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

[Lexington]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

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.

 

Not that I doubt GW's capacity to linger on the supposed Deep Implications and Amazing Revelations of a Primarch's every bathroom break, but, I dunno, are any of these things actually important in the context of 40K? Guilliman's return was just one bit in a smorgasbord of giant, galaxy-altering events, and for that, it probably seems a lot more interesting than it really was. Even with the - at best - debatable quality of the 40K setting during and after the Gathering Storm books, there's no doubt that it all felt big and exciting. Primaris! The Rift! Guilliman becoming de-facto Emperor! It felt like the setting was really going through something historic.

 

With the Lion, tho, there's not a lot of implications to be had. Outside of the Dark Angels, specifically, it basically doesn't matter. To the galaxy at large, there's a large, confused man wandering around. Some Space Marines might wear different colors on their armor now. Two brothers have a terse conversation. That's basically a couple of page 20 items on a slow news day. Headlines, they ain't.

 

This is the inevitable problem of bringing Primarchs back in general - on their own, they're just not very interesting. They're epic characters for epic times, meant to encapsulate the legendary past and, eventually, returning to herald the setting's end. 40K's a cash cow, though, so an actual ending isn't in the cards. Instead, we're stuck with this altered-but-mostly-stable state where a big name pops up again every few years, and it's supposed to be a Big Deal, but nothing ever really comes of it. What a sad fate for them, and for us.

[Helias_Tancred]

9 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.

 

Like I previously said, at the end of the day that is your opinion on the topic. It may be a valid opinion for some, but not for everyone. 

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Its not a complicated question.

 

Does it cheapen the story? Yes.

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

 

Again, this is your opinion. I respect it but it is not the same one I share, and/or others? For a long time I shared your opinion on it,  around two years ago my view on it began to change to the one I have today.

 

Also at the end of the day you cannot turn an opinion into fact, nor can you do so by continually arguing it in a message forum ;)

 

At the end of the day opinions vary on this complex question, and each side has their reasons for those opinions. 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Eilio Tiberius

[Scribe]

28 minutes ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

Again, this is your opinion. I respect it but it is not the same one I share, and/or others? For a long time I shared your opinion on it,  around two years ago my view on it began to change to the one I have today.

 

Also at the end of the day you cannot turn an opinion into fact, nor can you do so by continually arguing it in a message forum ;)

 

At the end of the day opinions vary on this complex question, and each side has their reasons for those opinions. 

 

Nah, this one is not an opinion. A sacrifice is cheapened if the 'sacrifice' is negated.

 

Bringing back Sanguinious would be close to the worst thing GW could do, at least in the Top 3 of "Idiotic IP changes GW could do in 40K"

[Helias_Tancred]

2 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Nah, this one is not an opinion. A sacrifice is cheapened if the 'sacrifice' is negated.

 

Bringing back Sanguinious would be close to the worst thing GW could do, at least in the Top 3 of "Idiotic IP changes GW could do in 40K"

 

Well you can think whatever. 

[Scribe]

33 minutes ago, Eilio Tiberius said:

 

Well you can think whatever. 

 

Indeed so, and I'll correctly identify that bringing back a character who's sacrifice is central to the mythology of the setting, for no real reason beyond corporate greed.

 

1. Cheapens the act.

2. Is inappropriate for the tone of the setting.

3. Would be nothing but an act of naked greed, selling out what tattered remnants of integrity which still exist in the lore, to make a quick buck off of Imperial/BA players.

 

Its like the Lion, but critically worse as it would trample on both the point of the sacrifice, the long term lore, and there is zero (factually, I checked) way it could be done to 'improve' upon the setting.

 

Crass, classless, tasteless, vapid, vulgar, grotesque, mockery. Simply some of the words that pop into my mind at the thought of bringing back Sanguinius. 

 

Mephiston and the Sanguinor exist to fulfil the tropes of Sanguinius in 40K.

