Opinion on GW's History with Story Progression

[Urriak Urruk]

Dear Moderators: If you don’t feel this is appropriate to this section of the forums because of its heavy reference to Age of Sigmar feel free to move/delete. But the ending does refer to 40k story progression.

 

The mods/admins have reviewed the original version of this topic and we have removed vast swathes of content about Warhammer Fantasy (Old Times / End Times / Age of Sigmar) as unnecessary and is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Bolter & Chainsword. A framework of the progression is valid and remains, so portions of text that fit the framework remain (though the tenses have been changed).

 

OK, I just watched a really good video essay, and it kind of inspired me to plant this here.

Now, I’ll start off by saying I don’t nearly get ingrained into the Lore as much as some gamers. I don’t buy every book, and I read one every few months or so. But I do understand generally what is going on and what has happened, recognize key characters, and know the story-arcing themes of races. But lore does matter to me, and this is my opinion on how GW has made mistakes and can do better.

 

PART 1: Comparisons with the Warhammer Old World - End Times - Age of Sigmar progression

The End Times (and Age of Sigmar that came after) essentially invalidated all the general Lore for Warhammer Fantasy. The effect is the same as retconning WFB out of existence, as whatever happened in WFB had little effect on what happens in AoS.

So, why would GW do this, when it is mostly poor storytelling? Well, their goal wasn’t really story driven at all, but instead driven by the need (or want) to create something entirely new and invalidate the old. The small references to WFB are mostly done to appease the customer base and maintain some justification for models.

GW wanted to create better trademarks for IPs, and create new models that didn’t really fit WFB’s lore, while also changing gameplay entirely. In their eyes, these goals could not have been met without the End Times.

 

Part 2: 40k and the Future

• Now we are seeing the progression of the storyline for Warhammer 40k. Thankfully, GW isn’t likely to AoS 40k, as 40k is the cash cow and doesn’t really need complete upheaval like WFB did. But GW obviously wants to sell more models and books, and story progression is the easiest way to do that.
• “Curse of the Wulfen,” “Wrath of Magnus,” and “Fall of Cadia” all meet GW’s goals of more books and more models, and don’t really change the dynamics of the galaxy to massive degrees. Yes, the Space Wolves took a beating, and Cadia is now gone. But these groundbreaking events need to happen for the story progression to feel important. Nonetheless, none of the factions is destroyed or culled, and it just flows into the next story arc. Old foes and allies have returned, new characters are brought to the fore, and the future is uncertain but in motion.
• Now I think that this is all promising. Obviously for anything to work there needs to be good writing, and it can be very hard to trust GW with progressing a storyline with their history in WFB. But at the end of the day, GW knows the best way to sell models and books is to accompany them with story progression. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as long as GW has learned lessons in their past mistakes and willing to improve.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/fallofcadia-art-2.jpg

 

Further discussion should focus on the Warhammer 40,000 setting. We all know that Games Workshop radically changed the setting of the fantasy game, progressing from the standard fantasy trope of the Old World through the transitional End Times to the Age of Sigmar. While Games Workshop's motivations might be debatable, that discussion isn't relevant here except a it might apply to a possible application to the Warhammer 40,000 game setting. Please keep the discussion focused on the subject matter of the Bolter & Chainsword (i.e., Warhammer 40,000). -Brother Tyler

[D3L]

well...

 

I think we can boil it down to two sentences

 

If you have a setting, progression is not necessary for selling of models.

 

GW have a terribad history of writing progression which has damaged their brand.

[Urriak Urruk]

well...

 

I think we can boil it down to two sentences

 

If you have a setting, progression is not necessary for selling of models.

 

GW have a terribad history of writing progression which has damaged their brand.

 

It isn't necessary, but it makes the models release more impactful (unless lore doesn't actually matter much to the buyer, then its irrelevant).

 

Take the new Magnus model for example. GW could have made it and TS without "Wrath of Magnus," but the impact would have been much less. In the lore Magnus has only appeared in Daemon form at the battle of the Fang, so reenacting lore would be very limited. They could try adding in past battles where he appears, but this can just as easily be written poorly. And it doesn't drive the same excitement as the Thousand Sons returning to attack the Space Wolves with their Pimarch.

