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.

 WE Drake Man wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

In any case the Imperium is unlikely to become an unstoppable juggernaught just because Guilliman's back.

I think this is an important point. At a certain point we have to remember that Guilliman is still just one man. Yes, he may be a Primarch,and yes he may be the lord of Ultramar, but ultimately I dont think he will be capable of having a massive influence on the Imperium. He can only be in one place at a time, and the Imperium is too vast to feel the impact of one person.

Underestimation of the millennium.


Guilliman is one of the few that could pull of a Horus if he so inclined due to the current state of the imperium.

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:


Underestimation of the millennium.


Guilliman is one of the few that could pull of a Horus if he so inclined due to the current state of the imperium.

Guilliman could easily start a civil war and take over the central seat of power, as Horus tried to. But it wouldn't have any immediate impact on most of the Imperium. The Imperium is obscenely massive, it is also ludicrously dogmatic and bureaucratic. Guilliman is a potent figure, no question, but I'd have a hard time believing that even a Primarch would be able to overcome or reform thousands of years of indoctrination and rigidly enforced practices over such a vast geographic space within any reasonable time frame. He would have to overcome corruption, dogma, inflexiblity and infighting literally on a galactic scale.

BrianDavion wrote:
they're the exact same setting

By that argument, Caesar's expansion in to Gaul is the exact same as World War 2-- an imperialistic power attempts to conquer Europe and eventually loses control of it. After all, they both took place in the same universe, heck, both on the same exact world, even! How can they be different? Just different timelines, you see.

But that's a ridiculous argument. Yes, it's the same world, but it's not the same overall setting, things have changed dramatically in the intervening time, to the point that stories told in one are quite alien to stories told in the other.

Or to be more blunt about my views on the matter, between 30k and 40k, one is a massive marinewank full of bad writing, predictable plot "twists", one dimensional villains AND heroes, and overlooked opportunities. And the other one is Warhammer 40,000. And yes, I say this being quite aware of what 40k's lore often ends up being. 30k is worse.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nurgle5 wrote:
Guilliman could easily start a civil war and take over the central seat of power, as Horus tried to. But it wouldn't have any immediate impact on most of the Imperium.

Agreed. The only reason Horus was able to was that he was given massive amounts of power and influence both both the Emperor AND the Chaos Gods simultaneously.

The former would not repeat that mistake. The latter have no interest in doing it again, there's not much of a point in their eyes and I doubt Guilliman would accept it anyway.

 Melissia wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they're the exact same setting

By that argument, Caesar's expansion in to Gaul is the exact same as World War 2-- an imperialistic power attempts to conquer Europe and eventually loses control of it. After all, they both took place in the same universe, heck, both on the same exact world, even! How can they be different? Just different timelines, you see.

But that's a ridiculous argument. Yes, it's the same world, but it's not the same overall setting, things have changed dramatically in the intervening time, to the point that stories told in one are quite alien to stories told in the other.

Or to be more blunt about my views on the matter, between 30k and 40k, one is a massive marinewank full of bad writing, predictable plot "twists", one dimensional villains AND heroes, and overlooked opportunities. And the other one is Warhammer 40,000. And yes, I say this being quite aware of what 40k's lore often ends up being. 30k is worse.

1. You're talking about events (wars) not people, with fundamentally different nations.
2. The primarchs in 30k are alive at year 40k, Caeser was not alive during World War 2.
3. Guilliman's empire is still in tact.

Your logic is a trainwreck. You need to do better to take such a strong stance, which at this point boils down to, "I don't like it because." It's totally valid to have that opinion, but your scenario is a non sequitur.

 Marmatag wrote:
1. You're talking about events (wars) not people, with fundamentally different nations.

And the Imperium of 40k is a fundamentally different nation than that which existed during 30k. It's not my fault you don't know anything about the lore. The other two are irrelevant.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

Thanks man and yeah that's exactly what I find so refreshing about the 40k universe. Everywhere you look in most IPs it's frighteningly obvious who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. In 40k, no-ones' the good guy. The universe is too dangerous to afford the luxury of a moral high ground. Each faction is struggling just to survive.

