Why Recent Noblebright Lore Additions are Good for 40k

[DogWelder]

So perhaps its because I have only recently gotten into this fandom (about a year ago) but I actually like the fact that Guilliman and Cawl are making reasonable/progressive changes to the Imperium. These changes include:

 

-Better technology (grav tanks, new power armor, new space ship upgrades, plasma guns that are 100% reliable, better dreadnought armor, better boltguns etc.)

 

-Better governance (re-formation of Ultramar into the 500 worlds, recreation of the tetrarchy, Guilliman's efforts to write a treatise on good governorship etc.)

 

-Alliances/Dialogue with Xenos (Guilliman's working relationship with the Ynnari, possible non-agression treaty with the Tau)

 

While a lot of people say that the setting is ruined because of these things, I would say that its actually improved because it adds diversity of thought to the Imperium.

If you want a completely grimdark Imperium that wants nothing more than to kill the xeno, traitor and heretic, who mainly uses older types of weapons and fanatically worships the Emperor as a God; then there's a large portion of the Imperium holds these beliefs already (probably on the Imperium Nihilus side of the rift).

 

However, if you want a more reasonable and forward-thinking Imperium where there is an effort made toward techological progress etc. you could look at Ultramar or other places where Guilliman and Cawl have strong influence/rule over.

 

I don't really want to sound entitled here but to be honest, I've been looking for a faction in the Imperium that thought the way the latter did ever since I got into the setting. Its part of why I was drawn to the more reasonable factions like the Tau or the Ultramarines.

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

Am I suffering from localised temporally regressive warp storms or is this a repost of another thread from elsewhere on this board?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Good for you. I'm serious, I'm happy you've found something you like in the Noblebright. But every single thing you listed as a benefit, I see as a drawback. I like 40K *because* of the grimdark, not in spite of it.

 

Edit: :cuss you, autocorrect

[Marshal Rohr]

So your argument is basically: if you don't like the new changes, :cuss you and go play in the part of the Imperium that will never be addressed ever again?

[deathspectersgt7]

Racking my Bolter . 

[Joe]

Build it up to tear it all down.

[Lexington]

There are probably less intelligent, more bluntly illiterate ways to discuss 40K than in terms of 'grimdark' and 'noblebright,' but damn if I can think of any.

[DogWelder]

So your argument is basically: if you don't like the new changes, you and go play in the part of the Imperium that will never be addressed ever again?

 

I do apologize if things came out that way. Hopefully Imperium Nihilus will get plenty of lore. Like I said, I look forward to the contrast so I would definitely like for there to be plenty of world building on both sides of the Imperium.

[Brother Casman]

The Imperium of Man (and the wider 40k universe) contain many things. It's set in a future that is at least 4 times further from us than we are from the (probable) start of our recorded history. The people recording the history are literally having a fight about when things should be placed on a timeline. The place is full of myths and legends and stories. It encompasses at least a million worlds. No matter what happens, the stories that the Studio are telling us are just the barest highlights... fragments, really. If the way that these are presented aren't to your liking, well, we at the B&C have always encouraged you to tell us your stories of the 41st Millennium.

[SpAcEGhOsT095]

I hope the mods might show this post mercy.

One could argue that this new canon, as terrifying as it is to some, can be compared to the Eastern Front in July 1943. The beginning to a very slow end. It will take years, but the Imperium's 1944-45 will happen. Always look on the bright side of life! Things can only get worse for Mankind from here.

 

I hope I didn't cross any lines with this post. If someone can think up a better comparison, the mods can delete this one.

[chapter master 454]

To be honest, one reason people are kind of against it is because of the length of time we have had it the '5 minutes til midnight'. At first, I liked it and really enjoyed it however over time I have grown tired of the same old same old. It felt all the efforts of even the ultramarines were for naught and any new gear added needed retcons or extra story within a limited space.

 

We are entering the greatest battles of the imperium: Tyranids are coming now in greater power than before, Orks are about to prob get their own 'primarch' (Ghaz becoming a Primal ork, apparently something that can take multiple primarchs), Chaos Primarchs are coming back and Gulliman may face some opposition from the inquisition at some point. The Imperium getting a power boost is just so we can now get the other races up to their TRUE power. Chaos no longer just being a loose random daemon outbreak or revolt, Orks no longer being a disorganised mass and being a cohesive race, Tyranids not longer just dipping the toes and we might see renegade inquisitors pull their weight and call Gulliman a threat to 'Their' image of the emperor and call him an ursurper and danger to the safety of the Imperium with his dealings with Xenos.

