Nick Davis talking about current times in Warhammer

[Trysanna]

Just now, Marshal Reinhard said:

Again, you can do what you want. Always been the case, but the cost of this complete freedom, is it also stops being shared at the point when it starts contradicting what's true for others.

 

I guess that's the extent of my point.

I feel like that was already the case though? I can guarantee that our personal versions of 40k are different and probably contradict each other, but we're still able to talk about it and work from a shared understanding of the setting. Dragging this metaphor out a bit more, we're all historians trying to piece this setting together, and like real world historians, not all of us are going to agree. There's a pretty agreed upon framework, but like every rulebooks version of the setting being a bit off, all of our own versions are going to be off too.

[Marshal Reinhard]

3 minutes ago, Trysanna said:

I feel like that was already the case though? I can guarantee that our personal versions of 40k are different and probably contradict each other, but we're still able to talk about it and work from a shared understanding of the setting. Dragging this metaphor out a bit more, we're all historians trying to piece this setting together, and like real world historians, not all of us are going to agree. There's a pretty agreed upon framework, but like every rulebooks version of the setting being a bit off, all of our own versions are going to be off too.

Well for certainly they do, as you are not me or vice versa.

 

I think we agree in large part. A point where we might not is just how encompassing this agreed upon framework is. I'd guess my idea of the shared framework is so detailed that it includes the return of Guilliman and the destruction of Cadia, it's not something I feel like I can just write out, regardless of how I feel about these events.

[Trysanna]

21 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

Well for certainly they do, as you are not me or vice versa.

 

I think we agree in large part. A point where we might not is just how encompassing this agreed upon framework is. I'd guess my idea of the shared framework is so detailed that it includes the return of Guilliman and the destruction of Cadia, it's not something I feel like I can just write out, regardless of how I feel about these events.

Totally fair! I recognize those are both extreme examples and are a bit of a push, but I just like how malleable this setting it. It's a really interesting aspect I haven't seen anywhere else besides maybe being a GM in TTRPGs? I like how it mimics our real world problems with figuring out historical truths and the like. Also, y'know, this way I get to ignore everything that made the Templars boring

 

 

Edited April 17 by TrawlingCleaner
Removal of quoted

[Robbienw]

40k is a setting.  I find rather than trying to headcannon changes I dislike to the 'current 40k time' that GW is at, instead I concentrate on earlier eras of the setting and the lore from earlier periods of GW.  You can still share this with others if you want to because you will find many fans who also like earlier periods and ignore 'current 40k'.

 

 

[TrawlingCleaner]

=][= Let's stick to the topic folks. If a comment breaks our rules, please report it and we will deal with it =][=

[Matcap86]

29 minutes ago, Trysanna said:

Totally fair! I recognize those are both extreme examples and are a bit of a push, but I just like how malleable this setting it. It's a really interesting aspect I haven't seen anywhere else besides maybe being a GM in TTRPGs? I like how it mimics our real world problems with figuring out historical truths and the like. Also, y'know, this way I get to ignore everything that made the Templars boring

 

 

 

To a point I find I do the same, but like real world historians I do have issues with someone stating for example "The US Civil War didn't happen." or "The Roman Empire has never fallen". Interpretations and filling in gaps I'm all for, but at some point there needs to be a coherent shared framework to engage with others. 

 

I'm all for diversity and representation in the 40k universe, but (for me personally) I'd expect that to happen in the "regular people" factions. Which for me form the reference point as the "Human experience" compared to all of the bizarre stuff that's out there.

All genetically modified forces are so over the top and dialed to 11 (as is 40k's wont) that I have a hard time reconciling modern identity and cultural frames applying to them. 

Edited April 17 by Matcap86

[Redcomet]

7 minutes ago, Matcap86 said:

 

To a point I find I do the same, but like real world historians I do have issues with someone stating for example "The US Civil War didn't happen." or "The Roman Empire has never fallen". Interpretations and filling in gaps I'm all for, but at some point there needs to be a coherent shared framework to engage with others. 

