Is GW getting too specific with lore?(spoiler warning)

[Volt]

I definitely feel there has been a bit of an excess of "Rip the veil away, explain everything" in recent years- but even before 8th Edition. I'd argue it started with the HH game. Don't get me wrong, there's lots of awesome stuff that came from the Age of Darkness ruleset, but by its very nature, it took an era of time in the 40K universe which was poorly-understood and borderline mythical, and laid it all bare, stating "This is exactly what happened" (albeit somewhat softened by the ever-useful caveat of "Everything is canon, nothing is true"). IMO at least, when the Horus Heresy was so long ago that the numbers of (loyal) people who remember it can be counted on one hand and what little information existed on it was wreathed in the foggy miasma of ancient history, it worked far better. The Horus Heresy novels for a long time never revealed too much, and the occasional contradictions between books added to the "But what ACTUALLY happened?" factor. Of course, when you have to have concrete rules for the Legions of this era and the demi-gods that lead them, a lot of demystification has to happen pretty much as a necessity. That's not to say that it's exclusively the game's fault, oh no. I seem to recall a lot of the newer books have thrown in some rather ridiculous elements (Vulkan being a Perpetual, whatever the hell was going on with the Cabal when half the point of Alpharius and Omegon is that NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEIR GOAL IS), and the inter-author contradictions seem to have escalated from "possibly intentional efforts to keep the mystery of the era" to "authors battling out to make their interpretation of the lore the "canon" one".

 

As for modern 40K, whilst there's a lot I don't like about the new fluff, there's also a lot I do like, at least in theory. I actually don't hate the idea of Primarchs returning provided they exercise some restraint. The daemon Primarchs I'd argue have been long overdue a return- Angron has been active in the fluff for years now after all. I'd rather they didn't bring back any more loyalist Primarchs- or at least if they do, I hope they bring back like, one or two at most and do so in an interesting way. I actually think Guilliman's return sucks more in execution than in concept, and I thought the whole "hates what has become of his father's Imperium" element was a pretty nifty one, if poorly explored.

The problem more lies in the inherent contradiction of the Heresy being a fall from grace and the Heresy era Imperium being literally the modern day one in terms of tech. If it was like how it was more implied very early on, like 2e era of lore, then we could extrapolate that old tech was objectively superior, older marks of power were leagues superior, the tech was generally far more advanced and the civilization really has suffered. But when heresy era tech is available in M42 in spades and performative isn't that much of a difference than the M42 stuff, it really wasn't some mystical plunge into barbarity. The design ethos just changed, but it's like the difference between an AKM and an AK-74, not old stuff being AKM's and the modern stuff being muskets.

 

With the HH being quantified, what we're left with is the realization that the only fundamental change was a coat of paint. Which is also why Guilliman's comments fall flat, as the modern Imperium's only significant change from the old Imperium is just that Grav Rhinos and Volkite is out of fashion, not because culture and technology was some superior zenith that makes the modern civ look like ants crawling in the ruins of greater forebears.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Volt

[Scribe]

Yep. That was a very big miss, in how the HH was handled, or the difference between 10k years failed to materialize.

[Lexington]

If it was like how it was more implied very early on, like 2e era of lore, then we could extrapolate that old tech was objectively superior, older marks of power were leagues superior, the tech was generally far more advanced and the civilization really has suffered.

 

I actually think the opposite was true, at least for 2nd Edition, and probably for Rogue Trader as well. One of the defining pieces of text about Power Armor is actually a tech progression, not a regression. Early power armor marks couldn't even turn their head, better cabling and housing are added all the way to MkVII and MkVIII, etc. In the same way, 2nd Ed was the era where the Traitor Legions were defined as having older, somewhat less effective equipment - Reaper Autocannons rather than Assault Cannons, Combi-Bolters instead of Stormbolters, no man-portable Multi-Meltas or Land Speeders, because those things didn't exist during the Heresy. There's actually a line in the 2nd Edition Chaos Codex, in Andy Chambers' design notes, where he specifically talks about this happening to show that there is some technological progress in the Imperium. It's just agonizingly slow.

 

What the Heresy books have done, collectively, is retcon that progress all the way back to the pre-Heresy/Heresy era, and essentially say that almost nothing has been invented since then.

[Scribe]

3rd edition Space Marine has a blurb about how 'so much knowledge is lost' I believe, but that's heresy to dwell on it.

