Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 112

Thread: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Veteran Sergeant seven324's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    135

    Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Over the years i've seen so many posts where people have said things like “They should advance the plot!”, and it really annoys me. Recently I've even seen a few people say things like “Chaos should win, they should destroy Terra and the Emperor so the Imperium loses for once and becomes the underdogs!” and it just gets so frustrating seeing these things. To me it shows a complete lack of understanding of W40K and what it's supposed to be yet so many seem to want things like that to happen.

    My biggest worry with the recent W40K “End Times” rumours is that they'll change things in such a way that by the end of it, it won't be W40K anymore; even if the universe itself is still there like GW have said a few days ago. I really don't understand why anyone wants things to advance in such a way that the entire core of the setting is changed. Even something like bringing back a Primarch (which lots of people seem to really want to happen) would be terrible because of the implications it has for the Imperium and the overall setting, not to mention they become just another character and the mystery to their fate is gone.

    It's a bit difficult for me to explain why I'm against it happening. I understand wanting to know what happens, but if you want or expect that with W40K, I think you're sort of missing the point of it. W40K is a setting. It is not a story that is ever meant to be resolved or have any sort of ending. There are stories within that setting which progress – the campaigns, novels, lore in the rulebooks etc. which is used to tell some sort of narrative, but the setting as a whole is static and unchanging on purpose. People seem to completely miss the point of why it's like it is when they ask for things to change in such a way that it would no longer be W40K as we know it.

    It's difficult to think of examples of settings that were designed with a similar purpose to W40K. It isn't like Star Wars or the LOTR where it's meant to tell you a story and is designed specifically to progress and change as it goes on. You are not meant to have these things resolved. There is no 'plot' for W40K, no one is ever going to win overall. The whole point of things as they are is that it's a horrible, bleak setting where everything is already bad but is going to get even worse, and there's no hope. It is static for a reason.

    There is a huge difference between progressing the stories told within the setting and progressing the setting itself. If these things happen, and it ends up going back to roughly how things were before, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but fall of Cadia seems like it might have started to do make irreversible changes to parts of the setting that have been there for years, which is not going to be a if it continues along those lines. People are only going to keep wanting more and more until it's no longer W40K as we know it.

    I don't think W40K needs any sort of progressing at all. Does anyone else feel this way about it? Can anyone explain why it shouldn't better that I can?

  2. #2
    Commander The Black Shield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Claremore, OK
    Posts
    992

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    I could go either way. Most of what I read is peripheral or historical to the setting anyways(Heresy, Gaunt, and Cain). I collect, build, and paint mostly, I really don't play so the current overarching campaign isn't of much interest to me.

  3. #3
    Chapter Master Kakapo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Posts
    1,721

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Thank you so, so much for this thread.

    For a while now I've felt like I'm the only one who doesn't want an overt metaplot in 40k. I die a little inside every time I see some permutation of the phrase 'advancing the storyline' written down, but with the popular opinions of the community in recent times I've felt increasingly isolated and profoundly miserable.

    I wrote this post on my blog a short while ago to cover the problem in detail. Below is a quoted excerpt covering the relevant part.

    For those of you who don't know (and I was like that once), a metaplot is a single unifying story arc that links together across several different independent works and impacts on all of them. In other words, you have creative works X, Y and Z, each of which cover a different aspect of the same setting or internal universe. A metaplot will be a continuing narrative across all of them, with events from work X having an impact on work Y, which in turn provides revelations that affect work Z. It's most commonly associated with tabletop RPGs and wargames, where the independent works in question are sourcebooks and gamebooks for the tabletop game's fictional setting, and it became very popular in the 1990s after White Wolf achieved some success with their famous World of Darkness RPG series, starting with Vampire: The Masquerade. These RPGs were designed from the start with a central metaplot, and when they started making considerable amounts of money (by tabletop game standards at least) other manufacturers decided they wanted a piece of the action and started coming up with metaplots of their own. Today it's very common to find them in both RPGs and wargames covering fictional settings (such as Dystopian Wars, modern GW games and perhaps most famously Battletech).

    Now, so far this probably sounds perfectly well and good, after all that's basically what happens in every traditional media from books to TV shows. And that's true. It's only when it's taken out of its native environment of traditional media that the metaplot becomes such a destructive invasive disease. The astronomical problem here, you see, is that tabletop games are in many ways very different to traditional media, as an audience interacts with them in very different ways.

    Traditional media like books, TV shows, movies etc. is meant to be enjoyed passively. You sit down, read the book or watch the movie or TV show, and when you reach the end that's it, the story's finished. It's over. Oh sure some people theorise and discuss things and write their own stuff about it, but that's not really what the core intent is. You don't watch Star Wars to decide what you'd do if you were in charge of the Rebellion or that it really should have been Captain Phasma that stayed on to become the big badass antagonist for the new films, you watch it to watch the story of Star Wars (and then if you get really, really invested in it you can take things from there). At the heart of it, a creator is telling you a story, and you can take it or leave it.

