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.

On the subject of Guilliman's flaws also being his best qualities, I should also have mentioned that his self-doubt and regard for appearances/honour are what prevent him from becoming another Horus.

Horus embraced his manifest superiority and all-consuming ambition. "Ruling humanity in order to save it" decayed pretty quickly into just plain "A God Am I" megalomania. Guilliman won't go that route because he desperately needs to pretend to himself that he really is saving humanity, that it's not just a cloak for arrogance and ambition.

That's pretty much the most 40K thing ever, though, isn't it? That humanity's new saviour can only remain thus by wilful self-deception. That being honest with himself would probably cause him to fall.

I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.

Despite being a filthy xeno only player, I also LOVE the fact that the Primarchs are returning. It's just so epic. These legends from 10,000 years ago are coming back into the foray..... too cool. For some reason I actually preferred the return of Girlyman to Magnus or Morty because he represented (for me at least) a complete shift in mindset of the Imperium.

I'm ready for another Loyalist Primarch now. Their return needs to have the same epic build up as the return of Girlyman though.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.

Despite being a filthy xeno only player, I also LOVE the fact that the Primarchs are returning. It's just so epic. These legends from 10,000 years ago are coming back into the foray..... too cool. For some reason I actually preferred the return of Girlyman to Magnus or Morty because he represented (for me at least) a complete shift in mindset of the Imperium.

I'm ready for another Loyalist Primarch now. Their return needs to have the same epic build up as the return of Girlyman though.

I suspect that will be the case, despite the fact that people would love to crack open codex space wolves and just see russ, I think they're going to have primarchs return for the IoM at least, be big events. (with chaos well.. they where always there)

For myself I wish they hadn't brought back Guilliman. I think it would have been better to bring back say Jaghatai Khan or even El'Johnsson.

Ultramarines have always been the darling of Games Workshop and now Guilliman makes them completely overpowered. And since his abilities only work with Ultramarine chapters you can't take say a force of Salamanders and Guillman with the same effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the Chaos Primarchs returning........yes I like it. I like the idea that you have Magnus, Mortarion, Perturabo, Angron, Lorgar and Fulgrim at the head of chaos armies.

It means Chaos players finally can have the feeling that they overpower the Imperial players. It's always been Chaos armies are "worse" than Imperium armies.

Case in point: Land Raiders. Razorbacks. Plasma weaponry. Apothecaries.

I hope with the return of Guilliman and Others we see a shift in the Imperium as a whole. Ultimately, I want there to be a conflict internal to the Imperium that doesn't involve Chaos, another Civil War.

On one side, Guilliman hoping to turn Mankind back towards the Emperor's original designs of logic and truth, like we saw before the Heresy.
And on the other, the Inquisition and the other fanatics who want Humanity this bloated mess of bureaucracy so they can remain in charge.

You could even have it be Primarch v Primarch, with one of the other Loyalist Primarchs returning and agreeing with the way Mankind has gone, like the Lion. As Dad of the legion that has its own internal Inquisition style secret organisation, who work hard to keep the truth hidden and are fiercely fanatical to their beliefs. The Dark Angels work rather closely with the Ordos, and probably prefer the Imperium the way it is now.

Split the other various factions down the midle so nobody's favourite armies turn 'Evil", and bam, story progress that also helps work out the Fanatic nature of the Imperium

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
They need to bring back the loyalists with questionable characters. Like the lion and Russ after having lived in the warp for a bit.

I doubt Russ has been turned just by being in the warp, the 13th survived in the warp for 10,000 years and they survived it due to the canis helix. The Lion isn't a heretic even though I like winding up DA's fans about him being one, He has done questionable things but there has been many books written from his perspective and he's obviously not a heretic. Would be really cool though if a loyalist did turn after all this time. If there was one it would have to be the Lion as they'd need an army which he would have the fallen, I doubt GW would make a whole loyalist army turn, maybe have would turn though and half would still be loyal, that would be cool. Should do a thread on who would people see turning traitor.

