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.

 Anemone wrote:
Okay, just to be clear, do you want to turn this into a number off? You must let me know because if you want me to just list the Imperium victories over the Tau, which seems to be what you're doing, I will do so.

As for what the Armageddon Damocles supplement was; it was the supplement concerning the first battle of Aggrellan and the battle of Voltoris.

Actually yes. Please list all the victories the Imperium has had over the Tau because I've looked many times. The Tau is actually the only faction to have more wins against the Imperium than loses, which irritates me because I hate the Tau.(When I said the Imperium loses a fair bit I didn't mean they don't have a positive win/lose ratio) Also don't forget the Zeist campaign was just a ruse.

Okay, so then here's a preliminary list of battles the Tau lose to the Imperium;

Baktar III
Battle for Styx
Battle of Voltoris
Gravalax Incident
Hagus Wars
Kappa Mortis Incident
The Kasiroth Offensive
Battle of Kvariam Alpha
Nightfire Crusade
Nimbosa Crusade
Novum Deception
Siege of Pallia
The Six Hour War
Timeaon Deliverance
War of Neotech
War of Infamy.

That's enough for now I think.

EDIT: I reiterate though that the Tau are irrelevant so I don't really see a point in this discussion.

 Anemone wrote:
@Asterios: I said Ghazghkull beat Belial, didn't I? Didn't me and Smudge already mention that?

Also do you honestly believe that Ghazghkull could beat any of the Chapter Masters?

Name the planets GW says he's taken. Really, I'm not saying this again, if he's defeated major Imperium forces and captured major Imperium worlds (or large amount of Imperium space) provide me for the fluff thereof or otherwise I'm not going to believe you.

Orks may be strong Psykers but they are still nowhere near as strong as the Emperor, Magnus or Malcador to name but three human Psykers. Headbutting a Warp Rift closed isn't as impressive as what those three have done.

Also I'm so confused about your statement regarding Imperium 'victory standards' now. What are you saying? Now you're saying the Imperium does always win?

Why not let Orks win a narrative supplement, like Sanctus Reach, beat the Wolves, put them to flight, and hold the planet? What's wrong with that?

I keep telling you, GW just says he did this and that, they do not give any names other then to mention in the Ultima Segmentum region of space. how many times must I tell you that GW mentioned no names period, in fact they probably left it openly blank so they can fill it in later for new fluff.

yes I do believe Ghazghkull could beat Chapter masters.

No what I am saying is as far as the Imperium is concerned is a victory is when the Xenos is wiped from the planet entirely either thru winning the battles or Exterminatus, anything else is failure and subject to the commander being executed.

because that is GW's way.

Woah that's fething awesome. I don't know how I haven't heard of half of these. Thank you for proving me wrong, now I can rest in peace knowing the Imperium's had more success against the Tau than I thought they did...
Although, I'm pretty sure you were saying on the first page how these "unnamed battles" on random worlds are unimportant, and seeing how most of these arent fought against a "Shadowsun Hunter Cadre," they shouldn't have much significance. But I'll save that for another day.

@Asteriois: Without information on those victories they are meaningless. We don't know if they were Feudal Worlds with no garrison or if they were worlds with powerful Imperium militarizes and with characters.

I'm sorry but if there are no actual examples then it doesn't matter. My point then still stands.

Okay but are you or are you not stating that you don't think anyone should be allowed to conquer an Imperium planet unless the Imperium conquers it back or destroys it? Or, what are you trying to say in relation to my point? I'm not sure.

Yes I know how GW is, I'm criticizing it as fundamentally unfair and stating that I want to see it change.

@123ply: You're welcome. Also, yes, that's why I keep telling you that the Tau are irrelevant and there is no point at looking at them. You insisted we look at them. Personally I do not see the Tau as having any role in this discussion at all, they're completely irrelevant to 40k and have no impact.

EDIT: Also, just to be clear, what I said are irrelevant are battles where no information is given. What I said was irrelevant was generic statements like 'many worlds are in peril' or 'it is a receding Empire' information of planet name, forces and such are important because they are suffused with narrative value. Just wanted to clarify.

Ah, I see what you mean.
And many people think the Tau are insignificant. I did too but I realize now they're a real threat. The rate at which they are advancing and expanding double with the fact the Imperium is besieged from every side is what makes the Tau so dangerous; Because if the Imperium were to wipe out the Empire now they'd be leaving much of their territory vulnerable to other enemies, but if they conserve their manpower for the larger threats then the Tau might have already grown too advanced and the Imperium too hurt to attack the Empire again, let alone defend themselves from their inevitable expansions.

If humanity wasn't so busy with everything else then I would agree that the Tau are insignificant, but as it stands, the longer they wait the more powerful the Tau become, and right now waiting is all they can do

 Anemone wrote:
@Asteriois: Without information on those victories they are meaningless. We don't know if they were Feudal Worlds with no garrison or if they were worlds with powerful Imperium militarizes and with characters.

I'm sorry but if there are no actual examples then it doesn't matter. My point then still stands.

Okay but are you or are you not stating that you don't think anyone should be allowed to conquer an Imperium planet unless the Imperium conquers it back or destroys it? Or, what are you trying to say in relation to my point? I'm not sure.

Yes I know how GW is, I'm criticizing it as fundamentally unfair and stating that I want to see it change.

@123ply: You're welcome. Also, yes, that's why I keep telling you that the Tau are irrelevant and there is no point at looking at them. You insisted we look at them. Personally I do not see the Tau as having any role in this discussion at all, they're completely irrelevant to 40k and have no impact.

EDIT: Also, just to be clear, what I said are irrelevant are battles where no information is given. What I said was irrelevant was generic statements like 'many worlds are in peril' or 'it is a receding Empire' information of planet name, forces and such are important because they are suffused with narrative value. Just wanted to clarify.

actually like I told you which you seem to gloss over or ignore if it does not agree with your thought process, is the worlds in the Ultima Segmentum area included Imperial outposts and such along with raids on the shipping lanes, so yes it was also on Imperial strong points.

and I repeat GW says it was so, sorry to burst your bubble but GW cannot list every action that takes place in the universe.

I repeat my point is the Imperium does not consider it a victory unless the xenos on the planet are destroyed, what part of that do you not understand or are you just trying to Troll me, which I think you are so you shall go on ignore for your trolling ways.

as it stands the Imperium is just one new Hive Fleet away from caving in on itself, their forces are stretched thin which is evident in them making peace with a xenos even when the xenos controls former Imperium planets, the Tau codex even says the Imperium made peace because they do not have the forces to deal with the Tau Empire.

@123ply: I don't think Tau growth really threatens the Imperium. Tau technology is still far, far away from matching Imperium technology, and the Tau lack any Psykers so they'll never actually be able to match the Imperium at all.

The Tau are completely irrelevant to the setting. Discussing them is like discussing the impact of Lesotho on World War 2.

