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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The draigo stuff was all silly. That was a bad era of overblown fluff writing. Carving your name on someone’s heart full stop is just silly.

And the Rogue Trader stuff wasn't?

40k has always been overblown. Sometimes things stick, sometimes they don't.

Like an inquisitor spending a chapter putting on thousand sons power armour and then taking it off without ever actually using it, or a space warp tentacle monster that takes over people’s minds, or a dancing dreadnought stolen by a lord inquisitor and enjoys dancing, or a calidus assassin falling in lurve....

That’s all in one series...

Andykp wrote:
The draigo stuff was all silly. That was a bad era of overblown fluff writing. Carving your name on someone’s heart full stop is just silly.

In fairness it's 40k the fluff is ALL silly.

Which I think it kinda the point, In a world where you have space Orks making cars literally go faster because they paint racing stripes on it and belive hard eneugh, where the Iron Hands Primarch is named "Iron Hands, in latin" (and the Raven Guard primarch is named "Raven" and whose last words where supposedly "nevermore") a crazy space robot who collects people in pokeballs, Tyranids (seriously ask a biologist he'll tell you the premise of the entire race is scienticiflcy.... unlikely) and Jokero, you gotta remember that 40k isn't something you should take tooooo seriously

It's not just about whether it's silly or not, though. 40k isn't going to win many awards for the quality of its writing after all. There is such a thing as internal consistency though.

Also, in these cases the writing was so bad it was comical. They literally mention the Mortarion thing as a passing comment in the Codex. It's clearly some sort of pretty damn important event and it's just sort of skipped over. That's the main reason it's bad.

Slipspace wrote:
It's not just about whether it's silly or not, though. 40k isn't going to win many awards for the quality of its writing after all. There is such a thing as internal consistency though.

Also, in these cases the writing was so bad it was comical. They literally mention the Mortarion thing as a passing comment in the Codex. It's clearly some sort of pretty damn important event and it's just sort of skipped over. That's the main reason it's bad.

And is then elaborated on. You can complain about the initial treatment in the Codex, but you can't maintain that it's still bad by that reasoning.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's not just about whether it's silly or not, though. 40k isn't going to win many awards for the quality of its writing after all. There is such a thing as internal consistency though.

Also, in these cases the writing was so bad it was comical. They literally mention the Mortarion thing as a passing comment in the Codex. It's clearly some sort of pretty damn important event and it's just sort of skipped over. That's the main reason it's bad.

And is then elaborated on. You can complain about the initial treatment in the Codex, but you can't maintain that it's still bad by that reasoning.

It's a good job I'm not doing that then. While it may have been elaborated on, at the time it was the worst lore ever written, IMO. Furthermore, explaining it later is great and all, but the way it was initially presented is, in itself, bad. So bad, in fact, that as I stated, I no longer care about the GK fluff at all. Ironically this makes me less likely to bother to read the explanation for the bad fluff.

 Formosa wrote:
a dancing dreadnought stolen by a lord inquisitor and enjoys dancing

What series is that? I kinda want to read it for context.

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's not just about whether it's silly or not, though. 40k isn't going to win many awards for the quality of its writing after all. There is such a thing as internal consistency though.

Also, in these cases the writing was so bad it was comical. They literally mention the Mortarion thing as a passing comment in the Codex. It's clearly some sort of pretty damn important event and it's just sort of skipped over. That's the main reason it's bad.

And is then elaborated on. You can complain about the initial treatment in the Codex, but you can't maintain that it's still bad by that reasoning.

It's a good job I'm not doing that then. While it may have been elaborated on, at the time it was the worst lore ever written, IMO. Furthermore, explaining it later is great and all, but the way it was initially presented is, in itself, bad. So bad, in fact, that as I stated, I no longer care about the GK fluff at all. Ironically this makes me less likely to bother to read the explanation for the bad fluff.

My comment isn't just aimed at you. It's directed to anyone who says that the GK fluff if still the "worst".

You saying that the lore WAS the worst is understandable (although that is also hyperbolic to an extreme, but also subjective). However, anyone (not just you) who says that it is STILL the worst lore is most likely ignoring the additions to it that make it palatable.
I won't lie that what it was presented at first was bad. But to cling on to that viewpoint is to be ignorant of the newer data of it.

If I was told "Cadia fell" with no additional context, I'd call that some pretty terrible lore. But the fact that it was elaborated on, no matter how long that took, means it is no longer terrible lore.

