Dune to Warhammer 40k Astartes

[Captain Idaho]

Well it can't be said my opinion is any less likely to be true or down to echo chambers than anyone else's without being inconsistent logically. We can only go by experience and feedback from the sources we have, so we can't claim all the evidence we have access to is to be thrown out as subjective because it points in one direction chiefly and we don't like that.

 

Regardless, I too dislike Rogue Trader elements. The evolution of 40K still has it's origin in what it stole from elsewhere, with some of it being less close to the original than others. Navigators being a great example of something that diverged very little in concept to that stolen from Dune.

 

The more something evolved away from the original source material, the weaker it has become in the opinions of many. Sure, label that an echo chamber or loud minority, but where was the loud minority when complaining about the old background material? The sheer numbers tells it's own tale right now.

 

Full numbers? Well when GW releases background only books based on their new material as of late, it's flopped. That tells another tale.

 

We can make of it what we will. I still love 40K but what's the real argument here? GW never stole anything or the original source material is inferior? Both of those statements are false by virtue of the real evidence - GW DID steal things and the original sources are hugely more successful in multiple formats than GW has ever been and more widely known.

 

Does that make GW poor? No, they're my top choice for a miniatures company and will be for quite some time.

[Karhedron]

Pretty sure almost every piece of sci-fi fantasy from the last 40 years bears some similarities to Dune.

 

At the risk of going OT, try some of Peter F. Hamoilton's books. Great hard sci-fi.

[Helias_Tancred]

lol Space Marines with harems. Reminds me of that scene from Conan The Barbarian where they toss the hot girl into Conan's cage lol.

[Orange Knight]

On the tangent of newer 40k lore, I don't think there is any actual drop of quality in terms of the setting or stories in recent years.

 

40k lore has always been a hodge-podge of ideas from various sources, some imitated, others original. It has been revised significantly from inception to the current form. Arguably some of the most beloved aspects of the settings are those inspired by other properties.

 

40k was stagnant for many years, and the status quo became transfixed in people's minds. What existed was accepted - much of it was great, but plenty of it was often silly or even nonsensical.

 

I've read a lot of Black Library novels, and like most I started my journey with the established classics: Horus Rising, Eisenhorn's Omnibus, Ravenor, Gaunt's Ghosts, etc

Upon positive reactions from people on this forum I've recently finished the Belisarius Cawl novel, Devastation of Baal, Darkness in the Blood, The Infinite and the Devine, Spears of the Emperor and the Dark Imperium trilogy (I listened to the DI trilogy on audible). Some of these books stands amongst the very best 40k fiction I've experienced, and I don't recognise the sentiment that the setting has been compromised as a fact.

 

People don't tend to complain about lore when they first encounter it. A lot of people who invested in 40k did so in a stagnant setting where everything was known, nothing changed and nothing was surprising. Now that things are moving it has been a shock to the system to some.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't agree with that at all. The lore was never stagnant. The setting in the Codex books was set but the novels created during that time were great reads and innovative at times and expanded upon it all.

 

It's important not to confuse the novels written by BL with the setting in Codex books created by the studio.

 

I'm not calling the individual authors poorer, rather I'm saying they are working in a setting that is poorer. Subjective? Perhaps, but then when has any of the modern books hit the New York Best sellers lists like the older ones did?

 

The work closer to the material GW pilfered is more popular and critiqued more favourably by professionals.

[Malakithe]

The lore was most definitely stagnant. It was the same stuff for at least 20+ years until only a 5ish years ago where they are now pushing and moving the 'story' along. Same with Fantasy. That was so stagnant they literally wiped it away to make something new. 

 

But I would say 'steal' is a strong word. And used in the wrong context here. Almost every single book/movie/game/whatever has been influenced from one or more sources.

[phandaal]

The lore was most definitely stagnant. It was the same stuff for at least 20+ years until only a 5ish years ago where they are now pushing and moving the 'story' along. Same with Fantasy. That was so stagnant they literally wiped it away to make something new.

