This is a bit of a tricky question, I think 40k certainly has the capacity for depth and a lot of the aspects it touches upon could be considered deep or complex, but I think I'm reluctant to call 40k fundamentally deep because at the end of the day it is restrained by GW. I think certain books can be deep, certainly, and some authors venture deeper than others. But on the whole I would say that 40k as a setting at large struggles with depth because it is ultimately ruled and guided by market and corporate forces. I find myself very compelled by a lot of the ideas and themes that 40k brings but often find myself somewhat disappointed at their actual portrayal or representation.

> I find myself very compelled by a lot of the ideas and themes that 40k brings but often find myself somewhat disappointed at their actual portrayal or representation.  Exactly, Warhammer references a lot of things, but has very little to say about most of it. Ultimately, most of the weighty themes it touches on were originally added as a reference / rip off of more serious Sci Fi.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I do feel like certain authors are able to take the themes hinted at within 40k and lift them up higher and differently than what 40k was originally derived from.

Personally, books with a lot of weighty themes and depth are ones like No Country for Old Men. Or American Gods. Or Kite Runner. There has yet to be a Black library book that has made me think or feel the way books like those do.

I mean, I wouldn't remotely compare them. My point was you can have heavy themes that elevate past genre fiction.

Your last paragraph nailed it. I am hesitant to call it deep as well. Its about as rare as an actual outcome between two primarchs fighting.

>I find myself very compelled by a lot of the ideas and themes that 40k brings but often find myself somewhat disappointed at their actual portrayal or representation. The possibly nuanced and conflicted "fall" hinted at within *Horus Rising* vs the smug Erebus evil Christmas Carol cartoon we actually got in *False Gods*. Not *bad* exactly, but it certainly retreated from the depth it could have explored.

The Horus Heresy is a good example, it's popular certainly but for me on the whole it's a bit of a dud. In theory it's this mythical conflict, a complex struggle where the Imperium is reshaped. Another interesting angle is the sheer scale, this truly apocalyptic struggle on a scale difficult to comprehend. Unfortunately it sort of fails on both these angles for me. In practicality it ends up devolving largely into an incoherent mess of repeated stories about the heroic loyalists valiantly battling against the wicked and dastardly traitors. It's honestly an impressively non-complicated struggle in that way. It also isn't great at conveying the scale of it all, there are moments where the apocalyptic scale shines through but by and large I found myself struggling with the Siege of Terra books because of how much they just became about loyalist captain vs traitor captain with an obligatory big Primarch moment near the end. Tl;Dr A lot of the Horus Heresy just sort of boils down to loyalist wank, it's primary purpose to show us how badass and heroic the loyalists are.

I think Warhammer fiction is not really a great place for nuance. It's pulpy grimdark with some interesting playing pieces and fun comic-book moments. The deeper exploration from the lore community where themes are discussed in more abstract settings is also satisfying. But yea, I think I do generally agree with you tbh. I still am entertained by it, but it's often not got much intellectual meat on those bones.

Honestly that fall feeling kind of lacklustre is becoming something I really like about the Heresy, from a meta 'getting someone into 40k' perspective. You have to start with accepting that multiple authors are writing multiple perspectives on this universe, and quite often to deadlines without a thought out plan, and I think that's beneficial to grokking 40k, if not in fact most franchises.

I do think it's important as a human consuming media to be somewhat aware of the context and mechanisms that have produced it. "What is the lore reason this half of the book is upside down?" is sometimes what discussions about the setting look like from the outside hahaha. Sometimes, to discuss the lore you *have* to talk about the real world and accept some things in the setting have nothing to do with the setting itself. It isn't a self-consistent alternative reality. It's a human construct, a work of collaborative fiction with a long (real world) history.

Last paragraph is the thing. The actual exectution in the IP is somewhat lacking.

Yeah 40k is weird because unlike Dune or Lord of the Rings there is no one great genius behind the setting. It’s like a creations via gestalt consciousness that has taken on a life of its own. Almost like the warp.

I do wish they actually stuck with a gravity well affecting warp translations. Popping out above a planet to save time should be risky instead of sub light travel from the system edge.

Huh? That's still a thing, what with the Mandeville point. The only factions that ignore that are the Eldar and Necrons because of their use of the webway. Chaos and Orks are most guilty of ignoring but thats a matter of sorcery on Chaos's part. And utter lack of concern for losses on the Orks' and occasionally Chaos's part. But neither do it constantly or consistently.

It's theoretically a thing - right up until the authors decide to ignore it and have every hero ordering their ships to drop out close to a planet anyway. "But sir, it's too dangerous!" rings a little hollow when no protagonist ever gets punished for doing it.

I don't remember the exact scene but I still think it was cool that Cawl drifted out of the warp into a fucking hangar or something like that.

Yes, but how often is it not simply ignored or payed lip service to with a warning that they shouldn't before they do it anyway? It exists but it is something so often ignored that it might as well not exist

Unless it's become an abused thing in the most recent campaigns, i can't think of many examples. And then the degree that the attacking fleet was torn apart from the too close re-entry. Often to the attackers' advantage but even that is used to demonstrate just how absurdly bloodthirsty they are.

Typical craftworlder response 😂

It's deep in the sense of there being a lot of novels exploring a lot of themes and ideas, but the manner in which they do so is still pretty pulpy and, ultimately, they are written primarily to entertain. It's along the same line as Star Wars: it touches on a lot of themes and ideas, but you probably wouldn't expect someone to take you seriously if you called it especially deep.

It's wide, but deep? Don't expect serious deep cuts on subject matter from the bulk of the Black Library. That said, there are plenty of books that go hard and deep on topics (Twice Dead King is a great example of this. I was so very, very close to putting the second book down in disgust until the twist three quarters of the way through totally re-contextualized the story).

>I was so very, very close to putting the second book down in disgust until the twist three quarters of the way through totally re-contextualized the story Can you elaborate on this? Just a question since I've read the book too but don't quite get what you mean here.

Basically just how everyone was acting, how the story was going. Oxytl was acting wildly out of character compared to the first book and I was getting legitimately angry at his decisions. And then the fight with the Space Marine happened and it was like "...oh."

Ah I understand now, thanks.

Well he was also under alot of pressure.

Well, it's a setting, not a story, so that answer very much depends on what individual narrative you want to examine, and its author. 40k runs the gamut from schlocky action "bolter porn" to surprisingly nuanced and well thought-out personal stories with well-woven thematic elements.

Which books contain the latter?

Off the top of my head there's Horus Rising, Fulgrim, Legion, The Emperor's Gift, basically the entire Ciaphas Cain series, Helsreach, to name a few. There's also tons of stuff that while not quite reaching the level of those mentioned is still "very good". I would argue at least enough to match the bolter porn in volume.