I dint think he will have been turned to chaos but he will probably not be his old self. The wolfen don’t exactly blend in. I think more the ones like Russ and lion would kick off with guiliman and jar with him. Dorn and vulken are dull as. At least guiliman has the whole 2nd empire thing going on and is he really trying take over (for good reasons in his head). Him coming back into 40k was interesting because of how he would see what they’ve done. Lion and wolf coming back would be the same but also clash with guiliman.


On turning a loyalist they wouldn’t have to go that far. They could just have a civil war because one primarch wants to return the imperium to more what it was supposed to be. Wipe out the imperial cult kind of thing. So you could have guiliman and an all new plastic sisters fighting a war against el’johnson and a load of die yards with maybe cypher and some fallen to make it even more annoying to DA fans

One of the reasons I lost interest in my dark angels army was that they answered too many questions about them in the novels. Took away the mystery. In second edition they were spot on. Some dark angels players get really angry when you suggest they were traitor. But I liked that bit of fluff. Gave them an edgyness.

I agree. Almost all of the lore they've added has been a less than good to me. I think GW doing campaigns is a good thing but they should be set in the past in M38 or something where they can do whatever plot wise but they can't ruin stuff in the setting.

I like the new lore.

If you don't like it, or want to play games before that, or campaigns etc etc - set it in the 10,000 years between the Heresy and the Fall of Cadia. Plenty of room.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I like the new lore.

If you don't like it, or want to play games before that, or campaigns etc etc - set it in the 10,000 years between the Heresy and the Fall of Cadia. Plenty of room.

Exactly, it’s your game. I ignore most fluff I don’t like.

A lot of people equate setting with story, as if stories could not be told without changing the setting itself, or bringing back the Primarchs.

Primarchs, the bloody Primarchs, as if everything in this universe has to circle around them, around their endless meandering personal drama that ultimately goes nowhere. As it will, since their the closest thing warhammer has for superheroes, and those are hot right now, and every important thing happening in superhero universes involves them..

As if stories couldn't be told about rise and fall of empires, of classical heroes, destined to greatness destroyed by their own hubris. Stories about great wars sweeping across the stars, like Gaunts Ghosts that didn't need contrivances, like the galaxy breaking in two.

Making meager little humans be capable of creating such damage as breaking the effin' galaxy(400 BILLION STARS!) apart makes the universe look so pathetically small. Things like that don't make the characters seem powerful, they makes the world seem small and frail.

Hardly fosters a feeling of space being a great vast mysterious unknown, filled with beuty and horror, let alone of existential horror of our own fleeting insignificanse.

No, "moving the story forward" ain't good if all it does is answers to question that didn't need them and makes the world revolve around, and always involve, a few superheroes. A World that is just the minis and nothing more.

I didn't want the lore change and I still don't want it.
Morgasm is right about things.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
A lot of people equate setting with story, as if stories could not be told without changing the setting itself, or bringing back the Primarchs.

The story absolutely could be, but at the same time, there's nothing wrong with changing the future of the setting. All they've done is move the clock to after the Fall of Cadia. Previously to this, the 13th Black Crusade was the furthest point the setting had gone. Nothing was wrong with moving past that. If anything, by having a nebulous "current", your forces are more free. If you were playing a "current" game with your Salamanders in the timeline about two years ago, they'd probably be in Armageddon.

Now, yes, you could set your game before then - in M40, say, but you still can now.

Don't like the "current" setting? Play your scenarios in M40, or M39.

Primarchs, the bloody Primarchs, as if everything in this universe has to circle around them, around their endless meandering personal drama that ultimately goes nowhere. As it will, since their the closest thing warhammer has for superheroes, and those are hot right now, and every important thing happening in superhero universes involves them..

Having figureheads and personalities seems to be working very well for a lot of genres right now, superhero universes being one of them. You'd be foolish to think that character based events weren't popular to an ever-growing audience.

Realistically, the problem you have isn't with Primarchs. It's with any figurehead. Creed, Imotekh, Calgar, Farsight - they're fundamentally not different from Primarchs narratively. And seeing as character-driven stories are becoming far more popular, and the Primarchs being characters with lots of narrative potential, the history and relationships to other characters, and other story hooks, it's hard not to see why they're being pushed further into the limelight.

