State of Health for Grimdark in Warhammer 40,000

[Bung]

 

 

The lore is tied to the models so they aren't going to go wild with killing off characters, and nor should they.

 

That's your personal and subjective desire.

 

It would be more interesting for Abaddon/Mortarion or some of the other traitors to be killed off as any complaint about "invincible" heroes is magnified many times over for some of these characters who are around after 10k years.

40K is a character driven setting. They serve the purposes of the brand. That's why pre-Primaris special characters cross the Rubicon. It "endorses" the notion of the Primaris. Much the same, characters get away, shake a fist at the enemy and vow revenge more often than we'd expect in such a deadly setting. It is pro wrestling.

 

There are some weird examples, like the conflict between Pedro Kantor and Cortez, who hasn't had a model in... 15 years? I get that it was a historically set novel. Just weird that they dug up a character with a dead model.

Well, the Cortez model was ugly and most kitbashed their own.

And Cortez is missed at the end of the book.

 

My question is why GW never did era source / rulebooks. Not as extensive as the Horus Heresy but something like scourging era with a bunch of charakters like Sigismund and Pollux as Chaptermasters and a list of unit restrictions.

You could even show the downfall of the traitor Marines in that books with decreasing similarities to normal Space Marines to the state of them in 40k.

 

So you could leave the old Charakters and Marines to that eras and have 40k today with Primaris and nee charakters.

 

Its some inspiration how Battletech handles such stuff.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Bung

[BitsHammer]

I don't think I've seen a side by side show just how much better the BW version is.

 

Shockingly better. I'm surprised the colorization is official.

In fairness to GW art that is made with the intent to be colored is usually not drawn the same way and going back to add color to a black and white image like that is going to end with a lower quality result basically everytime.

[Lexington]

40K is a character driven setting.

 

Is it, though? Certainly it'd be hard to argue otherwise nowadays, but I don't think it's something you could say prior to, oh, somewhere in 5th Edition, maybe? Prior to that, 40K wasn't much for characters. They were there, of course - many of the primary Special Characters have been around since 2nd Edition, or even RT - but usually only as points to exemplify (or contrast with) the ideas of the armies and organizations they're part of. They'd get, like, a paragraph or two of background, a piece of art and a model. Not really the driving force of the setting, really. Even those who got a little more detail - Commissar Yarrick and Creed come to mind, here - were only granted such as an illustration of their part in a much larger conflict.

 

I wonder if this isn't one of the bigger reasons 40K doesn't seem as dark or mature anymore. The historical feel of the setting as a place where wars are fought by massed armed forces has been gradually replaced by the (often cornball) melodramas of a handful of personalities. The size of the place inevitably shrinks, nothing feels quite as real, and the whole thing starts to stink of comic book franchises and pro wrestling.

[Scribe]

Correct as usual Lexington.

[Ishagu]

Correct as usual Lexington.

 

Except he's not correct.

 

I just read a story involving a person having to murder their own commander and friend because said commander had been mentally broken by the experience of watching his own crew burning to death. This is set in the most current time line, post Guilliman and the great rift.

 

To say 40k isn't dark or mature anymore is factually wrong. 40k has always been this, and parts of it have always been silly, and some parts completely fantastical.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Ishagu

[WARMASTER_]

I wonder if this isn't one of the bigger reasons 40K doesn't seem as dark or mature anymore.

I’m sorry Lexington but it’s your view point of the setting that’s changed rather that a tonal shift, most likely through either reading too much or more likely not enough of the current lore because that statement is just wrong...

 

In the last three books I’ve read some moments have made my skin crawl...

 

Spears of the emperor where ADB basically says that Servitors still might feel the pain and retain some cogent thoughts

 

Hollow mountain where we finally see how the astronomican really works (and the people going crazy in there screaming “the wound” as they eat people alive because the rift opened

 

Or my personal favourite

 

Sevatar killing Alajos

 

“I am Sevatar the Condemned and I will wear your skin as a cloak before dawn ruins the sky.”

 

The tone of 40k has never changed only people’s opinions on the subject matter.

Edited December 8, 2020 by BladeOfVengeance

[Scribe]

 

Correct as usual Lexington.

 

Except he's not correct.

 

I just read a story involving a person having to murder their own commander and friend because said commander had been mentally broken by the experience of watching his own crew burning to death. This is set in the most current time line, post Guilliman and the great rift.

 

To say 40k isn't dark or mature anymore is factually wrong. 40k has always been this, and parts of it have always been silly, and some parts completely fantastical.

