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.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


Welcome to early 40k - it was literally WHFB in SPAAAAACE!, so the major Fantasy races had to crop up somehow. After all:
.

I feel like a lot of people complaining about the lore in this thread, this plays a major part in it. People just don't get how 40k came into existence as an off shoot to fantasy.

That doesn't mean we have to like it. In relation to Dwarfs, for example, I think I already mentioned that I'm not a fan of them in fantasy either, and perpetuals/immortals are just plain bad in any setting, except for Highlander of course, which is great because it's awful.

I don't really think many people aren't aware of that fact

Personally I don't think the idea of a Perpetual is necessarily bad automatically but the way they've been used is awful. As side characters they could be much more interesting IMO.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I agree on Perpetuals. Such a lame concept

The idea of Perpetuals was stupid, but I found John Grammaticus to be one of the better and well rounded characters I've read about. Might have been the good writing.

My big complaint is that GW hasn't bought back the rights to Malal.

I think perpetual just need a better background. Make them good daemons who are half human for example. And then primarchs are basically just the emperor’s attempt to artificially create more perpetual bros to hang out with,

 argonak wrote:
I think perpetual just need a better background. Make them good daemons who are half human for example. And then primarchs are basically just the emperor’s attempt to artificially create more perpetual bros to hang out with,

I was thinking of making them failed attempts by the Emperor to heal people. Like he tries curing blindness but makes them unkillable. It would be interesting to have that as motivation for some of them.

I struggle to imagine why ground battles even happen most of the time when orbital strikes are a thing, let alone exterminatus. It seems to me whoever gets the upper hand in the void battle has control of the planet. I suppose void shields on the ground help but even an invading army that wants to protect resources for resupply or the population for enslavement/sacrifice/eating would still be able to hit military targets and glass the few square miles they're sitting on

Everything primaris-related.
I like the model's, but the lore behind primaris marines is absolutely atrocious, stupid and forced.

In my own headcanon, Primaris Marines are simply updated models/true scale-marines.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I struggle to imagine why ground battles even happen most of the time when orbital strikes are a thing, let alone exterminatus. It seems to me whoever gets the upper hand in the void battle has control of the planet. I suppose void shields on the ground help but even an invading army that wants to protect resources for resupply or the population for enslavement/sacrifice/eating would still be able to hit military targets and glass the few square miles they're sitting on

To GWs defense, this seem to be common in many sci-fi universes.
Firestorm, Star Wars (and afaik Warzone) all have spaceships and spacebattles, but ground battles are still occurring.

GW has constructed a universe where the military paradigm is that space power is NOT the supreme be all and end all of the military forces.

In the 40K universe paradigm, space power is one arm, an important one, but not the only one that matters. In particular, with reference to the BFG rulebook, the firepower of ground defense installations actually is superior to a bombarding ship, and is likely far more affordable in terms of cost. The average planetary defense laser silo packs almost as much firepower as the broadside of a Gothic cruiser, with greater range than the Gothic. Likewise, the average planetary defense missile silo has the launch capacity of a full cruiser, and the average planetary defense air base has enough short range aerospace fighters and bombers to match a Dictator cruiser.

From the old GW Armageddon 3 website archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040805101210/http://www.armageddon3.com/English/Campaign/BFG/BFGmap.html

we can see the defenses of each hive on Armageddon comprised at least 4 air bases, 8 missile silos, and 8 laser silos. That kind of firepower would be enough to shred your average navy frigate, and even your average cruiser, if they tried to bombard the hive. Even if one takes Armageddon to be a more heavily defended than usual hive world, it still gives a rough gauge of the defenses a typical hive or fortress might have, which still is likely to overpower most spaceships. That is before considering potential overlapping fields of fire from multiple such sites.

