I really like the HH series published by Black Library. I haven't read all of them, I'm up to book 7 "Legion."

So far my favorite book has been "Fulgrim" for its detailed look into the plunge to darkness and excess the Legion of the Emperor's Children took.

But I have noticed the series drag quite a lot. There's a lot of books to go for me. I kinda just wish BL would simply put the series to an end soon, its not like we don't already know what happens. But, alas, the cash cow needs milking, so I can see why they would drag on.

What's your opinion on this? Favorite book of the series?

I'm the opposite, I hope it keeps going.

Some books are wayward for want of a better word, but for me personally it was a White Dwarf with the huge games day siege of the emperors palace that got me into gaming in the first place.

There are twenty legions worth of history and character to explore and seeing the tragedy and scheming of things when we all know what happens is just great to read.

Thousand Sons, Prospero Burns and Angel Exterminatus are really good.

The series was promising, but over the last year due to the degrading of BL, its basically stalled to a halt and what does come out are small, limited edition overpriced novellas. Real shame what GW did to the series, considering at a time they were bestsellers.

I'm kind of the in the middle between an amazing series and it should end...

it happens to best of series...or shows..for instance we'll take Deal or No Deal which was a top rated show..everyone loved it..something new and shiny
the First few books delved into a history we only knew snippets about for the most part...myth and legends

but now like Deal or no Deal we're getting a glut of books...every day we see the show...(every month we see a new book) so it's becoming less shiny and more watery so to speak

which is a shame..and I agree..Fulgrim..best book..and the reason I love Slaanesh so much is that I find Slaanesh is the most complex of the four chaos gods...there's a fine line between love, hate and madness
and Fulgrim and Sigvald have done Slaanesh and their respective characters a great justice in that regard in my humble opinion

After the opening trilogy, I made the mistake of just reading whatever book I wanted to next, it was okay at first, but I started to realise I was missing parts, so I've started to go back to ones I've missed. Just finished Flight of the Eisenstein and I'm gutted I never read it earlier, but now I'm on Fulgrim and I just can't get into it.

My two favourites so far though are Know no Fear and Betrayer, with Fear to Tread coming up a close third. A Thousand Sons is good too, but I think it's a little overrated.

They need to quit with all the UM WE SW DA BA books.
Add Salamanders, Iron Hands, and White scars

in the name of the Emporer, retcon Dorns death, keep the series even, stop killing all the loyalist primarchs half the fun in their existence is speculating what would happen if they came out of hiding.

Show the less known legions some, the great crusade still has yet to really be fleshed out.

I really hope it keeps going. The first few books were great, then it stalled a bit with the 2 dark angels books, but it has picked right up again now.

Overall, my top five books would be Angel Exterminatus, then Fear to Tread, A thousand sons, prospero burns and then legion. All of those book were simply excellent.

I love the series.. Though yes,.. at times the pace seems to slow down..

The pro's far outweight the cons nowadays..

you get to experience first hand how those involved experienced the heresy.. Not all chaos turned legions did so willingly, some were tricked etc. Besides getting to
know the primarchs you get to experience the feel of the legions. Which are so much alike yet so different..

The biggest con in my opinion is that you get pulled forwards and backwards in to time,.. a novel 10 books away could take place before Horus rising and such... might be confusing from time to time.

Also the books that pretty much have very little astartes action in them seem to interest me less,.. like the civil war on mars for example..

I also miss the mass SM vs Orky goodness,.. though that is to be expected, since it focusess around Loyalist vs Traitors..

I am currently reading Fallen Angels,.. which i like very much since i like the ideals and customs of the Dark Angels.

Descent of Angles
Horus Rising
Flight of the Eisenstein
Fulgrim
Legion

My top 5 thus far of the Horus heresy Novels.

I loved the DA novels, but I would have to say that i preferred the first 4 novels. Galaxy in Flames remains one of my favorite books ever.

The first four, and out of them it's a close one between galaxy in flames and flight of einstien. That's ok thought as they intermingle and add to each other any how. Plus fulgrim, but only for the drop site mass-ik-ker and when fulgrim and like 5 or 6 guys holds back an entire craft world. Awesome.

God, the Dark Angel novels were terrible. They read like bad fan fiction, and put me off 40k for a half-decade.

They were that bad.

From what I understand, you're better off reading the Horus Heresy by author, because it's really a mixed bag. Most anything by Aaron Dembski-Bowden, Dan Abnett, Sandy Mitchell, and the ones who are known for putting out a good story are bound to be a good read.

Beyond that, I've been told that the books surrounding the Nightlords and the Fall of Prospero are particularly good.

Sandy Mitchell hasn't written any HH books, last I checked.

Graham McNeill is generally pretty on the ball, with a few slip-ups, but frankly I prefer him to Abnett or ADB.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Sandy Mitchell hasn't written any HH books, last I checked.

Graham McNeill is generally pretty on the ball, with a few slip-ups, but frankly I prefer him to Abnett or ADB.

HH isn't my usual kick, I was just throwing out names to look for. As for Graham, I do love his Iron Warriors stuff, but the vast majority of Abnett's work that I've read is damn wonderful, and ADB did a stellar job with Helsreach.

Abnett can't write an ending to save his fething life IMHO, has made some blunders in the past, and as for ADB, I'd rather not get into it.

I think it's a horrible series.
The first few books were OK (Fulgrim is my favorite, so far), but as the series drifted further and further apart from established background, I've become more and more disenfranchised with it to the point where I now actively loathe it.

My personal favourites are A Thousand Sons, Legion and The First Heretic.

The original trilogy and Fulgrim were good too though.

I haven't read the Dark Angel ones and Prospero Burns was so-so imo.

I also enjoyed Flight of the Eisenstein and Nemesis, but they aren't the best ones in the series.

Those books have had pretty solid reveiws and i will give you my honest opinion when im done with them.

It's a hit-or-miss series, but I think there are currently more hits than misses. Some of them have surprised me as well. I thought I'd hate Battle for the Abyss, but ended up liking it a great deal.

I tend to agree that they need to get moving on it, though. As much as I liked Abyss, and even Outcast Dead, they add nothing at all to the story and seem like filler. We've also got a few legions that have had almost no face-time whatsoever, whereas others are already up to three full books.

 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:
I love the series.. Though yes,.. at times the pace seems to slow down..

The pro's far outweight the cons nowadays..

you get to experience first hand how those involved experienced the heresy.. Not all chaos turned legions did so willingly, some were tricked etc. Besides getting to
know the primarchs you get to experience the feel of the legions. Which are so much alike yet so different..

The biggest con in my opinion is that you get pulled forwards and backwards in to time,.. a novel 10 books away could take place before Horus rising and such... might be confusing from time to time.

Also the books that pretty much have very little astartes action in them seem to interest me less,.. like the civil war on mars for example..

