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.

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

What's more, the Imperium has no backup plan at the dawn of the new millenium - if Cadia or Armageddon or Macragge falls then there's no stopping their enemies. That's part of the reason that the Imperium's victories always seem more important than their foe's - the setting pushes the conflict to its highest stakes, where failure for the Imperium means doom. Just because they avert doom in their victory doesn't mean that their foe didn't have great success up until that point.

Not really. Let's face it, many worlds of the Imperium, even the hyped up ones, are still tiny on the grand scale of things. Armageddon is a major hive world, and the key production center for a sector....Even if it fell, there are literally thousands of other hive worlds in the Imperium. Sure, they may all be as super productive as Armageddon but there have been tons of throwaway hive worlds invented and destroyed in the fluff already. If Armageddon were to join the list of destroyed worlds, would things really change that much in the background? Not really...Sure you could write about supply shortages or shortage of troops for the sector and other nearby worlds, but that is just more of the same embattled Imperium theme.

"If the great green menace could not be contained upon Armageddon, then it would sweep outwards and threaten the heart of the Imperium itself - Holy Terra." - Waaagh! Ghazhgkull supplement, page 21.

It is generally made very clear that Armageddon is not some random hive world, but is the lynchpin for a vital sector with a pathway to Terra - and that Ghaz has turned it into a keystone rallying point for the development of the Great Waaagh!. It's currently the Ork Valhalla, and as soon as it falls then the Ragnarork has begun.

theocracity wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

What's more, the Imperium has no backup plan at the dawn of the new millenium - if Cadia or Armageddon or Macragge falls then there's no stopping their enemies. That's part of the reason that the Imperium's victories always seem more important than their foe's - the setting pushes the conflict to its highest stakes, where failure for the Imperium means doom. Just because they avert doom in their victory doesn't mean that their foe didn't have great success up until that point.

Not really. Let's face it, many worlds of the Imperium, even the hyped up ones, are still tiny on the grand scale of things. Armageddon is a major hive world, and the key production center for a sector....Even if it fell, there are literally thousands of other hive worlds in the Imperium. Sure, they may not all be as super productive as Armageddon but there have been tons of throwaway hive worlds invented and destroyed in the fluff already. If Armageddon were to join the list of destroyed worlds, would things really change that much in the background? Not really...Sure you could write about supply shortages or shortage of troops for the sector and other nearby worlds, but that is just more of the same embattled Imperium theme.

"If the great green menace could not be contained upon Armageddon, then it would sweep outwards and threaten the heart of the Imperium itself - Holy Terra." - Waaagh! Ghazhgkull supplement, page 21.

It is generally made very clear that Armageddon is not some random hive world, but is the lynchpin for a vital sector with a pathway to Terra - and that Ghaz has turned it into a keystone rallying point for the development of the Great Waaagh!. It's currently the Ork Valhalla, and as soon as it falls then the Ragnarork has begun.

Armageddon is still ultimately a random hive world, just one that has had more written about it. Armageddon could fall and then it could be written the Orks get stopped at Newly Invented and now Important Hive World A, which has picked up the slack from Armageddon. The names can change yet the situation is still fundamentally the same. GW invents worlds all the time only to destroy them.

Gryphonne IV was invented many RL years ago and made to be one of the most heavily fortified worlds in the southern Imperium. Then more recently in RL years, it's been written to be consumed by the Tyranids. It's now gone yet life goes on. The 40K setting does not end simply because a lynchpin of the southern Imperium has fallen.

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

What's more, the Imperium has no backup plan at the dawn of the new millenium - if Cadia or Armageddon or Macragge falls then there's no stopping their enemies. That's part of the reason that the Imperium's victories always seem more important than their foe's - the setting pushes the conflict to its highest stakes, where failure for the Imperium means doom. Just because they avert doom in their victory doesn't mean that their foe didn't have great success up until that point.

Not really. Let's face it, many worlds of the Imperium, even the hyped up ones, are still tiny on the grand scale of things. Armageddon is a major hive world, and the key production center for a sector....Even if it fell, there are literally thousands of other hive worlds in the Imperium. Sure, they may not all be as super productive as Armageddon but there have been tons of throwaway hive worlds invented and destroyed in the fluff already. If Armageddon were to join the list of destroyed worlds, would things really change that much in the background? Not really...Sure you could write about supply shortages or shortage of troops for the sector and other nearby worlds, but that is just more of the same embattled Imperium theme.

"If the great green menace could not be contained upon Armageddon, then it would sweep outwards and threaten the heart of the Imperium itself - Holy Terra." - Waaagh! Ghazhgkull supplement, page 21.

It is generally made very clear that Armageddon is not some random hive world, but is the lynchpin for a vital sector with a pathway to Terra - and that Ghaz has turned it into a keystone rallying point for the development of the Great Waaagh!. It's currently the Ork Valhalla, and as soon as it falls then the Ragnarork has begun.

Armageddon is still ultimately a random hive world, just one that has had more written about it. Armageddon could fall and then it could be written the Orks get stopped at Newly Invented and now Important Hive World A, which has picked up the slack from Armageddon. The names can change yet the situation is still fundamentally the same. GW invents worlds all the time only to destroy them.

Gryphonne IV was invented many RL years ago and made to be one of the most heavily fortified worlds in the southern Imperium. Then more recently in RL years, it's been written to be consumed by the Tyranids. It's now gone yet life goes on. The 40K setting does not end simply because a lynchpin of the southern Imperium has fallen.

While that's technically true it sort of misses the point. Armageddon has long been set up to be the Cadia for Orks - not because of the importance of the world itself, but because if it falls it signals that the End Times are here. The endgame scenario for Orks is that they all unite behind one warboss. Ghazghkull, as the Prophet of the Waaagh!, threatens to become that warboss - especially since Armageddon has become a symbol for his goals. Even though he's left Armageddon to unite other Orks around the galaxy and further spark the Great Waaagh!, I think it goes without saying that if Armageddon falls it'll be the sign that the Orks have entered their endgame state.