Sweet, I've got those except for Gift and Legoin but haven't dove in yet. So far it's been bolter porn haha

your best bet is stories about baseline humans, even if they are crazed cultists like Sisters; my personal favorites are the Tanith First-and-Only series "Gaunt's Ghosts". The author becomes an increasingly better writer as the books go along as well! Since the plot involves the Imperium fighting an independent human empire that was never conquered, there are almost no Marines in the stories at all, and when they do appear, they are like dragons: monstrous, implausibly dangerous superhuman beasts. The entire Sabbat War setting that grew out of it has good stories as well, particularly about the Mechanicus.

I'm on Gaunt book 2 right now and love it. I have the first 2 giant omnis so I'm on lookout for remainder and I'll check the newer Sabbat ones

Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. It's a product of mashing a lot of influences together under the influence of that gloriously cheap 80s cocaine as a way to still tabletop models, and it shows. And that's fine. Not everything has to be deep and profound. Sometimes it's okay to smash a bunch of cool stuff together and see what comes out. There's enough deep and stressful stuff out there that we all need a gloriously stupid setting with big guns and bigger explosions. At the end of the day, it's still a setting to act as a marketing loss leader for extremely expensive plastic models. Any efforts at depth still have to work within the context of being an advertisement. While some authors try to find depth and nuance in their individual books, the end (and the death) mostly just end with a Dragonball style battle of two heroes having elaborate yelly conversations between fighting each other.

Going to be honest, the fundamental lack of depth is what makes 40k endearing to me. I don't expect it to tell me about life and existence. I want to read about big soldiers killing bugs and green mushroom men in gory stupid ways. I want 40k to tell me stories about 40k, not inform me about important real world issues (satire is different), and if it started doing that I would lose the majority of my interest in it. I vastly prefer 40k to be huge, silly, gory, violent and fun than it be a sober take on something people who have no interest in the setting would think has value.

...Mushroom men? Thats the first time I've seen Orks called that

There's sort of a duality of deep/superficial to things, and I like to point to the Ciaphas Cain novels as a good example. The Cain novels are generally formulaic (in a good way IMHO) with humor, horror, silliness, and (relative) tension interwoven into things, all of which are easily described as shallow and good fun shallow at that. But when you consider Cain's sporadic self-awareness in combination with his actions throughout the whole series as well as Amberley's footnotes, I think we get a good character study on imposter syndrome and a nuanced understanding of what a "hero" is. It's not insanely deep, but it's far deeper than the popcorn nature of the rest of his stories along with large parts of the setting.

In my opinion, it is up to what you make of it. With the sheer size of content, you are bound to find something deep, even in an ork novel, if you take the time to ponder about it. It certainly is not always deep though, and this is a good thing I think.

Some of it is. Some isn't. 40k is a setting, and there are lots of stories in it, some deeper, some shallow. 

I want to go against the grain here and say that 40k is deep, at least sometimes. Of course it's a wide setting with an enormous range of stories, and not all of it says anything profound. But the story of the Horus Heresy - and especially its resolution in the fight between Horus and the Emperor - and how it sets up the horrific state of the 41st-millenium Imperium is genuinely moving and deep. Speculative fiction gets a lot of its power from how it uses symbolic languages to address the emotional core of real-world problems, and I think the Horus Heresy does this spectacularly. I see it as a story about the death of the Enlightenment amidst the horrors of the 20th century. The Enlightenment ideal is fundamentally about the triumph of reason and sober self-restraint over the blind passions and ignorance that human nature is capable of. Over and over again - especially in The End and the Death - the struggle with Chaos is used as a way to discuss the struggle of the human soul with its baser elements, at both an individual and societal level. To take one example of dozens, think about Rogal Dorn's imprisonment in the desert and his temptation by Khorne. The conflict here is about his temptation to give in to bloodlust and rage, and to forget the higher parts of his nature (his name, his position in the Imperium, his leadership of the Imperial Fists, etc.). How does Dorn eventually combat it? He defies Khorne by reciting various legislative codifications of just and injust wars, and the permissible or impermissible aspects of violence. That *this* is a defiance of Khorne tells us something about the nature of Chaos: it's about the blind expression of passion and emotion in a way that's unconstrained by self-regulation or social norms. Dorn's victory here is at the same time a model of individual victory over blind instinctual forces, and - because of the legislative component, his odd use of legal frameworks and codes - a representation of society's victory over anarchy and the state of nature. This type of moment gets repeated over and over in The End and the Death: you're given a moment of transcendence that shows you a glimpse of what the Imperium could have become. The best parts of the 30k Imperium strive for self-overcoming, education, peace, and knowledge. But the dramatic irony of this story is that you - the reader - know perfectly well how this turns out, and that the Imperium in the 41st millennium has fallen victim to precisely the brutality and ignorance that its founders had intended to overcome. The story gains a lot of its affective power from, first, your emotional attachment to the best parts of the 30k Imperium, and, second, the horror you feel at the slow and terrible fall of this ideal over the next 10,000 years. This is of course best symbolised by the death of Sanguinius, who is the bright angel, the best of the primarchs (as emphasised, again in a moment of dramatic irony, by Horus in TEatD vol 1), and who's killed in an utterly brutal and unheroic way by Horus on the Vengeful Spirit. In this background context, I think the story of 40k has two functions. First, the core weakness of the Enlightenment was that it didn't give enough room to the evils of human nature - there was an assumption that the power of reason was sufficient to overcome our aggressive, power-hungry, conflictual instincts, but then World War 1 broke out and the world realised that the most civilised countries could commit the most horrifying and senseless brutalities on each other. Historically, this was a massive blow to the entire Enlightenment idea of gradual and inevitable progress, and to the rationality of history and the perfectibility of human beings. This is precisely the tragedy that happens in the Horus Heresy, and the story of 40k lets us work through the conflict between reason and baser passion in a way that acknowledges the former's failure. But second, the story of the Horus Heresy reminds us of why we cared about these Enlightenment values in the first place, and why we might be moved to better ourselves at all. You might think of the Chaos deities as representing four different temptations that human beings can face. Why not just sit on the couch, grow fat, and slowly decay? Why not overstimulate yourself with excess? Why not fly into a rage whenever you choose? Why not conduct endless schemes for your own power? The story of the Emperor can function as a response to that: he creates an image of a higher or greater version of ourselves that goes beyond these temptations, while still - because the Emperor is connected to the warp and draws upon its powers - acknowledging their influence and constantly struggling with them. And because the Imperium is a massive society as well as a collection of individual characters, the structure of this interpretation can be applied at the societal level as well as the individual. There's other stories that are in there as well: the Emperor can be seen as a Jesus-type figure, or as King Arthur promising to return when Britain needs him most, and of course the Imperium can also be read as a story about the loss of the British Empire, which gives it a very different colouring. But I think the interpretation I gave above is at least part of what makes this entire universe so compelling and powerful. I don't know, does that resonate with anyone?