    Tabletop games, however, are a whole other thing entirely. Instead of passively consuming them, tabletop games require you, the audience, the player, the hobbyist, to enjoy them actively. You don't just sit there while a story unfolds in front of you, you actually get in there and actively engage with the setting (even if only on the absolute minimal level required). Because tabletop games require you to create something for them. Whether it's characters in an RPG or armies in a wargame, you are required to contribute something. YOU create the characters, YOU build the army, and you, yes YOU are in control of them. You effectively create your own small part of that setting, with which you can then interact with the rest of the universe. This is easily one of the greatest joys to be had in the tabletop hobby, and I'm always very disturbed and upset when I see few people pursuing it.

    Unfortunately, this starts to crash and burn if the contributors are denied a sufficient amount of agency over what happens to their creations, and that's exactly what metaplots do. Because official top-down 'storyline advancing' metaplots don't affect just one part of the setting, they affect all of it, including the parts you created. Thus, an advancing metaplot forces new background material on your characters, armies and stories regardless of whether you actually wanted it or not. And because it's official and top down, there is no real way it can be effectively denied. If you don't want or agree with the new background, there is no way for your characters or army to stop it because its set in stone from on high by people who in all likelihood will never even hear about your own creations.

    There's a quote on TVtropes in the examples listed under the 'Creator's Pet' trope amongst the examples found in Tabletop Wargames:

    "That's the other thing: [White Wolf] hires people who want to tell stories. But, the only characters they have to tell stories about are the NPCs. So, they tell stories about the NPCs.
    Gods, I wanted to smack some of my fellow writers upside the head on some Vampire projects when they burbled on about the cool things they'd have Hardestadt do, or whoever. What were the *PCs* supposed to do?" - Dean Shomshak

    Shomshak was talking about the World of Darkness and its metaplot, but the same principle applies to any tabletop game. Even the most compelling core background element of a tabletop setting is technically only ever supposed to be a backdrop for what the players are doing. As a result, if you make it all about the central metaplot and 'advancing the storyline', then I, the hobbyist and consumer of your product, can only be left saying "OK. Great. What's my army/fleet/characters supposed to do."

    Let's look at some examples under the microscope shall we? Perhaps the biggest illustration of why this whole metaplot thing just does not work is the infamous 'End Times' series by GW (henceforth referred to as the ET series like it is almost everywhere else on this blog, for it does not deserve to be recognised by its full name). The ET series, as has been discussed on here before, was a series of narrative campaign books GW published for Warhammer Fantasy, and they ended up literally destroying the setting. Kislev, Bretonnia, Tilea, Estallia and several other factions were supposedly wiped out off-hand in single paragraphs, the Elves were thrown together in a fit of what certainly felt like blatant Dark Elf pandering and the forces of evil generally rampage across the entire Warhammer World. And if you wanted to stop any of this from happening? Y'know, like fantasy heroes are supposed to do? Well too bad! Instead you get to sit on the sidelines while the official named characters do everything because apparently they're the only ones that matter and the only ones allowed to have any interaction with the setting.

    OK. Great. What are my armies and characters supposed to do?

    A more recent GW example comes from the last two Warzone Damocles books, in which Aun'va supposedly died and the Damocles Gulf was allegedly set on fire. Ignoring the glaring contradictions of basic laws of physics that are horrendous even by 40k's standards. you really shouldn't be making those kinds of big sweeping changes in a way that leaves the hobbyists no room around them. I have a very sizeable Tau fleet (just over 2,500 pts by my estimate), some of which I've documented on this very blog. The backstory behind them has them around the Damocles Gulf right at the point when that event supposedly happens, and also has them fighting against the Imperium (mostly). And yet now it doesn't matter how many games of Battlefleet Gothic I play or how well I play them or how many Adeptus Mechanicus fleets I defeat or how many victory points I defeat them by, the Damocles Gulf is still always going to be ignited in GW's crazy made-up world. Which wouldn't be a problem if that world was the piece of silly fanfiction I'm making it out to be here, but it's the official company line, which means the bulk of the community will likely end up swallowing it. So according to GW, the Tau can't stop the Damocles Gulf from being blown up, no matter how many Exterminatus! scenarios I win against Imperial fleets. None of the official named characters did anything about it, so it happens, and that's that.

    OK. Great. What are my fleets and characters supposed to do?

    Also, what are my armies and characters supposed to do? I do play 40k too (well in theory at least).

    And it's not just my armies. The new book GW's just released has a whole bunch of stuff happening between the Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Thousand Sons, and if you want to try and stop any of that? Too bad, as it has been written, so shall it be.

    OK. Great. What are the armies and characters of the Space Wolves, Dark Angels and Thousand Sons players supposed to do?

