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.
2020/12/23 20:01:47
Subject: 40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
Mine is definitely about the Heresy being planned. We have plenty of evidence suggesting that it was, and plenty that it wasn't. For something so critical, so important to the setting, we have so many conflicting arguments and pieces of evidence, and it just adds further confusion to an already ambiguous setting.
2020/12/23 20:30:19
Subject: 40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
Not particularly. The game and setting needs to be vague about a lot of things. Pretty much everyone is varying degrees of wrong, but if they were explicitly, unambiguously wrong, it would suck a lot of the fun and interest out of that faction.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/12/23 20:45:42
Subject: 40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
Ambiguity is key! Mysteries unsolved are immensely more interesting than done and solved mysteries. It is important that worldbuilding leaves space for clashes of interpretation, so that players get invested in the background.
40k is by and large a masterwork of ambiguity despite painting with a broad brush and having the horrid temptation of a marketable simplistic good versus evil Hollywood stupidity ever dangling in front of its creators.
Thus, the Emperor can both be seen as humanity's brilliant saviour and cunning guardian, and as a Machiavellian powermongering massmurderer.
Thus, the Imperium of Man is not good, but an abominably cruel and counter-productively tyrannical reign of terror stuck in a downward spiral of decline, regression, fanaticism, loss of technology and misery. Yet it is also humanity's last string shield, though it only become so by exterminating all potential future human rivals by strangling them in the cradle during the Great Crusade. The Imperium in its horror and bloodshed feeds the Dark Gods like nothing seen before.
Thus, Chaos is not just simply evil, but an integral part of what it means to be alive.
Leaving wiggle room within the background for people to draw their own conclusions about pivotal events is a healthy sign.
It should not be clearcut if you want to keep a setting endlessly interesting.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/12/23 21:02:43
I’d argue 40k absolutely relies on the ambiguity, not to mention that most viewpoints offered in-universe are largely from unreliable sources.
Consider the various iterations of the Necron background. There are two major versions (current one being a further derivation of their re-worked background). But, from certain points of view, they’re not entirely mutually exclusive.
The core of the takes are the same. Necrontyr were jealous of the Old Ones’ seeming immortality, and started a war. Got their butts kicked, made a pact with the C’Tan, and became the Necrons. Eventually won the war, apparently driving the Old Ones to extinction.
So far, all pretty much the same. It’s the aftermath where it differs. Originally, the C’Tan turned on each other, leaving just four. In the re-worked, the Necrons turned on the C’Tan, largely wiping them out as they were, and shackling the leftovers as weapons of war.
Which is true? Both. Neither. Depends who you ask, and what their angle is. The Eldar aren’t going to have the truth - because it happened millions of years before they fell into corruption. And their tales tend to be wrapped in metaphor and symbolism. The Imperium? They don’t know nothing. The Necrons themselves? Who’s to say their recollections aren’t tainted by insanity, or worse, design of the C’Tan themselves.
It all depends on which parts the individual treats as being True Beyond Reproach.
The Heresy? With The Emperor and Malcador both dead, who was left to have even the merest glimmer of the Whole Plan? Were any of them given The Truth, or just the info that was needed to set their course?
Crazy thing is, Orks are probably the least likely to be dealing in such obfuscation. They either don’t care(origins, hidtories) or hold certain universal truths (Orks is da best, Orks never lose, Biggest is Boss, Red wunz go fasta, everyone else is weedy).
It’s the very ambiguity that provides a lot of the setting’s appeal. After all, the absolute merest fraction of possibilities is actually explored in canon. There are around 1,000,000 worlds comprising the Imperium, yes. Yet what. Maybe a couple of hundred or so named and placed within the galaxy? Galaxy spanning events are stupendously rare (War in Heaven, The Fall, Horus Heresy, The Rift Opening pretty much covers them, I think? Again, depends on point of view and definition).
That leaves us as hobbyists room to do whatever. Want to field Orks and Guard against Nids? Well it’s not canon, but.... it’s possible the Orks are mercenaries hired out of stupidity or desperation. Maybe there was just an ongoing war, and the Orks found the Nids to be far more fun to fight, so left the weedy Humies until later?
There’s also the many types of worlds noted in canon. Death Worlds, Hive Worlds. Forge Worlds, Knight Worlds, Daemon Worlds. Paradise Worlds. Maiden Worlds, Dead Worlds, Feudal Worlds. Some worlds are sector lynchpins. Others not more significant to The Imperium than a sparrow’s fart.
Time travel is also canon - though generally not targeted time travel, further widening the possibilities.
And it’s all to the background radiation of near total galactic ignorance.
I for one find it far more interesting than any densely and carefully cohesively plotted setting.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
A lot of the ambiguities date back to Rogue Trader and the very humble beginning of 40k.