Then we have also multiple examples extant in the universe of facilities and cities shielded by void shields or other more esoteric shields, so orbital bombardment isn't some instant "I win" card. I suspect that the shield situation parallels the weapon situation in that it is cheaper and easier to get a certain level of shielding in an immobile installation than having the same level in a starship. A warp capable starship therefore would be a far more valuable asset and not worth expending in a straight out slugging match versus cheaper more expendable ground installations.

95% of it, with the entire Imperium being in that 95%.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
95% of it, with the entire Imperium being in that 95%.

So the core of the setting? What parts do appeal to you then, genuine curiosity?

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
95% of it, with the entire Imperium being in that 95%.

So the core of the setting? What parts do appeal to you then, genuine curiosity?

Only really like Tyranids and Necrons, though Tau are growing on me as my son has picked them as his army.

 DrNo172000 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
95% of it, with the entire Imperium being in that 95%.

So the core of the setting? What parts do appeal to you then, genuine curiosity?

Only really like Tyranids and Necrons, though Tau are growing on me as my son has picked them as his army.

not sure how you can hate that much of a setting and get any joy out of the game TBH

BrianDavion wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
95% of it, with the entire Imperium being in that 95%.

So the core of the setting? What parts do appeal to you then, genuine curiosity?

Only really like Tyranids and Necrons, though Tau are growing on me as my son has picked them as his army.

not sure how you can hate that much of a setting and get any joy out of the game TBH

Well firstly the thread is about the lore that people dislike not hate. There's a big difference between those words for me at least.

Secondly I often play games that I'm not super into the IP and have fun. Example I love Blood & Plunder but don't care about the Age of Sail or pirates all that much. My love of the game hasn't fostered a desire in me to go read a bunch of history books about the golden age of piracy.

Lastly fun/joy is a highly subjective experience, people have fun in many different ways. 40k for me fills a niche that other games I play do not from a rules standpoint (I only play with PL or open play and have zero interest in matched play). Also Tyranids were the first miniatures I ever bought way back when I was much younger, so there's a bit of nostalgia there. There's other reason too of course, that's just two big ones.

I dislike the way GW waxed lyrical about the speedwaaaagh on Vigilus throughout the first book then released 15 short stories on the build up to Vigilus 2, none of which included any Orks whatsoever. Its as if they forgot they were part of that story.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I dislike the way GW waxed lyrical about the speedwaaaagh on Vigilus throughout the first book then released 15 short stories on the build up to Vigilus 2, none of which included any Orks whatsoever. Its as if they forgot they were part of that story.

presumably it's because the main focus of part 2 will be chaos. Orks will likely get a throw away "and then Abaddon's invasion force killed all the Orks" line.

Orks and the GSCs where basicly a warm up to the REAL fight. Not saying it's a good thing just "I suspect thats the reason"

BrianDavion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I dislike the way GW waxed lyrical about the speedwaaaagh on Vigilus throughout the first book then released 15 short stories on the build up to Vigilus 2, none of which included any Orks whatsoever. Its as if they forgot they were part of that story.

presumably it's because the main focus of part 2 will be chaos. Orks will likely get a throw away "and then Abaddon's invasion force killed all the Orks" line.

Orks and the GSCs where basicly a warm up to the REAL fight. Not saying it's a good thing just "I suspect thats the reason"

Yea I would normally assume exactly the same thing except GSC were the focus of quite a few of those short stories and seem to remain in the story from a lore perspective.

The perpetual focus on Imperium vs Chaos is also a part of the lore I find grating.

Nonetheless I appreciate your input.

Iracundus wrote:
GW has constructed a universe where the military paradigm is that space power is NOT the supreme be all and end all of the military forces.

In the 40K universe paradigm, space power is one arm, an important one, but not the only one that matters. In particular, with reference to the BFG rulebook, the firepower of ground defense installations actually is superior to a bombarding ship, and is likely far more affordable in terms of cost. The average planetary defense laser silo packs almost as much firepower as the broadside of a Gothic cruiser, with greater range than the Gothic. Likewise, the average planetary defense missile silo has the launch capacity of a full cruiser, and the average planetary defense air base has enough short range aerospace fighters and bombers to match a Dictator cruiser.