I also miss the mass SM vs Orky goodness,.. though that is to be expected, since it focusess around Loyalist vs Traitors..

I am currently reading Fallen Angels,.. which i like very much since i like the ideals and customs of the Dark Angels.

Descent of Angles
Horus Rising
Flight of the Eisenstein
Fulgrim
Legion

My top 5 thus far of the Horus heresy Novels.

I'm the opposite myself, I want more non-Astartes stuff. I don't even see why the Marines get the big billing to be honest, if the Army, Mechanicum, and Titan Legions hadn't joined in the Heresy as well, the Traitor Legions would have been squashed like bugs. Sure, in stories which feature the Primarchs the Marines should be the primary supporting cast, but the best Heresy books are the ones largely written from the perspective of ordinary humans; Mechanicum and Legion.

Im currently reading Betrayer, but my favourite book has to be A Thousand Sons and my favourite short story was Savage Weapons its just awesome. I love the Horus Heresy series I wish we could see a new Dark Angels book because since Fallen Angels all DA have had is short stories. I would also like to see a book where The Emperor is one of the major characters in it, I get excited when i read a bit where The Emperor involved he is just so cool!!!

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:
I love the series.. Though yes,.. at times the pace seems to slow down..

The pro's far outweight the cons nowadays..

you get to experience first hand how those involved experienced the heresy.. Not all chaos turned legions did so willingly, some were tricked etc. Besides getting to
know the primarchs you get to experience the feel of the legions. Which are so much alike yet so different..

The biggest con in my opinion is that you get pulled forwards and backwards in to time,.. a novel 10 books away could take place before Horus rising and such... might be confusing from time to time.

Also the books that pretty much have very little astartes action in them seem to interest me less,.. like the civil war on mars for example..

I also miss the mass SM vs Orky goodness,.. though that is to be expected, since it focusess around Loyalist vs Traitors..

I am currently reading Fallen Angels,.. which i like very much since i like the ideals and customs of the Dark Angels.

Descent of Angles
Horus Rising
Flight of the Eisenstein
Fulgrim
Legion

My top 5 thus far of the Horus heresy Novels.

I'm the opposite myself, I want more non-Astartes stuff. I don't even see why the Marines get the big billing to be honest, if the Army, Mechanicum, and Titan Legions hadn't joined in the Heresy as well, the Traitor Legions would have been squashed like bugs. Sure, in stories which feature the Primarchs the Marines should be the primary supporting cast, but the best Heresy books are the ones largely written from the perspective of ordinary humans; Mechanicum and Legion.

I can see definately see your point! Everything looks so much more scary and threathening from ordinary humans perspective! Though a Space marine trashing up the place is so much more fun to read Normal humans generaly dont do that much of amazing stuff When they do im like, wtfomgnoes!

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:


So far my favorite book has been "Fulgrim" for its detailed look into the plunge to darkness and excess the Legion of the Emperor's Children took.

But I have noticed the series drag quite a lot. There's a lot of books to go for me. I kinda just wish BL would simply put the series to an end soon, its not like we don't already know what happens. But, alas, the cash cow needs milking, so I can see why they would drag on.

This is like, so true, that I would by you a barrel of ale for this comment...
I call it "watering down the story, and milking the money (insert *primarch fights attract fanboys*).....

Mcneil is fething genius with "a Thousand sons", but he has a way of writing (or a pattern) which repeats constantly....Dan is great - if you dig Abnettverse, ADB WAS great with the NL triolgy, but sheer number of fanboism around him is getting on my nerves....

There have been some real turkeys in the HH series and some decent but not great science fiction. The quality of the best HH books can be measured against the usual 40k fare or against really good science fiction. Some of the HH books are miles better than the usual 40k stuff but none of it is going to ever be considered among the top science fiction books.

Now this is not to say the books arent really enjoyable for 40k fans, far from it. However the series has been dragged out too long. For one thing they have really expanded the time it took Horus to get to Earth after the drop site massacre in comparison to the original background material.

 DarthMarko wrote:

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:


So far my favorite book has been "Fulgrim" for its detailed look into the plunge to darkness and excess the Legion of the Emperor's Children took.

But I have noticed the series drag quite a lot. There's a lot of books to go for me. I kinda just wish BL would simply put the series to an end soon, its not like we don't already know what happens. But, alas, the cash cow needs milking, so I can see why they would drag on.

This is like, so true, that I would by you a barrel of ale for this comment...
I call it "watering down the story, and milking the money (insert *primarch fights attract fanboys*).....

Mcneil is fething genius with "a Thousand sons", but he has a way of writing (or a pattern) which repeats constantly....Dan is great - if you dig Abnettverse, ADB WAS great with the NL triolgy, but sheer number of fanboism around him is getting on my nerves....

I'll take you up on that offer, mate lol to the pub we go!
Yes, I do agree that McNeil has a superb talent, and Dan is like the father of BL.

 DarthMarko wrote:
This is like, so true, that I would by you a barrel of ale for this comment...
I call it "watering down the story, and milking the money (insert *primarch fights attract fanboys*).....

Mcneil is fething genius with "a Thousand sons", but he has a way of writing (or a pattern) which repeats constantly....Dan is great - if you dig Abnettverse, ADB WAS great with the NL triolgy, but sheer number of fanboism around him is getting on my nerves....

Fanboyism?

ADB pisses me off because he doesn't seem to care about keeping established characters consistent with their former portrayals, such as the Lion or Magnus the Red.

That Magnus whining about not being sure if he should join the Heresy is still a plot point is ridiculous, the entire point of the end of A Thousand Sons is that he has become resigned to the fate laid out for him by the Changer of Ways.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
This is like, so true, that I would by you a barrel of ale for this comment...
I call it "watering down the story, and milking the money (insert *primarch fights attract fanboys*).....

Mcneil is fething genius with "a Thousand sons", but he has a way of writing (or a pattern) which repeats constantly....Dan is great - if you dig Abnettverse, ADB WAS great with the NL triolgy, but sheer number of fanboism around him is getting on my nerves....

Fanboyism?

ADB pisses me off because he doesn't seem to care about keeping established characters consistent with their former portrayals, such as the Lion or Magnus the Red.

That Magnus whining about not being sure if he should join the Heresy is still a plot point is ridiculous, the entire point of the end of A Thousand Sons is that he has become resigned to the fate laid out for him by the Changer of Ways.

If you take a closer look at his writing (analytically) lately, it always contains a lot of primarchs brawls (fanboys dig that), and a grimdark pattern.....

O don't get me started with this heresy about Magnus - I was also whaaaaat, isn't Magnus cornered ? I was gonna tease you about this:-), because all your posts about TS are based on Mcneills ending.....:-)

Also don't get me started about Russ :-) Him teaching Angron somekind of lesson (which he still doesn't understands) and quoting the book of Lorgar?