[Noctus Cornix]

The glaring flaw I see with this idea, and really any argument that has brought up this particular point, is that all this change just somehow makes the previous lore 'irrelevant' or the previous games themselves, for that matter. This isn't a Fantasy forum so I'll keep this short, but the simply fact that they moved on to a new game and era doesn't mean the Old World and Fantasy don't exist. They still do, and you can find the rules and lore all over the place.

 

The same goes for Warhammer 40k. Simply because you're in a new edition with changes to the lore and progression does not mean the previous lore simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. If you don't like the present edition, play an older one. If you don't like the new lore, use the old lore. People used to debate and come up with lore and pick and choose pieces of fluff they wanted to use because the game has such a rich and open field when it comes to the lore as it always has been. Simply because there's a new view point with a new interpretation doesn't suddenly make it the one you have to use. I don't get why people feel the need to feel so authoritative about the new stuff... It's weird. 

[Lord_Starscream]

The glaring flaw I see with this idea, and really any argument that has brought up this particular point, is that all this change just somehow makes the previous lore 'irrelevant' or the previous games themselves, for that matter. This isn't a Fantasy forum so I'll keep this short, but the simply fact that they moved on to a new game and era doesn't mean the Old World and Fantasy don't exist. They still do, and you can find the rules and lore all over the place.

 

The same goes for Warhammer 40k. Simply because you're in a new edition with changes to the lore and progression does not mean the previous lore simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. If you don't like the present edition, play an older one. If you don't like the new lore, use the old lore. People used to debate and come up with lore and pick and choose pieces of fluff they wanted to use because the game has such a rich and open field when it comes to the lore as it always has been. Simply because there's a new view point with a new interpretation doesn't suddenly make it the one you have to use. I don't get why people feel the need to feel so authoritative about the new stuff... It's weird. 

 

It's really common, but its also because it reflects a lack of official support going forward, which makes people uncomfortable. Worse, it tends to split game communities and gaming groups, so its easier to go with the flow and being a hold out might damage some social bonds.

[Noctus Cornix]

 

The glaring flaw I see with this idea, and really any argument that has brought up this particular point, is that all this change just somehow makes the previous lore 'irrelevant' or the previous games themselves, for that matter. This isn't a Fantasy forum so I'll keep this short, but the simply fact that they moved on to a new game and era doesn't mean the Old World and Fantasy don't exist. They still do, and you can find the rules and lore all over the place.

 

The same goes for Warhammer 40k. Simply because you're in a new edition with changes to the lore and progression does not mean the previous lore simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. If you don't like the present edition, play an older one. If you don't like the new lore, use the old lore. People used to debate and come up with lore and pick and choose pieces of fluff they wanted to use because the game has such a rich and open field when it comes to the lore as it always has been. Simply because there's a new view point with a new interpretation doesn't suddenly make it the one you have to use. I don't get why people feel the need to feel so authoritative about the new stuff... It's weird. 

 

It's really common, but its also because it reflects a lack of official support going forward, which makes people uncomfortable. Worse, it tends to split game communities and gaming groups, so its easier to go with the flow and being a hold out might damage some social bonds.

 

 

But that doesn't really seem entirely logical, seeing as we have prime examples of games or older systems that still have plenty of community support. Battlefleet Gothic, Mordheim. I mean hell, just look at DnD 3.5

[Lord_Starscream]

 

 

The glaring flaw I see with this idea, and really any argument that has brought up this particular point, is that all this change just somehow makes the previous lore 'irrelevant' or the previous games themselves, for that matter. This isn't a Fantasy forum so I'll keep this short, but the simply fact that they moved on to a new game and era doesn't mean the Old World and Fantasy don't exist. They still do, and you can find the rules and lore all over the place.

 

The same goes for Warhammer 40k. Simply because you're in a new edition with changes to the lore and progression does not mean the previous lore simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. If you don't like the present edition, play an older one. If you don't like the new lore, use the old lore. People used to debate and come up with lore and pick and choose pieces of fluff they wanted to use because the game has such a rich and open field when it comes to the lore as it always has been. Simply because there's a new view point with a new interpretation doesn't suddenly make it the one you have to use. I don't get why people feel the need to feel so authoritative about the new stuff... It's weird. 

