Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello
i was wondering were the SM first ? or the IG because the emperor was a SM right
correct me if im wrong im pretty new to WH40k

The Emperor is a man. The most powerful psychic man ever to exist, but still a man.

He created 20 sons out of his genetic material, known as the Primarchs. From the genetic material of each of the Primarchs, he created the first legions of Space Marines (There were the Thunder Warriors before the space marines, but that's not important right now).

The Emperor used them to unite earth in his name. He then began the Great Crusade to unite the rest of the galaxy under mankind. Normal humans were organized into the Imperial Army, while space marines maintained their legions under the Primarchs.

Then the Horus Heresy happened: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Horus_Heresy#.UNkUPndkioU

Afterwards, the legions were split into hundreds of space marine chapters and the Imperial Army was split into the Imperial Guard and the Imperial Navy. So to answer your question, technically, the SM predate the IG. That said, spend some time on lexicanum as it's a good guide to learning vast amounts of 40k lore.

Welcome to 40k.

jareddm wrote:That said, spend some time on lexicanum as it's a good guide to learning vast amounts of 40k lore.

Those vast amounts are also contradictory in some important details, which has to do with 40k not having as strict a setting as some other franchises. Lexicanum is a good place to start, but ultimately, the best sources are the various books themselves. This way, you can make up your own mind and won't have to rely on a fan wiki editor trying to mix and match the various pieces of info into a shape they think makes sense.

Other than that, the post was an excellent summary and answer to OP's question. Please excuse my little interlude, 's just that I'm on a crusade when it comes to the nature of the fluff.

Lexicanum is a good place to start, but ultimately, the best sources are the various books themselves.

Append this to my last post and everything is fine.

jareddm wrote:

Lexicanum is a good place to start, but ultimately, the best sources are the various books themselves.

Append this to my last post and everything is fine.

thanks it really helped me

 Lynata wrote:

jareddm wrote:That said, spend some time on lexicanum as it's a good guide to learning vast amounts of 40k lore.

Those vast amounts are also contradictory in some important details, which has to do with 40k not having as strict a setting as some other franchises. Lexicanum is a good place to start, but ultimately, the best sources are the various books themselves. This way, you can make up your own mind and won't have to rely on a fan wiki editor trying to mix and match the various pieces of info into a shape they think makes sense.

Other than that, the post was an excellent summary and answer to OP's question. Please excuse my little interlude, 's just that I'm on a crusade when it comes to the nature of the fluff.

I learned most of what I did in my early days from Lexicanum. It's fine, and that was in 2009-2010 when it was far more outdated/smaller/uncited then it is today. There's real no contradictions besides on minor details which someone new to the setting shouldn't be concerned about anyway. The exception to this are Necrons, whose canon conflicts are noted in an out-of-universe aspect. Yes, when you're very informed on the setting those contradictions can get annoying, but this person again doesn't have to worry about that.

Harriticus wrote:Yes, when you're very informed on the setting those contradictions can get annoying, but this person again doesn't have to worry about that.

In my opinion, it's a lot better to start out with a proper impression of the setting(s) rather than one potentially falsified by individual wiki editors trying to patch together sources that were never meant to co-exist, and certainly better to understand that there is no such thing as a "uniform canon" rather than being mislead by the community - as indeed Lexicanum too does up to this very day when its participants continue to ignore the many statements we've heard from GW and BL employees alike in favour of this urban myth.

The extent of contradictions is subjective. You say they're minor, but I disagree. The really important, universally valid stuff can be gleaned from just looking at the main rulebook. Lexicanum is all about details, and when those don't match up, its purpose as a resource of information is put into question. It remains an excellent place to start your investigation as it tends to list the various sources (even though sometimes they are made up, with the actual source not saying what the editor claimed it would say), but that doesn't change that many of the articles themselves are biased by the individual interpretation of the various editors and the many, many authors of licensed material who all have their own idea of how things are.

For many years, I have listened to the majority as well and just swallowed anything Lexicanum threw at me without questioning it. I just wouldn't want anyone else to make the same mistake just because he gets told so on dakka.

I myself learned mostly from FFG's RPG books and the Lecicanum. whatever contradictions are there are not from the lex itself, but GW's so called "management style"..which IMO they have none.

