Permanent death of heroes and villains in Warhammer 40K lore. We need it.

[Alby the Slayer]

I was watching the latest video of @Chapter Master Valrak about the possibility of Commissar Yarrick to return in the next Armaggedon war/story and I was again thinking about the necessity , for me, to see some heroes or villains to die a permanent death in the lore.

 

Aren't you tired to see epic battles when no one with a recognizable name die?

Stories like that has no meanings, no stakes. Every one returns with some kind of gimmicks and it's pretty lame.

I don't see the problem to let die important characters.

 

If you are in this hobby for decades you know the names and you have read stories and did battles with them for a lifetime.

If you are new to the hobby the famous names are not something you got attached to because you didn't have the time to.

If you play the game you can always ask your opponent to use that character mini as your general/captain whatever to live battles in his name, or play the game as some "historic" battle.

 

Like this we can build a proper story made of heroes and villains who fought and die, not immortal hollow names with no stakes and no depth. And we can have new heroes rising from the bottom, to know them and see them as new champions, much like Lysander and all of his story in the Imperial Fists Chapter.

Also new amazing miniatures.

 

Also also we have so many names in the lore, for Emperor's sakes.

I don't mean to kill Marneus Calgar(also why not) but can you please kill in some amazing conflict one of the other twenty gazilion UM character, just to make an example?

 

Probably it's not what the people wants since GW is not doing this and it's smashing it but I'm curious to know what you think.

So I made this pool :

https://take.supersurvey.com/poll5569308xd73de2e2-164

Let me know what you think Fraters and Sorors, newbies and veterans.

 

PS: if the pool is not allowed, please mods let me know, thank you.

Edited yesterday at 07:03 AM by Alby the Slayer

[LameBeard]

Don’t click on suspicious links, kids!

 

Absolutely agree some real death is needed and absolutely no reason GW can’t sell and we can’t play games with “dead” characters’ models.  We had a Solar Macharius model, for example.

 

They made it a story not a setting, so it’s a problem they created. I guess they are doing a bit, it’s why we have the next generation like Ursula Creed and maybe we’ll see more of that?

[gideon stargreave]

In the past, heroes like Tycho and Solar Macharius and Saint Praxedes were in codexes but already dead. I’d prefer a return to this 

[Evil Eye]

Characters actually dying would be absolutely fine. The problem is GW trying to lock the game into "the present" of 40K and retiring any characters who do die from the rules and model range. As mentioned above, prior to this we had plenty of characters who were dead by the then-present on their introduction; more a thing in WHFB admittedly but it still existed in 40K. Nowadays GW seems to have taken a leaf out of 1980s Hasbro's book and decided that death is only to be used to get rid of a character they don't sell anymore.

 

Admittedly this would be far less of an issue if 40K hadn't become so absurdly focused on named characters in the first place but there we go.

[ThaneOfTas]

10 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

The problem is GW trying to lock the game into "the present" of 40K and retiring any characters who do die from the rules and model range.

Fully agreed.

 

> Have a progressing story with new units and armies being introduced.

 

Or

 

> Have characters die but their models and rules stick around to encourage playing historically set games.

 

Look I recognise that not everyone has this problem. But I hate seeing things like Captain Typho leading primaris marines, as it just doesn't make sense, but if you start killing off characters then this will be the obvious end result.

[gideon stargreave]

1 hour ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Fully agreed.

 

> Have a progressing story with new units and armies being introduced.

 

Or

 

> Have characters die but their models and rules stick around to encourage playing historically set games.

 

Look I recognise that not everyone has this problem. But I hate seeing things like Captain Typho leading primaris marines, as it just doesn't make sense, but if you start killing off characters then this will be the obvious end result.

If there were a soft retcon so that primaris were just a new scale, and the difference in lore didn’t exist, then we wouldn’t have this problem.

[Emperor Ming]

Hes dead Jim

 

Oh no wait, Rejuvenat and Profits are keeping him alive

 

Dam it,  im a Dr not a timeline cartographer! 

[grailkeeper]

Jarren Kell recently died.

 

40k is a bit like a comicbook. Unless you see the body they're still alive!

[Magos Takatus]

Okay, if you insist. *Aim a Nova cannon at Abbadon's tiresome face* Time for a change of management. Having one stable, centralising character representing *Chaos* doesn't make sense. Give Huron a spin of the wheel for an edition or two.

 

It's not just a case of characters not dying off, Eldrad got swallowed by a Blackstone fortress, and then that got retconned. Combine that with Roboute Guilleman, at this rate Tycho might wake up and take anger management counselling.   

 

What makes the problem worse for me is that some factions seem to have dozens of characters, many of which do practically nothing (Ultramarines minor characters), whereas other factions have one named character and the lore either warps around them because everything has to revolve around them (Belisarius Cawl), or they have to invent throwaway  characters that never get any depth (Any other named Mechanicus Character). I don't even know if there is a notable character for the Genestealer Cult faction. If there was someone that travelled from system to system sowing discord, staying one step ahead of getting eaten by the Hive Fleets it might make for an interesting dynamic. I just don't know, however, because I've never seen anything about them.

 

I think we need more unique characters, but we need to make some room. I'd swap some obscure Ultramarines reserve captain for a decent figurehead for the Kroot in a heartbeat.

[Marshal Reinhard]

1 hour ago, Magos Takatus said:

I don't even know if there is a notable character for the Genestealer Cult faction.

To be fair, that's perhaps the one faction that wouldn't really ever manage to generate one? A genestealer cult is only really present in one campaign ever. They're wiped out at the end of it whether they win or lose.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

2000AD authors are confident to kill off characters because they have the ability to create new interesting foes for Judge Dredd to neutralize. And this franchise exists since the 70s. GW could give us a lot of specific characters for various SM chapters and then they could retire them more easily. Alas this is not going to be the case and we will get instead a dozen different Primaris Lt. instead.

[Jings]

The characters never dying issue is just a byproduct of GW making the universe smaller by making stories about the same small pool of characters in over the top scenarios instead of smaller engagements with new characters they can kill off imo. 

[Evil Eye]

I think one other big problem (IMO at least) with the current named character fiasco is how ubiquitous they are now. I feel like prior rulesets having some restrictions on their use, be it the "only use with opponent's permission" clause, having a minimum army point size to use them or even just costing much more than an equivalent non-named HQ made them something you'd only use if you really, really liked the character. They always felt more like "important background characters", more part of the setting itself than actual characters per se, intended to give context to the real heroes (or villains) of the setting- Your Dudes. Even the novels tended to focus more on characters made up specifically for the books (effectively the writer's dudes) rather than following named characters heavily. Nowadays, not only are they omnipresent in fluff and novels, they're also omnipresent on the tabletop, to the point of absurdity, with no real mechanical incentive not to take them.

 

Another issue is the scope creep of named characters- before, really powerful characters were restricted to Chapter Masters etc, and whilst very powerful would usually still be relatively situational (especially due to the high cost of said characters). Marneus Calgar was good, but he wasn't an auto-include. Now? The reason you wouldn't be taking him is because Guilliman is there instead. When Primarchs are running around and bigger characters get made even larger to compete with them, things just get stupid.

 

I dunno. Maybe that's just me.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

40k desperately needs permadeath. 

 

Calgar should have died when Guilliman came back and Sicarius should be Chapter Master. 

 

Grimnar should be dead too.

[crimsondave]

As long as they do it right.  I’m still annoyed at the way they killed off Balthassar.  If you want to kill him, fine.  But at least have a story other than “he was killed after the rift.  The end.”

[firestorm40k]

*Cough* Erebus