Narrative progression, story and setting

[Domhnall]

2 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Would killing off a charater be such a financial issue though?

 

Why can't a character be killed off but the model still sold? People can set their battle when the character was alive or something. 

 

From a customer point of view, no issue. 

 

From a manufacturing/stock keep point of view, yes probably. They wouldn't necessarily want to use up manufacturing time on an effectively obsolete model when there are shiny new ones to sell. 

Unless they do a run of buy on demand like they have done with other older sculpts recently. 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Domhnall said:

 

From a customer point of view, no issue. 

 

From a manufacturing/stock keep point of view, yes probably. They wouldn't necessarily want to use up manufacturing time on an effectively obsolete model when there are shiny new ones to sell. 

Unless they do a run of buy on demand like they have done with other older sculpts recently. 

Models only become obsolete because GW says so. Remember the last manlet Marine Assault Squad with eviscerators as an option? Kit was hardly old and they got removed just to push another kit, even though they didn't have to. 

[Gamiel]

16 hours ago, Domhnall said:

From a customer point of view, no issue. 

Have you seen this fandom? There will be lots of people that will say that since that character is dead can't they use him or lost their will to buy him or complain that they can only use him as a generic version and he should have special rules. 

[Timberley]

This is a well-worn soapbox of mine, and in my opinion it's exactly as @apologist said in their opening post; setting vs story, and GW wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  Those of a certain vintage will remember when the 13th Black Crusade was the 'end point' for the story, and both the characters and models reflected the state of the factions for the last 1000 years (as I recall).  In essence, the skirmish game of 40K was replaying historic battles, some of which were officially storied, some of which were your own creation.  Following the end of the campaign and the introduction of Primaris, the Maledictum and so on, and those wishing to play the 'historic battles' from a pre-Fall of Cadia era are somewhat stifled, particularly those who play Astartes (unless you're part of a group that leans heavily into narrative rather than competitive play).  The setting has leapt forward, and has become more of a story.

 

Whilst this means little to those who just get together to play games (time period be damned); they'll use characters if the numbers mean that they'll have a greater chance of victory, to others it can be really frustrating.  As such, GW has to balance the narrative aspect with the competitive players (which in my opinion is what GW leans towards).  To make the named characters super special, they have unique stuff and rules, which can heavily skew lists and makes it seem narratively disjointed.  However, this means those that run 'my guys' chapters are effectively stuck, as they can't take the super special named characters.

 

Where am I going with this?  In my opinion, GW can have their cake and eat it too by amalgamating various kits and creating a series of multi-part, multi-option kits that represent generic heroes (like the Eldar Autarch kit), and come with options to create named heroes (or have character upgrade sprues available for chapters with a specific look - like the Space Wolves or Dark Angels).  This could be reinforced by having generic character archetypes (Master of the Fleet, Head Librarian, Senior Chaplain, etc.) in rules, with named versions getting specific wargear and a custom rule.  This can be extended to other factions beyond Astartes, and indeed has been from a model perspective, though the rules need to follow!

 

You could argue that [insert specific named character here] needs a super special model all of their own.  I'd ask why?  For example, why can't Calgar be represented by a Gravis Captain with a few additional bits to represent the Gauntlets of Ultramar and maybe an additional loincloth and some eagles for his backpack?  Similarly, Adrax can be a standard Primaris Captain with some additional bits.  You could counter me by saying that the characters lose their specialness by having such generic models, but I'd argue that's the point - named characters are generic characters with an official story.  This means that GW can create new named characters and kill off old ones, but the model representing them doesn't change, and they don't need to create new moulds every time.  Obviously I'm coming at this from a very Astartes PoV, so let's redress this with the other model I love - Commander Farsight.  Why can't his kit be changed such that the Dawn Blade and the rune embedded in his suit is a custom right arm, with the kit coming with options that include CIBs or Fusion Blasters to replace them, and maybe different head options?  It'd make for a suitably incredible centrepiece for a T'au army, and allow customisation for 'your Shas'O'.  The difference would be in the rules.  The Votann already have this with their dual Uthar/Khal kit, and Orks with their Mozrog/Beastboss kit.  Ultimately, GW would have to produce less moulds, and be able to advance stories by killing off characters and creating new ones.