 

It's really common, but its also because it reflects a lack of official support going forward, which makes people uncomfortable. Worse, it tends to split game communities and gaming groups, so its easier to go with the flow and being a hold out might damage some social bonds.

 

 

But that doesn't really seem entirely logical, seeing as we have prime examples of games or older systems that still have plenty of community support. Battlefleet Gothic, Mordheim. I mean hell, just look at DnD 3.5

 

 

DND 3.5 is an exception.

 

Mordheim, Gothic, ect, didn't get replaced by new editions. That makes a much bigger difference.

[Noctus Cornix]

 

 

 

The glaring flaw I see with this idea, and really any argument that has brought up this particular point, is that all this change just somehow makes the previous lore 'irrelevant' or the previous games themselves, for that matter. This isn't a Fantasy forum so I'll keep this short, but the simply fact that they moved on to a new game and era doesn't mean the Old World and Fantasy don't exist. They still do, and you can find the rules and lore all over the place.

 

The same goes for Warhammer 40k. Simply because you're in a new edition with changes to the lore and progression does not mean the previous lore simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. If you don't like the present edition, play an older one. If you don't like the new lore, use the old lore. People used to debate and come up with lore and pick and choose pieces of fluff they wanted to use because the game has such a rich and open field when it comes to the lore as it always has been. Simply because there's a new view point with a new interpretation doesn't suddenly make it the one you have to use. I don't get why people feel the need to feel so authoritative about the new stuff... It's weird. 

 

It's really common, but its also because it reflects a lack of official support going forward, which makes people uncomfortable. Worse, it tends to split game communities and gaming groups, so its easier to go with the flow and being a hold out might damage some social bonds.

 

 

But that doesn't really seem entirely logical, seeing as we have prime examples of games or older systems that still have plenty of community support. Battlefleet Gothic, Mordheim. I mean hell, just look at DnD 3.5

 

 

DND 3.5 is an exception.

 

Mordheim, Gothic, ect, didn't get replaced by new editions. That makes a much bigger difference.

 

 

Neither did Warhammer Fantasy. It got scrapped like them.

[Lord_Starscream]

 

 

 

 

The glaring flaw I see with this idea, and really any argument that has brought up this particular point, is that all this change just somehow makes the previous lore 'irrelevant' or the previous games themselves, for that matter. This isn't a Fantasy forum so I'll keep this short, but the simply fact that they moved on to a new game and era doesn't mean the Old World and Fantasy don't exist. They still do, and you can find the rules and lore all over the place.

 

The same goes for Warhammer 40k. Simply because you're in a new edition with changes to the lore and progression does not mean the previous lore simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. If you don't like the present edition, play an older one. If you don't like the new lore, use the old lore. People used to debate and come up with lore and pick and choose pieces of fluff they wanted to use because the game has such a rich and open field when it comes to the lore as it always has been. Simply because there's a new view point with a new interpretation doesn't suddenly make it the one you have to use. I don't get why people feel the need to feel so authoritative about the new stuff... It's weird. 

 

It's really common, but its also because it reflects a lack of official support going forward, which makes people uncomfortable. Worse, it tends to split game communities and gaming groups, so its easier to go with the flow and being a hold out might damage some social bonds.

 

 

But that doesn't really seem entirely logical, seeing as we have prime examples of games or older systems that still have plenty of community support. Battlefleet Gothic, Mordheim. I mean hell, just look at DnD 3.5

 

 

DND 3.5 is an exception.

 

Mordheim, Gothic, ect, didn't get replaced by new editions. That makes a much bigger difference.

 

 

Neither did Warhammer Fantasy. It got scrapped like them.

 

 

Scrapped and replaced.

 

I'm a huge fan of WFB. The community I played in split once AoS came out. Wasn't enough guys to keep it going. Boom. Died. AoS then died out here afterwards. We've basically got no fantasy wargaming happening in any form now.

 

AoS is growing atm, but I promise you a lot of those WFB groups split, then couldn't survive with the player losses, and lack of new content coming in, and died. It's not like it was wholly dropped all at once. Had it been wholly dropped all at once, WFB would actually be a healthier community.