Remember, back then GW were, and I mean this in a respectful way, a pretty rinkydink company. More nerds sharing their rules than a full on company.
A lot was mentioned, with chunks left mysterious or incomplete. Some were polished up (Heresy started as a page filler sidebar, the missing two Legions included so players could create their own) and others remain nebulous.
The STC concept for example. Very little has been set in stone, with even the very latest background in Van Saar following the same ambiguity - though it has clarified the ambiguity (fragments can be anything from a single blueprint to a damaged data drive and so on). House of Artifice also added that not all STCs were created equal. Earlier ones simply produced the necessary plans. Later ones included actually fabricating the device.
It all allows creative freedom for us, the hobbyist.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Consider Power Armour. The vast majority of the Galaxy neither know nor care about which Mk is which, let alone what differentiates them. This is further exasperated by Chapter’s tendency to mix and match to maintain vaguely complete suits.
Now, ask an Astartes? Most would be able to explain, and for the real nitty gritty, talk to a Techmarine.
Necrodermis is an Imperial term, because it’s through that lens the background is written (though we occasionally get proper names, such as Dathedi). This makes it a catch-all term for any advanced Necron material. It doesn’t mean the Necrons themselves don’t have words to differentiate.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’d argue 40k absolutely relies on the ambiguity, not to mention that most viewpoints offered in-universe are largely from unreliable sources.
Consider the various iterations of the Necron background. There are two major versions (current one being a further derivation of their re-worked background). But, from certain points of view, they’re not entirely mutually exclusive.
The core of the takes are the same. Necrontyr were jealous of the Old Ones’ seeming immortality, and started a war. Got their butts kicked, made a pact with the C’Tan, and became the Necrons. Eventually won the war, apparently driving the Old Ones to extinction.
So far, all pretty much the same. It’s the aftermath where it differs. Originally, the C’Tan turned on each other, leaving just four. In the re-worked, the Necrons turned on the C’Tan, largely wiping them out as they were, and shackling the leftovers as weapons of war.
Which is true? Both. Neither. Depends who you ask, and what their angle is. The Eldar aren’t going to have the truth - because it happened millions of years before they fell into corruption. And their tales tend to be wrapped in metaphor and symbolism. The Imperium? They don’t know nothing. The Necrons themselves? Who’s to say their recollections aren’t tainted by insanity, or worse, design of the C’Tan themselves.
It all depends on which parts the individual treats as being True Beyond Reproach.
The Heresy? With The Emperor and Malcador both dead, who was left to have even the merest glimmer of the Whole Plan? Were any of them given The Truth, or just the info that was needed to set their course?
Crazy thing is, Orks are probably the least likely to be dealing in such obfuscation. They either don’t care(origins, hidtories) or hold certain universal truths (Orks is da best, Orks never lose, Biggest is Boss, Red wunz go fasta, everyone else is weedy).
It’s the very ambiguity that provides a lot of the setting’s appeal. After all, the absolute merest fraction of possibilities is actually explored in canon. There are around 1,000,000 worlds comprising the Imperium, yes. Yet what. Maybe a couple of hundred or so named and placed within the galaxy? Galaxy spanning events are stupendously rare (War in Heaven, The Fall, Horus Heresy, The Rift Opening pretty much covers them, I think? Again, depends on point of view and definition).
That leaves us as hobbyists room to do whatever. Want to field Orks and Guard against Nids? Well it’s not canon, but.... it’s possible the Orks are mercenaries hired out of stupidity or desperation. Maybe there was just an ongoing war, and the Orks found the Nids to be far more fun to fight, so left the weedy Humies until later?
There’s also the many types of worlds noted in canon. Death Worlds, Hive Worlds. Forge Worlds, Knight Worlds, Daemon Worlds. Paradise Worlds. Maiden Worlds, Dead Worlds, Feudal Worlds. Some worlds are sector lynchpins. Others not more significant to The Imperium than a sparrow’s fart.
Time travel is also canon - though generally not targeted time travel, further widening the possibilities.
And it’s all to the background radiation of near total galactic ignorance.
I for one find it far more interesting than any densely and carefully cohesively plotted setting.
Zustiur wrote: Ambiguity is fine, but I would like a hint about the Phoenix Lords who have never been named. Warp spiders, shining Spears.
Drastanta, the Tempest of Starlight and Phoenix Lord of the Shining Spears, is mentioned in the Iyanden supplement and has a passing one line mention in the Eldar novel Wild Rider, by Gav Thorpe. I like to think it was because I had a discussion with him on the comment section of his blog about it, but I admit that may be my own wishful thinking that he took my comments on board and mentioned Drastanta.
BrianDavion wrote: for me the two missing primarchs. at this point so much has been covered their playing vague about them just feels.. artifical
True. They’re definitely an example of what can happen when you attempt to further mystify stuff by adding hints. Now, if they threw in contradictory hints, that would’ve been cooler in my opinion.