 

But I would say 'steal' is a strong word. And used in the wrong context here. Almost every single book/movie/game/whatever has been influenced from one or more sources.

Fantasy is not the best example here. Warhammer Fantasy did not get wiped away due to stagnation.

 

Warhammer Fantasy suffered from many years of truly awful rules driving away customers and just generally playing second fiddle to Sci-fi in terms of popularity.

 

Warhammer Fantasy being "wiped away" was GW's brainwave for increasing fantasy sales in a setting they could more easily copyright due to the ridiculous faction names they came up with.

 

Thankfully, Age of Sigmar's reception did convince Games Workshop to abandon their plans to "End Times" Warhammer 40k.

[Captain Idaho]

But it wasn't the same stuff. There were numerous black library novels in the sandbox created. There were campaign books as well. The background moved, it just didn't unbalance the status quo that marked the character of the setting. Edited October 29, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Malakithe]

Stagnation was there. Before primaris nothing was going on. Nothing really mattered. GW didnt go with the End Times route but the definitely shook things up by bringing Papa G back and these strange slightly taller marines. Then lore wise they ripped the galaxy in half via a giant rift. Background books and stuff are fine but they are not the primary driver or focus for the setting. I dont remember any campaigns or books that really mattered or shook things up in the end. 

 

Its just like the video game industry. No change and no updates will cause a game to slowly die off and bleed out players 

Edited October 29, 2021 by WarriorFish
Do not dodge the swear filter

[Captain Idaho]

I totally disagree. Poor management and gameplay causes a video game to die off.

 

Case in point - Doom (original 90s) and Skyrim. Both have few updates in terms of gameplay but both still have a massive following and community. There are small tweaks released in the form of mods and wads but the fundamentals of the games are there.

 

No one is buying into the hobby because of the new background. They're buying into the game and models. Again, evidence? Look at poor sales of background only modern books and compare them to when those books have rules.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Bryan Blaire]

I don't agree with that at all. The lore was never stagnant. The setting in the Codex books was set but the novels created during that time were great reads and innovative at times and expanded upon it all.

 

It's important not to confuse the novels written by BL with the setting in Codex books created by the studio.

 

CPT Idaho, what modern “background only” books that aren’t Black Library books (see your above quote on your defined separation of them) are you talking about?

 

And what sales data source are your citing so that we can all read it and be on the same page for the discussion?

 

I’m also going to say that my personal view of the “lore of 40K” has never included the novels from Black Library, because those aren’t the general body of knowledge about a subject (40K) that everyone has - the lore has always been the stuff in the Codexes and the Big Rule Books, which only ever incrementally added to things.  Yes, there were new little snippets here or there, but for the most part, everything was stable (which can be viewed as stagnant), and within the last two or three editions (6th, 7th, 8th probably) many of the lore entries and even unit descriptions and things were mostly copy-paste between Codexes.  The campaign books did add more to the setting, but a lot of that seems to have been washed away with 9th and the Era Indomitus, setting things seemingly more back to the status quo, but with a big Warp rip down the center of the galaxy.

[Captain Idaho]

So I have to provide sales data to say that a substantial proportion of the community are unhappy with modern background material from GW, but people who argue it's superior to Dune and others can just make those comments without challenge?

 

And we can't all pretend GW have never released fiction only material and that we never heard of it before to defend the company.

[Bryan Blaire]

So I have to provide sales data to say that a substantial proportion of the community are unhappy with modern background material from GW, but people who argue it's superior to Dune and others can just make those comments without challenge?

 

And we can't all pretend GW have never released fiction only material and that we never heard of it before to defend the company.

I think if you are going to argue based on something that is as concrete as sales numbers, then yes, you have to provide the facts so we can all see them, otherwise yes, the argument can be dismissed as not substantiated.

