This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I collect Necrons, I have to read this!
But the idea of being able to write fiction from a Necron perspective boggles me: I grew up with 3rd edition where the Necrons were mindless, enslaved reapers. Still not keen on the Newcrons tbh, I feel like it ruins their mystique and we already have undead pseudo-Egyptians in the Tomb Kings. But maybe Rath can change my mind.
I initially agreed with you back in the day, but I think in the end the change was for the better, if we are accepting the 40K universe is about more than just the tabletop game. If you want stories based in that universe, every single necron just being mindless is a problem. Like Tyranids, who struggle to be anything but almost a force of nature when written about in novels because there isn't a perspective in there that allows them to be protagonists in their own story.
And from the pov of the average guardsman all the basic infantry necrons are still mindless, remorseless, killing machines, it is only the higher echelons who have maintained sentience (Much like the Tomb Kings of course.)
I'm going to reply to you and @Dean in the same message if you'll forgive me, since your points are similar:
From a practical perspective I agree with you, of course. People making their armies have more range to play, authors have more range to write. And, as you say, the Tyranids already exist.
But.
Oldcrons are a much cooler 'force of nature' antagonist than tyranids. There are thousands of 'eat everything, use biomass to make more of themselves, locust-style insectoid' antagonists throughout science fiction and the tyranids don't really stand out at all. Their aesthetics aren't particularly notable and the Hive Mind has no character or backstory that we care about. They work from a gameplay perspective because they're one of the few melee horde armies you can play and 'kill the synapse beast' is interesting for the opponent. Like orks, they make good video-game opponents. But from any other perspective they're basically dull.
Now think about the Oldcrons. Not only is their aesthetic pretty unique (geometric, black and glowing green, almost surgical) but their backstory as short-lived geniuses who attacked the galaxy in resentment for the comparative wretchedness of their existence and then became enslaved by the gods they themselves called up to win their war is also pretty unique. The only other lovecraftian-robotic adversaries I can think of are the Reapers from Mass Effect. And although the Oldcrons themselves don't have character, the C'tan are pretty interesting characters in their own right. One could imagine reworking the Oldcrons to have the C'tan reinstate the crypteks' personalities for more effectiveness, and that might help too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If he doesn't, I doubt anyone will.
I will say that, personally, I've found the transition to be beneficial for the 40k setting. 40k already has a universal 'force of nature' antagonist, and that's the Tyranids. Oldcrons were just competing for a niche, and the transition has opened space for a number of interesting dynamics that offer an alternative narrative space. There's still narrative space for omnicidal machines, but giving the newcrons personality has allowed them to have, well, personality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link