    GW isn't the only manufacturer that's guilty of this either. For a long time I flirted with getting into Dystopian Wars, a 15mm steampunk wargame produced by Spartan Games. But when I went to check up on where it was at I was put right off ever wanting to start into it, because any remaining models in the range that I do like would be thoroughly eclipsed by 'progressing storyline' that's taken the setting beyond it's starting point. Oh, you wanted to conquer the carribean or invade Russia (though you probably don't know much about world conquest if you did the latter)? Well [expletive deleted]! We've written about the official events in these fancy new books! Go and slavishly devote yourself to just passively eating up whatever we spoon feed you, your creations don't matter to us*! Heck, the enormous metaplot in Battletech is the single biggest factor AGAINST me getting into that system.

    And that's another problem, developers just don't stop at one addition, they keep driving the metaplot until everywhere is covered. So it doesn't matter that your army and its related background happens thousands of light-years away from the events in a given GW campaign book, or a continent away from the latest Dystopian Wars metaplot antics, because that won't keep you safe forever. All it takes is one campaign book, one new piece of background material, one 'advancement to the storyline' to render all your carefully thought-out background effectively null and void in the wider community. And frankly, if that's what's going to happen, then why should I even bother with building my own army in the first place? And if the answer to that is 'you shouldn't' then what's the point of the tabletop hobby, and why should I care about it?

    This isn't a new problem, but it wasn't this bad before. GW's global Eye of Terror global campaign promised big shakeups to the status quo, and while glorious it was almost certainly a mistake. But it at least allowed hobbyists to have some level of agency over the changes by allowing them to interact with the process - if you don't want side X to win at location Y, then you'd just have to win enough games and report those wins in to stop them there (well that's the basic concept at least. The actual system was somewhat more complicated). With these new campaign books? None of that. The things happen, rocks fall, everyone dies, and there's nothing you can do about it. And at the risk of sounding like an 80s action film character, I didn't sign on for that.

    And it's a trivially easy thing to fix. All manufacturers would have to do is write in a little 1-page introduction piece at the start of every campaign book that clearly and explicitly states that all the background material contained within is just a hypothetical 'What if?' scenario and is only one potential outcome out of many, and encourages players to come up with whatever outcome suits them the best, and reinforce that message in every official statement about the campaign books, and there'd be no problem because then everyone would be free to decide for themselves whether to include the new background or not. And if they want to do a massive global campaign event, then they just have to think smaller. One planet, one city, one thing that's inconsequential in the grander scheme of things. Things like the Medusa V campaign or Imperial Armour Volume III: The Taros Campaign are the right idea, because even if you don't agree with the outcome it's just one small place that you can avoid. The Tau conquered Taros? That's OK, your army is light-years away engaged in its own equally important conflict, and who knows maybe it'll go there someday to try and retake it. Maybe it will, maybe it won't but it's up to you. And that's the important part that's missing at the moment. If it is there, then I don't think it's being rammed down the community's throat nearly enough.

    All official background in a tabletop game is ever meant to do is be a starting point, something to give your games and characters and armies context. It should never be a prime mover - that's the job of YOU, the player and hobbyist.

    All the official background should ever do is set the stage and provide some props and costumes. It should then be up to you to cast some actors, write a script and perform it. And the sooner manufacturers remember that, the better.
    Really there's nothing wrong with advancing a tabletop setting, but it needs to be done by hobbyists, on an individual level, not by manufacturers. That way everyone has the freedom to choose exactly where they want to go with what the setting provides them with.

    The truth is that having an overt metaplot removes the number 1 reason why I play tabletop games at all. When it comes to the tabletop hobby, I'm a transmitter, not a receiver. I just can't play tabletop games that are historical reenactments, because that just isn't fun for me. I play tabletop games to make history, not to retell it. A metaplot removes the freedom to do that, which renders the tabletop hobby largely pointless to me, and that ultimately leaves me struggling to find a reason why I should even bother with this hobby.
    Death to Metaplots!!

    Proud player of 3.5 edition 40k.

    Naked Metal- my new hobby blog. Go on, visit it, don't be shy

  4. #4
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,880

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Well, it's only recently that 40k has had a plot at all, so it feels novel. But I don't think it is inherently bad. If it is handled with the same lack of care and complete lack of talent the AoS launch was, then it will be bad. But it could also be used to tidy up and fix some lingering stupid.
    On the other hand, seven, I do agree in one sense: 40k isn't a place for heroes, and the current focus on heroic supermen is a little weird. It is, afterall, a big place, and whatever happens, you (meaning any individual person) will not be missed.


    But I definitely do think the only place a plot can come from is the company. What hobbyists do on an individual level affects no one else at all in any way. This is pretty much necessary to protect everyone else from weird arguments about their personal canon no one else is aware of and don't care about at all.

    Sorry, Kakapo, but I just can't agree. Games are games, they don't really interact with the background at all, beyond framing expectations of how things behave. The games produce results that aren't coherent with any sort of narrative, as captains, chapter masters, eldar gods and so on are chewed up at a ridiculous rate over and over again, dozens or hundreds of times over the course of a year (per player). Game results don't produce good stories, and a traditional story focus rarely produces good games (and usually has to be finessed away from the rules). In-universe stories, anyway. I've heard some ripping good tales about dice and players' personal tactical failings while moving models about.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

  5. #5
    Chapter Master Lupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Medrengard
    Posts
    1,196

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    I'm fairly neutral on the subject of the setting advancing.