 

I haven’t seen/interacted with a “substantial portion” of the community unhappy with the modern background, because I haven’t personally interacted with a “substantial portion” - no one (other than maybe GW, but I doubt even them) can really say what a “substantial portion of the community” actually looks like, because we don’t know what the community looks like outside our own frame of reference.  I couldn’t tell you conclusively with any kind of factual evidence that the community is any broader than my local stores’ 40K gaming population, the membership of probably three gaming Internet forums that I know of, and some of the people I’ve seen in different photos of tournaments and Warhammer World - those are my only known points of reference for the community.  Since I don’t factually know anything beyond that, I can hardly speak for what the world wide “community” likes or dislikes, or why they play the game.  I certainly can’t make a concrete assertion that “no one” gets into the game for the modern background/novels, because I don’t know every single new player of the game - it’s entirely plausible to me that at least one person has gotten into the game because of the modern background/novels, so it’s not possible to make that assertion with any kind of factual basis.  If you can’t prove an absolute, then it isn’t a valid point to state, and you can’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

 

Honestly, I believe a broad part of the community doesn’t even really care that much about the background/stories for 40K, and just like playing the game, collecting and painting the models, or some mix of the two - but I can’t prove it to anyone.  My experience with 40K has been that outside of the hard-core folks, many of the people walking in and out of the shops with models they’ve purchased don’t want to have a two plus hour conversation with me on things like the operation of servos in power armor, or how the circulatory system of a Tyranid might operate, or even how the space magic of the Marine/Primaris implants might work.  They just don’t care that much/aren’t that invested in it.  They might comment that Vraks was cool, if they even know about it, but they don’t want to discuss why “this” decision over “that” decision was better/worse, or how the story might have been different in Vigilus if Dante had been able to show up to super-hero team up against Abaddon.  So again, if we are only arguing anecdotes, then we really can’t get anywhere.

 

40K is not superior to Dune - at least not in my view.    It’s a ridiculous assertion that doesn’t need to be argued against.  If anyone personally likes it better than Dune, that’s one thing, but to state unequivocally that it’s better/superior - that’s going to be a pretty steep hill requiring a lot of facts needed to convince me.

 

As far as the Black Library question, what I’m trying to get to is what folks define as “lore of the setting” - for me, it’s not the BL stuff, that isn’t lore, those are very specific stories that are themselves sandboxed in the wider setting - if it is for you, then you and I are discussing from different frames of reference and can never come to the same conclusions - that may be the issue that is being had in this thread.

[phandaal]

 

 

I haven’t seen/interacted with a “substantial portion” of the community unhappy with the modern background, because I haven’t personally interacted with a “substantial portion” - no one (other than maybe GW, but I doubt even them) can really say what a “substantial portion of the community” actually looks like, because we don’t know what the community looks like outside our own frame of reference.

 

 

You can look at the fact that Games Workshop dialed back their decision to advance the setting hundreds of years into the future.

 

Ticking the lore back to "just after the great rift opened" is probably the only indicator we will get that the modern background was not as well received as Games Workshop had hoped.

 

In general, people do not like when new characters come out of nowhere and turn out to have been central to the lore all along. I.e. Belisarius Cawl coming into being and having been secretly tasked with canonizing Scale Creep and a range refresh by Roboute Guilliman himself 10,000 years ago.

[Bryan Blaire]

You can look at the fact that Games Workshop dialed back their decision to advance the setting hundreds of years into the future.

 

Ticking the lore back to "just after the great rift opened" is probably the only indicator we will get that the modern background was not as well received as Games Workshop had hoped.

 

In general, people do not like when new characters come out of nowhere and turn out to have been central to the lore all along. I.e. Belisarius Cawl coming into being and having been secretly tasked with canonizing Scale Creep and a range refresh by Roboute Guilliman himself 10,000 years ago.

I guess you could take it as that - it’s definitely one interpretation.

 

It could also be that GW realized, without much consideration for the “community” and their view at all, that what they had done really hampered their story telling that they wanted to do from their internal meetings, or that it didn’t logically make sense based on advances that they wanted to have.

 

The key point here is that we don’t actually know why they did it - I haven’t seen a statement from GW saying “The community didn’t like it, so we rolled it back.”  Without facts, we are just interpreting based on our own frame of reference with all that comes with that.