 

 

Except he didnt say it isnt. He said 'seems' as in 'perception'.

 

A big part of that perception is because.

 

"The historical feel of the setting as a place where wars are fought by massed armed forces has been gradually replaced by the (often cornball) melodramas of a handful of personalities. The size of the place inevitably shrinks, nothing feels quite as real, and the whole thing starts to stink of comic book franchises and pro wrestling."

 

Of that.

[Ishagu]

The only way that can be your perception is if you haven't actually engaged with the lore in any detail.

 

BL is a big part of GW's IP now. If your opinion on the setting is coming only from a codex, then it will be insufficient.

[BitsHammer]

I'd argue that BL has always been massively important to GW's IP. Codexes barely cliffnote important events while the novels play them out in greater detail or show events elsewhere in the galaxy. 

[Bryan Blaire]

Pretty sure an opinion is a glorified :cuss at this point - everyone's got one, none of them smell of roses (and some are even disturbingly biased). Oddly enough, we all get to discount opinions based on our perceptions. No one's opinion is more or less official or "true to the material", as none of us here have official standing, so really all you show is your personal bias with them.

 

BL is no more or less important as lore than any other official book from GW is, and interacting with the lore in any fashion is just as sufficient as any other method or mode of interacting - it doesn't render an opinion any better or worse based on what lore is interacted with.

 

You can convey tone with "cliffsnote" "snippets" from a Codex just as well as you can an entire suite of novels - it may actually be more difficult writing to do so. Plenty of tone was conveyed from previous rulebooks and Codexes for a long time, you never had to "read Black Library" to be immersed in the tone of the game - it's actually showing that there are issues if you don't get the same tone from the varying official works of the company unless the intent is actually to convey different tones with those works.

 

So if GW's official rulebooks and Codexes aren't enough to convey the grim darkness of the far future any more on their own, then there may be something wrong with the tone in them...

[Scribe]

The only way that can be your perception is if you haven't actually engaged with the lore in any detail.

 

BL is a big part of GW's IP now. If your opinion on the setting is coming only from a codex, then it will be insufficient.

He's still correct. The common perception, is because they have turned the whole setting at the GW fluff level, into Hero Hammer.

 

That is what leads to perception issues.

 

I'm aware that the underlying roots are still good. Most people who read the books know this.

 

GW has (and honestly have for years) failed to communicate that well, because starting with maybe GK under Ward, they jumped on this character train, and with Rob, went all in.

 

So again. He's right.

[Ishagu]

I understand that not everyone is into reading, or doesn't have the time, or doesn't want to spend money on novels, etc and that's all perfectly fine.

 

But these BL novels ARE official lore, and they ARE the most detailed examples of it.

 

So if one person is absorbing the novels, their impression and knowledge of the setting will be more accurate, informed and devoped than someone who isn't.

[Scribe]

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with that.

[Bryan Blaire]

Again. If you can't get the tone of the setting for the game from the game materials, then the tone for those materials may be off. You don't need detailed or broad "impressions" of the setting to get tone - your impression of the tone of the setting should be the same whether you read just the core rulebook, the rulebooks and Codexes, just Black Library, just the comics, just Forgeworld materials, or a mixture of any or all of them.

 

If your writing is intended to convey the same tone, then it should convey that tone across all the works. Again - IF you intend to do that. I would contend that as the breadth of audience grew, and the want for an even wider audience, GW has intentionally tweaked the tone of the game materials to not be quite as grim or quite as dark for broader appeal - it makes business sense. Has it lost that tone completely? No. Does it seem different just based on the game materials? It probably does, especially in comparison to other, older game materials.

 

If you intend to convey the same tone, and aren't doing so for your audience, then there are tonal issues in the writing. Some of it might be perception, some may even be "setting fatigue/familiarity" (I mean after all, when 'those guys' have been wearing people's faces on their pauldrons or as capes for twenty+ years, it's not really that shockingly original to read again), but those should be largely overcome by the tone of the writing and game materials themselves.

[Ishagu]

How much tone can be conveyed from some side page blurbs?

 

The codex books are filled with unit descriptions and a run down of some key events by dates, and obviously an introduction to the factions they represent. They aren't the main source of plot, developments or world detail.

 

Also each codex is literally designed to sell you on a faction. You can't sell me on space marines if all you're talking about is how they don't achieve anything, they are doomed to fail and their victories are hollow.

 

The 9th edition rulebook is actually very grim and serious when it presents the setting, in all fairness.

