentially other “we can stop chasing out tails now” benefits for The Imperium.

The clock is still Two Minutes To Midnight.

I think maybe my question isn't entirely clear. I know that the Imperium is in worse state now than ever, materially. It has lost huge amounts of territory. I'm not interested in the in-universe logistics, balancing some power scale.

I'm approaching this more from an out-of-universe perspective of whether it weakens the 40K ideal. I mean does the setting get altered spiritually, away from it's core themes of deep history? The equivalent would be Julius Caesar waking up in 1945 and becoming Prime Minister of Italy. He is 'of a different time', is what I'm trying to say I guess. A Daemon Prince surviving, is a different thing; it's a barely-material metaphysical being.

Thematically, having a living saint from a better era walking around might breach the liminal divide between a mythical Golden Age of the Great Crusade, before the Heresy, and everything that has come since. Even if Guilliman is flawed.

Perfectly happy with it - the Imperium is in a much worse state, he is devestated by what its become and slowly drowning under the weight of trying to make it survive.

Saints walking about has been part of 40k for a very long time all across the lore.

Just don't see the issue but each to their own

Afraid I need to disagree.

If Guilliman was say, a Lost Primarch returning (as in from the two expunged Legions), or one newly created? I’d potentially be in agreement.

But this is just Arthurian stuff at the end of the day. Merlin (here Cawl) awakens Arthur (Guilliman) Kingdom’s hour of need, assisted by the Fae (here Yvraine as the Lady of the Lake).

40K has never really being a history. Rather it’s a mythical setting. Little if any of its history is truly reliable, in or out of universe. The oldest races are either entirely uninterested (Orks), completely insane (Necrons) or so tied up in allegory (Eldar), they’re not reliable narrators. The Imperium has covered itself in so many layers of secrecy, revisionism and purposeful ignorance, it’s not a reliable narrator. Chaos likewise

None of that has truly changed because Guilliman returned. The Imperium remains, despite his almost certain objections, a place of manifest horror so far removed from what he believes his Father hoped for, it’s not even funny. And despite his sheer standing as a living legend, and his technical authority, even at the best of times stopping that rot is a job for the ages. And these are most assuredly not the best of times. At all.

Guilliman is hope. Sure. But he’s arguably the worst of all hope - false hope. A poultice for the masses. Saccharin dressed up as sugar. A messiah with his hands tied.

I mean, think about what Guilliman could do.

He imposed the limit on Chapter size. In theory, he could overturn that, because Needs Must. Even with the Primaris project capable of creating entire Chapters worth of improved Astartes, he can’t single handedly do a new founding, he needs the other High Lords consent to do that. And powerful as they are, they’re still subject to the frailties of man, including jealous, envy, suspicion etc.

He also needs to tread carefully with other Astartes. He is not necessarily their Primarch. He therefore holds no particular authority over them. That his gifts have been fairly gracefully received, that’s arguably more down to the desperation of the hour than anything else.

He must tread carefully, because if he doesn’t, his mere existence could create a schism within the Imperium. No matter how small, that’s still a wound the Imperium can ill afford. Nor can he afford much in the way of failures, less his surprisingly tenuous authority be challenged further.

I’d argue he needs another of his Loyalist Brothers to show their face or faces. Another hero of legend to return, and confirm “well, this is a poo show to end all poo shows. Thankfully Roboute is exactly the man for this particular job”.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another argument for one of his Bros needing to return is Everyone Needs A Peer.

How many folk do you think would challenge Guilliman? Not only is he highly competent, but he’s again a Living Legend.

How many even in the Ultramarines would have the cajones to question a decision? Perhaps suggest “I think we can do this better?”.

A Brother Primarch would likely still hold him in utmost respect - but wouldn’t be overawed, starstruck or cowed by his presence.

RomulanSoldier wrote:
I'm approaching this more from an out-of-universe perspective of whether it weakens the 40K ideal. I mean does the setting get altered spiritually, away from it's core themes of deep history? The equivalent would be Julius Caesar waking up in 1945 and becoming Prime Minister of Italy. He is 'of a different time', is what I'm trying to say I guess. A Daemon Prince surviving, is a different thing; it's a barely-material metaphysical being.

