No primarchs ...

[Timberley]

20 hours ago, Magos Takatus said:

That's a curious take and your "my guys" is a very interesting thread and I think I supported you in there but I find sometimes rather than an air of mystery it just feels like a void to me. I just can't get excited about a blank slate like 2nd edition Ferrus Manus. I think the Index Astartes series from 3rd Edition (?) were fantastic as they fleshed out the legions and gave them and their Primarchs some degree of depth.

 

I must admit it would be kinda cool if we had loads of info on some of the Primarchs... but it was all conflicting information from several different sources. There's been almost ten thousand years for the formation of rumours, legends, supressed or doctored knowledge and full on purging of data. If what we knew about some Primarchs was actually horribly inaccurate it could be fun. There would be more branching off points and plot hooks to inspire campaigns because there could be wild conspiracy theories to follow. 

 

Regardless, hopefully there is still room for people to have fun with the background and that there is still enough mystery and intrigue left to keep discussion going. 

You're definitely right there.  The first part was me mis-remembering things, as I wrote that whilst I was away and thought (for some reason) that RT had more in it than it actually does!  The first 3 editions of 40K are a bit of a blur for me, as I was at school and only got to play against my friend with the 'that guy' mentality, and he owned the rulebooks we used to play.  I've rectified that since, but my memory does fail me...

 

Conflicting information on the Primarchs would be really cool!  Much as it's a great series, I did like that the original Horus Heresy consisted of only a couple of known events and the Siege of Terra, culminating in the fight on Horus' flagship.  That way, one could pronounce that their chapter was formed from the survivors of the Massacre at Beltaran IV during the heresy, and no one would be able to claim otherwise.

 

To the wider issue of Primarchs, super-heavies and Knights - the genie is out of the bottle.  With my cynical hat on, I'd not be surprised to see more of them as time goes on, given the current way that the game seems to be going.

[Allart01]

Coincidentally, I've been thinking about pre-Gathering Storm 40k quite a lot as of late. I blame this on my progressive transformation into an old man, mostly.

But I feel like the problem, for me, does not lie with Primarchs, Superheavies, or the game itself. Not per se.

My main issue with modern 40k is that it's been seven years since the introduction of Primaris and the return of Guilliman, and it still feels like we're stranded in the middle of a journey with no captain leading our ship. The integration of the new lore and units (even Primarchs) within the 40k universe feels half baked and superficial (with occasional excellence).

The story is moving forward, but things never seemed more directionless, inconsequential and low-stakes to me.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Allart01

[Scribe]

6 hours ago, jaxom said:

As in no bonuses associated with force organization?

 

As in no 'buy these tax units to get the bonus you want'. I think it was 7th where it was 'the big thing' and then you had the unmitigated disaster of 9th bloat Strats.

 

Warlord Traits

'Faction Rule'

FoC - Standardized again.

Points, not Power Levels.

[Karhedron]

12 hours ago, Allart01 said:

My main issue with modern 40k is that it's been seven years since the introduction of Primaris and the return of Guilliman, and it still feels like we're stranded in the middle of a journey with no captain leading our ship. The integration of the new lore and units (even Primarchs) within the 40k universe feels half baked and superficial (with occasional excellence).

The story is moving forward, but things never seemed more directionless, inconsequential and low-stakes to me.

 

That is because GW cannot quite make up their mind whether 40K is a narrative or a setting. They try to have it both ways and whether this comes across as the best of both worlds or the worst is largely down to personal taste.

 

Up until the end of 3rd edition, 40K was clearly a narrative as new elements were added to the lore sequentially. The 2nd Armageddon War led to the 3rd, the full nature of the Tyranids was revealed during Hivefleet Behemoth's attack on Ultramar and the Gothic War ledinto the 13th Black Crusade. The Eye of Terror campaign was the high point of this as players were encouraged to take part in the worldwide campaign with the promise that the results would shape the lore going forwards.

 

And then GW backtracked. 4th edition came out with the date frozen at the fall of Cadia. Characters who had been killed in recent campaigns such as Tycho and Eldrad remained playable in the new codices. GW stopped telling what happened next. This pattern held true for over a decade into 7th edition where codices just contained the same lore rehashed over and over again. 40K ceased to be a narrative and became a setting.