 

Things are bright because it's the Dark Souls approach: here's a good weapon, some sweet armour and maybe a new stock of items, go get 'em champ -round corner then suddenly you are jumped by 5 giants with clubs the size of a house-. We are getting bigger so we can fight even bigger threats.

[Soldier of Dorn]

Well, what is 40k, if not grimdark? The word is defined by the setting: it is the very essence of 40k. That's where the word originates, after all. From that singular tagline of 40k - in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war. That's the thing I think a lot of people miss. They claim that grimdark defines 40k, but that's not it at all, far from it. 40k is the ultimate definition of grimdark - it is the ultimate expression of all those things that make grimdarkness what it is.

 

The problem arises, then, when you attempt to introduce "noblebright" ideas into the setting. Noblebright is essentially defined as the antithesis of grimdark, and you are introducing it into the thing which defines grimdark.

 

You personally say you find those things such as advancement appealing, but to many of us that stands contrary to the tenets of the setting, what makes 40k what it is. We say it ruins the setting because from an analytical standpoint it undermines what makes those essential truths of the 40k universe. And those essential truths - the stagnation, the futility of hope, the close-mindedness of the Imperium - those are what many of us fell in love with about the setting when we came into this hobby. There is nothing wrong with diversity of thought - far from it, it's quite the good thing - but 40k in its character has never particularly been about good things. I'm not saying that they're can't be good people in the Imperium, with these supposed good qualities - we see examples all the time - but we must make distinctions between the characters of individuals in the setting and the character of the setting itself.

 

And now the major faction of the Imperium, the central protagonists of the setting (I hesitate to use the word "heroes" in reference to the wider scale of 40k) stands somewhat contrary to that, at least on the surface. Having read Dark Imperium, for everything that was flawed about that novel, Guy Haley did do a rather good job of preserving the feeling of hopelessness that makes 40k feel the way it does, despite the surface pointing towards a lot of the tropes that make up noblebright, at least for most of the novel. But the apparent feeling I get when I read the fluff in the core rules is that the Imperium is altogether a better place because of Guilliman's return, and that's, honestly, just not right. One man's actions, no matter how powerful he might be, should not be able to change things that dramatically in a true grimdark setting, whether for better or for worse.

[Eddie Orlock]

Well, what is 40k, if not grimdark? The word is defined by the setting ...

Nay. That neologism is defined by the more common misperceptions of the setting by a large portion of the audience who haven't done their research.

There are probably less intelligent, more bluntly illiterate ways to discuss 40K than in terms of 'grimdark' and 'noblebright,' but damn if I can think of any.

I wanted so dearly to refute this and say it wasn't so but I couldn't.

[Lexington]

Nay. That neologism is defined by the more common misperceptions of the setting by a large portion of the audience who haven't done their research.

Yup.

 

"Darkness," on it's own, is valueless. It's a descriptor, and a broad one. It gets fetishized and beaten into meaningless babble by people looking to be 'edgy,' or otherwise set themselves apart, but darkness for its own sake is as dumb and uncomplicated as the brightest, flashiest, shallowest bit of Saturday morning cartoonery. I'm a big proponent of not making everything in 40K dark or brutal, but it can be dark and brutal in very effective ways, but that's because there's something to that darkness. There's a good Film Critic Hulk Twitter thread from a few hours ago that talks about what makes David Lynch stand out, while student films and other self-consciously "weird" stuff often fails - there's something to engage with when it comes to Lynch, a clear metaphorical and visual language that keeps the viewer glued to the screen, even if the tangible narrative logic of a scene isn't so clear. The same thing's true of 40K. When it's dark, or at least when it's darkness works, it's because there's a very real view of human nature to it, about widespread, often banal evils, the unthinking chauvinism that motivates baseless xenophobia, the tendency to abstract away human life and crush the life out of people for the "good" of society/governments/the species, the flimsy reasoning we put up to do so, and the quivering fear in the back of the modern mind that maybe that stuff's all really true. 40K's pessimism and nihilism, at its best times, never says any of that directly, but it's the clear map that's being followed to get to whatever the destination is. The darkness that grabs people is just an after-effect of that worldview.