    On the one thing... 40K really stood out for the whole, perpetual, 2 minutes to midnight vibe they had going. Where everything happens just before the Apocalypse.

    On the other hand, I *AM* curious to see how things would go from there. By all evidence so far, the galaxy is on the verge of extinction, and the only reason we've managed to stave off total annihilation is, actually and surprisingly, that every single faction has the potential to spell doom for everyone else. And the reason there's still a universe left is that everyone keeps getting in everyone else's way.

    Part of me really wants the plot to advance. I really think that, following already established logic, the setting would stay the same. I honestly believe that whatever advances happen, they would happen multilaterally. Nobody gets left behind. Everyone loses *something* in strategic terms. But, everyone would score a victory to some degree. It would still be the same free-for-all Mexican standoff... just from a different set piece.

    The problem is, part of me is really afraid that logic and established precedent will NOT be factors in GW's plan to advance the setting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunnahabhain View Post
    Choose Guard. Choose the right Imperial army. Choose Proper fire Support. Choose Big Guns. Choose Basilisks. Choose Manticores. Choose Deathstrikes. Choose all of them. Choose Artillery regiments. Choose to level the playing-field. Choose to level the Mountain range next to the playing field. Choose Guard.

  6. #6
    Chapter Master carlisimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    1,376

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    I'm actually a recent convert to the other side. I got into 40k a long time ago and I was happy with it being a setting and not a story... but I'm ready for change.

    Part of it is that the Horus Heresy setting has been really interesting to follow. As Forge World gets further into the war, new units come out, color schemes change, and waiting for those releases has been exciting in a way that 40k codex releases haven't. If 40k expanded the way it did with the Tau - adding new books, covering new parts of the galaxy - I think I'd be happy. But instead, each new codex adds a few units and goes through mental gymnastics to explain why they exist now but didn't before. Changes to the plot make those additions more understandable.

    Come to think of it, the Eye of Terror campaign was pretty exciting too, back when White Dwarf was reporting on which planets had been burned or lost.

    It's also fatigue. Baal had been threatened by an incoming hive fleet forever in the books. It's great stuff the first time, but after 20 years I just wanted someone to tell me what was going to happen.

    I don't want anything drastic like the Emperor dying or coming back to life, but I'm comfortable with Cadia blowing up and Chaos being given greater access to realspace. Gryphonne IV was destroyed years ago, and sad as that was to its fans, it wasn't a bad move. Let the years tick into M42. It'll be fine.

  7. #7
    Chapter Master Kakapo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Posts
    1,721

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    I always liked the Eye of Terror campaign, but I have since come to the conclusion that it was a mistake. A beautiful mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The sort of massive all-encompassing ramifications it was set up for should really have never been attempted by GW - best to leave that for groups to work out with their own campaigns. The reason it ended up working was that the involved parties ended up collectively rolling a natural 20 for its execution.

    That said, it did at least allow hobbyists to have some say in what happened, which makes it at least better than the straitjacket that the metaplot-driven campaign supplements are.

    Quote Originally Posted by carlisimo View Post
    It's also fatigue. Baal had been threatened by an incoming hive fleet forever in the books. It's great stuff the first time, but after 20 years I just wanted someone to tell me what was going to happen.
    See the moment someone tells me what happens with Baal or Cadia or whatever I instantly loose any interest or enjoyment from them. The Horus Heresy was at it's most interesting for me when it was just a bunch of cryptic references in the Index Astartes articles, and no-one really knew what happened during it, and while it was never really a part of 40k I found that compelling to begin with (I just find Space Marines boring), the BL and Forgeworld takes on it have killed off any appeal it might have had (in fact they're actually almost starting to make me actively dislike it).

    I don't want to be told what happens in 40k, I want to decide for myself what happens in it, especially with the parts I invented (namely my armies and characters). I already have my life for when I want an unrelenting nightmare where everything is set in stone, it's all doomed from the start and there's nothing I can ever do about anything, and if I want to passively enjoy a story from start to finish I'll put on a DVD.
    Death to Metaplots!!

    Proud player of 3.5 edition 40k.

    Naked Metal- my new hobby blog. Go on, visit it, don't be shy

  8. #8
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,978

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    *sigh*

    I will say that any setting ultimately needs fresh additions to stay alive; late 7th and early 8th edition of WHFB being a prime example - there were no additions, no fresh faces, no stories to be told, and the setting was, for far too many intents and purposes, dead.
    The setting came back alive with MINOR new plot-threads, such as the kidnapped elven "princess", which both gave us something to talk about, and pushed the boundaries of what could be done within the setting.
    By the time the end times came around, the world was already healthier than it had been for... what? a decade? ... and everyone was looking forward to what this new storyline would bring.

    ...
    Unfortunately, the End Times brought very few new stories to the table; there were a few, but they were VASTLY overshadowed by the End Times' true agenda - ending ye olde stories.
    ...
    This is something that should damn near NEVER be done to a setting.
    It can be excused, if well done, and if it opens up for new stories... and for a while it almost looked like it would... but in the end, the world burned, and what came out of the flames did not make up for what was lost.