[Sothalor]

I'm going to leave aside the Warhammer Fantasy -> Age of Sigmar transition for now, and just focus on the Fantasy End Times and the precedent that set for me personally in terms of GW "advancing the storyline."

 

Again, leaving aside what came afterwards, I thought the execution of The End Times was a cluster:cuss of bad writing, poor focus, uneven pacing, and "revelations" that made no sense in the face of long-established lore. The studio appeared to flat-out forget that certain factions (*cough* Bretonnians) existed, characters suddenly started behaving like idiots for no reason other than "the plot demands it," and arcs, development, and plot threads were brought up - and then completely ignored or contradicted.

 

Overall, even if 40K is not going to get "AoS-ified" the studio's track record for story development within a franchise is not exactly confidence-inspiring.

[Lexington]

But that doesn't really seem entirely logical, seeing as we have prime examples of games or older systems that still have plenty of community support. Battlefleet Gothic, Mordheim. I mean hell, just look at DnD 3.5

 

D&D 3.5 aside (which primarily survives due to a very odd quirk of copyright in the OGL), these games have wispy, zombie-like support at best. They live and breathe, but only barely, and they only really do so because they're fun systems. There's no useful example of a game background era that "sticks around," because there's nothing tangible to be had for it. It's fiction. It lives in our heads.

 

Though, really, I don't think this is the reason people are displeased. The oft-repeated point of "but nothing's stopping you from ignoring it" is itself doing some pretty big ignoring of what people get and like out of a setting like 40K's. At the end of the day, it's a hobby that naturally requires external inspiration, and most of that comes from the people who make the hobby products. The spigot gets turned off, and there's nothing new to interact with. It's a game world, not a religion. Engagement isn't a monastic activity.

 

People want to go where the product goes, but the product's going in a place a lot of people don't want it to. It may not be The End Times in the sense that 40K won't face the ignoble steamrollering that poor ol' WHFB got. The Emperor will still be on his Throne, kicking out the oldies for Navigators to jam to, and his Imperium will stand against the Gods of Chaos (well, minus one before too long, I'd wager), but all indications are that it's going to be a radically different place in terms of tone, focus and engagement than the setting that preceded it.

 

Quite a few of us aren't pleased by that, and I don't think that's without cause. Whatever one wants to say about the merits of an advancing timeline, the fact is that the GW of today just doesn't cut it in terms of pure writing quality to execute on that advancement with anything like the competency it requires. Just look at these pages from the Fall of Cadia if you need an example. If you think that's the kind of material that should be used to birth the new era of 40K, well, I don't know what to tell you. You must not think much of 40K. I can't even bring myself to call that junk "cartoonish." Cartoons are, after all, are capable of subtlety, complexity and wit.

 

With all that stacked up, it just doesn't seem worth it to try and carry forth the lonely banner of Oldhammer 40K. There's other games and setting with better background (and, God, do we even want to start up on the sadness and desolation of 40K's rules set right now?) that are actively being maintained at a satisfactory level of quality. Why settle for the garish parody that 40K is looking to become? Life's too short.

[Frater Cornelius]

Warhammer lore is over, but not invalidated. In Star Wars, the Old Republic is gone, the Jedi Council is mush and the current stories are concerned with the Rebellion against the Empire 2.0 (or first Empire with Rogue One). And yet, I do not see a whole lot of Old Republic fans complaining, because the stories are still there and perfectly valid. The timeline just moved on.

 

Same with AoS. We witnessed the end of an age and we live in a new one. You can not stop the flow of time. Things will change. I think it is best just to enjoy what is happening rather than burden yourself with hypothetical scenarios. In fact, what-ifs do not matter now. The ship has sailed.

[D3L]

Warhammer lore is over, but not invalidated. In Star Wars, the Old Republic is gone, the Jedi Council is mush and the current stories are concerned with the Rebellion against the Empire 2.0 (or first Empire with Rogue One). And yet, I do not see a whole lot of Old Republic fans complaining, because the stories are still there and perfectly valid. The timeline just moved on.