You'd have to define what you mean by "ideal". If you are talking about "Grimdark" in the sense of nihilism and lack of hope then that still exists because the Imperium is getting hurt even more than before. If you're talking about "Grimdark" as a lone light in the darkness, then that's still there because Guilliman could very well be a force for good. What the "theme" of 40k is varies from person to person, it's not an objectively quantifiable thing.

Thematically, having a living saint from a better era walking around might breach the liminal divide between a mythical Golden Age of the Great Crusade, before the Heresy, and everything that has come since. Even if Guilliman is flawed.

Living Saint's aren't a new thing. 40k has always been a mythical setting with Saints, Daemons, and Gods kicking about all over the place.

1). Historical Critique:

By ideal, I guess I mean a form of sci-fi historical fiction, where the Imperium resembles the historical war gaming roots that it's creators presumably had. A space-based Late Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Medieval setting, but in the space age. Guilliman, it seems to me from my superficial understanding, is the equivalent of a classical figure from Homeric myth, like Achilles, to the general citizenry of the Imperium, and the Heresy is to them half-remembered era of classicism, like medieval monastics preserving tales of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar for 1000 years in their cloisters.

Certain other sci-fi settings or IPs have recently started to destroy any sense of historical periodisation or historical context they once had, with disastrous results for their integrity and long-term viability. I would hate to think GW was going to go down the same route of just ignoring periodisation, to make the setting supposedly 'accessible', but while actually undermining it's coherency/appeal in the long run.

2). Metaphysical Critique:

The Imperium has "always had living saints", to a lesser degree, but not like this. A Primarch is a bit more of a potent symbol in the mind of a civilian, than someone like Celestine. He is literally a son of the Imperium's one God, related by blood to the person who they pray to. Okay, maybe this can be worked with narratively, but, from another non-historical perspective, i.e. "Guenon" style Traditionalism, it might be hard to say that the Imperium is in a tragic 'descent of the ages' from a once better time, when a Primarch can theoretically turn up now.

I'm not saying that is necessarily how GW will go, or that they will fail, but it's a risk when you start re-introducing elements from a different time, and perhaps, dare I speculate, start altering the metaphysics of the setting, away from a descent, perhaps with even HH sharing some blame. I think geeks have also worryingly seen this before many times, and so while there has been nothing permanent done to 40K yet, it seemingly never ends well when it does happen.

Just some thoughts. I don't know yet where I stand.

RomulanSoldier wrote:I'm approaching this more from an out-of-universe perspective of whether it weakens the 40K ideal. I mean does the setting get altered spiritually, away from it's core themes of deep history? The equivalent would be Julius Caesar waking up in 1945 and becoming Prime Minister of Italy. He is 'of a different time', is what I'm trying to say I guess. A Daemon Prince surviving, is a different thing; it's a barely-material metaphysical being.

Thematically, having a living saint from a better era walking around might breach the liminal divide between a mythical Golden Age of the Great Crusade, before the Heresy, and everything that has come since. Even if Guilliman is flawed.

When Caesar is being used to show how far the decline has come from a "better time" (obviously not passing comment on real life Roman Republic or fascist Italy), then yes, it still fits with the setting.

Plenty of characters are from a "different time". Bjorn is from a "different time". Abaddon is from a "different time". Hell, nearly all Eldar are from that "different time". None of them fundamentally altered 40k in the past.

RomulanSoldier wrote:Certain other sci-fi settings or IPs have recently started to destroy any sense of historical periodisation or historical context they once had, with disastrous results for their integrity and long-term viability. I would hate to think GW was going to go down the same route of just ignoring periodisation, to make the setting supposedly 'accessible', but while actually undermining it's coherency/appeal in the long run.

This would only be true if they hadn't already had characters who had been active in the setting over that time frame - but they do.

2). Metaphysical Critique:

The Imperium has "always had living saints", to a lesser degree, but not like this. A Primarch is a bit more of a potent symbol in the mind of a civilian, than someone like Celestine.