@Asterios; Names! Forces! Descriptions! Provide these, provide these! Or stop bringing it up because I've already said if you don't provide these it has no value.

Why does GW not list more actions taken by non-Imperium factions?

What is the point of mentioning what the Imperium considers a victory or not? My question to you is if you are saying that no-one is allowed in the story to conquer a planet unless the Imperium conquers it back later or destroys it. Please answer the question.

How is the Imperium 'one Hive Fleet' away from caving in on itself? Hive Fleet's aren't even a consistent unit of measurements since they can differ wildly from each other. That statement doesn't make sense.

Also the Imperium did not make peace with the Tau at the end of the 2nd Battle for Agrellan, no mention of a peace treaty was made. We were told the Imperium withdrew, reinforced all its neighboring worlds, and prepared. There was no mention of peace.

Asterios wrote:


most of the victories of the great crusade were against no nothing Xenos that no longer exist, now the empire has greater issues to deal with like the Tyranids, Ghazghkull (with Mork and gork's help), the Necron waking, the Tau and Chaos. most of those (except for the Orks) they did not have to deal with before.

Literally conquering a massive amount of area of land and crushing armies of Orks and Chaos Xenos as well as wiping out entire Xenos Empires is an insane victory. They were not "No nothing Xenos", they just don't exist anymore, because the Imperium won by that much.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


I think the issue is the tack that's been taken with this argument.

If you'd said 'the enemies of mankind must be winning all the time, but the writers never put it in the fluff. What gives?' this would have been at most a 2-page thread of people agreeing with you.

What you've said actually ended up arguing is 'the enemies of the IoM must be gak because I never read about them winning'.

See the difference?

For a fictional universe, its pretty much the same thing. Look at the Storm Troopers. They weren't the footsoldiers of the Empire: They were the elite, well-trained fighting force. They were said to win countless victories, but outside Hoth they had their asses handed to them. Whilst sure, they must've had a lot of victories not put into fluff, they were still gak. Just like them, the Imperium's enemies failing in fluff endlessly, even though they have to be winning outside of that, pretty much makes them gak. Either way, it harkens back to the original question: Why should Rocket whatever it was get invested in a game where their faction's getting their asses handed to them in fluff, and only winning in things not mentioned?

123ply wrote:
The Imperium are the most powerful empire in the entire galaxy right now. A behemoth that can destroy anything in its path multiple times over. An empire that is so large and so powerful that is seemingly undefeatable, is on the verge of defeat. Every single border, every single frontier is a sector - wide warzones that combines into a galaxy - wide bloodbath that even the Imperium are drowning in all the blood.

The idea behind the Imperium of Man is that they can destroy anybody, but are currently occupied in countless warzones which are slowly killing off humanity. If the IoM wanted to destroy the Tau, they could, but that would leave other sectors of space ripe and undefended while if they wanted to bolster the Galactic South to hold back Hive Fleet Kraken, they'd be leaving the Eastern Fringe completely open for the Tau to take.

Which again, doesn't help the issue at hand. What is inspiring about "Play as enemies of the Imperium! The best you'll be able to do is serve as a distraction!"? If all the enemies of man can accomplish is losing to the Imperials but taking up their resources to act as a single cut among thousands and don't do any actual damage, what's the point?

 Lusall wrote:

It was an imperium victory in the sense that it survived, yes.

Losing half your worlds, over half your space marines and several of your greatest generals and your Emperor and most of the works that he created...
I'm sorry, but that's pretty hollow.

That's what he's saying.

What I'm saying it, yes the writers seem to make it look like the Imperium never loses. But the Imperium is losing. It's stated in the most recent rulebook that the crusades that the Imperium has launched over the past 1000 or so years have drained its manpower and left it spread thin. We are now beginning to see the Imperium pay the price for it in the closing years of the 41st millennium.

It was an Imperium victory in all senses. They won. France won WWII, they were still crippled by it. Anyhow, we really aren't beginning to see the Imperium pay the price. We're not seeing them lose major events. We're hearing Abaddon's leading another crusade, but he can't even capture Cadia. We hear Ghazhghull's on the rise, but he's failed to take Armegeddon. We constantly hear the end is nigh, but the Imperium keeps winning.

Asterios wrote:

No what I am saying is as far as the Imperium is concerned is a victory is when the Xenos is wiped from the planet entirely either thru winning the battles or Exterminatus, anything else is failure and subject to the commander being executed.

because that is GW's way.

Who cares what the Imperium considers a win? If we're going to start taking into consideration factions' own personal opinions, I dare you to find me ANY event where Orks have lost. According to Orks' criteria for a loss, they've never done it. They either win outright, retreat which isn't a loss as they can fight again another day, or are wiped out in battle, which doesn't count because they died fighting.

Oddly enough, in the 7th ed rulebook it states that the Imperium of Man stronger then it's been before. Its clearly an exaggeration cause they dont compete with the Great Crusade Era, but the quote is still a direct contradiction to every other rulebook before it that say humanity is on the brink of extinction. So according to the current background the IoM are actually holding really well so it would take a more than one more Hive Fleet to make them cave. Mind you though that this was from a rule book that is maybe 3+ years old so I have no doubt that's going to change back next edition

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:




For a fictional universe, its pretty much the same thing. Look at the Storm Troopers. They weren't the footsoldiers of the Empire: They were the elite, well-trained fighting force. They were said to win countless victories, but outside Hoth they had their asses handed to them. Whilst sure, they must've had a lot of victories not put into fluff, they were still gak. Just like them, the Imperium's enemies failing in fluff endlessly, even though they have to be winning outside of that, pretty much makes them gak. Either way, it harkens back to the original question: Why should Rocket whatever it was get invested in a game where their faction's getting their asses handed to them in fluff, and only winning in things not mentioned?

How many wins do you need to make an invest in a game worth it ?
1?
10?
100?

Which again, doesn't help the issue at hand. What is inspiring about "Play as enemies of the Imperium! The best you'll be able to do is serve as a distraction!"? If all the enemies of man can accomplish is losing to the Imperials but taking up their resources to act as a single cut among thousands and don't do any actual damage, what's the point?

The subtitle of wh40k: Eternal War.

You know, the war never ends. there is no winner. You either like it and jump in or you don't.

Additionally, the common force someone uses in game is pretty irrelevant on the scale of 40k. 10-100 plastic models? fighting for the fate of a Galaxy? No Sir, they are just another drop in the Ocean.
So you may "zoom in" and be happy about your little Victories ( i.e. winning a game of plastic figures ). And maybe get some entertainment out of some stories.

We're hearing Abaddon's leading another crusade, but he can't even capture Cadia. We hear Ghazhghull's on the rise, but he's failed to take Armageddon. We constantly hear the end is nigh, but the Imperium keeps winning.

Why shouldn't it?
10.000 years and the IoM still isn't gone. How do you stay if you don't win?