 

Unless I'm just remembering wrong.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I'm in the demystify everything camp. As has been pointed out, a mystery is only good for so long. The thing is that mystery is a device to get things going. If you keep beating a dead horse, you're just a bad writer not brave enough to explore new avenues, because you think people might not like it and stop buying your stuff. And therin lies the 'problem' with, say, GW's stuff. Everything they do is somehow connected to selling something, so they try to pander to all kinds of consumers at the same time.

 

It's similar with movies or video games or any medium really. Do one thing well and don't spread yourself too thinly, because the result will be just as thin. I also don't like the whole 'no spoilers culture', though that might be a result of me being a cynic about how good the stories people write are. I have been disappointed too many times to actually give a damn about not knowing some stuff. If the execution is good, the story won't matter that much (too me). It is a nice bonus if it's actually good. By that logic the other way around is obviously just as possible, but as said, there has been too much disappointment for me to be hopeful for that. It requires a much better writer to have a good story than it requires coordination to have good execution. The latter being more quantifyable and thus more predictable and easier to, well, execute.

 

The issue is of course much more complex than that, but I can't be assed to strain my tiny ineloquent and non-native speaking brain to convey my thoughts more convincingly.

i think a game like 40k is a bit different than other mediums like movies, and video games.

much of the mystery and ambiguity was left in the story for the players to fill it out. GW could have easily just created a full list of every single chapter and who they descended from back in the 90s or 00s, but that would have taken away much of the appeal for many.

 

just like imho identifying the origins of the sanguinor takes away a good bit from BA players.

 

in a video game there are pretty hard set boundaries, and borders in regards to how far you can go in any direction, or what you can do, and what can happen. if we're talking just a movie or tv series/franchise there's even less consumer interaction.

 

for me the mysteries of 40k are similar to the mysteries of our real world. do aliens exist? who actually built the sphinx? are the monsters people have reported seeing for hundreds of years actually real? i crave answers, but at the same time a new technology has given a pretty definitive answer about the existence of nessie, and i hate the loss of hope that it could have been real.

[Nineswords]

I've debated this topic many times with my Black Library friends –– I think any mystery can be introduced or revealed, but its potency is only as good as the author who writes about it.

 

A lot of people hated the Alpharius/Omegon reveal, saying that it trivialised the Alpha Legion. Personally, I thought it was jaw droppingly brilliant and single-handedly ignited an interest in a faction I didn't care for before. The reason why it worked for me was a. It was foreshadowed well in LEGION, b. thematically, it made a lot of sense as to why the Alpha Legion have seemingly contradictory goals in the 41st Millennium, and c. It was a piece of lore hanging around for a long time, and Alan Bligh gave Abnett the okay to incorporate it into the book.

 

And if you didn't like the reveal, then John French neatly ties up this thread in PRAETORIAN OF DORN, with zero ambiguity whatsoever.

 

This is an example of a mystery that was narratively satisfying to me. It was cool because it was a mystery that alluded to the behaviour of an established faction in the future and closed off enough things to be satisfying yet still was ambiguous enough to ignite the imagination.

 

I haven't kept up with Dark Angels lore, but the Watchers in the Dark are a mystery to me. I have no idea what they are, nor do I wish to. I accept them as some sort of entity unique to their function and it's enough. Ditto Legion of the Damned. I like the fact their mystery has been deliberately obfuscated. Chris Wraight brings us right to the heart of the Palace in The Carrion Throne to great effect. We are revealed more details of Terra in a way that's exciting but doesn't actually give anything away. 

 

When mystery is revealed in a casual exposition, that mystique, and therefore interest is relegated to one-liner on 1d4Chan along with the inane tropes of 'Robot Girlyman' and their ilk. I think a good author answers some questions only to leave you asking more, and that discussion fuels interest.

[Brother Lunkhead]

Well put Brother Nineswords You summed up my exact feelings concerning mystery reveals. IMHO Dan Abnett did a masterful job in Legion with the AL Primarch reveal as well as a few other aha moments. All were interesting, gave much needed depth to the Alpha Legion mystique and really piqued my interest in what to me before reading Legion was just a Chaos Legion with some vaguely interesting tropes attached.  Best of all, by the end of the book I was left with just as many questions about the Alpha Legion as when I started...... very clever Mr. Bond Abnett

 

Did John French really tie it up in Praetorian of Dorn?..... They are the Alpha Legion after all

 

On the whole I think we could have done without some reveals.

