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.

Thanks to all who replied to my founding father's thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/606942.page#7053647 . It is the basis for this one.

Though several were cited as having significant influence on 40k over its early years - enough to be considered founding fathers - it seemed that Rick Priestly is the singular man that is truly behind the creation of Warhammer 40k. I've looked into him, and interviews of the man, and I wouldn't care so much about the following situation if he didn't seem like a genuinely awesome fellow.

Now, I need to explain the title of this thread. I know Rick Priestly had a whole bucket-load of help, even in 1st edition. I know he has left Games Workshop, and I've heard of the argument that GW may have conspired to get him out of there, for all we know. These are not the points of this thread.

Unfortunately, I have become disillusioned from the combination of the following things I have learned as of late about the founder (of what may be the greatest IP ever created), as well as 40k in general, that are forcing me to have a small crisis in faith about Warhammer 40k as an IP (much of this was learned here http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/172inz/i_am_rick_priestley_ask_me_anything/ ) :

1) Rick Priestly left Games Workshop some time ago for good reasons

2) Games Workshop has indeed become so commercially driven that it seems to treat its lore as almost secondary, leaving others to carry the torch for their own IP

3) The tabletop business/game itself is indeed not handled as well as it has deserved, as Mr. Priestly has stated and further implied

4) Mr. Priestly himself does not read 40k books (though his wife writes for Black Library)

5) He stated in the above reddit link that he believes some canon things that are added into the game go too far

6) He feels that some things like the time it takes for warp travel is not well represented, to the point where the entire universe may as well be one world

7) Etc.

Warhammer 40,000 has been a big part of my life for nearly 20 years, and it has been a big part of my now-fiancee and I's life for about 4. The question from all of this simply becomes:

If Rick Priestly, the founder himself, does not love Warhammer 40,000 from a lore perspective any longer, what fool must we be to love it in his stead?

EDIT: I used the word fool not to suggest any of us actually are, but just to encourage a response from you all

I present this question to you all in the hopes that you can share with me your greater knowledge to let me know how perhaps he does care more for 40k than he lets on, to show how he perhaps was not as influential as everyone else that has added to it, to point out how this ultimately doesn't matter somehow, or any other way you can poke holes in this 'argument'. I truly look forward to hearing what you guys have to say.

Who cares what the founder thought 20-30 years ago? What matters is whether you enjoy the universe as it exists now. If you do, continue to enjoy it. If not, move on, but move on because you don't like the product anymore, not out of some bizarre tribute to the original author.

(I dont like 99% of the fluff, I think so much of it is awful and ill thought out etc... but anyways)

Well why do we have to like what the creator likes?

What makes the original any better than the new?

At school we had to make countries, my original idea was a militaristic string of islands (archipelago) ruled by a horrid ruler and very warlike. Then we had merge our nations into groups, the only idea of mine that was kept was the archipelago. I hated the new version, but it got high marks and everyone else liked it. So the creators views may be the basis (as my idea formed the basis of the final result) of the idea, but where that idea is taken over time may not sit well with them.

In my opinion, if you apply much though to warhammer 40k, it sucks. I agree with a lot of what this priestly guy has to say, but his opinions happen to be in line with mine. I dont think they should be how people should view the lore itself off the bat.

I think its better to ask, is this priestly guy right?

In my case yes, I think he is right.

Who cares what he thinks of it now? All that matters is whether or not you enjoy it. No need to freak out.

I could care less what Rick Priestley thought, to be honest. I understand he was probably the single most important person in the creation of the IP that is Warhammer 40 000 many years ago, but I also think his opinion is vastly different than the average wargamers. After all, if 40K is his creation, it only makes sense he would be more critical of any changes that have been made since his departure.

I personally like 40K even in its current state. 7th edition seems like a nice ruleset to me, but I did miss 6th completely, so a lot of things seem new even if they had been around for a few years now. As for the fluff, 40K has always had some outrageously stupid things. Sure, until a few years ago, space wolves didn't ride wolves, but they were still massive mary sues whose planet could never be invaded because 'lol cold and lol wolves'. As before, you can just ignore any fluff you hate, as the designers themselves have said many times before that everything is canon, but not everything is true.