Now, GW could of course pull a Death Masque on the Orks and change the terms of their endgame scenario somehow, or introduce new battlegrounds that become more important after Armageddon falls. But that doesn't make Armageddon unimportant. It may be a random hive world for the Imperium, but it's important for the Orks as their ultimate playground and symbol of Ghazghkull's claim to be the one warboss to rule them all.

theocracity wrote:

While that's technically true it sort of misses the point. Armageddon has long been set up to be the Cadia for Orks - not because of the importance of the world itself, but because if it falls it signals that the End Times are here. The endgame scenario for Orks is that they all unite behind one warboss. Ghazghkull, as the Prophet of the Waaagh!, threatens to become that warboss - especially since Armageddon has become a symbol for his goals. Even though he's left Armageddon to unite other Orks around the galaxy and further spark the Great Waaagh!, I think it goes without saying that if Armageddon falls it'll be the sign that the Orks have entered their endgame state.

Now, GW could of course pull a Death Masque on the Orks and change the terms of their endgame scenario somehow, or introduce new battlegrounds that become more important after Armageddon falls. But that doesn't make Armageddon unimportant. It may be a random hive world for the Imperium, but it's important for the Orks as their ultimate playground and symbol of Ghazghkull's claim to be the one warboss to rule them all.

Armageddon falling to the Orks no more means the endgame anymore than Cadia falling to Chaos means the endgame for Chaos. Orks can believe "this is really it" but they can take an infinite RL number of years to reach Terra after Armageddon falls, in the same way Chaos could still be getting ever closer to Terra after Cadia, without ever reaching it IRL. Enemies get closer to Terra asymptotically. They can always be written as getting closer but never have to actually reach it. 40K is a ficitonal universe, GW holds the IP and can write what they want, and there are an undefined number of systems between Armageddon and Terra, any one of which can fall or be written to be the new bulwark against the Orks. The Orks can still believe they are in the End Times, with all setbacks after Armageddon merely temporary speedbumps.

Again there is no reason to think the 40K setting has to end just because Armageddon falls, just as the 40K setting does not simply end just by the calendar ticking over into M42. Don't even start with the fallacious argument of "Then it wouldn't be 40K anymore". 20th Century Fox didn't implode just because it became the 21st Century.

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

While that's technically true it sort of misses the point. Armageddon has long been set up to be the Cadia for Orks - not because of the importance of the world itself, but because if it falls it signals that the End Times are here. The endgame scenario for Orks is that they all unite behind one warboss. Ghazghkull, as the Prophet of the Waaagh!, threatens to become that warboss - especially since Armageddon has become a symbol for his goals. Even though he's left Armageddon to unite other Orks around the galaxy and further spark the Great Waaagh!, I think it goes without saying that if Armageddon falls it'll be the sign that the Orks have entered their endgame state.

Now, GW could of course pull a Death Masque on the Orks and change the terms of their endgame scenario somehow, or introduce new battlegrounds that become more important after Armageddon falls. But that doesn't make Armageddon unimportant. It may be a random hive world for the Imperium, but it's important for the Orks as their ultimate playground and symbol of Ghazghkull's claim to be the one warboss to rule them all.

Armageddon falling to the Orks no more means the endgame anymore than Cadia falling to Chaos means the endgame for Chaos. Orks can believe "this is really it" but they can take an infinite RL number of years to reach Terra after Armageddon falls, in the same way Chaos could still be getting ever closer to Terra after Cadia, without ever reaching it IRL. Enemies get closer to Terra asymptotically. They can always be written as getting closer but never have to actually reach it. 40K is a ficitonal universe, GW holds the IP and can write what they want, and there are an undefined number of systems between Armageddon and Terra, any one of which can fall or be written to be the new bulwark against the Orks. The Orks can still believe they are in the End Times, with all setbacks after Armageddon merely temporary speedbumps.

Again there is no reason to think the 40K setting has to end just because Armageddon falls, just as the 40K setting does not simply end just by the calendar ticking over into M42. Don't even start with the fallacious argument of "Then it wouldn't be 40K anymore". 20th Century Fox didn't implode just because it became the 21st Century.

I mean, you're correct that GW is never going to truly end the setting and has the ability to write as many new battleground planets in as it wants to stall things out. But from a narrative point of view, the stakes of Armageddon have been built up to be a big deal - same as with Cadia - and transferring those stakes to some no-name planet after they fall would be like splitting a story's climax into multiple pointless sequels (cough, the Hobbit). It seems cynical to me to treat it like just another random world that doesn't matter just because we know that GW is unlikely to follow through on destroying their setting (though AoS shows that they have been willing to do that....)

theocracity wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

While that's technically true it sort of misses the point. Armageddon has long been set up to be the Cadia for Orks - not because of the importance of the world itself, but because if it falls it signals that the End Times are here. The endgame scenario for Orks is that they all unite behind one warboss. Ghazghkull, as the Prophet of the Waaagh!, threatens to become that warboss - especially since Armageddon has become a symbol for his goals. Even though he's left Armageddon to unite other Orks around the galaxy and further spark the Great Waaagh!, I think it goes without saying that if Armageddon falls it'll be the sign that the Orks have entered their endgame state.

Now, GW could of course pull a Death Masque on the Orks and change the terms of their endgame scenario somehow, or introduce new battlegrounds that become more important after Armageddon falls. But that doesn't make Armageddon unimportant. It may be a random hive world for the Imperium, but it's important for the Orks as their ultimate playground and symbol of Ghazghkull's claim to be the one warboss to rule them all.

Armageddon falling to the Orks no more means the endgame anymore than Cadia falling to Chaos means the endgame for Chaos. Orks can believe "this is really it" but they can take an infinite RL number of years to reach Terra after Armageddon falls, in the same way Chaos could still be getting ever closer to Terra after Cadia, without ever reaching it IRL. Enemies get closer to Terra asymptotically. They can always be written as getting closer but never have to actually reach it. 40K is a ficitonal universe, GW holds the IP and can write what they want, and there are an undefined number of systems between Armageddon and Terra, any one of which can fall or be written to be the new bulwark against the Orks. The Orks can still believe they are in the End Times, with all setbacks after Armageddon merely temporary speedbumps.

