Warhammer Adventures

[DarkChaplain]

 

Games Workshop is following a trend that Disney's been pulling off with its Star Wars products in recent years: Franchise for Kids.

 

Disney? Please, Star Wars books for kids were a thing since early 90s. Star Trek was doing it since 80s. Other franchises were even earlier. Disney has literally nothing to do with this.

 

 

The point wasn't that Star Wars or Star Trek didn't have products for kids way back when, but that Disney has taken great pains to emphasize those products for Star Wars since taking over. From comic adaptations of (junior) novels in cornflakes boxes over nearly textless baby book adaptations of every movie, a bunch of comic miniseries and the likes, they've been going all out with it.

They're literally taking stories and sanitizing them for child consumption (all while maintaining that these versions are basically canon too, even if they switch characters and events around).

 

Specifically in this case, GW is directly imitating Adventures in Wild Space, which includes the authors themselves - and they themselves acknowledge it in their WHC posting, too. I mean, come on, they weren't even trying to hide it, from hiring both authors to naming it Adventures - even the art style is comparable (though I'd actually consider AiWS to look more appealing and mature than WHA)

[carlisimo]

RikuEru - teens cans handle and often seek out darker themes. These books are specifically for pre-teens.

[Roomsky]

I will say that, in going down this path, I wish they had a stronger art direction. Hell, I could have drawn those covers. You don't need to delve into the settings gooier bits to communicate to kids that you're treating them seriously. Coming back to that Batman: TAS example, I certainly preferred it to its contemporaries because it was "serious" to my child mind. Most of the new artwork is overly sanitized anyway, why not commission a couple pieces from the same creators. Children can still appreciate an epic scale, cool monsters, and unique protagonists. Or go all out and get Kopinski back in the stable.

 

On that note, get Kopinski back in the stable period. His art was hella rad.

[Knockagh]

The question is...are these books canon? :)

Now that’s a debate I don’t even want to read!

[Scribe]

 

The question is...are these books canon?

Now that’s a debate I don’t even want to read!

 

 

Good thing there isnt any such thing as canon these days. ;)

[Skaorn]

 

 

Games Workshop is following a trend that Disney's been pulling off with its Star Wars products in recent years: Franchise for Kids.

 

 

Disney? Please, Star Wars books for kids were a thing since early 90s. Star Trek was doing it since 80s. Other franchises were even earlier. Disney has literally nothing to do with this.

 

The point wasn't that Star Wars or Star Trek didn't have products for kids way back when, but that Disney has taken great pains to emphasize those products for Star Wars since taking over. From comic adaptations of (junior) novels in cornflakes boxes over nearly textless baby book adaptations of every movie, a bunch of comic miniseries and the likes, they've been going all out with it.

They're literally taking stories and sanitizing them for child consumption (all while maintaining that these versions are basically canon too, even if they switch characters and events around).

 

Specifically in this case, GW is directly imitating Adventures in Wild Space, which includes the authors themselves - and they themselves acknowledge it in their WHC posting, too. I mean, come on, they weren't even trying to hide it, from hiring both authors to naming it Adventures - even the art style is comparable (though I'd actually consider AiWS to look more appealing and mature than WHA)

[Looks at stuffed animal of Wicket I still own from when I was a kid and RotJ just came out]

Yeah, Disney had nothing on the marketing of SW to kids that Kenner's surprisingly successful toy line didn't already do. There were SW books targeting below the 8-12 age range as well as cartoons like Driods and Ewoks (also those movies too). There was bed sheets, clothing, and I think even a cereal iirc. This was before the prequels which were much more directed at kids and I've personally forgiven Lucas at this point as you can see his daughter in TPM and she was clearly the age range he was aiming for. Disney's best movie so far has been Rogue One where everyone dies except Darth Vader, who gets the minute of screen time I've always wanted, murdering a bunch of doods.

