It's possible for all of the Primarchs to be brought back

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Resurrection doesn’t cheapen the sacrifice, unless the person self sacrificing knows they will be or can be resurrected later.

 

No it definitely does. It does not make the character in the lore less noble, but as the reader it cheapens the hell out of it.

[Marshal Rohr]

Just now, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

No it definitely does. It does not make the character in the lore less noble, but as the reader it cheapens the hell out of it.

There isn’t a single franchise where a sacrifice and resurrection hasn’t jumped the shark. 
 

[spessmarine]

For the popular point of contention, story vs setting, I prefer as usual the half-and-half. Shake things up every so often and play around with the new space for a bit before toppling things again.

Eternal stagnation gets dull after a decade or so. But the constant narrative wears thin as it starts to feel like barrel scraping or has a whole lot of nothing with a lot of hot air around it. Big things can't consistently happen, naturally I understand. I'd rather pauses in between rather than never heard of before macguffins that'll totally change the galaxy or planets never mentioned before suddenly of great importance for a reason that is nonsensical.

[Lay]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:04 AM, Karhedron said:

That is very much in the eye of the beholder. 40K always used to be both a setting and a story. There was a steady progression of events up until around the end of 3rd edition and the 13th Black Crusade. It was only at the start of 4th edition that the clock got frozen at "5 minutes to midnight" and the storyline stopped advancing. 4th-7th editions were actually a lot less interesting to me as a result of this stasis. I continued to play the game but I ceased to actually follow the fluff in any meaningful way. Codices just continually rehashed older lore while novels just told substories within the existing setting.

 

A progressing timeline isn't necessarily a story. In early editions you had events leading up to each other, but each event stood separately with its own stakes and protagonists.

 

I think the real issue is that too many important events now seem to involve the Primarchs. I wonder how people would feel about the progress we've seen since the 13th Black Crusade (Fall of Cadia, Primaris, Great Rift) if GW hadn't brought them back.

[Noserenda]

Except the Primarchs are barely central to the 40k plot like, Cawl and Abbaddon are, much more on the level of most special character leaders

[Kastor Krieg]

15 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

There isn’t a single franchise where a sacrifice and resurrection hasn’t jumped the shark. 

The fanbase of a certain woodworker may harshly disagree.

Or, I dunno, I assume you're writing off the entire 2nd half of the Lord of the Rings. Very bad move, JRR, totally sunk the fans' involvement in the story xD

[SvenIronhand]

15 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

There isn’t a single franchise where a sacrifice and resurrection hasn’t jumped the shark. 
 

A profound misunderstanding of eucatastrophe. 

[Marshal Rohr]

32 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

A profound misunderstanding of eucatastrophe. 

A profound misunderstanding of what kind of story Warhammer is!

 

51 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

The fanbase of a certain woodworker may harshly disagree.

Or, I dunno, I assume you're writing off the entire 2nd half of the Lord of the Rings. Very bad move, JRR, totally sunk the fans' involvement in the story xD

 

Ooooooooooh, I’m gonna tell Grandma Kastor you compared that to a movie franchise 

[ZeroWolf]

37 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

A profound misunderstanding of what kind of story Warhammer is!

 

 

Ooooooooooh, I’m gonna tell Grandma Kastor you compared that to a movie franchise 

Would it have made more sense to compare it with Narnia? 

 

Given the conversation, its probably an even safer bet that we'll have a completed 2nd set of primarchs in HH before 40k. Also LI as you can bet they'll have teeny primarchs.

 

Now I want them to resurrect Inquisitor so we can have 54mm scals primarchs. Maybe they can give roboute a better pose.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

18 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

No it definitely does. It does not make the character in the lore less noble, but as the reader it cheapens the hell out of it.

It really doesn’t if the reader doesn’t make the sacrifice a monolithic thing in their minds.

18 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

There isn’t a single franchise where a sacrifice and resurrection hasn’t jumped the shark. 
 

