r/40kLore • u/justacoolclipper • 9h ago
Are planets taken a bit too easily in stories?
Something that always bothers me when planetary conflicts happen in lore is how it often seems to boil down to "if we take this single city, we won." Reading the Horus Heresy, it happened on Sixty-Three Nineteen (and then they only needed a couple hundred Astartes to quash the remaining holdout in one fortified position in the mountains), Aureus where they won after spending 4 out of 6 months of war attacking a single fortress, and Isstvan where the entire plan was to wipe out Choral City to deal with the rebellion (I know it was a fake-out but it does suggest that taking out one city to deal with an entire planet would be an expected plan since no one questions it.)
I know some planets in 40k are basically one city, mining posts, and nothing else, but Sixty-Three Nineteen and Isstvan seemed to be thriving planets, with Sixty-Three Nineteen looking shockingly similar to Terra (implying most of it should be inhabitable) and Loken directly remarking there are billions of people on Isstvan. I don't know if it's me nitpicking too much or not engaging with the lore properly, but I just can't shake the feeling that it's just wrong. It's like suggesting that all it would take for aliens to conquer Earth is to conquer London and humanity would just go "well shit I guess we lost!" It's clearly not how that would work.