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.

@Backspacehacker: The Heresy was a victory. It is listed at such on every site concerning 40k and in every book in which the Heresy is discussed the Chaos Space Marines consider it a defeat and the Loyalists a victory. The Warhammer 40k books itself consider it a victory.

Why isn't it a victory? Despite half of the Imperium's armies turning against them the hegemon defeated the insurgents and endured as the galactic dominant hegemon for another almost 80 000 years and has only spread in size since then. If it suffered so much why was it so successful?

Just to be realistic for a moment here; in reality a civil war which saw almost half of the entire military betray would usually result in the fragmentation of the hegemon. Particularly since in virtually all Civil Wars one faction is actually considerably larger than the other, there is rarely a very close 50/50 split. The Horus Heresy, like the Beast Waaagh!!!, like the first two Tyrannic Wars, like Death Masque, like the 2nd Armageddon War and others was a major victory for the Imperium.

Additionally you still do not address the core point of adducing any evidence for why Orks are a threat or any major Imperium losses. You again have resorted to saying that the Imperium looses 'tech' and that thus they are defeated.

Let us look at this realistically then;

For the loss of 'tech' to actually constitute a defeat it would have to mean that the loss of 'tech' in a battle results in defeats later on as a result of it not being available.

Do you have any examples of of this?

I can give examples to the contrary regarding Space Marine losses, the Crimson Fist's, Imperial Fists and Ultramarines have all suffered heavy losses which, despite implications, have not in fluff been demonstrated to have resulted in any defeats later on as a result of this lack of manpower.

For the loss of said 'asset' to qualify as a 'defeat' in its own right it must be demonstrated that the loss of said 'asset' later leads to a defeat.

The Imperium is plagued by two threats which can hurt them (in a sense which matters) the Chaos Gods and the Tyranid. The Necron would be a third if they were more active.

Orks, Tau and Eldar are virtually irrelevant.

I got a great example for you.

The Horus heresy, the the Big E was not killed do you think these wars would sill be going on? Sure the according to you the IoM "won" the battle but do you think they are in a better position with out the emperor? Do you think if the emperor, if still alive would have been able to effect the IoM? Let's take a look

If the Big E was still here we would not have this dark age, large military forces, a working human web way, technology would not be religious relics bit be what they are machines.

Like right there! I just showed you a perfect example of where the IoM "won" but did not come out for the better

@Backspacehacker: You seem to not grasp the difference between 'defeat' and 'loss'.

You realize that in most wars there are 'losses' which mean even the victories faction has reduced capabilities in some regards, correct?

You then also understand how 'losses' do not translate into a defeat.

The 'Loss' of the Emperor did impair the material capabilities of the Imperium. It has not lead to any significant defeat though since, despite the 'Loss' of the Emperor 80 000+ years ago the hegemon of the Imperium of Man has only increased in size and remains the dominant galactic hegemon, having driven virtually all other life in the galaxy to extinction barring Orks.

So, again, the difference between 'loss' and 'defeat'. 'Losses' always accrue in war. They are not equivalent to 'defeat'.

Also look up a Pyrrhic victory, it means a battle that was won with such losses it's barely considered a win

 Anemone wrote:
@Sgt_Smudge:

Heresy=Literally an Imperium victory. Again I have no idea why you are bringing this up.

I'm sorry? The Emperor mortally wounded, the Imperium put in a state of technological regression, and besieged for the next 10k years? That's not a victory at all. There doesn't need to be a winner and loser. They can both lose - as they did here. It's just that Chaos retreated, and the Imperium is slowly dying off.
A pyrrhic victory, if you will.

Tyrannic War: Again listed as Imperium victory in the first two accounts and in the third it is currently inconclusive

Forge World of Tyran destroyed.
The Gryphonne system is losing lots of power.
Ryza is the main producer of plasma, and is in very real danger.
The battle's not over, but it certainly doesn't look good.

Abyssal Crusade: I wouldn't even call this a straight defeat, although I think its a good example, since we're told the Marines purged 400 worlds within the Eye of Terror, returned to talk about it and killed the false Saint. Mixed.