As I touched on in my larger post above, all we really know is that of everyone in 40k and the Heresy, it’s really only The Emperor and Malcador that knew the whole of the plan. And it certainly seems their MO to tell a given party whatever version of the truth is necessary to get them to continue the plan.
In terms of mystery, they should’ve stopped at ‘covered statues’ and nothing more than speculation as to what actually happened to their Legions. That adds detail (their existence is or was acknowledged, but now isn’t really spoken of), but seemingly nobody truly knowing why. Add in what we know of The Emperor’s powers (capable of forcing an entire assembled Legion to kneel before him), and there’s a lot to play with in terms of fan speculation.
Start adding in more hints and that? You’re stripping away the mystery too much.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I think revealing mystery is a powerful tool GW uses quite well all things considered. As long as new mysteries are introduced to replace them it can be a really good thing for plot development. GW are among the few entities I trust not to screw up that process. Yes they have had duds, every setting does, but overall I have enjoyed their development.
But maybe I am just still traumatized by the aborted abomination that is setting development in Starcraft & Warcraft over the past decade.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think revealing mystery is a powerful tool GW uses quite well all things considered. As long as new mysteries are introduced to replace them it can be a really good thing for plot development. GW are among the few entities I trust not to screw up that process. Yes they have had duds, every setting does, but overall I have enjoyed their development.
But maybe I am just still traumatized by the aborted abomination that is setting development in Starcraft & Warcraft over the past decade.
This is precisely why I like the new Necron background. It offers more detail, but isn’t mutually exclusive with the original, once you consider that The Silent King’s own memories could be entirely falsified by The Deceiver.
What better way to get away with your mischief entirely than having your foe utterly convinced they dealt with the matter millions of years ago.
Likewise Destroyers and Flayed Ones. Are they victims of flaws in bio-transference, some sort of transmissible virus, or simply the inevitable outcome of a consciousness becoming functionally immortal?
In terms of the latter? It’s classic 40k, as alongside the Galaxy in general being frozen at 2 minutes to midnight, each race is, in terms of background, frozen on the brink of ever greater disaster, which feeds into the general hopelessness. I mean, if all Necrons are indeed doomed to degenerate into either (who knows, potentially both?) then the Galaxy is in for a very, very rough time. Particularly if, like myself, you view Necrons as the best chance of eradicating the Tyranid Hive Fleets (numbers, technology, no DNA to tinker with, singularly unaffected in anyway by The Shadow In The Warp), provided their rulers make a concerted effort.
No comment on War/Starcraft though, as I know bugger all about those settings.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/30 23:16:26
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Personally I’d prefer more ambiguity in the setting than there now is. Specifically I mean the Horus heresy. I’ve always liked that it was a mysterious mythical time, 10,000 years before the “present” and the HH game lore and Black Library series have seriously diminished that.
On the whole I’ve enjoyed the HH series and am reading the siege of terra, but my primary issue with the series is that it is presented as authoritative canon and being told from a contemporary viewpoint.
We’re it up to me, I wouldn’t necessarily change any of the HH lore as presented in the series ( even the contentious parts and the bits I dislike), instead of have framed the story in a 40K universe so that they are presented as one interpretation of historical events and therefore allows ambiguity, unreliable narratives and 40K era speculation throughout. There should be deliberate contradictions in “established facts”. The broad sweep of the narrative would be largely the same but it would be clear that it is by no way authoritative.
That’s how I look at it in my head canon anyway and allows me to better suspend my disbelief and enjoy it more. Much like reading different authors versions of Greek myths or different interpretations of the King Arthur myth.
2020/12/31 18:40:37
Subject: 40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
I think illuminating some details about the HH was fine, but it has somehow gotten to the point of getting into EVERY detail with an absurd about of granularity. HH lore has far more detail than any conflict in 40k ever did.
Thinking further, the ambiguity and contradictory nature of 40k (and to some extent, AoS given little is known of the Ages of Myth and Chaps) is welcoming to pretty much anyone.
Because there are no right or wrong answers, but many clues, it’s conducive to conversation. Someone can come in as a raw NooB, believing Space Marines to be Good Guys. From there, they might find it’s all “certain point of view”. On one hand, Space Marines do what they do for the sake of the common man, in so far as the continued existence of The Imperium is kinda crucial, despite being an unimaginably cruel regime. On the other, the how of doing that can involve the deaths of billions of innocents, because Victory Is All That Matters.
This brings in relative, and opposed to absolute morality. From there, we can (and do!) discuss such a topic to death.
It’s a very liberating galaxy for its fans. Everything and nothing is canon. It doesn’t really suffer from Gate Keepers the way that say, Dr Who, Star Wars and Star Trek can suffer from them.
