Donkey Kong

Gerion's "drake-embossed power sword" doesn't even get mentioned until after the shooting starts. It was such a small and passing detail that I didn't even remember it, albeit one that could have given this story some much needed context if focus was put on it earlier. Instead of saying for the umpteenth that Tyvar is dumb, I'll try and map out how the story could have worked for me with the understanding that we need a force of primaris space marines to go renegade. First, the scene needs to be set. Who is where in what strength. All we're told is that this is a "fleet carrying the Brazen Drakes to meet their battle-brothers" so a minimum of two ships ferrying "two whole companies of Brazen Drakes Greyshields". So, Captain Gerion and his command squad are on ship 1 with Tyvar and Dessima. ships 2+ have another 200ish primaris space marines. I don't have any context for how many Silent Sisters or Custodians are supposed to be here or anywhere, but it's probably a fair assumption that there are fewer of them than the space marines. This whole affair might be more trouble than it's worth, but without it we don't know the full scale of what has been lost when Gerion orders the Greyshields to "'[....]seize the fleet!'" Our specific scene is the bridge or CIC of Tyvar's ship. The opening in medias res should not be "'Apprehend these traitors.'" and should instead either be a message from an Ordo Heretic Inquisitor declaring the Brazen Drakes Chapter "Hereticus Diabolus Extremis" followed immediately by the image of Khassedur in ruins or vice versa. Give a throwaway line for Tyvar to have trust in this particular Inquisitor. Gerion and his (assume a command squad so 5ish) brothers leap to the console or dias or whatever you want to call the big hologram table that's presumably in the middle of the bridge or CIC in any combination of heated emotions (shock, anger, disbelief, etc.). The Greyshields protest "This is a mistake." "Inquisitor so and so is a liar." "Blah, Blah, Blah." Tyvar orders Gerion and the other space marines to stand down, he's going to have to investigate. Gerion protests "We cannot abandon our brothers." Emphasize the feelings of fraternity between the Brazen Drakes Greyshields and the Brazen Drakes. Needless to say, in this version of the story, quite possibly the only reasonable line from the original "'These sins are not ours to account for![....]'" is out. The thought does not occur to the Greyshield Space Marines to admit or accept that the Brazen Drakes have turned traitor. There are not yet any sins to account for. In this version of the story, Tyvar is the one that attempts to defuse the situation while the Greyshields are the ones escalating. The opposite of Tyvar and Gerion in the story. Tyvar orders the Greyshields to stand down a second time, "I don't repeat myself." "If you don't, you will be declared traitors as well." Gerion and the Greyshields go for their weapons. Make a point to emphasize the Greyshields wearing Brazen Drakes colors or carrying weapons with Chapter Heraldry. They already have been indoctrinated to a degree into the Chapter's culture regardless of whether or not they've ever fought alongside their Brazen Drake brothers before. This is important. Tyvar notices them make moves and then attacks. Tyvar still shoots first, but it's because of a perceived physical threat, not a verbal protest. The battle goes on from there. I think it might make for a better story if Brazen Drake Greyshields overpower the Custodians and Sisters, like a few squads break their way to the bridge to rescue Gerion and his command squad and force the Talons of the Emperor to withdraw. It might also be a nitpick, but I'd make a point of how the characters are armed. Tyvar has his guardian spear as a symbol of office in addition to being a weapon. Dessima's sword is also presumably equally ceremonial as well as functional. The Primaris Space Marines should not have more than sidearms (heavy bolt pistol, close combat weapon, maybe Gerion has a power sword). I don't know why a space marine would be carrying around a bolt rifle while hanging out on the bridge/CIC. This also makes it more dramatic when the Brazen Drakes come crashing in with a hail of bolt rifle fire. At this point I still don't know what the Talons force looks like. How many Custodians? How many Sisters? Do they have the strength to fight back against 200ish Primaris Space Marines? And then with their traitor battle brothers to reinforce them? Anyway, that's how the story may have made more sense to me. But, then we'd probably be talking about how Gerion's uncharacteristically stupid.