WHAT.
You don't call the killing or corruption of over 99% of the thirty Chapters' worth of Space Marine forces deployed a defeat?
They came back and killed an elderly man with no power after that Crusade. Basillius succeeded beyond all hopes by damning thirty Chapters to either die or fall to Chaos.
In fact, I don't recall 400 worlds even being purged. Source?

That was a MASSIVE defeat.

Orphean War: A Stalemate, again not an actual significant defeat.

The Necrons brutalised an entire sector with a single Dynasty, compared to several Chapters of Astartes, regiments of Guardsmen, and the Battlefleet Orpheus. It was certainly not an Imperial victory though.

Hydra Cordatus: A straight example. That's one Chaos Space Marine victory on a single planet, doesn't change the statistics at all.

That planet held uncorrupted Imperial Fist geneseed stocks. Good luck creating many Imperial Fist successors any time soon. In the meantime, Chaos just got a massive boon from new geneseed toys.

Segmentum Pacificus: Ongoing, can't judge yet as there's been no conclusion of any sort.

Lexicanum wrote:In 999.M41, whole swaths of Segmentum Pacificus would suffer from mass uprisings by disgruntled citizens collectively known as the Night of a Thousand Rebellions. Many outlaying planets as well as key worlds such as Darkhold, Minisotira, and Enceladus are swept up in the chaos. Even the Lions Defiant Chapter of Space Marines find their Homeworld the victim of insurgent activity. Since the uprisings began, communication with much of Segmentum Pacificus has been lost.

Doesn't sound like an ongoing situation. Sounds like the Imperium lost a lot of key worlds, and at least two Chapters were caught up.

So that's three major Imperium victories, two inconclusive and ongoing conflicts, a single minor Chaos Space Marine Victory, a mixed result and a stalemate.

As for the other examples; to be honest the incidents you're listing are often the only example of such 'inane' fluff for their respective faction that happens.

But they are cases, no? We're not told every battle. I wouldn't be surprised to know that for every Imperial victory on a nameless, another two happen on equally nameless worlds. We're clearly getting mixed messages, as something tells us the Imperium should be winning (the Imperial-centric novels), or the blurb which tells us the Imperium is constantly regressing.

Personally, I'd follow the latter.

The point remains that humans consistently in the fluff out-perform and excel in all functions over all other races. If you want we can simply compare the list of examples, I've collated like the battles, and you'll see there's an overwhelming statistical advantage in the favour of the Imperium. That is the point.

But is any other faction fighting head on against a literal galaxy of threats?

@Backspacehacker: NO!

Firstly Pyrrhic victory is open to differing interpretations to an extent. However for our purposes we are looking at the historical explanation for the term;

The King of Epirus for whom the term is coined won a battle against the Romans but, inevitably, this did not change the inevitable absorption into the Roman Empire of the Hellenistic World he inhabited.

A Pyrrhic Victory requires that the victory not forestall the ultimate defeat.

A Pyrrhic Victory is not when you win a battle and 80 000+ years on you are still the dominant power throughout the galaxy.

@Sgt_Smudge: The Heresy was victory. It is why it is referred to as a victory and why if you ask the vast majority of readers who won the Horus Heresy they will respond; "The Imperium," hence Abaddon's lament of Horus' weakness for being incapable of winning. Considering following the Heresy the Imperium endured as the dominant hegemon for another 80 000+ years it is quite clearly a victory for the Imperium.

As for the Tyrannic War; again a list of 'losses' but with no actual change of the outcome of the way; "Tyranid defeat". As I said the third one is currently inconclusive, let us see how it concludes, for now it doesn't count.

As for the Abyssal Crusade; as I said it is mixed, but the purging of 400 worlds definitely prevents it from being a straight Imperium loss. As for source; 40k 6th edition Rulebook 170-171.

Orphean War was a stalemate, sorry, that's what its called. Pointing out how well the Necrons did is fine, but they did well to achieve a stalemate is what you're saying.

As Hydra Cordatus; lets see if a problem arises in the Fluff, shall we? I have a feeling the loss of said Geneseed will never be referenced or have any material impact in the fluff. But we can wait and see if it does.

As for Segmentum Pacificus: I mean it literally calls it ongoing, there's an ongoing series of uprisings and conflicts, we don't know how they will end yet. Again, we have to wait and see.