 

What we do know is the fact that rolling the time frame back didn’t change “Belisarius Cawl coming into being and having been secretly tasked with canonizing Scale Creep and a range refresh by Roboute Guilliman himself 10,000 years ago” a single iota, being that it is still present in the lore of the game - so I fail to see how changing the time frame did anything to alleviate that particular issue that “people” dislike - which itself seems to be a divisive, not singular, issue, with some potentially liking the change, some don’t (and express their displeasure loudly), and some maybe not even knowing that there was a change other than “Hey, these guys are a lot bigger and look cooler than those similar guys” or “Dang, those bigger guys look dumb compared to these other ones, and they don’t have near as many cool armor variations.”

[phandaal]

 

You can look at the fact that Games Workshop dialed back their decision to advance the setting hundreds of years into the future.

 

Ticking the lore back to "just after the great rift opened" is probably the only indicator we will get that the modern background was not as well received as Games Workshop had hoped.

 

In general, people do not like when new characters come out of nowhere and turn out to have been central to the lore all along. I.e. Belisarius Cawl coming into being and having been secretly tasked with canonizing Scale Creep and a range refresh by Roboute Guilliman himself 10,000 years ago.

I guess you could take it as that - it’s definitely one interpretation.

 

It could also be that GW realized, without much consideration for the “community” and their view at all, that what they had done really hampered their story telling that they wanted to do from their internal meetings, or that it didn’t logically make sense based on advances that they wanted to have.

 

The key point here is that we don’t actually know why they did it - I haven’t seen a statement from GW saying “The community didn’t like it, so we rolled it back.”  Without facts, we are just interpreting based on our own frame of reference with all that comes with that.

 

 

Yeah, that is what I was getting at. Outside of actually working at GW, the only indication we have that it was not well received was GW dialing back their lore. And that can be interpreted many ways.

 

What we do know is the fact that rolling the time frame back didn’t change “Belisarius Cawl coming into being and having been secretly tasked with canonizing Scale Creep and a range refresh by Roboute Guilliman himself 10,000 years ago” a single iota, being that it is still present in the lore of the game - so I fail to see how changing the time frame did anything to alleviate that particular issue that “people” dislike - which itself seems to be a divisive, not singular, issue, with some potentially liking the change, some don’t (and express their displeasure loudly), and some maybe not even knowing that there was a change other than “Hey, these guys are a lot bigger and look cooler than those similar guys” or “Dang, those bigger guys look dumb compared to these other ones, and they don’t have near as many cool armor variations.”

You fail to see it because it is not a claim I was making haha.

 

Two separate points:

 

One, GW may have rolled back the lore jump because it was not received as well as they would have liked.

 

Two, people may not have liked the introduction of a new character who was secretly behind everything all along.

 

That is all there is to it. Should have made it more clear that they were separate points.

[Orange Knight]

The rolled-back jump only really applies to the Dark Imperium novels, and some other works by author Guy Haley.

 

By having those books take place after the new Crusade, it lowered the impetus of the Dawn of Fire series.

 

I believe that they rerconned them for the simple reason of having a story framework of within the new Crusade to operate in. Nothing was actually changed in terms of what took place.

 

The current timeline of 40k is similar to the Great Crusade of 30k, with massive fleets retaking and reclaiming lost parts of the galaxy.

 

Games Workshop, admittedly, did not do a good job initially of updating the lore. They have corrected their mistakes with updated campaign, codex and story books. I don't feel that we should continue to hold the rough start against them, because if we did then we should also be angry about the fact that Marines were initially regular humans in power armour, amongst other substantial differences.

[phandaal]

Games Workshop, admittedly, did not do a good job initially of updating the lore. They have corrected their mistakes with updated campaign, codex and story books. I don't feel that we should continue to hold the rough start against them, because if we did then we should also be angry about the fact that Marines were initially regular humans in power armour, amongst other substantial differences.

 

Space Marines even used to say Semper Fi. Fun times.

[Helias_Tancred]

 

So I have to provide sales data to say that a substantial proportion of the community are unhappy with modern background material from GW, but people who argue it's superior to Dune and others can just make those comments without challenge?

