The setting at present

[calgar101]

 

 

Is it? I'd trade that entire era, literally all of it, to go back to the setting it was before.

Agree with you there Scribe.

[Gamiel]

Personally I like what we have now. I overall like the developments in the lore, the new models, and that we get new rules and settings to game in often. Is evertything perfect: no (like the WS heads lacking mustaches). But neither was it before and I find things as they are now overall better. 

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Is it? I'd trade that entire era, literally all of it, to go back to the setting it was before.

Member when the first part of the Ork invasion of Armageddon was the largest threat to the Sol System since the Siege of Terra and the second phase was just beginning? I member. 

[Scribe]

 

Member when the first part of the Ork invasion of Armageddon was the largest threat to the Sol System since the Siege of Terra and the second phase was just beginning? I member. 

 

Yeah, the whole 'advancement' is just a bunch of noise at this point. There is no chance, at all, that GW can solve for the problem of their own creation now.

[conscriptboris]

 

So I was flicking through the Nemesis crown booklet (wfb global campaign from 15 years ago) tonight and a thought hit me. I have no idea what the current story thread is in 40k currently beyond nids have arrived.

 

8th and the start of 9th had campaign ( I use the term lightly) supplements that kicked off octarius and the Pariah nexus.

 

I can't think of anything released so far for this edition that has meaningfully developed the setting and we are by my crude maths just over a third of the way through the edition.

 

One of the big enjoyment factors I had was playing in these developing storylines and areas, I think I've come to realise it all feels a bit empty without them.

 

 

although I can obviously recognise some very good writers have written good stories in the Era Indomitus (primaris). The change that ultimately has put me off is this;

 

Era Imperium; Scouring to Indomitus was a fixed timeline where we were ‘on the cusp of complete destruction’. And all lore and campaigns was built within the constrains of that 10k history. Stories were a historical narrative. So we had futuristic SciFi setting, speaking in terms of a historical perspective. Which managed to merge 3 core areas people love; SciFi, History, Archaeology (lore digging). Posing this as history meant it had a framework to exist in.

 

fast forward too;

 

Era Indomitus; Advancing timeline, inserted plot armour and conveniences. No longer historical, framework was destroyed with Primaris more failed BCs and tyranid incursions etc etc. A big change that came with this, was a rapid IP tightening. You cant copywrite ‘Rhino’, but you can ‘Impulsor’. Hence why Adeptus Astartes, Adeptus Sororitas etc started taking front stage. Althpugh its SciFi, its no longer history, its current. 
 

There is now an argument that stand alone games of ‘Era Imperium’ could be made. Like when Horus Heresy gaming was for those in the deepest darkest corners of the hobby, GW monestised it. I see pages and groups who are now in the deepest darkest corners playing Era Imperium (although they are called 3rd to 7th, Firstborn or something similar. 

 

I have enjoyed some of the new books. But less so Primaris/Primarch 40k, more chaos, Xenos as their story has remained similar.

 

I tried hard to get into the Indomitus vibe, but it doesnt have those references and framework of what was our actual historical references we could relate to anymore so I fell by the way side.

 

Now, for many its great! However I do think there is a section of the hobby, those who were much more invested in the Lore, who felt the change from Imperium to Indomitus just wasnt an enjoyable experience.

[gideon stargreave]

I don't know if this is exactly on topic, but I have noticed during the discussion that we are using the word "lore" to describe the background of the setting. Way back when, we used to use the word "fluff." I think the move from the latter to the former has meant the infiltration of "canon" into the hobby, where once upon a time, it was so vaguely defined, that we were able to decide much of the universe ourselves. The fiction associted with the setting was usually presented as unreliable in any case, or (when Black library first came into existence) as almost a multiverse, or rather, what was published in WH monthly and Inferno, were not to be taken as gospel (or rather, as the gospels are often contradictory by design... I'm getting carried away.)
So, when we had "fluff" we had a multitude of settings, that were up to players to invent, imagine, and use in campaigns as they saw fit, but as we hve moved to "lore" we have a single shared setting we need to justify

[Felix Antipodes]

When they first introduced “Era Indomitus” there was a chance to retire a lot of the older characters as they jumped the timeline forward a hundred years or so.  I don’t know if it was a case of GW reacting to fan reaction or them just losing their nerve, but they quickly retconned it back to a “mere” 10-20 years.  This meant that it was possible for all the usual suspects to remain in play, alongside the newly introduced Primaris ones, creating the surplus of characters we now have.

 

I’m not sure the historical aspect of 40K has gone.  It is just as easy to play a game set in 32K, or whenever, now as it was in pre-Indomitus days.  Those who dislike where the setting is currently will look back to their personal golden age edition and continue to set their games there utilising those rules.  For instance, I’m yet to complete a game of 10th edition as I dislike what they have evolved the game into.  Maybe 11th will suit me more… :shrug: 

 

Having said that, I really wish GW would do the occasional historical campaign, even if only within the pages of WD, along the lines of the what they did with the Badab War over at Forge World.  Not a big, fancy, never-ending  series of books.   Just two or three covering the start, middle and ending of the campaign.