 

All that changed at the end of 7th edition with Gathering Storm. Suddenly we learned the consequences of the 13th Black Crusade, Cadia was destroyed, Ynnead began to awaken, the galaxy was torn in half by the Great Rift and a Primarch was resurrected to save the Imperium in its darkest hour. We were back to a narrative again. Then 8th edition began with the rushed introduction of Primaris Marines. The first novel in 8th edition Dark Imperium and inexplicably was set over a century after Guilliman's return at the end of the Indomitus Crusade (later retconned to a decade). The time jump felt wierd, as though several chapters were missing from the story. GW has since retconned the whole Dark Imperium trilogy to take place in the early years of the Indomitus Crusade and used stories like the Dawn of Fire series and the Great Work to try and fill in the blanks.

 

This has led to the feeling of a progressing storyline but also the sense of low stakes. Like comics, we know that no major characters will be killed off (at least not for good). The Daemon Primarchs are effectively immortal while their loyalist counterparts are not. This means that every direct confrontation between them will end in the Chaos primarchs losing due to some mcguffin or other and shouting "You haven't seen the last of me". Becoming a daemon was supposed to be exchanging their souls for more power but right now it looks like a bad deal as we have many examples of Daemon Primarchs being defeated by their non-daemon brothers:

 

Daemon Primarch victories

Horus beat Sanguinius

Fulgrim beat Guilliman

 

Daemon Primarch defeats

Perturabo beat Angron

Dorn beat Fulgrim

Jaghati beat Mortarion

Sanguinius beat Angron

Vulkan beat Magnus

Guilliman beat Magnus

Guilliman beat Mortarion

Lion beat Angron

 

This is why everything feels low stakes. Despite the feeling of a progressing narrative, we know that no major characters will die as that would seriously hamper their faction. Losses on either side are generally little-known worlds or non-model Characters we have no investment in.

[TheArtilleryman]

20 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

That is because GW cannot quite make up their mind whether 40K is a narrative or a setting. They try to have it both ways and whether this comes across as the best of both worlds or the worst is largely down to personal taste.

 

Up until the end of 3rd edition, 40K was clearly a narrative as new elements were added to the lore sequentially. The 2nd Armageddon War led to the 3rd, the full nature of the Tyranids was revealed during Hivefleet Behemoth's attack on Ultramar and the Gothic War ledinto the 13th Black Crusade. The Eye of Terror campaign was the high point of this as players were encouraged to take part in the worldwide campaign with the promise that the results would shape the lore going forwards.

 

And then GW backtracked. 4th edition came out with the date frozen at the fall of Cadia. Characters who had been killed in recent campaigns such as Tycho and Eldrad remained playable in the new codices. GW stopped telling what happened next. This pattern held true for over a decade into 7th edition where codices just contained the same lore rehashed over and over again. 40K ceased to be a narrative and became a setting.

 

All that changed at the end of 7th edition with Gathering Storm. Suddenly we learned the consequences of the 13th Black Crusade, Cadia was destroyed, Ynnead began to awaken, the galaxy was torn in half by the Great Rift and a Primarch was resurrected to save the Imperium in its darkest hour. We were back to a narrative again. Then 8th edition began with the rushed introduction of Primaris Marines. The first novel in 8th edition Dark Imperium and inexplicably was set over a century after Guilliman's return at the end of the Indomitus Crusade (later retconned to a decade). The time jump felt wierd, as though several chapters were missing from the story. GW has since retconned the whole Dark Imperium trilogy to take place in the early years of the Indomitus Crusade and used stories like the Dawn of Fire series and the Great Work to try and fill in the blanks.