Honestly, who cares how bad it was back then? It's better now. I don't care if you say "GK lore was bad". It's when people say "GK lore is bad".*



*Yes, I'm aware that people have subjective tastes, but when those tastes are shaped by false information, that's an argument from ignorance.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
It's not just about whether it's silly or not, though. 40k isn't going to win many awards for the quality of its writing after all. There is such a thing as internal consistency though.

Also, in these cases the writing was so bad it was comical. They literally mention the Mortarion thing as a passing comment in the Codex. It's clearly some sort of pretty damn important event and it's just sort of skipped over. That's the main reason it's bad.

And is then elaborated on. You can complain about the initial treatment in the Codex, but you can't maintain that it's still bad by that reasoning.

It's a good job I'm not doing that then. While it may have been elaborated on, at the time it was the worst lore ever written, IMO. Furthermore, explaining it later is great and all, but the way it was initially presented is, in itself, bad. So bad, in fact, that as I stated, I no longer care about the GK fluff at all. Ironically this makes me less likely to bother to read the explanation for the bad fluff.

My comment isn't just aimed at you. It's directed to anyone who says that the GK fluff if still the "worst".

You saying that the lore WAS the worst is understandable (although that is also hyperbolic to an extreme, but also subjective). However, anyone (not just you) who says that it is STILL the worst lore is most likely ignoring the additions to it that make it palatable.
I won't lie that what it was presented at first was bad. But to cling on to that viewpoint is to be ignorant of the newer data of it.

If I was told "Cadia fell" with no additional context, I'd call that some pretty terrible lore. But the fact that it was elaborated on, no matter how long that took, means it is no longer terrible lore.

Honestly, who cares how bad it was back then? It's better now. I don't care if you say "GK lore was bad". It's when people say "GK lore is bad".*



*Yes, I'm aware that people have subjective tastes, but when those tastes are shaped by false information, that's an argument from ignorance.

That’s assuming it’s coming from ignorance. U are assuming anyone who doesn’t like it hasn’t read it more recent stuff. It has got better but it’s still based on the ludicrous initial premise.

As for all 40k being silly, it is to an extent but there has always been a certain degree of silliness and grittiness that can be tolerated too much of either and it gets bad. That era of fluff writing took it all too far. There have always been examples of very silly stuff. I still think all in all the perpetual fluff is the worst around. The ward era stuff isn’t as defining and has been toned down already.

Andykp wrote:
That’s assuming it’s coming from ignorance. U are assuming anyone who doesn’t like it hasn’t read it more recent stuff. It has got better but it’s still based on the ludicrous initial premise.

I am assuming that, yeah, because the majority of people who repeat the whole "Draigo's can't kill a Primarch omg Ward's terrible" shtick often haven't read Mortarion's Heart, and often just repeat what they've read on 1d4chan. Of course there's outliers, and I respect that, but the vast majority of those people who do bring this up haven't actually read the more recent stuff.

The fact you call the initial premise ludicrous is the problem here - it's far from ludicrous. It's no more ludicrous that so many of the things that happen in 40k, but this gets a bad name for some reason. I can call the idea of an Imperial Guard officer outsmarting Eldar Autarchs and Farseers ludicrous, but it happens (Creed, Pask). I can call the idea that a human Commissar killing a Daemon Prince/Chaos Lord in hand-to-hand combat ludicrous, but that happens (Necropolis). The reason that we hear about those stories is because the ludicrous happens. We don't see the regular things that happen as much as we hear the one-off tales, the victory snatched from certain defeat, the survival against the odds. Draigo killing Mortarion is unlikely, but was still within the realm of possibility. I don't see what was that ludicrous about it.

As for all 40k being silly, it is to an extent but there has always been a certain degree of silliness and grittiness that can be tolerated too much of either and it gets bad. That era of fluff writing took it all too far. There have always been examples of very silly stuff. I still think all in all the perpetual fluff is the worst around. The ward era stuff isn’t as defining and has been toned down already.

I'll agree that there's stuff that pushes the boundaries. Ward's stuff, especially with the Ultramarines, was the worst of it. I don't think that Draigo's was silly. However, hanging on to that and maintaining that, for example, Guilliman is still this "spiritual liege" and other chapters are upset because they'll never be a good as the Ultramarines, or that Draigo couldn't have killed Mortarion, is neglecting the new stuff that comes in it's wake.