 

I think this concept lives at the base of a lot of people's opposition to the new background, consciously or not. It's not that the Dark Imperium material has a view of humanity that's contradictory to 40K's so much as it doesn't really seem to have a viewpoint at all. It takes the basic physical facts of the universe and pushes them forward in a vaguely logical way, but it seems blithely unaware of the subtexual scaffolding that's made 40K enduring for so many and for so long. It's all surface, it's all on-screen, and it all smells of little more than marketing. It's a shallow experience, and as long as it stays that way, people will chafe at how hollow it all feels.

[DogWelder]

Thanks for the feedback guys. It seems my tone came of as more confrontational than I intended to be.

 

Personally I don't want Guilliman to fix everything in the Imperium. I do, however, want him to fix part of it (like he's doing with Ultramar in DI). However, I also want the rest of the Imperium to stay as it is so people can see how these two worlds differ and can debate about which of these two approaches is better.

 

For example:

 

Guilliman and Cawl's reforms does give the people of Ultramar higher living standards/better technology/ better governance etc. but at the same time it also makes them complacent and susceptible to chaos cults since he doesn't have that tight of a grip on his worlds. Also, his populace is not nearly as fanatical as the rest of the Imperium so when conflict arrives civilians actually have to be evacuated instead of pressed into fighting. Basically the drawbacks of having a "modern" population.

 

The rest of the Imperium that stays stagnant suffers without these reforms but because of the iron grip of organizations such as the ecclesiarchy/Inquisition, not only are chaos cults rooted out with ease but the entire population militarized and ready to fight at all times. Also, because they are on the front lines they have much better experience fighting the forces of chaos etc.

[Bryan Blaire]

From the sounds of things, you are interpreting these as all good things, but not seeing the dark side of each one:

So perhaps its because I have only recently gotten into this fandom (about a year ago) but I actually like the fact that Guilliman and Cawl are making reasonable/progressive changes to the Imperium. These changes include:

 

-Better technology (grav tanks, new power armor, new space ship upgrades, plasma guns that are 100% reliable, better dreadnought armor, better boltguns etc.)

I'll give you everything except the Grav tanks and plasma guns. The Grav tanks are actually derivative, less technologically adept vehicles than existed at the dawn of the Imperium. And the plasma guns actually don't seem to be a change, instead it was a phone call from Cawl to everyone to tell them how to flip the surge protector circuitry on.

 

-Better governance (re-formation of Ultramar into the 500 worlds, recreation of the tetrarchy, Guilliman's efforts to write a treatise on good governorship etc.)

Sooooo, nothing new? Literally exactly what he did before? Retreading old ground isn't progressive.

 

-Alliances/Dialogue with Xenos (Guilliman's working relationship with the Ynnari, possible non-agression treaty with the Tau)

A working relationship because he actually harbors a small piece of their God of death to help bring down the Imperium, maybe. Or some other nefarious issues from the Eldar, because good for the Eldar is not necessarily good for the Imperium, and they are a death cult... That has to spell nasty :cuss for the future.

 

And the T'au? Was there a meeting and agreement, documentation signed? If not, there's no treaty, there's just the T'au, who don't want to bear the full brunt of the Imperial war machine. The T'au are around because other things have been a larger priority, but their 16-18 world empire is really and truly nothing compared to the Imperium.

 

While a lot of people say that the setting is ruined because of these things, I would say that its actually improved because it adds diversity of thought to the Imperium.

The Imperium is so large, trust me, it already had diversity of thought. We've even had arguments right here on the board about just how crap-sack a place it can really be because it is so large. There were already spots of hope, there are even Xenos entities encorporated into the Imperium. It's not wholesale, not everyone is going to want to be subservient, but there are some. There are humans that are part of the Imperium that already consort with Xenos (Dark Angels, rogue traders, the Inquisition, etc.). The Imperium is a big place, to assume that it didn't already have diversity of thought is to sell the setting very short.