 

Anyway, getting off my soapbox!

 

Edit:  I realise that I haven't touched on the rules to any great extent.  My idea would be that your generic hero and named hero have the same statline, access to the same wargear, and the same generic rules, but a named character takes specific piece(s) of named wargear, and have additional rules that represent their storied nature.  For example (and forgive me for using the Index as my reference - I don't have the Codex):

T'au Coldstar Commander: 12"/5/3+/6/7+/2 - has weapons list, BSS, WSS, 4+ Invul, Coldstar special rule (led unit has 12" move and gain [Assault])

Farsight (Custom Coldstar): 10"/5/3+/6/6+/2 - has Dawn Blade, HI Plasma rifle, 4+ Invul, has 2 special rules (led unit gains +1 to wound within 9", he rerolls hits and wounds once per battle)

 

Amalgamate it to:

Coldstar/Farsight: 12"/5/3+/6/7+/2 - has BSS, WSS, 4+ Invul, led unit gains [Assault] and can move 12"

Farsight Special: Can only use HI Plasma rilfe and Dawnblade, once per battle he and unit can reroll hits and wounds

 

But that's only a suggestion...

 

Edited October 31 by Timberley
Rules bit...

[ThePenitentOne]

7 hours ago, Timberley said:

 The Votann already have this with their dual Uthar/Khal kit, and Orks with their Mozrog/Beastboss kit. 

 

Geater Daemons too. Keeper of Secrets + Shalaxi, Lord of Change + Kairos, etc.

 

I think it's a good approach. 

[TheTrans]

I think @apologist has done a good job of sort of formulating the differences between the 40k setting and the 40k story.

There is probably some element of grognard showing in my thoughts, but I've always been a huge fan of making up my own characters, fluff etc, so I've always loved 40k (and fantasy) as a setting. Further back in time also, the background and fluff given was generally snippets here and there, that left so much unexplained stuff in the setting, and as I've no doubt harped on before, your imagination, even without stuff being fleshed out, has an almost inexhaustible amount of wonder to have hovering in those blank spaces. The tidbits where always the best as your head canon could run away with stuff, you could fill in the details and make it your own... 

Now I honestly feel everything is so over explained and over 'major' character-ed it can never really be yours, its lost its sandbox, choose your own adventure vibe. This, as mentioned previously in this thread, is further exacerbated by the fact you really can't 'build your own guy' anymore, and generally what middling 'generic' characters that are left, aren't used often as the big special characters that are always front and center, outclass them in most ways. 

So you end up that everything is now over explained and constantly moving, so you can't really 'ground' your guys in the story, while at the same time every battle on the tabletop, due the proliferation of special characters is objectively non-canon. But every big battle in the fluff has no stakes...as you know **insert big plastic special character here** isn't going to die.

Which is also kind of weird, when you look at 40k back when it was a setting, Tycho dying during the 3rd war for Armageddon etc... or my truly favourite setting, the Badab War, we know what happens, yet somehow, the conflict, although ultra focused, was so broad you can have your own guys even within that 8 year setting, even with such cults of personality like Huron and Culln, somehow, the writing, or the rules, or something I can't quite put my finger on, actively encouraged you to play out this 'sci fi historical' and it didn't bother you that there was already a forgone conclusion, filling in the gaps was the fun part... 

Maybe thats it, with a setting you have a start and end point to many conflicts and characters, so you have some scope to fill in the gaps. But with the current story, stuff is moving so majorly and fluidly.... you can't really do these 'through the looking glass' historical battles... 

Is that it, currently 40k doesn't really want you playing historical and only wants you keeping up with all the new seasons and characters? 

Anyway, people who are having trouble with current 40k and its 'anti-historical gaming' bent, come pay 3rd, come play Liber Badab, go dig out your Taros Campaign book! Come play older editions where you aren't getting dragged around by your gaming and fluff nose, and just settle in a fun, much beloved little corner of the universe, before everything got so big and moving!! 

Unite in playing the dead editions with the ignored and mothballed lore!! 

Become a grognard!! 

[DemonGSides]

15 minutes ago, TheTrans said:

Is that it, currently 40k doesn't really want you playing historical and only wants you keeping up with all the new seasons and characters? 

 

I think a lot of people are convinced that this is the only way the game is played, for sure.

