Death means nothing

[ZeroWolf]

5 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

There is a difference between having unreliable narrators and having everything be unreliable.

 

Unreliable narrators work because you know they are unreliable, and you have something to compare them to. Otherwise you have to assume the narrative is correct within the universe, or else the entire framework is meaningless, and there is nothing to actually discuss or care about.

 

"True from a certain point of view" is applicable to things like Eisenhorn believing he was right to do what he did, for example. It is not meant to be applicable to everything he wrote about. We are meant to assume that the events did happen, but the interpretation of those events is a matter of perspective.

 

Likewise with Yarrick, we have to assume that a eulogy presented alongside a one-handed commissar skeleton with an augmetic eye means he is in fact deceased in-universe. We were given no indication otherwise, until GW themselves maybe sort of took it back, which is the whole point of contention for this thread.

I think the article they put out on WarCom itself struck a very different tone though. Even so, I would still support the idea that the article and codex were written to tide things over till a shiny new plastic release was ready as they wanted to stop selling the previous one thus needed him gone from the codex. 

 

Internally, GW never perceived him as actually dead, unlike the time they returned a whole setting from the dead. Now that's a case of death meaning nothing  (though a bit our of the forums remit).

 

I suppose though thats the difference in all of this for me. I can accept Yarrick returning as the window of opportunity to drop a new plastic model has previously planned. However it'd be different if the model makers were sat round, looking at guys killed off decades ago (and thought dead by GW, so no need for models) and decided to pull one of them back from the grave.

 

(Also, still riding my hunch that Trazyn is wrapped up with Yarricks return ala what happened with Creed and GW will just say the skeleton was a fake).

 

One thing I can't fully remember in all of this is angron's reveal, as I recall plenty of speculation around the skull with the bionic eye. Did we know Yarrick wasnt going to be in the codex by that point or was that in the reveal's wake?

[Indy Techwisp]

26 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I think the article they put out on WarCom itself struck a very different tone though. Even so, I would still support the idea that the article and codex were written to tide things over till a shiny new plastic release was ready as they wanted to stop selling the previous one thus needed him gone from the codex. 

 

Internally, GW never perceived him as actually dead, unlike the time they returned a whole setting from the dead. Now that's a case of death meaning nothing  (though a bit our of the forums remit).

 

I suppose though thats the difference in all of this for me. I can accept Yarrick returning as the window of opportunity to drop a new plastic model has previously planned. However it'd be different if the model makers were sat round, looking at guys killed off decades ago (and thought dead by GW, so no need for models) and decided to pull one of them back from the grave.

 

(Also, still riding my hunch that Trazyn is wrapped up with Yarricks return ala what happened with Creed and GW will just say the skeleton was a fake).

 

One thing I can't fully remember in all of this is angron's reveal, as I recall plenty of speculation around the skull with the bionic eye. Did we know Yarrick wasnt going to be in the codex by that point or was that in the reveal's wake?

 

I think it'd be really funny if they annouce the survival of Yarrick by revealing he literally just retired with honours about a week before the World Eaters turned up on Armageddon and he's called back onto service because Ghaz keeps sending handwritten letters to High Command asking where his favourite enemy Yarrick went and to let him know that he's missing all the fun the Angry Red Beakies brought with them.

[phandaal]

29 minutes ago, Brother Casman said:

Do we really have to make that assumption? Is what's presented to us, in-universe, actually accurate?

 

Yes, we do have to make that assumption.

 

The alternative, without knowing which parts are supposed to be "unreliable," is that there is no story.

 

I, the in-universe narrator, tell you: "Bob walked across the street." Did Bob walk across the street? How do you know it wasn't Sally that actually just walked up a rainbow with her pet kangaroo? Was there anything in that statement that leads you to believe it is false? What if the entire story is statements from me, the in-universe narrator? You see the problem here.

 

The difference between this and head-canon is that I know what the universe is supposed to be, compared to my head canon. I don't like that Yarrick was killed off, but I accept that it was presented in the lore that way.

 

If GW came out tomorrow and said "Cawl never actually created the Primaris Marines. That was just Imperial propaganda," and many people who believed that lore were annoyed about the switch, I promise you, you will not find me in that thread telling people they were misinformed to have believed the lore.