Again there is no reason to think the 40K setting has to end just because Armageddon falls, just as the 40K setting does not simply end just by the calendar ticking over into M42. Don't even start with the fallacious argument of "Then it wouldn't be 40K anymore". 20th Century Fox didn't implode just because it became the 21st Century.

I mean, you're correct that GW is never going to truly end the setting and has the ability to write as many new battleground planets in as it wants to stall things out. But from a narrative point of view, the stakes of Armageddon have been built up to be a big deal - same as with Cadia - and transferring those stakes to some no-name planet after they fall would be like splitting a story's climax into multiple pointless sequels (cough, the Hobbit). It seems cynical to me to treat it like just another random world that doesn't matter just because we know that GW is unlikely to follow through on destroying their setting (though AoS shows that they have been willing to do that....)

The galaxy is incredibly vast. Even important planets are only important on a local scale. If Armageddon fell, and New Hive World Battleground Planet were hyped for the next 10+ RL years, eventually players would accept that as the new state of affairs, and it would be the new "Armageddon". The wars for Armageddon would become one milestone in the history of the game, much like how the battle for Ichar IV became. What matters and changes are the details, the personal stories. That is what background timeline change allows for.

Tycho, was originally a no name Blood Angel Captain used in a battle report that was fried by a Weirdboy during the 2nd War for Armageddon. They rolled with that result and incorpoated that into making him disfigured. Then they finally had him die in a blaze of glory on Armageddon. His story could move because the timeline moved.

Yarrick being captured on Golgotha was the result of an Epic system battle report between Squats with Imperial allies against the Orks, which was a crushing Ork victory. Yarrick's Baneblade was among the last Imperial units to fall. They went with that (editing out the Squats) and added to Yarrick's background.

Cadia falling would be a big thing for Creed's background. Armageddon falling would be a big thing for Ghaz and Yarrick's background. The factions as a whole though have not shifted from their overall theme and stereotype even though details might shift. The Orks are the barbarians at the gate. The Tau are the new upstarts. The Eldar are the ancient inscrutable outsiders. Etc...

@theocracity: Orks cannot suffer endless defeats, the Horus Heresy book even shows us that a significant enough defeat such as Ullanor can 'break the back' of Ork power in the galaxy. Thus their capabilities can clearly be degraded, similar to the Imperium's, and in truth their capabilities have already been degraded to an extent where they are a negligible threat to the Imperium, by your own words the Orks are only dangerous when the Imperium doesn't pay attention to them.

Also I don't understand this 'lack of a back-up plan' logic. Whole Craftworlds have been destroyed, named ones, and major Ork Waaaghs!!! have been destroyed, why not have some major Imperium worlds conquered then? I certainly don't see how a defeat at Cadia, Armageddon or Macragge need be instantly translated into the Imperium's destruction.

Honestly if the Craftworld Eldar can have all their Infinity Circuits drained, the Orks can lose their largest Waaagh!!! in history why not let a major Imperium war end in defeat instead of victory for a change?

Like I said we have fundamentally opposed ways of looking at it, since the 'Role' of Orks and Eldar (and virtually all non-Imperium factions) by your measure is simply to provide a good 'challenge' to the 'protagonist' Imperium it simply degrades all other factions to being notches on the Imperium's, usually Space Marines, victory belt.

I don't enjoy that way of looking at fluff at all.

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

theocracity wrote:

While that's technically true it sort of misses the point. Armageddon has long been set up to be the Cadia for Orks - not because of the importance of the world itself, but because if it falls it signals that the End Times are here. The endgame scenario for Orks is that they all unite behind one warboss. Ghazghkull, as the Prophet of the Waaagh!, threatens to become that warboss - especially since Armageddon has become a symbol for his goals. Even though he's left Armageddon to unite other Orks around the galaxy and further spark the Great Waaagh!, I think it goes without saying that if Armageddon falls it'll be the sign that the Orks have entered their endgame state.

Now, GW could of course pull a Death Masque on the Orks and change the terms of their endgame scenario somehow, or introduce new battlegrounds that become more important after Armageddon falls. But that doesn't make Armageddon unimportant. It may be a random hive world for the Imperium, but it's important for the Orks as their ultimate playground and symbol of Ghazghkull's claim to be the one warboss to rule them all.

Armageddon falling to the Orks no more means the endgame anymore than Cadia falling to Chaos means the endgame for Chaos. Orks can believe "this is really it" but they can take an infinite RL number of years to reach Terra after Armageddon falls, in the same way Chaos could still be getting ever closer to Terra after Cadia, without ever reaching it IRL. Enemies get closer to Terra asymptotically. They can always be written as getting closer but never have to actually reach it. 40K is a ficitonal universe, GW holds the IP and can write what they want, and there are an undefined number of systems between Armageddon and Terra, any one of which can fall or be written to be the new bulwark against the Orks. The Orks can still believe they are in the End Times, with all setbacks after Armageddon merely temporary speedbumps.

Again there is no reason to think the 40K setting has to end just because Armageddon falls, just as the 40K setting does not simply end just by the calendar ticking over into M42. Don't even start with the fallacious argument of "Then it wouldn't be 40K anymore". 20th Century Fox didn't implode just because it became the 21st Century.

I mean, you're correct that GW is never going to truly end the setting and has the ability to write as many new battleground planets in as it wants to stall things out. But from a narrative point of view, the stakes of Armageddon have been built up to be a big deal - same as with Cadia - and transferring those stakes to some no-name planet after they fall would be like splitting a story's climax into multiple pointless sequels (cough, the Hobbit). It seems cynical to me to treat it like just another random world that doesn't matter just because we know that GW is unlikely to follow through on destroying their setting (though AoS shows that they have been willing to do that....)

The galaxy is incredibly vast. Even important planets are only important on a local scale. If Armageddon fell, and New Hive World Battleground Planet were hyped for the next 10+ RL years, eventually players would accept that as the new state of affairs, and it would be the new "Armageddon". The wars for Armageddon would become one milestone in the history of the game, much like how the battle for Ichar IV became. What matters and changes are the details, the personal stories. That is what background timeline change allows for.

I feel like that would ultimately be an unsatisfying way to handle things. If it takes them 10 years of hype to make a random new planet into the new Armageddon, why not just keep Armageddon around as the iconic warzone?