Armageddon for example was a campaign with balanced forces involved, no real OP rules to favor one side, and Orks and Guard never complain about a draw. They get a rematch whenever they want this way.


Maybe the IoM ends and 40k too when everybody has his Plastic T-Hawk, plastic Primarch, plastic SoB etc pp. Then and only then the xeno and traitor gets to win.

lets face it with GW coming out with 30K that kind of leads to the 40K universe ending soon, the end is nigh.

Anemone wrote:@Sgt_Smudge: Source for what? Them being Terran Shamans? I'm just inquiring why Terran Shamans from long before humanity approaches its psychic awakening would be powerful. What source do you want?

I want a source that disproves the fact that the Shamans are described as "powerful". After all, GW say that they were powerful - that's enough for me.

No amount of Eldar combined ever do anything to match the Emperor either. I'd say its probably likely the Emperor's more powerful, psychically, than the entire Eldar species *shrug*

Well, considering how the Emperor came to being, and his displayed feats, that might be true. However, he is not an indicator of humanity being psychically stronger than Eldar - he is a unique anomaly and not indicative of humanity.

Well to be fair if you want to go by strict objectivity then we should compare their psychic stats in crunch since no canon actually has ever confirmed an explicit power rating. Since there is no explicit canon power rating I assumed a gauge of people's opinions concerning their respective psychic feats is our best bet, but if you only want to use canon objective indicators then I guess we can't say anything on the matter.

Except the crunch is clearly not indicative of the fluff in any way, so should not be used in fluff discussions.

Instead, we need to use the fluff information given to us, even just as simple comparisons and logic, not opinions and misconceptions which are not factually correct or canon supported. Incidentally, this would support my theory.

Okay, so Eldrad got the 2nd War for Armageddon right, fine, but do you want me to list every time a Seer has been outsmarted and defeated? I am seriously asking because I don't know if you're disputing or not.

No, I'm saying that the Eldar seers are described as powerful psyker a of a powerfully psychic race in the setting, which is the rule of canon I adhere to. Not stories which are not indicative of the lore as a whole.

Also I totally disagree that the Imperium suffering a major defeat would automatically lead to its collapse.

Using your examples of the Beast and Horus Heresy, if the Imperium lost a battle on that scale, they would be wiped out. To argue otherwise is to demean the impact of both wars.
Yes, they are far beyond a mere major defeat, but specifically talking about those two battles, the Imperium would be wiped out if they lost due to a central command structure, Terra.

Also I'm confused about your statement concerning Pandorax: you do realize that in Traitor's Hate it is stated, by the Chaos faction, that Abaddon did not achieve what he was looking for on Pandorax.

Really? It only says he didn't get the Damnation Cache. That was only part of his goal - the other part was the obtainment of a psyker for Fulgrim, which he did get.
Hence, a victory.

Ghazghkull is without military victories against the Imperium. He has one military victory against the Imperium, Golgotha, and none others. There's a reason his 1d4chan article makes fun of him for being really weak and falling flat all the time. Also do you not know Piscina's fluff? Ghazghkull's army lost, he withdrew cause he couldn't beat the Dark Angels. Ghazghkull's never managed to militarily defeat any Space Marine force.

And herein lies the fault in your argument.
You assume that victory is on the basis of ground gained and military victories. Orks, and many other 40k armies, do not care about military victories.

To Orks, a good fight is a victory. I am very much aware of Piscina, however, the parameters of victory are not as clear cut as you make out.

Also Ghazghkull and Eldrad simply do not have as many achievement as Space Marine Characters. That's canon. If you want we can compare the feats they have listed to them, there is a lot of data about that.

That depends. In the story and novels? There's so many more IoM novels, so obviously Eldrad and Ghazghkull have less. In the setting and narrative? They are very much just as accomplished, even more so Eldrad.

My reasoning for wanting to change it is because the Imperium loses very little, and nothing major, compared to the other factions. Not that they never lose.

Insert my argument about setting vs story here.

Also, the Imperium loses very little partially because that they have been stripped down to their essential holdings - if they lose much else, the ramifications for the Imperium as a whole as massive.

Orks, on the other hand, can afford to lose worlds, because they are redundant to Ork society. Likewise, Eldar have a similar case as the IoM - no redundant holdings. However, they lose craftworlds at a slower rate than Astartes lose entire chapters.

The losses are far more equal than you portray.

Solar Powered Chainswords- when I said that I wasn't trying to say the Imperium can kill any army by just pushing a button and landing troops instantly. Every faction loses all the time. In each codexes' timelines' you'll see that every enemy of the Imperium has atleast one victory against them. The Imperium aren't invincible, they're just so large you'd need to cripple them before killing them and they're especially not unbeatable on the small scale. Their enemies aren't slowly killing off the IoM by being target practice, they're doing real damage, but if you don't think "offscreen" events are relavent then you won't believe it. Because no matter how many more wins the Imperium has against other factions, there is no denying they're still taking massive damage even if we don't read about it, which we totally do. Even the Militarium Tempestus codex, which is supposed to be the organization that houses soldiers who are at the peak of human conditioning and are the best human soldiers in the galaxy, has quite a few stories where they get annihilated. Twice by the Tau too. I even read a novel or novella where a squad of scions attempt to assassinate a warboss but fail and end up getting hunted throughout the entire story. In the end, though they did kill a lot of greenskins, they met their demise and the orks defeated the Imperials. The reason I say this is because the story didn't directly say the orks conquered the world, just like how you may not read about xeno winning, but it's pretty much implied if the scions fail then all's going to hell. Just like in the fluff how apperantly we don't see xenos or chaos winning, you don't see the orks victorius in this book but you just know they did.

There's tons of stories of Imperials losing (granted, it's almost always only the Imperial guard) you just gotta find them. Dark Disciple, I think it was, was an awesome book where the Word Bearers deal a massive blow to the white and blue consuls. Storm of Iron tells the story of a pretty important battle between the Chaos and Space Marines where chaos wins again (added bonus because it's a major conflict) and then there's Imperial Glory and Flesh and Iron, where the guard lose to orks, and end up being forced to turn to chaos, respectively.

So as I said, everyone beats everyone. There's many stories of the Imperium getting wrecked, you just need to look deep enough

Uugh I'm so sick of misspelling gak

@Sgt_Smudge: When did I say they weren't powerful? I just want to know why a smattering of random human psykers from before humanity had its psychic awakening produce a being who frightens the Chaos Gods.

Also why is a combination of a few human psykers from pre-history stronger than the entire Eldar species' psychic?

Well I disagree that the setting trumps the fluff shown in the material. Completely. Actual detailed fluff is far more important to me than simple and unextrapolated musings.

Besides by the same measure the people I've mentioned are all described as super-powerful psykers so, as I've already said, if we want to stick to this conversation the way you want too we can't come to any conclusions and might as well give it up.