Edited September 27 by Felix Antipodes

[darkhorse0607]

 

When they first introduced “Era Indomitus” there was a chance to retire a lot of the older characters as they jumped the timeline forward a hundred years or so.  I don’t know if it was a case of GW reacting to fan reaction or them just losing their nerve, but they quickly retconned it back to a “mere” 10-20 years.  This meant that it was possible for all the usual suspects to remain in play, alongside the newly introduced Primaris ones, creating the surplus of characters we now have.

 

I think either way it could've been handled better.

 

Tbh, when it initially happened I was on the side of "why would you do this at the end of the Crusade that you're using to introduce the Primaris" and that they should've done it at the beginning to allow people to get more accustomed to them and see them in action as time goes on.

 

If we look at it through a historical lens, then doing it in the end is the right call. As information emerges about the Crusade you can then make "your guys"^TM that participated in x,y, or z battle, and then go back and flesh out the Crusade as time goes on (later on that in a second), culminating with the Plague Wars and Psychic Awakening before new things are introduced (4th Tyrannic War, Pariah Nexus, Ghaz's Waaagh, Sphere expansions for the Tau, etc)

 

In many ways, I think they were just trying to make the Heresy 2.0, and have their cake/eat it too, not really in what was going on, but with how the setting was made and if you remove the Primaris aspect, they mirrored quite a bit

 

Introduce the setting at the end of a Crusade led by a Primarch (essentially the face of the Imperium with Horus/Guilliman since the Emperor had stepped back), making reference to the Indomitus/Great Crusade but never fully saying what happened so you could fill in the blanks as the Imperium tries to emerge from a dark time

 

Multiple crusade fleets doing things at different times

 

Primarchs running around

 

Chapters acting like legions in terms of unit disposition (i.e. Intercessor Squads aligning with Heresy era tactical squads where they are less flexible versus firstborn tactical squads which were more versatile because Chapters were supposed to be fighting as strike forces and needed that flexibility)

 

Etc.

 

I think the problem for them though, is that at the same time, they were shifting focus to it being more story-driven. More about the Primarchs or other super characters like Cawl. More about specific events that were meant to drive the point forward. So at the same time that they're saying "look, make your guys and go explore the era" they were also saying "look at this one specific thing, see how cool it is" or "Look, it's Vigilus, this planet is the most important thing right now"

 

Adding to that then you had the retcon in between editions (8th to 9th) of the 100 years or whatever it is, so now it just feels like a mess that wasn't planned. If they had decided to stick to either one, I feel like people would've adjusted over time, but now you have something where folks that just wanted it as a setting aren't happy because of the focus on things like the Primarchs, and the folks that want it to be a story like GW has moved towards aren't happy because their character isn't doing whatever

 

But also yes, please bring back historic campaigns

[Redcomet]

 

 

Is it? I'd trade that entire era, literally all of it, to go back to the setting it was before.

Doesn’t alter the fact that a lot of people like it.

 

I want a billion dollars, but hoping for it and being miffed it doesn’t happen, won’t make them magically appear 

[Scribe]

 

Doesn’t alter the fact that a lot of people like it.

 

I want a billion dollars, but hoping for it and being miffed it doesn’t happen, won’t make them magically appear 

 

Sure. Still cannot say that I've seen a general sentiment that the fall of cadia is a beloved piece of lore.

[DemonGSides]

idk, I love screaming "The planet fell before the guard did".

[SillyDreadnought]

Modern 40k lore feels like a checklist.

- Does it have Cadians
- Does it have the Ultramarines 2nd Company
- Does it have Cawl/Abaddon/Vashtorr/other named character that is getting a new model

etc

There's a severe lack of depth to the setting as a result as we see the same forces over and over.

Probably a pointless addition to the discussion but it's all I have. Many of you have already gone over anything I could've said.

[Gamiel]

 

Modern 40k lore feels like a checklist.

- Does it have Cadians
- Does it have the Ultramarines 2nd Company
- Does it have Cawl/Abaddon/Vashtorr/other named character that is getting a new model

How much modern lore do you read? Because I remember lots of Flashpoints, books, and such without any of that.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Add me to the "checked out of the lore around 8th edition" group. Feels very much to me like there is no soul to the new lore. Everything feels very samey and bland, and stakes-less. The comparison to Marvel is painfully accurate.

 

Funny tangential thought: Primaris are the perfect visual representation of this - they all wear EXACTLY the same armour, wielding the exact same weapon, whereas firstborn squads not only mixed and matched their weapon loadouts but also mixed and matched their armour marks, giving them all much greater character. Primaris are the bland, boring copy of the firstborn, like the current setting is a bland, boring copy of the old lore.

[SillyDreadnought]

 

How much modern lore do you read? Because I remember lots of Flashpoints, books, and such without any of that.

Plenty. For every Flashpoint that brings up something not on the checklist, there's a half dozen published materials that do.

[Arkangilos]

 

Dead characters aren't less interesting just because they end; the fact that they're gone makes room for more charcters and more stories.