 

This has led to the feeling of a progressing storyline but also the sense of low stakes. Like comics, we know that no major characters will be killed off (at least not for good). The Daemon Primarchs are effectively immortal while their loyalist counterparts are not. This means that every direct confrontation between them will end in the Chaos primarchs losing due to some mcguffin or other and shouting "You haven't seen the last of me". Becoming a daemon was supposed to be exchanging their souls for more power but right now it looks like a bad deal as we have many examples of Daemon Primarchs being defeated by their non-daemon brothers:

 

Daemon Primarch victories

Horus beat Sanguinius

Fulgrim beat Guilliman

 

Daemon Primarch defeats

Perturabo beat Angron

Dorn beat Fulgrim

Jaghati beat Mortarion

Sanguinius beat Angron

Vulkan beat Magnus

Guilliman beat Magnus

Guilliman beat Mortarion

Lion beat Angron

 

This is why everything feels low stakes. Despite the feeling of a progressing narrative, we know that no major characters will die as that would seriously hamper their faction. Losses on either side are generally little-known worlds or non-model Characters we have no investment in.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. In a long-running series of novels or a soap opera, anyone is fair game for the chop and that adds to the tension built. When a long-running character dies, you might be a little annoyed, but you just carry on reading/watching the story. In a game like 40K, where you invest a lot of time and money into your models, suddenly having such a significant one killed off and be unusable would suck (a bit like the squatting of old units into legends, but I won’t labour that here).

 

I am in that camp that really likes the primarchs in 30K but not so much in 40K. I don’t mind how much heresy lore we get given (give me mooooore) and at the moment I’m working my way through reading all the ebooks. There are layers and nuance to the primarchs; the “will they, won’t they” in regards to betrayal, even though you know who does already, creates tension, even in some of the not-so-amazing books. I just finished Fallen Angels and the twist at the end hit me like a truck.
 

We don’t have this sort of dramatic tension in 40K fiction unless it is with “non-mainstream” stories like Cain or the Soul Drinkers (IMO). Bringing one primarch back to 40K was like “oh, ok.” Two started to feel a bit contrived. If any more return I think it’s going to remove an awful lot of “specialness”. Everything about 40K lore at the moment is “like before - but bigger.” You know we had marines! Well now we have primaris and they’re bigger! You know we had Chapter Masters? Well now we have primarchs and they’re bigger! You know we had Chaos warlords that terrified the galaxy? Well now you’ve got daemon primarchs and they smash bigger! You know we had the Eye of Terror? Well now you have the Great Rift and it’s even biggererer!
 

I think we’ve lost a lot of the 40K mystique in that regard. Now that the traitors are all traitors and basically they all just want to single-mindedly destroy/enslave there isn’t anything that interesting about them. It’s just a binary good vs evil thing with little nuance. This is why I find myself drawn more and more towards HH than 40K, especially lore-wise.

[lansalt]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Becoming a daemon was supposed to be exchanging their souls for more power but right now it looks like a bad deal as we have many examples of Daemon Primarchs being defeated by their non-daemon brothers

Well, I think "Is the Dark Side stronger? No. Is quicker, easier, more seductive" is kind of the point made with the Daemon Primarchs and Chaos in general. Selling your soul is supposed to be a scam.
But anyway, from the list only 3 battles are from the 40k era, and only the Lion won vs. Angron alone but with help of a mcguffin shield. Guilliman needed a lot of help to win the other 2 including a literal divine intervention after being killed for a second time.

[Karhedron]

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

FoC - Standardized

 

Actually the FOC is one element that I am glad to see the back of. I hate the notion of a Troop tax, particularly when different factions have such widely varying quality of Troops.

 

If Troop/Battleline units are supposed to be the basic building blocks of an army then they need rules that actually make them appealing to take. Giving basic units rules like sticky ObjSec is actually one of the changes I like in 10th. Finally there is a reason to take basic infantry beyond body count and Troop tax.

 

We all remember 8th/9th where Marines often fielded 3x5 squads of Scouts for no reason other than it was the cheapest way to meet an arbitrary restriction of them FOC. Army building in 10th may not be perfect but the FOC is one feature I am relieved to consign to history. 

[Orange Knight]

I have no issue with loyalist Primarchs defeating their corrupted brothers.

 

Chaos is ultimately a lie. Your powers are borrowed, you think it leads to freedom but it's actually eternal enslavement and your soul is forfeit.

 

I echo the sentiment above - I don't believe that the Chaos Primarchs are necessarily more powerful in every situation, and in general their strength waxes and wanes with the warp around them.