I only read the first 4 hh novels, and the first heretic.
And for some reason I wasn't to fond of the 1st 3 books, Loken never really "clicked" with me as a character.

However, I thought The Flight of Eisenstein and The First Heretic were great, especially the First Heretic.

Oh yah, now about if I think they should end, well I guess i can't really say anything now because I haven't read any of the newer books and so don't know if their quality has gone down, but if they are still good, they should keep going.

However, I wouldn't want them to constantly put off the end of the heresy. Maybe they could write a book about the final battle, and then still go back to previous events.

Remulus wrote:
I only read the first 4 hh novels, and the first heretic.
And for some reason I wasn't to fond of the 1st 3 books, Loken never really "clicked" with me as a character.

However, I thought The Flight of Eisenhorn and The First Heretic were great, especially the First Heretic.

Oh yah, now about if I think they should end, well I guess i can't really say anything now because I haven't read any of the newer books and so don't know if their quality has gone down, but if they are still good, they should keep going.

However, I wouldn't want them to constantly put off the end of the heresy. Maybe they could write a book about the final battle, and then still go back to previous events.

Flight of the EISENSTEIN, my dear friend, though no harm done, just wanted to point it out. And yes, Loken did feel a little lacking in comparison to some of the other characters in the series, yet he is an essential mention and piece of the series, especially regarding Garro and the future of the Imperium.

I really find this talk about Abnettverse stupid. For all intents and purposes it is a part of official 40k fluff and shows events that happen in the 40k galaxy. Inconsistencies can simply be chalked up to it being a large galaxy and thus things are not the same everywhere.

... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
- Marc Gascoigne

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
- Marc Gascoigne

about what exactly?

We are seeing the events that lead up to and allowed the HH to happen. Or are you saying the HH never happened cause its all legend?

Oh no, I would certainly assume the Heresy itself happened, as this is a universally acknowledged aspect of the setting regardless of where you look. Perhaps is just not happened exactly the way a certain novel describes it to you. That is really all that Mr. Gascoigne's quote (full version here) amounts to. It is GW's explanation for any sort of inconsistencies between the official material, including the "Abnettverse".

 Lynata wrote:
Oh no, I would certainly assume the Heresy itself happened, as this is a universally acknowledged aspect of the setting regardless of where you look. Perhaps is just not happened exactly the way a certain novel describes it to you. That is really all that Mr. Gascoigne's quote (full version here) amounts to. It is GW's explanation for any sort of inconsistencies between the official material, including the "Abnettverse".

From the perspective of GW, there is no such thing as Abnettverse. Its just created by people who endlessly complain about consistency.

It is created by the people who write the books you read. Your refusal to accept this will not change the statements of said writers - which you have surely seen often enough by now.
I'm sorry, but I'll be taking the word of a Gav Thorpe over yours any day when it comes to how Games Workshop operates.

I guess that between the two of us, we can only agree to disagree, but I still feel it is important to at least make the public aware of citations such as the one posted above. Especially as they explain why talk about the Abnettverse is not "stupid", given that an author's interpretation of the setting can and will make a novel either more fun or less fun to read for a fan, all depending on how much their ideas overlap.

 Lynata wrote:
It is created by the people who write the books you read. Your refusal to accept this will not change the statements of said writers - which you have surely seen often enough by now.
I'm sorry, but I'll be taking the word of a Gav Thorpe over yours any day when it comes to how Games Workshop operates.

I guess that between the two of us, we can only agree to disagree, but I still feel it is important to at least make the public aware of citations such as the one posted above. Especially as they explain why talk about the Abnettverse is not "stupid", given that an author's interpretation of the setting can and will make a novel either more fun or less fun to read for a fan, all depending on how much their ideas overlap.

That there is no canon. Everyone already knows this. Its up to a person on how they see the 40k verse. I've known about that already and have known this before you and your quote spam came along. I actually don't read the BL novels. Its the rpg's for me.

The author adds things to the verse. I never denied that. But the complaining about the additions are irrelevant as they are accepted by GW and are thus official fluff. This is what I've been saying all along.

I guess one of us has a talent for not expressing what they actually wish to convey, then.

Still, what's wrong with complaints? An author's interpretation of the setting is just as valid a criteria to judge a novel by as his or her writing skill or their creativity with characters and plot are, or the pace and theme of the product. We all like different things, and negative comments, if expressed in a manner explaining the user's issues with the book, can help a fellow reader in choosing their next purchase just as much as positive comments do. One man's bestseller is another's worst book ever - and vice versa.
That, and of course it's a human thing to vent frustration over disappointed expectations.

I have a feeling this is becoming very off-topic, though, so let's better stop. I originally just wanted to throw in a quick counterpoint to what I perceived was a suggestion that the various novels supposedly "depict things as they happened" rather than just one possible version of the tale.

 Lynata wrote:
I guess one of us has a talent for not expressing what they actually wish to convey, then.

English is not my first language. Sorry.

I have a feeling this is becoming very off-topic, though, so let's better stop. I originally just wanted to provide a counterpoint to what I perceived was a suggestion that the various novels supposedly "depict things as they happened" rather than just one possible version of the tale.

Sure.

Agree with you Reznov, Abnett is a fething awesome writer, maybe the best.....
Those who don't understand or appreciate his style of writing should stick to Gav or ADB ....It's more simplistic, I dare to say....
I'mean the guy wroted "Prospero burnes" from the 13th warrior perspective, which was a beautiful book IMHO - and the people were bitching how there isn't much about burning???

Abnett relies too much on tried and tired action movie clichés, plot armour, and can't write endings.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Abnett relies too much on tried and tired action movie clichés, plot armour, and can't write endings.

You mean like every freaking BL author ???

I can truly say that I've only read the Shira Calpurnia books. Thats the only thing of BL I've read.

 DarthMarko wrote:
You mean like every freaking BL author ???

None to nearly the same extent of Abnett.

I don't recall the Iron Hands being rendered into guardsmen against the Emperor's Children, like the Word Bearers were against the Ultramarines in Know No Fear.

Well, to me, Abnett writes the books like he does comics....Simple, deep and with a big word count IMHO....But still, I think he is the best BL writer alongside Gav Thorpe......kidding on the latter

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:

Remulus wrote:
I only read the first 4 hh novels, and the first heretic.
And for some reason I wasn't to fond of the 1st 3 books, Loken never really "clicked" with me as a character.

However, I thought The Flight of Eisenhorn and The First Heretic were great, especially the First Heretic.

Oh yah, now about if I think they should end, well I guess i can't really say anything now because I haven't read any of the newer books and so don't know if their quality has gone down, but if they are still good, they should keep going.

However, I wouldn't want them to constantly put off the end of the heresy. Maybe they could write a book about the final battle, and then still go back to previous events.