As if stories couldn't be told about rise and fall of empires, of classical heroes, destined to greatness destroyed by their own hubris. Stories about great wars sweeping across the stars, like Gaunts Ghosts that didn't need contrivances, like the galaxy breaking in two.

That's got nothing to do with the Primarchs. The galaxy breaking in two is a seperate event. Guilliman could have come into the setting again without that.

The Primarchs have already HAD those rise and falls of empires and classical heroes - and now we get to see what reaction those ancient heroes have in a setting which has twisted them, perverted beyond what they remember, and how they deal with that.

Gaunt's Ghosts, whilst brilliant, only supports my argument. It's CHARACTER driven. The fact that Guilliman is a demi-god and Caffran is a regular trooper is irrelevant, as the story will change it's stakes to suit the character. Stories written about scrub tier characters aren't always good, and stories about demi-gods can be very well done. What matters is the stakes of it, and the emotional investment of the reader in that.

Making meager little humans be capable of creating such damage as breaking the effin' galaxy(400 BILLION STARS!) apart makes the universe look so pathetically small. Things like that don't make the characters seem powerful, they makes the world seem small and frail.

When those "meagre little humans" are the vessels of ancient, impossibly powerful gods that feed on your emotions, and actually work, put in effort and achieve their goals, then I would think it was bad if they couldn't affect the setting.

This rises the stakes. It CHANGES dynamics. You might think it weakens the scale of the world. I think that it enhances the characters, the stakes, and actually gives us an idea of what could happen later. Of course, YMMV.

Hardly fosters a feeling of space being a great vast mysterious unknown, filled with beuty and horror, let alone of existential horror of our own fleeting insignificanse.

But it does foster an "Oh god, the Chaos Gods are THAT powerful?!".

The universe is still big. You can still explore it, because it's so big that even if it was reduced to JUST the Segmentum Solar, there would be enough worlds to do absolutely anything you wanted.

No, "moving the story forward" ain't good if all it does is answers to question that didn't need them and makes the world revolve around, and always involve, a few superheroes. A World that is just the minis and nothing more.

Moving the story is good for enhancing character driven relationships, which the setting and the world of media in general is moving closer to.

Good points, but mine still stands and soon 40k will be an endless charade where a small cast of charactes are the be-all and end-all of everything. Slowly becoming a merry-go-round where the same characters do the same thing again and again. One where the stakes keep rising till everything stops being meaningful.

"Will Rowboat and gang be able to stop Angryman before he punches the reality apart and reboots the entire universe (again)!! In the next exciting episode of Warhammer 40k! Same GW channel, Same GW time!"

I know, it's preference and some like 40k a ongoing story, and for others it is a place to tell stories in. I belong firmly to the latter and rather see the characters like historical figures and big events as distant rumors or half remembered legends. Further more, I believe that having 40k become more direct wastes one of its nicer hooks, the meta unreliable narrator aspect of 40k, allowing everyone to make it what they want, and most importantly, THE thing of 40k is...

40K is about your own group of soldiers. Your dudes(or dudettes) Not about GeeDubs dudes. YOUR DUDES, punctus The fluff is supposed to be background material. It exists to provide context for your own stories. Case and point, Tycho, who was just a generic captain in a White Dwarf battrep, and through cool emergent storytelling he's now in a codex with a mini.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Moving the story is good for enhancing character driven relationships, which the setting and the world of media in general is moving closer to.

But I don't want to have to suffer through official character's "character driven relationships", I just want a cool setting to create the stories of MY characters and my friends' characters and we'll handle the relationship part.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Moving the story is good for enhancing character driven relationships, which the setting and the world of media in general is moving closer to.

But I don't want to have to suffer through official character's "character driven relationships", I just want a cool setting to create the stories of MY characters and my friends' characters and we'll handle the relationship part.

You have a cool setting. There's 10,000 years between Heresy and the Fall of Cadia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Good points, but mine still stands and soon 40k will be an endless charade where a small cast of charactes are the be-all and end-all of everything. Slowly becoming a merry-go-round where the same characters do the same thing again and again. One where the stakes keep rising till everything stops being meaningful.

"Will Rowboat and gang be able to stop Angryman before he punches the reality apart and reboots the entire universe (again)!! In the next exciting episode of Warhammer 40k! Same GW channel, Same GW time!"