I mean, is it? I would imagine to a world that has closer ties to the Ecclesiarchy, Celestine may well be equal and more "relevant". Sure, someone like Caesar (to use your example) is really important and accomplished more, but Boudicca is much more relevant to the British mythological/historical culture. A Primarch might find themselves superseded by other venerated figures.

I'm not saying that is necessarily how GW will go, or that they will fail, but it's a risk when you start re-introducing elements from a different time

Again, already been there, and done that. Guilliman is just a bigger figure, but him simply being "from a different time" doesn't really change that he's far from the first to span that 10,000 year gap.

RomulanSoldier wrote:
1). Historical Critique:

By ideal, I guess I mean a form of sci-fi historical fiction, where the Imperium resembles the historical war gaming roots that it's creators presumably had. A space-based Late Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Medieval setting, but in the space age. Guilliman, it seems to me from my superficial understanding, is the equivalent of a classical figure from Homeric myth, like Achilles, to the general citizenry of the Imperium, and the Heresy is to them half-remembered era of classicism, like medieval monastics preserving tales of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar for 1000 years in their cloisters.

Guilliman's return is more akin to that of a God or Messiah figure returning to his people. Guilliman isn't just an ancient warrior or ruler returned but one of the most important religious figures in the Imperium once again walking among the living. He is a son of their God-Emperor and while some know him as just another warlord, to the vast majority he is a true angel come to save the Imperium in its darkest hour.
As for the Heresy itself, people know it was a bad thing and that the God-Emperor gave his mortal life to save humanity from evil. The actual truth of the Heresy is known to a very select few such as senior Inquisitors and the High Lords (Astartes excluded) and the vast majority of the Imperium remains ignorant to the fact that Xenos are actually real and not just things to be scared of in religious sermons.
Your comparison with classical history doesn't actually hold up very well because we know more about the classical period than the Imperium will ever know of the Heresy and we are not looking at events in the same way. We can look back at historical periods using fact and evidence to support arguments and thesis, whereas the Imperium looks back at the Primarchs and declares them holy saints who can do no wrong, twisting their lives and deeds into religious script and propaganda.
Also, 40k has never been similar to historical wargames. It was an RPG before it was a wargame and that element holds the strongest.

Certain other sci-fi settings or IPs have recently started to destroy any sense of historical periodisation or historical context they once had, with disastrous results for their integrity and long-term viability. I would hate to think GW was going to go down the same route of just ignoring periodisation, to make the setting supposedly 'accessible', but while actually undermining it's coherency/appeal in the long run.

Care to give an example? I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

2). Metaphysical Critique:

The Imperium has "always had living saints", to a lesser degree, but not like this. A Primarch is a bit more of a potent symbol in the mind of a civilian, than someone like Celestine. He is literally a son of the Imperium's one God, related by blood to the person who they pray to. Okay, maybe this can be worked with narratively, but, from another non-historical perspective, i.e. "Guenon" style Traditionalism, it might be hard to say that the Imperium is in a tragic 'descent of the ages' from a once better time, when a Primarch can theoretically turn up now.

I'm not saying that is necessarily how GW will go, or that they will fail, but it's a risk when you start re-introducing elements from a different time, and perhaps, dare I speculate, start altering the metaphysics of the setting, away from a descent, perhaps with even HH sharing some blame. I think geeks have also worryingly seen this before many times, and so while there has been nothing permanent done to 40K yet, it seemingly never ends well when it does happen.

Just some thoughts. I don't know yet where I stand.

Except there have been those from the time of the Crusade and Heresy wandering around 40k for decades now. Half the character of the Traitor Legions is them sneering at what the Imperium has become compared to the glory days of the Great Crusade. Astartes Chapters remember well the Heresy and those who fell to Chaos and the Inquisition never forgets. Many Aeldari were around at the time of the Crusade and Heresy, and the Necrons are even older still.
And as people have already explained, Guilliman showing up doesn't mean anything is getting better. A Messiah figure showing up to do battle with the embodiment of evil (Abaddon) is a common theme for religious doomsday people no? A sign that truly it is the darkest hour if one of humanity's greatest warriors and leaders returns at the head of a host of angels to either drive back the darkness or to fail and herald the end of days.