Flight of the EISENSTEIN, my dear friend, though no harm done, just wanted to point it out. And yes, Loken did feel a little lacking in comparison to some of the other characters in the series, yet he is an essential mention and piece of the series, especially regarding Garro and the future of the Imperium.

That novel was soooooo awesome He pretty much have the Imperium somewhat of a fighting chance along with Garro. The Imperium might have fallen without their heads up...

Corporal_Reznov wrote:
I can truly say that I've only read the Shira Calpurnia books. Thats the only thing of BL I've read.

No wonder you haven't read any others.

I read a lot of things, some good, some bad. But it's a rare day that I can't make it through a simple chapter without falling asleep. I picked up Enforcer 6 months ago. About once a week I read another 2 or 3 pages before being completely bored to tears. In that time I've read about 30 other novels.

If nothing else, it is a cure for insomnia.

clively wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:
I can truly say that I've only read the Shira Calpurnia books. Thats the only thing of BL I've read.

No wonder you haven't read any others.

I read a lot of things, some good, some bad. But it's a rare day that I can't make it through a simple chapter without falling asleep. I picked up Enforcer 6 months ago. About once a week I read another 2 or 3 pages before being completely bored to tears. In that time I've read about 30 other novels.

If nothing else, it is a cure for insomnia.

Its not that really. I had finished the Shira Calpurnia series and before I could get any other BL books I got hooked onto FFG 40k fluff. I've been reading those ever since. I have recently started branching out by getting my hands on BL audio books and drama's though.

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

Agreed.



Edit: Regarding the idea that the series is being dragged out, apparently several authors have said we're about halfway through the series.

Manchu wrote:Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

The very writers of the novels you are referring to seem to disagree with that assessment, as does the statement Marc Gascoigne gave in his position as head editor of the Black Library. You've seen that explanation, and you've seen ADB's posts when you were argueing with him here on dakka.
If you like to see those novels as The One True Account, then that is your choice (we all like to pick our version of the truth) - but not something they are intended to represent. Anything else really just comes down to a state of denial. If anyone is in the position to determine the official status of a product, it is its publisher and/or its creator, not the individual reader (meaning, you).

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

Pretty much. There's too much a level of first-person detail for it to be believable "legend" anymore. Visions of Heresy was something you could buy into just being a myth. But two ship ensigns talking about Servitors malfunctioning doesn't come off as such.

 Harriticus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
... Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Some parts of the 40k setting are written as possible legend/distorted history/propaganda. Almost all of the BL novels do not fit into this category.

Pretty much. There's too much a level of first-person detail for it to be believable "legend" anymore.

That's how I see it too. So when Talos says he saw Curze's decapitated head and describes the Night Lords' mad-rush afterwards, I take it as the truth.

What pisses me off really is inconsistency through HH...
I'mean primarchs are somewhat sacred (to me), but bouncing them from author to author, makes them rather shallow and contradicting.....

 Lynata wrote:
The very writers of the novels you are referring to seem to disagree with that assessment

Stylistically, no they don't. The HH novels are written in third person narrative, fluctuating between limited and omniscient perspective. The narrative is almost always the action itself rather than an account of action.

 Just Dave wrote:
So when Talos says he saw Curze's decapitated head and describes the Night Lords' mad-rush afterwards, I take it as the truth.

That's not quite what I mean. There is a distinction between credibility of account and accuracy and/of narration. What "Talos says" could be true, not true, credible, or incredible. What Aaron Dembski-Bowden narrates Talos doing or feeling at any given moment is simply true unless otherwise stated in the narrative (e.g., "it was all a dream").

Manchu wrote:Stylistically, no they don't.

You keep telling yourself that, yet all this amounts to is how you wish it were, and you remain in conflict with what the creator of the content you cling to has declared. The style in which the narration is delivered is entirely irrelevant if the writer says it is just one of many possibilities. The tale of Hansel & Gretel is "written in third person narrative" as well, "fluctuating between limited and omniscient perspective", yet that doesn't make it any more true. Same about the Bible, or at least some versions of it.

"remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate"
"anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths"

The "we are reporting back from a time" line may be important, as it renders the fiction ... fiction. Almost as if that book you hold in your hands is an in-universe product. Or perhaps rather as if the author would exist both in the 41st millennium as well as the real world. It is "a lens through which we can see the setting", as it's been said. Can, not must.
This is really the only way to explain the multitude of contradictions we see throughout the many sources of fluff, too. Stuff like a Primarch's hair being one colour in one HH novel, and of another in the next, for example. Some of it can be ignored or explained away, but it gets so much easier once we recognise that it's really all about cherrypicking possibilities.

You already had this debate with Aaron Dembski-Bowden himself, who worked on this very novel series. I won't claim to be better informed than him. If a conversation with the author himself was not enough (although you did seem to be convinced back then, albeit somewhat sulky), then I guess there's nothing that I could do about it. I do remain confused, however, as to how this is all supposed to fit together in your mind. Surely you must be aware of the contradiction between your position and that of the very management of the franchise by now?

 Lynata wrote:
The "we are reporting back from a time" line may be important, as it renders the fiction ... fiction. Almost as if that book you hold in your hands is an in-universe product.

The HH novels are clearly not accounts from an in-setting perspective. This is one of the reason's I told Aaron personally that I thought his blog post on this subject was critically bankrupt.

 Manchu wrote:
Even clarified here to myself and Lynata, I still think it's bollocks. You yourself just posted that GW is intentionally vague about this "everything/nothing is canon" mentality, going so far as to scold you for even discussing it -- and yet at the same time, you insist this is more than a business scheme.

The position these guys keep taking is a marketing position. It's a lack of commitment to the product being sold. It has nothing to do with how the books are actually written. Abnett, McNeill, and Dembski-Bowden are not "reporting" on anything. (The idea that "repoting" is what makes something fiction is nonsense.) They are telling a story. That story, written in the style they (and/or their editors) have chosen, exists only in its telling. The line "Horus glared at Angron" is not one possible interpretation -- it is the "fact" of the matter. The narration is the place where the action exists; it is NOT an account or report of the action.

Personally I'm getting fed up with the recent spate of digital-only/hardcover-only/trade-size only volumes. That needs to come to a screeching halt.

I have enjoyed most of the series, despite the wild variance in writing quality and the not-infrequent time-line inconsistencies. My faves so far include A Thousand Sons, Fulgrim, Mechanicum and Flight of the Eisenstein.

Manchu wrote:The HH novels are clearly not accounts from an in-setting perspective.

No, but they are fiction that should apparently be treated as fiction, not some sort of live-feed.
We both know that clear contradictions exist - sometimes even deliberately so - which means they cannot possibly be "fact". And if they are not fact, who says that the rest of the book is? Once you acknowledge the existence of faulty information, accuracy as a whole is called into question, at least when you are defending a position like "it's 100% true". And not just for that one source but for the entire medium.