 

Ultimately the Chaos Primarchs are always being supported by the Chaos Gods themselves. I don't consider the loyalists being bolstered by the Emperor or some mcguffin to be any different. 

 

[ZeroWolf]

52 minutes ago, lansalt said:

Well, I think "Is the Dark Side stronger? No. Is quicker, easier, more seductive" is kind of the point made with the Daemon Primarchs and Chaos in general. Selling your soul is supposed to be a scam.
But anyway, from the list only 3 battles are from the 40k era, and only the Lion won vs. Angron alone but with help of a mcguffin shield. Guilliman needed a lot of help to win the other 2 including a literal divine intervention after being killed for a second time.

I was going to point that out with the list of "victories" as if I recall, Magnus did lay Robute low with his magic and was only saved with interference. 

 

As you say, interference with the big E himself was how he won the mortarion fight (and deal a slap to Nurgle's face with burning part of his garden)

[lansalt]

To continue my post above, I'll add that I agree with the lack of any consequences of primarchs coming back except in the case of Guilliman's reforms.

We're told that Angron turned an entire imperial fleet into Khorne worshippers including Primaris marines and Sisters of Battle, but they are nowhere to be seen.

The hyped return of the Lion has changed nothing about the DA except for a mention of Fallen sometimes taken away by him and a new unit of them. He didn't even have a conversation with Guilliman yet!

Magnus and Mortarion's rampages ended in nothing, and the small plot hook teases have been ignored (remember that stolen book about Imperium Secundus and the disruption it could cause?)

[Orange Knight]

I think we are veering off topic, but I do agree that the Lion hasn't done much since his return. This can be fixed of course, and it's early days.

 

I'm honestly surprised that the Black Library didn't have a series of books planned in the same way they did with Guilliman.

 

Stories that need to happen:

 

-Lion goes to see the Emperor 

-Lion and Guilliman reunited 

-Lion is appointed as an official of high rank and stature within the greater Imperium of Man, and what he does with that. He needs to find his place alongside his brother.

Edited April 20 by Orange Knight

[Guest Triszin]

I'm all for primarch coming back (just not the dead ones).

 

I like the story progression.

 

 

Even with primachs coming back the galaxy is getting progressivly worse where all they can do is maybe maintain status quo.

 

Just sad they didn't go full grab/repulsir for all the marine stuff.

Then give all the old astartes treads to sisters.

 

Heck I wouldn't female origin astartes (literally a headswap)even if it's wolves only (canis helix and the modified humans of fenris)

Edited April 20 by Triszin

[Special Officer Doofy]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Guilliman beat Mortarion

 

Did we read the same book? Mortarion won, and divine Emperor intervention saved Guilliman (I mean it's even a rule on his datasheet his plot armor is so thick). And the khan also only lived from their fight because of intervention after the fight. You make it seem as if the chaos side doesn't stand a chance so there is no point. Yes, they are the bad guys, the punching bags of the setting, but the loyalist primarchs also lose and somehow always* come back alive, be it through the Emperor, bad writing or retcons. I doubt any primarch is going to permanently die at this point with how much their models cost and sell.

 

* - not always. Sorry Ferrus and Sanguinius

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Did we read the same book? Mortarion won, and divine Emperor intervention saved Guilliman (I mean it's even a rule on his datasheet his plot armor is so thick). And the khan also only lived from their fight because of intervention after the fight. You make it seem as if the chaos side doesn't stand a chance so there is no point. Yes, they are the bad guys, the punching bags of the setting, but the loyalist primarchs also lose and somehow always* come back alive, be it through the Emperor, bad writing or retcons. I doubt any primarch is going to permanently die at this point with how much their models cost and sell.

 

* - not always. Sorry Ferrus and Sanguinius

 

Yes the Emperor did intervene, but Mortarion himself is literally using powers borrowed from Nurgle at all times - he is an extension of the Plague Lord.

 

In Guilliman's case, the Emperor empowered him for a few moments at the end of the battle.

In Mortarion's case, he is being empowered at all times by Nurgle. Any mcguffin used or intervention by a higher power is simply the evening of the scales.

 

Personally I have a lot of complaints about how Daemons are generally handled in the setting, and the mechanics of what happens to mortals that "ascend" as is the case with Mortarion.