It's not unique to the 40k universe, but it is one of the cornerstones of its appeal. I sincerely hope that that's remembered amidst all these releases...

Normally, I hate super-grim settings, but I think 40K does it right.

--It's on a sufficiently large scale that it becomes awe-inspiring rather than grinding. You can marvel at that guy standing on a mountain of skulls without having to consider each individual agonising death. Equally, the large scale allows room for heroic individual stories that don't affect how screwed the setting as a whole is.

--It's sufficiently over-the-top that it escapes a feeling of depressingly petty dickishness. I mean, we've got giant robots carrying castles on their shoulders and flying cathedral spaceships blowing up planets, while bondage nuns with giant chainsaws fight disciples of the god of excess who wail on their guitars so hard that your head explodes.

--There is (or was, at least) a sense of humour about the above two.

I'm just happy Cyphers back, and finally got a main role

Actually I've seen a lot more people happy about Cypher being back than about either primarch.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
they're the exact same setting

By that argument, Caesar's expansion in to Gaul is the exact same as World War 2-- an imperialistic power attempts to conquer Europe and eventually loses control of it. After all, they both took place in the same universe, heck, both on the same exact world, even! How can they be different? Just different timelines, you see.

But that's a ridiculous argument. Yes, it's the same world, but it's not the same overall setting, things have changed dramatically in the intervening time, to the point that stories told in one are quite alien to stories told in the other.

Or to be more blunt about my views on the matter, between 30k and 40k, one is a massive marinewank full of bad writing, predictable plot "twists", one dimensional villains AND heroes, and overlooked opportunities. And the other one is Warhammer 40,000. And yes, I say this being quite aware of what 40k's lore often ends up being. 30k is worse.

1. You're talking about events (wars) not people, with fundamentally different nations.
2. The primarchs in 30k are alive at year 40k, Caeser was not alive during World War 2.
3. Guilliman's empire is still in tact.

Your logic is a trainwreck. You need to do better to take such a strong stance, which at this point boils down to, "I don't like it because." It's totally valid to have that opinion, but your scenario is a non sequitur.

more to the point, Melissa seems fixated on the novels. ignoring a few facts. 1: 90% of 40k novels are bolterborn. 2: just because they deal with space marine books, not all the HH novels are. no they don't focus on "those poor Imperial guardsmen" but they regularly have normal people dealing with the Marines, and sometimes you see impressive characterization in the HH novels. hell gimme more novels like unremembered Empire, character studies more then "the character was so awesome matt ward had to tone him down for the codex LOL" thing is it can be done with Marines and primarchs

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
1. You're talking about events (wars) not people, with fundamentally different nations.

And the Imperium of 40k is a fundamentally different nation than that which existed during 30k. It's not my fault you don't know anything about the lore. The other two are irrelevant.

I'll move past your obviously combative tone and get to the heart of the matter:

Guilliman is a character in both 30k, and 40k. You can dislike the fact that a character has lived for over 10,000 years, but this is hardly a "new thing" in science fiction.

In Dune, Leto Atreides (son of Paul Atreides) is originally projected to live for 40,000 years after fusing his body with the worms. The empire on Arrakis is fundamentally different at the time of Leto's birth, and at the time of his death, yet the character spans over the duration. Does the fact that thousands of years pass between Children and God Emperor suddenly make Leto's presence in God Emperor total garbage, because "he existed in a previous era?"

You example is flawed in that Leto was alive, well, commanding, guiding and controlling everything in that whole 40k years.

Girlyman is a relic from the past who can't be any more out of the loop of what has been happening. He's been napping and during that time has he do e anything? No. He's been nothing more than a glorified fleshy statue.

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
You example is flawed in that Leto was alive, well, commanding, guiding and controlling everything in that whole 40k years.