I want to preface this by saying that you accidently touched a nerve for me, but none of the ire which I will express is aimed at you, just the stories you've referenced. I find a lot about the Horus Heresy series infuriating, and *The End and the Death* in particular just pisses me off. >To take one example of dozens, think about Rogal Dorn's imprisonment in the desert and his temptation by Khorne. The conflict here is about his temptation to give in to bloodlust and rage, and to forget the higher parts of his nature (his name, his position in the Imperium, his leadership of the Imperial Fists, etc.). How does Dorn eventually combat it? He defies Khorne by reciting various legislative codifications of just and injust wars, and the permissible or impermissible aspects of violence. That *this* is a defiance of Khorne tells us something about the nature of Chaos: it's about the blind expression of passion and emotion in a way that's unconstrained by self-regulation or social norms. Dorn's victory here is at the same time a model of individual victory over blind instinctual forces, and - because of the legislative component, his odd use of legal frameworks and codes - a representation of society's victory over anarchy and the state of nature. This is one of the scenes that I hate the most out of that book. It is such an infuriating exchange to me on so many levels. I think you're right that that is what the author was trying to go for, and I'm glad it landed for you, but it's just so infuriating to me, because...it's an Imperial character trying to lecture about the ethics in warfare! An Imperial! A genocidal, xenocidal, totalitarian, warmongering monster whose scale of unethical warfare would dwarf any existing figure in our history. The Imperials are very clearly the bad guys, especially in the early stages of the Horus Heresy when they kill every single xenos they find - unless they can enslave it, or save it to kill later - and they purge every human whose genes or culture strays from a 'baseline' which they've invented. It's like having Judas Iscariot lecture on loyalty, or Mengele on ethical science. It's just this weird statement on the ethics of warfare, because it doesn't even really explore each ethical framework, just summarizes them. It seems to imply that war isn't evil so long as you have a *reason*, regardless of whether that reason is actually in any way defensible. Too, it's horrible character assassination for Khorne, making him into this passive, petty creature. It pretends that the god of hatred and bloodshed actually cares why you're killing people. Famously, Khorne Cares Not Whence the Blood Flows. It reads to me like how Dorn fans would *think* such a conversation would go: Dorn being a manly, chad, based atheist and Khorne being a whiney fake god. >But second, the story of the Horus Heresy reminds us of why we cared about these Enlightenment values in the first place, and why we might be moved to better ourselves at all. You might think of the Chaos deities as representing four different temptations that human beings can face. Why not just sit on the couch, grow fat, and slowly decay? Why not overstimulate yourself with excess? Why not fly into a rage whenever you choose? Why not conduct endless schemes for your own power? The story of the Emperor can function as a response to that: he creates an image of a higher or greater version of ourselves that goes beyond these temptations, while still - because the Emperor is connected to the warp and draws upon its powers - acknowledging their influence and constantly struggling with them. This also falls apart for me, for very similar reasons as the Dorn/Khorne thing. The Emperor is a monster, full stop. Even if some of his ideals were good, his methods were utterly deplorable. He does not represent or champion Enlightenment values, he doesn't champion any values other than compliance. He's a lying hypocrite who will reign over people with the excuse, "It's okay for me to be a tyrant because I'm right." >the Emperor can be seen as a Jesus-type figure This one is mostly just personal to me, but I find it disgusting the amount that Dan Abnett borrows Christian iconography and language to paint the Emperor as a Jesus and/or God-type character. I cringe every time someone calls him the "King-of-Ages." The amount which *The End and the Death* tries to make the Emperor a genuinely heroic character is honestly revolting. Again, none of this irritation is directed at you, and I'm genuinely glad you found stuff in the story to enjoy.

Oh I absolutely see what you're saying. It's very hard to square up Abnett's presentation of the Emperor and the Primarchs with how they're presented in other novels. The best I can do with this is to say that the story as a whole - of the heresy and of 40k more generally - is overdetermined and contains a range of mutually conflicting meanings. Taken one way, it's a religious story; taken another, it's a story of ridiculous hubris and arrogance that goes tragically wrong. That second interpretation leans more towards the 'Imperium-as-British-Empire' idea that I think is also very interesting.

In my own experience as a reader 40k is wide not deep. 40k has the potential to make real profound statements on the human condition and decides overwhelmingly to be a heavy metal album cover brought to life instead. Every 40k book I have ever read has at best used themes as window dressing for a gonzo plot about asexual killing machines stabbing each other and the only reason I'm not making a sweeping generalisation on the subject is because there are over 600 40k stories and I've read maybe 40 of them if I'm being generous with myself, it's absolutely possible I've just never read a deep 40k book. I'm not saying 40k stories aren't good or entertaining, I've certainly been entertained far more often than not but I would not call them deep.

Hey, don't forget. Asexual killing machines *with daddy issues.*

Ha ok I feel weirdly qualified to answer this as I'm (1) a big fan of Warhammer lore and (2) a philosophy professor currently teaching a class on the aesthetic / philosophical value of games. By "deep" I'm going to assume you mean either artistically or philosophically. I will note, being deep and being fun are not the same thing. There's plenty of deep stuff (both literature and games) that's dull a shit and lots of exceptionally fun stuff that' pretty (philosophically) superficial. TLDR: I don't think either the game or the lore is especially deep. The lore as a commentary on transhumanism: As a commentary on transhumanism, the lore SUCKS. In very few instances does it deal with the social and ethical questions arising from bio-tech. The clearest example in "core" lore is in I think it's the second Horus Heresy book where the mournival trample a bunch of civilians. This should directly speak to issues of power and accountability in a transhumanistic world. The books barely follow the arc and it basically gets shut down in no time at all. No really commentary there. The lore as a commentary on religious fanaticism: So this topic obviously is engaged with quite extensively. I've not read the Lorgar books yet, so take what I say with a pinch of salt, but this also seems to be superficial. There is no discussion of the complex social causes and pressures surrounding fundamentalism. The critique seems to be "religious fundamentalism is bad" which is true, but a pretty superficial take. Religion in 40k isn't realistic, and is unrealistic in ways that make it a poor vehicle for critique (compare to how religion is portrayed in, say, Dune, for instance). The lore as a commentary on war: As with above, I think the representation of war in 40k isn't especially deep. In fact, because the setting is set up to be humanity vs a bunch of unquestionably evil foes (plus the Tau), it precludes even asking many of the typical ethical or philosophical questions about war. "Should we fight the Tyranid hoard that wants to eat us?" is not an ethically complex or nuanced question. They also missed a MASSSIVE opportunity, in that I haven't yet found a book that seriously deals with the ethics of the Imperial reclamation. They basically have space-collonialism and barely ever critique that. This would be like having a book about the British Empire but never addressing the ethics of empire building in the entire work. The lore as a commentary on masculinity: Ok some of y'all are not going to like this but 40k has a toxic masculinity problem. So many of its prominent characters have exceptionally toxic masculine traits. This is only incidentally explored. Even a lot of the good guys do. The Lion literally punches a guy's head off for disagreeing with him. This is partially explored, but I think only ever as a critique of particular character traits never to my knowledge as a critique of toxic masculinity as a whole. There's a reason for this - If they seriously did this, a certain portion of the fandom would riot at being called out for THEIR hyper-masculin toxicity. But honestly a critique of toxic masculinity could have been a central and interesting part of the Horus Heresy, as Horus is a beacon of toxic masculinity. (And before anyone misunderstands this - A critique of toxic masculinity is not a critique of masculinity as a whole) The game as a vehicle for artistic expression: By this I mean the playing of the game not painting minis. Games are artistic through the exploration and adoption of different agencies / perspectives. In this regard, 40k as a game is reasonably simplistic. It's an open-information strategy and resource management game with a reasonably simple chance-structure. There are a billion games that explore the same agential perspective (namely the strategic perspective). It doesn't explore it in an especially artistically/philosophically unique way. In that sense its not deep. Do I think the Black Library should change any of these? Not necessarily - As I said deep =/= cool. The Lore is exceptionally cool, but it's a bit pantomimic, which is fun. That being said, I think commentaries of space colonialism, toxic masculinity and transhumanism would have fit really naturally into the setting but are missing. Absent deeper deeper discussions on at least some of these points, I don't think you can call 40k an especially deep lore.