I know, it's preference and some like 40k a ongoing story, and for others it is a place to tell stories in. I belong firmly to the latter and rather see the characters like historical figures and big events as distant rumors or half remembered legends. Further more, I believe that having 40k become more direct wastes one of its nicer hooks, the meta unreliable narrator aspect of 40k, allowing everyone to make it what they want, and most importantly, THE thing of 40k is...

40K is about your own group of soldiers. Your dudes(or dudettes) Not about GeeDubs dudes. YOUR DUDES, punctus The fluff is supposed to be background material. It exists to provide context for your own stories. Case and point, Tycho, who was just a generic captain in a White Dwarf battrep, and through cool emergent storytelling he's now in a codex with a mini.

There's still a whole universe out there. What Guilliman does doesn't affect Captain Genericus of the Marines Obscure out there in the middle of the Segmentum Pacificus.

Sure, the story might change, and some big events might occur, but there will always be room for you to do things. If you will, think of your guys as the characters in something like Marvel's Agents of Shield, and people like Abaddon, Guilliman, Calgar, Creed, etc etc as the Avengers. They might do things that affect the world around you, but you still can have your own stories.

Plus, I don't know why Primarchs is the line crossed here. 40k was being dominated by named characters from at least 5th, with Calgars, Abaddons, Tigurius', Draigos, etc etc. It doesn't fundamentally matter if the character is slightly bigger.

As for a repetitive storyline, old 40k was worse with that than the current one is. For a start, the setting constantly edging closer to 999.M41 was infuriating, and having to essentially reduce the timeframe down to the month level (443.998.M41 for example) was getting old quickly. Hardly anything important actually happened. Now? We have factions actually able to make gains, losses, and do more.

40k can still be about your guys. Just because other people are doing things doesn't mean you can't too.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Good points, but mine still stands and soon 40k will be an endless charade where a small cast of charactes are the be-all and end-all of everything. Slowly becoming a merry-go-round where the same characters do the same thing again and again. One where the stakes keep rising till everything stops being meaningful.

"Will Rowboat and gang be able to stop Angryman before he punches the reality apart and reboots the entire universe (again)!! In the next exciting episode of Warhammer 40k! Same GW channel, Same GW time!"

I know, it's preference and some like 40k a ongoing story, and for others it is a place to tell stories in. I belong firmly to the latter and rather see the characters like historical figures and big events as distant rumors or half remembered legends. Further more, I believe that having 40k become more direct wastes one of its nicer hooks, the meta unreliable narrator aspect of 40k, allowing everyone to make it what they want, and most importantly, THE thing of 40k is...

40K is about your own group of soldiers. Your dudes(or dudettes) Not about GeeDubs dudes. YOUR DUDES, punctus The fluff is supposed to be background material. It exists to provide context for your own stories. Case and point, Tycho, who was just a generic captain in a White Dwarf battrep, and through cool emergent storytelling he's now in a codex with a mini.

What annoys me is that they could have advanced the setting without the Primarchs or Primaris etc. They could have done a civil war with Imperium, a massive WAAAGH!,Even the Tau learning how to travel the warp etc. But now that they'd change it the way they have I'll just make the best of it, at least we'll never forget the old days, they'll become cherished memories like the funkyness of 2nd edition.

I'm fine with Bobby G being back. I hate the new marine fluff though since it's poorly written even by GW standards. I also don't like the time skip.

 Duskweaver wrote:


Guilliman's 'flaws' are that he overthinks things and doubts himself more than he should (can't remember which book this is stated in - one of the early HH ones anyway); that he cares too much for appearances and 'honour' because deep down he's in denial about his own ambition (see The Unremembered Empire, his interactions with Euten and the Lion especially); and that he's too optimistic, idealistic, humanitarian and trusting for his own good (e.g. the Iax disaster in Dark Imperium and the attempted assassination in TUE).

The great thing about Guilliman as a character is that these are also some of his best qualities. He's not just a man out of his time (like a 21st century liberal transplanted to Mediaeval Europe), but also almost a hero from a different setting altogether. It's like if Golden Age Superman turned up in Alan Moore's Watchmen. The conflict between how he wants the world to work (where everyone cooperates for the greater good - and I use that term very deliberately) and how it actually works (too many selfish donkey-caves and a universe sliding inexorably into entropy) is delicious.