First then look at the background, then read up at Lexicanum as Lynata says. It's a guideline, nothing more. Then you make up your own mind. I mean if it churns your stomach get a new POV you don't need to develop an ulcer for a simple game. Of course not everything shall be interpreted for fun, but many things can be. Just remember what you consider fun, will be what another guy's Berserk Button. The waters are incredibly murky.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Just remember what you consider fun, will be what another guy's Berserk Button. The waters are incredibly murky.

This has been true in every game I have ever played over the past 20 years. Sometimes ya just have to roll with it and do not take it personally when someone hates what you happen to like about a setting, or likes what you hate.

Hunterindarkness wrote:I myself learned mostly from FFG's RPG books and the Lecicanum. whatever contradictions are there are not from the lex itself, but GW's so called "management style"..which IMO they have none.

I think the blame, if there's any to be had, rests a little with everyone:

- GW, for not making it crystal-clear how their IP works
- the "outsourced" writers, for often not caring to make their books fit in better with the studio material
and lastly
- the fans, for simply applying canon policies from different franchises onto this one and expecting it to work out ... and this includes Lexicanum's own made-up canon policy

Right now, the community is in a dangerous sort of limbo. We've got the "owners" of the franchise unwilling to bring order into the chaos that is the many big and small deviations throughout the sources, and we've got the fans (or at least a large number of them) unwilling to recognise this. In essence, people are talking past each other, everyone sticking to their own preferred interpretation and - this is the mistake - assuming that they are right when, as Gav Thorpe once explained, actually everybody is right. It creates an endless source for heated debates about one source supposedly overriding another or people being confused as to why stuff in one book is so very different from how it was explained in another.

Not really. Canon always works the same. It is not setting dependent. It is GW job to see that people they hire to expand the setting have a setting bible and are then checked to make sure things like this do not happen. They have a very hands off "we don't fething care" approach to setting"management". The blame for not managing a setting can lay at no ones feet other then the folks who control the setting.

Hunterindarkness wrote:Canon always works the same. It is not setting dependent.

But it is. Just look at the "source priority pyramid" of Star Wars compared to Star Trek and its "hard canon <-> soft canon" differentiation. Then compare this to Battletech's "everything is canon, newer source always overrides older". And GW fits into this by having yet another approach.

Games Workshop does not want to have a canon in a sense that people would regard some source as gospel. GW wants its fans to "make the setting their own", and because of this it already comes with a lot of vagueness in the studio sources, providing ample opportunity for players - or the authors of licensed products - to fill in the blanks with their personally preferred interpretation, even going so far as publishing books that flat-out contradict the studio material, all covered under the dogma that everything is just one possible way to look at the setting, riddled with half-truths, myths and propaganda.

The error lies with the fans that assuming this is in some way a mistake. It's not. You may not like it (I don't, either, and would much prefer consistency over laissez-faire), but that does not make it "wrong" per se. It is, however, wrong to simply ignore GW's way of handling things and continueing to propagate this urban myth of a "canon", thereby misleading fans that are new to the hobby.

By now, I fear it is too late for a different way for GW to handle things, anyways. The community has become split into many different sub-groups that all prefer one of the many different origins of fluff over the others, and would surely be miffled at being forced to abandon their view.
For example - you said you learned mostly from FFG's RPGs. Would you really like to see so much of its fluff rendered invalid because it clashes with how stuff is presented in GW's own books? Deathwatch players in particular seem to enjoy their Marines being much stronger and better, and from what I recall many fans also rejoiced at "their" DW now being independent from the Inquisition.

The DW seems to be influx just like the enforcer-role in NHL. They first seemed to be the superior Space Marines that came to battling Xenos. Now they seem to be where chapters send any troublemakers their chapters can no longer swallow. Which I take both into account. I'm perfectly fine with the best Xenos-fighters in individual chapters being rebellious individuals. That is one example Lynata, but in general I prefer to find a compromise between old and new fluff. Plus with the Deathwatch then you have a flexibility you doesn't normally find in the Space Marines.

I also prefer consistency over just having everyone think of everything. A hard-coded thingy is always the best. But with GW both their strength and weakness is the same. The free-floating fluff allow fans freely to have their own versions. And that can turn really ugly when two or more worlds collide.

 Lynata wrote:

Hunterindarkness wrote:Canon always works the same. It is not setting dependent.

But it is. Just look at the "source priority pyramid" of Star Wars compared to Star Trek and its "hard canon <-> soft canon" differentiation. Then compare this to Battletech's "everything is canon, newer source always overrides older". And GW fits into this by having yet another approach.