Tycho, was originally a no name Blood Angel Captain used in a battle report that was fried by a Weirdboy during the 2nd War for Armageddon. They rolled with that result and incorpoated that into making him disfigured. Then they finally had him die in a blaze of glory on Armageddon. His story could move because the timeline moved.

Yarrick being captured on Golgotha was the result of an Epic system battle report between Squats with Imperial allies against the Orks, which was a crushing Ork victory. Yarrick's Baneblade was among the last Imperial units to fall. They went with that (editing out the Squats) and added to Yarrick's background.

Cadia falling would be a big thing for Creed's background. Armageddon falling would be a big thing for Ghaz and Yarrick's background. The factions as a whole though have not shifted from their overall theme and stereotype even though details might shift. The Orks are the barbarians at the gate. The Tau are the new upstarts. The Eldar are the ancient inscrutable outsiders. Etc...

I'm fine with that kind of story development - you can have characters created or develop or die as a result of story development in warzones that are adjacent to the iconic set piece conflict. But if GW is going to hype warzones like Armageddon as being The Big One, I don't think it's in their interests to suddenly change the terms, resolve the set piece in a way that annoys people who've invested in the years of background, and then introduce some no-name world as the Big One For Real This Time.

I mean, look at what happened with AoS. The End Times books were popular for their ancillary story development up until the results started irreversibly destroying interesting parts of the setting, and once it was over when people who had hope for the new setting (like me) have had a hard time caring about what goes on in All Points or whatever it's called. And that's not saying that they'd go so far as to destroy the galaxy of 40k - just that resolving the dramatic tension that warzones like Cadia or Armageddon has built up only to just start over somewhere else is inevitably going to be disappointing and not as interesting.

 Anemone wrote:
@theocracity: Orks cannot suffer endless defeats, the Horus Heresy book even shows us that a significant enough defeat such as Ullanor can 'break the back' of Ork power in the galaxy. Thus their capabilities can clearly be degraded, similar to the Imperium's, and in truth their capabilities have already been degraded to an extent where they are a negligible threat to the Imperium, by your own words the Orks are only dangerous when the Imperium doesn't pay attention to them.

And yet the Orks keep coming back after Ullanor, from the Beast to Ghazghkull. Orks can suffer defeats because they never truly go away. My point was not that they get ignored because their capabilities are degraded - it's because living with Orks is like living on a flood plain. Most of the time, the river's in control and you can go about your life knowing that the levies will keep it at bay. But if you neglect the levies, the rivers could overrun you and destroy everything. You're never going to get rid of the river or stop it from doing what it does - you just have to fight to keep your head above water, wait till it recedes and take stock of the damage.

Also I don't understand this 'lack of a back-up plan' logic. Whole Craftworlds have been destroyed, named ones, and major Ork Waaaghs!!! have been destroyed, why not have some major Imperium worlds conquered then? I certainly don't see how a defeat at Cadia, Armageddon or Macragge need be instantly translated into the Imperium's destruction.

Because they've been narratively set up to be exactly that important, and because the Imperium of 40k has been long established as crumbling in on itself and fundamentally unable to recapture its former glory (unless the rumors come true and the Primarcha wake up again, in which case I have no idea).

Honestly if the Craftworld Eldar can have all their Infinity Circuits drained

[citation needed]

the Orks can lose their largest Waaagh!!! in history

Because that was kind of a foregone conclusion in the history.

why not let a major Imperium war end in defeat instead of victory for a change?

Because most Imperium victories are phyrric, and their enemies are endless, and the End Times are coming.

Like I said we have fundamentally opposed ways of looking at it, since the 'Role' of Orks and Eldar (and virtually all non-Imperium factions) by your measure is simply to provide a good 'challenge' to the 'protagonist' Imperium it simply degrades all other factions to being notches on the Imperium's, usually Space Marines, victory belt.

I don't enjoy that way of looking at fluff at all.

We do have different views. Yours seems very glass-half-empty to me. Maybe I've just internalized the Ork ethos that defeats never matter as long as you have a good fight on the way there.

theocracity wrote:

I feel like that would ultimately be an unsatisfying way to handle things. If it takes them 10 years of hype to make a random new planet into the new Armageddon, why not just keep Armageddon around as the iconic warzone?

...

I'm fine with that kind of story development - you can have characters created or develop or die as a result of story development in warzones that are adjacent to the iconic set piece conflict. But if GW is going to hype warzones like Armageddon as being The Big One, I don't think it's in their interests to suddenly change the terms, resolve the set piece in a way that annoys people who've invested in the years of background, and then introduce some no-name world as the Big One For Real This Time.

A cliffhanger cannot be prolonged and hyped indefinitely before it loses its suspense, its impact, and people grow bored. GW may be somewhat realizing this after about 14 years of being stuck on the 13th Black Crusade.

Also GW have gone back on their hype before. In 2002, Andy Chambers in an interview, explicitly said the results of the worldwide campaign would affect the direction and tone of 40K and the next edition, with a Chaos victory resulting in more doom and gloom with Abaddon on the loose, and an Imperial victory resulting in a new age of Imperial glory, with maybe a hint of Legions being reformed. GW then swept that promise under the rug. Several editions later, newer players know nothing of it. 40K rolls on.

I have never believed Cadia, Macragge, or Armageddon to be unmovable lynchpins of the background. The Imperium not losing them may be the last hope of restoring the old status quo of the Imperium, but losing them for me has always meant just a new status quo. Orks can believe whatever they want. Prophets have been wrong, or perhaps right but wrong about the time of when the End is. Cadia is the last chance to push Abaddon back without major damage to Segmentum Solar. Armageddon is the last chance to push back the Orks before they break out on a path to Terra. GW can resolve these because there are no real Big Ones save maybe Terra and Mars for the Imperium, as the threats never need to reach them. GW just needs to shift the tenor of its hype.

Iracundus wrote:

GW just needs to shift the tenor of its hype.

That's definitely possible. We'll have to see what happens with this whole Primarch business.