In the real world, I agree that mass genocide is morally reprehensible. But we're not talking about the real world. I don't need to repeat Volt's in universe justifications. I like it when 40k gets played straight. A key part of committing to the bit is that characters still behave in a way that makes sense.

I mean I think it's pretty obvious you'll just keep moving the goal post in this discussion, but at least in the story the whole point is that the Inquisition declared the greyshields guilty by association, and the Custodes just carried out the judgement. Your personal failure to grasp that these Primaris were merely assigned to this chapter is not moving the goalposts. Lol I COMPLETELY understand that the greyshields could easily be construed as innocent and not actually guilty of heresy here. I can accept what you seemingly cannot, which is thatthey might be deemed guilty by the actors in the story REGARDLESS of their innocence or guilt. The story affirms one of the central themes of 40k, which is the dystopian dysfunction of of the culture of the Imperium. It seems like you want to believe that things like Exterminatus can somehow be justified in this fictional setting, but somehow a few innocent soldiers being declared heretic by association (regardless of whether they are actually associated--thats sort of how that sort of accusation works--) is somehow beyond the pale, which is a really weird thing to be declaring unrealistic given everything else that we know about the setting and the Imperium. I understood exterminatus to be a scorched earth strategy, a justifiable move to deny resources. This is "two full companies of Brazen Drakes Greyshields" in a universe where, to the best of my knowledge, a single company is a sufficient strength to turn the tide of a war if not outright conquer worlds. Put another way, I expect a Space Marine company to be more valuable than most any singular world. Seconding Ishagu, good and stupid different metrics. I expect Imperials in positions of power to be prudent.

I don't even expect this level of stupidity from a meme commissar.

I was under the impression that the Greyshields were separate from the Chapter. It's actually super easy (barely an inconvenience) when you ignore the things that you don't like.

‘I am Custodes. I speak with the Emperor’s voice. Were you loyal, you would set down your weapons and accept your guilt." Is this wrong? "Were you loyal, you would [....] accept your guilt [of being a traitor]." I don't have a polite way to describe how dumb that sentence is.

Going back and forth with "You're wrong" "No, you're wrong" isn't exactly productive conversation. It's 40k lore, objective wrong doesn't exist. That being said, I fall in the camp that dislikes the story because the behavior doesn't make sense. @Scribe The text isn't going to refute you. It's the text that's being criticized. It's not "Arrest them," it's "'Apprehend these traitors.'" And why are they traitors? Because they're Greyshields that have been assigned to a chapter that has been declared "Hereticus Diabolus Extremis" by the Ordo Hereticus. I don't know what being a Greyshield Brazen Drake entails because the story hasn't told me. I also didn't know that the Custodians took the Inquisition at their word. The later justification "'The heretical gene-seed within your bodies is its own condemnation.'" also is a condemnation of every cousin chapter to the Brazen Drakes. The Greyshield that pleads innocence "'These sins are not ours to account for! We have fought loyally and done no wrong[....]'" is a completely reasonable rebuttal that's so obvious it's a shame that it even had to be said. I don't think anybody is expecting anyone involved to be "nice." I think the people who disagree with this story are saying that characters who should know better are not acting with any prudence. Ignore the less than stellar dialogue or absence of detail (Phoebus suggested a heraldic sword). Ignore even the absolute waste of resources that is executing a few hundred space marines. This galaxy brained custodian initiated a gunfight on a starship bridge/CIC. Absolute genius. EDIT Black Library has printed garbage before. I don't see any reason not to say that this story does not fit my interpretation of 40k and I'll be ignoring it. I also don't see a reason not to say why I don't like the story.

Like most of Warhammer 40,000, in a word intentionally vague.

I think the emotional attachment is seen when Gerion is talking to Tyvar here We aren't directly told what the relationship is between the Primaris Greyshield Brazen Drakes and the Brazen Drakes Chapter or why Gerion is invested in rescuing and/or redeeming the Brazen Drakes Chapter beyond the name. The name Greyshield [Chapter] itself sounds like a contradiction.

So, aside from the character's actions, I don't understand the premise of the story. Why are Custodians and Sisters of Silence delivering Primaris Space Marine reinforcements to chapters in the first place?