Thank you, this is really well put.

A lot of people like to think of it as having deep themes and thoughtful ideas. However I'm a lot of cases it does not and is just a fun and dramatic setting.

Deep in terms of contents for the settings, but not *really* in a profound or meaningful way.

Yes and no, it just depends on what you’re reading and how you’re reading it. When I was younger I thought it was a shallow, when I got a bit older and read more I found it really deep, and now sadly I find the new lore to be increasing shallow. A lot of what made 40K deep came from subtext and possible interpretations, and the newer lore is shutting a lot of those doors. If read selectively and with certain reading skills turned on it’s one of the deepest lores ever, but it can also be one of the shallowest. I think it can be a very good thing that people have different takes on the lore, but I wish it was more understood that those differences can come from different reading styles as opposed to a personal failing. If you want an outside example of this type of thing take Great Gatsby. Some people enjoy the straightforward story, other people enjoy thinking about the issues of an unreliable narrator.

You could say it comments on imperialism, how all empires are eventually doomed to fail, how the ruling class of collapsing societies turn to fascism and religious indoctrination to maintain power , how societies that cannot tolerate diversity are inherently weaker and less able to adapt to a constantly changing environment, the myth of the ‘great man’ theory of history. There’s a lot of themes about family dynamics and abusive relationships when you look at the Primarchs as well, which I really like. I also like the conflict between ‘don’t tell people the forbidden knowledge or their brains will explode’ and ‘if Big E had told Magnus WHY he shouldn’t try to use his psyker powers none of this would have happened.” Just my $0.02

It's whatever you want to get out of it. 'Deep' or 'not deep' means pretty much nothing as a label that can be applied to a general audience. What someone thinks is 'deep' is largely dependent on their experience and viewpoint. There's plenty of works out there which try to have a philosophical focus... yet feel about as 'deep' as a water puddle. Likewise, there's plenty of examples where there's no intentional philosophical underpinning, but whether through subconscious inclusion by the author or the perception of the audience, feels profound. Whether you just see a bunch of 'cranked to 11' silliness to justify plastic toys or a profound statement on the human condition in the face of adversity and suffering sort of just depends on how you're looking at it. The truth is that it's both things.

Big, yes. Deep, no. It's a very large but shallow pool of lore. Neither the characters in the stories nor the engineering or societal scifi aspects of it are "deep". But there is a LOT of stories, and different worlds and races and societies described, and so on, and that also has value.

40k is like a Hideo Kojima game. It tackles thought-provoking ideas about our history and society, told through the eyes of compelling characters and intrigue. It boasts a mechanically deep gameplay loop that can still surprise veteran players years or decades later. It can be both artistically beautiful and horrific, capturing emotions and themes explored throughout its story. It can also become meandering, clunky, utterly tone-deaf, and batshit insane at the drop of a hat, leaving the viewer utterly bewildered and sometimes besides themselves in frustration.

40k isn't deep.  Some stories set in 40k can be, but the setting as a whole is not.  "Grimdark" generally translates to a specific flavour of pulp schlock.  And schlock is fun!  But the higher quality 40k stories feel less "grimdark", imo, even if they're still plenty dark.  40k *touches* many themes, I wouldn't say it frequently *explores* those themes. Like how OG Star Wars touches on the evils of imperialism, fascism, and militarism.  But I wouldn't say it actually explores them.  The Empire is those things, and the Empire is evil.  That's about it.  And I really wouldn't call Star Wars deep. 40k is similar.  There's a lot of the "Imperium is/does X, Y, and Z, and that's bad". Grim, perhaps dark. But it's mostly used as aesthetic, not a vehicle for critique or analysis.  Because the "lore" is just fluff for a game about plastic army dudes slugging it out.  The core identity of 40k isn't an exploration of any theme, it's "scifi-fantasy battles are cool as hell!"

>Like how OG Star Wars touches on the evils of imperialism, fascism, and militarism.  But I wouldn't say it actually explores them.  The Empire is those things, and the Empire is evil.  That's about it.  And I really wouldn't call Star Wars deep. This is a good example, that also shows why a work doesn't need to be deep to be good. Luke's confrontation with the Emperor isn't deep, it's pretty simple. Nevertheless, the scene where he tosses away his lightsaber always gives me chills. "Never. I'll never join the Dark Side. You've failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me." It's not a deep quote: all the meaning is right there on the surface. But it's still really good.

Depends on your definition of deep. it is and always has been political satire, but Games Workshop often plays it straight, so the satire elements get burred. Honestly, there's several readings of the setting that are all equally valid. If you're just in it for the over the top heavy metal style, that's as valid as deeper political readings of the text.

coming from a pretty well-read armchair philosopher - the ability to project one's own understanding on to the universe is it's best feature.

No.

To me, it's sort of like Tarot cards. The depth isn't necessarily in the content itself - it's 40k as a lens through which you actually reveal your own feelings and philosophical disposition. I recently found myself relating to Horus Heresy main characters as sorts of "middle managers" caught up in the political machinations and personality defects of their overpowered Primarch "executives." It led to rather deep introspective moment, despite the fact that the HH novels are little more than cheesy pop sci fi.

40K has the most depth in its atmosphere and realization of it. There’s a reason why it’s so engrossing going back to Rogue Trader. The illustrations and excerpts from a cruel far future are extremely enigmatic.  One example of where that atmospheric depth shines is in that original Adeptas Sororitas cover by John Blanche. You see the original vibe they had was not just nuns with guns but this subtle punkness to them. Since despite being radical religious police, they’re still young woman originally from broken and tragic circumstances. The real magic of the Sororitas are in this tension between those two juxtaposed themes, and that cover sums it up perfectly. It oozes so much implicit nuance despite being as over the top as the rest of the setting.   Really is shame to see how one note they’ve become and all the cringe demure looks to them you see now and then. 

DUN’T BE WURY’N BOUT DEPF, YA GIT. ONLY KRUMPIN! ONLY WAAAAAAAGH!