We're not going to let some stuff Ward wrote define the Grey Knights and Ultramarines long after he wrote it, are we?

Ork technology working because all Orks are psykers. It was a hypothesis from a Techpriest who couldn't figure out how Ork technology worked. It was never represented as actual fact.

I'm all for Orks using Waaagh energy to bend the laws of physics. But when I keep getting people telling me they should be able to make all my Ork technology fail by making deny the witch rolls I want to slap them across the head.

Orks work better as instinctual creatures that know how their technology works without consciously thinking about it.

This is a very nit picky problem I have with Orks, but honestly its the only thing I hate about Ork lore.

The whole "Land Raiders and Land Speeders are named after Arkhan Land" retcon.

 Brother Castor wrote:
The whole "Land Raiders and Land Speeders are named after Arkhan Land" retcon.

What was the retcon?

pm713 wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
The whole "Land Raiders and Land Speeders are named after Arkhan Land" retcon.

What was the retcon?

Land Raiders and Land Speeders have been around since RT, but "Mr. Land" was first mentioned in WD 245 (June 2000). Perhaps he founded Land Rover and the Land Registry too?

BrianDavion wrote:
BTW the latest HH novel has another case of invoking a deamon primarchs true name against him (it's how deamon primarch Fulgrim was brought to heel) and yet again, Fulgrim was UTTERLY helpless against that power.

Deamon Primarchs are very powerful, but they also have some pretty major weaknesses as well..

That's not gonna convince him otherwise, no matter HOW reasonable!

What was the ADB novel that featured the Grey Knights fighting Angron?

Also, "GW will never win awards for the writing"? Tell that to the David Gemmel Awards.

The Emperor's Gift I think.

I have to vote for the life long failure of GW to be able to coherently explain Salamnder chapter organisation. Every edition has had blatant contradictions or holes that just can't be explained. It's infuriating that that cant put in the minimal effort to just explain how one of the original chapters work.

I know there are singular instances of lore that are far more egregious but this decades long failure is just maddening.

I thought it was just 7 Companies of 120 men each, First Captain is Chapter Master plus support peeps.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:
That’s assuming it’s coming from ignorance. U are assuming anyone who doesn’t like it hasn’t read it more recent stuff. It has got better but it’s still based on the ludicrous initial premise.

I am assuming that, yeah, because the majority of people who repeat the whole "Draigo's can't kill a Primarch omg Ward's terrible" shtick often haven't read Mortarion's Heart, and often just repeat what they've read on 1d4chan. Of course there's outliers, and I respect that, but the vast majority of those people who do bring this up haven't actually read the more recent stuff.

The fact you call the initial premise ludicrous is the problem here - it's far from ludicrous. It's no more ludicrous that so many of the things that happen in 40k, but this gets a bad name for some reason. I can call the idea of an Imperial Guard officer outsmarting Eldar Autarchs and Farseers ludicrous, but it happens (Creed, Pask). I can call the idea that a human Commissar killing a Daemon Prince/Chaos Lord in hand-to-hand combat ludicrous, but that happens (Necropolis). The reason that we hear about those stories is because the ludicrous happens. We don't see the regular things that happen as much as we hear the one-off tales, the victory snatched from certain defeat, the survival against the odds. Draigo killing Mortarion is unlikely, but was still within the realm of possibility. I don't see what was that ludicrous about it.

As for all 40k being silly, it is to an extent but there has always been a certain degree of silliness and grittiness that can be tolerated too much of either and it gets bad. That era of fluff writing took it all too far. There have always been examples of very silly stuff. I still think all in all the perpetual fluff is the worst around. The ward era stuff isn’t as defining and has been toned down already.

I'll agree that there's stuff that pushes the boundaries. Ward's stuff, especially with the Ultramarines, was the worst of it. I don't think that Draigo's was silly. However, hanging on to that and maintaining that, for example, Guilliman is still this "spiritual liege" and other chapters are upset because they'll never be a good as the Ultramarines, or that Draigo couldn't have killed Mortarion, is neglecting the new stuff that comes in it's wake.