 

Also, Guilliman enforcing his brand of thought policing on the High Lords and upper crust of the Imperium: that's not "noble-bright", that's about as crappy a situation as you can have. Sure, he's enlightening everyone - by the sword/force. That's Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader levels of crappy transhuman being right there.

 

If you want a completely grimdark Imperium that wants nothing more than to kill the xeno, traitor and heretic, who mainly uses older types of weapons and fanatically worships the Emperor as a God; then there's a large portion of the Imperium holds these beliefs already (probably on the Imperium Nihilus side of the rift).

Nah, it's everywhere, bub, you can't change 10 millennia of galaxy-spanning dogma that is already incredibly varied from system to system in a century. Humans are much more resistant to change that people want to give us credit for and aren't giving any credence to how big the Imperium is.

 

And people here complain about GW having a problem with scale. :lol:

 

Its part of why I was drawn to the more reasonable factions like the Tau or the Ultramarines.

Yes, conversion by the sword always works out so well with the human psyche. The T'au and the Imperium are the two prime examples of different species that do the exact same thing. Both are incredibly reasonable if you bend the knee, T'au just haven't been around long enough to see the results of that blowing up in their faces yet, and weren't out in the galaxy enough to have seen their people yoked under Xenos rule.

 

But as long as you want to follow their Greater Good (not yours, theirs), then everything is hunky-dorey.

[Guest Triszin]

Good for you. I'm serious, I'm happy you've found something you like in the Noblebright. But every single thing you listed as a benefit, I see as a drawback. I like 40K *because* of the grimdark, not in spite of it.

 

Edit: you, autocorrect

It's grimdark because everything he is doing to try to save the imperium only forwards its collapse.

[Claws and Effect]

I don't have an issue with it.

 

The bigger the buildup, the harder the fall.

[NovemberIX]

Admittedly my views of 40K are rather warped (pun only slightly intended) I'm finding I identify more with the tone and absurdity of the earlier editions when 40K was basically the 80's in space. The dour overly self-serious nature of 5th (my reintroduction to 40K proper) was engrossing sure, but the narrative dragged. It was a constant, we did a thing, but lost, or alternatively we killed a thing, but it killed a bunch of us. I mean I guess that's grim, but it's a single note. See, there's nothing more dark than having built up hope and belief that a good thing is just about to happen when it doesn't.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's like cooking, if you wanna make something sweet and tasty, throw some salt on it. (now I want some brownie bites with sea salt.... damnit...)

[Doghouse]

I've always preferred to think of it as Gothic Dystopian. :D

 

I think it is what is it is to different people, there are so many ways you can read the material and so many sub-contexts that people can read into it from their own perspective but for me that is the appeal of it. I've seen people blow up a simple sentence into a full blown debate.

 

The different view points of all the players makes me think of the Administratum and all the various sub factions telling each other their way is the true way, each telling their own perspective from where they stand. 

 

The years of retcons and new material springing up out of the blue is completely apt to me, although I don't think any of it was intentional, it paints a picture where the facts can be fluid, blurred and messy which in my mind serves the setting perfectly. I've no doubt the events from the perspective of the Ecclesiarchy vary greatly from those of the other departments such as the Adeptus Mechanicus or the whole host of sub cults scatter throughout the universe.

 

The most important part to me is that it opens a dialogue and discussion between players. Look at the missing legions for example, a very simple nod to the roman legions that has grown and developed over the decades moving through a time where it was accepted no one spoke of them or dared speculate to the present day where people openly speculate or even make their own armies based on them complete with lore.

 

This I feel mimics the Imperium very well. This is just the latest rendition of the meta, it's the latest tale and perspective to be told and years from now might well be looked back upon in the same light as the Space Wolves The Wolf Time campaign against the Ork slave world of Zit or the Crimson Fists Battle for Jadeberry Hill. The facts will no doubt be rewritten the same way the Heresy has been and all these other historical events we take for granted.

 

I have no doubt it'll change again someday and people joining the game now will be having the same debates in years to come with new players that those of us older players have now.

[Xenith]

 

The most important part to me is that it opens a dialogue and discussion between players. Look at the missing legions for example, a very simple nod to the roman legions that has grown and developed over the decades moving through a time where it was accepted no one spoke of them or dared speculate to the present day where people openly speculate or even make their own armies based on them complete with lore.