But in actuality there's a lot of really cool flavorful missions to play, there's crusade if you want ongoing content, and the actual gameplay is pretty balanced (It wasn't on release, for sure, but it's a pretty fair game now).  I think there's definitely some truth to the criticism that the game is a little soulless, but I think that's something else that can be fixed over time; crusade content is one way if you've got a group, but also I think the main form of "soul" comes from the hobby side, not the gameplay side, and people are far too hung up on "official" instead of just, y'know, having fun.

And I also think the suggestion to play old editions is a good one; if you (royal you) love templates, play an edition with templates! There's gotta be more than just you, but it is definitely going to take more effort, but if you like doing something, effort is part of it.  A hobby such as ours exemplifies that, considering painting and modelling just to be able to roll some dice is part and parcel.

[One Paul Murray]

There are two sides to this discussion aren't there? 40k the game, and 40k the story publishing arm. The two are heavily linked, but not always.

 

As someone that is currently most engaged with the hobby through the books I'll chip my two pence in on that.

 

I think it is a massive issue that the setting revolves so closely around a few key characters and the same 3 or 4 first founding chapters. It kills the idea of a diverse universe and hugely undermines the sense of narrative threat. Also, a personal quibble is that it leads to weird bits like Uriel Ventris setting off on every adventure with guys that he's fought with for over a century. Adds tension and pathos when they invariably die. But then next mission he is off with a new band of brothers... how? He has lost most of his company about five times, all his mates should be dead!

 

I know that the big chapters and characters need their place commercially, and people like them. But I thought dropping Ragnar into Blood of Asaheim as a fleeting cameo was miles more effective. He's still there, still busy, but when the seven Space Wolves in the story get there you totally think any of them could die.

 

Other than that, create new chapters. Look how popular Soul Drinkers and Blood Ravens are; in part because they can all die and you can love the story.

 

Not just for Loyalists either. The Night Lords books ends with the main character dying, and people routinely talk about it being among the best 40k stuff ever.

 

 

[crimsondave]

1 hour ago, One Paul Murray said:

There are two sides to this discussion aren't there? 40k the game, and 40k the story publishing arm. The two are heavily linked, but not always.

 

As someone that is currently most engaged with the hobby through the books I'll chip my two pence in on that.

 

I think it is a massive issue that the setting revolves so closely around a few key characters and the same 3 or 4 first founding chapters. It kills the idea of a diverse universe and hugely undermines the sense of narrative threat. Also, a personal quibble is that it leads to weird bits like Uriel Ventris setting off on every adventure with guys that he's fought with for over a century. Adds tension and pathos when they invariably die. But then next mission he is off with a new band of brothers... how? He has lost most of his company about five times, all his mates should be dead!

 

I know that the big chapters and characters need their place commercially, and people like them. But I thought dropping Ragnar into Blood of Asaheim as a fleeting cameo was miles more effective. He's still there, still busy, but when the seven Space Wolves in the story get there you totally think any of them could die.

 

Other than that, create new chapters. Look how popular Soul Drinkers and Blood Ravens are; in part because they can all die and you can love the story.

 

Not just for Loyalists either. The Night Lords books ends with the main character dying, and people routinely talk about it being among the best 40k stuff ever.

 

 

I don’t mind them killing of characters as long as they actually put some time and story into it.  They killed off Balthazar in 8th? edition with a sentence in the codex.  There’s a book about Lazarus and it doesn’t give the story of how Balthazar died.  I mean, Balthazar came in the starter box that was used for 6th and 7th edition.  You’d think his death could make it into a novel somewhere.

[One Paul Murray]

Yeah, couldn't agree more with that. Killing off a character is an opportunity that you only get once, they should use them well.

 

At a higher level than that, for instance, how could they kill off Dante after he survived Baal? That was the opportunity.

[Ironwrought Huw]

 

An interesting topic @apologist which I think opens up quite a few avenues of discussion. It's triggered a fair bit of hobby-soul-searching from me. I’ll try not to turn this into an “angry old man shouts at 10th edition” or "in my day this were all fields" type post.  