 

Honestly, if D.C. And Marvel could survive the comic code then GW can survive this. It will probably take place in an alternate reality anyways. If you are a concerned parent then be sure to talk to your kids about genocide, facism, violence, and the glorification of war. It would be like letting your kid read Twilight and making sure they know how bad that relationship is. For those who think it's too childish, remember that their are different age groups of kids and that your reading level at 8-12 might have been different than other kids. If you think it might traumitize kids, it might, but I seriously suggest no showing kids gen 1 of the original Transformers followed by Trasformers the Movie (not the Michael Bay one).

[Xisor]

It's an interesting note: don't you wish they'd gone a bit... different in the art direction?

 

Not less childish, but more distinctive? More... Warhammery?

 

My artistic eye is useless, so it's a baseless and perhaps deeply ignorant question, but it intrigues me to speculate on what might actually have been done. E.g. "John Blanche, illustrate a kid's book. But, y'know, by you."

 

Curious!

[A D-B]

The grim darkness is what we (guardians of the flame oh you ADB) like about the setting.

 

It's what most of the creators and contributors like about it, too. The difference is, we can compartmentalise without constantly worrying, and a few people can't. It's not like adding milk to coffee and no longer having a black drink at all. It's, as people here said, like LEGO Batman existing as well as The Killing Joke. You have black coffee and milky coffee. The two never touch.

 

I'd never make the claim that I love all the changes to 40K in any edition; there've been loads of little changes since 2nd Edition that I didn't like. But "the setting" doesn't really exist in the absolute terms you're implying. The setting itself isn't becoming more generic. I can see how you might point to individual events or characters, but in terms of the 100+ people writing and creating the setting? There is no unified "the setting" situation for it to start becoming generic. Everyone on Earth sees it a different way. To me, what the Studio may say and do now changes the themes and narrative of 40K as a whole very, very little. It's 2nd Edition that informs my view of the setting and its themes. That's how it is on my tabletop and in my writing and how most of my friends see it, too. That's 40K to us, and nothing changes that. The details of Battle X or Event Y are just metaplot. They don't change the setting at its core. And that's in no way unique to me. We all do it, readers and fans and authors alike.

 

The difference is compartmentalisation. Whereas you see 40K as threatened and changing ("becoming more generic"), I see a few more changes in yet another edition, and a host of awesome stuff that changes absolutely nothing. There's so freaking much great stuff coming down the line, too. Even if the current stuff wasn't a drop in the ocean of 40K's entirety (and it is) there's so much great stuff heading our way. The Dark Imperium is an absolutely loathsome, awful place to live. That's getting explored.

 

I don't say one approach is better or righter than the other, but I'd argue one is probably healthier and with more perspective. It's a dangerous place to be, when you're in a fandom and constantly feeling threatened by a lot of what the IP does. The best solution is often to look at the bigger picture rather than lock in on what you hate. I could rant forever and ever by focusing on several things I dislike in the new edition's timeline, and I'd likely raise a lot of righteous anger and heavy-clicked blog posts by doing it. But that wouldn't make me right. It'd just mean I was locked in on the little things, missing the wood for the trees.

 

Basically, an ability or preference to see the bigger picture isn't the same as demanding and loving all changes. (And trust me, it's not always easy or an instant journey. Plenty of times I've been gripped with self-righteous fury only for it to really go nowhere.)

 

tl;dr --

 

I was having an argument with Alan Bligh once, over the character of Cawl. There are things in Cawl's character/presence that I really don't like all that much; things I think conflict with a lot of the consistency with 40K. I like a lot about him, don't get me wrong, but there are aspects of him that don't gel with my perception of 40K.

 

And Alan listened for ages, nodding along, sipping his tea. And then he finally said "Yes, but... what does it actually change? On your table and in your head, what does it actually change?"

 

And he had a point. I didn't dig a few aspects about a special character. It didn't change the function, themes, history, and tropes of the Adeptus Mechanicus. It didn't ruin the faction for me just because its new poster boy wasn't to my tastes. It made no difference on my table, where special characters never show up. It made no difference to my writing, which is focused on classic lore and new stuff unrelated to the metaplot. I still didn't like X and Y and Z, but... what did it actually change? Nothing, really.