 

Same with AoS. We witnessed the end of an age and we live in a new one. You can not stop the flow of time. Things will change. I think it is best just to enjoy what is happening rather than burden yourself with hypothetical scenarios. In fact, what-ifs do not matter now. The ship has sailed.

A lot of Star Wars fans have complained, which rock have you been living under these last 3 years?

 

You can stop the flow of time in an imaginary setting, to say one cannot is patently ridiculous. 

 

Warhammer, and 40k, have *always* been a setting, not a story.

 

There's zero need for 'progression', other than to drum up hype for selling new retail products,

[Bryan Blaire]

This is going to be discussed as to whether it meets the board's applicability requirements.

 

There should be several other 40K End Times threads that this can be discussed in while everyone holds tight.

[Brother Tyler]

This topic has been re-opened. The original post has been heavily edited, removing vast swathes of Warhammer Fantasy discussion. The method there was to leave portions that covered the basics of what Games Workshop did to the setting (progressing from the standard fantasy tropes of the Old World to the transitional End Times and finally reaching the radically different Age of Sigmar). Part of that editing process also changed the tenses of the phrasing (switching to a past tense). One or two sentences were also modified (shortened). Other than that, the wording is essentially as Urriak Urruk initially posted. However, Urriak Urruk should feel free to re-edit in order to adjust wording without re-introducing additional unnecessary discussion of the Warhammer Fantasy setting.

 

Subsequent discussion should focus on the possible progression of the Warhammer 40,000 setting.

[Servant of Dante]

I agree with Lexington, though I can only speak for myself. There is, for me, a rather large appeal to working in the setting as the studio presents it. The issue for me is, I don't like a lot of the new presentation of the setting. This leaves me in an uncomfortable position. I WANT to follow along with the changes, since that's the "official" stuff, but I can't stand some of these changes. For the time being, I'm more or less excluding Fall of Cadia from my headcanon (which I don't like doing) though I'm still happy to talk and make jokes about the new fluff :D

 

Also,

"105.3 Astronomican: the Emperor's Oldies" :P

[Doghouse]

 

 

Though, really, I don't think this is the reason people are displeased. The oft-repeated point of "but nothing's stopping you from ignoring it" is itself doing some pretty big ignoring of what people get and like out of a setting like 40K's. At the end of the day, it's a hobby that naturally requires external inspiration, and most of that comes from the people who make the hobby products. The spigot gets turned off, and there's nothing new to interact with. It's a game world, not a religion. Engagement isn't a monastic activity.

 

People want to go where the product goes, but the product's going in a place a lot of people don't want it to. It may not be The End Times in the sense that 40K won't face the ignoble steamrollering that poor ol' WHFB got. The Emperor will still be on his Throne, kicking out the oldies for Navigators to jam to, and his Imperium will stand against the Gods of Chaos (well, minus one before too long, I'd wager), but all indications are that it's going to be a radically different place in terms of tone, focus and engagement than the setting that preceded it.

 

Quite a few of us aren't pleased by that, and I don't think that's without cause. Whatever one wants to say about the merits of an advancing timeline, the fact is that the GW of today just doesn't cut it in terms of pure writing quality to execute on that advancement with anything like the competency it requires. Just look at these pages from the Fall of Cadia if you need an example. If you think that's the kind of material that should be used to birth the new era of 40K, well, I don't know what to tell you. You must not think much of 40K. I can't even bring myself to call that junk "cartoonish." Cartoons are, after all, are capable of subtlety, complexity and wit.

 

With all that stacked up, it just doesn't seem worth it to try and carry forth the lonely banner of Oldhammer 40K. There's other games and setting with better background (and, God, do we even want to start up on the sadness and desolation of 40K's rules set right now?) that are actively being maintained at a satisfactory level of quality. Why settle for the garish parody that 40K is looking to become? Life's too short.

 

 

 

This sums up my thoughts exactly, although I'm finding myself trying to force myself to embrace the new material (through gritted teeth). I have actually taken the time to read and digest the new material and I have to say I cringed my way through it.

 

It feels very poorly written, I really found it hard to read to be honest and regret the purchases I made despite genuinely giving it a chance. Out of the whole Cadia Falls book there were two pages of relevance or interest to me personally and they were new formations.

