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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've always felt the Marines come off as very 10-ply with how easily their "honor" gets injured and they go off and do something stupid. Many of them, protagonists too, seem to not have the emotional maturity that should be needed for the sort of power they wield, making them more like kids playing Soldier.

Probably what makes them such effective tools for the Imperium I guess.

In fairness I can see that sort of happen with them. They are trained from youth to be "the best of the best of the best etc...". They also focus heavily on warfare and war with less of social side to them and what free time they do get is often taken up with meditation/prayer etc.... So in some ways they perhaps don't get a lot of social maturity and social interaction which we would consider normal. So it could very well leave them being elite warriors, but off the battlefield lacking some of the social graces and capabilities and maturity. Their honour and battle prowess really is all they have; their brothers (who share the same focus) are their entire social world.

 vipoid wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The stuff about the Imperium's harsh methods being necessary for the survival of mankind is in game propaganda that people are taking seriously.

There is obviously a better way to do things and the Imperium is making the galaxy a worse place and the negative aspects of Chaos stronger by having humanity live in absolute misery.

The Tech Priests of Mars have stopped humanity making any scientific advancements.

It is true however that the second generation of background writers make the same mistake, so this kind of crap IS true in modern 40K (and by modern I guess I really mean most stuff written post 2005 or so?). It is all a lot of newer fans know, and I guess saying it is not really what 40K is rings hollow.

But I just do not want any part of a setting that makes up a bunch of threats to justify an awful fascist regime like the Imperium (quibble over the definition and delete the word fascist if it upsets you for some reason) and makes them be the good guys. It borders on apologia and although it is trivial and unimportant it is distasteful to me to be honest, and I think a pretty gross perversion of the original spirit of the game.

Do you think part of the problem is that so many stories (as well as games and other media) revolve entirely around Space Marines?

And so for the purposes of such stories, they almost always end up feeling like heroic protagonists, rather than brutal, fascist zealots. At the very least, they can generally be expected to be facing a greater evil (Chaos, Orks, Tyranids) and so they come across as the good guys if only by comparison.

Yeah I definitely do think that, but even with Commissars we have two prominent ones in the novels and both are pretty chilled out dudes that are presented as reasonable. Gaunts Ghosts definitely makes the Guard out to be the good guys and pretty nice, and although I like those novels are pretty enjoyable they represent the Imperium in an overly positive light. Same with any novel with loyalist space marines as the protagonists. That is why I tend to prefer the novels with Traitor Marines as the main characters, because there at least we are able to explore the fact that these are indoctrinated hyper violent, brainwashed murder-machine freaks, and look at what that might mean outside of the structures of the Imperium. I think Space Marines should be terrifying, not heroic. Just my personal taste, I can see why GW would want it to be otherwise but I really think if they want the Imperium to be "good guys" they need to stop with the fascist bs and the genetic purity subplot in particular. Because those are just NOT the traits of the "good guys".

I guess part of it too is that they are the protagonist faction for almost all of the fiction, and for a lot of people protagonist or POV characters are always the good guys so it is sort of the expectation here as well. But it comes from that same tradition in british Sci Fi as Judge Dredd, and Dredd and the Judges are DEFINITELY not the good guys either.

It is also part of the shifting of any ambiguity or sympathy from certain factions (Chaos or Orks for example) and turning them into parodies of themselves that are cartoonishly evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the Marines being like kids thing, I think that is on the nose, isn't it? They are taken as children and in a lot of ways their development is halted at that stage - they do not become normal humans with the ability to reproduce and they instead are like a childs idea of a soldier, super strong and aggressive, a sort of hyper masculine vision that a 10 year old might have, none of that gross stuff with girls involved. And their concerns and beliefs are really childish too, they want to fight and win and so on and they are often concerned with matters of keeping score and honour and all that, just indoctrinated children made into freakish monsters to kill for a fascist Empire.

I mean that is some cool ass background as long as you don't tell me I am supposed to feel anything other than pity, fear and revulsion for those marines. They are monsters, not heroes.

They are both, that's the point. With all due respect I think people trying to distill it down to one or the other are diluting their perception of the setting with absolutes. It is a sort of understanding broadly peddled IRL these days, and attractive in general for its simplicity. But reality doesn't work that way and a well written setting won't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It isn't the details, it's in the feeling and theme it generates. Reading about Primaris very much gives the impression that they are better in every way and their gear is better in every way. Understandably many people find this to be bland and running against what 40k and Space Marines are supposed to be.