[Brother Casman]

11 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Yes, we do have to make that assumption.

 

[snip]

Cool, I give up. We're not going to agree on this.

[phandaal]

39 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I think the article they put out on WarCom itself struck a very different tone though. Even so, I would still support the idea that the article and codex were written to tide things over till a shiny new plastic release was ready as they wanted to stop selling the previous one thus needed him gone from the codex. 

 

Internally, GW never perceived him as actually dead, unlike the time they returned a whole setting from the dead. Now that's a case of death meaning nothing  (though a bit our of the forums remit).

 

Yeah, I think this is the root of the problem being talked about here. I fully understand the real-world assumptions for why it was handled the way it was. Problem is, you cannot trust anything put out by the company in any form of lore if it is just going to flip flop that way.

 

We can look for Nottingham reasons for whatever GW puts out. I just don't think we need to then say that the company turning themselves into one big unreliable narrator with no indication from within the fictional universe of what is true or false is a good thing.

 

In this case, I would be happy if what they published about Yarrick was nonsense. He is a cool character. But I won't claim it is a positive feature of the lore.

[DemonGSides]

26 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Problem is, you cannot trust anything put out by the company in any form of lore if it is just going to flip flop that way.

 

The lore flip flops quite a bit and quite often (Hello, Horus Heresy) so I don't particularly see why this obvious in universe object (if you've seen the codex, it's presented very much as an in universe proclamation) is any more sacrosanct than any other in universe lore explanation.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

The lore flip flops quite a bit and quite often (Hello, Horus Heresy) so I don't particularly see why this obvious in universe object (if you've seen the codex, it's presented very much as an in universe proclamation) is any more sacrosanct than any other in universe lore explanation.

People just want a baseline of ‘truth’ 

there was no reason to even imply he was dead. Like literally no reason for it.

 

there was no reason to remove him from the codex. New model coming out or not, I can’t recall a single situation where they’ve removed a character from the universe and codex before hand.

 

its just GW using click/ragebait tactics to spark discussion and hype.

 

Do you think it would be good for them to say “psyche! Sanguinius never died! He was just taking a power nap”?

Edited 19 hours ago by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Ahzek451]

There's a name for it, I can't quite remember what it is. But it has to do with the argument that the flip flop in a lore is a precedent and thus an ok thing going forward. This is truly not the case, in essence, there is a grace period that a chunk of lore goes through to find its feet, big sweeping changes as a new idea solidifies into the thing it is going to be. This would be the evolution of 1st into 3rd ed. grimdark. 1st edition was rather silly. But it was an expected thing to see it go through sweeping changes to become a more solidified idea that it was from 3rd for...most of the life of 40k. 

After that, an IP owner has to be careful and does not have the same level of grace to make sweeping changes that it had in those early days. Changes are still expected, but they have to be carefully executed going forwarded. And even if the custodian of that IP makes a few flubs that people largely forgive, this too has a secondary effect on the fan zeitgeist. There is a limit bar...a limit break for you ff7 fans....every flub, bad lore change, retcon can be taken like a punch in the ring, you can deal with it and keep on going until...it becomes one too many and people just start saying "no". There has been too much, too many and some of it in bad taste or done with a handwavy notion. It cheapens it. It begins to turn into an IP some people just won't care to take seriously anymore. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Ahzek451

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I really think its best to just not care about the lore. GW clearly doesn't. Everything can and will be changed to suit the business model. Even if it wasn't GW writers have clearly shown that writing material that truly respects the ip and the audience is beyond them. 

 

If bringing Horus and Sanguinius back to 40k would make them money they'll do it. 

 

Remember we care about this. GW doesn't. This isn't a hobby anymore, it's a brand, an ip. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Brother Tyler
Sentence removed because we don't need to start *that* "debate" again.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I really think its best to just not care about the lore. GW clearly doesn't. Everything can and will be changed to suit the business model. Even if it wasn't GW writers have clearly shown that writing material that truly respects the ip and the audience is beyond them. 

 

If bringing Horus and Sanguinius back to 40k would make them money they'll do it. 

 

Remember we care about this. GW doesn't. This isn't a hobby anymore, it's a brand, an ip. 