 

And we can't all pretend GW have never released fiction only material and that we never heard of it before to defend the company.

 

40K is not superior to Dune - at least not in my view.    It’s a ridiculous assertion that doesn’t need to be argued against.  If anyone personally likes it better than Dune, that’s one thing, but to state unequivocally that it’s better/superior - that’s going to be a pretty steep hill requiring a lot of facts needed to convince me.

 

As far as the Black Library question, what I’m trying to get to is what folks define as “lore of the setting” - for me, it’s not the BL stuff, that isn’t lore, those are very specific stories that are themselves sandboxed in the wider setting - if it is for you, then you and I are discussing from different frames of reference and can never come to the same conclusions - that may be the issue that is being had in this thread.

 

 

I tend to see the various sci-fi genre heavies, as their stand-alone unique beast; Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, 40K, etc. Some did take from others but at the end of the day they've emerged as their own.

 

Lore nowadays is basically everything written in the 40k genre. However I do remember those very nice timeline sections from each codex that gave a list of actions/events that your faction/army participated in or were affected by ... I miss them. It gave depth, even if some were just a sentence or two.

[Medjugorje]

I mean, yes, absolutely it is. I am not even joking when I say that Dune was a heavy influence on 40k/Rogue Trader. Heinlein's "starship troopers" also, with tolkein-esc tones thrown in but mostly a lot of Dune.

 

Think about the whole "Men of Iron" bit in the lore: straight up borrowed from Herbert's story lines. Also the fact that Dune is set in the year 40k AD which is not a coincidence that we have WH40k

 

So i dont have to wonder why I think Dune is the best movie of past 10 years.

[Orange Knight]

Sure, the first Dune book and Messiah are better than any 40k novel, but I certainly wouldn't claim that the Dune universe is strictly superior to the one in 40k.

 

The Primarch drama, the 40k Emperor, the Astartes and Custodes, etc. These are some of my favourite elements of the 40k universe and I prefer the characters and setting to that of Dune.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I don't agree with that at all. The lore was never stagnant. The setting in the Codex books was set but the novels created during that time were great reads and innovative at times and expanded upon it all.

It's important not to confuse the novels written by BL with the setting in Codex books created by the studio.

I'm not calling the individual authors poorer, rather I'm saying they are working in a setting that is poorer. Subjective? Perhaps, but then when has any of the modern books hit the New York Best sellers lists like the older ones did?

The work closer to the material GW pilfered is more popular and critiqued more favourably by professionals.

 

QFT !!!

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

I mean, yes, absolutely it is. I am not even joking when I say that Dune was a heavy influence on 40k/Rogue Trader. Heinlein's "starship troopers" also, with tolkein-esc tones thrown in but mostly a lot of Dune.

Think about the whole "Men of Iron" bit in the lore: straight up borrowed from Herbert's story lines. Also the fact that Dune is set in the year 40k AD which is not a coincidence that we have WH40k

 

 

So i dont have to wonder why I think Dune is the best movie of past 10 years.

 

The best… no way.

[Helias_Tancred]

 

I mean, yes, absolutely it is. I am not even joking when I say that Dune was a heavy influence on 40k/Rogue Trader. Heinlein's "starship troopers" also, with tolkein-esc tones thrown in but mostly a lot of Dune.

 

Think about the whole "Men of Iron" bit in the lore: straight up borrowed from Herbert's story lines. Also the fact that Dune is set in the year 40k AD which is not a coincidence that we have WH40k

 

So i dont have to wonder why I think Dune is the best movie of past 10 years.

 

 

Hmmm .... certainly if you take into consideration the context surrounding the new Dune movie (It being spoken of as impossible to make a good movie about, Lynch's movie in 1984, etc) you may have a point. But THE best movie? I just saw 12 Years A Slave a few days ago I think it was a better movie than Dune, in pure movie tense. 

[phandaal]

1984 Dune is awesome. It has a steel guitar soundtrack by Toto, Sting, and quotable quotes like "Usul, we have wormsign the likes of which even GOD has never seen!"