You mean the new things feel blander than the old things that have 25 years of built up lore and refinement?

I do see your point here, and it does have a lot of validity to it. However, the blandness I speak of here is not due to a lack of being 'filled in' but due to a lack of drawbacks. Primaris and their tech are simply better with little to no associated cost or flaws to balance that narrative out. There is also a feeling of dues ex machina that I find inappropriate for use on a setting-wide basis. I hope this will be salvaged in the coming years via some light ret-cons and insertion of new lore.

I compare this to Stormcast in Age of Sigmar. Right from the start there was established to be big problems with their immortality, which impacted characters and the narrative in noteworthy ways. Even from the first campaign books there were abundant instances where things did not go their way. This made the ever-abundant 'bolter porn' equivalent much more engaging because it was not all great, all the time.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've always felt the Marines come off as very 10-ply with how easily their "honor" gets injured and they go off and do something stupid. Many of them, protagonists too, seem to not have the emotional maturity that should be needed for the sort of power they wield, making them more like kids playing Soldier.

Probably what makes them such effective tools for the Imperium I guess.

They're hypnotically indoctrinated, chemically castrated, propaganda-fed child soldiers conditioned to re-route their emotional responses into anger and socially limited to largely only interacting with others of their kind. I'd say that them having emotional immaturity and daddy issues is quite appropriate.

Those hints of acknowledgment of what they are just seem dissonant when so often they're straight-facedly portrayed as honorable space knights dripping with machismo and whose only flaw is bad social skills- basically a nerd power fantasy- rather than kidnapped children forcibly turned into hyper-aggressive killing machines. Portraying them unambiguously as the latter would be a fun deconstruction but isn't the kind of story BL writes.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do see your point here, and it does have a lot of validity to it. However, the blandness I speak of here is not due to a lack of being 'filled in' but due to a lack of drawbacks. Primaris and their tech are simply better with little to no associated cost or flaws to balance that narrative out. There is also a feeling of dues ex machina that I find inappropriate for use on a setting-wide basis. I hope this will be salvaged in the coming years via some light ret-cons and insertion of new lore.

I compare this to Stormcast in Age of Sigmar. Right from the start there was established to be big problems with their immortality, which impacted characters and the narrative in noteworthy ways. Even from the first campaign books there were abundant instances where things did not go their way. This made the ever-abundant 'bolter porn' equivalent much more engaging because it was not all great, all the time.

Part of the problem is everytime things are brought up (like I did earlier pointing out some drawbacks of the Primaris) it gets brushed off or ignored. I feel like people have largely decided how they feel about Primaris first, and look for things to support their arguements rather than let new information change their viewpoint on the drawbacks of Primaris themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've always felt the Marines come off as very 10-ply with how easily their "honor" gets injured and they go off and do something stupid. Many of them, protagonists too, seem to not have the emotional maturity that should be needed for the sort of power they wield, making them more like kids playing Soldier.

Probably what makes them such effective tools for the Imperium I guess.

They're hypnotically indoctrinated, chemically castrated, propaganda-fed child soldiers conditioned to re-route their emotional responses into anger and socially limited to largely only interacting with others of their kind. I'd say that them having emotional immaturity and daddy issues is quite appropriate.

Those hints of acknowledgment of what they are just seem dissonant when so often they're straight-facedly portrayed as honorable space knights dripping with machismo and whose only flaw is bad social skills- basically a nerd power fantasy- rather than kidnapped children forcibly turned into hyper-aggressive killing machines. Portraying them unambiguously as the latter would be a fun deconstruction but isn't the kind of story BL writes.

I feel like the good authors, because there is difference in quality in the authors, try to imply it without making it too blatant. I would like more stories diving into their traumas a bit more and show that Marines aren't the ideal the Imperium presents them as.

The Imperium started out as a fascist, xenophobic totalitarian caricature. Of the original races, only the Eldar were arguably portrayed sympathetically on balance, and even they were unabashed racial supremacists. Orks were probably the least grimdark of the original factions, in that they have always had a perverse light-heartedness to them when removed from their role as antagonists of said fascist totalitarian state.