40k is here to stay. In the very best case, GW gets shut down soon or most of the head of the company suddenly disappear (permanently) in order to turn the sinking ship around. The brand then is bought by WotC or any similarly good competitor and becomes a game with a viable ruleset again.

Plus: what's stopping you from going back? I recently got back to playing 4th and enjoy the game so much more than before. Paid 5€ for the rule book

We are fools for liking something that has been improved in a lot of aspects? While I believe GW has screwed up big times, they have also made great strides as well.

My my, you are so full of your self to call us fools for an opinion you have. Who cares if he doesn't love 40K anymore. That makes us fools?

So are we suppose to stop playing 40K because he doesn't like 40K anymore or play it? No. Enjoy what he had created. Enjoy what has progressed. Don't play if you are not happy with the direction 40K is going.

Anyone who is foolish here, is you. If this is how you feel, then you are the foolish one for still playing and collecting 40K and then feeling you are tainted just because someone doesn't like it no more.

NOW. GO and sell your plastic toy soldiers that you feel are tainted now. Go bath in scathing hot bath for you feeling you are dirty for liking something that has evolved and someone else doesn't like it.

If RP is a god that you are trying to make him into, then what ever he is making should have become a classic. Since it's not even a blip yet, he is only a mere man and we shouldn't feel bad about liking something he created and got butchered in your opinion. After all you are still here.

 Peregrine wrote:
Who cares what the founder thought 20-30 years ago? What matters is whether you enjoy the universe as it exists now. If you do, continue to enjoy it. If not, move on, but move on because you don't like the product anymore, not out of some bizarre tribute to the original author.

Thank you, Peregrine.

Gary Gygax has been out of the D&D seen for years and it is still probably one of the most popular franchies (going off spinoffs such as videogame IPs too) and I personally love it.

I love 40k. There is plenty wrong with it and the rules can be a mess, but this is the most fun I've had with a hobby in a while and I will probably play it into oblivion.

I think you need to enjoy or not-enjoy 40k on your own terms, not on the basis of one of the creators opinions. If you feel 40k has strayed from what you enjoy about it, then ditch it. It sounds like you're not enjoying it anymore. I don't think we have any insider info on how RP really does like 40k even though he doesn't say he does.

That said, I do understand that you can stay with something just because you always have, and when someone closely associated with that thing leaves it causes you to reconsider. It's like when a founding member of the band leaves and you start wondering if the band is all that good anymore.

All that to say, RP leaving is a good time to reevaluate, but stop doing so on his terms and find your own reasons to stay or go.

The clattering mess that was the first attempt to introduce Gates of Antares disabused me of the notion that Rick Priestly was some kind of infallible wargaming genius.

BUT

I think 40K as it is now (with Draigos, flying Viking wolf-drawn bathtubs, sister-blood-bathing etc.) is far from 'the best IP evar' and 'too big to fail', even if you think it's not much worse than the satirical dystopia he and others originally came up with.

Similarly, I agree with his often-quoted... er... quote that the studio being taken over by the beancounters has ruined the direction that the game and fluff have taken.

His trio of Warmaster-based rules from Warlord Games ain't bad.

I enjoy his regular column in Wargames: Soldiers and Strategy magazine. If you're an RP fan, get it for that and read the rest of it too. Even if you're not interested in historical gaming (I am, but I still don't go for a lot of the featured periods), it's a great insight into a vast richness of games and gaming, rules and mechanics, model scales and ranges, scenario building, designer interviews and notes, and a little bit of painting and terrain, that makes 40K look like the ubiquitous but limp McDonald's burger of wargaming.

That was a good read, OP - thanks for the link.

Some of it isn't new to me, some of it was surprising, and some of it makes me see GW's actions in a slightly different and perhaps more understandable light.