 

I don't know about life in the GrimDarkness of Basingstoke, but in Manchester, for as long as I've been in the hobby, people have always speculated, and had their legion be a 'missing legion'.

 

Maybe you just see if more often because of the internet?

[Closet Skeleton]

There are probably less intelligent, more bluntly illiterate ways to discuss 40K than in terms of 'grimdark' and 'noblebright,' but damn if I can think of any.

 

 

The problem arises, then, when you attempt to introduce "noblebright" ideas into the setting. Noblebright is essentially defined as the antithesis of grimdark, and you are introducing it into the thing which defines grimdark.

Wasn't the original noblebright fan parody supposed to be a swashbuckling high adventure setting? 40k often strays enough from perspectives of what it 'should' be for some fan to say the grimdark is going away but its never become its own antithesis.

 

 

The Imperium is so large, trust me, it already had diversity of thought. We've even had arguments right here on the board about just how crap-sack a place it can really be because it is so large. There were already spots of hope, there are even Xenos entities encorporated into the Imperium. It's not wholesale, not everyone is going to want to be subservient, but there are some. There are humans that are part of the Imperium that already consort with Xenos (Dark Angels, rogue traders, the Inquisition, etc.). The Imperium is a big place, to assume that it didn't already have diversity of thought is to sell the setting very short.

 

 

Part of the Imperium's identity as a dystopia is that it isn't 1984's soul crushing indomitable state, its an inept parody of the concept of government (which often just becomes a lazy parody of bureaucracy, aka the safest most apolitical form of satirical descent). Its against the Imperium's character for it to be actually good at being a xenophobic monolith.

 

 

 

 

The most important part to me is that it opens a dialogue and discussion between players. Look at the missing legions for example, a very simple nod to the roman legions that has grown and developed over the decades moving through a time where it was accepted no one spoke of them or dared speculate to the present day where people openly speculate or even make their own armies based on them complete with lore.

 

I don't know about life in the GrimDarkness of Basingstoke, but in Manchester, for as long as I've been in the hobby, people have always speculated, and had their legion be a 'missing legion'.

 

Maybe you just see if more often because of the internet?

 

 

The whole point of the missing legions is for players to fill in the blank, people just laugh at you if you do so because its so overdone those two slots can't actually fill their purpose.

[the jeske]

Good or bad is always a taste thing as far as world creation goes. some people may not like the new one, some may like it. No problem here. I do have the problem with how the change was done though. What G man did was the first case of revolution and power transmission  done without huge lose of life as far as the history of man goes. It is too unrealistic, but in the "its magic" sense, but the 1+1=3 one.

 

Will it be good for the game ? no idea as fluff transfers little in to rules. Will it be good for the setting? Yes, if someone starts with 8th and doesn't try what happened before G-mans rise to power. Then I can imagine it could work.

 

its an inept parody of the concept of government

 

I am sorry, but until the new fluff came, which part of the w40k years of fluff points out that the goverment is inept or that it is a paradoy of something? A goverments main goal is to keep power with what ever meens possible. And that was exactly what was happening up until G-man came back, and suddenly everyone was ok to give up power as unreal as it may be.

[Bryan Blaire]

=][=

Do not stray into the discussion of real world governing or personal belief of what government is for. That way leads to the Thread Lock.

=][=

[Doghouse]

 

 

The most important part to me is that it opens a dialogue and discussion between players. Look at the missing legions for example, a very simple nod to the roman legions that has grown and developed over the decades moving through a time where it was accepted no one spoke of them or dared speculate to the present day where people openly speculate or even make their own armies based on them complete with lore.

 

I don't know about life in the GrimDarkness of Basingstoke, but in Manchester, for as long as I've been in the hobby, people have always speculated, and had their legion be a 'missing legion'.

 

Maybe you just see if more often because of the internet?

 

 

I think it's just more accepted now but back during the early days of the internet forums people weren't as open about it and many frowned upon it, in my experience the subject only really started to come back seriously after the HH became a valid discussion beyond the novels. But that's the point of me bringing it up even the most vaguest of details, stuff people interpret as bad lore or blank gaps can generate discussion which gets people involved.