I will note, though, that GW's recent moves to advance the story are so far not reliant on resolving any of their iconic battlegrounds. They've mostly ended up as either continuing stalemates (Damocles Gulf, Armageddon), added new iconic battlegrounds (Fenris, Baal), had new battles set up that are ancillary to the iconic conflict (Octarius, whatever the world was in Traitors Hate), or were purely about character / faction development (Death Masque). These are nice because they advance the story and can have characters develop or get killed without throwing away the iconic battles or let the story start to negatively impact the setting.

GW should have just gone with the old Eye of Terror campaign results in the first place since it seems to be heading in that doom and gloom direction anyway. Cadia was embattled, but Abaddon had moved on and was heading in Terra's direction. The Imperium responded by drawing forces from its far borders (like the Tau) and that could easily be rationalized as the reason why Abaddon does not actually reach Terra, as he gets bogged down by Imperial reinforcements. Even in the midst of the doom and gloom, there were still unexpected bits of hope, such as the Eldar establishing pockets of sanity on the daemon world of Eidolon and pushing back Chaos from vast swathes of Belial IV.

@theocracity: The Imperium keeps coming back as well, not vanishing from the galaxy is hardly a unique feature of the Orks, but the difference is that the Orks suffer continuous major defeats whilst the Imperium does not. The Imperium remains a faction which never loses any major engagements at all.

Even the Orks you mentioned; both are cases where they've come back and lost (Beast Waaagh!!! and the 2nd Armageddon War) with the closest thing they have to a victory being the indeterminate (at this stage) nature of the 3rd Armageddon War.

In fact the Beast Arises series explicitly spells out that the Imperium in the 32nd Millennium could ignore them because of how degraded the Orks were and, even when the Orks returned in strength to fight a weakened Imperium, the Imperium still won.

Because the Imperium always wins the major campaigns for the last 10 000+ years.

Also I still fail to see how it is in anyway problematic to have the Imperium suffer major defeats like virtually every other faction does.

I don't even see how most Imperium victories are Pyrrhic considering they win the majority of their fights and have endured as a galactic hegemon for over 10 000+ years. King Pyrrhus wishes his Pyrrhic Victories had been that good.

Not to mention the Imperium's foes aren't numberless; the Tau, Eldar are distinctly not numberless, the Orks are easily kept at bay, only the Tyranid have ever made significant gains. The Imperium itself is the largest hegemon in the galaxy, has held that title for more than 10 000 years and has defeated virtually every other major power and crushed it several times over.

I simply don't see any substantiation for this idea. If the Imperium were losing then please give an example of a major War which the Imperium unequivocally lost.

Iracundus wrote:
GW should have just gone with the old Eye of Terror campaign results in the first place since it seems to be heading in that doom and gloom direction anyway. Cadia was embattled, but Abaddon had moved on and was heading in Terra's direction. The Imperium responded by drawing forces from its far borders (like the Tau) and that could easily be rationalized as the reason why Abaddon does not actually reach Terra, as he gets bogged down by Imperial reinforcements. Even in the midst of the doom and gloom, there were still unexpected bits of hope, such as the Eldar establishing pockets of sanity on the daemon world of Eidolon and pushing back Chaos from vast swathes of Belial IV.

Didn't Chaos control basically no space or supply lines at all by the end of EoT? They made a few gains on the ground in Cadia but got completely spanked in space, where it really counted strategically. They were in serious trouble if that state of affairs continued, as I recall it.

Tau are definitely up there. We lose the small insignificant battles and win the big ones which matter more and when we do win its a huge curb stomp battle for the most part and causes a magnitude more damage to the IoM than we take in turn. Definitely tier 1. Necrons are also above us for reasons stated. Then Space Marines might be tied with us or slightly above. The IoM has given up on sending crusades at Tau since so many have failed and ended in disaster. Finally we know GW is planning a global 40k campaign next year and allegedly the Tau and other Xenos will have their chance to break out and cause some mayhem during the reinvisioned 13th Black Crusade.

this about the Tau is they can't afford to lose. not the way just about every faction can. the IoM can lose a hundred planets and not even notice it, entire eldar craft worlds can be wiped out and while it'd be desvestating the eldar would carry on. the 'nids can have nearly an entire hive fleet destroyed, they just go away and nom a few under protected worlds and get right back into the mix. Orks? we've talked about them. Necrons have huge numbers, and rarely actually suffer loses of personal. Chaos' numbers are vague but it seems they can absorb loses.
the Tau, the Tau consist of what a hundred worlds? ANY loses beyond an offensive being blunted would be DEVESTATING to them as a faction.

Well because writers don't know science or scale I would say we have more than that. but compared to the IoM still small.

I would like to see the Tau expand fluff wise to a moderate stellar empire in size so we can have losses and setbacks like regular factions. So for the greater good of the story the Tau are going to have to curb stomp until they are big enough a loss makes sense for their story and they won't simply be wiped off the map.

 Robin5t wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
GW should have just gone with the old Eye of Terror campaign results in the first place since it seems to be heading in that doom and gloom direction anyway. Cadia was embattled, but Abaddon had moved on and was heading in Terra's direction. The Imperium responded by drawing forces from its far borders (like the Tau) and that could easily be rationalized as the reason why Abaddon does not actually reach Terra, as he gets bogged down by Imperial reinforcements. Even in the midst of the doom and gloom, there were still unexpected bits of hope, such as the Eldar establishing pockets of sanity on the daemon world of Eidolon and pushing back Chaos from vast swathes of Belial IV.

Didn't Chaos control basically no space or supply lines at all by the end of EoT? They made a few gains on the ground in Cadia but got completely spanked in space, where it really counted strategically. They were in serious trouble if that state of affairs continued, as I recall it.

You recall incorrectly. The Imperium was in serious trouble if the campaign had continued. The Imperium was still losing ground steadily when the campaign posting timeframe ended. The Imperium lost the campaign because the PLANETS counted for more, and were warned in a campaign newsletter of this fact. Do not trust hearsay or "I remember" sources as there was and still is a lot of misinformation out there by sore loser Imperial players in denial trying to spin the official result of a Forces of Disorder minor victory to a draw or even an Imperial victory.