As much as I like the models, the lore is what makes this hobby interesting to me.

its the reason I haven’t been able to get into any other games, their universes just aren’t interesting to me.

 

im sure im not alone with that, so they better begin caring about their lore more before people get sick of their and start walking away.

 

edit

and since we know they’ll do whatever they think will make them money, how many years before gods will have playable models?

Edited 8 hours ago by Grotsmasha
=] Corrected to emoji [=

[ZeroWolf]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

As much as I like the models, the lore is what makes this hobby interesting to me.

its the reason I haven’t been able to get into any other games, their universes just aren’t interesting to me.

 

im sure im not alone with that, so they better begin caring about their lore more before people get sick of their and start walking away.

 

edit

and since we know they’ll do whatever they think will make them money, how many years before gods will have playable models?

What do you mean? The star gods already had models 

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if someone at GW has had the idea of tying a Primarch release to 40ks 40th next year. 

 

Good ol Tyler doing his censorship. Going to look good on his resume for the CCP. 

[Antarius]

I think it pays to be cynical about GW’s approach to the lore, at least to some degree. That is to say, individuals at GW probably care a lot about the lore (although that doesn’t mean they’ll agree with me on where it should go, which is actually a quite important distinction; people often tend to think “they don’t agree with me, so they don’t care” but they may just have different tastes and ideas than me), but the company as a business entity does not (with the, rather important, caveat that they probably do want the product to stay sustainable, so they likely won’t do something that will make them money right now, if they think it will crash the brand going forward).

 

I find that this approach works well (at least for me), because it means you’re rarely disappointed, but it also keeps you from falling into hobby despair or conspiracy theories.
This is especially true if you also remember that your hobby is yours and you have the ability to just not care about lore elements you don’t like (there are no Primaris in my 40k, for example, just Space Marines that look slightly different. But it doesn’t bother me that other people like Primaris because it doesn’t really affect me unless I let it. Sure, I need to source old helmets when I’m building my Marines and sure, I need to squint a bit when I play against my friend’s Black Templars, but that’s the extent of the trouble it causes me and my hobby life is much happier for it).

 

So, my take is that yes, they will probably introduce more primarchs and/or dead characters because people overall seem to like it/not care and the individual models sell well, but they won’t “automatically” bring back Sanguinius if they can’t convince themselves that (enough of) their customers think it’s okay.

Edited 3 hours ago by Antarius

[DemonGSides]

16 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

There's a name for it, I can't quite remember what it is. But it has to do with the argument that the flip flop in a lore is a precedent and thus an ok thing going forward. This is truly not the case, in essence, there is a grace period that a chunk of lore goes through to find its feet, big sweeping changes as a new idea solidifies into the thing it is going to be. This would be the evolution of 1st into 3rd ed. grimdark. 1st edition was rather silly. But it was an expected thing to see it go through sweeping changes to become a more solidified idea that it was from 3rd for...most of the life of 40k. 

After that, an IP owner has to be careful and does not have the same level of grace to make sweeping changes that it had in those early days. Changes are still expected, but they have to be carefully executed going forwarded. And even if the custodian of that IP makes a few flubs that people largely forgive, this too has a secondary effect on the fan zeitgeist. There is a limit bar...a limit break for you ff7 fans....every flub, bad lore change, retcon can be taken like a punch in the ring, you can deal with it and keep on going until...it becomes one too many and people just start saying "no". There has been too much, too many and some of it in bad taste or done with a handwavy notion. It cheapens it. It begins to turn into an IP some people just won't care to take seriously anymore. 

 

During the period that you're describing (Between 3rd and 8th) there were multiple large faction overhauls that massively changed how those factions worked (The most obvious being Necrons).  Pardon me if I don't think Yarrick getting an in universe bulletin board message and then coming back is some travesty of lore.

 

If 40k was a singular book series based around a single set of heroes fighting in a single campaign, I may agree that there's a limit bar or a limit break or a care for flubs or lore changes or 'retcons' or time-y wime-y stuff.  But it's 40k; the entire premise is that every book is a bit of an unreliable narrator and that every story is mostly being told in universe and that those foibles are just part of the charm.  If you don't like that... well maybe it isn't the universe for you and something a little more small in scope might be preferential.