He's by far my favourite loyalist primarch, and I so want to see if he ends up cracking like my favourite 'traitor' primarch (Curze) did when his ideal (justice) turned sour...

Not going to lie, that sounds really Mary Sue like. If someone's only flaws are "Too nice", "too optimistic" and "Greater than he believes himself to be" it sounds absolutely terrible. Someone's flaws shouldn't be someone's best qualities, because those aren't really flaws.. There's a reason Superman wasn't in Watchmen, and it's because he'd ruin it. That's a character that would ruin the tone of the entire setting if he was brought over. Unless we're going to see Guilliman cracking some time soon, he's just a brutal, terrible character that as we both agree, doesn't fit in this setting.

His flaw is he is too grounded, Guilliman does not take leaps of faith.

I can't reach anyone, oh god I need to asssume everyone is dead.

A good flaw btw is a believable character trait. And a really good one isn't a flaw untill applied in the wrong situation.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You have a cool setting. There's 10,000 years between Heresy and the Fall of Cadia.

Yeah, and I could before the lore advancement, except the new fluff wasn't about something that destroy some of the core themes of the settings, those that sets it apart and made it interesting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What Guilliman does doesn't affect Captain Genericus of the Marines Obscure out there in the middle of the Segmentum Pacificus.

A giant open scar in the middle of the galaxy sure affects a lot of Captain Genericus. Same for Primaris.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
40k was being dominated by named characters from at least 5th, with Calgars, Abaddons, Tigurius', Draigos, etc etc. It doesn't fundamentally matter if the character is slightly bigger.

It was bad and it got worse!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For a start, the setting constantly edging closer to 999.M41 was infuriating, and having to essentially reduce the timeframe down to the month level (443.998.M41 for example) was getting old quickly. Hardly anything important actually happened.

The setting wasn't edging closer, it was staying at the same place, as a setting should.
If all the new fluff isn't some extra information on what you already had, that you can integrate in your character stories, but is instead some new stuff that is happening after some of your character died because they were just normal humans and the timeline was advanced 200 years in the future, it's not good.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.

A period of time longer than recorded human history so far on a galactic scale involving numerous races with untold trillions to have their stories told is "stagnant"?


M'kayyy.....


40k has only been a "story" since mid to late 7th ed. up until then it was a setting. A setting to make your own stories in with enough scope to keep you going for a lifetime.

Lots of really important things were happening in the setting all the time, the setting was just so big that the end result was stalemate, and the setting didn't change.... which was perfect.

I have been dealing with fluff changes for over 20 years so I am pretty much past losing sleep over it. I remember feeling annoyed the first time I came across a major retcon (the 3rd Ed rulebook stating that whole Starchild thing from Ian Watson's Inquisitor trilogy was just a Tzeentch plot).

These days I accept that fluff changes and grows. In many ways I think it is better than the stasis that set in after the original EoT campaign. I do feel that the introduction of the Primaris was a bit rushed though.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I absolutely love the fact that the lore is progressing. I'm absolutely sick of the stagnation that was the lore in previous editions. It's boring.

A period of time longer than recorded human history so far on a galactic scale involving numerous races with untold trillions to have their stories told is "stagnant"?
M'kayyy.....
40k has only been a "story" since mid to late 7th ed. up until then it was a setting. A setting to make your own stories in with enough scope to keep you going for a lifetime.

40k is both a collection of stories as well as a setting and has been since I've been playing (2nd Ed). And yes, the lore (aka the stories) has been stagnant for ages up until 8th Ed. Very few of these "untold trillions" ever actually told their story. We had the same old stories repeated again and again and again and again ad infinitum.

Here's how the previous "lore" was for me (best imagined in a movie announcers voice); 'Abaddon's causing trouble again, with his 100135735th Black Crusade and this time, he's serious! Better watch out Imperium!! Oh look here come the Goodmarines to save the day, but will they get there in time?!?! Join us as absolutely nothing happens and, you've guessed it, the story reverts back to exactly the same place it was before this event!! While Abaddon learns that Crusading, isn't all it's cracked up to be! Coming to a GW store near you - "100135735th Black Crusade", this time, it's personal!'