We're not going to let some stuff Ward wrote define the Grey Knights and Ultramarines long after he wrote it, are we?

thin g is codices describe almost every fight in a very short "this character is a bad ass, here's some examples" the GK dex is hardly unique in that regard. it's the rule more then the exception. it's IMHO not the codex's job to provide indpeth lore and explinations for these events, that is IMHO Black Libraries job. the Codices IMHO are simply a giant book of "potential BL stories"

I have always been able to ignore any fluff I don’t like. The term lore is too strong for 40k background in my opinion. It shouldn’t be too set in stone and should be a bit fluid. To me pius is still the plucky guardsman getting killed and not a perpetual and I just ignored all the ward stuff from that era. I also tend to ignore a lot of black library stuff as I feel it often goes to far into things. I like the books that are about minor characters in less significant settings. Not big game changers in huge battles but that’s how I play 40k too. No special characters and very narrative. Impact in the place the battles are fought but less on the surrounding galaxy. I like the moments in the books that give you insight into the thoughts of lesser characters in the universe. The civilian, or basic trooper.

That’s why a lot of HH fluff now is my least favourite stuff. Better off having that period as myth and legend with no cold hard facts. Because those facts impact on the games fluff in the 41st/42nd millennium. Perpetuals are still the worst of it. I know I’m in the minority with my dislike of the HH series but that’s , like, my opinion.

Andykp wrote:
I have always been able to ignore any fluff I don’t like. The term lore is too strong for 40k background in my opinion. It shouldn’t be too set in stone and should be a bit fluid. To me pius is still the plucky guardsman getting killed and not a perpetual and I just ignored all the ward stuff from that era. I also tend to ignore a lot of black library stuff as I feel it often goes to far into things. I like the books that are about minor characters in less significant settings. Not big game changers in huge battles but that’s how I play 40k too. No special characters and very narrative. Impact in the place the battles are fought but less on the surrounding galaxy. I like the moments in the books that give you insight into the thoughts of lesser characters in the universe. The civilian, or basic trooper.

That’s why a lot of HH fluff now is my least favourite stuff. Better off having that period as myth and legend with no cold hard facts. Because those facts impact on the games fluff in the 41st/42nd millennium. Perpetuals are still the worst of it. I know I’m in the minority with my dislike of the HH series but that’s , like, my opinion.

I agree, paradoxically, being able to see the world from an average persons limited point of view makes the world seem a lot more bigger and open for possibilities. And, yes - HH is horrible, and unlike most fluff GWs stance seems to be that HH is factually correct - instead being told by the usual unreliable narrator, which makes most bad stuff, if not bearable, atleast ignorable. Sadly the same hard fact stance seems to go for pretty much all of 8 ed. fluff, what with the whole "galaxy wide warpstorm" and "primarchs return" bollocks.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I have always been able to ignore any fluff I don’t like. The term lore is too strong for 40k background in my opinion. It shouldn’t be too set in stone and should be a bit fluid. To me pius is still the plucky guardsman getting killed and not a perpetual and I just ignored all the ward stuff from that era. I also tend to ignore a lot of black library stuff as I feel it often goes to far into things. I like the books that are about minor characters in less significant settings. Not big game changers in huge battles but that’s how I play 40k too. No special characters and very narrative. Impact in the place the battles are fought but less on the surrounding galaxy. I like the moments in the books that give you insight into the thoughts of lesser characters in the universe. The civilian, or basic trooper.

That’s why a lot of HH fluff now is my least favourite stuff. Better off having that period as myth and legend with no cold hard facts. Because those facts impact on the games fluff in the 41st/42nd millennium. Perpetuals are still the worst of it. I know I’m in the minority with my dislike of the HH series but that’s , like, my opinion.

I agree, paradoxically, being able to see the world from an average persons limited point of view makes the world seem a lot more bigger and open for possibilities. And, yes - HH is horrible, and unlike most fluff GWs stance seems to be that HH is factually correct - instead being told by the usual unreliable narrator, which makes most bad stuff, if not bearable, atleast ignorable. Sadly the same hard fact stance seems to go for pretty much all of 8 ed. fluff, what with the whole "galaxy wide warpstorm" and "primarchs return" bollocks.

The universe has always had hard facts.

Hard facts include things like the Eye of Terror existing, Marneus Calgar existing, Space Marines being part of the Imperium of Man - the things that are facts of the setting.
Funnily enough, the Eye of Terror is just a smaller Cixatrix Maledictum. Calgar is a smaller Guilliman. No-one complained about the Eye of Terror or Calgar existing in the setting. Clearly, I think the issue people have is either change, or things being big (of which you don't really get much bigger than things like the Chaos Gods).