[Helias_Tancred]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Indeed so, and I'll correctly identify that bringing back a character who's sacrifice is central to the mythology of the setting, for no real reason beyond corporate greed.

 

1. Cheapens the act.

2. Is inappropriate for the tone of the setting.

3. Would be nothing but an act of naked greed, selling out what tattered remnants of integrity which still exist in the lore, to make a quick buck off of Imperial/BA players.

 

Its like the Lion, but critically worse as it would trample on both the point of the sacrifice, the long term lore, and there is zero (factually, I checked) way it could be done to 'improve' upon the setting.

 

Crass, classless, tasteless, vapid, vulgar, grotesque, mockery. Simply some of the words that pop into my mind at the thought of bringing back Sanguinius. 

 

Mephiston and the Sanguinor exist to fulfil the tropes of Sanguinius in 40K.

 

Yeah you're definitely right. Congrats.

[Blindhamster]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Indeed so, and I'll correctly identify that bringing back a character who's sacrifice is central to the mythology of the setting, for no real reason beyond corporate greed.

 

1. Cheapens the act.

2. Is inappropriate for the tone of the setting.

3. Would be nothing but an act of naked greed, selling out what tattered remnants of integrity which still exist in the lore, to make a quick buck off of Imperial/BA players.

 

Its like the Lion, but critically worse as it would trample on both the point of the sacrifice, the long term lore, and there is zero (factually, I checked) way it could be done to 'improve' upon the setting.

 

Crass, classless, tasteless, vapid, vulgar, grotesque, mockery. Simply some of the words that pop into my mind at the thought of bringing back Sanguinius. 

 

Mephiston and the Sanguinor exist to fulfil the tropes of Sanguinius in 40K.

 

As a fellow long time member of the forum and the hobby and a Blood Angels fan from literally the moment I saw a games workshop (glorious 2nd ed box art), I respectfully disagree.

 

Others alluded to it, and it's still worth noting; to followers of the Christian faith, Jesus returned after his sacrifice, he did so pretty quickly after death too. Yet his sacrifice is pivotal and crucial to said faith. What's more the same faith even believe after he went off to heaven having ascended that he'll return. Sort of suggests that returning after sacrifice doesn't cheapen it to a pretty substantial part of the world.

 

But, looking back specifically at Sanguinius

 

The notion that coming back cheapens the sacrifice isn't really accurate either because for Sanguinius, the important thing was, he believed he had essentially no chance, he didn't have visions beyond the fight with Horus. To him, going in anyway was because it was what he believed was right. It was a sacrifice of his own life for what he believed in and with no belief that he'd "come back". His death and subsequent martyrdom may be core to the imperium in a way that very few other primarchs really are, but again his return would no doubt be seen as (and further propogated as) an Imperial miracle (again, something we've seen before with Celestine too).

 

His death caused the black rage, we've no evidence that him being returned in some manner would fix that, in fact I'd bet on GW instead playing with the opposite and having him somehow negatively impacted by that same curse.

 

His return wouldn't be inappropriate to the setting because they've been building up the idea of it for decades at this point with multiple small hints and nods at the idea that shards of his "soul" still exist, that his body is secure and maintained in a similar manner to Guilliman, there's even been scenes in at least one Black Library novel where it's implied Corbulo hears a heart beat (though admittedly based on End and the Death Part 2 that seems... unlikely!). A large part of the tone and theme of the Blood Angels is that of hope, they even had a unique vow in Deathwatch around it.

 

Characters have come back in the setting more than once already, establishing the idea that it's possible so it doesn't break with the themes or tone of the setting from that angle either.

 

Point 3, I think is a hugely loaded and opinion based statement, and one you're absolutely allowed to have, but I don't necessarily agree (clearly), there's numerous angles they could return Sanguinius that would work and could be interesting. They could play on the idea of second comings, they could do something with the shards of his soul (such as the one on the vengeful spirit), they could so something with a fabius bile clone (we know he's capable of cloning primarchs and that he ostensibly has genetic material from them all). They could do something involving the Sanguinor and Mephiston. They could do something with the warp entity of Sanguinius that Dante has directly interacted with.