The only people that have ever been using the "stalemate" word are those players in denial that have been over the years trying to deny and spin doctor the Imperium's defeat in that campaign to a draw or worse to claim Imperial victory. GW has never used the stalemate word in its results report of the campaign, nor has that word been used in the BL book The 13th Black Crusade. The word "stalemate" or "draw" does not appear a single time in any of GW's 13th Black Crusade related publications.

Results and campaign mechanics from WD 287 are posted here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/392010.page

Iracundus wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
GW should have just gone with the old Eye of Terror campaign results in the first place since it seems to be heading in that doom and gloom direction anyway. Cadia was embattled, but Abaddon had moved on and was heading in Terra's direction. The Imperium responded by drawing forces from its far borders (like the Tau) and that could easily be rationalized as the reason why Abaddon does not actually reach Terra, as he gets bogged down by Imperial reinforcements. Even in the midst of the doom and gloom, there were still unexpected bits of hope, such as the Eldar establishing pockets of sanity on the daemon world of Eidolon and pushing back Chaos from vast swathes of Belial IV.

Didn't Chaos control basically no space or supply lines at all by the end of EoT? They made a few gains on the ground in Cadia but got completely spanked in space, where it really counted strategically. They were in serious trouble if that state of affairs continued, as I recall it.

You recall incorrectly. The Imperium was in serious trouble if the campaign had continued. The Imperium was still losing ground steadily when the campaign posting timeframe ended. The Imperium lost the campaign because the PLANETS counted for more, and were warned in a campaign newsletter of this fact. Do not trust hearsay or "I remember" sources as there was and still is a lot of misinformation out there by sore loser Imperial players in denial trying to spin the official result of a Forces of Disorder minor victory to a draw or even an Imperial victory.

The only people that have ever been using the "stalemate" word are those players in denial that have been over the years trying to deny and spin doctor the Imperium's defeat in that campaign to a draw or worse to claim Imperial victory. GW has never used the stalemate word in its results report of the campaign, nor has that word been used in the BL book The 13th Black Crusade. The word "stalemate" or "draw" does not appear a single time in any of GW's 13th Black Crusade related publications.

Results and campaign mechanics from WD 287 are posted here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/392010.page

Of course, I'm sure the planets counted for more in the campaign's mechanics, otherwise the 40k players would have basically been playing second-fiddle to BFG, where the Imperium's crushing victories everywhere would have made everything else irrelevant.

However, setting aside game mechanics for a moment, there is no school of thought in existence about interstellar warfare that regards a situation where you make gains planetside but the enemy establishes total orbital supremacy as a strategic victory.

 Robin5t wrote:

Of course, I'm sure the planets counted for more in the campaign's mechanics, otherwise the 40k players would have basically been playing second-fiddle to BFG, where the Imperium's crushing victories everywhere would have made everything else irrelevant.

However, setting aside game mechanics for a moment, there is no school of thought in existence about interstellar warfare that regards a situation where you make gains planetside but the enemy establishes total orbital supremacy as a strategic victory.

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the mechanics in the linked post then. Else you would know that you could post 40K games to the space warzones, and THAT is how the Imperium got the advantage in those space warzones. We know this because the BFG results were given in the BFG magazine, and even in warzones where BFG results showed Chaos winning, in the overall campaign, those same warzones had the Imperium winning. The sheer number of 40K games swamped any BFG game results. BFG games were effectively IRRELEVANT to the campaign results.

Again you didn't read the linked post with results accurately if at all because the Imperium doesn't have orbital superiority. They had deep space superiority. Chaos had local orbital superiority. Also in the 40K universe, planetary defense installations have greater firepower than ships and cost less. So ships would lose in slugging matches. The defenses of the typical hive on Armageddon were given in that worldwide campaign, and it would have shredded an Imperial cruiser. In 40K, space is but one arm of warfare, not the be all and end all of everything.

Seriously, go read the evidence because right now you are making wrong statements about that campaign that are based on ignorance and lack of information about what the rules were and what the results were. The link has been given. The evidence and facts of what happened are there. There is no excuse to keep making up.

Iracundus wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:

Of course, I'm sure the planets counted for more in the campaign's mechanics, otherwise the 40k players would have basically been playing second-fiddle to BFG, where the Imperium's crushing victories everywhere would have made everything else irrelevant.

However, setting aside game mechanics for a moment, there is no school of thought in existence about interstellar warfare that regards a situation where you make gains planetside but the enemy establishes total orbital supremacy as a strategic victory.

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the mechanics in the linked post then. Else you would know that you could post 40K games to the space warzones, and THAT is how the Imperium got the advantage in those space warzones. We know this because the BFG results were given in the BFG magazine, and even in warzones where BFG results showed Chaos winning, in the overall campaign, those same warzones had the Imperium winning. The sheer number of 40K games swamped any BFG game results. BFG games were effectively IRRELEVANT to the campaign results.

Again you didn't read the linked post with results accurately if at all because the Imperium doesn't have orbital superiority. They had deep space superiority. Chaos had local orbital superiority. Also in the 40K universe, planetary defense installations have greater firepower than ships and cost less. So ships would lose in slugging matches. The defenses of the typical hive on Armageddon were given in that worldwide campaign, and it would have shredded an Imperial cruiser. In 40K, space is but one arm of warfare, not the be all and end all of everything.

Seriously, go read the evidence because right now you are making wrong statements about that campaign that are based on ignorance and lack of information about what the rules were and what the results were. The link has been given. The evidence and facts of what happened are there. There is no excuse to keep making up.

Actually, I did read it, the entire thing, just as I've read other write-ups of the campaign. The basic summary is that Order completely controlled the space-lanes, and held onto the important worlds, while Disorder milked the threshold mechanic (that many of the Order players didn't believe existed) for all it was worth and used their superior organisation to make big gains on all the minor worlds, with the Eldar being the biggest success story to the point where they were able to take back territory within the eye of terror (and got utterly shafted by the fluff that came immediately after, which basically completely disregarded their efforts).