Tell that to christians

[Bryan Blaire]

Y’all need to cool it with discussion of the real world religious topic before you get the thread locked.  Let’s accept that there are Christian allusions made by 40K, and those have been and can discussed in the bounds of 30/40K, but 40K is not Christianity and typically religions aren’t considered franchises.  Let’s move past the comments and get back to the actual topic.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Marshal Rohr]

I didn’t make any religious connections. I said Franchises. Words mean things. 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Marshal Rohr

[Emperor Ming]

Christianity in the 40k setting was founded around the Emperor so its not like there is zero connection

Edited November 10, 2023 by Emperor Ming

[Bryan Blaire]

9 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Christianity in the 40k setting was founded around the Emperor so its not like there is zero connection

I mean, in or before 30K/the Horus Heresy, the Emperor had all religions eliminated from practice (that whole Last Church story and the like), so it will be pretty hard to discuss any religion in the 30/40K setting beyond the Imperial Creed or Chaos, seeing as we don’t have any writings on their current practices.  Any discussion of religion outside the actual setting works would constitute Off-Topic discussion per the rules - so let’s keep it to things actually covered by the hobby.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Lay]

  

19 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

I said Franchises. Words mean things. 

 

To add to that, I wouldn't even consider LOTR a comparable franchise, especially if we narrow it down to Tolkien's writing. Tolkien certainly had higher aspirations than GW.

 

I mean, just look at this thread and count how many times people have said that GW is totally bringing more Primarchs back because it's profitable. It's even coming from some who like the idea.

It's hard not to be skeptical about the prospect of resurrecting dead characters when both sides of the argument play the "it's just business" card.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Lay

[Marshal Rohr]

15 minutes ago, Lay said:

  

 

To add to that, I wouldn't even consider LOTR a comparable franchise, especially if we narrow it down to Tolkien's writing. Tolkien certainly had higher aspirations than GW.

 

I mean, just look at this thread and count how many times people have said that GW is totally bringing more Primarchs back because it's profitable. It's even coming from some who like the idea.

It's hard not to be skeptical about the prospect of resurrecting dead characters when both sides of the argument play the "it's just business" card.

Amen 

[Scribe]

52 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Christianity in the 40k setting was founded around the Emperor so its not like there is zero connection

 

And, since it's Grimdark, he doesn't die, and shouldn't be reborn.

 

A corpse God.

 

Comparisons to Christianity...

 

Forgive them Khorne, they know not what they do. 

[Lexington]

GW can, of course, bring back any dead Primarch they want, story be damned. The real question is why anyone would want them to.

 

Like, holy diminishing returns, Batman. Does anyone even remember the Lion’s return? It feels like maybe the fourth most interesting thing to happen in what was, overall, a fairly dull year for 40K on a story level.

[Helias_Tancred]

23 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

No it definitely does. It does not make the character in the lore less noble, but as the reader it cheapens the hell out of it.

 

I think they are beginning to lay the literary groundwork that shows Sanguinius was 100% genuine and self-sacrificing ... and there are ways to bring those dead primarchs back. 

 

Does that cheapen it? Any answer to that question is based on personal opinion in the end. All we can hope for is they do an excellent job with the lore to make it as right as it can be. 

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

 

I think they are beginning to lay the literary groundwork that shows Sanguinius was 100% genuine and self-sacrificing ... and there are ways to bring those dead primarchs back. 

 

Does that cheapen it? Any answer to that question is based on personal opinion in the end. All we can hope for is they do an excellent job with the lore to make it as right as it can be. 

 

Its not a complicated question.

 

Does it cheapen the story? Yes.

Make it as right as can be? Leave it the hell alone.

[spessmarine]

4 hours ago, Lexington said:

GW can, of course, bring back any dead Primarch they want, story be damned. The real question is why anyone would want them to.

 

Like, holy diminishing returns, Batman. Does anyone even remember the Lion’s return? It feels like maybe the fourth most interesting thing to happen in what was, overall, a fairly dull year for 40K on a story level.

 

Yeah, I don't recall why he is even back and forget at times he is back.

Though, that is likely to do with how he is returned but disjointed from things around him. It was exciting leading up to, and the reveal but then he was immediately sold out for a while and then 10th came around and didn't even acknowledge his existence.