    The 40k version seems less extreme... but I can't help but suspect that it'll still suffer from the same core issue:
    Can the free reign of the traitor legions make up for the loss of Cadia - not just from imperial control, but from the setting as a whole?
    Can the new "Ynnari" faction of Eldar make up for the loss of Biel'tan and Old Commoragh, both of which were staples of the setting?
    Can the new grand alliance make up for the loss of stories born of an omni-present hostility between all factions, one of the most beloved aspects of the setting?

    Personally, I suspect the answer is going to be "no".
    ...
    And even if it turns out to be "yes", could these new things not have been gained without torching what used to be?
    Last edited by theJ; 31-01-2017 at 09:30.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avian View Post
    Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to a shaky grasp of English.

  9. #9
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,880

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by theJ View Post
    The 40k version seems less extreme... but I can't help but suspect that it'll still suffer from the same core issue:
    Can the free reign of the traitor legions make up for the loss of Cadia - not just from imperial control, but from the setting as a whole?
    Eh. The loss of Cadia seems a non-issue. Chaos was pretty much free to do as they pleased anyway. Yeah, supposedly Cadia was a fortress that blocked the legions in (somehow), but effectively it never actually did that, so... whatever. Big chaos uprisings (like the gaunts ghost series and other fiction) don't originate from the Eye, and a convenient number of traitor marines show up as narratively needed to any given conflict, so, to quote the Regimental Standard: the Fall of Cadia- exactly as planned.
    https://regimental-standard.com/2017...erial-victory/

    Can the new "Ynnari" faction of Eldar make up for the loss of Biel'tan and Old Commoragh, both of which were staples of the setting?
    The former isn't lost, and I actually hadn't heard the latter is either. Either way, 'Old Commoragh' is new enough that it just doesn't compute for me as a staple. Dark Eldar only matter when they pop out raiding, and they can really get drunk and have gladiatorial games and pain orgies anywhere in the post-raid haze, including in the middle of webway tunnels. If it is lost in some fashion, I don't see an impact.

    Can the new grand alliance make up for the loss of stories born of an omni-present hostility between all factions, one of the most beloved aspects of the setting?
    I honestly don't see that going away. I actually see it more likely that the real monolith (the Imperium) will shatter a bit, so GW can justify all the Marine on Marine action that goes on all the time anyway.

    And even if it turns out to be "yes", could these new things not have been gained without torching what used to be?
    Not really. Chaos has to be a threat to somebody, somewhere in some fashion, which has really been lacking for most of third edition onwards. At the moment, the only thing that actually threatens anyone in the universe as written are the tyranids, to the point that they feel like an overblown, ridiculous inevitability, and everyone should just nuke themselves immediately to deny the 'nids dinner.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

  10. #10
    Inquisitor Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,700

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    The storyline advancing is business as usual.

    For years the setting advanced - giving us the defeat of Kraken at Ichar IV, the arrival of Hive Fleet Leviathan, the 3rd war for Armageddon, the awakening of the Necrons, the 12th and 13th Black Crusades, the capture and release of Yarrick, the wounding and death of Tycho, Cypher recovering the Hand of Darkness, Lysander getting promoted to Captain, etc. etc. The timeline even pushed on into .M42 with Black Library publications and the Fall of Medusa V.

    The near-stagnation of the setting for the last few years is the outlier.

    The difference with the Gathering Storm narrative is the speed and scale of the change, and the fact that GW appear to have a deliberate end goal in sight as a result of the changes.

  11. #11
    Veteran Sergeant seven324's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    135

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Damocles View Post
    The storyline advancing is business as usual.

    For years the setting advanced - giving us the defeat of Kraken at Ichar IV, the arrival of Hive Fleet Leviathan, the 3rd war for Armageddon, the awakening of the Necrons, the 12th and 13th Black Crusades, the capture and release of Yarrick, the wounding and death of Tycho, Cypher recovering the Hand of Darkness, Lysander getting promoted to Captain, etc. etc. The timeline even pushed on into .M42 with Black Library publications and the Fall of Medusa V.

    The near-stagnation of the setting for the last few years is the outlier.

    The difference with the Gathering Storm narrative is the speed and scale of the change, and the fact that GW appear to have a deliberate end goal in sight as a result of the changes.
    There's a huge difference between those things, i think. While those are advancing it in the sense that they're events within the timeline moving forward, they aren't setting changing events, meaning they aren't affecting large, significant parts of the setting; things go back to pretty much how they were before, or they're left open-ended, or the changes end up being fairly insignificant. In this case, they're irreversible changing massive parts of the setting in a way that has implications for everything overall, entirely destroying important things that have been around for years and are well known.

    We've had several huge events that have changed core parts of the setting in a way that cannot be reversed (spoilers for the current 2 campaign books, and the next unannounced one)
    . Important aspects of the lore just gone, just like what happened with the End Times but on a lesser scale.