Andy Smilie's short, Herald of Sanguinius covers quite unambiguously, the origin and identity of the Sanguinor.

Although well written, I really could have done without that. Some things in the 40Kverse should remain mysterious... and therein lies the conundrum. What should be revealed and what should remain shrouded? Not everybody is going to be satisfied either way. I just hope they don't open the door too wide.

 

I heard the Sanguinor was Alpharious

Brother, we are ALL Alpharius

Edited November 29, 2020 by Brother Lunkhead

[Gederas]

Well put Brother Nineswords You summed up my exact feelings concerning mystery reveals. IMHO Dan Abnett did a masterful job in Legion with the AL Primarch reveal as well as a few other aha moments. All were interesting, gave much needed depth to the Alpha Legion mystique and really piqued my interest in what to me before reading Legion was just a Chaos Legion with some vaguely interesting tropes attached.  Best of all, by the end of the book I was left with just as many questions about the Alpha Legion as when I started...... very clever Mr. Bond Abnett

 

Did John French really tie it up in Praetorian of Dorn?..... They are the Alpha Legion after all

Yes, he did. Third-Person Omniscient Narrator confirmation is as direct confirmation as the Author outright saying it

 

[Doghouse]

For me it was the Horus Heresy. While I do understand why people enjoy the series for me personally it stripped away a lot detachment of the mythology. I find it more interesting to imagine what is behind the curtain than for someone to pull back the curtain to reveal the man pulling the levers.

 

I personally think that some things are best left to the imagination to explore yourself.

 

Having said that GW has pushed the unreliable narrator concept for a few years now so it could all be wrong anyway.

[Brother Lunkhead]

 

 

Did John French really tie it up in Praetorian of Dorn?..... They are the Alpha Legion after all

Yes, he did. Third-Person Omniscient Narrator confirmation is as direct confirmation as the Author outright saying it

 

I read it too, so I know that..... It was just a joke........ or maybe it wasn't You never can be too sure with those Alpha Legion chaps

[Emicus]

I second the thoughts on the unreliable narrator.

 

I'll go one further: you have to disconnect the novels from the game. Novels say a lot of stuff that is just pure crap. I mean, it's exciting... It's a good read. But it means nothing. The game came first. Without the game, there would be no novels. Therefore if the novels contradict something that is in the game, the novels are just plain wrong. There are many examples of this. I get into debates about this stuff on Dakka all the time.

 

Novels describe marines as being faster than sisters. They aren't- movement stats are equal, therefore the novels are wrong.

An alpha class psyker, in the novels is something that could take out an army. In the rules, they know an extra power and get an extra deny. Therefore the novels are wrong.

 

When I use the word fluff, I'm refering to the background material in the rule books- it tends to be more consistent with the game.

 

Some day, I hope to be worthy enough to write for the Black Library. When I do, every single battle that I write will be played on the table top first, and nothing that is impossible on the table will ever happen in one of my books. I wish all BL writers held themselves to that standard.

 

Now this is not to hate on the novels- I've read a fair number, and I've enjoyed almost all of them. But I have to separate them from the game, and the game ALWAYS takes priority.

I think this is completely backwards. The novels are true and the game is wrong. And the reason the game is wrong is to make it more fun - so it's all good :)

[BrainFireBob]

I'm in the demystify everything camp. As has been pointed out, a mystery is only good for so long. The thing is that mystery is a device to get things going. If you keep beating a dead horse, you're just a bad writer not brave enough to explore new avenues, because you think people might not like it and stop buying your stuff. And therin lies the 'problem' with, say, GW's stuff. Everything they do is somehow connected to selling something, so they try to pander to all kinds of consumers at the same time.

 

It's similar with movies or video games or any medium really. Do one thing well and don't spread yourself too thinly, because the result will be just as thin. I also don't like the whole 'no spoilers culture', though that might be a result of me being a cynic about how good the stories people write are. I have been disappointed too many times to actually give a damn about not knowing some stuff. If the execution is good, the story won't matter that much (too me). It is a nice bonus if it's actually good. By that logic the other way around is obviously just as possible, but as said, there has been too much disappointment for me to be hopeful for that. It requires a much better writer to have a good story than it requires coordination to have good execution. The latter being more quantifyable and thus more predictable and easier to, well, execute.