I also found it interesting to see that Mr. Priestley has a similar problem with the licensed publications as I do:

Rick Priestley wrote:You know I don't really read any of the 40K novels - though I have had a go at the Dan Abnett stories and quite a few of my friends do actually write for the Black Library - in fact my wife works for the Black Library. It's partly time and partly that I find my mind rebelling at someone elses vision of the universe - I end up muttering no no no that's wrong! It's like shouting at the television. You have to draw the line somewhere don't you

That being said, and Mr. Priestley alluded to this in that quote when he talks about "visions", I feel I have to reiterate a basic fact about the franchise that a lot people, yourself included, are ignoring: There is no canon. In fact, from what I can see, he didn't even use that term once, much like Marc Gascogne when he discussed what it really means "when you talk about 'canonical background' " (note the parentheses) in his famous Black Library statement. It's a made-up construct that inserts new problems into the IP just because of fans mishandling its products.

As Aaron Dembski-Bowden said here on Dakka: "The flaw is in how people try to apply other licenses' attitudes to canon, then blame 40K for not making sense. Well, no, of course not. That's like assuming a tree is a banana tree, then saying it's wrong for having apples in its branches. The tree's fine. The expectation is what was wrong."

What I'm trying to say is: I think you are misreading what Rick Priestley meant when he said that. Just because he dislikes Black Library material - which, let's be honest, includes some fairly crazy ideas and frequently ignores GW's own fluff - doesn't simultaneously mean he dislikes the IP's background as a whole. Though I am wholly on his side with that complaint about the ignorance towards Warp travel times. But for all we know he could be completely onboard with the studio's own vision for the 'verse, which he himself has worked to shape.

tl;dr: He is criticising licensed products for portraying a different 40k than the GW studio. This is not the same as saying all of 40k fluff is bad.

And I think he has a point.

Either way, given how the IP works, you, OP, as a player are free to cherrypick what elements of the setting you want to include into your vision from whatever source you fancy. Just be aware that different sources may carry different visions, and may at times be incompatible with each other. You may find it a lot easier to maintain a consistent and sensible interpretation of the setting, and even be able to customise it to your own liking, depending on how far you are willing to stray from one official source or another.
I'm not sure if this helps you, but I thought it important to consider this angle of what Mr. Priestley had stated.

Aaron Dembski-Bowden has stated that there is a canon in 40K.

I still enjoy the game, I like the models and I actually like the new tacos(tactical objectives). I don't let other peoples statements on the game worry me, I still have my fun and in the end for me that's what matters.

Thank you guys for all the great thoughts so far Especially some of the more sensible ones. It is quite good to read them.

Swastakowey wrote:(I dont like 99% of the fluff, I think so much of it is awful and ill thought out etc... but anyways)

Well why do we have to like what the creator likes?

What makes the original any better than the new?

At school we had to make countries, my original idea was a militaristic string of islands (archipelago) ruled by a horrid ruler and very warlike. Then we had merge our nations into groups, the only idea of mine that was kept was the archipelago. I hated the new version, but it got high marks and everyone else liked it. So the creators views may be the basis (as my idea formed the basis of the final result) of the idea, but where that idea is taken over time may not sit well with them.

In my opinion, if you apply much though to warhammer 40k, it sucks. I agree with a lot of what this priestly guy has to say, but his opinions happen to be in line with mine. I dont think they should be how people should view the lore itself off the bat.

I think its better to ask, is this priestly guy right?

In my case yes, I think he is right.

I don't know why this is, but I swear I can count the amount of times I've heard anyone voice some dissent against 40k lore with the fingers upon my left hand. You know, this might be more of a reason than anything that I have had the sneaking idea that there is something I've been missing in all these years that I've loved 40k lore so unquestioningly above other IP's. I am tempted to make another thread dedicated to this question, but I'd genuinely love to hear it - WHY don't you (and someone else who posted something here) care for 40k lore? It isn't a challenge at all - I really am curious to know (and why do you say it's ill-thought out?).

troa wrote:Who cares what he thinks of it now? All that matters is whether or not you enjoy it. No need to freak out.

I think you're right But I wasn't freaking out; maybe only for a little bit after reading that reddit thread a few days ago though, hahah. (Just as the other fellow in this thread said - it's sensible to re-think things when you learn of stuff like this.)