    Do you really think the Imperium will have the same now that [spoiler for next campaign)
    That was my biggest worry about these new campaigns, and it's happened. I don't think that's a good thing at all.
    Last edited by seven324; 03-02-2017 at 12:17.

  12. #12
    Chapter Master Lars Porsenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Easton, PA, USA
    Posts
    2,945

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    There are individual stories within the setting that cannot be resolved except by moving the entire setting forward. FREX the situation on Cadia.

    As far as where I sit on this, it depends. I DO NOT want another AoS of the setting (I'm not referring to the rules, but "blowing up" the setting), nor do I want to see any faction death, even if they are factions I do not play. People invest a lot of money into their armies, and killing off a faction just doesn't sit right (you could play games as a "historical" scenario set before faction death, but IMHO most people don't want to play with a dead faction whose story is "closed"). If GW is able to avoid both of these elements, I'll be interested in seeing where they go with it. If they kill the setting (even though they say they're not going to "blow it up" in recent responses, though there are plenty of ways to achieve the exact same effect) I'm out...the setting is just as important to the game for me (it gives me a reason to keep playing over the long term). If they do sensible moves to move the overall story forward, it can work, even if individual bits I dislike. Keep in mind I am a lo-ong time veteran of Battletech, and they move the story along pretty steadily, with occasional timeline jumps. So I've seen the best and the worst of it. I hope GW can learn from this.

    Damon.
    "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"

    A Mëtälhëäd of Wärsëër

    My Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com
    My Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com

  13. #13
    Inquisitor Lord Damocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    8,700

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    It's a little odd that people seem so concerned about the Imperium and Eldar possibly working together for a bit following the fall of Cadia - since over a decade ago, it was the combined fleets of the Imperium, Eldar, and Necrons who prevented the destruction of Cadia via Blackstone Fortress during the Eye of Terror campaign!

  14. #14
    Chapter Master Lupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Medrengard
    Posts
    1,196

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Damocles View Post
    It's a little odd that people seem so concerned about the Imperium and Eldar possibly working together for a bit following the fall of Cadia - since over a decade ago, it was the combined fleets of the Imperium, Eldar, and Necrons who prevented the destruction of Cadia via Blackstone Fortress during the Eye of Terror campaign!
    I think that's because over a decade ago people hadn't been exposed to poorly written (otherwise nothing on the list below is actually an absurd, unplausible or unworkable idea in the 40k setting, mind you) fluff like:
    - Calgar & the Avatar
    - The whole Grey Knights Codex
    - The (wild overreaction to) that episode with the Necrons and the Blood Angels
    - The early version of the allies matrix
    - The newcrons
    - etc

    Ten years or so ago, everyone just took it for granted that each of the factions had their own, basic, selfish reasons to just gang up on the resurgent Chaos tide. Those motives can best be summed up as hatred (Imperium), survival (Eldar) and probably overriding directive (Necrons). And everyone took it for granted that nothing good was about to happen to ANY of those three factions as soon as the spiky ones turned tail and fled.

    I guess what I'm saying is that people right now are more afraid of the way the aftermath of this whole mess will be presented, rather than *WHAT* that aftermath really is.
    And let's face it, GW's track record in portraying scenarios that have a potential to be interesting in a way that not only devalues the whole story, but actually reflects poorly on the parts of the parts of the stuff that WERE actually good.

    At the risk of blowing my own horn -as well as courting the risk of necroposting - I'll just reference you to the whole necron + blood angels incident. We know what reaction THAT generated in its time. I'll just drop a link to a post of mine from 2010 about that exact reaction. Basically, it's my view of that exact premise, described in a different way. Just... adding in a few fine touches to a brief blurb. Just look at the reactions on the rest of the page, and you'll see what feedback our fellow warseerites had to contribute. That, right there, is what people fear will happen again.

    EDIT: While you're there, definitely recommend checking Son of Sanguinius post on the same page about Calgar vs The Avatar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunnahabhain View Post
    Choose Guard. Choose the right Imperial army. Choose Proper fire Support. Choose Big Guns. Choose Basilisks. Choose Manticores. Choose Deathstrikes. Choose all of them. Choose Artillery regiments. Choose to level the playing-field. Choose to level the Mountain range next to the playing field. Choose Guard.

  15. #15
    Chapter Master Bloodknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    11,644

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Either way, 'Old Commoragh' is new enough that it just doesn't compute for me as a staple.
    Dunno, it's been in the fluff longer than a huge part of the customer base now has been alive. I'd say that after almost 20 years, something is a fixed point of the setting.
    http://www.mekwars.org Play Battletech online in the MegamekNet 3025 campaign environment with people from around the world. New players welcome. Join a noble house and fight for supremacy in the Inner Sphere. Non-commercial community project, no cost.
    My random Sci-Fi Plog, mostly Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and CSM Current Project: Bad Moons.