My mistake, sorry for the misinterpretation. I've edited my post to correct that. I think arguing for practicality and realism in Games Workshop's space fantasy is a slippery slope that only ends with realizing how little of either there is. And I realize that I'm saying this as the person advocating for logical character behavior and plot progression taking precedent over hitting expected story beats. Regarding sculpts, of the three possibilities (the software isn't capable of, the artists aren't capable of, or the artists are unwilling to sculpt pretty female faces) I'm inclined to agree that that it's the second. Warhammer Community has posted enough of the sculpts that we can safely bet that there's more going on than a bad paint job. I've seen enough 3d sculpts and prints to conclude that it probably isn't the first. And the last assumes that the sculptors are making a deliberate choice to make them ugly, either because they're supposed to be and/or because someone is trying to push an agenda. Again, I don't want to make accusations, but similar things have been done before. What's toxic about memeing? The definition of "toxic" is more nebulous than 40k's loose canon.

While I agree that personal insults towards an author usually aren't particularly good or productive criticism, there's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about the things that you don't like. If all you do is ignore and forget the things that you don't like, or, putting yourself in the author's position, expect nothing but praise or silence, then you'll never grow as a critic or a creator. And it doesn't matter how "instrumental" any author has been in building anything, nobody is beyond reproach. /tg/ at least was up in arms over their belief the models looked like warrior women (or, in their words "that's a dude") instead of supermodels. I'd imagine they were far from the only community to do so. I wouldn't describe myself as "up in arms," but I'm definitely in the camp of "the new sisters of battle bare faces are ugly." But, we're having two conversations here. 1. What is a sister of battle supposed to look like? and 2. Are the miniatures portraying the sisters of battle accurately? I like the attractive sisters of battle. There is official art (and quite a bit more fan art) supporting that portrayal. There are now three sisters miniatures directly referencing art (Cannoness Veridyan, Sister Superior Amalia Novena, and Sister Tariana Palos), and I'd argue that in every instance the illustration looks better than the miniature. Veridyan Novena Palos I think that the sisters of battle are supposed to be attractive, and the miniatures are ugly and are an inaccurate representation. I don't know whether that's due to technological limitations, artistic inability, or a deliberate choice, and I don't want to make baseless accusations. But, that's all addressing the second question. To answer the first question, someone may see boobplate and heels as a negative. I think that boobplate and heels are fine. "Loose canon" allows for everyone to interpret and portray sisters of battle however they please. I'm sure would could have a long and in depth conversation about all of this. And with or without one, none of us have to agree. I don't have a smooth segue, but I noticed something similar with the portrayal of Inquisitor Greyfax, except she has one illustration where (I think) she's portrayed as attractive (Fall of Cadia), another where she isn't, and an ugly faced miniature. Food for thought. Greyfax Apologies in advance, I wasn't able to post the images as I intended. The Sisters of Battle conversation is an example for people that, in this instance, see how women are portrayed in fiction as a political issue. Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect Andromeda both come to mind with how the default female protagonist appears in game. But, I'd rather not further derail. It's a boring conversation that usually ends up falling on partisan lines. Again, mods, if answering the question is inappropriate, please delete the pertinent text in my reply and what I've quoted. Edited to correct misinterpretation, sorry DarkChaplain.