 

I do agree that bringing Sanguinius back would need to be different, in fact I think any version of "Sanguinius" that could be brought back wouldn't be "Sanguinius" (in that it wouldn't be the primarch that fought horus on the vengeful spirit). But they've very clearly been playing around a lot more with the metaphysical side of the Great Angel for a long time in the novels at this point and there could be some interesting things that could be done with that if they desired.

 

All the above said...

 

I do generally agree that Sanguinius definitely doesn't need to be brought back, and I'd personally be more interested to see them better explore Mephistons apotheosis (seriously, his rules don't come close to how he's described in the latest novels) or further exploring the Sanguinor and his seemingly increased activity with the Blood Angels and amping him up model and rulewise to more closely match his descriptions (he's capable of guiding ships through the warp without the Astronomican and of fighting Greater Daemons like he's a Dragon Ball Z main character..).

[Kastor Krieg]

Next thing I'll hear any sacrifice by Doctor Who is meaningless because he's "guaranteed to return". As if the central theme of sacrifice was not suffering, instead of a simple "you died, lol" Dark Souls game-over screen death. 

 

Sanguinius' sacrifice took the entirety of Siege of Terra, extremes of heroism, suffering, pain, being worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, emotional pain of so many hues and then, finally, THAT SCENE.

 

Nothing can erase that. Especially in Warhammer 40k, as were he to resurrect, he'd only be in for even more pain. You think Dante has it hard and wishes to finally quit? That Guilliman and Lion were shocked by the state of the galaxy and the Imperium?

Think of what would happen to Sanguinius, not just physically but emotionally, were he to come back and learn how things turned out after all he had sacrificed.

 

"Resurrection always cheapens sacrifice", my grox hide. Bird boy is coming back to suffer even more and I'm all here for it. Bring it and make it hurt.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Kastor Krieg

[Scribe]

29 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Others alluded to it, and it's still worth noting; to followers of the Christian faith, Jesus returned after his sacrifice, he did so pretty quickly after death too. Yet his sacrifice is pivotal and crucial to said faith. What's more the same faith even believe after he went off to heaven having ascended that he'll return. Sort of suggests that returning after sacrifice doesn't cheapen it to a pretty substantial part of the world.

 

Sure, but that is a different story.

 

The Angel is not Jesus. He is Michael. Only in this telling, since this a grimdark setting, the Angel of God loses.

 

If anything in the very tortured metaphor we are working with, the Emperor is Jesus, only (again) because this is 40K, and grimdark, he doesnt 'die and be reborn', he sits, in a twilight death, tormented and suffering (as Jesus suffered for the sins of Man) eternally.

 

That's how it should be, and is, right up until Haley ruins it for us. ;)

 

32 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

The notion that coming back cheapens the sacrifice isn't really accurate either because for Sanguinius, the important thing was, he believed he had essentially no chance, he didn't have visions beyond the fight with Horus. To him, going in anyway was because it was what he believed was right. It was a sacrifice of his own life for what he believed in and with no belief that he'd "come back". His death and subsequent martyrdom may be core to the imperium in a way that very few other primarchs really are, but again his return would no doubt be seen as (and further propogated as) an Imperial miracle (again, something we've seen before with Celestine too).

 

The important thing(s).

 

1. He knew he would die, and he did it anyway.

2. He died, and this had a cataclysmic impact on his Legion.

3. His martyrdom is a foundational aspect of the Imperial Faith.

 

(Celestine and any "Emperor's Daemons" are...not a great thing to me.)

