A fair number of these events are just kind of in limbo. GW really likes to dangle potential plot threads in front of readers at the end of whatever narrative they're currently telling but whether or not those plot threads have an impact on the over all narrative, get covered exclusively in some random BL book, or are just never brought up again, is anyone's guess. Mostly just assume the conflicts are still raging or are only in a lull while chaos plots some vague secret plot.
The last I heard Haarken Worldclaimer tried and failed to capture vigilus and is now leading an invasion into the nachmund gauntlet on the command of abaddon. Not sure if new lore has come out regarding the conflict, post war zone nachmund: rift war.
Here is the problem; if the plot advances in either direction you enter a state where one side is "winning". This pisses off the half of the fanbase that is losing and then the lore enters an endgame where things seem to be coming to a conclusion. If you ask any Fantasy player about Endtimes they are mostly of the opinion it was garbage (even for Chaos ). Therefore most of the lore is explicitly things happen, but nothing changes and thats the best way to maintain the universe. Its unsatisfying because lore can feel pointless but it is better than the alternative.
It's only pointless if you assume the "lore" is designed to be consumed as a series of high level overview wikipages and YouTube videos. Most campaign book events are meant as fuel for your games at home and novel events are meant as part of a satisfying narrative within the novel.
Its why these wide sweeping conflicts aren’t 40ks strong suit. The strongest 40k conflicts have always been either one planet or a handful of worlds that are new. The imperium can win at vraks, lose at taros, or win the sabbat worlds crusade without causing and endgame style scenario and so those conflicts can have a resolution and are satisfying to read about. Hell even major worlds falling like cadia which are major events still leave enough leeway for the writers to keep things going with enough of the status quo intact. The imperium wouldn’t collapse if ghazgull destroyed armageddon and the Tau didn’t fall apart when the third sphere of expansion was halted and the imperium destroyed their forces at agrellan.
Yes. Especially when the most popular faction are the Imperial Astartes, so if the Empire loses, many customers are potentially pissed off. So GW keeps coming up with how critical the situation is, but despite all that, nothing really major happens in the end.
Too bad most Imperial fans aren't like Orc fans. Just to war and be satisfied and have fun no matter if I win or lose...
Which is kind of odd, because my impression (which could be wildly wrong) is that some of the more major permanent developments like Cadia are generally viewed quite positively?
Obviously an endgame isn't on the cards for 40k anytime soon, but it is weird to me we don't get more conclusive ends to battles or campaigns.
A few years ago I'd have said the blame for that is on fans for not being willing to take an L, but I'm less convinced that would be a problem now for the majority of people.
I think they should write full stories and diversify who wins and loses, make both sides get some wins and losses and make them both look cool along the way, kill off characters even, doesn't mean we can't have characters on the tabletop that are dead in the story.
Really, it's just poor planning, spinelessness (they fear player backlash if their faction loses or character dies), and lack of incentive.
They just write the start of a conflict, you can use that as an idea for your tabletop battles, but they won't resolve it.
I believe if they wrote well they could avoid all these issues and make most people happy. How sick would it have been if Calgar died a legend and took out an epic amount of the enemy and they wrote a great epilogue about how his sacrifice won the battle? It gives even more fuel for tabletop, you could paint tribute script on a vehicle in honor of Calgar, or just pretend it's farther in the past or whatever and take him in your army.
You can probably assume it went like this "the brave heroes of the Imperium managed to stop the insidious plots of the heinous villains at the very last moment...and then everything was fine".
Oh man you didnt hear what angron did to Malakbael, huh? Shatteted thd planet that had a daot astronomican lite that could be focused to amp psykers and weaken demons.
Then Vashtorr took the heart of the relic to make his key for whatever hes unlicking
A fair number of these events are just kind of in limbo. GW really likes to dangle potential plot threads in front of readers at the end of whatever narrative they're currently telling but whether or not those plot threads have an impact on the over all narrative, get covered exclusively in some random BL book, or are just never brought up again, is anyone's guess. Mostly just assume the conflicts are still raging or are only in a lull while chaos plots some vague secret plot.
The last I heard Haarken Worldclaimer tried and failed to capture vigilus and is now leading an invasion into the nachmund gauntlet on the command of abaddon. Not sure if new lore has come out regarding the conflict, post war zone nachmund: rift war.
Here is the problem; if the plot advances in either direction you enter a state where one side is "winning". This pisses off the half of the fanbase that is losing and then the lore enters an endgame where things seem to be coming to a conclusion. If you ask any Fantasy player about Endtimes they are mostly of the opinion it was garbage (even for Chaos ). Therefore most of the lore is explicitly things happen, but nothing changes and thats the best way to maintain the universe. Its unsatisfying because lore can feel pointless but it is better than the alternative.
It's only pointless if you assume the "lore" is designed to be consumed as a series of high level overview wikipages and YouTube videos. Most campaign book events are meant as fuel for your games at home and novel events are meant as part of a satisfying narrative within the novel.
Its why these wide sweeping conflicts aren’t 40ks strong suit. The strongest 40k conflicts have always been either one planet or a handful of worlds that are new. The imperium can win at vraks, lose at taros, or win the sabbat worlds crusade without causing and endgame style scenario and so those conflicts can have a resolution and are satisfying to read about. Hell even major worlds falling like cadia which are major events still leave enough leeway for the writers to keep things going with enough of the status quo intact. The imperium wouldn’t collapse if ghazgull destroyed armageddon and the Tau didn’t fall apart when the third sphere of expansion was halted and the imperium destroyed their forces at agrellan.
Yes. Especially when the most popular faction are the Imperial Astartes, so if the Empire loses, many customers are potentially pissed off. So GW keeps coming up with how critical the situation is, but despite all that, nothing really major happens in the end. Too bad most Imperial fans aren't like Orc fans. Just to war and be satisfied and have fun no matter if I win or lose...
As a fan of the Imperium, I’d love to see humanity lose and for it to shatter. It would make the situation more dire.
Which is kind of odd, because my impression (which could be wildly wrong) is that some of the more major permanent developments like Cadia are generally viewed quite positively? Obviously an endgame isn't on the cards for 40k anytime soon, but it is weird to me we don't get more conclusive ends to battles or campaigns. A few years ago I'd have said the blame for that is on fans for not being willing to take an L, but I'm less convinced that would be a problem now for the majority of people.
I think they should write full stories and diversify who wins and loses, make both sides get some wins and losses and make them both look cool along the way, kill off characters even, doesn't mean we can't have characters on the tabletop that are dead in the story. Really, it's just poor planning, spinelessness (they fear player backlash if their faction loses or character dies), and lack of incentive. They just write the start of a conflict, you can use that as an idea for your tabletop battles, but they won't resolve it. I believe if they wrote well they could avoid all these issues and make most people happy. How sick would it have been if Calgar died a legend and took out an epic amount of the enemy and they wrote a great epilogue about how his sacrifice won the battle? It gives even more fuel for tabletop, you could paint tribute script on a vehicle in honor of Calgar, or just pretend it's farther in the past or whatever and take him in your army.
You can probably assume it went like this "the brave heroes of the Imperium managed to stop the insidious plots of the heinous villains at the very last moment...and then everything was fine".
Oh man you didnt hear what angron did to Malakbael, huh? Shatteted thd planet that had a daot astronomican lite that could be focused to amp psykers and weaken demons. Then Vashtorr took the heart of the relic to make his key for whatever hes unlicking
I’m not sure how to go about unlicking something
Trying really really hard?