The issue can only be resolved by retcon or by acknowledging deviating interpretations. And like it or not, but GW opted for the latter. It is easier to manage and allows the authors greater artistic licence - and according to Gav Thorpe, it even allows us as gamers to treat our own ideas with the very same validity as any official product.
Quite a large number of popular novels may have never seen the light of day would the studio truly enforce a policy similar to the one of, say, Battletech. And who knows which changes would have been enacted on the Horus Heresy books.

You know me; I'm a huge addict to consistency when it comes to settings as well, as I think it ultimately results in a richter experience. But there is no use in wilfully denying what we're being told by the people who write that stuff. We have to come to terms with the situation. It took me quite a while, but I think I've managed now, in spite of the expressions of disappointment I'm still throwing around when topics I feel passionate about are coming up.

Contradiction exists because some combination of the authors and editors are not concerned with/not doing a good job with consistency. It does not indicate that the HH novels are a biased "account" among other possible accounts of the events. The narrative style all of them use, however, indicates that what we are reading is indeed "what is happening" in the story -- i.e., there is not some other, equally valid story describing the same events.

When you admit that what the books are telling us depends on the individual author, then there is no overarching accuracy and - indeed - the reports are biased depending on the individual writer and their preference for the various elements of storytelling. In terms of content and representation, something like, say, plot armour is exactly the same as the degree of consistency.

You've got to realise how this debate looks to me.
Author: "My book shows a possibility."
You: "No! Your book shows the truth!"

Third person narrative is not used to suggest that a story is only one possible account of many. There are literary devices that do that. The authors of the HH series almost never use them and never use them in the course of the main narrative. (They show up in things like, for example, faux quotations.)

There is a corporate policy that "canon" is not a topic to even worry about. Even ADB said he got in trouble for talking about the concept publicly (and then hastily retracted that statement).

So you've got employees and contract writers spouting the corporate policy that cannot account for the stylistic choice.

 Lynata wrote:
This is really the only way to explain the multitude of contradictions we see throughout the many sources of fluff, too. Stuff like a Primarch's hair being one colour in one HH novel, and of another in the next, for example.

Because hair dye couldn't explain that.

I just find it really interesting that out of all examples, this is the one you opted for.

Manchu wrote:Third person narrative is not used to suggest that a story is only one possible account of many.

No. It is used to write cool stories that are entertaining.
And novels are also not a medium used to suggest that something is an accurate historical portrayal.

The fact remains that we have the authors themselves telling us what these stories are supposed to express. You can't just take their creations and declare them to be something different, completely dismissing intent.
And even if that intent would not be clear, you don't really believe that this "stylistic choice" has been made based on concerns regarding historical validity rather than simply traditional storytelling (established standards) and thus sales... do you? Especially given how you just ranted about marketing?

Void__Dragon wrote:I just find it really interesting that out of all examples, this is the one you opted for.

Indeed. I just wanted to mention one that would fit into the thread, and my knowledge of novel contradictions is based largely on the snippets I'm picking up on dakka.
At times it can be difficult to find examples that are not explainable by simply pointing to the old "it's a big universe" cop-out (which is often valid, actually, just not in as many cases as this card gets pulled imho).

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
This is really the only way to explain the multitude of contradictions we see throughout the many sources of fluff, too. Stuff like a Primarch's hair being one colour in one HH novel, and of another in the next, for example.

Because hair dye couldn't explain that.

I just find it really interesting that out of all examples, this is the one you opted for.

Agree, like this isn't even a contradiction....Contradicting actions which shape the galaxy is my objection....

Granted, I suppose we just have different ideas of the Primarchs and their concerns if you think cosmetics are more likely an explanation than a simple writer's mistake.

I mean, if it was Fulgrim I could understand, but ...

Fulgrim and Sanguinius have always competed for the prestigious title of "Teh Bishie Hawtness".

 Lynata wrote:
And novels are also not a medium used to suggest that something is an accurate historical portrayal.

As I have noted before, this is where you and I part company -- not because I think the HH novels are an "accurate historical portray" but because I don't agree that any such thing is even applicable. I have mentioned this to you time and again, but 40k is not some alternate dimension from ours that we can treat as another world. It's just a setting in which connected stories are told. Some of these stories are connected very loosely; others are connected very tightly. There are examples of story series that have very explicit connections to one another (Guant's Ghosts, Swallow's BA books, Graham McNeill's UM books, etc). HH is such a series -- it is different only insomuch as more than one author is involved. Even so, these guys still make mistakes -- especially in light of an evolving corporate policy that does not rate "canonicty" at all on the priority list ... although, with the HH series, that is starting to change:

I should also state at this point that after speaking to the mysterious Powers-That-Be at the Black Library Weekender, I do know they are compiling a list of any continuity errors, potentially to rectify them in future print runs of the Horus Heresy novels. I also believe that work has begun on producing a definitive canonical discovery order.

http://baddice.co.uk/horus-heresy/

There's also Graham McNeill patching up in his upcoming work Wolf Hunt an alleged continuity error in Outcast Dead.

Manchu wrote:As I have noted before, this is where you and I part company -- not because I think the HH novels are an "accurate historical portray" but because I don't agree that any such thing is even applicable. I have mentioned this to you time and again, but 40k is not some alternate dimension from ours that we can treat as another world. It's just a setting in which connected stories are told.

How is it being "a setting" different to it being "another world", given that in this case it is clearly not the reality we are living in? I'm not quite sure I can follow your argument here.
Or what this has to do with the actual issue - that it is still just "tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers".

Manchu wrote:although, with the HH series, that is starting to change

Tbh, they should have done that long ago. It's one thing to have various unconnected novels (in terms of location, plot, characters, etc) conflict each other on certain details - but when a single series of interconnected books that are supposed to follow a single overarcing plot does it, that's a bit embarrasing, especially given the level of communication that supposedly exists between the writers.
I'm not sure if it's still worth the effort by now, but if that also means that BL is committed to continue the series for a longer duration it is certainly better late than never for the fans of the series.

Needless to say, the "definite canonical" part sounds like the usual wishful thinking again, though. Whatever they'll come up with, I doubt it will change anything on how the franchise is treated outside the small circle of HH authors.

When I say "setting" I mean just one among many narrative tools. It's just a largely incidental thing that exists for the sake of the real point, like for example Sandy Mitchell's interminable Ciaphas Cain bit. So the point of the Cain novels is not to flesh out the "world" of 40k but just to again and again tell the same joke about Cain. You can see this with his portrayal of the SoB. His SoB don't seem to correspond to SoB anywhere else. The reason for that is his SoB only exist in the first place to set up more Cain jokes. The way I personally deal with this is to remember that -- unlike the HH series -- the Cain novels are written as an account (namely, his uncollected and annotated memoirs).