They can literally make a book titled something like, “Hall of the Dead” or “History of the Martyrs”

 

And make rules for all the dead characters for people that are playing “historical” 40k

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

@conscriptboris

@darkhorse0607

 

Very well put. Exactly what I feel. 

 

Maybe like we have HH now GW will go back and make a separate game covering the 10,000 years between Scouring and Indomitus. 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

The beautiful thing about this game and setting is if I don’t like where the current storyline is headed, I can simply base my army / campaign / finger painting refrigerator artwork in literally any point within the massive universe of space and time that is Warhammer. Hell, this even includes which edition rules I intend to use and homebrew rules if I wish to play a more recent army in an older edition. 
 

Most of my “40K” armies, when I actually played and hobbied with them, were actually based in M35, and as I kept going with my own head canon and plot, pushed the forces and characters into other systems such as Kill Team, INQ28 and even back to 30K. 
 

Don’t feel restricted by GW. At this point, the universe has grown so large that even GW themselves have no real control over it anymore. 

[Gamiel]

 

Add me to the "checked out of the lore around 8th edition" group. Feels very much to me like there is no soul to the new lore. Everything feels very samey and bland, and stakes-less. The comparison to Marvel is painfully accurate.

Maybe a stupid question but if you "checked out of the lore around 8th edition"  what do you base your feeling that "Everything feels very samey and bland, and stakes-less" on?

[Ahzek451]

 

 

Don’t feel restricted by GW. At this point, the universe has grown so large that even GW themselves have no real control over it anymore. 

I mean, yeah I think in a way this is right. Part of the reason why people are feeling the way they are. GW has lost a level of control, for good or ill. 

[Scribe]

 

I mean, yeah I think in a way this is right. Part of the reason why people are feeling the way they are. GW has lost a level of control, for good or ill. 

 

How?

 

They can return a Primarch and invalidate the setting at any point. They can, seemingly, have the God-Emperor of Man 'burn down Nurgle's Garden'. They can split the Imperium in half with no real impacts, have Angron break a planet (or was that the Grey Knights, I didnt care for the book) or have the Lion say 'nah the Fallen are cool, its OK.' in the same book he kills Planet Breaker Angron....

 

Just yikes to the current GW.

[DuskRaider]

 

 

How?

 

They can return a Primarch and invalidate the setting at any point. They can, seemingly, have the God-Emperor of Man 'burn down Nurgle's Garden'. They can split the Imperium in half with no real impacts, have Angron break a planet (or was that the Grey Knights, I didnt care for the book) or have the Lion say 'nah the Fallen are cool, its OK.' in the same book he kills Planet Breaker Angron....

 

Just yikes to the current GW.

Yeah, it’s kinda garbage, but my point was you can always tuck yourself away into some little back corner in the timeline and avoid all of this mess. 
 

I get they’re trying to move the timeline and narrative forward and feel the need to go bigger to do so, but I don’t think they really know what to do with their own IP. All of the original or really gifted lore writers are gone now, retired or passed away, and the new generation of writers doesn’t really seem to know how to channel the spirit of 40K as well as the folks who, in many cases, were there from the beginning and helped shape it into what it is today. 
 

I actually wanted to add a bit more on to this. I look to the BL Horus Heresy series as a good example of “too much isn’t always good”. GW had captured lightning in a bottle with the Heresy book series, and the first five or so books were great. The trouble is, they tasted that success and wanted to keep chasing it (and the money obviously), and as a result they destroyed a lot of the mystique surrounding this period in the timeline. Not just that, but they needed to keep coming up with new lore to push the narrative forward without going TOO far TOO quick and the result is ridiculous garbage like Erda, Neoth, pointless battle draws with Primarchs that did nothing to push the story forward, etc. 

Edited September 29 by DuskRaider

[Ahzek451]

 

 

How?

 

Its always been that anyone can make this hobby their own. But id say for the bulk of GW's existence, most fans generally accepted whatever lore GW produced.

 

But how you say. Well...I'd say in the sense that I've seen a growing trend of some players ditching GW's official lore threads to make their own. Or simply return to those before 8th. I see an ever increasing popularity in some groups to return to 3rd ed.  Or even entertaining the idea of abandoning it entirely. And this isnt limited to 40k.

 

 

The garden has grown thick and if GW is not going to tend to it proper, incentive for others to do it will increase. 

 

 

[Lord_Valorion]

The fluff or "lore" is just a vehicle for selling models. If some marketing morons convince the bosses that changing everything of the fluff to funny care bears and ponies will generate 5 cents more, it will change instantly.

Edited September 29 by Lord_Valorion

[Karhedron]

 

They can return a Primarch and invalidate the setting at any point. They can, seemingly, have the God-Emperor of Man 'burn down Nurgle's Garden'. They can split the Imperium in half with no real impacts,

 

Things happening in lore have never had an effect on the table-top. Tycho was killed in Armageddon 3 and Eldrad was killed in the 13th Black Crusade yet both remained playable characters in subsequent editions. In fact Eldrad's death was eventually retconned. The Imperium is so huge that even the loss of a thousand worlds is still only 0.1%. 

 

What impacts do you expect to see?