 

I'm all for diversity and representation in the 40k universe, but (for me personally) I'd expect that to happen in the "regular people" factions. Which for me form the reference point as the "Human experience" compared to all of the bizarre stuff that's out there.

All genetically modified forces are so over the top and dialed to 11 (as is 40k's wont) that I have a hard time reconciling modern identity and cultural frames applying to them. 

For Marines yes, they are so crudely enhanced that they become coarse and lumpen.

 

Custodes are individually crafted to be perfect beings, so completely different.

[Matcap86]

3 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

For Marines yes, they are so crudely enhanced that they become coarse and lumpen.

 

Custodes are individually crafted to be perfect beings, so completely different.

 

Individually crafted to become so beyond humanity and task focussed that they're often referred to a grotesque and monstrous.

 

"The perfect being" to what the Emperor needed for his designs is not necessary "a human but faster/stronger/smarter". A lot of the more recent SoT novels show them

(spoiler for those who want an unspoiled as possible experience).

Spoiler

being viewed as emotionally and sometimes rationally stunted compared to things like the Primarchs. 

 

Edited April 17 by Matcap86

[Brother Captain Arkley]

14 hours ago, Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf said:

That being said, I am overjoyed seeing the hobby that once gave me a means to live, being so inclusive. Seeing female, LGBTQ+ gamers and seeing them represented at the highest level of GW toy soldiers is pure joy.

I love it. 

 

 

We have always been here... 

[Trysanna]

27 minutes ago, Matcap86 said:

 

To a point I find I do the same, but like, real world historians I do have issues with someone stating for example "The US Civil War didn't happen." or "The Roman Empire has never fallen". Interpretations and filling in gaps I'm all for, but at some point there needs to be a coherent shared framework to engage with others. 

 

I'm all for diversity and representation in the 40k universe, but (for me personally) I'd expect that to happen in the "regular people" factions. Which for me form the reference point as the "Human experience" compared to all of the bizarre stuff that's out there.

All genetically modified forces are so over the top and dialed to 11 (as is 40k's wont) that I have a hard time reconciling modern identity and cultural frames applying to them. 

I suppose my thinking is that enough of the setting will be consistent between everyone involved to allow for individual instances of someones personal interpretation being a bit radical in some of its changes. Y'know, it would be a problem if I start denying absolutely everything ever written and debate every single event, but there's enough of 40k that I don't feel the need to challenge that even if I have some major differences in my own version, enough still remains consistent that it isn't an issue. I also recognize that my own version is different from others and am able to put myself in a space where I forget about it and speak from the more common framework. 

 

I definitely understand that for most, that's where it probably should be. Baseline humans should get more attention and they're the easiest way to give people some 1:1 representation. But I also think that SciFi is such a great way to explore modern day topics. Star Trek is famously good at this and does it so well. I'm pretty biased, Space Marines are my favourite thing in 40k, but I wouldn't mind seeing some of this stuff explored through them. Sure, maybe they wouldn't use our exact framework or language to discuss these topics, but I'd still love to see someone take a crack at exploring a Space Marines thoughts on gender, for instance. How did their Homeworld affect them? Is this new body a blessing or a curse? Does it feel like theirs or do they feel removed from it? Do some have neo-pronouns? Do they feel so removed from humanity that they don't even want to refer to themselves the same way? We know they have their own chapter cultures but how far does that go? Can they even tell what gender a normal human is anymore? Do they even care to notice or correct themselves? 

 

Obviously I don't expect like, a whole page to show up in the next Marine codex about the basics of gender identity or whatever, but I think there's still room on the margins of this setting to explore these things. I can only speak for myself but having some stories in a setting I love tackle issues that I personally struggled with would have been really nice. 

 

Plus all space marines are already trans so we're already halfway there 

Edited April 17 by Trysanna
I can't spell

[Captain Idaho]

=][= We're going political again. Posts have been removed.

 

I'm closing this down. =][=

 

Edited April 17 by Captain Idaho