As has been mentioned by others before me, I think the biggest problem with GW killing off named special characters is the question of 1) whether the character gets replaced, and if they are,  2) having a suspiciously similar replacement. "Terribly sorry everyone, but Jeff didn't survive the battle. Here's his replacement, Geoff. Like his predecessor he also likes to wear fancy shorts and is armed with a plasma fist and power claw gun. I know they've got the same nose and haircut but they're not related. Honest". For me this cheapens the entire point of killing off the character. 

This is best demonstrated by the decision to kill Creed (and for that matter the destruction of Cadia). What was the point of killing Creed off, only to have him be replaced by his own daughter? Are there not any other successful Cadian military families? Why does she have almost identical wargear - why not make her something genuinely new? Why after destroying Cadia, did the new character have to be Cadian at all? There are countless planets producing imperial guard regiments in the Imperium,  the loss of Cadia could have been an excellent way to show that. 
 

DIY Heroes - the tabletop side

I started the hobby back in the days where the rule books would state that your commander model was a physical representation of you on the battlefield, and it's an idea which has firmly stayed with me. I don't have a problem with named special characters but I will fully admit I'm in the "let me make my own characters from a generic option" camp and I still firmly clutch my copy of the 4th edition Space Marine codex to my chest when I go to bed . 

 

So long as people can still use their models in games I don’t see any issue with killing off named characters. Keep the rules around, or go back to the days when players could go completely wild with customising unit options - or better yet, both. Prior to their re-release in plastic 2 years ago you couldn't buy Gaunt and his Ghosts from GW for about 12 years - but the rules were still available in at least 2 IG codicies, and the wargear options for Commissars and Commissar Lords meant you could (just about) DIY your own Gaunt should you have wanted. 

This is where we come crashing back to GW’s decision to utterly neuter the ability of players to pick wargear. Not just weapons, but other equipment like Iron Halos, Terminator Honours or the similar items the other armies used to have. 8th edition's chapter supplements and 9th crusade options sort of felt like a way of bringing the old wargear system back but it isn't the same. It may seem utterly trivial to some (and it is) but why can't I give my techmarine or librarian an Iron Halo or bionics, or change what pistol they carry? Was it game breaking? No, not usually. Did it mean my generic HQ felt different from my opponent's generic HQ? Yes. 

 

I do feel that more recent editions (at least from the Astartes side) have been over reliant on named special characters, and an overall feeling of restrictive army building. 

The lack of flexibility / options and over-reliance on named characters are some of the main reasons I've been gradually turning away from 40K proper, and have been getting pulled back into 30K, Necromunda, and (jokes aside) returning to older editions of 40K. 

 

If GW is going to make named special characters I think it's only right that they give players the chance to make something which - if not identical in power - at least has a chance to stand up in a fight. Every time I take a generic HQ choice instead of a named special character in 40K I feel like I am deliberately crippling my own army - unlike in 30K, where I have almost free-reign to make and use what I like, with the acceptance that some of the options are significantly better than others. 

 

 

Anyway, that's enough from me. I think there are some clouds I need to yell at... 

[Lord_Ikka]

Unfortunately, GW seems to think that the best way to deal with characters is to keep them around as long as possible (or as long as the mold doesn't break) to squeeze as much cash out of them as they can. Setting and gameplay are very much secondary to business- if the model is selling, regardless of the reason, they will keep that character around. Thus we have guys like Dante, Calgar, and Grimnar that have been around for decades in-game and centuries in-universe, who have survived in increasingly incredulous ways. I'm glad in 10th they decided to reduce some of the bloat, getting rid of a minor swath of lesser special characters like Tycho or Nemesor Zahndrek, but 40k narratively has become very similar to Star Wars in that there is only a certain number of big players that go around the galaxy doing the important things. It isn't believable in Star Wars that only the Skywalker/Palpatine lines can really impact galactic progress, much less in 40k where there is so much going on (in the sense of multiple empires/factions). Losing some of the big characters would give the game/universe a real sense of progression, and the players would get over losing out on some of their models when GW can just make up new guys just as useful in-game. 

 

I love the setting and the game, but sometimes stuff like this just takes me out of the hobby and into contemplative mode. 

[lansalt]

IMO, it makes perfect sense to keep alive the most iconic named SM characters for both marketing and in-universe reasons.