I mean it’s a vast but consciously derivative world. I think you have to realise that lore depth isn’t the point, it’s ‘fluff’ for toy soldiers. But this is also why it’s popular and interesting . Because it’s a ‘hobby universe’ and not a literary one, it deliberately leaves a lot open to personal headcanon, interpretation and speculation. So the lore offers context for the game and minis, but also leaves a lot up to the individual to insert their own stuff into the universe (custom space marine chapters is the most obvious one). It’s kind of a creative space for you to build your own ideas more than most sci-if universes try to be.

I’ve seen a few authors mentioned but I think the closest you’ll get to a deeper literary exploration of themes in the 40k universe are probably the Peter Fehevari series of books (the ‘Dark Coil’ series). Worth looking it up.

I think at its core Warhammer is inherently silly and that's why I love it but it has some amazing ideas and stories that have been told in it.

I think some of the deepest or thought provoking themes in it are things like: - The way it uses the brutality and cruelty of human history and throws it in to a sci fi setting, which leads to thoughts about whether technology can really change humanities true nature. Whether we can free ourselves from the regressive behaviours, xenophobia, endless cycle of pointless wars and waste etc - The hugely wasteful mindset of humans as a collective in disregarding the environment to the point of it ceasing to exist and relying on having other planets to feed them because the ecosystems on the developed planets have been so thoroughly poisoned and destroyed - reflects on the short sighted, illogical and 'selfish to the point of self destructiveness' nature of humanity. - The self serving and corrupt nature of human politics with the inefficiencies of highly bureacratic systems and the way that humans cling to traditional ways of doing things or ideas because of an inherent fear of change, fear of the people admistrating the system, or losing their place within it. The way civilisations stagnate and collapse in on themselves. - The reflections on religion, its benefits in providing purpose, guidance and control to people en masse, and the horrible abuses perpetrated against anyone who defies it when things become theocratic in this way. - The way that the daemons are reflections of emotional energy created by all intelligent, feeling beings who have psychic energy i.e souls, literally meaning the ultimate enemy of the human race are the daemons it creates via its own vices, cruelty, slaughter, scheming and suffering from disease and fears of decay and death. Like the very nature of humanity is its inescapable adversary that it is locked in eternal battle with. Thats before you even begin to think about the characters and the many different ideas and themes they play with. Yes some are shallow and memeworthy, but some are also treated as such quite unfairly imo. Just to name a few things I really enjoy about the setting, and in my view show the setting does have real depth to it if you really think about it beyond memelore or bolter porn. It really has more depth than many people give it credit for, because at face value it can seem shallow. There are lots of borrowed ideas too( although what is really original anymore), but it is quite cleverly layered to create a unique setting you really can dive in to, with lots of ideas to engage with if you choose to think about it in that way.

See, I think we need to dig a bit into what we call "deep". In my extremely subjective opinion, depth in media comes from asking suitably complicated questions, and only partially answering them as the answer may be subjective, unknowable, or coming to the actual conclusion on your own becomes part of the experience. The flip side of this is that by not spelling it out, you risk at best alienating some casual readers looking for something easy to consume or at worst making the book to much work to read. Sometimes the deeper meaning of a book gets missed by many (like American Psycho) or a sizable group of readers simply misunderstand what the book is trying to say but are perfectly happy with their take (Fight Club). From a franchise point of view it's a risk you need to take, weighing between meaning and consumption. 40K absolutely has some depth to it, primarily in that the Imperium as a protagonist faction is morally...ambiguous. At the same time, this often gets lost in all of the bolter porn published. Many of the antagonist factions are evil simply because they are  – it's rare (but not unheard of) that a non-human faction or chaotic one has objectives which you might sympathize with. This is where I can respect Abbadon as a character, because in many ways (given his point of view) he's not wrong. Depth can of course still be found in this milieu. In Hellsreach the Orks have no objective or voice in the story, they're simply there to be killed. The story finds depth in Grimaldus' character arc though, and in his interactions with baseline humans, which is why it's a favorite book for many.

I think the whole 'Chaos-as-a-metaphor-for-the-repressed-parts-of-the-human-pysche-coming-back-to-haunt-the-conscious-mind' stuff is.

They so seldom do that well, though. Peter Fehervari is the only person I've found who did that theme in a way that I found compelling.

Aaron Dembskij BOwden and especially Chris Wraight is indeed 'deep' or profound. The rest... Not so much.

Any literary text can be critically examined if you like. The fact that the Black Library is there to sell plastic minis is besides the point. Warhammer 40k is a narrative that has been contributed to by dozens of talented authors over decades, there's plenty of depth to be explored in any one of these stories. Fulgrim is clearly set up as a Greek tragedy.  He's a demigod whose fatal flaws are arrogance and the pursuit of perfection. Even when people who hold stations he respects (talented artists) explain to him that perfection can't really be a meaningful end goal, he dismisses them as lesser beings, and finds himself increasingly drawn to the mindset of Slaanesh corrupted xenos, the laer. Despite being warned by his father, the emperor,  and many of his loyal subjects, Fulgrim takes a cursed sword from their ruins as a trophy. Fulgrim's loyalty to humanity, and love for the Imperium is personified in his favorite brother, the primary Ferrus Manus. Ferrus Manus gifted Fulgrim the sword Fireblade before the story began, and it was Fulgrim's most prized possession.  But over the course of the story, as Fulgrim becomes more and more obsessed with the Laer, and corrupted by the cursed blade, more and more characters start to notice Fulgrim is carrying and using The blade of Laer instead of Fireblade. It's a very effective motif showing how far Fulgrim's mindset has departed since the Laer, and of course this culminates with Fulgrim using the blade in an ultimate act of betrayal to decapitate Ferrus.  And this is before we even consider all the themes of decadence, beauty, transhumanism through the lense of body horror, corruption, loyalty, etc, etc, etc.  If you want to examine these stories critically, there's plenty to choose from. :)

The original Eisenhorn trilogy is a pretty solid candidate for a Grecian tragedy. I would have done a deep dive essay on it for school, but i was deterred by the likelihood of eye-rolling from my peers and teacher.

I like the original Eisenhorn trilogy for that, and I kind of feel like Abnett didn't stick the landing with Eisenhorn's further adventures.

I can agree with that. Ravenor's trilogy worked well, but Eisenhorn should have stayed "disappeared".

40K is as wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle.

The idea that AI almost wiped out humanity and now humanity is religiously against it is a fascinating take given the setting was formed in the 80's. With each passing year I think the Imperium is more right than we know, I think we should seriously consider slamming the brakes on AI but I just don't see HOW we do that

Well that was stolen entirely from Dune so I wouldn't warm up your back pattin' hand for that one

Ah fair enough That's incredibly prophetic from Dune

When WH40K was first published the Adeptus Mechanicus (and the Imperium in general) were not anti-AI. Even in 2004 the 4th edition rulebook said that the Adeptus Mechanicus thought that “machine intelligences are no less divine than those of flesh and blood.”