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, spessmarine said:

Though, that is likely to do with how he is returned but disjointed from things around him. It was exciting leading up to, and the reveal but then he was immediately sold out for a while and then 10th came around and didn't even acknowledge his existence.

 

GW seem to have largely stopped putting narrative developments in codices and other gaming books. Maybe the DA Codex will have some more details but at the moment the Lion novel is the sole source of lore concerning his return. This can be frustrating for us as readers but remember it took GW 5 years to explore the implications of Guilliman's return via the Dark Imperium trilogy, Dawn of Fire series, Great Work and Watchers of the Throne series. There are also many more books showing the implications of Guilliman's return and the arrival of Primaris Marines, even if they don't show Guilliman directly (e.g. Darkness in the Blood, Spear of the Emperor etc).

 

GW will likely spend a similar amount of time establishing the Lion's impact on the setting. How will the Dark Angels and the rest of the Unforgiven react to the return of their Primarch? What implication does this have for the Hunt for the Fallen? Will we see forces composed of Risen/Redeemed Marines? When/How will the Lion meet Guilliman? The Lion has met Dante (Guilliman's regent in Nihilus) so it is fair to assume Guilliman will soon learn of his brother's return. We have a lot of questions and the first book only scratches the surface. I think it is fair to assume that BL will spend the rest of 10th edition exploring what the return of the Lion means for the Galaxy at large.

[Special Officer Doofy]

4 hours ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

Does that cheapen it? Any answer to that question is based on personal opinion in the end. All we can hope for is they do an excellent job with the lore to make it as right as it can be. 

 

Nah it cheapens it. Whether bringing him back "cheapens" the story, that is more personal opinion and subjective. But does it cheapen the idea of the sacrifice as the reader or outside observer? Sure does by the definition of the very word sacrifice because nothing is lost in the end. That's objective.

 

Sacrifice: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else.

 

1 (Sanguinius being alive) - 1 (Horus killing him) = 0 (Sanguinius being dead). The end outcome is different than Sanguinius being alive.

 

1 (Sanguinius being alive) - 1 (Horus killing him) + 1 (Emperor or some force revives him) = 1 (Sanguinius is alive). The ending outcome is the same as the starting outcome, there is no net loss.

 

Sanguinius coming back negates the "destruction or surrender of something" which in turn negates the sacrifice. Which indeed cheapens it.

[phandaal]

16 hours ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Or, I dunno, I assume you're writing off the entire 2nd half of the Lord of the Rings. Very bad move, JRR, totally sunk the fans' involvement in the story xD

 

Gandalf returning from his apparent death does ease the impact for anyone reading the books more than once or seeing the movies again. The next time you see him falling from the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, you will know he is coming back.

 

That said, Gandalf dying and then staying dead is not a foundational aspect of the story. The mythos is not built on it, yeah?

[Tyriks]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Nah it cheapens it. Whether bringing him back "cheapens" the story, that is more personal opinion and subjective. But does it cheapen the idea of the sacrifice as the reader or outside observer? Sure does by the definition of the very word sacrifice because nothing is lost in the end. That's objective.

 

Sacrifice: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else.

 

1 (Sanguinius being alive) - 1 (Horus killing him) = 0 (Sanguinius being dead). The end outcome is different than Sanguinius being alive.

 

1 (Sanguinius being alive) - 1 (Horus killing him) + 1 (Emperor or some force revives him) = 1 (Sanguinius is alive). The ending outcome is the same as the starting outcome, there is no net loss.

 

Sanguinius coming back negates the "destruction or surrender of something" which in turn negates the sacrifice. Which indeed cheapens it.

I would rather they not bring Sanguinius back, but this is still oversimplified, and certainly not objective. If Sanguinius returns, he still sacrificed. For starters, the pain he endured in being murdered is a sacrifice. The ten thousand years he lost is a sacrifice. The damage his death and absence have done to the Blood Angels is a sacrifice. Whatever physical or psychological changes that occur in his revival would be a sacrifice. Reviving him does not automatically cheapen the story. 

 

But, it's GW, so it will absolutely cheapen it.