There's nothing stopping you making up your own stories in the new setting. The primary differences are; no Cadia, the Cicatrix Maledictum and a few Primarchs have returned.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You have a cool setting. There's 10,000 years between Heresy and the Fall of Cadia.

Yeah, and I could before the lore advancement, except the new fluff wasn't about something that destroy some of the core themes of the settings, those that sets it apart and made it interesting.

I'd say it still is, but that's just my opinion.

Regardless, nothing's been retconned about what used to be. You can have your core themes taking place in M36 as well as M41.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What Guilliman does doesn't affect Captain Genericus of the Marines Obscure out there in the middle of the Segmentum Pacificus.

A giant open scar in the middle of the galaxy sure affects a lot of Captain Genericus. Same for Primaris.

Captain Genericus is part of that 2% of Chapters which refused Primaris, or maybe his Chapter hasn't been found and reinforced yet, or maybe his company/taskforce is composed of non-Primaris brethren.

What's to say his Chapter's homeworld and operating zone isn't nice and far away in the galactic southwest, or maybe, this hasn't even happened yet because it's 999.M41.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
40k was being dominated by named characters from at least 5th, with Calgars, Abaddons, Tigurius', Draigos, etc etc. It doesn't fundamentally matter if the character is slightly bigger.

It was bad and it got worse!

In your opinion.
I don't have an issue with character driven stories. I don't have an issue with characters in the setting. I have an issue with bad characters.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
For a start, the setting constantly edging closer to 999.M41 was infuriating, and having to essentially reduce the timeframe down to the month level (443.998.M41 for example) was getting old quickly. Hardly anything important actually happened.

The setting wasn't edging closer, it was staying at the same place, as a setting should.

But was 40k completely a setting? Because it felt a LOT like a story which had stagnated to the point of being a setting.
Don't forget they're not mutually exclusive.

ASOIAF is both a setting and a story. The story is of the Starks, the Lannisters, the Targaryens, and all the other disparate houses. But it's a setting at the same time, because House Genericus is still there, and they get to carve out their own story in the wider one around them. Don't want to have it take place during the War of Five Kings? Then set it before.

40k still exists as a setting. A setting which spans the Heresy, all 10,000 years between it and the Fall of Cadia, and even the Indomitus Crusade after that. If you don't like one of the stories that happens during that setting, you have plenty of room in the setting to do it.

As long as nothing about the setting as a whole was retconned, you've lost nothing.

If all the new fluff isn't some extra information on what you already had, that you can integrate in your character stories, but is instead some new stuff that is happening after some of your character died because they were just normal humans and the timeline was advanced 200 years in the future, it's not good.

But you said you didn't care about the story. You see it as a setting. If so, then the setting you already had hasn't changed. M41 is still M41. M36 is still M36.
Death is no excuse for characters not to show up. There's the Warp, rejuvenant treatments, and frankly just the universe GW has set up (wherein the short lived Tau are now living to at least 100 years).

If you don't like the way the story moved on, then that's a complaint I can understand. But complaining that it moved on and you didn't want it to, when it really doesn't affect what you could already do in your own stories, is something which I don't understand. I'm not saying you're wrong to have that view. I'm just saying I don't understand it myself. But then, you do you, and that's cool.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Lots of really important things were happening in the setting all the time, the setting was just so big that the end result was stalemate, and the setting didn't change.... which was perfect.

Perfectly balanced, as everything should be.

 Solar-powered_chainsword wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:


Guilliman's 'flaws' are that he overthinks things and doubts himself more than he should (can't remember which book this is stated in - one of the early HH ones anyway); that he cares too much for appearances and 'honour' because deep down he's in denial about his own ambition (see The Unremembered Empire, his interactions with Euten and the Lion especially); and that he's too optimistic, idealistic, humanitarian and trusting for his own good (e.g. the Iax disaster in Dark Imperium and the attempted assassination in TUE).