 

34 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

His return wouldn't be inappropriate to the setting because they've been building up the idea of it for decades at this point with multiple small hints and nods at the idea that shards of his "soul" still exist, that his body is secure and maintained in a similar manner to Guilliman, there's even been scenes in at least one Black Library novel where it's implied Corbulo hears a heart beat (though admittedly based on End and the Death Part 2 that seems... unlikely!). A large part of the tone and theme of the Blood Angels is that of hope, they even had a unique vow in Deathwatch around it.

 

It absolutely would be inappropriate for the setting, because HOPE is inappropriate for the setting. I refer you to the words of Abnett, in my signature.

 

35 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Characters have come back in the setting more than once already, establishing the idea that it's possible so it doesn't break with the themes or tone of the setting from that angle either.

 

Outside of Rob, which has already been explained away (and isnt exactly the best addition to the lore as it is) outside of the absolutely flawed Perpetual line, who has been brought back from the dead that has even remotely the same stature in the lore?

 

37 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Point 3, I think is a hugely loaded and opinion based statement, and one you're absolutely allowed to have, but I don't necessarily agree (clearly), there's numerous angles they could return Sanguinius that would work and could be interesting. They could play on the idea of second comings, they could do something with the shards of his soul (such as the one on the vengeful spirit), they could so something with a fabius bile clone (we know he's capable of cloning primarchs and that he ostensibly has genetic material from them all). They could do something involving the Sanguinor and Mephiston. They could do something with the warp entity of Sanguinius that Dante has directly interacted with.

 

No angle works, that doesn't cheapen his death, and make a mockery of the tone of the setting unless its a 'you thought you wanted the Angel BUT' cheap subversion, which there is approximately 0% chance GW does.

 

39 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I do generally agree that Sanguinius definitely doesn't need to be brought back, and I'd personally be more interested to see them better explore Mephistons apotheosis (seriously, his rules don't come close to how he's described in the latest novels) or further exploring the Sanguinor and his seemingly increased activity with the Blood Angels and amping him up model and rulewise to more closely match his descriptions (he's capable of guiding ships through the warp without the Astronomican and of fighting Greater Daemons like he's a Dragon Ball Z main character..).

 

 

So we agree....lol :)

 

 

[Blindhamster]

Nah we don’t agree on what it would mean if he came back, we don’t agree on it hope has a place, because hope has been part of the core of blood angels for a very very long time.

 

we do agree that it isn’t necessary though, and we do agree that there’s other more interesting things they could do with blood angels characters.

 

so I guess we can agree we agree and disagree lol

Edited November 11, 2023 by Blindhamster

[Rain]

Ultimately we are all yelling into a hurricane @Scribe. While I agree with your points, and think bringing back Sangy would be about as bad as bringing back Kurze (or, while we’re at it, Horus) this is GW we’re talking about. The lore has already been twisted and beaten to death to justify cynical business decisions.

 

If they think Sangy will sell, and, let’s be honest, he probably will, they’ll bring him back. My solution? Ignore the dreck and only engage with the lore that actually appeals to me and plug my ears lalala through the rest 

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

hope has been part of the core of blood angels for a very very long time.

 

Yes, but the irony in this is some of the richest in the setting!

 

You go from a twisted, withered near mutant, to a glorious, beautiful, carved from alabaster Giga-Chad....who will one day fall, descend into a blood mad, ravenous vampiric beast as you fall to the Red Thirst, or you go clinically spiritually insane, and you kill anyone around you, and your one wish, is to die in glory before that happens. ;)

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

The Angel is not Jesus. He is Michael. Only in this telling, since this a grimdark setting, the Angel of God loses.

 

Good luck. People really do not want to take this specific bit of knowledge into their brains for some reason. 

 

[Scribe]

Just now, phandaal said:

 

Good luck. People really do not want to take this specific bit of knowledge into their brains for some reason. 

 

 

I mean I dont see how this is even in question.

 

[phandaal]

Just now, Scribe said:

 

I mean I dont see how this is even in question.

 

 

Yeah. You would think it would not be that controversial. Best I can figure, a lot of people are pinning their hopes for a Sanguinius return on "Sanguinius = Jesus" so any knowledge to the contrary just does not get processed.