I also don't like truly immortal characters - and there are way too many of them!

 

I prefer Abaddon, as boring as he is as a characters, to the Daemon Primarchs for this reason.

Edited April 20 by Orange Knight

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Did we read the same book? Mortarion won, and divine Emperor intervention saved Guilliman (I mean it's even a rule on his datasheet his plot armor is so thick). And the khan also only lived from their fight because of intervention after the fight. You make it seem as if the chaos side doesn't stand a chance so there is no point. Yes, they are the bad guys, the punching bags of the setting, but the loyalist primarchs also lose and somehow always* come back alive, be it through the Emperor, bad writing or retcons. I doubt any primarch is going to permanently die at this point with how much their models cost and sell.

 

* - not always. Sorry Ferrus and Sanguinius

No character with a model will be canonically killed*. The lore for Ferrus and Sangy was written a long time ago. Times have changed. Which is another reason the primarchs returning is boring.
 

*unless the model is retired for out of universe reasons, but the primarchs make too much money for that.

 

There’s no tension. None of them will die. The Chaos ones because they are demons and can get beaten over and over like Saturday morning cartoon villains (“You won’t be so lucky next time Guillimaaaaaaan”) and the loyalist ones because GW will never kill centerpiece models, much less centerpiece models for loyalists.

 

This is why books about original characters such as the NL trilogy are so good, because you know that the characters can actually die, and most do. This is also what made Game of Thrones good, until, well, you know. Without this there is no real tension, and it just comes off as a cheesy comic book with a supervillain (Chaos primarch) fighting a superhero (Loyalist primarch) and eventually losing because of the Power of Good, but not permanently so it can repeat in the next issue. Such compelling “plot progression.”

Edited April 20 by Rain

[Scribe]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

This is why books about original characters such as the NL trilogy are so good

 

With the dismal ability for Black Library to even market itself and produce the books, I would bet a fraction of the current playerbase even knows what that series, and good 40K fiction, even looks like.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

“You won’t be so lucky next time Guillimaaaaaaan”

 

*Somewhere in Nottingham, a mysterious cache opens.*

 

Horus: Ahh! After 10,000 years, I'm free! It's time to conquer TERRA!

 

Emperor: Valdor, Horus escaped! Recruit a team of teenagers with ATTITUDE!

 

[jaxom]

I really wish they had stuck with the 200 year time jump to establish a new setting and then back-filled with narrative.

[SvenIronhand]

"narrative or setting"

It can be both and it is.

[Special Officer Doofy]

6 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

In Guilliman's case, the Emperor empowered him for a few moments at the end of the battle.

In Mortarion's case, he is being empowered at all times by Nurgle. Any mcguffin used or intervention by a higher power is simply the evening of the scales.

 

"The ground cracked and broke. Glaring whiteness blazed from the crevasses. Guilliman’s corpse rose up, and hung in the air, supported by a pillar of radiance, and slowly turned so he was upright. He reached out, and the Emperor’s Sword appeared in his hand, and burned with the fires of a thousand suns."

 

His skin came off and his armor turned black and the author used the word corpse multiple times. He was not "empowered for a few moments" he was literally revived and even got his armor regenerated and polished, then was controlled by the Emperor. It was no different than a chaos daemon primarch respawning in the warp. There is no consequences of a primarch dying at this point, chaos or not.

[Robbienw]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

"The ground cracked and broke. Glaring whiteness blazed from the crevasses. Guilliman’s corpse rose up, and hung in the air, supported by a pillar of radiance, and slowly turned so he was upright. He reached out, and the Emperor’s Sword appeared in his hand, and burned with the fires of a thousand suns."

 

His skin came off and his armor turned black and the author used the word corpse multiple times. He was not "empowered for a few moments" he was literally revived and even got his armor regenerated and polished, then was controlled by the Emperor. It was no different than a chaos daemon primarch respawning in the warp. There is no consequences of a primarch dying at this point, chaos or not.

 

Interesting.  Similar to when the Emperor resurrects/heals Caecaltus in the The End and The Death vol 2 in his final Dark King moments.  He is approaching Dark King power levels once again! 