 

But I will stand by what I said - if your perception of the current lore is that it has lost the grimness, darkness or even adult nature in various examples, then you've only scratched the surface and simply don't have a grasp of it.

Also I do agree that setting fatigue plays a part too, and time too.

Game of Thrones has Assasins who literally wear people's faces so when a Slaaneshi Marine rips someone's face off, it isn't as shocking anymore.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Ishagu

[chapter master 454]

Within any design, grand designs will sell massive vistas, sprawling cityscapes and untamed oceans. However within any design smaller details can often be missed, the lesser moments that we don't shine a light on but help deliver a feel.

 

You want an action game to help deliver the sense of awesome or feeling like the best? Satisfying sounds of the guns, subtle details of how a character loads a gun, their inbetween banter that they say while fighting.

You want horror? Slow builds. Did something move there? Was that a shadow...Did that thing just...laugh?

 

Small details can add far more than even the greatest set-pieces of the universe. By all means, I believe the main annoyance is that warhammer 40,000 can be perceived as becoming the "Gulliman and friends show" which has without question shrunk the universe as a whole. Even the novels seem more intent on telling stories about this very laser focused narrative of Gulliman which when compared to prior stories, we had several that would all mean a great deal with 40k lore.

 

The Tyrannic Wars being a formative set of events not just for a few characters but an entire chapter. Armageddon was the very epitome of 40k, the truest monument of triumph for both orks and the imperium. The Cadian Gate vs. the unending crusades of Abbadon and the subtle dread of "what IF the gate did fall". The grand conquest of Solar Macharius, the Reign of Blood.

These are all universe defining events yet...in the scale of 40k they have become more just the fights those take part in. Only 2 of those events were enough to cause a unity of factions. Armageddon is a warzone where no-one is really running the show, not even Yarrick was truly during the 3rd war and even then during the 2nd he was just that cockroach Ghaz couldn't squish. 

The Tyrannic Wars were fought by the Ultramarines and was their sole charge early on when Tyranids were introduced, they fight to keep this extra-galactic threat from getting through the door (which is why their appearance elsewhere was so frightening...they weren't just from that direction...they were everywhere!)/

Cadia was practically the very image of the Imperium: Always one battle away from falling into the warp, always one foot in the grave. Always fighting, always resisting.

 

But now what do we have? Cadia fell and while the Cicatrix Maledictum is cute, it has more served as a means for the writers to try and up the stakes when really it wasn't needed. I mean, oh wow the Imperium is cut in half and reinforcements are hard to get....wait...wasn't that what the warp was for? Making Reinforcements appear 200 years after the battle was done with nothing but a barren rock for the arriving forces to look at and dismay. Oh but it makes communication hard to do...again...we had the warp for that, to send help messages not just back in time but also forward in time.

 

Gulliman's era has been rife with multiple campaigns all being fought by the same handful of characters over and over again. This isn't some Imperial Guard Commander's life work, to protect this planet. No that's Tuesday for Gulliman. The setting has been shrunk.

 

Oh and what's this plot point about Armageddon being some planet called "ullanor" which was the home planet of orks or some nonsense I keep hearing of? Why did an Important planet as it was suddenly need to be more important?

 

A lot of 40k suddenly went Dragonball Z very quickly, invalidating past characters or actions in an attempt to raise the stakes way too fast. I would say maybe if this happened slower, it would of been better but they did rush this out the door, much like the Primaris line imo.

[Bryan Blaire]

Tone can be clearly conveyed by the few words “It was a dark and stormy night...” and it needs to go no further.

 

That is literally (as in written) all it takes to convey tone.

 

So how much tone can be conveyed by a few side blurbs in the rule books and Codexes? Oodles. Oodles of poodles even. (Look, I conveyed tone)

 

You then reinforce tone by utilizing the same tone across multiple pieces of text within a greater work.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

That question was seriously absurd.

 

Has 9th been making a good foray back toward a more grim and dark tone in the rulebook and even Codexes - yes, it definitely seems like it. Does that mean the work is done and that tone is firmly established for the setting? Not at all - tone is something that must constantly be reinforced lest it slip to something else.

 

Different tones can even be conveyed for the same story - for instance, the difference in tone between Disney’s Aladdin vs. other Aladdin and the Wonderous/Wonderful Lamp versions.

[BitsHammer]

I feel like some of these complaints are artificially segregating the most recent lore from older lore. 40k was built up over decades with countless retcons big and small. Comparing all of that to just the stuff that came out since Guilliman returned is an unfair comparison, because it's all pulling from the same source and building on the same ideas.