No man it isn't. Star wars does have two, or did, expanded universe and films only( because Lucis(sp?) refused to bow down to anyone's timeline but his own). Star track also has one , battletech( which I knew very well until the whole twilight of the clans sillyness) as well or any and every setting you can name canon works the same way. GW does not manage canon at all, they do not even try. So any and all failing of fans ya know trying to keep canon lays at GW's feet for failing to manage a setting, not for fans trying to being some kind of order to the hot mess that is 40k. Warhammer is all over the place, once ya add in the BL and FW junk it simply gets worse. I myself like FFG's fluff far better then anything GW does not because of changes but because it is fething consistent.

Innovated wrote:
Hello
i was wondering were the SM first ? or the IG because the emperor was a SM right
correct me if im wrong im pretty new to WH40k

Anyways, to answer you question. It depends on if you want the technical answer or not.


I write it out and you can desided what you wanted.

Humanity is at war with each other on Earth with basic human soldiers.
The Emperor was a basic man (not a Space marine)
He tried to unify humanity on Earth
He forms his own following of servants to aid him. These would be basic humans.
With a small power base secured, he creates the first set of Space Marines "Thunder Warriors" and conquers Earth.
He then organizes the soldiers of Earth into a military force that history will record as "The Old Hundred"
He creates the modern day Space Marines and begans the Great Crusade
He creates the Imperial Army
Guilliman creates the Imperial Guard

Techincally the Space Marines came first.

In a way the Imperial Guard came first though. Depends on what you are looking for.

jareddm wrote:
The Emperor is a man. The most powerful psychic man ever to exist, but still a man.

He created 20 sons out of his genetic material, known as the Primarchs. From the genetic material of each of the Primarchs, he created the first legions of Space Marines (There were the Thunder Warriors before the space marines, but that's not important right now).

The Emperor used them to unite earth in his name. He then began the Great Crusade to unite the rest of the galaxy under mankind. Normal humans were organized into the Imperial Army, while space marines maintained their legions under the Primarchs.

Then the Horus Heresy happened: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Horus_Heresy#.UNkUPndkioU

Afterwards, the legions were split into hundreds of space marine chapters and the Imperial Army was split into the Imperial Guard and the Imperial Navy. So to answer your question, technically, the SM predate the IG. That said, spend some time on lexicanum as it's a good guide to learning vast amounts of 40k lore.

Welcome to 40k.

I think i read or heard in somewhere in that the Primarchs were created not only with DNA from the Emperor but also DNA from a bunch of different sources throught Terra. This kind of explains why they all have different specialties and such. It kind of reminds me of the old GI Joe cartoon when Cobra is trying to create Serpentor and they have to harvest genetic material from a bunch of different warriors throughout history so as to make him super badass. Now that i think about it i believe it is mentioned in the audio Drama Ravens Flight, as a flash back Corax has while unconsious .

Beaviz81 wrote:They first seemed to be the superior Space Marines that came to battling Xenos. Now they seem to be where chapters send any troublemakers their chapters can no longer swallow.

I admit I've never heard of the latter. Is that from some BL novel?
The "two Deathwatches" from GW and FFG differ on a lot of things, but in both cases the Space Marines in it are elite anti-xenos specialists and it comes across like a honour to be sent on this mission.
That being said, I suppose it could well be Chapter-dependent - meaning that one Chapter Master would sent only his best so as to not besmudge his Chapter's reputation, whereas another just wants to get rid of a troublemaker. Kind of like with the Imperial Guard, where one world raises its regiments by holding big contests and only allowing the best to join, whereas another government regards it as a convenient opportunity to get rid of a couple thousand criminals.

Hunterindarkness wrote:No man it isn't. Star wars does have two, or did, expanded universe and films only( because Lucis(sp?) refused to bow down to anyone's timeline but his own). Star track also has one , battletech( which I knew very well until the whole twilight of the clans sillyness) as well or any and every setting you can name canon works the same way.

Here is an explanation of the different levels of canon in Star Wars. Star Trek differentiates between movies ("hard canon") and everything else ("soft canon") as per the personal wish of Gene Roddenberry. Battletech is actually an exception from the franchises I know that truly allow everything to be canon.

