What is failure, and what is success? Is failure taking any loss during the expedition? Or is it only failure if the expedition as a whole fails and does not succeed?
Is success solely if there are no losses on the way to Dum, or no horrible accidents; or is it just if the expedition succeeds in some of its objectives, whether that be scouting or relieving or evacuating Karag Dum?
Does it only matter if a warmachine is lost, or is the
how and
why it was destroyed also matter?
And finally: what are the motivations and stances and mindsets of the people that would be arguing over this?
All of these matters are important. If the Zhufbar Dwarfs want to lean on their connection to the expedition, then they might be more charitable or accepting of Gotrek's contributions to the expedition. If there are some who have a personal beef with him, they might speak out; or remain silent and fume in silence. If they want to cut their losses, then... I dunno. Maybe they'll decry Gotrek as a fool, in hopes of dissuading anybody else from doing as he did. But, well... I don't think this will dissuade or discourage young engineers at all.
I think the Radical versus Traditional Engineer debate -- in so far as those debates and stances and 'factions' or 'mindsets' exist -- comes about due to... Well. Somebody looks at what happened and goes 'It wasn't a total success, therefore it was a shameful failure, therefore it was somebody's fault, therefore etc etc.' Another person looks at it and goes 'That's crazy, the destruction happened because they had to take risks in ascending up a mountain; they knew it was going to be risky and took the risks anyway, because they judged the mission worth it anyway.'
It's a matter of perspective and judgment and outlooks and so on.
But also, fame and glory will affect that too. If the Expedition is an enormous or glorious (or even bitter-sweet but glorious) success, then that will encourage certain people to speak up or to shut up one way or another.
In summary; I think Gotrek could have had a dramatic outcome way of proving his designs, but I do not think this was a dramatic outcome of a
failure of his design. (At least, not yet. Or at least, not necessarily certainly.) So, it is not necessarily a horrible outcome for a legacy -- rather its closer to status quo. The sad loss is in the lack of an extremely dramatic and indisputable success.
i.e. Gotrek's designs had a chance to win really big, if the expedition was a huge success, but Gotrek's death and one warmachine's loss is not necessarily a failure legacy-wise just yet. It'll depend on what happens a lot.
However, Dwarfs gonna Dwarf. Radicals and Traditionalists gonna Radical and Traditionalist.
It's actually worse than that. He died on the steam wagon he made, he died when it failed. To the dwarfs it's not going to look like a hero's death, though most aren't going to say it. Goreck's death is going to look like just another radical engineer dying doing radical things, a cautionary tale, one footnote among thousands, one more confirmation that the conservatives were right.
Having thought about it a bit, and... I think this only potentially (potentially rather than certainly at that!) becomes the case if the expedition decides to turn back due to the Urmskaladrak being destroyed. (Though I guess Dwarfs love arguing anyway so they might do this anyway...) Because that makes it easier to throw Gotrek under the bus, for those who care to do so. Nevermind the fact that the expedition would be turning back because we lost the Urmskaladrak's cold food storage (itself something we only have
because of Thorek's apprentice swarm installing fridges on it!) rather than because the Urmskaladrak fucked up or failed somehow.
It's only a cautionary tale if the expedition fails or turns back or if it's very blatantly the warmachine's fuckup. And in this case, I'm not a hundred percent sure the warmachine was at fault -- you take a giant tank up a possibly-treacherous mountain path, what do you
think might happen?
You can still argue over and place blame on the engineer designs though, I guess. The question is, is if the motivation to do so is there.
... Actually I guess the result could be something like the usual Radical and Conservative argument?
Traditional/Conservative Engineers argue that Gotrek died on the expedition, in his big landship, so therefore etc etc. Radicals argue that the expedition as a whole was a success, and that the failure came due to sheer freak accident, and in being forced to take giant landships over a fucking mountain; something which everybody knew was going to be risky and chancy, but which they were forced to risk
anyway because they had no real good paths to take.
The Traditional Engineers take it as proof that their designs are right and the Radical Engineers don't know what they're doing and will get them killed. The Radicals take it as proof that their designs have merit or potential, and that the Conservatives have no idea what the hell they're talking about -- and anyway, wouldn't
their designs have done even
worse if forced to take the same route, so therefore the only lesson we learned here is "don't take giant landships up a mountain, you are risking a lot if you do this" something which everybody knew already anyway but sometimes you just have to take the risk anyway.
... I guess when I say it out loud, it makes it feel like this actually isn't going to be a watershed outcome at all.
It feels like it's just going to be more of the Radical Engineer versus Traditional Engineer situation.
Radicals look at the circumstances and causes and effects and come to one conclusion. Traditionals look at them and come to another entirely. Traditionals are just going to care that he died; Moderates or Radicals or those without a dog in the fight, are probably just going to look at
why he died and
how he died and judge from there.