 

Post Guilliman we got confirmation that a loyalist Word Bearer dreadnought is the source of the current Ecclesiarchy's teachings for example. Story had nothing to do with Guilliman beyond him going "go here" and it has calls into question the Ecclesiarchy, as well as raises questions on if Lorgar was actually right and unfairly punished based on the miracles and living saints that have popped up over the centuries.

 

Here's how I personally look at the newest additions to the lore: they're to put someone on top of each faction, sort of like a "hat". They exist so you can look at their model or read a little about their lore and get a feeling for what each faction is trying to be. Like named characters for specific chapters, but a bit more high level.

 

Thing is they only give that general feel and represent more of a combined effort of the forces beneath them being moved about a chess board. You won't see the more subtle parts of the setting looking at them, and honestly it's probably not a bad idea marketing wise. People can see and identify those high level concepts of each faction from their hat and have somewhere to start from to drill down into the faction further.

 

And once they start drilling they can see the real Grimdark.

 

Also, anyone try Warhammer Horror? They have some audio offerings as well. A lot of it is new too. Really nice way to get a feel for the setting under the hats.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Fulkes

[Scribe]

How much tone can be conveyed from some side page blurbs?

 

lol seriously? A ton. Welcome to 3rd Edition.

[BitsHammer]

 

How much tone can be conveyed from some side page blurbs?

 

lol seriously? A ton. Welcome to 3rd Edition.

 

3rd was written more like someone's personal report and was filled with notes.

 

5th was a lot more text book by design.

 

8th was a little closer to 3rd, but didn't stray that far from where 5th took the way they do lore.

 

I haven't read a lot of 9th's but I'd say it's still not designed to be as flavorful as 3rd. It's informative, but I wouldn't call it inspiring.

[Ishagu]

 

 

How much tone can be conveyed from some side page blurbs?

lol seriously? A ton. Welcome to 3rd Edition.

You should read the 9th edition book. It's pretty dark, as I said before.

[WARMASTER_]

As a said before the tone of GW has never really changed, people’s understanding, Setting fatigue, or people just not being up on Current lore, probably feel like the past was some golden era...

 

But... fortunately those opinions aren’t really valid, Black library writing has (apart from a few authors past and present) improved immensely since 3rd, and modern era campaign books 8th (PA books), 9th codex’s and Rulebook are the same in tone as the earlier editions if not more edging towards hopelessness

 

If you watched horror films 5 nights a week I you’d be pretty desensitised as well... the only really disappointing thing is people don’t realise this and like to pile on GW or their writing team for imagined failures instead of accepting their view point has shifted

[The Widowmaker]

How much tone can be conveyed from some side page blurbs?

 

The 3rd ed rulebook did this really well, in combination with the B/W art.

 

I have to say I was not impressed with 8th in this respect but 9th seems to have improved this, especially the art. That new piece of DG art is fantastic.

Edited December 9, 2020 by The Widowmaker

[Ishagu]

It was a rhetorical question.

 

The answer is less than in a novel that dives into all the hopeless intricacies of the universe in great detail.

[Xenith]

It was a rhetorical question.

 

The answer is less than in a novel that dives into all the hopeless intricacies of the universe in great detail.

 

But a picture paints a thousand words, and in that, Codexes and the rulebooks are supreme.

 

You're both right, but seem to have crossed wires. Lexington is saying that the literature/game has become hero/character focussed, which reduces that focus somewhat.

 

This both is, and isnt true. The smaller pieces you mention are indeed full of smaller, tonal prose, however the main BL books, Horus Heresy, etc are all about characters. Just look at the Primarchs books. Consider McNeill's works If you went by only him, the Thousand Sons legion is made up of maybe 5 people. Same with the iron warriors. The same characters, book after book, in 30k and 40k. This is something that AD-B has remarked upon, indirectly, and said he doesn't like as it narrows the universe [paraphrasing].

 

Game wise, Dante, for example, has gone from someone only witnessed in games over 2000pts, with your opponent's consent, to featuring in loads of 1000pts games. You basically never saw him, he was, actually, semi mythical. Now he's everywhere. Same with Abby, Calgar, etc.

 

Around this time, we started getting colourised art, herohammer/mary sue descriptions (Draigo?) etc.

 

9th is a huge step back to the grim dark. It never went away, but perception of it changed for a while. 

 

This has begun to shift