Just look at Calgar. He's the original SM commander and was already featured in RT! Why throw away such an iconic character? These guys are already supposed to be hardcore, live for centuries, and be know across the galaxy. And they provide a reference for coming and going fans over the years despite other changes.

 

And creating iconic characters is actually very difficult to replicate. Following the Star Wars example, that's why their creators kept going back to the Skywalkers, Vader and Palpatine. They had decades of expanded universe material but still hardly anything as good as the original cast.

[ZeroWolf]

2 hours ago, Ironwrought Huw said:

 

An interesting topic @apologist which I think opens up quite a few avenues of discussion. It's triggered a fair bit of hobby-soul-searching from me. I’ll try not to turn this into an “angry old man shouts at 10th edition” or "in my day this were all fields" type post.  

As has been mentioned by others before me, I think the biggest problem with GW killing off named special characters is the question of 1) whether the character gets replaced, and if they are,  2) having a suspiciously similar replacement. "Terribly sorry everyone, but Jeff didn't survive the battle. Here's his replacement, Geoff. Like his predecessor he also likes to wear fancy shorts and is armed with a plasma fist and power claw gun. I know they've got the same nose and haircut but they're not related. Honest". For me this cheapens the entire point of killing off the character. 

This is best demonstrated by the decision to kill Creed (and for that matter the destruction of Cadia). What was the point of killing Creed off, only to have him be replaced by his own daughter? Are there not any other successful Cadian military families? Why does she have almost identical wargear - why not make her something genuinely new? Why after destroying Cadia, did the new character have to be Cadian at all? There are countless planets producing imperial guard regiments in the Imperium,  the loss of Cadia could have been an excellent way to show that. 
 

DIY Heroes - the tabletop side

I started the hobby back in the days where the rule books would state that your commander model was a physical representation of you on the battlefield, and it's an idea which has firmly stayed with me. I don't have a problem with named special characters but I will fully admit I'm in the "let me make my own characters from a generic option" camp and I still firmly clutch my copy of the 4th edition Space Marine codex to my chest when I go to bed . 

 

So long as people can still use their models in games I don’t see any issue with killing off named characters. Keep the rules around, or go back to the days when players could go completely wild with customising unit options - or better yet, both. Prior to their re-release in plastic 2 years ago you couldn't buy Gaunt and his Ghosts from GW for about 12 years - but the rules were still available in at least 2 IG codicies, and the wargear options for Commissars and Commissar Lords meant you could (just about) DIY your own Gaunt should you have wanted. 

This is where we come crashing back to GW’s decision to utterly neuter the ability of players to pick wargear. Not just weapons, but other equipment like Iron Halos, Terminator Honours or the similar items the other armies used to have. 8th edition's chapter supplements and 9th crusade options sort of felt like a way of bringing the old wargear system back but it isn't the same. It may seem utterly trivial to some (and it is) but why can't I give my techmarine or librarian an Iron Halo or bionics, or change what pistol they carry? Was it game breaking? No, not usually. Did it mean my generic HQ felt different from my opponent's generic HQ? Yes. 

 

I do feel that more recent editions (at least from the Astartes side) have been over reliant on named special characters, and an overall feeling of restrictive army building. 

The lack of flexibility / options and over-reliance on named characters are some of the main reasons I've been gradually turning away from 40K proper, and have been getting pulled back into 30K, Necromunda, and (jokes aside) returning to older editions of 40K. 

 

If GW is going to make named special characters I think it's only right that they give players the chance to make something which - if not identical in power - at least has a chance to stand up in a fight. Every time I take a generic HQ choice instead of a named special character in 40K I feel like I am deliberately crippling my own army - unlike in 30K, where I have almost free-reign to make and use what I like, with the acceptance that some of the options are significantly better than others. 

 

 

Anyway, that's enough from me. I think there are some clouds I need to yell at... 

To be fair with Creed...he didn't die. He's now a fixture of Trazyn's museum, along with Clonegrim.

 

Also there is a new Imperial guard character leading them, the new Lord Solar Leontus (though we all know the robo-horse is calling the shots). So GW aren't unwilling to make new characters but I think there's a case by case process at play. With maybe some thought going towards BL books (like Ursula's case, a fun look at her dealing with the loss of her father and having to step into his shoes) not much thought I'll admit, but maybe some at least.