  16. #16
    Chapter Master Karhedron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,894

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    The whole thing reminds me very much of White Wolf's old "World of Darkness" roleplaying setting. Like the 40K setting, it was a grimdark world with lots of plot hooks planted for players to follow. Then they started actually activating their plot hooks in the "Gehenna" storyline which basically wiped out the previous 3 editions of established background.

    It was an exciting one-off but the player base and setting never really recovered as far as I can tell. If you let the Doomsday clock strike midnight then what happens next?
    The is Force split, unbalanced. The Dark side is at war with the Light. Only the Chosen One can wield the power of both. To know the peace of the Light without becoming frozen in rigid rules like the Jedi. To channel the righteous anger of the Dark side to fight injustice without being consumed by rage and evil like the Sith.

    That is the destiny of the Chosen One. Not to bring triumph to one side of the Force but to bring both into balance so they are no longer in conflict.

  17. #17
    Veteran Sergeant seven324's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    135

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karhedron View Post
    It was an exciting one-off but the player base and setting never really recovered as far as I can tell. If you let the Doomsday clock strike midnight then what happens next?
    I think that's the problem. These things are a one-off event that are going to seriously change the setting, and so far it looks like they're doing so in a way that GW doesn't quite understand their own setting.

    The whole point of the setting, and the Imperium, is that things are dark, depressing and pretty much as bad as things can get. There is no "hope", but now the next campaign book seems like it's going to 'solve' exactly that problem by:
    That is in no way a good thing to me.

  18. #18

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by seven324 View Post
    I think that's the problem. These things are a one-off event that are going to seriously change the setting, and so far it looks like they're doing so in a way that GW doesn't quite understand their own setting.

    The whole point of the setting, and the Imperium, is that things are dark, depressing and pretty much as bad as things can get. There is no "hope", but now the next campaign book seems like it's going to 'solve' exactly that problem by:
    That is in no way a good thing to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by seven324 View Post
    I think that's the problem. These things are a one-off event that are going to seriously change the setting, and so far it looks like they're doing so in a way that GW doesn't quite understand their own setting.

    The whole point of the setting, and the Imperium, is that things are dark, depressing and pretty much as bad as things can get. There is no "hope", but now the next campaign book seems like it's going to 'solve' exactly that problem by:
    That is in no way a good thing to me.
    The latest revaluation strikes me as completely in keeping with the Imperium and the themes of 40k.



    Far from being 'hope', the news could spell the end of a unified (as much as it can be anyway) Imperium of Man.

  19. #19
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,978

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Eh. The loss of Cadia seems a non-issue. Chaos was pretty much free to do as they pleased anyway. Yeah, supposedly Cadia was a fortress that blocked the legions in (somehow), but effectively it never actually did that, so... whatever. Big chaos uprisings (like the gaunts ghost series and other fiction) don't originate from the Eye, and a convenient number of traitor marines show up as narratively needed to any given conflict, so, to quote the Regimental Standard: the Fall of Cadia- exactly as planned.
    https://regimental-standard.com/2017...erial-victory/
    I believe I have been misunderstood...
    I am not refering to the supposed "chaos is now free to surge forth at will" that is oh so often hinted at, since, as you say, they've always been able to do that anyway.
    I'm referring to the cadians, to the black crusades, the innumerable regiments, official and otherwise, tied to Cadia, all of which are, as of now, on indefinite hold, since the cornerstone of their fluff no longer exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    The former isn't lost, and I actually hadn't heard the latter is either. Either way, 'Old Commoragh' is new enough that it just doesn't compute for me as a staple. Dark Eldar only matter when they pop out raiding, and they can really get drunk and have gladiatorial games and pain orgies anywhere in the post-raid haze, including in the middle of webway tunnels. If it is lost in some fashion, I don't see an impact.
    As others have mentioned, Commoragh is oooold fluff... and while Biel-tan might not be "lost" in the conventional sense... it is still changed beyond recognition, much like how I doubt "New Commoragh" will be the same as the old one to anyone taking more than a cursory glance... doesn't mean either is going to be "bad"... just means that all stories and armies tied to ye olde' versions are now dysfunctional.
    This is why we traditionally invent NEW craftworlds when we want to do something fancy with 'em. We still get the story, but without having to mess up any of our old work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I honestly don't see that going away. I actually see it more likely that the real monolith (the Imperium) will shatter a bit, so GW can justify all the Marine on Marine action that goes on all the time anyway.
    I hope you are correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Not really. Chaos has to be a threat to somebody, somewhere in some fashion, which has really been lacking for most of third edition onwards. At the moment, the only thing that actually threatens anyone in the universe as written are the tyranids, to the point that they feel like an overblown, ridiculous inevitability, and everyone should just nuke themselves immediately to deny the 'nids dinner.
    ...
    Do they..?
    I know this is usually considered kinda taboo to bring up, but why does Chaos have to be the big bad? What makes them more interesting than the Tyranids? or the Necrons? or the Orkzies? I fell in love with this setting for its variety just as much as for its grim and dark grimdark of dark grimnity. That only one faction is allowed to call itself a "big bad" kinda flies in the face of that.
    Further, even if we treat this as unquestionable truth, is this truly the best way to go about it? Is chaos interesting when the threat it poses is represented by giant armies of space marines overwhelming their imperial counterparts in open battles? Because I was of the impression that their true appeal came from their ever-present corrupting nature, ever seething in the background, seeding the galaxy with madness, and turning brother against brother, and not because they'z da' biggest an' da' stronkest.
    Thirdly, as I said before, was any of this ever necessary to create this story?
    If we wanted to showcase the power of chaos, then having Abbadon get his punk-ass repeatedly beat and eventually blowing up his intended prize when he finally realizes it is beyond his reach seems rather... backwards.
    If we wanted to hint at the rebirth of the Eldar Empire, then shattering two of their foremost capitals, creating massive rifts in their societies and rallying them around the symbol of their demise seems... odd.