I fundamentally disagree. A story is a vehicle to convey information. That information may have an intended purpose, it can teach, or entertain, or whatever. I've been entertained by plenty of stories set in this universe. The most recent emotional reaction I can remember having to a 40k story is in The Anarch when And even then I'd describe my feelings as annoyed with being deprived of what I imagined was going to be a heartwarming reunion (and one that I expected from the previous book to boot). And then a chapter or so later, the character gets reintroduced anyway, which I guess makes the whole thing a well executed tease? Regardless, I don't understand what "meaning and emotional resonance" mean. Especially in the context of 40k where, quite frankly, I think the universe is shallow. Emphasis mine. What does that even mean? I don't know what reddit's hivemind opinion of MoM is, and I remember mostly liking the book between the set pieces, the battles, the dialogue, and so on. But, the underlying logic, the fundamental story, the entire five year war in the webway, is illogical and I think that that makes it a bad narrative decision. So, genuine high praise for ADB, I think he wrote an entertaining book in spite of its terrible premise. But, what's your argument beyond "Even the things that I don't like have elements that I can enjoy"? which, for the record, I agree with. I'd also be interested in a big, official collection of 40k art. But, what, pray tell, would be the difference between that hypothetical sourcebook and a wiki gallery or a deviantart collection? They'd all be equally canonical. I truly am at a loss for what "PC invading things like knitting" is supposed to mean, here. I believe BrainFireBob is referring to Ravelry's 2019 policy. And while none of us may be particularly invested in knitting, Ravelry is probably the largest online knitting community which makes their decision significant for that community. How it pertains to us as a gaming community, Ravelry's policy is based on an RPG.net policy. Other posters in this thread have brought up "comicsgate." And this is a pattern that has been observed in gaming (both digital and analog), science fiction and fantasy novels, comics, movies, metal music, and so on. If I'm interpreting BrainFireBob's "moral issue" correctly, he's saying that he would rather that these exclusionary voices made subcommunities of their own to police instead of working to police a community as a whole, which I largely agree with. Mods, if answering Nemesor Tyriks's question is inappropriate, I'd recommend deleting my answer here as well as the pertinent text in the quoted posts.

40k is a completely different animal to Lord of The Rings, or Harry Potter, or Star Wars, or Mass Effect, or A Song of Ice and Fire, or The Expanse, or most any other property that you can think of. Again, the only others that that I know about that are similar to 40k are the SCP Foundation (a collection of intertwined creepypastas that came out of an image board), Fallout, The Elder Scrolls C0DA, and Dark Souls the three of which I'm significantly less familiar with. In 40k the official work is fanfic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

And GW just announced a Zoat and Zoats haven't been a thing since like Rogue Trader. Argument doesn't work. Three samples, two official, one fan made. You cannot tell me with a straight face that all three bolters are representative of the same thing. Not a gotcha, and I don't know if it's the video quality, but funnily enough in the Ultramarines movie clip I see an ejection port but no shell casings. Scratch that, they're there, just difficult to see. Better around the three minute mark.The Zoat has nothing to do with the fact bolters haven’t been caseless for over a decade. You can make the argument they used to be caseless but they are not currently depicted as being caseless. GW could change this at any time if they wanted and it has no impact on their IP. Calling it a change implies that there's a correct. What defines having an "impact on their IP"? Or how big does an addition to the lore have to be to be impactful? The space marines and boltguns in Astartes almost perfectly represent what I imagine those things to be (maybe you disagree with me, and we could have a conversation about that). They're different from the space marines and boltguns in the Dawn of War cinematic and Ultramarines movie, you cannot deny that. But, none of these interpretations are wrong. If there were a canon, at least two of them would be, if not all three. There isn't, so they're not. Word of god says I can. You can interpret it negatively as dismissing all authors, or you can interpret it positively as empowering you to pick and choose and do as you like. The official authors are not beholden to one another. Why should you be beholden to any one of them? I wish I could find the post here in the thread, but it went something like: The reason that we want a canon is so that what we create will be accepted by our peers. I got into the B&C through the Liber Astartes because I was inspired by Commissar Molotov's Castigators. One of the goals at that time was getting what you created into the Librarium (or at least it was for me), and part of the way you did that was by creating something that conformed to what a space marine chapter was expected to be. We're all aware that the missing primarchs and their legions were created as a gap for you or me or anyone else to fill if they chose to, whether that be Athrawes's Lightning Bearers or Carl and Hecate. A missing legion probably wasn't going to get into the Librarium, but so what? I'd argue that 40k is a theme or tone or mood, not a canon with irrefutable facts. But, the problem there is that theme, tone, and mood are feelings, and feelings are hard to define. Mitchell's Cain series is an official part of the 40k lore, but the tone doesn't feel right to me and I don't think I'd present it as a benchmark for what I think 40k should be. But, I like it anyway, in part because it does feel like a parody.