If that's what you mean by grimdark, those days are clearly long gone. It doesn't sell in the 21st century. That sort of caricature isn't socially acceptable any more. The Imperium as originally envisioned would so clearly be evil today that they have had to vastly tone down the caricature in order to reach a "balance" that makes it socially acceptable to play human factions that operate within such an organization. Note that it is no coincidence that almost all the modern 40k protagonists are iconoclasts and rebels within the overall Imperial organization.

There is still "grimdark" in the sense of "bad things happen," but that's the sort of "grimdark" you see even in Hollywood movies. Which is not a coincidence - the general tone of 40k has definitely moved away from its roots in caricature and more towards Superhero-movie style melodrama.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Note that it is no coincidence that almost all the modern 40k protagonists are iconoclasts and rebels within the overall Imperial organization.

Citation needed.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If that's what you mean by grimdark, those days are clearly long gone. It doesn't sell in the 21st century. That sort of caricature isn't socially acceptable any more. The Imperium as originally envisioned would so clearly be evil today that they have had to vastly tone down the caricature in order to reach a "balance" that makes it socially acceptable to play human factions that operate within such an organization. Note that it is no coincidence that almost all the modern 40k protagonists are iconoclasts and rebels within the overall Imperial organization.

That doesn't make sense. People play villain factions in wargames all the time.

Of course they do. And GW clearly has no problem with evil factions - their games are full of them. Precisely because they are unambiguously evil, it's acceptable in wider societal discourse.

What's become problematic is having a faction like the old Imperium that was simultaneously both a caricature of a fascist dictatorship and also presented as humanity's only hope. Hence the whole Guilliman/Cawl/Primaris reboot where now the heroes have been reinvented largely in opposition to the greater imperial structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Note that it is no coincidence that almost all the modern 40k protagonists are iconoclasts and rebels within the overall Imperial organization.

Citation needed.

Guilliman? Cawl? Practically anybody?

The new archetype for an Imperium hero is someone who is positioned in opposition to the existing Imperial organization and dogma. Guilliman isn't so much the enforcer of the Emperor's will, he's recreating the Imperium in his new, more 21st-century-friendly image.

The old prototype Imperium hero was someone like Commissioner Yarrick, defined primarily by his determination, zeal and martial prowess, not his enthusiasm for good governance and social justice.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course they do. And GW clearly has no problem with evil factions - their games are full of them. Precisely because they are unambiguously evil, it's acceptable in wider societal discourse.

What's become problematic is having a faction like the old Imperium that was simultaneously both a caricature of a fascist dictatorship and also presented as humanity's only hope. Hence the whole Guilliman/Cawl/Primaris reboot where now the heroes have been reinvented largely in opposition to the greater imperial structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Note that it is no coincidence that almost all the modern 40k protagonists are iconoclasts and rebels within the overall Imperial organization.

Citation needed.

Guilliman? Cawl? Practically anybody?

The new archetype for an Imperium hero is someone who is positioned in opposition to the existing Imperial organization and dogma. Guilliman isn't so much the enforcer of the Emperor's will, he's recreating the Imperium in his new, more 21st-century-friendly image.

Guilliman who is powerless to overturn a potentially dangerous religion and lies about the success of the Indomitus Crusade to create the impression that things aren't so bad? Cawl who is dancing a fine line between innovation and damning everyone with his projects? How about Captain Felix, a new character who remembers the old Imperium and yet fights to protect the current one despite how far it's fallen?

I feel like you have a very shallow knowledge of the lore and are using it to draw incorrect conclusions, or your presenting shallow information in hopes others take you for your word.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Guilliman who is powerless to overturn a potentially dangerous religion and lies about the success of the Indomitus Crusade to create the impression that things aren't so bad? Cawl who is dancing a fine line between innovation and damning everyone with his projects? How about Captain Felix, a new character who remembers the old Imperium and yet fights to protect the current one despite how far it's fallen?

You're illustrating my point for me here re: mistaking "grimdark" for "bad things happening." Guilliman's position in opposition to that "potentially dangerous religion" is exactly what typifies the shift in portrayal I am talking about. The fact that he hasn't yet succeeded in making the Imperium fart rainbows out of its butt isn't the point and doesn't make it still grimdark; the point is the shift in objectives and orientation. The heroes of the Imperium are now not primarily fixated on the Imperium's survival, they're aiming to rebuild it into something more suitably heroic.