The fact remains that the Imperium's total, near-uncontested control of space meant victory was ultimately assured for them. You can't maintain any kind of conventional offensive when the enemy has far superior strategic mobility, can resupply and reinforce their troops on the ground as much as they like while you can't, and can bombard you at will. (I'll also ask you to provide a citation for the Chaos forces taking control of the orbital defences, please, as I wasn't able to find that in there or any other write-up myself)

 Robin5t wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:

Of course, I'm sure the planets counted for more in the campaign's mechanics, otherwise the 40k players would have basically been playing second-fiddle to BFG, where the Imperium's crushing victories everywhere would have made everything else irrelevant.

However, setting aside game mechanics for a moment, there is no school of thought in existence about interstellar warfare that regards a situation where you make gains planetside but the enemy establishes total orbital supremacy as a strategic victory.

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the mechanics in the linked post then. Else you would know that you could post 40K games to the space warzones, and THAT is how the Imperium got the advantage in those space warzones. We know this because the BFG results were given in the BFG magazine, and even in warzones where BFG results showed Chaos winning, in the overall campaign, those same warzones had the Imperium winning. The sheer number of 40K games swamped any BFG game results. BFG games were effectively IRRELEVANT to the campaign results.

Again you didn't read the linked post with results accurately if at all because the Imperium doesn't have orbital superiority. They had deep space superiority. Chaos had local orbital superiority. Also in the 40K universe, planetary defense installations have greater firepower than ships and cost less. So ships would lose in slugging matches. The defenses of the typical hive on Armageddon were given in that worldwide campaign, and it would have shredded an Imperial cruiser. In 40K, space is but one arm of warfare, not the be all and end all of everything.

Seriously, go read the evidence because right now you are making wrong statements about that campaign that are based on ignorance and lack of information about what the rules were and what the results were. The link has been given. The evidence and facts of what happened are there. There is no excuse to keep making up.

Actually, I did read it, the entire thing, just as I've read other write-ups of the campaign. The basic summary is that Order completely controlled the space-lanes, and held onto the important worlds, while Disorder milked the threshold mechanic (that many of the Order players didn't believe existed) for all it was worth and used their superior organisation to make big gains on all the minor worlds, with the Eldar being the biggest success story to the point where they were able to take back territory within the eye of terror (and got utterly shafted by the fluff that came immediately after, which basically completely disregarded their efforts).

The fact remains that the Imperium's total, near-uncontested control of space meant victory was ultimately assured for them. You can't maintain any kind of conventional offensive when the enemy has far superior strategic mobility, can resupply and reinforce their troops on the ground as much as they like while you can't, and can bombard you at will. (I'll also ask you to provide a citation for the Chaos forces taking control of the orbital defences, please, as I wasn't able to find that in there or any other write-up myself)

In 2003, Forces of Order players in denial tried to persuade Andy Chambers at a convention that it was "really" Order that had won the campaign (despite the official results already being out in print in WD as a Disorder victory). Andy replied "Daemon gates". Also in BL's 13th Black Crusade book, an Imperial staff officer says space blockades are not airtight and cannot totally prevent the enemy from resupplying or reinforcing. The Imperium cannot bombard at will because Chaos has orbital superiority and in 40K, ground to orbital defenses are cheaper for the same amount of firepower. Any heavily fortified planet has void shielded installations and defensive installations that make it a difficult prospect for any direct bombardment.

In particular, with reference to the BFG rulebook, the average planetary defense laser silo packs almost as much firepower as the broadside of a Gothic cruiser, with greater range than the Gothic. Likewise, the average planetary defense missile silo has the launch capacity of a full cruiser, and the average planetary defense air base has enough short range aerospace fighters and bombers to match a Dictator cruiser.

From the old GW Armageddon 3 website archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20010820235454/www.armageddon3.com/English/Campaign/BFG/BFGmap.html

we can see the defenses of each hive on Armageddon comprised at least 4 air bases, 8 missile silos, and 8 laser silos. That kind of firepower would be enough to shred your average Imperial frigate, and even your average cruiser, if they tried to bombard the hive. Even if one takes Armageddon to be a more heavily defended than usual hive world, it still gives a rough gauge of the defenses a typical hive might have, which still is likely to overpower most spaceships.


You are trying to impose your ideas of what you think the 40K space paradigm "should" be. It is not that. War paradigms shift over time, and space is incredibly vast. In 40K, space advantage is useful and is probably what led to the results being a Disorder minor, not major, victory but itnot an "I win" card. GW has made that the paradigm of their fictional universe, and since they hold the IP, what they say goes. Anything else is complete wishful thinking or Forces of Order sore loser denial. This happened during the campaign when newsletter 5 at http://redelf.narod.ru/w40k/eyeofterror/newsletter_5.html even warned them that holding on the space warzones would not be enough:

Warnings
Ursarkar Creed has been hailed by many as the most able Imperial Guard commander since the legendary Lord Solar Macharius, yet many observers have noted that his sub-commanders have not proved themselves quite so capable. So sudden and mobile has the Despoiler's invasion proved that many commanders at a system and planetary level have simply been unable to coordinate their actions, and are reacting to the enemy's attacks rather than dictating their own terms of battle. Creed has issued stern orders to his subordinates- take the initiative at a planetary level, or fall. The choice is that simple.

The Forces of Order did not listen or tried to convince themselves that they "should" still win despite GW's direct warning alluding to the weighting of the different warzones. Guess what? They still didn't listen. The campaign was declared a Disorder victory. Some players were even shocked because they had spun so hard convincing themselves about what the rules should be they completely ignored what the rules were. Operate in a fact free zone long enough can mean reality can be a shock.


As for the orbital superiority, first read the linked post more carefully, because again I get the impression you did not read in any detail and just skimmed. System level control for major systems with planet sub-warzones was system level space superiority. Look at the results for the Cadian system. Well below 50% Imperial Control. Chaos had the upper hand in local Cadian space.

Final Newsletter

Cadia
The bleak moors of Cadia are reduced to a barren, crater-pocked wasteland, blasted by orbital torpedoes, super-heavy artillery and the footfall of titans. The Vilklas and Andur defence lines have collapsed under the relentless pressure of a million frenzied cultists, traitors and mutants, and the Cadian High Command has been forced to relocate to Kasr Gallan on the far side of the Caducades Sea. Though the Imperial Navy is in control of the inter-system space lanes, Chaos rules the skies above Cadia since the orbital defences fell in the opening days of the Black Crusade. The defenders of Cadia are now deployed around Kasr Gallan and throughout the Wastes, resolute that not a backward step shall be taken. The order is given- ‘stand at Cadia, or damn the Imperium of Mankind to the depredations of Chaos for all eternity’.