 

That's how I try to approach this stuff. Like I said, not always easy. Definitely better perspective and healthier, though.

[DukeLeto69]

Hi ADB

 

What is it about 2nd edition that makes it your baseline/reference point?

 

I played 40k from the late 80s to the late 90s so stopped during 2nd edition. However, I never stopped buying books (rule books, codexes, IA books, BL books etc) due to my love of the lore/setting.

 

Yet for me my baseline (for lore) was/is 3rd edition. It seems to me as though (poor metaphor but here goes)...

 

RT/1st edition = the concept drawings

2nd edition = the architectural drawings and marking out the building site

3rd edition = pouring in and setting/drying/solidifying of the foundations

Subsequent editions = "building" each floor of the house on those foundations (and making a few alterations along the way).

 

It always felt to me that the core concepts of 40k solidified in 3rd edition rather than 2nd.

 

So just curious why you love 2nd edition above all else (not challenging that love, just interested).

 

Cheers.

[b1soul]

I think some people would say Dark imperium is like adding milk to coffee...though I would disagree

[Sete]

 

 

The grim darkness is what we (guardians of the flame oh you ADB) like about the setting.

It's what most of the creators and contributors like about it, too. The difference is, we can compartmentalise without constantly worrying, and a few people can't. It's not like adding milk to coffee and no longer having a black drink at all. It's, as people here said, like LEGO Batman existing as well as The Killing Joke. You have black coffee and milky coffee. The two never touch.

 

I'd never make the claim that I love all the changes to 40K in any edition; there've been loads of little changes since 2nd Edition that I didn't like. But "the setting" doesn't really exist in the absolute terms you're implying. The setting itself isn't becoming more generic. I can see how you might point to individual events or characters, but in terms of the 100+ people writing and creating the setting? There is no unified "the setting" situation for it to start becoming generic. Everyone on Earth sees it a different way. To me, what the Studio may say and do now changes the themes and narrative of 40K as a whole very, very little. It's 2nd Edition that informs my view of the setting and its themes. That's how it is on my tabletop and in my writing and how most of my friends see it, too. That's 40K to us, and nothing changes that. The details of Battle X or Event Y are just metaplot. They don't change the setting at its core. And that's in no way unique to me. We all do it, readers and fans and authors alike.

 

The difference is compartmentalisation. Whereas you see 40K as threatened and changing ("becoming more generic"), I see a few more changes in yet another edition, and a host of awesome stuff that changes absolutely nothing. There's so freaking much great stuff coming down the line, too. Even if the current stuff wasn't a drop in the ocean of 40K's entirety (and it is) there's so much great stuff heading our way. The Dark Imperium is an absolutely loathsome, awful place to live. That's getting explored.

 

I don't say one approach is better or righter than the other, but I'd argue one is probably healthier and with more perspective. It's a dangerous place to be, when you're in a fandom and constantly feeling threatened by a lot of what the IP does. The best solution is often to look at the bigger picture rather than lock in on what you hate. I could rant forever and ever by focusing on several things I dislike in the new edition's timeline, and I'd likely raise a lot of righteous anger and heavy-clicked blog posts by doing it. But that wouldn't make me right. It'd just mean I was locked in on the little things, missing the wood for the trees.

 

Basically, an ability or preference to see the bigger picture isn't the same as demanding and loving all changes. (And trust me, it's not always easy or an instant journey. Plenty of times I've been gripped with self-righteous fury only for it to really go nowhere.)

 

tl;dr --

 

I was having an argument with Alan Bligh once, over the character of Cawl. There are things in Cawl's character/presence that I really don't like all that much; things I think conflict with a lot of the consistency with 40K. I like a lot about him, don't get me wrong, but there are aspects of him that don't gel with my perception of 40K.

 

And Alan listened for ages, nodding along, sipping his tea. And then he finally said "Yes, but... what does it actually change? On your table and in your head, what does it actually change?"