I really want to know what you mean by the latter part of that statement because it doesn't make much sense.

REMOVED

Guilliman's return actually has been better than I initially thought GW would handle it. He does not just sweep everything aside and make the Imperium noblebright. He is one torch that allows the grimdark to be all the more apparent due to the contrast. He casts light around him, but whenever he moves on, the shadows and darkness return in his wake.

As I have in the past said, his talents are wasted going around bashing enemies with a flaming sword. His real talents of administration would be far more valuable and impactful IMO reforming the Administratum and bringing some sanity to the government, but we all know 40K is about war not administrative reform. Guilliman, despite replacing some High Lords, has not really changed all that much...not really. He only streamlines the Administratum just enough to actually supply and get his Indomitus Crusade off the ground. He leads his Indomitus Crusade around with a few reform or more open minded individuals he has recruited, but this serves as the viewpoint in which a 21st century reader can look upon the grimdark insanity of the Imperium. He finds himself constantly distracted from long term reform, including such things as fixing the dating system to figure out which year it is, by the pressing need of the next military campaign. He makes constant sacrifices in the name of pragmatism such as not speaking out against the zealotry of the Ecclesiarchy in order to avoid provoking a direct schism with the faithful. He even starts to doubt his secular views after the latest events of Godblight.

I would even suggest the Chaos gods are distracting Guilliman by constantly enticing him to "save the day" in the next sector, which leads to him yet again delaying any actual reforming of the Imperium. A few expendable cultists, champions, or even daemons is a relatively small price to pay for keeping the Imperium in its decaying state.

I think the current state is what GW will keep for the foreseeable future: Guilliman as the peripatetic reformer that is constantly delaying reforms for an indefinite future while being inwardly aghast at the Imperium, yet also starting to question his own beliefs and whether the Emperor has become a god after all. Guilliman and those reform minded people around him become the lens or POV of the reader to look and be able to see the grimdarkness of the Imperium for what it is. I think GW will portray Guilliman having just enough success that he keeps going and the reader might have hope that change and reform is on the horizon, only it never comes and Guilliman keeps making concessions to practicality and avoiding further internecine conflict within the Imperium.

Even super admin Guiliman waould struggle to turn around the administratum and imperial government because it is vast and so slow. He could rewrite all the rules and ways of doing things but the email with the new SOPs in would be lost or take hundreds of years to get there.

Andykp wrote:
Even super admin Guiliman waould struggle to turn around the administratum and imperial government because it is vast and so slow. He could rewrite all the rules and ways of doing things but the email with the new SOPs in would be lost or take hundreds of years to get there.

Guilliman never stays put long enough to make sure the reforms take root enough to remain without his presence. He only does just enough to defeat the immediate threat before taking off for the next place, leaving any mop up to local forces or garrison he leaves behind. Though he might have made a statement about how Baal should be reformed to more humane instead of a radioactive death world where only a handful of feral children get the chance to better themselves, he does not enact concrete changes and does not stay around. Similarly for example, he does not AFAIK make any real change in the massive inequality and oppression of hive worlds or any other Imperial worlds, and seems content to take their forces or war material to keep the Indomitus Crusade going.

I see Guilliman as making the classic mistake of trying to defend everything and therefore in effect defending nothing. Even though he seems to have successes wherever he goes, he makes no progress towards reforming the Imperium and at best just pushes back threats to restore the status quo. Would he have done better to try and actually fully reform one world before moving on to the next? Maybe, but then he could be accused by others of private empire building or turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the suffering of the rest of the Imperium.

There is also the tricky problem that reform and more humane treatment of the oppressed might lower productivity and war production in the short term, which might leave an opening for the Imperium's enemies, even though shorter working hours and a better quality of life might pay longer term dividends in the form of less unrest or turning to the Chaos gods.

I’d argue the toss on one of your points there.

Guilliman being a Crusader is of wider use.