Davor wrote:We are fools for liking something that has been improved in a lot of aspects? While I believe GW has screwed up big times, they have also made great strides as well.

My my, you are so full of your self to call us fools for an opinion you have. Who cares if he doesn't love 40K anymore. That makes us fools?

So are we suppose to stop playing 40K because he doesn't like 40K anymore or play it? No. Enjoy what he had created. Enjoy what has progressed. Don't play if you are not happy with the direction 40K is going.

Anyone who is foolish here, is you. If this is how you feel, then you are the foolish one for still playing and collecting 40K and then feeling you are tainted just because someone doesn't like it no more.

NOW. GO and sell your plastic toy soldiers that you feel are tainted now. Go bath in scathing hot bath for you feeling you are dirty for liking something that has evolved and someone else doesn't like it.

If RP is a god that you are trying to make him into, then what ever he is making should have become a classic. Since it's not even a blip yet, he is only a mere man and we shouldn't feel bad about liking something he created and got butchered in your opinion. After all you are still here.

Woooaaahhhkay... Dude you really took what I was getting at WAY wrong. After reading what you said I immediately edited my OP to clarify that the word 'fools' was used in a non-literal sense. I was just trying to illustrate the idea, and vividly enough so as to get a response. What reason would I have in the slightest to consider you, myself, or anyone actual 'fools'? Of course we wouldn't be. The notion is just that if Rick Priestly no longer 'likes' his own creation (which clearly, he does, he just has criticisms of the current state), then why should we? It's just an opportunity to re-examine what so many of us already love. It is in no way an actual accusation that I and all other 40k lovers are fools. That would, of course, be silly

Rick Priestly's current feelings toward 40k dont affect my enjoyment of it, nor cause me to lose faith.

There are however, other recent develepments that have caused me to reconsider my continuing commitment to this game. Its a sad state of affairs.

I recently had to travel for work for 3 weeks. 3 weeks sitting in airports and hotels at night with nothing to do. I spent a small fortune on Black Library books, and after having read so many I had kind of avoided, I was surprised to find I enjoyed most of them.

They weren't perfect, there was one book where I just kept screaming "That's not how that works", but it is what it is. I think most of the guys they get to write this stuff do an ok Job. I've been around 40k for so long now, I have a pretty good idea how the universe works in my mind, and I discount some of the out and out wrong things as I go.

At the end of the day, nothing GW has done throws away all that has come before it. If they vanish tomorrow, I still have all my army books, rule books, novels, fan fiction I picked up over the years in gaming groups, art......I think too often people get wrapped up in the concept of GW and 40k as a successful product, because in the end we feel like market share and company health reflect on our choice of a hobby, but I've been into Battletech for almost as long as 40k, hell it went out of business several times and for a long time all I could do to get the 100+ novels they had put out was to find them at used book stores, Dungeons and Dragons has gone through several hard times, but that didn't change the fact I could grab some of my books and get a game going with buddies.

In the end, if you enjoy something, then you need to enjoy it for you. If you need validation from the community at large, or the "founder" of the IP, well, I think that is just silly. But that's just me.

Cheers!

 Netsurfer733 wrote:
I don't know why this is, but I swear I can count the amount of times I've heard anyone voice some dissent against 40k lore with the fingers upon my left hand. You know, this might be more of a reason than anything that I have had the sneaking idea that there is something I've been missing in all these years that I've loved 40k lore so unquestioningly above other IP's. I am tempted to make another thread dedicated to this question, but I'd genuinely love to hear it - WHY don't you (and someone else who posted something here) care for 40k lore? It isn't a challenge at all - I really am curious to know (and why do you say it's ill-thought out?).

40k lore used to be cool and novel to me, but over the years the grimdark (tm) got kind of stupid. The instances I remember reading and just rolling my eyes at:

- The emperor is apparently now a psychic vampire sitting on a golden throne that requires the deaths of 1000 psykers per day to sustain.