[Blindhamster]

You know sanguinius isn’t michael OR Jesus right? 
 

to be clear, I didn’t at any point say he was either, I simply pointed out the fact Jesus coming back didn’t take away from his sacrifice as far as followers of the Christian faith are concerned, purely used as part of my counter to the idea that possibly coming back would take away from sanguinius’

[NovemberIX]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

I mean I dont see how this is even in question.

 

Sometimes a cool pose is just a cool pose. Extant of the artistic context I suppose, but then again, I watch Trek, and resurrection there is as easy as a black mountain, a smiling koala, and the odd spatial scission.

[Karhedron]

8 hours ago, Scribe said:

It absolutely would be inappropriate for the setting, because HOPE is inappropriate for the setting. I refer you to the words of Abnett, in my signature.

 

That is just one author's take (a very important author to be sure but just one). To counterpoint, Guy Haley has noted he includes occasional sparks of hope in his books deliberately as you cannot have shadows without the light to cast them. Abnett's views are important but not the only ones. I love the 40K setting but I don't want it to become absolutely hopeless. The setting has various hopeful elements (Ynnead's awakening, Guilliman and the Lion's returns, the Emperor becoming more active in the Warp and challenging the Big 4 directly).

 

I like the million-to-one chance that humanity might actually survive. Without that, what is the point of playing the game or reading the books?

[Marshal Rohr]

It is hopeless. Mankind loses. The Emperor’s dream died in Master of Mankind. There is no victory. That’s the setting. It doesn’t change for you. 

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I like the million-to-one chance that humanity might actually survive. Without that, what is the point of playing the game or reading the books?

I mean, aren't those two things sort of unrelated? You play the game because it's either fun or not; you read the books because they're interesting or they're not - the setting being hopeless does not make the struggle to survive less interesting, it can make it more interesting: the hopelessness is there, the fight is already over thousands of years before these people even learned to pick up a weapon; but they fight because they shouldn't accept defeat, and the struggle to provide the time and space for humanity, even if their sacrifice is ultimately irrelevant, is ostensibly noble.

 

There's a certain spirituality that can be explored in hopelessness - the "indomitable human spirit" is something that is often explored in stories, even more so when something is considered hopeless. I don't disagree that there being a million-to-one chance that humanity can survive and somehow win makes things fall apart, but the hopelessness is kind of the point, the grim darkness and all that.

 

Also, Pratchett had some choice words about million to one odds 

Quote

“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.” - Mort

“I mean, it’s a good job we’ve got a last desperate million-to-one chance to rely on, or we’d really be in trouble!” - Guards! Guards!

And the point of those quotes is a parody of stories where hope is lost, and there's a million-to-one chance left...which of course happens, because the heroes win! And then slightly lampooned in Guards! Guards! when they miss the shot and chatter about how it must have been less than a million-to-one... But anyway. The point I have for bringing up Sir Terry is that it's interesting when the million-to-one chance fails; when the "heroes" lose (of course, in G!G! they don't, ultimately, lose, spoilers, sorry) it creates as much of an interesting story as one where they win and this is kind of where 40k sits - we have plenty of stories, outside of and within 40k, where the heroes win, it's far and away more common; the simple existence of such a setting where the good guys main protagonists are so neolithically backwards, but so monolithic that there's such inertia to them even losing that it takes so many thousands of years for the Imperium to even begin to crumble - that is interesting.

 

To stop waffling on so much, I'll just state my opinion a bit more plainly - 40k is interesting to me because it doesn't follow the same narrative throughlines that a lot of stories have (eg, humanity is noble and fighting for survival, and wins!), and the desperation of the Imperium is one where interesting stories can absolutely be told, regardless of whether humanity is ultimately victorious. Gaunt's Ghosts is an excellent example, because they are heroic but they suffer loss after loss after loss (not necessarily battles lost, but individuals and, of course, their home) - it is the darkness they are set within that makes their struggle interesting; that they fight on through the losses is what makes them heroic, not that they expect ultimate victory.