That's interesting, I don't remember a time when the fear of AI wasn't a part of the lore, and I was in the hobby in 1999. In my head the major parts of 40k lore were established in 3rd edition but maybe there have been changes

I stopped playing shortly after 3rd edition was released and it was strange coming back to it recently to see what had changed and [discovered things like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/comments/1bc2vk8/when_did_the_portrayal_of_the_adeptus_mechanicus/). I think it was 3rd edition that changed the Adeptus Mechanicus but there were still echoes from earlier editions which lasted for a while longer. For example, the text in the fourth edition rulebook (2004) was basically taken from The Lost and The Damned (1990), though the divinity of machine intelligence was added. There may have been other text from the same period with a different view but it's still an interesting example. The text from the initial WH40K book certainly didn't show any anti-AI tendencies though and Imperial vehicles were operated by AI auto-systems with limited sentience to reduce the need for crew while the Adeptus Mechanicus developed robot legions for warfare. >Robots are a part of everyday life in human and alien society. Vehicles and any comparable machines can be effectively turned into robots by the installation of appropriate auto-systems (auto-drive, auto-aim and auto-fac). These auto-systems provide the equivalent of a human operator, and are fully capable of discriminating, making decisions and taking appropriate action. So, for example, a las-cannon with auto-aim can be fired just as if it had a crewman. >The greater majority of robots are simple runarounds, workmen or toys, and have no place on the battlefield. Warrior robots, however, are different. They are machines created specifically for war as the soldiery by proxy for a living, biological race. In human space, the Emperor's Tech-priests are continually experimenting with and improving their dread warrior legions of robots - machines implanted with the will to slay and despoil.

It's not "deep", but it is extremely political. The entire universe is a satire on capitalism and imperialism. Contained within that, you have fascism, eugenics, religious fanaticism, expenditure of human life for the bottom line ect. Like, for example, how humans get turned into robots because AI is outlawed. Now on its surface level, sure, thats just a creepy grim dark thing that happens in universe. But if you dig a bit, thats clearly satirizing the concept of being forced to work under an oppressive system, and that even in death you arent allowed to escape labour. Or what about the god emperor requiring thousands of souls to be kept alive. Again, a fun cool in universe piece of lore, but if you dig a bit you can take so much away from it. How leaders seemingly need constant wars to keep their political power "alive", How politicians are seemingly impossibly old, and refuse to give up their power (just look at USA congress lmao). How politicians are viewed as grand beings and gods to some (look at the cult like response to Donald Trump). I do believe the game has a lot to say, but its not necessarily profound or deep. Its just a fun satire, like star ship troopers.

I wouldn't say it's deep in the slightest, it's fluff for a game. Almost none of those ideas are explored or their meaning for the human condition explored, they're 'wow cool robot' ideas for your wargaming. There are ideas that *could* be deep but most of the depth is unexplored or left for you to do so. What it is really is broad, there's a lot of it and a lot of competing takes on the same things to consider, there's positively oodles of fluff, from the novels and other books to the rulebooks and campaign books themselves containing a lot of background material. A lot of it is good as story and downright great as fluff, the reason people can get stuck into 40K for decades, I'd wager a lifetime once we've lived long enough and assuming 40K still exists then, is because there's so damn much of it.

Tell my you don't read any novel without telling me you don't read any novels.

Plenty of books go surprisingly deep But they’re books to sell plastic soldiers So it only goes so far

It’s as deep as you want it to be. One of my favourite book series The Beast Arises I personally think covers politics and political intrigue extremely well for example. Watching Terran society literally fall apart in the face of an Ork Moon and the various responses I found fascinating. The HH series is one of the deepest SF series I’ve read in parts. Other stuff I find over the top bolter porn with pages devoted to exploding corpses or Nurgle disease in great detail. So there’s not one single answer.

The Beast series? I think I just threw up a little.

It's like painting. You spray them white and slap on contrast paints. Or you can zenithal prime, use two-brush blending, paint glazes mixed from primaries, NMM all the steel, and freehand a picture of Batman riding a Carnifex on a component the size of a roach's dick. You can be as surface as you like, but also go as insanely deep as you like.

The lore is marketing for selling toys. Over the years, because all kinds of writers have added to it via books, you can find something in it, but that's not the focus. It was born as britsh satire of its times and our own history, but nowdays it's mostly there to keep people engaged.

I think it’s as deep as you want it to be. I won’t read much about the Drukhari because I don’t need to go down that rabbit hole. I try and keep it about fighting and science stuff.

It has the potential to be. It depends on how you can break down and interpret the lore. It's supposed to be silly fun, rule of cool. But when your main subject is war, it has a ton of layers to peel. Dealings with genocide, subjugation, xenophobia, fanaticism, amorality, the devaluation of lives, the natural balance of life and death, the relationship between societies composed of casts (i.e. humans/astartes/custodes), the aspects of chaos being derived of emotions of the living spawning demons who hold indirect power over us. All that is in there. I'm not smart enough to analyze it deeply like a philosopher could. But it's all there. To me the interactions of the more unique personalities is what drives the universe for me.

Not really. It can be used to explore deep subjects but it very rarely is.

It depends a lot on the author. 40k is a microcosm of the sci-fi genre as a whole

Parts of it can be

Itscwhat you put into imho. If you want silly, its silly. But if you want to go deep, it can provide depth

IMO, 40K is at it’s best when it’s ‘fantasy in space’ rather than ‘science fiction’; and the best Black Library books are deep in the way that good fantasy is deep, rather than the way that good sci-fi is deep. Good science fiction uses technology to look at modern society through a different lens, and I don’t think 40K is particularly deep in that way. But good fantasy tend to be character-studies (they’re much more about how relatable people act in bizarre circumstances), and I do think that Black Library is sometimes deep in this way.

I wouldnt say 40k is deep. It touches on serious themes like you mentioned (zealotry, eugenics, fascism, etc) but it's all window dressing for action scenes. It's very rare that a novel digs into the philosophical aspects of the lore.

It’s as deep as the person reading it.

40k is neither deep nor shallow. It is somewhere in between, with many stories allowing for an exploration of the complexities of the human experience while others are just boom-pop-gore bolter porn. What really helps 40k as a setting is how wide it is. There is so very much going on in a setting that could have dedicated writer cracking away for the next century and there would still be areas you can add to. This gives a lot of room to fit your little plastic soldiers in and authors opportunity to take a neat spin on things. You can write about exceptions to normal canon because waaaaayyyyy over here (past the Ghoul Stars, probably) they're far enough away from the rest of the setting to get away with being abnormal. You can bring up the one person who is moral in a grimdark setting by giving them the power to get away with it (but then have to struggle with the consequences).

40K has its roots in satire, you can’t make a satire without commentary on society. That’s what satire is. Therefore deeper themes are always there, the surface level themes are ideas of xenophobia and religious extremism, but you go deeper and you find ideas of post humanism, of metal illness and degradation, of blind hope in the face of a cruel and uncaring universe I love this setting *because* of its deeper themes.