And the the final point; so your argument seems to boil down to saying that the Imperium looses significant battles we're not told about. For obvious reasons, since it is a narrative venture, this makes discussion impossible since now we could simply say 'but it happened without us knowing'. Since it is a story we must rely on the information and statistical data we are provided, not on postulations about what 'might' be happening.

Also, to your question, I believe both Orks and Necrons are taking on a literal galaxy of threats constantly and for far longer than the Imperium ever has.

I'm not arguing the deference between a loss and a defeat.

You asked for an example of when the destruction of tech effected further battles and I provided a clear example of that.

With out the emperor there were and still are defeats across multiple chapters and worlds and the stagnation of technology. There is no arguing that because that's the whole point of the story haha.

 Anemone wrote:
@Backspacehacker: NO!

Firstly Pyrrhic victory is open to differing interpretations to an extent. However for our YOUR purposes we are looking at the historical explanation for the term;

The King of Epirus for whom the term is coined won a battle against the Romans but, inevitably, this did not change the inevitable absorption into the Roman Empire of the Hellenistic World he inhabited.

Why are we not using the correct definition?
Pyrrhic: (of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.

Sounds just like the Heresy, no? They lived, but was it worth it? Would you ever choose to live in the Imperium?

A Pyrrhic Victory requires that the victory not forestall the ultimate defeat.

The end hasn't come - yet. The Imperium is a dying animal, stuck in it's death throes. It's not getting much better.

A Pyrrhic Victory is not when you win a battle and 80,000+ 10000 years on you are still the dominantdying power throughout the galaxy.

@Backspacehacker: Alright then please list these Significant defeats for me. I am quite interested now to hear of these defeats in the league of the Beast Waaagh!!!, Death Masque and Rynn's World which I apparently do not know about.

@Sgt_Smudge: That was addressed to Backspacehacker, not you, and the reason it is incorrect is because a victory which 10000 years on still has not seen the victor destroyed is obviously not pyrrhic.

As for was the Heresy worth it; to an overwhelming number of individuals it was, the majority of the human species, so the short answer to your question would be; Yes.

And they are the dominant power, not dying, dying would mean they are losing vast tracks of territory or suffering crippling defeats and facing foes they cannot overcome. It would not mean that they win virtually every major engagement and battled they are involved in. Obviously.

Horus heresy?
See smudges post for more beautiful examples

@Backspacehacker: The one's I've already rebutted? The Heresy which is pre-the death of the Emperor (thus failing the requirements for your point) and regardless a victory in any case?

Okay, look, if you don't want to have the conversation that is fine, no one is required too, but then rather say so please.

Or...I don't know how to respond to your point at all since I can't understand what you're doing other than repeating an earlier (already dealt with) point.

Lol the IoM is dying, that's one of the damn driving pouts of the story! Like have you missed the part where people literally think now that technology and weapons have a spirit they need to pray to in order for it to work? A universe where thy don't even know how to fix most of their old machines and simply believe they are relics and don't realize that think they are praying to is a freaking toaster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You did not disprove anything, how is a battle in which the leader of all mankind is placed upon a life support system not a massive loss? Sure they lived but they have declined.

You are the one who can't seem to see that and only see the surface outcome not the everlasting effect of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will conceded with you on this.

The Horus heresy was not a defeat, but it sure as hell was a loss

@Sgt_Smudge: The Heresy was victory. It is why it is referred to as a victory and why if you ask the vast majority of readers who won the Horus Heresy they will respond; "The Imperium," hence Abaddon's lament of Horus' weakness for being incapable of winning. Considering following the Heresy the Imperium endured as the dominant hegemon for another 80 000+ years it is quite clearly a victory for the Imperium.

See my point on the CORRECT definition of Pyrrhic Victory.

As for the Tyrannic War; again a list of 'losses' but with no actual change of the outcome of the way; "Tyranid defeat". As I said the third one is currently inconclusive, let us see how it concludes, for now it doesn't count.

Tyran remains a loss.

As for the Abyssal Crusade; as I said it is mixed, but the purging of 400 worlds definitely prevents it from being a straight Imperium loss. As for source; 40k 6th edition Rulebook 170-171.

How so? Daemon Worlds can be replenished VERY easily. Hardly a reason to justify 99% of 30000 Space Marines dying. Still a massive loss, especially when so many traitor warbands were formed.