I just settle the issue by concluding that the Cain books kind of suck and ignore them, tbh.

It isn't as hard as you two are making it.

Also, the fan fluff of gamers does not have as much value on the setting as that created by GW, FW, BL, or FFG. Be real Lynata. My chapter of Slaaneshi Grey Knights who prey on Eldar children is not as canon as the codex material.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It isn't as hard as you two are making it.

Quite right. Here's a better way of making my point:

There's no such thing as canon in 40k. There is, in BL novels and novel series, a such thing as continuity. All things being equal, contradictory statements on successive pages of the same book indicate a mistake on the part of the author and/or editor. The same thing applies as between novels in the same series. Any such mistakes as in the HH series have nothing to do with 40k not having canon or fluff sometimes being presented as propaganda, distortion, error, legend, and outright lie.

 Manchu wrote:
When I say "setting" I mean just one among many narrative tools. It's just a largely incidental thing that exists for the sake of the real point, like for example Sandy Mitchell's interminable Ciaphas Cain bit. So the point of the Cain novels is not to flesh out the "world" of 40k but just to again and again tell the same joke about Cain. You can see this with his portrayal of the SoB. His SoB don't seem to correspond to SoB anywhere else. The reason for that is his SoB only exist in the first place to set up more Cain jokes. The way I personally deal with this is to remember that -- unlike the HH series -- the Cain novels are written as an account (namely, his uncollected and annotated memoirs).

I just take anything said by Cain with a grain of salt as its his memoirs and thus possibly not how the events actually happened. Though the Cain novels do flesh out 40k by adding more worlds and such.

Void__Dragon wrote:Also, the fan fluff of gamers does not have as much value on the setting as that created by GW, FW, BL, or FFG. Be real Lynata. My chapter of Slaaneshi Grey Knights who prey on Eldar children is not as canon as the codex material.

Not according to Gav Thorpe.
You're operating on a policy that you yourself have made up. If you want fan fluff to be of lesser value - and yes, I certainly presume that the majority of gamers feels likewise - then that is your choice, not something that anyone at GW is suggesting. Otherwise you are free to direct me to any statement from a current or former GW employee contradicting that which we've heard so far.

Manchu wrote:There's no such thing as canon in 40k. There is, in BL novels and novel series, a such thing as continuity.

This, too, is a policy you yourself made up, and in this case it contradicts to something that Andy Hoare posted (coincidentally as a comment on ADB's blog):
"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

See, I don't want you to change the way you treat your preferred sources or how you interpret them. This is the liberty we are being granted. I am only sceptical when posts evoke the impression of attaching a degree of authority to something (as I believe this to be misleading), or when fans are confused about contradictions or hard-to-explain stuff (as this may be intentional), or when they are frustrated at "retcons" or additions they do not like (when their adoption is entirely optional).

By now we have ample explanation on how the franchise works. There is no need to come up with a contradictory policy ourselves. This is not our franchise - and if you make it so and "ursurp" it (perhaps claiming that this is what we as fans have a right to), then you have already lost the very authority you claim to establish, as in the end each of us is just a smalltime fan with an opinion, nothing more. Anyone who wants more than that should try to get into GW and change the status quo.

 Lynata wrote:
Not according to Gav Thorpe.
You're operating on a policy that you yourself have made up. If you want fan fluff to be of lesser value - and yes, I certainly presume that the majority of gamers feels likewise - then that is your choice, not something that anyone at GW is suggesting. Otherwise you are free to direct me to any statement from a current or former GW employee contradicting that which we've heard so far.

I don't care what Gav Thorpe says.

He's wrong.

By all means, direct me to the last time the fanfic of a Sister of Battle fornicating with Nurgle cultists consensually(This exists) made it into a codex.

The notion that fan-made fluff is just as official as that actually put out by the company is a nonsensical argument put forth by the company to appease the fanbase in a lazy way (Like GW's "All and nothing is canon", they're just too lazy/incompetent to keep a fairly consistent universe).

Fan fluff by definition is unofficial and unlicensed by GW, and as such has less inherent value than fluff put out by the company itself.

To argue otherwise would be madness, sort of like a psyker fething an Untouchable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
as in the end each of us is just a smalltime fan with an opinion, nothing more.

I assure you, I am possessed of an intellect vastly greater than the sum total of every mind that has ever been associated with Games Workshop put together, my point of view can not be so easily dismissed.

Do you agree that some parts of heresy/40k are no better than fanfiction ?
Who cares about consistency if you got books to sell....(BL PoV)
Drop in 2-3 primarch fights, oil it with betrayal, and season it with easter eggs....Would you agree?

He's not "wrong" just for having a different opinion than you. The difference between him and you is that his position in the franchise allowed him to establish or help establish certain policies which the franchise follows. Your refusal to accept them does not change the facts that all the companies associated with the license do. This is the true madness here.

And for the record, I have actually seen some fan fluff which, to me, has a lot more inherent value than some fluff in the official products. Even if that's chiefly because some of the latter category was so abysmal.

 Lynata wrote:
He's not "wrong" just for having a different opinion than you. The difference between him and you is that his position in the franchise allowed him to establish or help establish certain policies which the franchise follows. Your refusal to accept them does not change the facts that all the companies associated with the license do. This is the true madness here.

And for the record, I have actually seen some fan fluff which, to me, has a lot more inherent value than some fluff in the official products. Even if that's chiefly because some of the latter category was so abysmal.

You're confusing my usage of "value" with "quality". I have no doubt that there is good 40k fanfiction, army fluff, or that fans can create exciting stories and characters within the setting (I am participating in a Dark Heresy and Black Crusade campaign as we speak for exactly this reason).

But see, unless GW sees your work, and actively wants to make it a part of the official universe, it simply has less relevance from a literary standpoint in terms of defining the 40k setting. For better or worse.

Hmmh, I could agree that it has less relevance because the community is more quickly to dismiss it than officially licensed material, in part due to the continuously propagated lie that there is a "canon", but also because the official material is available to a broader audience. It's difficult to compare the promotion of one's personal fluff with a professionally distributed book or video game, that much is sure.

In essence, it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There have been some cases where GW actually did incorporate fan fiction in their own material - just like they occasionally adopt novel fluff into a Codex. An example that springs to mind would be Canoness Astra's Order of the Silver Lily.

Which makes Canoness Astra's fluff suddenly far more relevant in terms of discussion on a message-board and reflection on a setting.

But my Eldar-violating Grey Knights will never have that privilege.

 Lynata wrote:

Vquote=Manchu wrote:There's no such thing as canon in 40k. There is, in BL novels and novel series, a such thing as continuity.