From the old GW Armageddon 3 website archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040805101210/http://www.armageddon3.com/English/Campaign/BFG/BFGmap.html

we can see the defenses of each hive on Armageddon comprised at least 4 air bases, 8 missile silos, and 8 laser silos. That kind of firepower would be enough to shred your average navy frigate, and even your average cruiser, if they tried to bombard the hive. Even if one takes Armageddon to be a more heavily defended than usual hive world, it still gives a rough gauge of the defenses a typical hive or fortress might have, which still is likely to overpower most spaceships. That is before considering potential overlapping fields of fire from multiple such sites.

Then we have also multiple examples extant in the universe of facilities and cities shielded by void shields or other more esoteric shields, so orbital bombardment isn't some instant "I win" card. I suspect that the shield situation parallels the weapon situation in that it is cheaper and easier to get a certain level of shielding in an immobile installation than having the same level in a starship. A warp capable starship therefore would be a far more valuable asset and not worth expending in a straight out slugging match versus cheaper more expendable ground installations.

Thanks mate, that's a very satisfactory explanation.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Yea I would normally assume exactly the same thing except GSC were the focus of quite a few of those short stories and seem to remain in the story from a lore perspective.

The perpetual focus on Imperium vs Chaos is also a part of the lore I find grating.

Nonetheless I appreciate your input.

I suspect that if they go into a book 3 we may see the entire situation turn into a massive mess of every power in the galaxy trying to take the same planet. Abby's got things too well in hand right now, there's no way we don't get a hive fleet, surprise crusade or great waagh showing up to give him hell. Preferably all three given the size of his own fleet.

Though I'm not real surprised to see chaos take center stage on this book as they got nothing at all in the last one despite supposedly being the biggest threat.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
Though I'm not real surprised to see chaos take center stage on this book as they got nothing at all in the last one despite supposedly being the biggest threat.

Pointy Stick Jump Pack Man (and friends) turning up was hardly nothing

 Hawky wrote:
Stereotypes about the Guard...

1) They are NOT incompetent (mostly)
2) They always do NOT suffer 95% casualties (mostly)
3) They are NOT incapable of containing an uprising or an invasion, unless totally overwhelming (mostly)
4) Commissars are NOT trigger-happy maniacs, shooting people at the slightest sign of hesitation (mostly)
5) They are NOT there, just waiting for the Marines to save the day (mostly
6) They do NOT throw themselves thoughtlessly into the enemy fire, just to be shot dead (mostly, or unless they are from Krieg)

This is why Gaunt’s Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain should be compulsory reading. Between them you get a very healthy appreciation for the Guard and their role in the setting, which is that they are the absolute workhorses of the Imperium!

Jokaero. They just jar with the rest of the inquisition for me

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
I struggle to imagine why ground battles even happen most of the time when orbital strikes are a thing, let alone exterminatus. It seems to me whoever gets the upper hand in the void battle has control of the planet. I suppose void shields on the ground help but even an invading army that wants to protect resources for resupply or the population for enslavement/sacrifice/eating would still be able to hit military targets and glass the few square miles they're sitting on

Because glassing a planet is not conducive to conquering it.

Exterminatus is only considered when the planet has become irrevocably tainted, or a conquering it militarily is deemed too costly. Most of the time the Imperium wants to conquer a world and claim it as its own, or reconquer a world that has rebelled.

The first thing that happens when control of airspace is achieved is that every visible military target on the planet is bombarded in a selective and controlled way. You still have to send boots down to capture and control the planet. To assume that every hostile military asset would be destroyed in the initial bombardments (especially when bunkers and underground bases are a thing) is wishful thinking.

The same reason countries in the real world still need to send in ground troops. Unless the goal is total destruction with no care of whats on the planet, you can't achieve your goal entirely though space or the air. The IOM is a big place but even they would be toast quick if they went full planet killer every time they had a problem.