You can have an issue all you want with hard facts, but 40k has always had them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I have always been able to ignore any fluff I don’t like. The term lore is too strong for 40k background in my opinion. It shouldn’t be too set in stone and should be a bit fluid. To me pius is still the plucky guardsman getting killed and not a perpetual and I just ignored all the ward stuff from that era. I also tend to ignore a lot of black library stuff as I feel it often goes to far into things. I like the books that are about minor characters in less significant settings. Not big game changers in huge battles but that’s how I play 40k too. No special characters and very narrative. Impact in the place the battles are fought but less on the surrounding galaxy. I like the moments in the books that give you insight into the thoughts of lesser characters in the universe. The civilian, or basic trooper.

That’s why a lot of HH fluff now is my least favourite stuff. Better off having that period as myth and legend with no cold hard facts. Because those facts impact on the games fluff in the 41st/42nd millennium. Perpetuals are still the worst of it. I know I’m in the minority with my dislike of the HH series but that’s , like, my opinion.

I agree, paradoxically, being able to see the world from an average persons limited point of view makes the world seem a lot more bigger and open for possibilities. And, yes - HH is horrible, and unlike most fluff GWs stance seems to be that HH is factually correct - instead being told by the usual unreliable narrator, which makes most bad stuff, if not bearable, atleast ignorable. Sadly the same hard fact stance seems to go for pretty much all of 8 ed. fluff, what with the whole "galaxy wide warpstorm" and "primarchs return" bollocks.

The universe has always had hard facts.

Hard facts include things like the Eye of Terror existing, Marneus Calgar existing, Space Marines being part of the Imperium of Man - the things that are facts of the setting.
Funnily enough, the Eye of Terror is just a smaller Cixatrix Maledictum. Calgar is a smaller Guilliman. No-one complained about the Eye of Terror or Calgar existing in the setting. Clearly, I think the issue people have is either change, or things being big (of which you don't really get much bigger than things like the Chaos Gods).

You can have an issue all you want with hard facts, but 40k has always had them.

Point is that more there are hard facts and big changes, things that can't be ignored, more it limits peoples ability to forge their own narrative using the setting. Which is the point of the whole 40k universe - Your dudes, not GeeDubs dudes. And besides - just making things bigger won't make them more engaging. Infact, it just makes the world smaller.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Point is that more there are hard facts and big changes, things that can't be ignored, more it limits peoples ability to forge their own narrative using the setting. Which is the point of the whole 40k universe - Your dudes, not GeeDubs dudes. And besides - just making things bigger won't make them more engaging. Infact, it just makes the world smaller.

Given that the world is unfathomably large, I don't understand how you can say it's smaller. Plus, nothing about the setting has been retconned. Only advanced. Things happen, because it's a story. The main reason people didn't believe that 40k had a story was because it had stagnated to the point where it had BECOME the setting. I'm happy to see that the setting has stories in it.
You don't like the Indomitus Crusade, or anything post-Cadia? Great, forge your narratives before that.

Nothing is stopping your dudes any more than before. But I'm curious - what now can "Your Dudes" not do that they could do before?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Point is that more there are hard facts and big changes, things that can't be ignored, more it limits peoples ability to forge their own narrative using the setting. Which is the point of the whole 40k universe - Your dudes, not GeeDubs dudes. And besides - just making things bigger won't make them more engaging. Infact, it just makes the world smaller.

Given that the world is unfathomably large, I don't understand how you can say it's smaller. Plus, nothing about the setting has been retconned. Only advanced. Things happen, because it's a story. The main reason people didn't believe that 40k had a story was because it had stagnated to the point where it had BECOME the setting. I'm happy to see that the setting has stories in it.
You don't like the Indomitus Crusade, or anything post-Cadia? Great, forge your narratives before that.

Nothing is stopping your dudes any more than before. But I'm curious - what now can "Your Dudes" not do that they could do before?

agreed. fact is, for people who play with their dudes, the whole indomatus crusade etc ahs some great potential. "well, this happened, what do your dudes think about that?!"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Point is that more there are hard facts and big changes, things that can't be ignored, more it limits peoples ability to forge their own narrative using the setting. Which is the point of the whole 40k universe - Your dudes, not GeeDubs dudes. And besides - just making things bigger won't make them more engaging. Infact, it just makes the world smaller.