This, too, is a policy you yourself made up

Not at all. If page 42 says a character wears red armor and page 43 says he wears blue armor then, all other things being equal, there is a mistake. No marketing slogans, whether you confuse you them with literary style or not, change that. The same applies to a discrepancy between the first and last chapters of a novel or between different novels in the same series.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
But see, unless GW sees your work, and actively wants to make it a part of the official universe, it simply has less relevance from a literary standpoint in terms of defining the 40k setting. For better or worse.

TBH, Lynata doesnt actually think a sales pitch by GW employees -- your stories matter as much as ours kids! -- is the real standard for discussing 40k, even if she will relentless pretend that is the case for the sake of argument. Actually, her own standard is something she calls "studio fluff" which is pretty exclusive because it not only cuts out licensed products like FFG's books but even Black Library and Forge World.

I've been here long enough to be well-acquainted with Lynata's preferences, and indeed remember when she outwardly believed that only the studio fluff was canon.

Personally, I think depriving 40k of all but studio fluff takes away a lot of the best characters and stories in the setting.

Yeah, it took several years, but my opinions actually do evolve when confronted with irrefutable explanations.
I started out believing that "everything is canon", simply because that's what everyone said, and I was naive enough to believe it. Then, as I discovered more and more discrepancies, this changed towards a strict preference regarding Codex fluff, spurred on by a commend made by George Mann. Then, further reading brought be to the blogs and comments that you surely know from the posts where I cite them...

Manchu wrote:Not at all. If page 42 says a character wears red armor and page 43 says he wears blue armor then, all other things being equal, there is a mistake. No marketing slogans, whether you confuse you them with literary style or not, change that. The same applies to a discrepancy between the first and last chapters of a novel or between different novels in the same series.

In that case I would assume so, yes, as the books are then "connected" by something more than just bearing the 40k label. However, when it is two entirely independent novels, all bets are off, for the author may have intentionally chosen to disregard his colleague's idea and go with something else. This is what I mean when I disagree with the idea that there is a "continuity" between all of the products released under the franchise. Sure, some facts will always remain the same, such as the Emperor being a dead guy etc - this even Black Library will enforce. However, the many details that are the source of so much debate between fluff lovers? Optional. All of them.

Void__Dragon wrote:Personally, I think depriving 40k of all but studio fluff takes away a lot of the best characters and stories in the setting.

But also a lot of the worst.

 Lynata wrote:
This is what I mean when I disagree with the idea that there is a "continuity" between all of the products released under the franchise.

I agree with you on that. That's exactly why I distinguished between continuity and canon. What is less clear is, what is the difference between canon and what the guys you are so fond of quoting really mean by "established facts."

Hair colour should be an easy one really though

That's a really good question, actually. I'd hazard a guess that the obvious, universally acknowledged things could fit on both sides of a single sheet of paper. Gav Thorpe, talking about his experience as an editor at the Black Library, gave these examples for Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40.000:
"There are certainly established facts – the current Emperor is Karl-Franz, the Blood Angels have red armour, Commissar Yarrick defended Hades Hive during the Second Armageddon War."

I have no illusions about there being a certain "grey area" where things will depend on the individual editor, however, who may approve or disapprove material presented for review depending on their own opinion, or even lack of knowledge/attention (possibly explaining mistakes as well as the biggest controversies).

Hm. I guess the best way to see the situation would be a graph, where the more something goes into detail, the less likely it is to be "established" and get reproduced between multiple authors.

So basically you have to acknowledge that the picture drawn by former GW employees and freelance writers isn't quite so neat. Indeed, as a matter of their own statements (or at least in one case), the entire principle kind of falls apart. There is no canon -- but there are facts ... but there are unlimited valid portrayals ... but wait, there's the problem of those facts again ...

Hm? No, I don't see it quite as confusing.

To me, it seems to work like two categories:
a) a handful of "established facts" which I'd say refers to something that any fan should be able to expect from any official product
b) a load of optional stuff which comes from "tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers"

The first category is something that GW would seem to enforce in their editorial reviews. In theory, you are still at liberty to dismiss them. I don't think a lot of people would do that, though this is more a result of voluntary conformity, or a modicum of respect for the setting. Or perhaps just the fear of getting laughed out of the forums by other fans *cough*shadowemperor*cough*

[edit] Perhaps it also depends on how we interpret Gav's meaning when he says "anything else" after "established facts" ... meaning, whether he refers to those optional additions that would fit, or whether he refers to something that is in conflict with said facts. I admit that this can be interpreted in two ways.

The trouble is, what counts as an "established fact" as opposed to "optional stuff" is not officially defined -- at least not publicly. On some issues, you and I (using us as an example) will be able to easily agree on what is an established fact: for example, is it not an established fact that Ultramar is a semi-autonomous region ruled by the Ultramarines? I think we can agree on that. But neither of us can point to any list of established facts in doing so. In fact, all we can point to is what GW and its affiliates and licensees have published, which brings us back to square one.

Which is why I think it'd be better not to point to anything, and simply post all we have and treat it all like options from which we can choose from, as far as our own personal vision of the 41st millennium is concerned.

That way, we avoid the contradictions that would undoubtedly arise when comparing all published material, and we avoid having to cave in to material that (even when not being in direct conflict with anything else) just doesn't fit in with our preferred interpretation of the setting.

In short, we could still make arguments on why we believe that "X is better" - but we should not just declare "it is so". Opinion, rather than dogma.

Well, we know we can declare that BA wear red armor. It is not an equally valid option to say BA wear blue armor. If someone comes to the forum and says, "I painted my BA blue" -- fine, who cares? That's different from coming to the forum and saying, in 40k the BA wear blue armor. No they don't. And saying, "well, mine do" really just doesn't matter.

I can agree with that.

How about if we switch out "BA wear red" with "Ultramar is semi-autonomous"?

Hmmh, Ultramar is not as recurring an aspect of the setting as the Blood Angels' armour, which we have seen a million times on countless photos and in countless descriptions over the past decades. Hence, I would imagine lots of people to have slightly differing interpretations of the exact style of governance and integration.

That said, "semi-autonomous" is still a rather vague a term to begin with... If you mean that it is comparable to other Marine fiefdoms, I suppose that might count. However, when we go even further into detail ... that's where it could get tricky.

That's exactly my point -- there is no clear distinction between what is an "established fact" and what isn't. What those ex-GWers and freelance writers are really saying boils down to "there is no canon except for what's canon."

Hm, I think it's more a case of applying different standards to themselves (or rather, products published under the license) than to the franchise as a whole (including the fans' interpretations).

But yes, a clear distinction would not exist either way. To have such a thing would require a huge tome of "official facts", and I don't think something like this exists, or can even be created without expending lots of resources on such a project.

I believe something like that did exist, at least regarding the Inquisition. But it was probably written in a deliberately distorted way, a la Xenology.