Why are Orks or Chaos Space Marines not destroyed yet then? If, according to you, losing a battle of the Beast or Horus Heresy scale automatically translates into faction = destroyed.

That Traitor's Hate point seems like you're splitting hairs, why would the book specifically mention his failure if it wasn't actually a failure?

Also stating Orks don't care about military victories simply isn't true. Orks do definitely care about military victories. Piscina was an Ork defeat, it is referred to as such in all fluff.

How can you say Eldrad is more accomplished than Marnues? If you're going to say that provide examples of his accomplishments so I can compare them to Imperium characters, otherwise I won't accept that statement at all.

Also the Imperium is not down to its essential holdings, that's ridiculous, its literally described as being stronger than ever in the rulebook fluff, the setting you're talking about's main book. Stating the Imperium can lose nothing from this point onwards is just again a mentality which justifies not allowing other factions to also have major victories. Why are you so opposed to that?

Honestly I just don't understand, are you actually now saying the Imperium doesn't win the overwhelming amount of time in the fluff? Cause your earlier argument was it does but that you value the setting more and in the setting it isn't true, now it seems you've altered your reasoning.

Also can we please just stop saying something like 'the Imperium loses as much as everyone' because I have counted all the battles and that is not true. I'm not going to accept that statement unless someone actually provides numbers to back the argument up.

Why is it so unthinkable to allow non-Imperium factions and characters to have the spotlight and achieve major victories over the Imperium? What is so wrong with this concept?

EDIT: Also, Smudge, let me just make this clear so we both know where we stand. Do you honestly believe that in the depicted fluff, so not the setting, the Imperium doesn't win far more than the other factions?

Additionally, do you honestly believe non-Imperium characters like Ghazghkull and Eldrad have in the depicted fluff achieved as many feats as Imperium characters? If so I want us to engage in a list-off right now to compare.

 Anemone wrote:

Also stating Orks don't care about military victories simply isn't true. Orks do definitely care about military victories. Piscina was an Ork defeat, it is referred to as such in all fluff.

Additionally, do you honestly believe non-Imperium characters like Ghazghkull and Eldrad have in the depicted fluff achieved as many feats as Imperium characters? If so I want us to engage in a list-off right now to compare.

1: where does it say it was a loss? you do know the battle still rages there, just that Ghazghkull's system spanning ambitions were held in Check at least until his attack on Armageddon, that is going by the Dark angel's Codex. so where is your evidence that it was an utter defeat? especially since Nazdreg continues the war? Ghazghkull got to try out his new Tellyportas which worked very well on Armageddon so it was a success as far as dry runs go, so tell me where is your evidence?

2: How many of your Imperium Characters have any, not one but several codexs about them and their work?

Yeah this makes a lot clear, thanks for the discussion guys.

Still since the only argument people seem to have for why anyone other than the Imperium is doing anything right is cause it's happening someplace we can see it makes it pretty clear the settings clearly just an Imperium-fest half the time. Nobody else has cool and awesome moments like the Horus Heresy or Beast Waaagh only the Imperium.

I much preferred fantasy where all the factions got a chance to shine. 40k isn't for me, just read the Rulebook and it makes pretty clear the Imperium is stronger than ever, so I don't know why people here keep saying it isn't.

Besides fact remains that only the imperium has really awesome and cool moments and victories, none of the other factions get even a tenth as much shine and that sucks to me.

So I'll stick to AoS for now, at least so far they've given the Orruks, Chaos and Sylvaneth a good showing too,

Thanks for everyone's help.

 Anemone wrote:
@Sgt_Smudge: When did I say they weren't powerful?

And I quote:

Anemone wrote:I'm just inquiring why Terran Shamans from long before humanity approaches its psychic awakening would be powerful.

Your words, not mine.

I just want to know why a smattering of random human psykers from before humanity had its psychic awakening produce a being who frightens the Chaos Gods.

It says they were powerful psykers with great experience of the Warp. Regardless of humanities' psychic awakening, these shamans were pretty darn good - combined, it's understandable they'd create something like the Emperor.

Also why is a combination of a few human psykers from pre-history stronger than the entire Eldar species' psychic?

Because these psykers combined were better. Not to mention that it's not the entire Eldar species, because the species has no focal point of their psychic energy. As a race, Eldar are better psykers. But in this one case, multiple very powerful human psykers combined and formed a single being beyond any single Eldar in psychic ability.

Well I disagree that the setting trumps the fluff shown in the material. Completely. Actual detailed fluff is far more important to me than simple and unextrapolated musings.

But they are just as valid as eachother. You can't say that "this is canon because it's more important to me" - that's a sure way to lose any respect of the person you're debating against.

Besides by the same measure the people I've mentioned are all described as super-powerful psykers so, as I've already said, if we want to stick to this conversation the way you want too we can't come to any conclusions and might as well give it up.

But look at my quotations for these psykers. They class Magnus and Malcador as very powerful psykers within the Imperium. Eldrad is just classed as a powerful psyker generally.

Using that logic, Eldrad is most likely either:
A) On the same tier as Malcador or Magnus, but in Magnus' case, he has the Emperor's tinkering, so is therefore post-Human and not indicative of humanity
B) Higher, because he lacks the modifier exclusive to his race.

Why are Orks or Chaos Space Marines not destroyed yet then? If, according to you, losing a battle of the Beast or Horus Heresy scale automatically translates into faction = destroyed.

Have you deliberately ignored or just plain skimmed past my point about a decentralised command structure for these armies? A defeat on that scale for the Imperium means the death of the Emperor. Emperor's death means the death of humanity.

That Traitor's Hate point seems like you're splitting hairs, why would the book specifically mention his failure if it wasn't actually a failure?

Because the book says that a SINGLE ELEMENT is a failure. He didn't get the Damnation Cache. But he DID get the psyker. Therefore, a partial victory. What don't you understand about that?

It's not splitting hairs. It's a perfectly logical point to make.

Also stating Orks don't care about military victories simply isn't true. Orks do definitely care about military victories. Piscina was an Ork defeat, it is referred to as such in all fluff.

What fluff is this that categorically says, according to the orks, that they failed?

And also prove to me that Orks care about military victories. Because conventional victory conditions are not part of the Orks' way of warfare.

How can you say Eldrad is more accomplished than Marnues? If you're going to say that provide examples of his accomplishments so I can compare them to Imperium characters, otherwise I won't accept that statement at all.

I'm going to just direct you to the handy little blurb about him in Lexicanum, which you still seem to hold up as a valid source.

Lexicanum wrote:He was perhaps the most gifted psyker amongst the Eldar, his incredible foresight having saved many thousands of Eldar lives. He created and carried into battle the Staff of Ulthamar, and his resilience and power has been a rallying point for the declining Eldar race.

Sounds rather a lot like Calgar, no?