Given that the world is unfathomably large, I don't understand how you can say it's smaller. Plus, nothing about the setting has been retconned. Only advanced. Things happen, because it's a story. The main reason people didn't believe that 40k had a story was because it had stagnated to the point where it had BECOME the setting. I'm happy to see that the setting has stories in it.
You don't like the Indomitus Crusade, or anything post-Cadia? Great, forge your narratives before that.

Nothing is stopping your dudes any more than before. But I'm curious - what now can "Your Dudes" not do that they could do before?

You see, more and more of the important events seem to center around a small cast of character, incidently ones we know of, on the planets we know of. Rest of the universe is incidental at best and irrelevant at worst. The 400 billion stars of our galaxy are meaningless when a few places we happen to know of have bad things happen in them - suddenly there's a warpstorm bigger than Eye of Terror that is created by setting a gas cloud on fire and blowing few planets, because those happen to be some of the few we know - there for, they are of greater importance that the rest. Apparently the Eldar weren't that mighty, since they only managed to create the Eye -and War in Heaven was even less so, since that didn't create any warpstorm we know of - Old Ones sure were pathetic since Chaos worshipping humans can cause more permanent damage to the galaxy than they did.

It's all just so badly written - all of 8 ed fluff is so baaaad, its like a bad superhero event comic or a saturday morning cartoon - one where "biggest baddest things evar appears out of nowhere, and is then defeated without a hitch" Ever read the DC crossover "Culling"?

When everything the Biggest. Thing. Ever. it all cease to mean anything, the immersion is broken and the thing becomes a game of escalation ad nauseum. " My Superman fires biggerer lazers than you Superman" "Oh Yeah! Well, MY Superman can timetravel with a though" "Well, so does MY Superman, and he can think faster than yours" Yuk.

People who celebrate the "40k finally has a story" seem to be the sort of folk who have no ability to create any of their own - so they just want to see the existing background people become storys characters. Almost as horrible as crossover fanfics.

Of and now Blood Angels can't fight Tau. And they no longer have to wrestle with Black Rage and Red Thirst since a Primarisification solves such problems. Scythes of the Emperor, Flesh Teares and Lamenter are no longer at the brink of extinction since they too got their share of that Primaris goodness, there goes that tension.

Yeah heaven forbid Roboute think to himself "Maybe these guys need some reinforcements". You don't NEED to buy the Primaris models if you want to. It just means your snowflake Chapter isn't gonna be killed off that quickly for fluff purposes.

you say that like it's not always been the case though. Consider the big important warzones pre-Gathering Storm, Cadia, Armageddon, the damocles gulf. You'd be forgiven if you didn't realzie the IoM had chapters other then the 1st founders and the black templars.

BTW Blood Angels CAN fight Tau, the entire 4th sphere of expansion was sent..... off course, specificly to let peopple who otherwise might not have much reason to, fight the Tau

BrianDavion wrote:
you say that like it's not always been the case though. Consider the big important warzones pre-Gathering Storm, Cadia, Armageddon, the damocles gulf. You'd be forgiven if you didn't realzie the IoM had chapters other then the 1st founders and the black templars.

BTW Blood Angels CAN fight Tau, the entire 4th sphere of expansion was sent..... off course, specificly to let peopple who otherwise might not have much reason to, fight the Tau

And now your special snowflake Chapters aren't likely to be killed off for pure shock factor. Didn't GW just kill 6 or 7 Blood Angels successors?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
you say that like it's not always been the case though. Consider the big important warzones pre-Gathering Storm, Cadia, Armageddon, the damocles gulf. You'd be forgiven if you didn't realzie the IoM had chapters other then the 1st founders and the black templars.

BTW Blood Angels CAN fight Tau, the entire 4th sphere of expansion was sent..... off course, specificly to let peopple who otherwise might not have much reason to, fight the Tau

And now your special snowflake Chapters aren't likely to be killed off for pure shock factor. Didn't GW just kill 6 or 7 Blood Angels successors?

possiably more, the butcher's bill for Baal was pretty nuts. now granted, except for the Knights of Blood, I suspect all the sucessors that have been specificly NAMED are alive, but yeah the "ohh chapter X is dying! it's on it's last legs! it won't last a decade longer" for 20 years real time gets a bit silly. sometimes a theme needs to be advanced and moved along.