Orphean War was a stalemate, sorry, that's what its called. Pointing out how well the Necrons did is fine, but they did well to achieve a stalemate is what you're saying.

Considering the Necrons put so little into that battle, it's a very worrying prospect for the Imperium.

As Hydra Cordatus; lets see if a problem arises in the Fluff, shall we? I have a feeling the loss of said Geneseed will never be referenced or have any material impact in the fluff. But we can wait and see if it does.

True. I also doubt a great many other Imperial wins will be that important in the fluff. Let's see if the events for Pandorax or Death Masque are expanded on.

As for Segmentum Pacificus: I mean it literally calls it ongoing, there's an ongoing series of uprisings and conflicts, we don't know how they will end yet. Again, we have to wait and see.

Isn't it all ongoing, by that sense? I mean, xenos will always get a chance to attack again, and the Imperium will always get a chance to retake. When does the war end? Hence the whole setting. The war doesn't end.

And the the final point; so your argument seems to boil down to saying that the Imperium looses significant battles we're not told about. For obvious reasons, since it is a narrative venture, this makes discussion impossible since now we could simply say 'but it happened without us knowing'. Since it is a story we must rely on the information and statistical data we are provided, not on postulations about what 'might' be happening.

Which brings to a main issue many people bring up - it's a setting, not a story. It never will advance, not significantly anyway. It will always be a state of decline and regression, of eternal war and misery and death. Diplomacy will fail, hope will not grow, and your soul will probably be eaten by daemons.

Welcome to 40k, eh?

Also, to your question, I believe both Orks and Necrons are taking on a literal galaxy of threats constantly and for far longer than the Imperium ever has.

They are? Seeing as Necrons aren't all awake, and are not actively being attacked by the majority of Chaos forces in the galaxy, I doubt this.
And when have we ever seen a unified Ork empire fighting against an entire front of foes?

If there was such a thing as dakka gold I would give you some smudge :p

 Anemone wrote:
@Sgt_Smudge: That was addressed to Backspacehacker, not you, and the reason it is incorrect is because a victory which 10000 years on still has not seen the victor destroyed is obviously not pyrrhic.

So, likewise, because Chaos hasn't been destroyed, they haven't lost? If we're going in such absolutes, it only seems fair.

As for was the Heresy worth it; to an overwhelming number of individuals it was, the majority of the human species, so the short answer to your question would be; Yes.

Really? Even those who live in what is practically slavery and unimaginably bad conditions? Should humanity have died to spare the countless short pitiful lives of it's people?

And they are the dominant power, not dying, dying would mean they are losing vast tracks of territory or suffering crippling defeats and facing foes they cannot overcome. It would not mean that they win virtually every major engagement and battled they are involved in. Obviously.

And I quote the 6th Ed rulebook:
"Despite the massive scale of Mankind's empire, on a spider's thread hangs the balance."

Doesn't really seem as solid as you say.

 Xathrodox86 wrote:
Orks and Tyranids are the biggest threat, lore wise. They're nigh unstopabble forces of nature that are too big to contain, unless by taking a drastic solution (Kryptmann).

I don't believe that in the 41st millenium Chaos should be considered a viable threat. The Gods had their chance and screwed it. They've played their hand openly 10K years earlier and now the Imperium knows about them, while their chosen warriors are fewer in number than ever before, languishing in the Eye, with inferior gear, tech and numbers. As soon as the IoM closes the Eye for good (which is possible, I think) the only realt problem with Chaos will be an occasional mad prophet and maybe a daemonic incursion or two, from time to time.

Of course GW tries to up the street cred of Chaos at every possible occasion, but telling people that "this is not our 13th (another one, damn it!) Crusade, but the last battle blah blah blah" dosen't make the threat any bigger. Just like making Abaddon competent all of a sudden. Looking at you ADB.

you're assuming the gods of chaos WANTED a win, I think the current state of affairs is to their liking.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Lol the IoM is dying, that's one of the damn driving points of the story!

This is the real problem of the 40k lore as I see it. Not the premise of slow entropic death, that's awesome. To me (which may be influenced by my age/duration of 40k exposure) the real problem is that that concept doesn't line up with what we see.

For example, imagine if GW had stuck to the old lore, about Teminator suits and dreadnoughts being lost technology. That the best they could do was salvage and cannibalise irreparable ones to make damaged ones work again. Imagine if at some point, they actually removed them (for now let's ignore the backlash against such a thing) from the setting. After 10,000 years the parts just can't be scavenged up any longer. From a story perspective, that would feel like a real loss. It would really feel like one step closer to the end. But instead of things disappearing and being more and more patchwork, we have the opposite. The amount of gear and tech the Imperium has access to seems to be increasing with time. Yeah I get they're 'rediscovered' items but if the rate of rediscovery is greater than the rate of loss you're still adding to the pool.

Granted this is just marines but they are the poster children for 40k. Over the 25 years I've been into 40k I've seen them get shinier, more powerful and have better toys. The setting simply doesn't feel like one of decay, of lessening. This is not at all helped by having the clock stuck at 1 minute to midnight for literally decades now. At some point the 'threat' simply becomes empty. Perhaps the new stuff will change that but I'll wait and see.

Anyway, that's my 2c. All the new shiny has 'tarnished' the grim dark.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Lol the IoM is dying, that's one of the damn driving points of the story!

This is the real problem of the 40k lore as I see it. Not the premise of slow entropic death, that's awesome. To me (which may be influenced by my age/duration of 40k exposure) the real problem is that that concept doesn't line up with what we see.

For example, imagine if GW had stuck to the old lore, about Teminator suits and dreadnoughts being lost technology. That the best they could do was salvage and cannibalise irreparable ones to make damaged ones work again. Imagine if at some point, they actually removed them (for now let's ignore the backlash against such a thing) from the setting. After 10,000 years the parts just can't be scavenged up any longer. From a story perspective, that would feel like a real loss. It would really feel like one step closer to the end. But instead of things disappearing and being more and more patchwork, we have the opposite. The amount of gear and tech the Imperium has access to seems to be increasing with time. Yeah I get they're 'rediscovered' items but if the rate of rediscovery is greater than the rate of loss you're still adding to the pool.

Granted this is just marines but they are the poster children for 40k. Over the 25 years I've been into 40k I've seen them get shinier, more powerful and have better toys. The setting simply doesn't feel like one of decay, of lessening. This is not at all helped by having the clock stuck at 1 minute to midnight for literally decades now. At some point the 'threat' simply becomes empty. Perhaps the new stuff will change that but I'll wait and see.

Anyway, that's my 2c. All the new shiny has 'tarnished' the grim dark.

decay in a gaming setting doesn't really work because players demand new shinies. now where GW really has the oppertunity to show "how far we've fallen" is the Horus Heresy material.

@Backspacehacker: Again the harping on and on about 'technology' and 'backwardness' despite the fact that they need have no direct correlation to victory.

The simple fact that the Imperium could be considered 'backwards' has no bearing on whether or not they win or lose. Its totally separated facts. Your bringing one fact up to obscure what we're actually discussing.

As for how the Heresy was a victory; clearly since the destruction of the Hegemon was prevented, the enemy forces were routed and the hegemon under attack has continued to dominate the galaxy for 10000 years. That's how. It is really rather simple.

At this stage you're also changing the meaning of your point. I stated long ago that there was a difference between a 'loss' and a 'defeat' and that what you mentioned were only 'losses' not 'defeats'.

You remember my post on the difference between 'losses' and 'defeats' correct? Well I am glad we now agree that the Horus Heresy simply had 'losses' but was not a defeat since that was the exact point I was making. So we're now in agreement, good.

As for these 'everlasting effects' again provide me some textual evidence thereof and I will believe you, until you do there is no point to your repetition.

The Heresy was still a victory, I'm not even going to dispute this point anymore since I have no comprehension of your denial thereof.

Tyran was a lost battle, sure, the War was still won by the Imperium. Seriously how many times do we have to go through this?

Why not instead adduce evidence of a major War lost by the Imperium? If the Imperium is losing all these major wars as it 'dies' why not then adduce some evidence of these straight out lost major wars?

As for the Abyssal Crusade; I won't even begin to go into discussing this since you're assuming every single one of those 400 worlds is somehow instantly not a victory despite the fact that the only presence they have in fluff is as stated canonical victories for the Imperium. If you wish to dispute this please provide textual evidence of these 400 worlds returning to the control of Chaos.

Actually numerous Wars do end; The Beast Waaagh!!! Ends, the Tau Second Sphere Expansion Ends, the World Engine Ends, the Damnos War Ends, the Pandorax War Ends, the Horus Heresy Ends, Wars end all the time in 40k, there are always more wars, but Wars do end, and if they are major wars they almost always end in the favour of the Imperium.

Besides Xenos primarily lose all their engagements with the Imperium, I've literally counted the numbers, so I don't know what your point concerning Xenos is.

Also you seem to have missed my point concerning a narrative only being judged by what is told; the setting does not need to advance for other factions, besides the Imperium, to be given more victories and more favourable attention in the plot, the story could simply allow them more victories in the same vain as the Imperium, it has nothing to do with having to advance the setting.

As for Chaos, the Gods, of course they haven't lost, I listed the Imperium and Chaos Daemons as the two factions who win the most.

Honestly considering a relatively common sentiment is that the Imperium, particularly Marines, are getting more powerful and shinier I'm not sure exactly what you're argument is. I mean if you're disputing that the Imperium absolutely dominates in terms of fluff victories I don't see the basis for your point since I've literally counted them and the Imperium wins way more than anyone and, most importantly, has won virtually all the major campaigns it is involved in, something no other faction but the Tau in the game so far can claim.

The destruction of Gryphonne IV could be considered a significant defeat of the Imperium by the Tyranids. Gryphonne IV was a major forge world, with a history all the way back to the Heresy, and described as one of the most heavily fortified worlds in the southern Imperium. Now granted this destruction has had no mechanical effects on rules or gameplay, but it does mean a piece of the Imperium with a significant pedigree was destroyed. Though I imagine that GW might in the future try to spin it that some Titan Legion or Tech Priests that were offworld elsewhere in the galaxy survived. They hardly ever fully destroy things these days, with even destroyed Chapters usually having a few stragglers trying to rebuild.

Yes, Gryphonne IV is an example, I agree, as I've said Tyranid, in fluff, are actually the only Xenos who really threaten the Imperium and consistently do okay.

BrianDavion wrote:
decay in a gaming setting doesn't really work because players demand new shinies. now where GW really has the oppertunity to show "how far we've fallen" is the Horus Heresy material.

See to me, that's a good reason to create a new game/setting. A fractured Imperium with the Emperor dead and the grip of Terra (and the Mechanicum) shattered throughout human space. If you really want you can make it all a preamble for a return of the primarchs and rebirth of the emperor to start the cycle all over again.

HH is good for showing how far they've fallen but the problem is, as I said, that said descent seems to have not only halted but been reversed. It kinda makes me think of the World of Darkness, which White Wolf actually had the balls to move forward with, literally to The End™. GW could (whether they should is debatable) do the same with 40k. After all people are happily playing games set 10,000 years prior, there's no reason they couldn't continue to play games in the current era. But it'd be nice to have the options/lore/models to play a little into the future too.

 Anemone wrote:

Also who said 'no Imperial losses'? I believe, if you read what I typed, I stated 'significant' losses, you know, like what Death Masque was for Craftworld Eldar, the Beast Waaagh!!! was for the Orks, the Damocles Gulf being set ablaze was for the Tau and such.

You realize that whole IoM is basically series of defeats heading for inevitable loss? Imperium keeps getting weaker and weaker and it's inevitable eventually Chaos will win. At which point it's game over. That's why GW doesn't go for Chaos win scenario because that's IT. Chaos aims for annihilation of reality. Boom. They win and there's no galaxy left to fight over.

Also biggest threat from chaos isn't it's armed might...Oh no. Chaos is actually subtler than that.

See what happened in FB when chaos won their "13th's black crusade" there. That's the logical conclusion for Chaos victory.

 Kojiro wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
decay in a gaming setting doesn't really work because players demand new shinies. now where GW really has the oppertunity to show "how far we've fallen" is the Horus Heresy material.

See to me, that's a good reason to create a new game/setting. A fractured Imperium with the Emperor dead and the grip of Terra (and the Mechanicum) shattered throughout human space. If you really want you can make it all a preamble for a return of the primarchs and rebirth of the emperor to start the cycle all over again.

HH is good for showing how far they've fallen but the problem is, as I said, that said descent seems to have not only halted but been reversed. It kinda makes me think of the World of Darkness, which White Wolf actually had the balls to move forward with, literally to The End™. GW could (whether they should is debatable) do the same with 40k. After all people are happily playing games set 10,000 years prior, there's no reason they couldn't continue to play games in the current era. But it'd be nice to have the options/lore/models to play a little into the future too.

eh maybe but on the other hand sometimes moving forward can be a problem in and of itself, I mostly walked away from Battletech because I disliked what they where doing with the timeline

House Davion could not remain on top for ever. They were due for a fall to maintain the balance of power.

Oh for sure. Like ever beloved IP it's gotta be done right. And even then, it won't be right for everyone. Which is why I suggest effectively a past (30k), present (40k) and future (maybe just 41k?) so everyone can play the narratives/stories they want to play out AND GW has room to actually expand and add to the setting without seeming to reverse the slow entropic death of the Imperium. Who isn't keen to see the Greater Tau Empire that emerges? The Eldar Remnant Fleets? Or the Human Freehold Alliance, a human sector that broke the Mechanicum's superstition and reestablished science to make advanced tech? Or the Blood Demons, insane descendants of Sanguinius' chapter twisted by Chaos? And orks.. are probably still just orks.

I guess what I'm saying is that they've built this awesome Grim Dark™ setting but they're not committed to it. They've been crying wolf for literally decades now, it's lost it's impact (with me at least). It could be interesting to see what happens if they make it the middle chapter of a trilogy, the Empire Strikes back of the setting where it doesn't end all great for the heroes.

In short, I'd like to see the lore expanded and added to, rather than having old legends detailed. Again, just my 2c.

 Kojiro wrote:
Oh for sure. Like ever beloved IP it's gotta be done right. And even then, it won't be right for everyone. Which is why I suggest effectively a past (30k), present (40k) and future (maybe just 41k?) so everyone can play the narratives/stories they want to play out AND GW has room to actually expand and add to the setting without seeming to reverse the slow entropic death of the Imperium. Who isn't keen to see the Greater Tau Empire that emerges? The Eldar Remnant Fleets? Or the Human Freehold Alliance, a human sector that broke the Mechanicum's superstition and reestablished science to make advanced tech? Or the Blood Demons, insane descendants of Sanguinius' chapter twisted by Chaos? And orks.. are probably still just orks.

I guess what I'm saying is that they've built this awesome Grim Dark™ setting but they're not committed to it. They've been crying wolf for literally decades now, it's lost it's impact (with me at least). It could be interesting to see what happens if they make it the middle chapter of a trilogy, the Empire Strikes back of the setting where it doesn't end all great for the heroes.

In short, I'd like to see the lore expanded and added to, rather than having old legends detailed. Again, just my 2c.

You seem to be confusing setting with story. Setting doesn't need to change. Point is for players to explore it rather than company. Story is the one where readers are force fed changing story.

Iracundus wrote:
House Davion could not remain on top for ever. They were due for a fall to maintain the balance of power.

not quite what my problems with it where (house davion had been on a down slope before I got into the setting, the last war they won was what 3029?). my problem with the constant "one faction can do no wrong ever cause it's the designated winner this year and everyone else are complete morons"

 Robin5t wrote:
And yet, they can't deploy infinite daemons, while the Beast could and did deploy all of his absurd numbers of Orks.

And yet he lost, and he died. So much for the Beast.

BrianDavion wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
House Davion could not remain on top for ever. They were due for a fall to maintain the balance of power.

not quite what my problems with it where (house davion had been on a down slope before I got into the setting, the last war they won was what 3029?). my problem with the constant "one faction can do no wrong ever cause it's the designated winner this year and everyone else are complete morons"

If you mean House Liao gaining, that was reversing nearly 300 game years of being the designated loser and whipping boy. Almost reversing it in about 80 years was fast, but taking another 300 game years to do so would have meant people complaining at the length of time of them making advances even if those are small ones. Just as 40K has no race ever truly enacting its endgame and "winning the galaxy forever and ever. The End," no faction or merged faction in BTU could be allowed to dominate or nearly win the setting.