    *sigh*
    A thing I like to tell aspiring writers is that character death is the sledgehammer of storytelling; it is one of the mightiest tools in our arsenal, capable of breaking through even the most cynical of readers, but we must always take heed when we swing it, lest we break things beyond our intended target.
    Meanwhile, if character death is like a sledgehammer, then what GW is currently doing is akin to a wrecking ball. Its raw impact is off the scale... but we tend to keep them away from rookies for a reason.

    Maybe they do know how to use it.. but I dare not be that optimistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avian View Post
    Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to a shaky grasp of English.

  20. #20
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,880

    Re: Does anyone else not want the setting to advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodknight View Post
    Dunno, it's been in the fluff longer than a huge part of the customer base now has been alive. I'd say that after almost 20 years, something is a fixed point of the setting.
    Eh. It only got vaguely mentioned at all in the 3rd edition pamphlet army book for dark eldar. It wasn't fleshed out in even a cursory way until much later, what with the Great Dark Eldar Limbo period.
    Quote Originally Posted by theJ View Post
    Do they..?
    I know this is usually considered kinda taboo to bring up, but why does Chaos have to be the big bad? What makes them more interesting than the Tyranids? or the Necrons? or the Orkzies? I fell in love with this setting for its variety just as much as for its grim and dark grimdark of dark grimnity. That only one faction is allowed to call itself a "big bad" kinda flies in the face of that.
    No, no. They don't have to be the only one allowed to call itself the big bad. But they have to in some way qualify for being even a medium bad at all at this point. The 'threat of chaos' has been a joke. Yeah, occasionally some peasants rebel for tentacle reasons rather than oppression reasons or genestealer reasons, but honestly... so what? (And the gaunt's ghost novels where they were stuck on a chaos world hit this on the nose. Apart from screaming wolves and worm-implants rather than arbites and Inquisitors, life under chaos was...not particularly different than life under the Imperium. Both are mildly terrible and every so often a passel of folks get brutally killed)

    As for interesting... that is part of the problem. They aren't more interesting than the tyranids, and the tyranids are just unstoppable eat monsters, impervious by plot. The necrons build tiny irrelevant empires on dead worlds, and the orks are about as relevant as locusts. Annoying when they show up and wreck everything, but at this point a comedic sideshow someone gets to be shown to be fighting in the prologue before they get called off to the real war (which happens in more 40k books than I care to think about).

    Because I was of the impression that their true appeal came from their ever-present corrupting nature, ever seething in the background, seeding the galaxy with madness, and turning brother against brother, and not because they'z da' biggest an' da' stronkest.
    Unfortunately the HH series has rather beat that theme into the ground. 40K characters go nuts (and get 'corrupted') for abjectly stupid reasons, and the best thing for you, them and everyone is just to shoot them in the head the first time they look at someone cross-wise. Every.Single.HH.Book. is another bloody brother vs brother metaphor for the Heresy itself. At this point, the idea that they could find the idea that 'brother vs. brother' is unthinkable is laughably absurd, because it happened again and again starting at least a century (hi, descent of angels) before Horus shrugged and decided that rebellion was just a gosh darn swell whim to pursue at the behest of lying liars that he knew were lying to him.

    If we wanted to showcase the power of chaos, then having Abbadon get his punk-ass repeatedly beat and eventually blowing up his intended prize when he finally realizes it is beyond his reach seems rather... backwards.
    If we wanted to hint at the rebirth of the Eldar Empire, then shattering two of their foremost capitals, creating massive rifts in their societies and rallying them around the symbol of their demise seems... odd.
    Are those the goals? Or do they, perhaps, want to get the eldar moving as actors, rather than passive observers on their eternal pleasure cruise, only showing up to act as spoilers?

    Meanwhile, if character death is like a sledgehammer, then what GW is currently doing is akin to a wrecking ball. Its raw impact is off the scale... but we tend to keep them away from rookies for a reason.
    Eeeh. I'm unconvinced of any meaningful, let alone raw, impact. Guilliman returning could have some serious impact if used right, and he's the only thing revealed so far that I can even vaguely care about.. But if he's just a flag to rally the Imperium around, the impact of the Gathering Storm is going to be a summer breeze.
    Last edited by Voss; 09-02-2017 at 01:27.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •