500 Worlds: Titus (Wardens of Ultramar & Nekrosor Ammentar)

[jaxom]

*Squints at the horizon*
Captain Invictus got special rules and then immediately died in a battle report. Those were the days.

[Matcap86]

20 minutes ago, jaxom said:

*Squints at the horizon*
Captain Invictus got special rules and then immediately died in a battle report. Those were the days.

 

As any good marine should. Though that might just be me having just read Dropsite Massacre. 

[phandaal]

58 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

GW own the property, not saber, all the characters are for GW to do as they please with, and as NorthernUltramarines says, it wont be a random warhammer community person that made the call, it'll be GW writers. 

 

most random company captains dont get stories of their demise, even with him being in a game as a side character, he simply isn't that important.

 

Honestly, I debated putting that in my post at all, because I thought people might laser in on that instead of the "they didn't have to do anything at all to Chairon" part. Obviously, people who are already deferring to GW's decisionmaking process will continue to do so, and it is a nice way to avoid thinking about the rest of my post.

 

Sometimes I do these things anyway, against my better judgment. I didn't say anything about Acheran, BTW.

 

In any case, what do you think about just not doing anything to Chairon? Do you think it is unreasonable to leave him alone?

[DemonGSides]

Then people will just be complaining that there's too many named characters and nothing ever happens to them that isn't them just winning.  Probably the same people complaining he's dead, tbh.

 

And there's nothing saying there won't be a book.  They go back and do things that have been settled in the lore all the time.

Edited November 14 by DemonGSides

[NorthernUltramarines]

18 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Honestly, I debated putting that in my post at all, because I thought people might laser in on that instead of the "they didn't have to do anything at all to Chairon" part. Obviously, people who are already deferring to GW's decisionmaking process will continue to do so, and it is a nice way to avoid thinking about the rest of my post.

 

Sometimes I do these things anyway, against my better judgment. I didn't say anything about Acheran, BTW.

 

In any case, what do you think about just not doing anything to Chairon? Do you think it is unreasonable to leave him alone?

 

I think leaving him alone does little for the character of Titus, whilst Chairon and Archean (two people who had faith in him, even when he had none in himself + Chairon helped him regain his sense of leadership in his chapter again imo) dying gives Titus some development for his future. His renewed leadership of the 2nd will be shaped by the death of the first captain he served under again and the first Ultramarine he led that believed in him.

 

They're setting Titus up to be a big character and I really love this, especially as he's been through a lot in 40k terms. Having people he trusted and respected killed, in an act that has delayed the death of a planet? Tragic, and good for his character AND the character development of Gadriel. I'm all for this and I'm looking forward to reading more about the battle and what happened after.

Edited November 14 by NorthernUltramarines
Grammar!

[Blindhamster]

34 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Honestly, I debated putting that in my post at all, because I thought people might laser in on that instead of the "they didn't have to do anything at all to Chairon" part. Obviously, people who are already deferring to GW's decisionmaking process will continue to do so, and it is a nice way to avoid thinking about the rest of my post.

 

Sometimes I do these things anyway, against my better judgment. I didn't say anything about Acheran, BTW.

 

In any case, what do you think about just not doing anything to Chairon? Do you think it is unreasonable to leave him alone?

NorthernUltramarines has said my thoughts better than I could honestly. 

Chairon + Gadriels purpose was to do two things:

1) allow for co op through the campaign

2) provide means for Titus to have character growth

 

They could have left Chairon alive, they didn't, they were under no obligation to and either way I imagine at least in the case of Chairon, it was still talked about with Saber - to ensure Saber didn't have plans for the character. They could have killed Gadriel instead of Chairon, or both or neither. Each of those scenarios has a different affect on the trajectory of Titus at this point, for whatever reason they opted to kill Chairon and not Gadriel, we might get to see some of the affect of this in the new campaign book, or in animation or the next game I guess. Time will tell. 

 

You're absolutely right, you didn't mention Acheran, I did read the rest of the post, but honestly I just don't think "they didn't have to do anything at all to Chairon" part was really that worthwhile getting into, mostly because they don't have to do anything, but no matter what they do do (haha), someone will complain about it - thats the nature of these things. Equally they were under no obligation not to do something to him, but the only character with plot armour in that game is ultimately Titus, because he's the face of it, and who GW are now latching onto. Everyone else is expendable as the narratives they want to tell drive. 

 

I don't actually necessarily agree with the course of narrative, but I am looking forward to seeing where it goes in the next game.

[jaxom]

Also makes a good opening mission. The hive is finally unlocked, Titus and the 2nd are sent in to reclaim the gene-seed and relics of their comrades. There’s a few ambushes etc etc.

[Marshal Reinhard]

I get the, probably mistaken, feeling that some of the voices complaining about these character deaths are also some of the same voices saying the setting needs more character deaths in general. Surely not, right?

[Son of Rawl]

3 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

I get the, probably mistaken, feeling that some of the voices complaining about these character deaths are also some of the same voices saying the setting needs more character deaths in general. Surely not, right?

Characters dying off screen, or being suddenly removed for "X" reason has always been bad. It just feels insulting to the audience, and can taint future narrative depending on the character being removed. The worst offending example of this was an old show called "Dallas", they killed off the main character and did a season without them, than brought that character back with the explanation that last season was a dream. It sucked then, and sucks now.

 

I have hated the trope since Transformers The Movie, as Wheel Jack and Windcharger are unceremoniously killed off screen, and you only knew they were dead by a single frame of their corpses on the ground.

[SvenIronhand]

22 minutes ago, Son of Rawl said:

I have hated the trope since Transformers The Movie, as Wheel Jack and Windcharger are unceremoniously killed off screen, and you only knew they were dead by a single frame of their corpses on the ground.

Yet any Transformers fan (myself included) will tell you that the movie added life-and-death stakes to what was otherwise a 'plot of the week' show. 

[mel_danes]

If you like a character, and want them on the tabletop just do it. Who cares what the lore was/is? 

If you want to represent Chairon in your games do it, and you can make him cool as hell. 

Buy miniature A off eBay, replace head, done.

He lives. 

It's our game to tell stories in, we're not chained to what they do.

Edited November 15 by mel_danes
Spelling.

[HeadlessCross]

[Jscarlos18]

I wonder what the rules for Ammentar will be. I imagine he will be able to lead Destroyers and give them buffs.

[irlLordy]

I wonder if you'll be able to take any other named characters with him. Overriding other necron's command protocols and turning them into destroyers doesn't sound like anything the Silent King, Trazyn or Immotek would want to be around ...

Edited November 16 by irlLordy

[redmapa]

I could see it getting lone operative and either an aura to buff destroyer units or give the destroyer rules to non-destroyer infantry units, so now your whole dynasty is bent to kill all life, from the warriors to the lords!

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, Jscarlos18 said:

I wonder what the rules for Ammentar will be. I imagine he will be able to lead Destroyers and give them buffs.

I'd actually imagine him to be a Lone Op. 

[Nephaston]

Maybe even some rules where you can't take him in the same army as TRIARCH units or other epic heroes.

[Brother Paint]

Do we have any idea of an eta? 

[TheMawr]

4 minutes ago, Brother Paint said:

Do we have any idea of an eta? 

2026 as the nightbringer will come with this and after the leak they said it comes 2026.

Not very helpful as that excludes.. what.. the next 3 or so pre-order weeks ? XD

 

We also know from GW that KT Shadowhunt will come at around the same time as the Nightbringer. the earliest a 3rd box of a season has been released so far is early february. 
So possibly 500 worlds will be late Januari rather than early januari.

However thats all basing it on things that change on a whim/Words GW uses liberally like ;
-- GWs "around the same time" can easily be a month between each other, if not even two.
-- The third box of KT is usually linked to Q1.. so Januari up to March is possible.. but when it comes to usually quarterly releases, exceptions are almost as common as "the rule"
-- Nightbringer, while featured in 500 worlds titus, could still be released slightly later than the rest, I have a feeling this happened before, but cant think of an example do I might be wrong, its also the least likely of the other points.

 

So in short

There is no way to know for sure XD