The great thing about Guilliman as a character is that these are also some of his best qualities. He's not just a man out of his time (like a 21st century liberal transplanted to Mediaeval Europe), but also almost a hero from a different setting altogether. It's like if Golden Age Superman turned up in Alan Moore's Watchmen. The conflict between how he wants the world to work (where everyone cooperates for the greater good - and I use that term very deliberately) and how it actually works (too many selfish donkey-caves and a universe sliding inexorably into entropy) is delicious.

He's by far my favourite loyalist primarch, and I so want to see if he ends up cracking like my favourite 'traitor' primarch (Curze) did when his ideal (justice) turned sour...

Not going to lie, that sounds really Mary Sue like. If someone's only flaws are "Too nice", "too optimistic" and "Greater than he believes himself to be" it sounds absolutely terrible. Someone's flaws shouldn't be someone's best qualities, because those aren't really flaws.. There's a reason Superman wasn't in Watchmen, and it's because he'd ruin it. That's a character that would ruin the tone of the entire setting if he was brought over. Unless we're going to see Guilliman cracking some time soon, he's just a brutal, terrible character that as we both agree, doesn't fit in this setting.

It's only Mary Sue, in my opinion, if it doesn't negatively affect the character. As we see with Guilliman, it really does affect him. His plans for the Imperium Secundus lead to the bombings of Macragge, and a strained relationship with the Lion. It also leads to his own near death at the hands of Fulgrim and the Alpha Legion death squad sent for him. He ends up losing Iax due to his humanitarianism, putting a strain on the morale and resources of his own homeland.

Someone's greatest assets can always be their flaw. It's only if it's written well enough. But as always, if something is written badly, then it will be bad, regardless of the intent.
We already also see Guilliman's resolve crack and him have to make sacrifices that really do tear him up inside (ceding power and influence to the Ecclesiarchy, for the sake of unity).

I absolutely think Guilliman doesn't belong in the setting - and THAT'S why he's a character who should be in it. Because he ISN'T from the setting, and in doing so, amplifies it.

 Karhedron wrote:
I have been dealing with fluff changes for over 20 years so I am pretty much past losing sleep over it. I remember feeling annoyed the first time I came across a major retcon (the 3rd Ed rulebook stating that whole Starchild thing from Ian Watson's Inquisitor trilogy was just a Tzeentch plot).

These days I accept that fluff changes and grows. In many ways I think it is better than the stasis that set in after the original EoT campaign. I do feel that the introduction of the Primaris was a bit rushed though.

Yeah it annoyed me when necrons and tau came into the galaxy, still never see them as a proper 40k army. I accept it changing, its not a massive deal, I just wish they kept some things sacred (which they have up until now), like if they bring back Sanguinius I'll vomit.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
*sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.

Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.

You mean exactly what the Tactica Imperium is? Same thing as the codex but for the guard. From Lexicanums page on the tactica: "The Tactica is not meant to be taken too literally though. In war, circumstances change too quickly to refer every decision to a book. Its virtue is that it provides reference for new officers and there is always a chance that guidance can be found on a critical issue." Want to know the big difference? "The collection of books comprising the Tactica is therefore constantly being updated, often at a different place, as the sheer size of the Imperium precludes any true standardization".

Anyway, on topic. I'm not a fan of bringing the setting forward. I do like it that Big G returned and that he's formed his own sub empire. I don't like it that he's trying to break the fanaticism and insane Emperor worship that's the staple of the Imperium. I also don't like how the Inquisition appears to be increasingly neglected in both the board game and the lore. I've never really cared much for the HH and always considered the primarchs a somewhat silly concepts. There should at the very least be primarch equivalents among the Eldar and Necrons (You know, that used to have literal gods on the tabletop). I have a hard time believeing that a primarch would be above an Avatar or an demon prince (of say Tzeentch) in terms of planning and physical power. They're basicly comic book super heroes in 40k. I did however very much like the idea that 10.000 years had exagerated what they where really like. That they where more inspirational then functional. Most of the early HH books where written from the percpective of space marines and/or humans who thought they where awesome so it was very open to interpretation. Now they're pretty much confirmed super heroes with quirky personalities.