"Chaos rules the skies above Cadia..."

All the newsletters are archived at http://redelf.narod.ru/w40k/eyeofterror/newsletter_f.html

 Robin5t wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
GW should have just gone with the old Eye of Terror campaign results in the first place since it seems to be heading in that doom and gloom direction anyway. Cadia was embattled, but Abaddon had moved on and was heading in Terra's direction. The Imperium responded by drawing forces from its far borders (like the Tau) and that could easily be rationalized as the reason why Abaddon does not actually reach Terra, as he gets bogged down by Imperial reinforcements. Even in the midst of the doom and gloom, there were still unexpected bits of hope, such as the Eldar establishing pockets of sanity on the daemon world of Eidolon and pushing back Chaos from vast swathes of Belial IV.

Didn't Chaos control basically no space or supply lines at all by the end of EoT? They made a few gains on the ground in Cadia but got completely spanked in space, where it really counted strategically. They were in serious trouble if that state of affairs continued, as I recall it.

Chaos took all but 1 Kaer of Cadia. For all intents and purposes, that world was lost. Supply-lines and such are of a concern to mortal armies like the Imperium. When you can tear a hole through the Warp and march armies and supplies through it, control of the space-lanes is less-important, but GW didn't seem to consider that aspect of Chaos through the campaign. At the end of the campaign, though, the Imperium was on the back foot, had lost Cadia, and didn't have the resources in-system to prevent other Chaos fleets from popping through the Cadian Gate and then going wherever the feth they wanted to. *That* was the biggest take-away from the events on Cadia. Even if the Imperium retakes the planet, they've lost the system defenses, which means Chaos can fly fleets in and out of the Eye with relative impunity.

Iracundus wrote:
[
Again you didn't read the linked post with results accurately if at all because the Imperium doesn't have orbital superiority. They had deep space superiority. Chaos had local orbital superiority..

They took the orbital defenses in Cadia, but where does it say they had orbital superiority across the battlefront?

Iracundus wrote:

In 2003, Forces of Order players in denial tried to persuade Andy Chambers at a convention that it was "really" Order that had won the campaign (despite the official results already being out in print in WD as a Disorder victory). Andy replied "Daemon gates".

Can we get some sort of source or quote on that?

I'm mean, I've heard this before, but Ive never got any kind of solid source on it other than hearsay.

Gree wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
[
Again you didn't read the linked post with results accurately if at all because the Imperium doesn't have orbital superiority. They had deep space superiority. Chaos had local orbital superiority..

They took the orbital defenses in Cadia, but where does it say they had orbital superiority across the battlefront?

By the definition of those warzones? The subsector capitals and critical systems were subdivided into planet warzones, with a system level Imperial Control stat representing the local orbital control. Hence that is why the Cadian system, which ended with a system level Imperial Control of under 30%, has Chaos with local orbital control. More minor systems had only a single warzone, system level Imperial Control, representing any planets within that system and orbital control. Finally at the highest level there was the sector level warzone, representing control of "inter-system space lanes" (as stated in the Final Newsletter).

Go read the results in the link posted earlier. The majority of systems in the 3 most major sectors of Scarus, Agripinaa, and Cadia were knocked down far below their starting levels, so Chaos (or Orks) are in control of those systems and their local space.

Can we get some sort of source or quote on that?

I'm mean, I've heard this before, but Ive never got any kind of solid source on it other than hearsay.

The original account was given in a post by one of the Chaos Triad members (one of the 3 people that led grand strategy for the Forces of Disorder) a few weeks after the end of the campaign, on warseer.com. It unfortunately is ancient history and also gone now with the loss of warseer.

There is no a priori reason to doubt the truth of the account however given that the same mentality by Forces of Order players has been witnessed on forums in the years 2003. Essentially: refusing to accept the results or trying to argue how they "should" have been (i.e. them winning). Funnily enough, the Eye of Terror campaign (the only campaign where the Imperium lost) is the only campaign where there is such complaining. There is a noticeable lack of complaining about the results in the Armageddon 3 campaign or the Medusa V campaign that followed the Eye of Terror campaign (both of which were in favor of the Imperium).

Iracundus wrote:

By the definition of those warzones? The subsector capitals and critical systems were subdivided into planet warzones, with a system level Imperial Control stat representing the local orbital control.

Is it stated that Imperial control represents orbital control?

Iracundus wrote:

The original account was given in a post by one of the Chaos Triad members (one of the 3 people that led grand strategy for the Forces of Disorder) a few weeks after the end of the campaign, on warseer.com. It unfortunately is ancient history and also gone now with the loss of warseer.

There is no a priori reason to doubt the truth of the account however given that the same mentality by Forces of Order players has been witnessed on forums in the years 2003. Essentially: refusing to accept the results or trying to argue how they "should" have been (i.e. them winning). Funnily enough, the Eye of Terror campaign (the only campaign where the Imperium lost) is the only campaign where there is such complaining. There is a noticeable lack of complaining about the results in the Armageddon 3 campaign or the Medusa V campaign that followed the Eye of Terror campaign (both of which were in favor of the Imperium).

Ah, so just hearsay. Please forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

To be frank I've always found the arguments of Chaos players to be rather forced. Especially when the ending of the 13th Black Crusade was in itself a retcon of Chaos's earlier aims. I did not participate in the campaign, but can I recommend the following debate to you? It's from a discussion I partook in year ago. I would argue this personally, but Unhappy Anchovy does it better than I could.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/wi-the-primarchs-pods-come-with-a-shoulder-advisor.279172/page-8

Scroll down and please follow the thread if you have the time. I find the argument by Unhappy Anchovy to be very compelling on why the 13th Black Crusade was a complete strategic loss for Chaos. You might find it interesting.

This is kind of getting in to nitpicky levels of discussion, and I think it is distracting a bit from the actual lore discussion going on... I'm not really that interested in the *mechanics* of ancient tournaments when we're talking about fluff.