 

There is so much to explore in the existing material and it just feels to me they are pulling back the curtains in all the wrong places, I am genuinely dreading the return of the Primarchs if it is true because of all the mystery and intrigue that provokes so much thought and speculation will be gone. Mythical figures should remain that way, shrouded in mystery and legend.

For example, the promise of the Lion returning and whether or not he is alive in the Rock or was actually a traitor or not have been a staple of the mythology of 40k and have long since fueled conversation and for him to just turn up and reveal everything is just really terrible.

 

I know there is the argument that if you don't like it ignore it but it will be the core material for all future discussion. You can stick to Rogue Trader rules and lore but how many people these days would actually take any such conversation seriously?

 

The new stuff to me just doesn't seem credible to the setting and I have this really really bad feeling we are seeing an over the top soft reboot of the Heresy here. 

 

Having said that and having approached the subject with an open mind I still reserve the right to completely hate the new Thundercats Wulfen and what they have done to Fenris. ;)

[Frater Cornelius]

 

Warhammer lore is over, but not invalidated. In Star Wars, the Old Republic is gone, the Jedi Council is mush and the current stories are concerned with the Rebellion against the Empire 2.0 (or first Empire with Rogue One). And yet, I do not see a whole lot of Old Republic fans complaining, because the stories are still there and perfectly valid. The timeline just moved on.

 

Same with AoS. We witnessed the end of an age and we live in a new one. You can not stop the flow of time. Things will change. I think it is best just to enjoy what is happening rather than burden yourself with hypothetical scenarios. In fact, what-ifs do not matter now. The ship has sailed.

A lot of Star Wars fans have complained, which rock have you been living under these last 3 years?

 

You can stop the flow of time in an imaginary setting, to say one cannot is patently ridiculous. 

 

Warhammer, and 40k, have *always* been a setting, not a story.

 

There's zero need for 'progression', other than to drum up hype for selling new retail products,

 

 

Now it is a story. I am not sure what you get by complaining about it. Things evovle. If the owner decided to change things, you have only two options: accept or leave. Change is uncomfortable, but it happens whether you want it or not.

[Doghouse]

Except if the ship is steering towards an iceberg you let the Captain know. 

[Frater Cornelius]

The judgement is still out whether they are steering onto an iceberg. You may dislike the direction. There are those that like it. The question is: do you have sufficient information to give an objective overview of the situation? If not, then it remains an opinion.

Unfortunately, none of us are privy to what is going on behind the closed doors at GW, so all we can do is go along and vote with the wallet ;)

[Doghouse]

The point I'm trying to make is that people are simply voicing their concerns which is a good thing with GW taking an active interest of late in opening communications with the community. Whether they decide to heed those concerns is up to them. :)

 

I do have sufficient information to give an objective overview because I've been with the game from actual day one (well actually before if you count the first white dwarf it was in) and have witnessed all of the changes that have occurred over the last thirty years, lore-wise, financial-wise and rules-wise first hand. My concerns are based on well earned and learned experience.

[Servant of Dante]

The judgement is still out whether they are steering onto an iceberg. You may dislike the direction. There are those that like it. The question is: do you have sufficient information to give an objective overview of the situation? If not, then it remains an opinion.

Unfortunately, none of us are privy to what is going on behind the closed doors at GW, so all we can do is go along and vote with the wallet

. . . liking or disliking a story will always be an opinion. Whether the direction GW is going in is "right" will always be subjective. There is no "objective view of the new fluff" if we are talking about just the changes to the fluff. If the discussion is "is GW making more money than it did before" then there could be a right and a wrong choice.

As far as I can tell, most of us are speaking about the changes to the fluff themselves, not their impact on GW's bottom line. If this is the case, then objectivity is irrelevant by the very fact that what is "good" or "bad" about any piece of fluff is opinion.

[Urriak Urruk]

 

Warhammer lore is over, but not invalidated. In Star Wars, the Old Republic is gone, the Jedi Council is mush and the current stories are concerned with the Rebellion against the Empire 2.0 (or first Empire with Rogue One). And yet, I do not see a whole lot of Old Republic fans complaining, because the stories are still there and perfectly valid. The timeline just moved on.

