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.

This debate is all very interesting, but isn't 30k with all its living primarchs generally considered more grim dark than 40k?
I remember when the tau first came that people were worried that it would ruin the tone of 40k but they managed to fit in just fine.
The difference story wise between AOS and 40k is one of scale. In fantasy it was much more difficult to make changes with upsetting the balance of the world.
With 40k there is literally a whole universe to play with. I am expecting this phase of the end times to last at least 10 years. People seem worried about the aftermath but the exciting part is playing these changes as they gradually happen. It is this exact model that forgeworld is doing with 30k.
I remember buying my first dark angels codex 20 years ago and being intrigued by the watchers and cypher and all that. Then when the fluff in the next three or four versions of the codex was essentially the same I was very disappointed. I think it is time for those old mysteries to be answered and a few new ones to be made.
Apologies for the rambling.

So let me get this straight. You(the naysayers) are upset that GW is moving the story forward. Thing is, you would not be affected by this. You'd still be playing at 11:59. The setting is still the same for you. If they move the story along that does not destroy the setting you've known and loved for God knows how long. However, to those that want the clocked to stay, you want to inhibit the story from moving on. Which is a detriment for the people who do wish to story along.

This is amusing actually, watching this forum polarize into us vs them. Clearly a large enough number of people are in favor of this change to legitimize it. Who is in the majority though? You cant just go off of the amount of posters in this room. This site represents a minute fraction of the war gaming community. You can go back even further. There are Rogue trader era players who had this amount of bickering when things change some 20 years ago. They find the setting you love to be crap and the game was better off when it was the stuff they loved. Are they no more right than you?

You can't cater to one side without causing a massive backlash. GW is in a position where they are damned if they do, damned if they dont' To say they'd be fine the way they are, In my opinion, is dangerously naive. Warhammer fantasy was 11:59 for years and it was dying a slow painful death.

You also have the crowd complaining how 40k is no longer grimdark enough for them. Yea there is a problem with that. Not everyone is into that sort of thing. If GW wants a new market they do have to expand to get new customers. They sure can't live off the current fanbase forever. Sooner or later someone will quit the hobby for a variety of reasons and GW needs a new generation of people to buy their stuff. Of course if you think you can keep buying their stuff well into your old age. More power to you.

Oh, and the magnus model looks awesome.

That's a rather weird argument. Of course it doesn't destroy the fluff that we already have, but it will affect the developement and the future release assosciated with the setting. Nobody is claiming that they don't want the game to change at all, only that they could have introduced change in the setting (by example, adding a new xeno race) without touching somme of the canon of the seting.

As for Magnus, I unfortunately thinks he look atrocious. But I hope and think it's mostly due to the paintjob.. And I know i'm repeating myself, but it is such a silly idea to release that guy when we don't even have a plastic LOC.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Daemon primarch won't, I agree. But Loyalist ones will. Since they are superheroes compared to the already superheroes SM. And the rumourmongers that predicted the arrival of Magnus all said that we will also get loyalist Primarchs.

If loyalist Primarchs are released to the quality and scale that Magnus appears to be in, then I for one will be purchasing them. 30K is hugely popular, and the FW Primarchs are a big part of that, so it's a no-brainer that GW plans to release the 40K versions. Sales drive the business world, and this is a smart decision in terms of sales and getting more people into the game. If Daemon-Primarch Mortarion is released, then I will buy a Death Guard / Nurgle army - see, their strategy is already working.

pepsuber wrote:
Thing is, you would not be affected by this.

Tell that to the Bret and TK players.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Daemon primarch won't, I agree. But Loyalist ones will. Since they are superheroes compared to the already superheroes SM. And the rumourmongers that predicted the arrival of Magnus all said that we will also get loyalist Primarchs.

If loyalist Primarchs are released to the quality and scale that Magnus appears to be in, then I for one will be purchasing them. 30K is hugely popular, and the FW Primarchs are a big part of that, so it's a no-brainer that GW plans to release the 40K versions. Sales drive the business world, and this is a smart decision in terms of sales and getting more people into the game. If Daemon-Primarch Mortarion is released, then I will buy a Death Guard / Nurgle army - see, their strategy is already working.

It is far from proven that it is a sound business decision. Wait at least till the model is release to make such a claim

If they only cannibalise sales that would have went to 30k, it would be a terrible business decision

And people would complain about that too. Tau is a great example of expanding the setting as it currently is and still getting grief for it.

And yea you can still play as Brets and Tomb Kings last i checked.

Yeah, not all people think the same thing. Tha't's not exactly a shocking revelation.

And those that complains about the primarchs are not necessarly the same that complained about the Tau

Dunno if it's due to the paintjob, but that model looks terrible. As in, I wouldn't even touch it with a twenty foot long pole. There's definetely something wrong with it, I'm not sure if it's the pose, the proportions, the feet, the armor, the wings or just everything combined.

Really underwhelming, although to be honest it's been a long time since GW released a big model I really liked. Perhaps their recent design trend is just not for me.

Howso? The Tau were a large change in the setting, something that was hardly as grimdark if at all.

Tau were added to the setting as an existing race - retroactively added to the canon. It didn't move forward.

pepsuber wrote:
And people would complain about that too. Tau is a great example of expanding the setting as it currently is and still getting grief for it.

And yea you can still play as Brets and Tomb Kings last i checked.

That wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head.

TK and Brets are gone. They will receive no further releases. They are dead armies. Moving the story forward impacted them directly. Doing the same to 40K would be a mistake.

40K is a setting, not a story.

pepsuber wrote:
Howso? The Tau were a large change in the setting, something that was hardly as grimdark if at all.

Adding the Tau, a rather minor xeno threat, doesnt change the setting nearly to the same extent than re-introducing the long gone primarch. Adding the tau was like introducing some new minor antagonist in a story while adding the primarchs is like changing the main protagonist of the story. Vastly different in term of scope

I got to thinking a bit. It's pretty clear that GW designed the contents of BaC specifically with the intent that everything would be able to be fielded in 40k as well, a few months after the box's release, when they could put out 40k rules for them.

If Magnus HAS got TS sorcerers with him, his loyalists, would it not be likely they'd still have the old legion's symbols?

So...what if the 30k TS sorcerer from the Prospero box is intended to also be usable as a Magnus loyalist Thousand Sons sorcerer in 40k?

Mmmmmm, I like it.

Can't wait for Guilliman to wake up and be told he was almost a Primarch Popsicle during the First Tyrannic War. Man, if Behemoth had pushed to Ultramar....

Swarmlord deserves a bigger and better model in this sort of scale.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tau were added to the setting as an existing race - retroactively added to the canon. It didn't move forward.

pepsuber wrote:
And people would complain about that too. Tau is a great example of expanding the setting as it currently is and still getting grief for it.

And yea you can still play as Brets and Tomb Kings last i checked.

That wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head.

TK and Brets are gone. They will receive no further releases. They are dead armies. Moving the story forward impacted them directly. Doing the same to 40K would be a mistake.

40K is a setting, not a story.

I disagree. I think they'll be back personally

Considering Vulcan popped up in the 32nd millennium in the Beast Arises series (and stated he was destined to fight a different battle) I'm starting to think the first loyalist primarch may be him or Guilliman.

 streetsamurai wrote:
Not really. Because they will take the center stage of the fight against Chaos. Whether they fail or sucess is irrevelant to the point I make. The point being that They will be the main protagonist of the fight against Chaos, and they will relegate the SM and the IG to some faceless background characters that you see in manga (where they don't even bother to draw their faces).

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is entirely subjective, but it will have a tremedous impact on the setting

Whether you want to believe it or not, that's what the current setting is. Khaldor Draigo fought Daemon Mortarion to a standstill and then sliced his heart open. The Sanguinor is an avenging angel who comes down from on high and smites his foes. Logan Grimnar is a folk hero of the Imperium, and nearly single-handedly lead the assault against the last Black Crusade. Calgar fought the Swarmlord in hand to hand combat and survived, despite having fought an entire horde of Tyranids beforehand. Grand Marshall Helbrecht killed a Daemon Prince with a Knife.

The Imperium is already full of superheroes who take center stage in front of all the other Space Marines and humans. If you're ok with that, then you have no reason to be upset over Primarchs doing the exact same thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tau were added to the setting as an existing race - retroactively added to the canon. It didn't move forward.

pepsuber wrote:
And people would complain about that too. Tau is a great example of expanding the setting as it currently is and still getting grief for it.

And yea you can still play as Brets and Tomb Kings last i checked.

That wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head.

TK and Brets are gone. They will receive no further releases. They are dead armies. Moving the story forward impacted them directly. Doing the same to 40K would be a mistake.

40K is a setting, not a story.

That's not really correct.

The 40k universe is a setting. The struggle between mankind, xenos and Chaos is a story. It began with the Emperor, and unfolded through the Heresy and all the events that led up to this point. There is clearly a beginning and middle, it's always been a story waiting for the end.

The 40k universe at large exists outside of that. It was around before the Emperor showed up with his Thunder Warriors, and it will be around after the final clash between Chaos and everyone else. Much like the Tolkienverse exists outside of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

 buddha wrote:
Considering Vulcan popped up in the 32nd millennium in the Beast Arises series (and stated he was destined to fight a different battle) I'm starting to think the first loyalist primarch may be him or Guilliman.

I'm really hoping it's the Lion, as he doesn't even have a FW model yet, and the lore simply has him sleeping within The Rock. Time to wake up, big boy!

I'd always felt the "story" of 40k was at its heart a simple one. What if everything that could go wrong did? And then they all perished in misery and darkness. The End.

The setting is the moment before that inevitable end. "But what happens next?" Isn't it obvious? They all die. Horribly. To my mind that question was never really one that needed answering. Because the answer is uninteresting. The more interesting questions were what led up to this moment? And what's it like? To be a member of the last generation? At the end of all things?

If they advance the "story" and it doesn't end, I will be disappointed. Because all those interesting questions will either go away or become less interesting. And in exchange I'll know the answers to questions I preferred left unanswered.

Only two choices for GW now. Either they drop the ball with this one, or they turn this into a sucess.


Does anyone else feel that the magnus model could easily be altered to a Lord of Change? Id go as far as think that they may have been of a similar mold. The wings for one, i can see those on a future LoC.

A setting is a time and a place within which stories happen. The 40k setting is an exciting and vibrant place. The story that Gw has been telling within that setting has become stale and boring. It is time for some big reveals and some new mysteries.

Requizen wrote:
That's not really correct.

The 40k universe is a setting. The struggle between mankind, xenos and Chaos is a story. It began with the Emperor, and unfolded through the Heresy and all the events that led up to this point. There is clearly a beginning and middle, it's always been a story waiting for the end.

The 40k universe at large exists outside of that. It was around before the Emperor showed up with his Thunder Warriors, and it will be around after the final clash between Chaos and everyone else. Much like the Tolkienverse exists outside of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And that's not correct at all. 40k is a setting, and the struggle between mankind, Chaos, etc, are stories that exist solely to inform that setting. It's not a story, it's history. Other than refinements, expansions, and retroactive additions to the history, the setting has not changed, and the "story" has never moved forward since the game began. I don't know why you would ever expect it to be a story with an ending, when it's never been a story that progressed, ever, since the game was created. It's an intentionally open-ended setting because that's what drives player creativity, and it's Games Workshop's greatest asset.

If they "finished" the story in a campaign book, they would have to roll it back anyway in the rulebook and codices to give us a setting to play in, and then you'd complain and say "what was the point?"

What you're asking for makes no sense, and you don't understand the topic well enough to see that. Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

The way things are now people are going to complain regardless if they change or not. GW is in a situation where they do what they think will make the most money for them. They could be right or wrong. Only time will tell.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Requizen wrote:
That's not really correct.

The 40k universe is a setting. The struggle between mankind, xenos and Chaos is a story. It began with the Emperor, and unfolded through the Heresy and all the events that led up to this point. There is clearly a beginning and middle, it's always been a story waiting for the end.

The 40k universe at large exists outside of that. It was around before the Emperor showed up with his Thunder Warriors, and it will be around after the final clash between Chaos and everyone else. Much like the Tolkienverse exists outside of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And that's not correct at all. 40k is a setting, and the struggle between mankind, Chaos, etc, are stories that exist solely to inform that setting. It's not a story, it's history. Other than refinements, expansions, and retroactive additions to the history, the setting has not changed, and the "story" has never moved forward since the game began. I don't know why you would ever expect it to be a story with an ending, when it's never been a story that progressed, ever, since the game was created. It's an intentionally open-ended setting because that's what drives player creativity, and it's Games Workshop's greatest asset.

If they "finished" the story in a campaign book, they would have to roll it back anyway in the rulebook and codices to give us a setting to play in, and then you'd complain and say "what was the point?"

The story sure as heck has moved forward. Apocalypse books existed and moved stories forward. Warzone books came out - Severax freaking dies in one, that affected one of the founding chapters, and the Wulfen returned in Fenris. Even characters in codices have their stories move forward in newer editions. The fact that this is a bigger step forward doesn't change the fact that it's been plodding along for a while now. It's still not the end, no one is saying it is. You're putting those words out there like a doomsayer for whatever reason. GW has no intention to end 40k. (and no, don't point to WHFB. That's not nearly the same thing, and no reliable source has said that End Times of 40k is any closer than it has been for years).

What you're asking for makes no sense, and you don't understand the topic well enough to see that. Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

I understand the topic well enough to realize that people are making ridiculous leaps. You're taking characters being re-introduced to mean the end of a setting. Nothing will change for the 40k-verse at large. The changes for the specific chapters and traitor legions will be minimal at best, because shakeups to the status quo != blowing up the status quo.

And that's not what Dunning-Kruger is, you condescending

I'd prefer if they did end it. Because that would end all the calls to "advance the plot". M42 rolled around and everyone died. The End. Happy? Now we can get back to the "historical" period of M41 when things were more interesting.

Requizen wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Requizen wrote:
That's not really correct.

The 40k universe is a setting. The struggle between mankind, xenos and Chaos is a story. It began with the Emperor, and unfolded through the Heresy and all the events that led up to this point. There is clearly a beginning and middle, it's always been a story waiting for the end.

The 40k universe at large exists outside of that. It was around before the Emperor showed up with his Thunder Warriors, and it will be around after the final clash between Chaos and everyone else. Much like the Tolkienverse exists outside of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And that's not correct at all. 40k is a setting, and the struggle between mankind, Chaos, etc, are stories that exist solely to inform that setting. It's not a story, it's history. Other than refinements, expansions, and retroactive additions to the history, the setting has not changed, and the "story" has never moved forward since the game began. I don't know why you would ever expect it to be a story with an ending, when it's never been a story that progressed, ever, since the game was created. It's an intentionally open-ended setting because that's what drives player creativity, and it's Games Workshop's greatest asset.

If they "finished" the story in a campaign book, they would have to roll it back anyway in the rulebook and codices to give us a setting to play in, and then you'd complain and say "what was the point?"

The story sure as heck has moved forward. Apocalypse books existed and moved stories forward. Warzone books came out - Severax freaking dies in one, that affected one of the founding chapters, and the Wulfen returned in Fenris. Even characters in codices have their stories move forward in newer editions. The fact that this is a bigger step forward doesn't change the fact that it's been plodding along for a while now. It's still not the end, no one is saying it is. You're putting those words out there like a doomsayer for whatever reason. GW has no intention to end 40k. (and no, don't point to WHFB. That's not nearly the same thing, and no reliable source has said that End Times of 40k is any closer than it has been for years).

What you're asking for makes no sense, and you don't understand the topic well enough to see that. Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

I understand the topic well enough to realize that people are making ridiculous leaps. You're taking characters being re-introduced to mean the end of a setting. Nothing will change for the 40k-verse at large. The changes for the specific chapters and traitor legions will be minimal at best, because shakeups to the status quo != blowing up the status quo.

And that's not what Dunning-Kruger is, you condescending

Apologies for Dunning-Kruger. I don't think you understand what I'm saying (or what you're saying) but that was uncalled for.

Killing a named character isn't advancing the story in any meaningful way. Having another big battle on Fenris, or Armageddon, or Baal, is barely advancing the story either. The setting is still 1 minute to midnight, give or take another second. No factions are changing, no revelations are being made, nothing about the setting is being affected by these campaigns. This isn't Star Wars. The setting isn't defined by the lives of 6 people. We're just describing Space Wolves or Blood Angels as being involved in yet another inconsequential fight - inconsequential because GW isn't going to actually advance the story and alter the setting by wiping out the Blood Angels, for instance.

The 13th Black Crusade was the closest GW came to really advancing the story (and thus altering the setting) and would have had huge consequences on the poster boys of the Imperial Guard and a major Eldar craftworld, and look how quickly they walked that one back.

I'm addressing the people who want the setting shaken up by "moving the plot". I'm specifically saying: if that's what you want, if you want the 40k "story" to reach its ending (you're the one who just said "There is clearly a beginning and middle, it's always been a story waiting for the end") then you don't understand 40k as a setting or else you don't understand what you're asking for.

If Marneus Calgar dies, the setting isn't affected. Yes, one tiny story within the setting has moved forward (and to what purpose?), and now Calgar would join the list of named characters who are technically historical characters. In all other ways the setting is identical.

But if the loyalist primarchs return, reunite the legions, fracture the Imperium, and engage in an End-Times fight against Chaos, the setting will be changed.

And I've been saying this entire thread, that won't happen. GW is smart enough to know that makes no sense and they won't do it because they understand their own setting. The loyalist primarchs will arrive and nothing will happen. They'll fight some daemon primarchs, and somehow their arrival won't have any tangible affect on any factions, any alignments, the structure of the Imperium as a whole, etc. I predict it's not going to be any different than retconning the Tau in, or giving players Imperial Knights to play with, because GW isn't going to fundamentally alter the structure of their setting by actually advancing the story in any meaningful way. And that's a good thing.

The stance of, "an ongoing story nerfs players creativity" is rubbish.

The end.

Requizen wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Not really. Because they will take the center stage of the fight against Chaos. Whether they fail or sucess is irrevelant to the point I make. The point being that They will be the main protagonist of the fight against Chaos, and they will relegate the SM and the IG to some faceless background characters that you see in manga (where they don't even bother to draw their faces).

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is entirely subjective, but it will have a tremedous impact on the setting

Whether you want to believe it or not, that's what the current setting is. Khaldor Draigo fought Daemon Mortarion to a standstill and then sliced his heart open. The Sanguinor is an avenging angel who comes down from on high and smites his foes. Logan Grimnar is a folk hero of the Imperium, and nearly single-handedly lead the assault against the last Black Crusade. Calgar fought the Swarmlord in hand to hand combat and survived, despite having fought an entire horde of Tyranids beforehand. Grand Marshall Helbrecht killed a Daemon Prince with a Knife.

The Imperium is already full of superheroes who take center stage in front of all the other Space Marines and humans. If you're ok with that, then you have no reason to be upset over Primarchs doing the exact same thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Tau were added to the setting as an existing race - retroactively added to the canon. It didn't move forward.

pepsuber wrote:
And people would complain about that too. Tau is a great example of expanding the setting as it currently is and still getting grief for it.

And yea you can still play as Brets and Tomb Kings last i checked.

That wooshing noise is the sound of my point sailing over your head.

TK and Brets are gone. They will receive no further releases. They are dead armies. Moving the story forward impacted them directly. Doing the same to 40K would be a mistake.

40K is a setting, not a story.

That's not really correct.

The 40k universe is a setting. The struggle between mankind, xenos and Chaos is a story. It began with the Emperor, and unfolded through the Heresy and all the events that led up to this point. There is clearly a beginning and middle, it's always been a story waiting for the end.

The 40k universe at large exists outside of that. It was around before the Emperor showed up with his Thunder Warriors, and it will be around after the final clash between Chaos and everyone else. Much like the Tolkienverse exists outside of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Again, that's not true. Every setting has a scale of power, with certain characters having more power than others (and than the regular folk). This doesnt' mean that just because some disparities in power already exist, any disparities are therefore acceptable. Primarch are supposed to be vastly more powerful than the most powerful human in the galaxy ( vastly more powerful than each and everyone of the characters you named, bar maybe the sanguinor who is prety much an unknown). If you don't realise how much it change the setting, I don't know what else to tell you.

Not to mention that the fluff you mentionned is among the most despised among the 40k community, considering that, it is not exactly surprising that a lot of people are not happy that they double down on the heroism.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pepsuber wrote:
Thing is, you would not be affected by this.

Tell that to the Bret and TK players.

my Tomb Kings...

pepsuber wrote:
Only two choices for GW now. Either they drop the ball with this one, or they turn this into a sucess.


Does anyone else feel that the magnus model could easily be altered to a Lord of Change? Id go as far as think that they may have been of a similar mold. The wings for one, i can see those on a future LoC.

https://www.google.com/search?q=put+a+bird+on+it&espv=2&biw=1211&bih=558&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRyrmYjtTPAhWF8x4KHZLXAkcQ_AUIBigB