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 yesterday at 05:51 PM 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 22 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 20 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 13 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 

[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 9 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.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Antarius said:

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).

 

Agreed with all of what you wrote. This part in particular is a good point. Plenty of GW's employees seem genuinely pumped up to talk about the lore, wargaming, minis etc.

 

No doubt many people there would be more than happy to keep a character or unit around rather than deleting/regenerating them and creating ex post facto lore based on whatever strategy is trickling down from the C-suite and other leaders. But that is the reality of what happens, and if we accept that it will happen, it keeps us from getting too worked up and/or disappointed when it does.

 

And yeah, it doesn't mean we have to immediately take that lore and incorporate it into our own head canon. Like you (although I do have a ton of Primaris already), I am actually building myself a new, all-OG Marines army. No characters are dying and respawning in their version of the universe. 

 

Pics for the interested: https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/385834-phandaals-completed-projects-necrons-space-marines-2026/#findComment-6151025

 

[Karhedron]

15 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.

 

I think you are mistaken. GW clearly values their IP very highly. Look at how careful they have been with SM2 and their collaboration with Amazon. They clearly don't want another Wheel of Time debacle.

 

But what you have to remember is that 40K is not a single storyline. It has grown, evolved and changed continuously over its lifetime. There is no single specific time where the lore was fixed and perfect. If anyone points to one then that is only their opinion and we know how many of those there are.

 

11 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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.

 

The other thing to remember is that veterans like us who remember "the good old days" are in the minority. The main market for 40K is teenage boys and the average duration of their engagement with the hobby is 2-3 years (a single edition). They are not going to care what the lore was like 10 or 20 years ago.

 

GW don't care if the likes of us walk away because we are not their whales. They want a steady turnover of shiny new models and exciting story developments to keep new kids coming in through the doors. These kids are going to blow their birthday/christmas money on models until they hit their late teens. Once they go to Uni/work and discover wine, women and song, they are no longer the core demographic and GW expects to lose them anyway.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I think you are mistaken. GW clearly values their IP very highly. Look at how careful they have been with SM2 and their collaboration with Amazon. They clearly don't want another Wheel of Time debacle.

 

But what you have to remember is that 40K is not a single storyline. It has grown, evolved and changed continuously over its lifetime. There is no single specific time where the lore was fixed and perfect. If anyone points to one then that is only their opinion and we know how many of those there are.

 

 

The other thing to remember is that veterans like us who remember "the good old days" are in the minority. The main market for 40K is teenage boys and the average duration of their engagement with the hobby is 2-3 years (a single edition). They are not going to care what the lore was like 10 or 20 years ago.

 

GW don't care if the likes of us walk away because we are not their whales. They want a steady turnover of shiny new models and exciting story developments to keep new kids coming in through the doors. These kids are going to blow their birthday/christmas money on models until they hit their late teens. Once they go to Uni/work and discover wine, women and song, they are no longer the core demographic and GW expects to lose them anyway.

New customers are important for most businesses for sure,  but every smart business person knows that purely churning through new customers with a dwindling number of dedicated return customers is a failing business plan.

 

its the loyal long term customers that keep you afloat through the various highs and lows of interest over the years. 

[Ahzek451]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

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.

You are indeed pardoned. 

Yes, the necron change is one of those big sweeping changes I was referring too. That was an example of a faction change gut punch a lot of people did not like but the community would end up dealing with, but not forgotten to this day.  But there needs to be clarification here. Are you referring to the novels? Or the primary source of lore via codex/campaign/rulebooks? I am referring mostly to the primary story which I take contention with and have the opinion that GW has crossed the limit threshold. A nuance issue considering it takes part in both retcon and the quality of the story itself. 

 

I appreciate the recommendation, but size and scope is certainly not the issue, especially since that is not something that I even alluded to. Believe it or not, you can build a universe like 40k and not have low standards. I find it lazy thinking when too many people just go, "oh, its a shifting universe from unreliable narrators and low-effort changes are fine". Because then the argument that tends to follow is "well is a model company first, the lore is there to sell models". Well no kidding, but for those of us that have been around since the early days, its been clear to see that GW in the last few years has actually embraced that notion. Which makes sense considering that GW has virtually nobody left from the original generation. The passion and care has dipped. It's a tendency we can see in a lot of IP's these days. Everything is a bit cheaper(quality), a bit lazier, canned, corporatized, rushed, etc. Indeed yes, the newer fluff is certainly not for me. And GW won't have my money anymore as a result. I am happy with the older stuff. In fact, I think the proof is in the pudding. I recall back in the day the culture zeitgeist was more in-line with "this is the established lore and most people like it" any deviations were just not that popular. I've noticed a growing trend, people are ditching the current edition and going back to older ones along with it, the lore. In increasingly more places ti's becoming more popular to play older editions and to go back to anything pre-great rift. Heck, even old-world is doing pretty good and is lovingly attended to by the fandom. In large part because it goes back to a time before the Sigmar period. Make your own lore, with blackjack, and....you know what. Which is neat. 