 

The issue is of course much more complex than that, but I can't be assed to strain my tiny ineloquent and non-native speaking brain to convey my thoughts more convincingly. ;)

If you are at the point it must be demystified, you've outlasted your lifecycle. New players deserve every bit of tease and hint you got to savor.

 

Had this argument in a Dresden forum recently someone was whining that after 20 years, they wanted something new and different. Thing is, while they've taken 20 plus years to write, they're not intended to be read, and obsessed over, for 20 years. Getting impatient for "the finish" is the reader's problem, not the story's.

Edited December 1, 2020 by BrainFireBob

[Brother Tyler]

We've gotten off topic. This discussion isn't about anyone's wish list for storyline progression. It's about how each of us feels about mysteries being resolved (or light being shed on previously shady elements of the lore).

 

If you are at the point it must be demystified, you've outlasted your lifecycle. New players deserve every bit of tease and hint you got to savor.

 

Had this argument in a Dresden forum recently someone was whining that after 20 years, they wanted something new and different. Thing is, while they've taken 20 plus years to write, they're not intended to be read, and obsessed over, for 20 years. Getting impatient for "the finish" is the reader's problem, not the story's.

I find this assertion to be ridiculous.

 

I also find it unreasonable to think that some mysteries will never be resolved, especially when the storyline progresses (as it did with the Gathering Storm). When a setting is given as a snapshot setting without any progression or historical revelation (as the WH40K game mostly was through 7th edition), it's reasonable to think that most mysteries will remain mysteries. When the history is explored, as it was with the Horus Heresy, or when the storyline advances, however, some things are going to be resolved. Conversely, I don't think that anyone should reasonably expect everything to be resolved. One of the key aspects of this setting is that so much of what we understand is unreliable - mysteries are part and parcel of the body of lore.

 

The body of lore is for everyone, old and new. As with any body of lore, some mysteries will be resolved while new ones will be introduced. There will even be times when supposed/alleged resolutions merely confuse the issue, adding to the overall mystery rather than actually resolving it.

 

Overall, however, how many of the mysteries have really been resolved? On the converse, how many mysteries remain mysteries? By extension, how many elements that used to be fairly certain have now been retconned into mysteries? Without getting into the details of answering each of these questions, I think that we still have far more mysteries than resolutions. A few resolutions here and there haven't significantly affected the overall ratio when you consider the new mysteries that have been added over the years.

[Vermintide]

Kind of unavoidable when your setting has been around for over 20 years really, but fortunately you can largely ignore the stuff that isn't part of the base rulebook fluff IMO. It's like the whole Extended Universe thing with Star Wars- Most people know and treat is as "official" fan-fiction, so the canonicity is up to you. I think the same applies to Black Library.

 

If you've ever read about (or watched the TED talk on) JJ Abrams' "mystery box" writing technique, it kind of applies to 40k lore in a way. 40k was built on that premise in the early days- We know what has become of humanity in the 41st millennium, but how it got there is a dark and mysterious tale shrouded in uncertainty and mythology. Knowing the answer to what's inside the box takes away all the intrigue, and the viewer is mostly hooked by the compelling nature of the mystery itself. In my opinion the way Abrams typically uses this technique is just a lazy, cynical crutch, in order to paper over an under-developed setting, but with 40k, there are answers. It's just a fundamental, foundational aspect of the setting that the truth has become shrouded by time. You are invited to make your own interpretation and come to your own conclusion from the shreds of knowledge available.

 

It's still a unique and very entertaining setting, but a lot of what we know now kind of cheapens it, I think. And honestly, I think a lot of the newer ideas that have been introduced miss the point: 10,000 years is a long damn time. The returning Primarchs should find themselves in a totally different Imperium than the one they left behind under the Emperor's guidance. 40k is a post-apocalyptic setting, of sorts, and the Heresy was the final straw that extinguished any hope of recovering from that apocalypse. Since then there has only been decay- but the writers today can't seem to get their heads around these different periods in history actually being different.

 

But alas, I rant about this stuff entirely too often.

[Brother Tyler]

Note that all of the off topic discussion about lore progression and returning Primarchs has been split off into its own discussion here.