 

And he had a point. I didn't dig a few aspects about a special character. It didn't change the function, themes, history, and tropes of the Adeptus Mechanicus. It didn't ruin the faction for me just because its new poster boy wasn't to my tastes. It made no difference on my table, where special characters never show up. It made no difference to my writing, which is focused on classic lore and new stuff unrelated to the metaplot. I still didn't like X and Y and Z, but... what did it actually change? Nothing, really.

 

That's how I try to approach this stuff. Like I said, not always easy. Definitely better perspective and healthier, though.

Well you are right.

I have nothing to add.

Currently I'm upset that Superman had his stupid trunks back.

 

It gives some perspective. Sometimes the old doesn't always mean better.

[caladancid]

 

The grim darkness is what we (guardians of the flame oh you ADB) like about the setting.

 

It's what most of the creators and contributors like about it, too. The difference is, we can compartmentalise without constantly worrying, and a few people can't. It's not like adding milk to coffee and no longer having a black drink at all. It's, as people here said, like LEGO Batman existing as well as The Killing Joke. You have black coffee and milky coffee. The two never touch.

 

I'd never make the claim that I love all the changes to 40K in any edition; there've been loads of little changes since 2nd Edition that I didn't like. But "the setting" doesn't really exist in the absolute terms you're implying. The setting itself isn't becoming more generic. I can see how you might point to individual events or characters, but in terms of the 100+ people writing and creating the setting? There is no unified "the setting" situation for it to start becoming generic. Everyone on Earth sees it a different way. To me, what the Studio may say and do now changes the themes and narrative of 40K as a whole very, very little. It's 2nd Edition that informs my view of the setting and its themes. That's how it is on my tabletop and in my writing and how most of my friends see it, too. That's 40K to us, and nothing changes that. The details of Battle X or Event Y are just metaplot. They don't change the setting at its core. And that's in no way unique to me. We all do it, readers and fans and authors alike.

 

The difference is compartmentalisation. Whereas you see 40K as threatened and changing ("becoming more generic"), I see a few more changes in yet another edition, and a host of awesome stuff that changes absolutely nothing. There's so freaking much great stuff coming down the line, too. Even if the current stuff wasn't a drop in the ocean of 40K's entirety (and it is) there's so much great stuff heading our way. The Dark Imperium is an absolutely loathsome, awful place to live. That's getting explored.

 

I don't say one approach is better or righter than the other, but I'd argue one is probably healthier and with more perspective. It's a dangerous place to be, when you're in a fandom and constantly feeling threatened by a lot of what the IP does. The best solution is often to look at the bigger picture rather than lock in on what you hate. I could rant forever and ever by focusing on several things I dislike in the new edition's timeline, and I'd likely raise a lot of righteous anger and heavy-clicked blog posts by doing it. But that wouldn't make me right. It'd just mean I was locked in on the little things, missing the wood for the trees.

 

Basically, an ability or preference to see the bigger picture isn't the same as demanding and loving all changes. (And trust me, it's not always easy or an instant journey. Plenty of times I've been gripped with self-righteous fury only for it to really go nowhere.)

 

tl;dr --

 

I was having an argument with Alan Bligh once, over the character of Cawl. There are things in Cawl's character/presence that I really don't like all that much; things I think conflict with a lot of the consistency with 40K. I like a lot about him, don't get me wrong, but there are aspects of him that don't gel with my perception of 40K.

 

And Alan listened for ages, nodding along, sipping his tea. And then he finally said "Yes, but... what does it actually change? On your table and in your head, what does it actually change?"

 

And he had a point. I didn't dig a few aspects about a special character. It didn't change the function, themes, history, and tropes of the Adeptus Mechanicus. It didn't ruin the faction for me just because its new poster boy wasn't to my tastes. It made no difference on my table, where special characters never show up. It made no difference to my writing, which is focused on classic lore and new stuff unrelated to the metaplot. I still didn't like X and Y and Z, but... what did it actually change? Nothing, really.

 

That's how I try to approach this stuff. Like I said, not always easy. Definitely better perspective and healthier, though.

 

 

For all that I sometimes disagree with ADB on what things I like/dislike in the story (for example, Tyranids 'origin' in Pharos) this is easily the best post on perspective in fandom I have read.  Ever.