[phandaal]

56 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

I've noticed a growing trend, people are ditching the current edition and going back to older ones along with it, the lore. In increasingly more places ti's becoming more popular to play older editions and to go back to anything pre-great rift.

 

This is happening even among that legendary generation of young people who throw fistfuls of solid gold bars straight up the wide end of GW's hobby trumpet.

 

Turns out, the time period before endless reboots, remakes, and insincere retcons is now "retro." Which is nice, because I never changed, and now the world can just come back around to agreeing with me again. 

[Scribe]

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

GW don't care if the likes of us walk away because we are not their whales.

 

If we not, GW has screwed up. I had multiple armies when the game was at its best. My small game group was almost all in our 30s, with the stability and income to burn on a luxury product.

 

No teen can match what I could and did spend, and I doubt most parents paid for them to the degree my friends and I did in our 30s.

 

Are teens walking around with FW Titans? Doubt.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Are teens walking around with FW Titans? Doubt.

 

Most teens these days couldn't lift one.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

If we not, GW has screwed up. I had multiple armies when the game was at its best. My small game group was almost all in our 30s, with the stability and income to burn on a luxury product.

 

No teen can match what I could and did spend, and I doubt most parents paid for them to the degree my friends and I did in our 30s.

 

Are teens walking around with FW Titans? Doubt.

Yeah, GW just wants new players because every new player is a rule book, a codex, and $300+ of models, another $50-100 in paint, brushes, and glue, etc.

 

even if you or I start a new army, they’re not selling a rule book with it, and you probably aren’t buying anywhere near $100 worth of paint and brushes to go with it.

[gaurdian31]

19 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

If we not, GW has screwed up. I had multiple armies when the game was at its best. My small game group was almost all in our 30s, with the stability and income to burn on a luxury product.

 

No teen can match what I could and did spend, and I doubt most parents paid for them to the degree my friends and I did in our 30s.

 

Are teens walking around with FW Titans? Doubt.

It is more they can get 10 teens for every 30 year old. They don't need the teens to buy a titan if they can get 10 teens to buy 1 captain.

[Scribe]

Just now, gaurdian31 said:

It is more they can get 10 teens for every 30 year old. They don't need the teens to buy a titan if they can get 10 teens to buy 1 captain.

 

Sure, but whales is generally a reference to buyers who pay more than their share.

 

If it takes 5 teens to match my purchasing,  I am the whale, not them.

[gaurdian31]

3 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Sure, but whales is generally a reference to buyers who pay more than their share.

 

If it takes 5 teens to match my purchasing,  I am the whale, not them.

Fair, but I am not sure that GW is whaling anymore as they have garnered more mass appeal. I think they are trawling as that brings them bigger catches to continue the fishing analogies. 

[NorthernUltramarines]

Sorry but I really don’t know where people get the idea that kids are their market. I worked for them in retail for two years recently, and it was never our focus. Recruitment is big and they want people buying starter sets, but we never focused on teenagers or parents.

 

The benefit of selling Warhammer was that it was accessible to everyone, and our customer base was incredibly diverse. Did products start coming out aimed at teenagers? Yeah, kill team for one. Underworlds for two. Cheaper boxes, smaller boards for kitchen tales. We pushed massively on schools, those little paint sets were great for teenagers on a budget, Christmas sets are great, and combat patrol/spearhead are much more affordable. 
 

Adults did the bulk of purchasing because disposable income is great, and Warhammer is a great way to spend it. I’ve seen 40K grow massively and I saw our customer base become far more diverse. Warhammer was loved by everyone and when I go to events/clubs now I still see a mix of people. Now that I work in schools I meet other teachers that play, and we have lots of kids attend the clubs.

 

I don’t buy that a sizeable chunk of people are drifting away from the main ruleset either, surely the game cannot keep growing if people are moving away from recent rules? Every metric shows growth and people buying into the recent items.

 

I understand the frustration around the lore being a bit all over the place though. I love the new lore, but it’s annoying that plot threads are never resolved. Lion comes back? Awesome! Then what? Does he meet Guilliman? No. Not for three years. Nothing. Same with the new nid threat, it’s been very barebones.
 

If we’re going to be moving forward, I’d rather it was planned properly and it didn’t feel like stop-start-stop-start-reverse-stop-start. It’s a minor gripe with the lore, as I’ve enjoyed many of the recent books, but it’s annoying.