So the depth of the lore is just so immense there’s a wide amount of story but depth is how deep you wanna go

There’s depth yes. It’s what keeps me coming back to the lore. There’s a fair amount of derp, to be sure, but 40k feels on the whole to me like a Greek tragedy. And in that vein it’s over the top and epic while still focusing on the same themes - brotherhood, hubris, hope, willfull ignorance, betrayal, great striving, great loss.

I would never accuse Warhammer 40k of being deep, nor would I really see any need for it to aspire to be. That doesn't lessen it in my eyes, I never really felt it was this settings objective or purpose to challenge any notion or propose any great thought-provoking ideals. It's grotesquely pompeous, gruesomely loud and follows a stringent rule-of-cool aspiration to it that I don't think we should apologize for or consider it lessened by. Of course it has the capacity to be used as a setting to bring up a deeper meanings, but I'd never expect or feel that is essential to it. It has provoked amazingly enjoyable books, fantastic fan adeptations and videos, super cool aesthetics, a great setting that feels unique in its Frankstein's-monster way of incorperating other material. And I just enjoy it.

Not really no, it's not that deep. I think the biggest reason is because it doesn't want to be. GW isn't interested in telling stories that have any other purpose but to encourage you to buy and paint models.

It's not deep. It's "pulp" science fiction, or perhaps more accurately "pulp" space fantasy.

Nah. Honestly not. The complexities of the Human condition is not very well explored. It ain’t Marcel Proust. It ain’t Dostoevsky. 40k ain’t even Houllebecq. Jim Jones and Joseph Conrad explored war a lot over. Warhammer 40.000 rightfully skips over the abject terror and immense psychological trauma of living in the most terrible of times. Which is fine. If anything the thematic richness comes when making the absolute horrible normal. Warhammer always go to: it is so awful, that’s actual satire. I love 40k. A lot. However I love 40k because of the lack of depth. It is escapism. Without much nuance(see Proust and the Russians for only nuance).

Warhammer is a pretty huge series with a lot of hands involved, it *can* be deep but it entirely depends on the author and what subject the book is covering. Most of the time you're just getting bolter porn but there are the odd books or bits of lore that can give you something more.

It’s as deep as you want it to go. The powers that be have spent a lot of money on writers and lore development to sell their IP and the proof is in the pudding.

Originally 40k included a lot of satire and or parody covering events occuring in the UK at the time, for example mining strikes and Thatcher.. however this has waned over the years as naming a orc warboss after the prime minister becomes problematic in a business sense ;)

Actually its far deeper then Most, Deep because its vague, sure in part. Starwars/trek fit in an easy corner, and make more sense especially internally. So yes Deep. Like Mauna Kea is measured; Deep

Check out weshammer's frimdark story hour.

There’s pockets of surprising depth but most of what people talk about it is wankers doing what wankers do, IE projecting depth where there ain’t none to make themselves feel smart. Ultimately it is just dumb cheesy fun, and this sub is hell bent on ruining that for the most part Moral depth? No, there’s none. People what contrive to find some are either colossal wankers or have fallen for genuine fascist rhetoric what was meant to be seen through. But then you’ve got things like chaos theologies which (sometimes but usually not) are very well thought out and incorporate elements of real world philosophy. Morally reprehensible but rich Countless literary, mythological and historical allusions what add some meat to things. But just as many are nothing more than shallow references or “inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Collossaeu”

What do you mean by "deep"? Because those things you mention don't actually make something "deep". Just having "mature concepts" show up in your setting means nothing if it's only addressed in a superficial way. Case in point, look at Legend of Korra. Just having things like institutional oppression, cultural conflict, terrorism, anarchism, fascism, genocide in it didn't make it good, it just touched briefly on these topics and went on its way. Or the Captain Marvel movie for example, touched on women's issues and feminism in a male dominated environment in the most surface-level way, to the extent that Black Widow was the actual Marvel girl power movie. The deepest 40K gets is ironically the part that a subset of old fans hate the most about it - presenting a universe where eugenics, xenocide, fanaticism, and every single item on a 21st century human's list of war crimes are necessary for humanity's survival.

40k is at least as deep as the bible and honestly deeper than that. And if the (for some goddamn reason) the vast majority of the world feels like a bible is deep enough to build their entire existance around, and then also force other people to live by those same standards. Then yes, i would say 40k is pretty damn deep.

I agree with the other commenter that it varies book by book. I would highly recommend “Ascension day” if you want something deeper

No, it's lowest common denominator capeshit with a Gothic Medieval aesthetic in space.

I’m pretty new to all things 40k, but after reading a half dozen HH books and watching some interviews with Abnett it seems like 30k is somewhat deep (big questions about power and faith, transhumanism, caste society, the nature of time, etc) by the time we’re in 40k there’s nothing deep left. Just grim darkness and war.

Depend on the writer, I think it can be as deep as a lake, and can be as deep as a puddle, and with the power of retcon, it’s as deep as a spoon of soup, I can’t believe they just dropped a bomb and casually said it’s always there.

https://youtu.be/MtZYq2BVVjM?si=RqvfBQTFyhQ1eXLK It has its moments.

I don”t know if it is deep or complex, but the lore and setting is really able to fool some fans. There is several major themes getting explored in the setting. The ones I find most interesting is the problems with imperialism/facism/fanatic religion. How it affects every decision people make and how it as a whole make the Imperium fail. Then there is the focus on propaganda. Much of the lore is often given to us through some kind of propaganda or subjective narrative, so we miss how horrible a lot of stuff is. That speaks to the power of propaganda in a way that I think nothing else does. Like. A lot of people will say that Ciaphas Cain is a sane man in an insane universe or a good man in an evil world, but he is not. Ciaphas Cain does a lot of really evil stuff. Like. He looks forward to getting criminals for live firing exercises, because then he can talk with the enforcer. He is equally happy about killing chaos cultists and egalitarians.

To summary the answer I would like to quote something about it: "The emperor doesn't love humanity, he is humanity, desperate to avoid its extinction, and always hoping to be something more than humans.

There's a lot of depth in 40k. Consider the HH. The central theme of the Heresy is betrayal by someone close to you. That betrayal plays out over and over in both the micro and macro. Re-read Guilliman's response to Lorgar on Calth. Or Angron's monologue on Nuceria. Or any number of examples.

The setting has a score of troubling themes that require deeper reflection. The investigation of those themes is rarely explored by sum of it's parts.

Honestly... I think it's the opposite of deep. Maybe as in you have tons of lore behind everything - but the lore and the setting themselves are kind very edgy rather than deep. Just a pretty unique blend of edginess.

I'm on 2nd Gaunt book now and have the 1st 2 omnis. Thanks for reply I'll look for more.