Now, the wider and immediate impact of course is his presence all but ensuring Imperial victory in that warzone. Not only his raw physical and tactical abilities, but the colossal morale boost of seeing him snap even the most fearsome of foes like dry twigs.

What I want to argue is that he’s such a significant target, he acts as a kind of Glory Poultice for the more ambitious Chaos Lords. Those determined to take Guilliman’s head and the resulting glory may abandon other war zones to try to hunt him down, the risk of doing so making it more appealing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would say his return does break the theme--if it didn't also come alongside the galaxy literally being torn in half by a warp rift. That context is absolutely critical; Guilliman's return is the only thing which makes the Imperium's continued survival plausible. Instead of dawn after night he is a lighthouse in the midst of a hurricane. That said, he is still a beacon of hope.

I think it is worth considering if the state of the real world factors into this, as there is a narrative element that is parallel to some degree. For many people the world feels like it has been on a long social decline and the steps forward have been, at best, fighting against the tide. Expenses are up, pay is down, politics has been hitting new lows, pollution is so pervasive it is literally in our blood, the climate is going to hell, and the people causing it are richer than ever. I suspect that for many people a dystopic setting becomes less attractive the more real life resembles one. Unsure if or how much this is a factor, but it could be.

A more certain factor is that 40k's grimdark was really starting to veer into grimderp in a lot of places. There's a point where a setting becomes so dark it is just stupid if not outright comedic. That point is different for everyone but I know it was crossing the line for a good number.

RomulanSoldier wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You are a wee bit late to this party but yes it does.
GW from the end of 7th on, made the big mistake that many companies that own a IP are doing.
They are trying to turn a setting into a narrative. Warhammer was and should have remained a setting that stories take place in, not the story itself.

I couldn't agree more that this has become common. We study these IPs because of their organic breadth; their study is half the fun, for millions. Star Trek, Star Wars, and various others, have been damaged by taking an IP that worked as a setting, a coherent universe in which many millions lived, but reducing it to one person's narrative, for some inconceivable reason, and the bringing back of characters instead of creating new epics. An example of this is how Star Wars used to have projects like "Dark Forces" in which Kyle Katarn has an adventure entirely separate from the films, but just as important, and now browsing Marvel comics everything is named after a specific film character. "Luke", "Leia", "Lando" instead of "Knights of the Old Republic" or "Shadows of the Empire". It's so obviously detrimental that I cannot fathom why it is done, time after time, reducing the long term value of the IP.

Anyway, Warhammer 40,000 can still be saved, but GW need to understand that they won't have a franchise worth anything, in 20 years, if they follow the route of gamifying their setting into something like an MMO or comic.

I would argue that Star Wars isn't really a setting either. It's just a bigger narrative. Star wars has always lived and died by its main characters because that's how the universe STARTED, as 3 relatively short movies chronicling the coming of age story of a space wizard.

At best, things like 'dark forces' are day in the limelight episodes. No matter what era of star wars you go to, the true narrative of the era always boils down to 'some space wizard controls the fate of the whole galaxy for reasons'.

Star Trek is similar. It even has a color coding system for who is and is not narratively relevant.

ERJAK wrote:
I would argue that Star Wars isn't really a setting either. It's just a bigger narrative. Star wars has always lived and died by its main characters because that's how the universe STARTED, as 3 relatively short movies chronicling the coming of age story of a space wizard.

At best, things like 'dark forces' are day in the limelight episodes. No matter what era of star wars you go to, the true narrative of the era always boils down to 'some space wizard controls the fate of the whole galaxy for reasons'.

That's kind of why I wanted to know what the OP meant since the Star Wars movies, the main way that people interact with the universe, are all about the Skywalkers, not the galaxy or the other people in it.

Star Trek is similar. It even has a color coding system for who is and is not narratively relevant.

Hey now, there's always at least one person from each division in the main cast.

I am of a different opinion. The decline is always followed by a major upheaval, such as the Ragnarok or the Apocalypse, where epic gak happens. There is then a final resolution and things will go back to a Golden Age. And then the circle repeats.