Again, setting vs story. Neither is definitively better than the other.

Also the Imperium is not down to its essential holdings, that's ridiculous, its literally described as being stronger than ever in the rulebook fluff, the setting you're talking about's main book. Stating the Imperium can lose nothing from this point onwards is just again a mentality which justifies not allowing other factions to also have major victories. Why are you so opposed to that?

I am opposed to your denial of the actual victories and your imposed etic of "military victories" so as to wail about your lack of representation as a winning faction in a section of Warhammer 40k's canon. Not other factions having major victories.

Honestly I just don't understand, are you actually now saying the Imperium doesn't win the overwhelming amount of time in the fluff? Cause your earlier argument was it does but that you value the setting more and in the setting it isn't true, now it seems you've altered your reasoning.

What? My argument has not changed at all.

Also can we please just stop saying something like 'the Imperium loses as much as everyone' because I have counted all the battles and that is not true. I'm not going to accept that statement unless someone actually provides numbers to back the argument up.

Are you saying that it's not okay to have my opinion and value the setting rather than story? Are you saying my view and valid sources are irrelevant in this argument?

Why is it so unthinkable to allow non-Imperium factions and characters to have the spotlight and achieve major victories over the Imperium? What is so wrong with this concept?

See above.

EDIT: Also, Smudge, let me just make this clear so we both know where we stand. Do you honestly believe that in the depicted fluff, so not the setting, the Imperium doesn't win far more than the other factions?

That depends on what fluff.
Novels, books, etc etc - yes. I agree that the Imperium wins more often, due to a higher level of exposure. If other armies were exposed as much as the IoM, the gap would be lessened.
Setting, as in the "word of God" from GW, as it were - no. The Imperium is five minutes from midnight, surrounded by the alien, mutant and heretic. It is the 41st Millenium, and in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war.

Additionally, do you honestly believe non-Imperium characters like Ghazghkull and Eldrad have in the depicted fluff achieved as many feats as Imperium characters? If so I want us to engage in a list-off right now to compare.

I told you - I am basing my argument on setting. Not depicted stories, which have questionable validity as possible propaganda pieces.

Ah yes because having your Emperor crippled, and your capital planet nearly destroyed twice are defenetively awesome moments.

 1hadhq wrote:

How many wins do you need to make an invest in a game worth it ?
1?
10?
100?

Well, it should be relatively in proportion with other factions.

 1hadhq wrote:


The subtitle of wh40k: Eternal War.

You know, the war never ends. there is no winner. You either like it and jump in or you don't.

Additionally, the common force someone uses in game is pretty irrelevant on the scale of 40k. 10-100 plastic models? fighting for the fate of a Galaxy? No Sir, they are just another drop in the Ocean.
So you may "zoom in" and be happy about your little Victories ( i.e. winning a game of plastic figures ). And maybe get some entertainment out of some stories.

Except the Imperium manages to score huge victories against other factions all the time, whilst the other factions don't. The overall conflict doesn't end or have winners, but the many conflicts that make it up do all the time, and of the ones we get to hear about, its always nothing.

Yeah, you can be happy with your little victories, but than zoom out and see that the Imperium is winning all the battles. Why would someone be happy winning little battles hear and there while the fluff has your guys (or the faction they're in) just getting their asses handed to them.

 1hadhq wrote:

Why shouldn't it?
10.000 years and the IoM still isn't gone. How do you stay if you don't win?

Armageddon for example was a campaign with balanced forces involved, no real OP rules to favor one side, and Orks and Guard never complain about a draw. They get a rematch whenever they want this way.

People keep bringing up this ridiculous point. "How do you stay if you don't win?" That's just nonsense. All the other factions have been losing the vast majority of times, they're still around. To answer your question, the Imperium shouldn't be constantly winning because that ruins all the other factions.

Armageddon was a campaign where the Orks lost. The next time, at worst they lost a second time, and at best, ended up in a stalemate. This is the most prominent Ork in 40k, the big bad of the Ork species, and he's failed win any serious battles except Golgotha. That's one win. On the other hand, when the best of the Imperium they most definitely win.

123ply wrote:

when I said that I wasn't trying to say the Imperium can kill any army by just pushing a button and landing troops instantly. Every faction loses all the time. In each codexes' timelines' you'll see that every enemy of the Imperium has atleast one victory against them. The Imperium aren't invincible, they're just so large you'd need to cripple them before killing them and they're especially not unbeatable on the small scale. Their enemies aren't slowly killing off the IoM by being target practice, they're doing real damage, but if you don't think "offscreen" events are relavent then you won't believe it. Because no matter how many more wins the Imperium has against other factions, there is no denying they're still taking massive damage even if we don't read about it, which we totally do. Even the Militarium Tempestus codex, which is supposed to be the organization that houses soldiers who are at the peak of human conditioning and are the best human soldiers in the galaxy, has quite a few stories where they get annihilated. Twice by the Tau too. I even read a novel or novella where a squad of scions attempt to assassinate a warboss but fail and end up getting hunted throughout the entire story. In the end, though they did kill a lot of greenskins, they met their demise and the orks defeated the Imperials. The reason I say this is because the story didn't directly say the orks conquered the world, just like how you may not read about xeno winning, but it's pretty much implied if the scions fail then all's going to hell. Just like in the fluff how apperantly we don't see xenos or chaos winning, you don't see the orks victorius in this book but you just know they did.

There's tons of stories of Imperials losing (granted, it's almost always only the Imperial guard) you just gotta find them. Dark Disciple, I think it was, was an awesome book where the Word Bearers deal a massive blow to the white and blue consuls. Storm of Iron tells the story of a pretty important battle between the Chaos and Space Marines where chaos wins again (added bonus because it's a major conflict) and then there's Imperial Glory and Flesh and Iron, where the guard lose to orks, and end up being forced to turn to chaos, respectively.

So as I said, everyone beats everyone. There's many stories of the Imperium getting wrecked, you just need to look deep enough

Sure, every faction loses and every faction wins. But the Imperium wins a lot more than all the other factions. You pointing out examples where the Imperials do lose does nothing, because yes, it does happen. But it just happens insanely disproportionately.

No, I really don't think offscreen events are relevant in a fictional setting. The issue here is why should people get invested if in the fluff their faction is always losing and having their ass handed to them? You assuring them that the faction wins in other places, it's just not getting shown, doesn't solve that issue that the fluff is still mainly showing you guys lose.

@Sgt_Smudge: Yes! I want to know why they are powerful. That is my question, I'm not saying they aren't powerful, I just want to know why a small number of human Psykers from before humanity's psychic awakening created a being powerful enough to frighten the Chaos Gods who are composed of the Psychic Energy of the entire galaxy. My question is why!

Also how good is good? Above or beyond Farseer level? Are you saying that if a bunch of Farseers get together and do the same thing they'll produce someone stronger than the Emperor then by merit of you claiming them to be a more psychic race? Because aren't Infinity Circuits already akin to that? And they're nowhere near as powerful as the Emperor was.

Also I didn't say the Emperor was better than anyone Eldar, I said most likely more powerful than the entire Eldar race.

Also let us get clear on this SettingVStory debate already; you consistently claim the primacy of setting over story facts I bring up, why am I not allowed to do the same? Enforcing a double standard is also a way to lose respect in a debate. Put simply we should stop any discussion on the matter since we've already previously stated that since we place different things in primacy we don't even have a common axiom to debate on.

Yeah Eldrad is 'most likely' one of those, but the setting doesn't specify which at all or give any actual ranking. Thus, like I said, going by your argument we should, again, not say anything other than that they are all 'generically' powerful because the setting doesn't inform us who is or is not stronger.

Also the Emperor doesn't have to die for the Imperium to suffer a major defeat. Why are you so opposed to the Imperium suffering a major defeat? A major defeat could be the loss of several sectors to Ghazghkull, destroying a massive army of the Imperium's best lead by Logan, a major defeat could be Eldrad outsmarting Marneus Calgar and defeating the Ultramarines on a Maiden World thus saving the planet and putting the some of the best of the Imperium to flight. The Emperor doesn't have to die! But you can just let some people other than the Imperium actually achieve something for a change. What is so wrong with that? What is wrong with having Ghazghkull conquer Piscina? Why are you so opposed to just letting non-Imperium factions beat Imperium special characters and then hold and maintain territory of significant value they captured from the Imperium.

Why can't all the factions have cool moments like the Horus Heresy and the Beast Waaagh!!! is for the Imperium? So that their players can also enjoy it! Instead you're telling any player of a non-Imperium faction when they come and ask, 'where can I read about my guys beating the Imperium in a major conflict and beating their best' that they must be content with simple background statements.

If Orks didn't care about winning why do they have a distinction between defeat and winning? Why do they attempt to achieve military victories? Why does the Ghazghkull codex explicitly state he is not simply content with a big battle? Its fine to say the Orks are happy so long as they fight, and don't fear death, but the Orks do definitely still aim for military victories as their desired goal in all situations. Remember that Orks understand the concept of winning already, hence why leadership and wealth is determined by the ability to defeat rivals. The Beast Waaagh!!! makes even more explicit the desire for the Orks to win, with the Beast of Beasts making clear their goal is victory over the Imperium.

Also are you saying Lexicanum isn't a valid source? Cause what is a valid source to you then?

So that was what, a thousand lives he's saved, he's a gifted Psyker and he made a staff. Pretty cool. This is Marneus;

Defeated the Swarmlord, defeated an Avatar, banished Angga'rath, held a gate alone against an Ork Horde for a full day, defeating M'Kar, defeating several hundred Night Lords with only the assistance of the primitive population of Barathred and these are only a few. Pretty big discrepancy between Marneus and Eldrad already, particularly since Marneus doesn't have 'got Ynnead screwed up' on his resume.

No, I'm a-okay with you prioritizing setting, but then I expect that you accept I prioritize story over setting. Furthermore if we are going by setting then the latest rulebook explicitly states the Imperium is more powerful and larger than it has ever been.

I mean Novels, books, audiobooks, campaign supplements, narrative supplements and video games and Codex timelines which list battles. That's what I'm referring to.

Also how can you state novels, books and such are of questionable validity but not your sources? Surely all the sources are then of questionable validity?

Bobthehero: Hey if you'd prefer the Imperium no defeat the greatest Chaos Lord ever and his armies, send them running into the Eye of Terror and scour them, or defeat the most powerful Waaagh!!! we know, defeat the majority of the Ork Race united, kill the Beast and all his Primeorks I'd be happy for other factions to take it off you if you dislike it so much.

I'd rather both events happened well off from the Imperium seat of power. I do love me some irrelevant Orks, after all.

 Anemone wrote:
@Sgt_Smudge: Yes! I want to know why they are powerful. That is my question, I'm not saying they aren't powerful, I just want to know why a small number of human Psykers from before humanity's psychic awakening created a being powerful enough to frighten the Chaos Gods who are composed of the Psychic Energy of the entire galaxy. My question is why!

Because GW say so, just like why there's so many more books about Space Marines winning.

Otherwise, why don't I ask "But why are Eldar the psychically powerful race?" Same answer - GW said so.

Also how good is good? Above or beyond Farseer level? Are you saying that if a bunch of Farseers get together and do the same thing they'll produce someone stronger than the Emperor then by merit of you claiming them to be a more psychic race? Because aren't Infinity Circuits already akin to that? And they're nowhere near as powerful as the Emperor was.

Good enough to create the Emperor.

The Eldar haven't attempted to put their consciousness into a single entity. The Infinity Circuit is not like this, because it isn't a person - it is a force.

Also I didn't say the Emperor was better than anyone Eldar, I said most likely more powerful than the entire Eldar race.

Yes, but seeing as the Emperor has never attempted to battle the entire Eldar race at once, how can you say he is stronger? All I've said is that the Emperor is more powerful than any single Eldar.

Also let us get clear on this SettingVStory debate already; you consistently claim the primacy of setting over story facts I bring up, why am I not allowed to do the same? Enforcing a double standard is also a way to lose respect in a debate. Put simply we should stop any discussion on the matter since we've already previously stated that since we place different things in primacy we don't even have a common axiom to debate on.

I do not claim one is better than the other. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Yeah Eldrad is 'most likely' one of those, but the setting doesn't specify which at all or give any actual ranking. Thus, like I said, going by your argument we should, again, not say anything other than that they are all 'generically' powerful because the setting doesn't inform us who is or is not stronger.

True, but it cannot be denied that Malcador and Magnus are classed as powerful when compared to the Imperium, whereas Eldrad is not.

Also the Emperor doesn't have to die for the Imperium to suffer a major defeat. Why are you so opposed to the Imperium suffering a major defeat? A major defeat could be the loss of several sectors to Ghazghkull, destroying a massive army of the Imperium's best lead by Logan, a major defeat could be Eldrad outsmarting Marneus Calgar and defeating the Ultramarines on a Maiden World thus saving the planet and putting the some of the best of the Imperium to flight. The Emperor doesn't have to die! But you can just let some people other than the Imperium actually achieve something for a change. What is so wrong with that? What is wrong with having Ghazghkull conquer Piscina? Why are you so opposed to just letting non-Imperium factions beat Imperium special characters and then hold and maintain territory of significant value they captured from the Imperium.

But that isn't the same as the Horus Heresy or Beast's Waaagh!, which is the example you gave!

Something on the scale of the HH would result in the Imperium being destroyed. What you describe is not on the scale I am responding to.

Actually read my argument. I am not opposed to more victories against the Imperium. I am opposed by your theory that those armies never win (due to your imposed etics and ignoring of the finer points of certain battles) and am choosing to respond to things I actually disagree with - such as you saying that there should be a HH level loss for the Imperium, which would actually destroy it!
The examples you have given are not HH tier, which I am opposing.

Why can't all the factions have cool moments like the Horus Heresy and the Beast Waaagh!!! is for the Imperium? So that their players can also enjoy it! Instead you're telling any player of a non-Imperium faction when they come and ask, 'where can I read about my guys beating the Imperium in a major conflict and beating their best' that they must be content with simple background statements.

Insert my argument about HH tier events destroying the Imperium.

But let's go through two armies that have these kinds of battles:
Necrons - War in Heaven
Eldar - Defeat of the Necrons

The Imperium is not the only faction with "FETH YEAH" moments - the Necrons fought GODS. The Eldar ruled the galaxy.

If Orks didn't care about winning why do they have a distinction between defeat and winning? Why do they attempt to achieve military victories? Why does the Ghazghkull codex explicitly state he is not simply content with a big battle? Its fine to say the Orks are happy so long as they fight, and don't fear death, but the Orks do definitely still aim for military victories as their desired goal in all situations. Remember that Orks understand the concept of winning already, hence why leadership and wealth is determined by the ability to defeat rivals. The Beast Waaagh!!! makes even more explicit the desire for the Orks to win, with the Beast of Beasts making clear their goal is victory over the Imperium.

Okay, show me where orks have their distinction between Victory and Defeat. From an Ork's perspective.

What is this military victory they are attempting to achieve? The only victory for orks is a good fight, or the ability to have one.
Ghazghkull wants more than just a big battle - he wants a battle on the galactic scale, one that would see unprecedented amounts of Waaagh! energy.

Also are you saying Lexicanum isn't a valid source? Cause what is a valid source to you then?

I haven't said it's not valid. I've said it's reductionist. The best source is that from the book itself, with all the context that entails.

So that was what, a thousand lives he's saved, he's a gifted Psyker and he made a staff. Pretty cool. This is Marneus;

Defeated the Swarmlord, defeated an Avatar, banished Angga'rath, held a gate alone against an Ork Horde for a full day, defeating M'Kar, defeating several hundred Night Lords with only the assistance of the primitive population of Barathred and these are only a few. Pretty big discrepancy between Marneus and Eldrad already, particularly since Marneus doesn't have 'got Ynnead screwed up' on his resume.

But GW says Eldrad is on a similar level of fame to the Eldar as Calgar is to the Imperium.

Word of G(W)od.

No, I'm a-okay with you prioritizing setting, but then I expect that you accept I prioritize story over setting. Furthermore if we are going by setting then the latest rulebook explicitly states the Imperium is more powerful and larger than it has ever been.

I am not asking that you prioritize setting. I am asking that you respect it's validity alongside story as an explanation to lore.
And I don't think the whole theme of the Imperium being five minutes from midnight has gone?

I mean Novels, books, audiobooks, campaign supplements, narrative supplements and video games and Codex timelines which list battles. That's what I'm referring to.

And I'm referring to GW's outright statement of the setting. Both are valid, no?

Also how can you state novels, books and such are of questionable validity but not your sources? Surely all the sources are then of questionable validity?

Exactly - equal validity for all!

@Sgt_Smudge: Okay, so you agree Space Marines have more stories about them winning. Great.

But an Infinity Circuit is explicitly composed of a congregation of powerful Eldar Psykers sharing their powers. In The Beheading Eldrad even talks to the Infinity Circuit which takes the form of a number of different great Eldar Farseers joined together within a singular force. Why is the Infinity Circuits of Eldar not then comparable to the Emperor?

You do claim one has primacy every time you insist my version is incorrect and your version is correct. To not claim primacy you'd have to every time you dispute my point not say 'incorrect because of setting' you'd have to say 'depends on whether you give primacy to setting or story'.

Yes but it also cannot be denied that Eldrad is never stated to be stronger than either Malcador or Magnus.

Why is it not the same as the Horus Heresy or Beast Waaagh!!!? All that it needs to be is a large conflict in which the best of all sides take part and one wins. The Horus Heresy didn't result in the death of the Imperium, nor did the Beast Waaagh, thus when I say I want a conflict like them I obviously also mean no faction must die since in those wars no faction died!

Also my theory isn't that they never win, I've said this numerous times now. The Imperium just wins overwhelmingly often compared to everyone and wins all major wars its involved in. I never said the other factions don't win anything.

That's two, and we know nothing about either of those conflicts. Besides, if I recall correctly the Eldar didn't beat the Necrons the Necrons just went into stasis. Seriously are you telling me you'd tell an Ork or Eldar player that they have as many cool moments to read about and enjoy in the official fluff as an Imperium player?

The Beast literally states his intention is to conquer the Imperium. What more do you want? He didn't state 'I don't care if I win or lose' he stated 'I'm going to destroy the Imperium', that was his goal.

So you're just broadly saying lexicanum doesn't give an accurate contextual picture?

GW doesn't say Eldrad is on a similar level of fame to anyone. It just states he's famous, has made a staff and saved a thousand Eldar. It doesn't anywhere in that quote say he's as famous as Calgar. On the other hand we know Calgar has far more and impressive feats to his name.

How do you then explain the rulebook saying the Imperium is larger and stronger than ever? Its the setting, so you have to accept it surely?

Furthermore, as I said a while ago, there is no point to us discussing with each other then if the conclusion we've already come to is simply one of having a differing axiom. It makes no sense for us to have any fluff conversation because you will dismiss anything by simply pointing out; 'setting says the Imperium's in trouble' and I will dismiss any of your points by pointing out no provided fluff depiction supports it.

We have no reason to discuss on matters of fluff, nothing can be achieved but acceptance that we have no shared axiom to discuss. I'm happy to accept that if you are.

Furthermore, regardless, none of this changes that for players of factions other than the Imperium there is a definitive feeling of neglect and exclusion. You can talk about the setting, which is fine, but that does not change that players of factions other than the Imperium do feel their factions are underrepresented compared to the Imperium. I believe it would be better for more major victories to be shared between the factions. You can disagree with that as much as you like, it won't change. Other players of factions other than the Imperium also deserve to have cool moments like the Horus Heresy and The Beast Waaagh!!! for their factions too.

You can't have a Horus Heresy/Beast Waagh kind of event reversed and have the Imperium involved, because in both cases, this would have meant the end of the Imperium

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

How many wins do you need to make an invest in a game worth it ?
1?
10?
100?

Well, it should be relatively in proportion with other factions.

And that is?

How many fights does the IoM have that may count?
How many fights does the ones you want to compare have?

Lets take Necrons. Necrons who fought as Necrontyr , who are one of the oldest space farers 40k lets us know about.
How many battles did they fight? How many wins / losses ?

I for one , doubt anyone is able to bring correct numbers because GW has not written those down.
So your proportion is based on? Guesswork? Love for your chosen Faction? Disdain for something you would never play?

Equality does not exist in this case. 60 Millions of years ( Necrons ) and given that time how many outcomes of battles do you know?
If I had to predict the numbers you are going to get from GW, I would aim for the kits they want to sell multiplied by the price range. Expansive kits surely deserve 3-4 mentions where those totally won that conflict. so YOU have to have them too.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:


The subtitle of wh40k: Eternal War.

You know, the war never ends. there is no winner. You either like it and jump in or you don't.

Additionally, the common force someone uses in game is pretty irrelevant on the scale of 40k. 10-100 plastic models? fighting for the fate of a Galaxy? No Sir, they are just another drop in the Ocean.
So you may "zoom in" and be happy about your little Victories ( i.e. winning a game of plastic figures ). And maybe get some entertainment out of some stories.

Except the Imperium manages to score huge victories against other factions all the time, whilst the other factions don't. The overall conflict doesn't end or have winners, but the many conflicts that make it up do all the time, and of the ones we get to hear about, its always nothing.

Yeah, you can be happy with your little victories, but than zoom out and see that the Imperium is winning all the battles. Why would someone be happy winning little battles here and there while the fluff has your guys (or the faction they're in) just getting their asses handed to them.

Can you provide all the battles since M30 and who won?
If you can't , what makes you think the IoM wins all the battles?


Somehow, I don't even see a all-encompassing point in winning "in universe" cause IMHo its the background of a tabletop wargame where the real persons are meant to win on this top of a table with the models of their choice.
WAAC fools pick up armies because those seem to "autowin". But in general, people seem to have more points which draw them towards an army than just "winning in the fluff".

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

Why shouldn't it?
10.000 years and the IoM still isn't gone. How do you stay if you don't win?

Armageddon for example was a campaign with balanced forces involved, no real OP rules to favor one side, and Orks and Guard never complain about a draw. They get a rematch whenever they want this way.

People keep bringing up this ridiculous point. "How do you stay if you don't win?" That's just nonsense. All the other factions have been losing the vast majority of times, they're still around. To answer your question, the Imperium shouldn't be constantly winning because that ruins all the other factions.

Armageddon was a campaign where the Orks lost. The next time, at worst they lost a second time, and at best, ended up in a stalemate. This is the most prominent Ork in 40k, the big bad of the Ork species, and he's failed win any serious battles except Golgotha. That's one win. On the other hand, when the best of the Imperium they most definitely win.

The Orks lost? Orks who are almost impossible to get off of Armageddon again?
Armageddon and the story of G & Y isn't a One-sided win.... but maybe thats your problem? You want one side to win? Seriously win, earthquake like, undoubted and thus something to....
Haven't heard complaints from Ork-players about Armageddon.

Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

Sure, every faction loses and every faction wins. But the Imperium wins a lot more than all the other factions. You pointing out examples where the Imperials do lose does nothing, because yes, it does happen. But it just happens insanely disproportionately.

No, I really don't think offscreen events are relevant in a fictional setting. The issue here is why should people get invested if in the fluff their faction is always losing and having their ass handed to them? You assuring them that the faction wins in other places, it's just not getting shown, doesn't solve that issue that the fluff is still mainly showing you guys lose.

Challenge:

Provide every win of everyone and we can see if the IoM wins "a lot more than others".

Now, we both know you cannot.

Offscreen is NOT invalid, just because it sinks your boat. In - Universe every battle counts. It doens't matter if GW tells us, the readers, of a battle. It happened , it influenced events in universe.
So I have to disagree. Offscreen counts. Because it is what happens if we just get glimpses of a world. Our Picture is incomplete.

The background of 40k depends on the events :
a) GW creates to sell stuff
b) GW creates to tell stories and offer them printed or digitally.

It would be nice to have a overarching setup and GW sticking to some guidelines. But there is a lot of power beyond the creative heads nowadays and pushing product leads to priorities based on $ , € , etc.
But, as money focused as GW acted, I cannot believe anything is done to make one not buy in, to deny anyone wins.

Take the Imperial Guard. GW said billions of Regiments of IG exist ( codex ). GW could never do enough to make all of those equally interesting.
Is anyone going to claim only people who like to have their ass handed to them play IG ?
Because i havent seen codices of the IG filled with victories to the brim. Like you know, IG being part of the IoM and according to some in this thread: IoM wins, and has huge wins, and wins all the time, so the IG which makes up the bulk of the forces must have their share in this. Right?

@Bobthehero: Why not? Just have the Imperium and another faction also engage in a conflict where the Imperium goes all out to destroy them but fails.

In neither the Horus Heresy or the Beast Waaagh!!! is a faction destroyed. So when I ask for a conflict of that nature I, of course, include the aspect of no faction being destroyed. Wanting a conflict of this nature does not mean it must be a clone, or a straight-reverse, it means it must narratively fulfill the same requirement for a faction other than the Imperium.

@1hadhq: We only use fluff provided. If you want to claim primacy of setting like Sgt_Smudge that's fine, but like Smudge you must also then accept you cannot claim our method to be invalid. We should simply cease having a discussion on the matter then.

More seriously, and not involved with that debate, I know many Ork players who complain about Armageddon because they feel the Orks never win anything in the fluff.

Why are you so against people other than the Imperium getting to enjoy fluff about major victories and achievements over the Imperium? Why can't they have that and enjoy it the way the Imperium players do?

The Imperium does not have the capacities to threaten the leadership and capital of any of the other factions, because they either dont have such a thing or that capital/leadership is somewhere where the Imperium cannot go.

Dude you're getting hung up on technical details. Anemone never said it had to include an attack on anyone's capital. They're just saying give the other factions big awesome victories against the best the Imperium has to offer, unequivocal straight out victories over the Imperium's big armies and big name characters. I agree. Fantasy was cool because all the factions got to kick equalish amounts of ass. The fluff for this just looks like it focuses on the Imperium 24/7 and they win every major battle just about.

Besides the Imperium can attack capitals. It attacked Alaitoc and Alaitoc only survived cause the Imperium chose to withdraw, and the Deathwatch crippled the entire Farsight Enclaves military hierarchy recently and then Ghazghkull's main base of Golgotha got attacked too.

Why not have some Imperium big wigs, like Dark Angles, Slace Wolves, Creed and such get into a huge fight with Biel-tan but Biel-tan wins and sends the Imperium running in an epic confrontation like the Traitor legions were sent running?

Mmmm, I forgot the Eldars were in realspace, so that's one faction, as for the rest, Ghaz aims to be the leader of the Orks, but he's not, and the Farsight Enclaves are a subfaction of an already barely relevant faction, so meh.

If you want Imperial big names getting beaten, there's Azrael who gets nearly killed in the Siege of Vraks (and calling that siege an Imperial victory is really dishonest)