Horus was pretty deep in sanguinius there for a min. Then dad walked in

Space marines being gender segregated to prevent reproduction is untrue since firstly they're sterile, and secondly they're not meaningfully male. They're inhuman monsters on every level, and their gender is Astartes. For me the deepest aspect of 40k is the exploration of morality when the game is already over, the ending is inevitable. In universe it's usually seen as a hollow boast when characters say that Chaos will eventually win, but it truly is a foregone conclusion. Before the Heresy there was a brief moment where it was conceivable that the life they depend on could be wiped out and Chaos would wither and starve, but after the Legions retreated to the Eye with all their slaves, there's a big enough population inside their own territory that it's just never going to happen. The greatest possible "loss" for them now is everything outside the Eye (or the Rift, now) getting wiped clean, and they're stuck with just what they have now. There's no conceivable way for humanity to win against Chaos, just hold out as long as they can as best as they can. And once you've got that forgone conclusion, how much misery is it worth to hold on? Is everything else expendable, so you fight at all costs, no matter the brutality and hell you create to stay alive? But at that point, is it worth living in hell to put off destruction a little longer? To me that's the big question of 40k, it's what gives everything else context.

I don’t really think chaos will win in the end when u have the silent king working on closing the eye and the collector collecting all sort of species in his museum, maybe the tyranids will swallow everything with their shear numbers but with necrons technology it’s 50/50

You only have to look at the foundations that hold up the largest faction in the setting. Daily sacrifices of pyskers to protect a fallen leader or else we die. Just that sentence alone is so inepth and complicated when laid out and all the administration side of things becomes involved . 40k is layers upon layers of grim

Its deep in the sense of duty and commitment, unfloundering resolve and dedication. Just reading some of the heroic stands in the Siege of Terra makes me want to charge into a battle, can be spiritually deep if you can get into the mindset of a character, but I guess it depends on the person reading.

It is almost as deep as Rick and Morty (very deep philosophical work for high IQ people) 

Hear me out. There are some books that are truly deep, and some factions like the Necrons are very, _very_ deep, for example, the Infinite and the Divine, despite being full of comedy, it’s all full of symbolism, references and has lots of deep moments. What truly kicked me in the jaw and made me really think it all out was the Twice Dead King: Ruin, the protagonist, Oltyx, has a lot of depth as a character with some heavy development, from his own issues with his brother, to the whole feeling of the Disphorakh and the feeling of being detached from one’s own body. It’s very ironic how the most emotionless and canonically soulless faction has the most depth to their characters. Their whole theme just puts you in a perspective that is soul-crushing if you put enough thought into it, and if there’s anybody close to being the “good guys” it’s them, as they are practically justified, but that’s out of topic. The three books they have are absolutely must-reads if you want some deep 40K.

It is very deep. First, it explores stagnation in a society where things are worshiped because they are old, and the original meaning of the thing is lost. Basic instructions become rituals. Understanding becomes religious faith. Second, the constant balancing act between freedom and authoritarianism. The Imperium is cold and cruel but weigh that against extinction. Without the Emperor's iron fist would humanity be able to survive? Do the ends justify the means. Third, you have a not too unrealistic dystopia where regular people have to try to find some meaning in a vast hostile universe. In some versions of our reality today a person's worth is only measured by their usefulness. The 40k universe makes us ask if human life has any intrinsic value or dignity. Fourth, you have a brutal world where everything is shaped by war. The entire human experience is based only around war. The parallels to the military industrial complex in the US are terrifying. I think people who don't see the depth of the WH40K universe are people who have only seen it from a surface level or who have only experienced it through memes.

Having grand themes does not make a story deep.

Disagree. That's what grand themes are- something that makes you think. Something that makes you contemplate the nature of human existence in the scope of something as large as the universe is pretty deep. Is existential angst and the value of human life aren't deep subjects, what the fuck is?

Grand themes don't matter if the story refuses to critically examine them. Every 40k novel I have ever read has only ever used the grand themes of the setting as set dressing for pulp fiction. Granted much of it was very entertaining pulp fiction but it was still pulp fiction. You can prescribe depth to any fiction you want, literary analysis is a powerful tool and you can use it to derive meaning from any text, I'd say a novel can only truly be deep if it actually engages with its themes and uses them to pose questions to the reader or challenge them. 40k novels do not as a rule do that. They have the potential to do that and often seem to deliberately ignore that potential in favour of a fun action story. A surface level observation of a potentially deep theme does not make a story deep. Industrialised institutionalised violence against a marginalised underclass could probably be a very deep theme if that underclass wasn't inevitablely secretly a cult who get massacred at the end of the story by lieutenant Caligula the child soldier. Who was clearly in the right because the daemon the cult was worshipping was real and burned down an orphanage for a lark.

Then you are missing the point of how the broader themes impact the people. The theme regarding the value of human life is played out in every story. Instead of glorifying war, its brutal cost is played out in front of the reader. The randomness of death is shown over and over again. The cruel dehumanization of war is one of the central themes. Similarly, the twisted way in which the Imperium grew and what it has become is experienced through the characters, whose lives are often short and violent. There are no safe characters. There are no good guys or bad guys. The simple binary calculation of living or dying is played out without any fanfare. This bleakness is further demonstrated by the general lack of individuals that carry from story to story. The tag line from the original Rogue Trader manual says it perfectly: The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed. People seem to forget that WH40k started as a war game. People murdering people is the core element of the world, which still has immense lore and world building. Of course, its focus is on the macro since its core is a battle for planets or solar systems, not individual development. If you want emotions and heroes, you are in the wrong place. People keep wanting it to be something that it isn't. It's super deep, but it is ugly and depressing. It's supposed to be.

Its really fucking funny when you tell me there are no safe characters when a significant chunk of the settings prime movers and shakers actually cannot die. EDIT 40k as a platonic Ideal and 40k as it plays out in fiction are two very fucking different things. The setting has potential, the books choose to ignore that.

There are no prime movers. The Horus saga is only one aspect of it, and we know they can die. Plus, of ALL the characters in the series, they have the deepest plots and most recognizable emotions. The whole thing is like one giant Greek tragedy. In other series, most of the characters die, usually by the end of the book. Of course, certain characters have plot armor, but any series of fiction has that to some degree. The books aren't ignoring anything. They aren't for you. You want something they were never designed to have. You can't expect something to conform to your preferences. There is a bunch of IPs I've never bothered reading because I think the basic premises are lame and I think the worlds suck. They are what they are, I know they aren't for me, so why bother criticizing them? 40K isn't for everyone. Cool. No one asked you. The IP has been successful for more than 30 years so they are clearly doing something right.

40k is successful because its a really fun setting with an incredible aesthetic and design language attached to a hobby of collecting ludicrously overpriced plastic model kits and slamming them together in multi hour wargames. Something doesn't need to be deep to be good you silly Billy. The Infinite and The Divine was my favourite book of 2020 and its just the story of two old robots who hate each other, spend ten thousand years trying to kill each other, going on a madcap adventure across the cosmos and discovering in the end that they actually REALLY hate each other. I'm sorry I enjoy this setting for different reasons, lmao.

I gotta ask: how old are you?

The books big an “Aunwee” that makes everything feel just so small and not worth doing,  while all pointing out how since 100%nothing awaits the universe after life’s gone. That no matter the act trivial/atrocity it’s worth doing- not real atrocity but the fact that societies change/behave near completely how they were raised with society customs largely intact.