- Pretty much the entire Grey Knights codex, but in particular the part where something like only 1 out of every 1000 space marines can be selected for the Grey Knight trials and then only 1 of every 1000 survives. MAYBE YOU GUYS NEED A BETTER SELECTION PROCESS.

- The dark angels primarch is apparently just taking a nap in the rock.

- The Tyranids evolving over the years from badasses to losing all the battles in their own codex's fluff. The Tau one in the most recent book particularly grated me.


There's a certain point where I think you probably just outgrow it or something. One of my buddies once said something to the effect of, "The more you watch Star Wars, the worse it gets." Same thing here. The more times I read the recycled fluff, the more I seem to nitpick it and it takes away some of my enjoyment.

 slowthar wrote:

- The emperor is apparently now a psychic vampire sitting on a golden throne that requires the deaths of 1000 psykers per day to sustain.

Now? He was stated to be that in the RT rulebook.. (well okay, back then it as only 'hundreds' of psykers a day)

It seems to me the numbers thing is really sort of meant to represent, yes, a real number - but our number system is not absolute in the universe in the way of things - exactly 1,000 psykers death per day, for example, could in no way be exact. Take these things with a proper grain of salt from whatever uncited source (think: from a character in the universe), then it really does all work out splendidly, imo.

And it's not just the hopelessness or the audacious, ever present war that I love about 40k - it's the *tragedy*, that half of drama ( http://www.lakewoodtimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/drama-masks-300x2381.jpg ) that is just done so outrageously well. It's so tragic that so much wisdom and goodness has been lost that by the time the modern-day inhabitants are born, any act of goodness - no matter how mired in crap it is - is still almost heavenly in comparison. ...I'm going to stop there before I get into a more serious tangent best reserved to another thread, but to me, Warhammer 40k is just about that inescapable, teetering on the edge *doom* thing that just makes it to die for, when combined with the sheer character of it all.

^ As above. I still find 40k interesting and exciting and whilst the contribution from one of the Founding fathers ' shouldn't be forgotten, it shouldn't dictate your feelings towards the hobby.

D

 slowthar wrote:


- Pretty much the entire Grey Knights codex, but in particular the part where something like only 1 out of every 1000 space marines can be selected for the Grey Knight trials and then only 1 of every 1000 survives. MAYBE YOU GUYS NEED A BETTER SELECTION PROCESS.

Rumors say the final test is that each recruit has to read the GK fluff and can only join if you do not facepalm.

Over 20 years all of this has become much more than the original founders' vision. I have always loved the grimdark since it's something entirely different than most other stuff. Also it's something that's been so long with me it's sort of a nice thing that some of the more generic traits stay stable. Maybe a bit like good night stories for children, they like that these stories are predictable. Like this I like discussing with people about 40k; knowing that if I call a Space Marine player "loyalist scum" I'll inevitably provoke a dialogue with some fluff in it.

I don't read as many novels as I did in the old times, but I enjoyed some of the new ones really.

The main point for me still paying that much for the hobby is "Is it fun for me?". And when I am playing with my friends and their friends I do have a metric ton of fun. If some army is overpowered people voluntarily tone down their list. Sometimes we do events where everyone builds a fluff list or where we say that everyone has to include at least one unit that is considered gakky for their army. And as long as I am having fun doing all of those things I don't care much what GW do.

Sure, in old times I bought with them and since their massive price raises I buy with discount mail orders. That had that coming to them, the GW stores became pretty gakky in comparison to the mid to late 90ies... I rarely ever find a model I am looking for there. "We can order it for you." "Yeah, thanks, if I wanted to order it and wait a few days I would have stayed at home and ordered it myself in the first place." "..."

You're overthinking it way too much, OP. Roll dice, eat cupcake, enjoy life.

The fact that they say "we have no canon" makes me very much uninterested in their narrative they so forged. Many of the bigger series I'm fond of have that rumored "design bible" or things they hold true for the direction of their universe. Getting a little small detail in a Black Library book wrong from an RPG might be something worthy of a nitpick, but I'm sure Star Trek or Star Wars fans would go ballistic all the same.