Ah, didn't intend for this to become a primarch rant. In any case I actually do look forward to what will happen when the rest of them gets introduced (contradictory but be happy about what you get I guess). I hope they go the route of the Lion being traitor and Luther being loyalist, as well as making Russ a demon monster or something. Maybe even have one of the traitor primarchs go full pacifist, deciding that the constant wars is meaningless and be stripped of his demon powers. stuff like that. If you're going to change the setting from the ground up then at the very least change the primarchs. The setting hasn't been standing still in 10.000years (I'd love to debate this in a diffrent thread). Why should the primarchs have?

 Nerak wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
*sighs* Jesus H fething Christ people need to stop seeing the codex as "tactics by numbers" thats not what the codex fething is, go read codex Space Mariens, not ONCE does it ever fething talk about the codex in such a way, rather it talks about the codex in terms of orginization. the codex is not "here is how you fight in this case" it's "This is how you orginize a space marine chapter, here is a selection of tactical reccomendations for it" there's no broad paint by numbers stragety, if there was the Ultramarines would not have been able to fight the Tyranids or the Necrons, or the Tau or the other countless other enemies that Gulliman wouldn't have been able to discuss because they wheren't fething in existance when the codex was written.

Read Age of Darkness (rules of engagement) that's exactly what Guilliman intended it for. The codex failed during the wargames and Guilliman admitted he had failed and that you could never codify all scenarios for warfare, so he just used it from that point on as a guideline. Why the hell are you so angry... Don't have the book with me, so I'll quote it tomorrow, but if you have the book its easy to find its the last few pages of the short story.

You mean exactly what the Tactica Imperium is? Same thing as the codex but for the guard. From Lexicanums page on the tactica: "The Tactica is not meant to be taken too literally though. In war, circumstances change too quickly to refer every decision to a book. Its virtue is that it provides reference for new officers and there is always a chance that guidance can be found on a critical issue." Want to know the big difference? "The collection of books comprising the Tactica is therefore constantly being updated, often at a different place, as the sheer size of the Imperium precludes any true standardization".

Anyway, on topic. I'm not a fan of bringing the setting forward. I do like it that Big G returned and that he's formed his own sub empire. I don't like it that he's trying to break the fanaticism and insane Emperor worship that's the staple of the Imperium. I also don't like how the Inquisition appears to be increasingly neglected in both the board game and the lore. I've never really cared much for the HH and always considered the primarchs a somewhat silly concepts. There should at the very least be primarch equivalents among the Eldar and Necrons (You know, that used to have literal gods on the tabletop). I have a hard time believeing that a primarch would be above an Avatar or an demon prince (of say Tzeentch) in terms of planning and physical power. They're basicly comic book super heroes in 40k. I did however very much like the idea that 10.000 years had exagerated what they where really like. That they where more inspirational then functional. Most of the early HH books where written from the percpective of space marines and/or humans who thought they where awesome so it was very open to interpretation. Now they're pretty much confirmed super heroes with quirky personalities.

Ah, didn't intend for this to become a primarch rant. In any case I actually do look forward to what will happen when the rest of them gets introduced (contradictory but be happy about what you get I guess). I hope they go the route of the Lion being traitor and Luther being loyalist, as well as making Russ a demon monster or something. Maybe even have one of the traitor primarchs go full pacifist, deciding that the constant wars is meaningless and be stripped of his demon powers. stuff like that. If you're going to change the setting from the ground up then at the very least change the primarchs. The setting hasn't been standing still in 10.000years (I'd love to debate this in a diffrent thread). Why should the primarchs have?

No one is talking about the Tactica...

There shouldn't be an Eldar or necron equivilant, they are two vastly different species and armies, that's just wishful thinking. Eldar already have two avatars and the necrons have shards and a transcendental, its completely ridiculous to give them a Primarch equivalent, we have a rich game because the armies are so different, I don't want them all to have the same stuff but just with different paint. do you also believe that there should be an Imperial version of a phoenix lord?, a Primarch can be as powerful as an avatar, they are pretty much demi-gods and the avatar is just that and 'avatar' he isn't Kaela Mensha Khaine and the lore shows that the Primarchs are just as powerful what is their to 'believe'. The Emperor could fart on the avatar to kill it, not surprising that his sons could. Your logic is just, I want my stuff to be the most awesome.