The modern stuff feels more at ease in a superhero "assemble the crew" movie - Guilliman going around recruiting all the members of his team - Calgar, Cawl, Dante, etc - than it does in the old paradigm of totalitarian control (Imperium) vs horrific anarchy (chaos).

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Guilliman who is powerless to overturn a potentially dangerous religion and lies about the success of the Indomitus Crusade to create the impression that things aren't so bad? Cawl who is dancing a fine line between innovation and damning everyone with his projects? How about Captain Felix, a new character who remembers the old Imperium and yet fights to protect the current one despite how far it's fallen?

You're illustrating my point for me here re: mistaking "grimdark" for "bad things happening." Guilliman's position in opposition to that "potentially dangerous religion" is exactly what typifies the shift in portrayal I am talking about. The fact that he hasn't yet succeeded in making the Imperium fart rainbows out of its butt isn't the point and doesn't make it still grimdark; the point is the shift in objectives and orientation. The heroes of the Imperium are now not primarily fixated on the Imperium's survival, they're aiming to rebuild it into something more suitably heroic.

Guilliman is enacting government cover-ups, hypocrisy (trying to uncover the actual history of the Imperium while preventing anyone from discovering his Second Imperium), hiding the fact the Imperium is winning battles but losing the war, and supporting a massively corrupt governmental body because it's convenient for his end goals. But sure, claim he's a "good" guy.

But why is he doing that? What's his motivation? That's the point.

The whole orientation of the struggle has pivoted. It isn't about really about stifling order vs destructive anarchy, it's pivoted to something more recognizable as a traditional good vs evil tale, because the heroes of the Imperium aren't on the side of totalitarian control any more, they're instead those resisting it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But why is he doing that? What's his motivation? That's the point.

The whole orientation of the struggle has pivoted. It isn't about really about stifling order vs destructive anarchy, it's pivoted to something more recognizable as a traditional good vs evil tale, because the heroes of the Imperium aren't on the side of totalitarian control any more, they're instead those resisting it.

"Ends justify the means" is not the slogan of the morally just. Fighting corruption with corruption just sets you back where you started, if it doesn't dig you in even deeper.

Again, you're making my point for me. To the extent that they've been bringing in hints that Guilliman's ideals are being eroded by the needs of the moment, that's a traditional good vs evil temptation story (think Darth Vader), something quite distinct from the original conundrum of control vs anarchy that underlies the original 40k setting.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Again, you're making my point for me. To the extent that they've been bringing in hints that Guilliman's ideals are being eroded by the needs of the moment, that's a traditional good vs evil temptation story (think Darth Vader), something quite distinct from the original conundrum of control vs anarchy that underlies the original 40k setting.

Except your point was that the "heroes" are those fighting to overthrow the system and rise above it, yet Guilliman keeps making choices that strengthen the system and repeating the same choices he claims to be trying to fix. You're claiming you're right because he's the opposite of what you claimed he was.

That you misunderstood what I said doesn't mean I've changed my argument. But if we're to the point where you're just saying "but you said something different before!" that's fine by me, I'm not interested in arguing about whether I've changed my argument or not; if you've moved on to making it about what I did or didn't say, what that really shows is that we've reached the end of the substantive discussion, which is all I was interested in.

Guilliman is being portrayed now as the well meaning protagonist hero that makes expedient choices and sacrifices, while regretting doing so.

Actually I don't think that is such a bad thing because I think it repeats the process of how the Imperium came about, through through accumulation of such choices over thousands of years. While it is tempting to portray the High Lords (past and present) as purely corrupt and self-serving, I think that is an overly simplistic view of things. The Imperium was effectively ungovernable by the time the last Primarch disappeared or was out of action, and I see the High Lords in much the same position as Guilliman at present. They have to ride the system to survive, and it is all too tempting over time to turn a blind eye to the abuses and inefficiencies in the name of avoiding further internecine conflict.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course they do. And GW clearly has no problem with evil factions - their games are full of them. Precisely because they are unambiguously evil, it's acceptable in wider societal discourse.

What's become problematic is having a faction like the old Imperium that was simultaneously both a caricature of a fascist dictatorship and also presented as humanity's only hope. Hence the whole Guilliman/Cawl/Primaris reboot where now the heroes have been reinvented largely in opposition to the greater imperial structure.