There's no reason they cannot have a set idea of what is or is not canon. It would give direction to new creations and a sense of purpose for characters rather than Mary Sue of "grander and grander tales of conquest!" until we get to marines carving names into daemon princes hearts.

Your view is that a fixed canon is necessary for development of a story.

GW's view is that the story of 40K is a mixture of history, propaganda, legends, mistakes and lies, biased according to the viewpoint of the writer. There is no fixed canon and does not need to be.

 TheKbob wrote:
Many of the bigger series I'm fond of have that rumored "design bible" or things they hold true for the direction of their universe.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they use it effectively. For example, Star Wars had one that incorporated every single thing ever published in the universe, but only at the cost of some pretty convoluted attempts at making every random video game/toy package/etc fit into the same universe. Is this really better than just saying "there is no canon" and allowing different stories to contradict each other as long as the basic themes of the setting are maintained?

What was convoluted about Star Wars canon system? The canon tiers are pretty intuitive, to me.

And to your question, I'd say so. It certainly makes discussion about the Universe a lot easier. You don't have situations where you can provide a piece of canon to support your claim about what/how something is in-universe, only for some clown to say "nup, i dun accept that".

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What was convoluted about Star Wars canon system? The canon tiers are pretty intuitive, to me.

The system itself was fine, the problem was that they had a rule of "everything is canon unless it contradicts the movies" and almost never put anything into the lowest tier. So, for example, some random comic from 1978 about what happens after the Battle of Yavin is canon, even though later sources provided a different version of those events. So if you try to make it all fit you have an absurd sequence of events where the rebels evacuate, then come back, then have more adventures, the empire blockades the system, then goes away, then half the rebels evacuate again, and so on for months after the battle ended. The better way to do it would have been to pick one story as canon and toss out the rest, even if it was technically possible to make them all fit.

And to your question, I'd say so. It certainly makes discussion about the Universe a lot easier. You don't have situations where you can provide a piece of canon to support your claim about what/how something is in-universe, only for some clown to say "nup, i dun accept that".

But why does that really matter? Forum arguments are fun, but what someone else thinks about what is and isn't canon doesn't have anything to do with my enjoyment of the story, even if that person is a published author in that setting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What was convoluted about Star Wars canon system? The canon tiers are pretty intuitive, to me.

The system itself was fine, the problem was that they had a rule of "everything is canon unless it contradicts the movies" and almost never put anything into the lowest tier. So, for example, some random comic from 1978 about what happens after the Battle of Yavin is canon, even though later sources provided a different version of those events. So if you try to make it all fit you have an absurd sequence of events where the rebels evacuate, then come back, then have more adventures, the empire blockades the system, then goes away, then half the rebels evacuate again, and so on for months after the battle ended. The better way to do it would have been to pick one story as canon and toss out the rest, even if it was technically possible to make them all fit.

The rule of thumb was that chronology of release gives precedence when dealing with conflicting canon within the same tier. If you had a comic from the 70's that depicts an event going down one way, and then a book comes out in 2005 showing the same event going down in another way, then the event as described in 2005 takes precedence. Pretty simple.

But why does that really matter? Forum arguments are fun, but what someone else thinks about what is and isn't canon doesn't have anything to do with my enjoyment of the story, even if that person is a published author in that setting.

Why does anything matter. This is a fictional universe. Nothing that has to do with it has any intrinsic value.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The rule of thumb was that chronology of release gives precedence when dealing with conflicting canon within the same tier. If you had a comic from the 70's that depicts an event going down one way, and then a book comes out in 2005 showing the same event going down in another way, then the event as described in 2005 takes precedence. Pretty simple.

Yeah, but the problem was that it only counted as a "conflict" when there was absolutely no way to make both sources fit. If there was any interpretation, no matter how ridiculous, that allowed both sources to be correct then that was the answer.

Why does anything matter. This is a fictional universe. Nothing that has to do with it has any intrinsic value.

Well yeah, that's kind of the point. Did you enjoy the story? If so, why does it matter if someone else disagrees with you about what is canon? Why does it matter if the publisher has an Official Canon Policy?