Sad Old Gitz like me can cling to their (rightfully) beloved Rogue Trader era books (I bought myself a full set this year, and regret it not one iota). Yet when bringing up the info contained within, its providing a different perspective, rather than “this is more correcter than that new novel” type stuff.
Yes, retcons can ruffle feathers because people are super passionate about such things. But for 40k (and again AoS to some degree), they’re just New Info, not Replacement Info.
Sorry, I’m waffling. It’s New Years and I’ve had three JD and Cokes. The HH series however kind of went against this, by introducing First Person info. Such as the Alpha Legion and their involvement in the Cabal.
It’s a cool idea, sure. And I enjoyed the novel. But it’s now Proper Proper No Disputing It Because There’s No Contradicting Source Or Information Canon. And that’s just.......not 40k Cricket in my opinion.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
BrianDavion wrote: for me the two missing primarchs. at this point so much has been covered their playing vague about them just feels.. artifical
Yeah, they've handled that badly. If no living (at the time of the HH) primarchs had met them, and only the earliest had vague memories of meeting some of the legionnaires once, it could have worked. But instead...
now they do that crappy drama thing where people in-the-know talk around the things they know solely to avoid being specific while in front of the reading audience (that they don't know about)
If they were real people, they'd either:
A) not actually talk about it. (Dad-emperor said shut up about it, so they do, and the dead brothers are a painful subject, etc)
B) if it were relevant, they'd bloody well discuss it without obfuscation. (did this (marine vs marine) violence happen before? It'd be good to know, and discuss the tactics involved)
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2021/01/01 01:30:36
Subject: Re:40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
BrianDavion wrote: for me the two missing primarchs. at this point so much has been covered their playing vague about them just feels.. artifical
Yeah, they've handled that badly. If no living (at the time of the HH) primarchs had met them, and only the earliest had vague memories of meeting some of the legionnaires once, it could have worked. But instead...
now they do that crappy drama thing where people in-the-know talk around the things they know solely to avoid being specific while in front of the reading audience (that they don't know about)
If they were real people, they'd either:
A) not actually talk about it. (Dad-emperor said shut up about it, so they do, and the dead brothers are a painful subject, etc)
B) if it were relevant, they'd bloody well discuss it without obfuscation. (did this (marine vs marine) violence happen before? It'd be good to know, and discuss the tactics involved)
My take on this?
Subtle psychic headology by The Emperor.
Whatever actually happened, he wants the exact details kept secret. Bit of psychic mind surgery later, and even his Primarchs can only refer to it in loose terms. By allowing a partial memory rather than a full on blank, it prevents mental damns breaking (akin to Donna in Dr Who) or being exploited should another powerful psyker go probing.
And when everyone is dancing round it, nobody really notices. If nobody really notices, nobody questions. Nobody questions, nobody goes digging. Nobody goes digging, your secret is about as safe as it can be.\
My evidence, such as it is?
When Horus was trying to persuade his Brothers to his side? To the best of my knowledge, the fate of their two brothers isn’t used as an argument. Now, we know they’re gone (but to be fair, we don’t know they’re dead, and their Legions along with them. If The Emperor had one or both put down, or instead they were thrown into the grinder and thus shown that the Primarchs were all ultimately disposable assets? Surely that would be an argument you’d bring up?
Something along the lines of “Brother, back me and I will Not Squander Your Life Nor Your Legions. Look at what Dad did to Bob and Dave. That was a “Richard” move and you know it. Do you think he loves you? He doesn’t even respect you. We are tools to Him, nothing more. A means to His ends. Stand with me Brother, and we shall forge our own destinies, side by side”
Of course, this all falls down if there’s background I’ve not read (such as any Heresy novel since Betrayer!)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/01 01:38:37
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I mean, there is a point where, after Horus finds out the flaw in the Blood Angels, Sanguinius pleads with Horus to keep it secret because of what happened to Bob and Dave. And to Horus's credit, he keeps silent on it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/01 02:30:38
2021/01/01 07:20:16
Subject: 40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
The black library books being passed off as “fact” hugely ruins the story in the in game setting. The fact it was all myth and legends was the pint i the setting, it’s the only way the emperor being revered as a god made sense. Soon as we knew the “facts” of the heresy all that is undermined.
To balance this I think they needed to write the emperor as an idiot or pastie. Make him come out of the stores as so far from a god as to laughable.
2021/01/05 21:58:53
Subject: 40k has a lot of ambiguity. It works in the setting. But is there any ambiguity that you don't like?
Best thing I think I can say in favour of ambiguity?
Look at the conversations we have here on Dakka and elsewhere. I absolutely love them! From “and so it is written” topics discussing happenings in specific novels, to the purest “there’s no real evidence for it” head canon, and everything in between.
I particularly enjoy topics on changes to the background, as only very rarely does the New completely do away with the Old. See my first comment in this thread about why the two Necron backgrounds are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