The idea the the Imperium is humanity's only hope is rubbish, and was always supposed to be a lie if you read between the lines. The Imperium is actively invested in dooming humanity. The fact that a certain percentage of the fanbase uses 40k as an excuse for pro-fascist agitation isn't the fault of the rest of us who have functioning senses of irony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:
Guilliman is being portrayed now as the well meaning protagonist hero that makes expedient choices and sacrifices, while regretting doing so.

Actually I don't think that is such a bad thing because I think it repeats the process of how the Imperium came about, through through accumulation of such choices over thousands of years. While it is tempting to portray the High Lords (past and present) as purely corrupt and self-serving, I think that is an overly simplistic view of things. The Imperium was effectively ungovernable by the time the last Primarch disappeared or was out of action, and I see the High Lords in much the same position as Guilliman at present. They have to ride the system to survive, and it is all too tempting over time to turn a blind eye to the abuses and inefficiencies in the name of avoiding further internecine conflict.

I think the corruption is endemic to the system. Goge Vandire was not an anomaly, as much as the Imperium likes to pretend. He's instead the purest example of the Imperium's ideals.

I’m sorry, but I have no understanding of why there people in this thread who believe the imperium could survive if it was less harsh. Think of all of the external threats.


Chaos if left unchecked (or even just not opposed hard enough) can and will corrupt nearly all of humanity (and everything else). It almost did in the past, Horus Heresy, and threatening to do so again.

Orks if left unchecked, will unite and permanently overrun humanity. They almost did in the past (war of the beast) and are
threatening to do so again (ghaz).

Tyranids could easily have the manpower to eat the entire galaxy. Humanity can’t rebuild if there are no green planets or humans left alive in the milkey galaxy.

Necrons can and will take over everything if left unchallenged. It took everything the old ones had to beat them last time, and the imperium isn’t nearly as powerful as the old ones where.

Then you have all the ”minor” problems the imperium has to deal with. Tau, Eldar and many other lesser Xenos constantly cause strain within the many systems, and only stand to become more problematic if they aren’t dealt with quickly. There’s also just plain human selfishness to consider. Lots of rulers within the imperium would rather not have a higher power telling them what to do, and for a lot of them this wouldn’t change if the Imperium was less harsh.

Even comparing this to a more optimistic show like Star Trek, you can see how optimism and good morals can erode when faced with overwhelming external. When faced with threats like the borg and the dominion, the federation starts acting awfully similar to the imperium.

In the modern background, you have a point. Because things have been altered to the point where all the non-Imperial factions are so extreme that there is no possible compromise with them. The Tyranids were supposed to represent that sort of threat, but I think Chaos was not really as bad as the Imperial propaganda made out back in the day. Of course now Chaos has been flanderized into a parody of itself, and should more rightly refered to as Evil.

But even so, the Imperium is wasteful and bigoted. It uses massively inefficient methods, it wastes the potential of the lower classes, it rejects the scientific method and innovation, it entrenches inequality which leads to systemic weaknesses inside it's organisation.
Zealotry and intolerance means it spends a significant fraction of it's energy fighting itself.

Those are all things that could be addressed that would make the Imperium more successful and less wasteful. Harshness is not the only way to deal with problems, nor is it the best way.

That said, I am not really arguing for an Imperium that does those things, it would be against what the Imperium is supposed to represent. I am merely arguing that the Imperium are not the good guys of the setting, and that what they say about their being no alternative and the ends justifying the means is a lot of bs.

Hecaton wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course they do. And GW clearly has no problem with evil factions - their games are full of them. Precisely because they are unambiguously evil, it's acceptable in wider societal discourse.

What's become problematic is having a faction like the old Imperium that was simultaneously both a caricature of a fascist dictatorship and also presented as humanity's only hope. Hence the whole Guilliman/Cawl/Primaris reboot where now the heroes have been reinvented largely in opposition to the greater imperial structure.

The idea the the Imperium is humanity's only hope is rubbish, and was always supposed to be a lie if you read between the lines. The Imperium is actively invested in dooming humanity. The fact that a certain percentage of the fanbase uses 40k as an excuse for pro-fascist agitation isn't the fault of the rest of us who have functioning senses of irony.