[Special Officer Doofy]

11 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

the idea that possibly coming back would take away from sanguinius’

 

(Blindhamster I am not responding to you personally, just that point)

 

I personally wasn't trying to argue that Sanguinius coming back would cheapen his sacrifice earlier, I meant it cheapens death in geneal in the 40k universe. If Sanguinius or Horus comes back death means nothing in the setting and anyone can come back. That's what I was referring to earlier by it cheapens it for the reader knowing whomever can just come back alive, stakes are not high. And that was the part I was arguing is more objective, because those two (and the Emperor) dying are the most significant part of the story and the entire climax of the heresy. To undo those deaths cheapens the whole thing.

[Scribe]

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

To counterpoint, Guy Haley has noted he includes occasional sparks of hope in his books deliberately as you cannot have shadows without the light to cast them.

 

Yes, and if there is one author who I would put at having the best odds at ruining the setting, its Haley.

 

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I like the million-to-one chance that humanity might actually survive. Without that, what is the point of playing the game or reading the books?

 

There is no chance, look at the setting. They even reinforced this in 10th, again.

 

The point in playing the game? Well when it was good, and it hasnt been for a long time, because the game was fun with cool little toy soldiers.

 

The point in reading the books? Because actual grimdark fiction is a rare thing. Most want to be the hero. Most want to see 'good guys' win against the 'bad guys'. Its a rare thing to have people in hopeless situations buck up and still try and do the right thing.

 

That is what 40K provides the sandbox for. To show stories where its all gone to hell sometimes quite literally, and yet the characters still have the fortitude to not give up, and to keep on pushing.

 

For every time I read "Well its hopeless why bother." I just have a sad smile, because thats someone who would quit, lay down, and die.

 

4 hours ago, Kallas said:

it is the darkness they are set within that makes their struggle interesting; that they fight on through the losses is what makes them heroic, not that they expect ultimate victory.

 

Exactly.

[Antarius]

Also, you can absolutely have hope in a "hopeless" setting without some sort of "voice of god" announcement from the author that yes, the overall struggle of humanity is somehow "winnable" (whatever that would even mean, especially in the context of 40K). Individual characters can feel hope, there can be minor victories or even major ones, without altering the overall hopelessness of the setting. I personally think Warhammer 40.000 is a lot less interesting if overall "victory" (again, what would that even mean in Warhammer 40.000?) is achievable. The idea that the tens of thousands of years of decline and defeat and the onset of every manner of horrible threat could somehow be reversed or undone by some macguffin or single character (or combination thereof; I mean they already nearly went there with Cawl) is rather silly. But the idea that there are people in the setting that believe so is far from silly, even - perhaps especially - if those people ought to know better.

So yeah, actual "verifiable" hope, no thanks. Characters who feel hope, yes please.

[Rain]

I think the primary disconnect is between people that want a more traditional “Hollywood” type story with clear cut good guys vs. bad guys, and the good guys win after a long tough struggle.

 

Versus others that want the more grimdark theme of bad guys with some good guys among them vs. much badder guys with some okay-when-ADB-writes-them guys in an ultimately pointless struggle for all involved which only benefits cynical and distant beings that use their followers as pawns.

 

Also interesting that at least anecdotally, Imperium players tend to more often be in group 1 and Chaos players in group 2. As an aside, besides being more unique for fiction, the grimdark take much better approximates real wars than does the first, but I don’t want to get too OT.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Rain

[Scribe]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think the primary disconnect is between people that want a more traditional “Hollywood” type story with clear cut good guys vs. bad guys, and the good guys win after a long tough struggle.

 

And thats fine, but there are other settings for that. Its simply not 40K, its not meant to be 40K, and if (when) Haley ruins that, it will be actually tragic.