You as the individual gamer are perfectly free to treat 40k similar to Star Wars and Star Trek and simply declare GW fluff to be above anything else, as this is the studio that will spearhead the continueing development of the franchise, regardless of what anyone else may come up with. It's what I do (plus adding things from non-studio sources where I think they are cool and fit right in with the rest). The only difference is that it's a personal choice and that you cannot expect anyone else to abide by it, as it's not some kind of official "law" but simply your own interpretation. I've found this to be a great help in ordering things, though.

Hunterindarkness wrote:I myself like FFG's fluff far better then anything GW does not because of changes but because it is fething consistent.

But it isn't. Not compared to what GW has established, and not internally.
Keep in mind that the people at GW began to create this setting more than 20 years ago and it becomes less surprising that some things have changed over time. I've found it to be far more consistent than is commonly assumed, though. Most deviations spring into existence because the author of some outsourced book either didn't do his research or simply liked his idea more than what was already there.

So whats your saying is star track and star wars work then same way with canon . Battletech is not all that odd really, its all canon as they control the story. they assign what stories to write and have tech bibles to go on( or did back in the hey day) they craft the over all story and assign folks to fill it out based on that. BT is a prime example of how most game settings work.

On the FFG stuff, yeah its Consistent within it self. Even GW is not Consistent with what it established because it has established, nothing man. I know the age of the game and that makes the pussy footing around of the people in charge worse if ya ask me. 6th edition for example or 5th or 4th for that matter could have been used to bring everything in ling. It was not and it still is not. More the Pity really.

Two words Lynata. Uriel Ventris. Graham McNeill actually started that fashion were Space Marines that somehow errs in the eyes of the chapter is sent away to the Deathwatch.

 Beaviz81 wrote:
Two words Lynata. Uriel Ventris. Graham McNeill actually started that fashion were Space Marines that somehow errs in the eyes of the chapter is sent away to the Deathwatch.

But that's not the only reason. Some chapters may not have good standings with the Inquisition, but continue to send marines to the Deathwatch to make sure that standing doesn't worsen. So they use it as either a dumping ground or effectively draw straws to see who goes. How and why marines get sent to the Deathwatch is entirely up to the chapter. Only that they get sent is what's important.

I never protested that. And even reasons within a chapter shall vary. I will go even farther than you and say the individual Space Marine's reasons for service at the Deathwatch is as varied as the various Space Marine Chapters.

Beaviz81 wrote:Two words Lynata. Uriel Ventris. Graham McNeill actually started that fashion were Space Marines that somehow errs in the eyes of the chapter is sent away to the Deathwatch.

Ah, so a Black Library novel, then.
Well, it changes little on how GW (or FFG, for that matter) portray the Deathwatch in their material. Though like I said, I think it's not even actually contradictory. One or two Chapters sending their losers doesn't change the standard for the rest, after all.

Hunterindarkness wrote:So whats your saying is star track and star wars work then same way with canon .

Yes and no. Star Wars has multiple levels, as shown. Star Trek, on the other hand, treats anything but the shows the same. It's all in the links I posted.

Hunterindarkness wrote:BT is a prime example of how most game settings work.

It does seem to depend on the size, though, doesn't it? The larger an IP gets, the more people get involved in writing for it, and the greater the chance gets that someone produces something that doesn't really fit in with something else. It's the age-old adage of "too many cooks".
Looking at major game settings - 40k, SW, Trek, Warcraft, ... maybe it's that I don't know that many major franchises, but to me, Battletech stands out (in a positive way) in actually enforcing canonicity throughout all its products.

Hunterindarkness wrote:On the FFG stuff, yeah its Consistent within it self.

I suppose that depends on how you define consistency. For example, any and all las pistols and lasguns getting charge sliders in Only War - based on fans lobbying for this on their forums and quite opposed to how these weapons originally worked in OW's beta or the other games - does not bode well for the future.
I could also point towards the drastic changes in elite Imperial force garrisons in the Calixis sector when comparing Dark Heresy's Core Rulebook and Inquisitor's Handbook to later publications, but in this case the former two were still written by the guys at Black Industries. I suppose one thus cannot fault FFG for going different ways, even if it invalidates part of the product line that they have gained control of. Oh, and the same goes for the changes made to the Adepta Sororitas from IH to BoM, of course.

Hunterindarkness wrote:Even GW is not Consistent with what it established because it has established, nothing man.

That's a joke, right? More than 20 years of fluff would disagree with you there.