The Aeronautica Imperialis stuff on Tau occupied Taros showed the humans having a functioning society with a higher standard of living compared to when they were under Imperial rule, so they fought with the Tau against the Imperium. Sure, one could argue they were a protectorate or subservient to the Tau, but they were surviving better than their peers in the Imperium. I am not necessarily saying the Tau are good but the existence of these humans shows there is an alternative path.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:
Guilliman is being portrayed now as the well meaning protagonist hero that makes expedient choices and sacrifices, while regretting doing so.

Actually I don't think that is such a bad thing because I think it repeats the process of how the Imperium came about, through through accumulation of such choices over thousands of years. While it is tempting to portray the High Lords (past and present) as purely corrupt and self-serving, I think that is an overly simplistic view of things. The Imperium was effectively ungovernable by the time the last Primarch disappeared or was out of action, and I see the High Lords in much the same position as Guilliman at present. They have to ride the system to survive, and it is all too tempting over time to turn a blind eye to the abuses and inefficiencies in the name of avoiding further internecine conflict.

I think the corruption is endemic to the system. Goge Vandire was not an anomaly, as much as the Imperium likes to pretend. He's instead the purest example of the Imperium's ideals.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree that the "second generation" has made that mistake with so many of the last generation still being involved in the writing.

I think the thing they're doing is the same thing they've tried doing back in 3rd where the writing is biased and from the perspective of the Imperium but people take it at face value just like they took it at face value when people often talk about 3rd.

The current batch of writers must absolutely love writing now, compared to how the situation was probably from the late 90s up to a few years ago. At least the timeline is moving forward and they have new characters and situations to write about and create (which is an important thing in the literary arts! )
Consider previously that it was year after year of exactly the same background, re-written in a slightly different way. You couldn't introduce any new major engagements, no major deaths, perhaps the odd new character if you were lucky. Knowing that the only reason the new codex version had been released was to go alongside a new 40k edition release, so a few rules changes, and to sell whichever new miniature/range had come out. I can't imagine it was particularly enjoyable.

Remember the stink when one of the Marine codecies (I forget which edition or writer even - possibly Matt Ward?) changed the fluff so that Devestators were a role that marines had when they were inexperienced and before they moved on to a tactical role?
Even that tiny change (absolutely minuscule, compared to the seismic, setting-shattering changes happening now) caused multiple-page threads on the forum!

 Pacific wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree that the "second generation" has made that mistake with so many of the last generation still being involved in the writing.

I think the thing they're doing is the same thing they've tried doing back in 3rd where the writing is biased and from the perspective of the Imperium but people take it at face value just like they took it at face value when people often talk about 3rd.

The current batch of writers must absolutely love writing now, compared to how the situation was probably from the late 90s up to a few years ago. At least the timeline is moving forward and they have new characters and situations to write about and create (which is an important thing in the literary arts! )
Consider previously that it was year after year of exactly the same background, re-written in a slightly different way. You couldn't introduce any new major engagements, no major deaths, perhaps the odd new character if you were lucky. Knowing that the only reason the new codex version had been released was to go alongside a new 40k edition release, so a few rules changes, and to sell whichever new miniature/range had come out. I can't imagine it was particularly enjoyable.

Remember the stink when one of the Marine codecies (I forget which edition or writer even - possibly Matt Ward?) changed the fluff so that Devestators were a role that marines had when they were inexperienced and before they moved on to a tactical role?
Even that tiny change (absolutely minuscule, compared to the seismic, setting-shattering changes happening now) caused multiple-page threads on the forum!

Let us not forget the gak storm that was spun up when Centurions where introduced. Like people wanted new stuff, but didn't want it crammed in at ten seconds to midnight, but if your retconned it into the past and previously off screen that was even worse somehow.

Although I have bemoaned the changes here, I am really genuinely speaking only from my personal perspective. I can understand why GW would want to do things the way they are doing them now, it just does not really appeal to me in the same way. I don't mean to make out that the people working on this stuff now are lacking in talent or skill. It is just that the original conception is more my speed, having come from years of reading 2000AD before finding Warhammer and having my tiny mind blown.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I disagree that the "second generation" has made that mistake with so many of the last generation still being involved in the writing.

I think the thing they're doing is the same thing they've tried doing back in 3rd where the writing is biased and from the perspective of the Imperium but people take it at face value just like they took it at face value when people often talk about 3rd.