 

Same with AoS. We witnessed the end of an age and we live in a new one. You can not stop the flow of time. Things will change. I think it is best just to enjoy what is happening rather than burden yourself with hypothetical scenarios. In fact, what-ifs do not matter now. The ship has sailed.

A lot of Star Wars fans have complained, which rock have you been living under these last 3 years?

 

You can stop the flow of time in an imaginary setting, to say one cannot is patently ridiculous. 

 

Warhammer, and 40k, have *always* been a setting, not a story.

 

There's zero need for 'progression', other than to drum up hype for selling new retail products,

 

 

Well, a setting is the place/time for where stories take place. 30k and the Horus Heresy is a setting, but the entire war is also an unfolding story.

 

40k is also a collection of stories within its setting. Now GW is creating new stories, and seems to want impactful stories, ones that will change the fabric of the setting.

 

It is my opinion that if the greater balance of factions is still maintained, then GW should be allowed to make new stories. Obviously everyone wants them to be written well, and shouldn't be huge dramatic changes that don't make sense, but I haven't (yet) seen anything that suggests the are truly ending what 40k is.

[Lord_Starscream]

 

Warhammer lore is over, but not invalidated. In Star Wars, the Old Republic is gone, the Jedi Council is mush and the current stories are concerned with the Rebellion against the Empire 2.0 (or first Empire with Rogue One). And yet, I do not see a whole lot of Old Republic fans complaining, because the stories are still there and perfectly valid. The timeline just moved on.

 

Same with AoS. We witnessed the end of an age and we live in a new one. You can not stop the flow of time. Things will change. I think it is best just to enjoy what is happening rather than burden yourself with hypothetical scenarios. In fact, what-ifs do not matter now. The ship has sailed.

A lot of Star Wars fans have complained, which rock have you been living under these last 3 years?

 

You can stop the flow of time in an imaginary setting, to say one cannot is patently ridiculous. 

 

Warhammer, and 40k, have *always* been a setting, not a story.

 

There's zero need for 'progression', other than to drum up hype for selling new retail products,

 

 

I gotta disagree. There used to be progression, but it was done differently than they are doing now. I don't have a problem with progression, you can play multiple eras, that's fine.

 

I have a problem with dumb progression...

 

Battletech is one of my true loves. 3025 is amazing. 3050 is okay. Everything post 3050 is uhm... poorly thought out. The problem wasn't the progression, it was the manner in which it was handled. 3025 is the main era I play in.

[D3L]

 

 

Warhammer lore is over, but not invalidated. In Star Wars, the Old Republic is gone, the Jedi Council is mush and the current stories are concerned with the Rebellion against the Empire 2.0 (or first Empire with Rogue One). And yet, I do not see a whole lot of Old Republic fans complaining, because the stories are still there and perfectly valid. The timeline just moved on.

 

Same with AoS. We witnessed the end of an age and we live in a new one. You can not stop the flow of time. Things will change. I think it is best just to enjoy what is happening rather than burden yourself with hypothetical scenarios. In fact, what-ifs do not matter now. The ship has sailed.

A lot of Star Wars fans have complained, which rock have you been living under these last 3 years?

 

You can stop the flow of time in an imaginary setting, to say one cannot is patently ridiculous. 

 

Warhammer, and 40k, have *always* been a setting, not a story.

 

There's zero need for 'progression', other than to drum up hype for selling new retail products,

 

 

Now it is a story. I am not sure what you get by complaining about it. Things evovle. If the owner decided to change things, you have only two options: accept or leave. Change is uncomfortable, but it happens whether you want it or not.

 

We're going to need a certified fact check on that claim the "owner decided to change things", I'm afraid.

 

Accept or Leave? Wow, that's just,... wow. (Goulding is that you?) 

 

Change is ok, the morphing of a franchise from something unique to something not unique, is less 'ok' with a large element of the collector and hobbyist demograph.

 

Well, at least with the new trademarking system they're trying, we as third parties can just rejuvenate a grim dark edition (say, 3rd) without and fear of reprise, you're right, I suppose it's not all bad!