Girlyman is a relic from the past who can't be any more out of the loop of what has been happening. He's been napping and during that time has he do e anything? No. He's been nothing more than a glorified fleshy statue.

a "relic" that happens to be a primarch which happens to be the closest thing to the Emperor the Imperium has seen in over 10,000 years who happens to be a natural strategic genius

so no, your logic is flawed

Considering what we know of the Primarchs and Guilliman, I'd expect it to take less than a day for Guilliman to study up recent history and know and remember everything perfectly. He's the progeny of an immortal being that has been alive for countless millennia.

I'd say it's much more likely that Guilliman will be worshipped as a god and promoted the Warmaster, than getting bogged down in politics and opposed. The Primarches during the crusade had absolute control over army and navy segments, and often overall command over other Legion forces than their own. Nobody thought humanity could fail during the crusade. It was only a matter of time when humans would be the masters of the universe. Now the situation is more dire, and everyone is looking for a glimmer of hope. A living Primarch is just that.

During the crusade the Emperor tried to make people stop believing in gods, and constantly told everyone he is just a man and his children are just men and that the things in the warp are just raw energy as opposed to something supernatural to be feared or worshipped. That didn't really pan out well, and that's one of my favourite story lines in 40K: If people forgot the Chaos gods and there was nobody that worshipped them or remembered them they'd probably wither or die (Hive Fleet Horror, Barrington. J. Bailey 2001), but people want and need for gods to exist. They'll worship the Primarches too, even against their protests.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
The return of a primarch shows they have no idea how to build a narrative in the universe that they built, and are now going to trash the things that make 40k fun.

Are you trying to say you didn't realise that when they killed the entire Warhammer setting?

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
You example is flawed in that Leto was alive, well, commanding, guiding and controlling everything in that whole 40k years.

Girlyman is a relic from the past who can't be any more out of the loop of what has been happening. He's been napping and during that time has he do e anything? No. He's been nothing more than a glorified fleshy statue.

TO be fair, the entire fluff up to this point pretty much amounts to "gaks been fethed for almost the entirety of 10 000 years, and not a thing has gotten better or worse"

He don't have too much to catch up on

Guilliman is probably going to be like this.




Then take his place at the head of the Imperium.

LightKing wrote:

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
You example is flawed in that Leto was alive, well, commanding, guiding and controlling everything in that whole 40k years.

Girlyman is a relic from the past who can't be any more out of the loop of what has been happening. He's been napping and during that time has he do e anything? No. He's been nothing more than a glorified fleshy statue.

a "relic" that happens to be a primarch which happens to be the closest thing to the Emperor the Imperium has seen in over 10,000 years who happens to be a natural strategic genius

so no, your logic is flawed

The "man out of time" story is a classic device in writing. Because RB is a "relic" he gets to contrast both the nature of his own time and the time he now finds himself in. This allows for an introspective look at both societies and is often a way to create a feeling of isolation for the displaced. This is a great way for them to bridge 30k and 40k in a meaningful way and even bring closure to both as they head into the 42nd millennia. Just look at how characters from Captain America, Idiocracy, Back to the Future, Terminator, the classic Demon with a Glass Hand, or even 40ks own Zso Sahaal in Lords of Night react to the radical change in surroundings. If the character is written well it could very well be an excellent addition to the lore.

Giantwalkingchair wrote:
You example is flawed in that Leto was alive, well, commanding, guiding and controlling everything in that whole 40k years.

Girlyman is a relic from the past who can't be any more out of the loop of what has been happening. He's been napping and during that time has he do e anything? No. He's been nothing more than a glorified fleshy statue.

Leto's scope was restricted specifically to Arrakis, and he ruled using his genetically engineered descendants as proxies. Not totally unlike Guilliman, except we have documented evidence that Guilliman was in statis.

I do agree that Leto isn't the perfect example. But just being upset because a character spans generations is unfair. Leto's narrative fast forwarded thousands of years, as did Guilliman's.