The current batch of writers must absolutely love writing now, compared to how the situation was probably from the late 90s up to a few years ago. At least the timeline is moving forward and they have new characters and situations to write about and create (which is an important thing in the literary arts! )
Consider previously that it was year after year of exactly the same background, re-written in a slightly different way. You couldn't introduce any new major engagements, no major deaths, perhaps the odd new character if you were lucky. Knowing that the only reason the new codex version had been released was to go alongside a new 40k edition release, so a few rules changes, and to sell whichever new miniature/range had come out. I can't imagine it was particularly enjoyable.

Remember the stink when one of the Marine codecies (I forget which edition or writer even - possibly Matt Ward?) changed the fluff so that Devestators were a role that marines had when they were inexperienced and before they moved on to a tactical role?
Even that tiny change (absolutely minuscule, compared to the seismic, setting-shattering changes happening now) caused multiple-page threads on the forum!

Let us not forget the gak storm that was spun up when Centurions where introduced. Like people wanted new stuff, but didn't want it crammed in at ten seconds to midnight, but if your retconned it into the past and previously off screen that was even worse somehow.

Which is why the timeline needed to progress. There was increasing difficulty with suspension of disbelief given how crowded the timeline was getting in the final weeks of 999.M41. Characters had no time to do anything because the timeline showed they had to be in an entirely different warzone within a few days.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Ends justify the means" is not the slogan of the morally just. Fighting corruption with corruption just sets you back where you started, if it doesn't dig you in even deeper.

You just offended the memory of any freedom fighter group fighting an occupation force in known history, and delegitimized US war of independance among other things.

There is nothing, in the w40k setting, that wouldn't make the life of humanity as a race, less important then a life of an orc, eldar, necron, tyranid etc. When an entity is hell bound on physicaly eleminating your kind, the only law that governs the interactions is you eliminating them before they do it to you.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Ends justify the means" is not the slogan of the morally just. Fighting corruption with corruption just sets you back where you started, if it doesn't dig you in even deeper.

You just offended the memory of any freedom fighter group fighting an occupation force in known history, and delegitimized US war of independance among other things.

There is nothing, in the w40k setting, that wouldn't make the life of humanity as a race, less important then a life of an orc, eldar, necron, tyranid etc.

Karol, sit down before you hurt yourself. For starters, never put historical figures on pedestals. Second, the US got called out (rightfully so) by England when they declared Independence as they owned slaves but claimed man was created equal. Third, any movement that seeks to replace a corrupt power by doing the same things as a corrupt power is just changing whose name is on the top but isn't actually improving the situation they claim to be fighting against. Lastly Guilliman is not a freedom fighter, he's someone whose power was given to him not because of merit, but because of who is dad is, and is protecting that position of power by being just as corrupt as the institutions he rails against while operating completely inside of that system. Basically he's just another politician.

No he took the power, because he created a system with the high lords when everyone is in a permanent clinch with each other. It has nothing to do with who his dad was or that he was his son. It has everything to do with goverment system, and 30k+ custodes, marines, SoB etc pointing their pointy sticks at the high lords at lords of terran who couldn't evaquate. If the lords knew that G-man was coming, then there is a high chance they would have done everything that he died before reaching earth

I mean, Cruze was his fathers son too, and the high lords had no problem with sending assassins after him, way before the heresy of horus became a thing.

Oddly enough we have a saying about pedestals too. It goes a bit like this. If you don't put your people on the pedestal, someone else is going to put theirs on it for you.

 vipoid wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Right-wing government, very warlike, massively authoritarian, emphasis on racial purity. All sounds very fascist to me.

In fairness, the left-wing, Communist USSR was also very warlike, massively authoritarian etc.

(Not saying you're wrong about the Imperium being fascist - just that these characteristics are by no means unique to fascist governments.)

I mean, either we're going with colloquial definitions of political structures or we're going with strict political theory definitions. Tau and the Imperium are colloquially understood as communist and fascist respectively just as russia and germany are colloquially understood as communist and fascist even though neither adhered to the strict poli-sci definitions of every feature of what the theoretical basis of what either form of government was supposed to be originally.

Often, ESPECIALLY when it comes to forms of government depicted in works of fiction, the tyranny of what a large number of people perceive a government to be is just stronger than the strict Um Achkshually definition.