[Noserenda]

The problem with the FoC was two fold: 

Firstly it entirely rests on the assumption that somehow taking a pair (Of likely minimal) troops units somehow balances the rest of your list. Somehow. 

Two troops choices could be under a hundred points in places :D 

And that relies on the internal balance of everything else, the filthiest list i ever ran was a Tyranid nidzilla type build with 6 troops choices and id have taken more if i could, i was forced to take some token (Elite) Ymargl stealers to fill points! 

And that leads on to the second problem, that the fixed slots only works well for the marine equivalent armies, if your army gets more elite the limitations are trivial, if you get chaffier you run out of slots entirely and need some bolted on mechanic (Or unique FOCs *shudder* )to make that work that kind makes a mockery of the whole system rendering it pointless.

You could add a third thing in the form of letting you adjust the FOC, moving stuff to troops to make a thematic list, why arent they just troops anyway? Taking a certain HQ or some meaningless downside is just as token as needing a handful of scouts to stand around at the back of the board and again just messes with internal balance.


The FOC wasnt an originally dreadful idea, back in 3rd i think it was an improvement over the old percentages which were even gamier but much like the rest of that 40k generation it went on a couple of editions too long and got bloaty.

Not sure the current system is the best, but its a lot more fun to build weird theme lists or scenes from books with, which is 90% of my list building :D 

[Karhedron]

8 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Not sure the current system is the best, but its a lot more fun to build weird theme lists or scenes from books with, which is 90% of my list building :D 

 

At least the current system provides a level playing field for all armies. Factions that have units optimised for taking and holding Objectives can be represented by improved OC values and/or special rules like Objective Secured. It also means factions without infantry don't have to go through convoluted special rules just to fit alongisde more traditional forces.

[Kallas]

The bigger part of the FOC was the limited HQ/Elite/FA/HS slots. You couldn't just spam tanks all day long because you generally couldn't bring more than three (outside of maybe some lighter vehicles and/or transports, which generally were much easier to handle). This meant that those Troop tax units...weren't so much of a tax. They simply weren't outclassed all the time, because there were fewer units on the field way beyond their capabilities. Nowadays, you can face an entire army of T7+/Sv3+/5++ with numerous wounds, and while you can also bring that stuff, it means that those Troops/Battleline units just don't really do much - so they're no longer a tax unit, instead they're just a non-functional unit. 

 

The FOC helped represent a more varied army, because you couldn't just spam one unit type, but now you can. It makes armies much more in the Rock/Paper/Scissors vein than previously, which is less interesting to me at least, because then you have fewer unit interactions - you now don't really need infantry to cover your tanks, because you just have more tanks with more anti-infantry guns. Instead of having layered armies, it's just skewed lists more and more; armies aren't armies any more, they're just a mishmash of whatever - and the kicker is that people could always choose to play that if they wanted to, but not it's "legislated" into the core mechanics of army building; instead of being able to agree with your opponent that you'd just field whatever because you both wanted to field anything, you now get to do that regardless of the impact of balance, and to try and ask for balance by introducing a FOC is nigh impossible because of the removal of battlefield roles (as well as the social aspect making it more difficult because making the decisions as to what goes where is harder than just, "Use everything" is).

 

FOC is a bit away from the "No Primarchs" topic, but it is somewhat related. Removing restrictions on what can be taken is making the game less structured, and less structure is never actually needed because people can always just choose to disregard rules far more readily than introducing additional rules. Primarchs (and Titanics) are genies out of the bottle, where at least FOC could be returned in some way to at least mitigate some of the harm its removal causes.

[ZeroWolf]

59 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

At least the current system provides a level playing field for all armies. Factions that have units optimised for taking and holding Objectives can be represented by improved OC values and/or special rules like Objective Secured. It also means factions without infantry don't have to go through convoluted special rules just to fit alongisde more traditional forces.

Honestly they need to stick with the current system and refine it instead of throwing everything away every couple of editions. After seeing what's going on with a certain other new edition coming out this year, I'm wondering what impact that will have on 11th since there is a certain bleed over in places.

 

I admit though we are moving away from the topic matter here, which I think has run its course.