Do you mean the "Inquisition Illustrated Guide"? It's a neat book, I have it, but (a) it is very focused on Abnett's novels and (b) a Black Library product intended for customers.

I was more referring to an internal guide for the writers and editors. From what I've heard, authors can ask the editors and get suggestions etc, but that's obviously not quite as solid as a sort of "fluff bible".

Something to consider is that maybe Gav was only talking from his own opinion as an editor when he was referring to those "established facts", meaning that this is something he'd criticise in a review. Although I would hope it is more than that.

My point is, we don't need to rely on Gav Thorpe or any other individual who has or does work for, on a full time or freelance basis, GW or its affiliates or licensees to know that Blood Angels wear red rather than blue armor.

Which is probably why that is one of the lesser debated topics on dakka. The things the fluff nuts are butting heads over are way more specific, less established (meaning: not thrown in your face all the time like it is with BA = red), and thus more controversial.

Any issue of uncontradicted fluff is no more controversial than BA wearing red armor.

I'd disagree. There's certainly a difference between basically growing up seeing BA wear red armour, and some writer adding entirely new ideas.
Namely, that the latter are new, and thus may not synch well with the various interpretations of the setting we have become accustomed to.

We've all come to like the setting because it looks like it does, and any "late changes" threaten this idea and thus affect our perception of said changes.

Doesn't matter. As you said, it's not our franchise. All we can do is take uncontradicted fluff on its face value.

It's not an established fact, therefore I don't have to heed it.

Your interpretation again throws up a contradiction with the explanations we've been given by the people who create this material.
As you said, it is not our franchise.

GW just does not care about the fluff at the level of detail the fans often become interested in. In fantasy and 40k anything can be retconned.

I dont mind that a lot of RT era stuff has been retconned because the setting has evolved from a pretty silly rpg setting to a more comprehensive science fiction fantasy universe. Some stuff just needed to change. Space marines were originally more or less a bunch of mercenaries and orks were just over the top silly.

The fact that they apparently do not have a handbook of defined canonical material is absurd and a very sloppy way of managing their IP.

As far as inconsistencies in the various novels go, I just ignore them because it is GW after all and so I dont expect them to be consistent.

Regarding that sloppy management - I think I'm actually slowly coming around to see it ADB's way. The flaw lies in the fans expecting this level of consistency in the first place, when nothing GW has ever published ever evoked that idea. It was just wishful thinking in the first place, and the biggest issue is that we now "have to snap out of it".

I still have a preference for settings that actually have a canon policy, as it makes the various sources build towards a greater whole. However, I can see that the approach GW has taken has its own advantages as well, namely that it allows both writers and readers/gamers more freedom in how to see their version of the 41st millennium.
And if you think about it, for a miniatures game that thrives on customising armies and doing conversions and coming up with your own ideas for your minis, this is rather fitting, as this way "your" 40k will never be invalidated by some official product. It is an act of preservation, and meant as a service to the players.

From an interview that ADB gave for the Lord Inquisitor movie:
"Canon doesn't really exist in Warhammer 40,000. Not as it does in other licenses. The very point of the setting is to offer some structure, then open it up to personal interpretation."

 Lynata wrote:
As you said, it is not our franchise.

No need to put your words in my mouth.

JWhex wrote:
The fact that they apparently do not have a handbook of defined canonical material is absurd and a very sloppy way of managing their IP.

I generally agree. It certainly leads to some bizarre sentiments. I mean, to see Lynata's posts one would think every page of every source is totally inconsistent with every other page. That's completely false of course. 40k is rather consistent. There are some details that various authors don't trouble over too much, like how exactly a bolter works. But that's hardly important considering it is made up technology and 40k is not actually hard scifi -- that is, it's not really about how bolters work. When it comes to broad strokes, however, the things that 40k is actually about, it's quite manageable. Some contributors simply don't do their homework on every issue, that's all. But it can be done, as anyone reading Alan Bligh's masterful work in the FW books can tell. The man is real fan, however, which is quite a high standard. When Mr. Bligh writes something, one can tell he's been reading everything previously written on the subject. Even so, the setting is immense. There's tons of space and time -- and therefore room for things to fit reasonably well together.

In essence, this is entirely simple: we simply take what has been published at face value and everything that cannot fit is left to discussion. This isn't necessarily sloppy. The missing legions for example are meant to be missing. It doesn't mean that if I write fanfiction about one or both of them that said fanfiction is just as valid as something published by BL.

Manchu wrote:No need to put your words in my mouth.

My mistake, I thought you repeating them was a sign of adoption.
Still, I could have worded it in a better way.

Manchu wrote:I mean, to see Lynata's posts one would think every page of every source is totally inconsistent with every other page.

Not really. Just inconsistent enough to be a concern, at least for those of us who are interested in details. We've all seen the criticism regarding that aspect of the franchise. That 40k is "rather consistent" when it comes to what I think Gav refers to the "established facts" is not really the subject of the debate - but I do think you greatly downplay the role and the deviation of details.

Manchu wrote:Some contributors simply don't do their homework on every issue, that's all. But it can be done, as anyone reading Alan Bligh's masterful work in the FW books can tell.

Heh. "Sisters of the Blue Robe".

I'm sure it seems like a much lesser issue if one just does not notice the inconsistencies.

Manchu wrote:In essence, this is entirely simple: we simply take what has been published at face value and everything that cannot fit is left to discussion. This isn't necessarily sloppy. The missing legions for example are meant to be missing. It doesn't mean that if I write fanfiction about one or both of them that said fanfiction is just as valid as something published by BL.

The people who work at BL still disagree with you on the latter. And "everything that cannot fit" is still left up to the individual's interpretation. What if I say that there seems to be a lot in the HH novels that "cannot fit"?
It doesn't really get us anywhere, we would only argue in circles. Which is why I think that your solution is not simple at all. The easy way to do it like the people who write this stuff suggest we consume it. Not come up with complicated policies that are, in the end, just wishful thinking.

You are only quoting ex-employees and freelancers. More troublingly, what they say does not actually make sense. You put way too much stock in what comes down to a marketing plan. It is a lot simpler than that.

"More" troublingly? They are still the ones knowing what's going on. Not me, or you. We're just fans, and we can only go by what we're being told.
Also, Marc Gascoigne was still head editor of the Black Library at the time he made that statement I quoted earlier, and was commenting in that capacity.

It is simple. It is even simpler than what you came up with.
It is "everything and nothing is true".

PS: Times like these I wish dakka had a chatroom.

"Everything and nothing is true" is not a sensical statement. It is a mystical sounding excuse to change the product at any time.

If, with product, you mean the setting ... then yes. That is precisely what it's meant to do. And it is insofar sensical in that Wh40k is not some coherent saga (see also "why doesn't the timeline move forward?") but a playground for our individual ideas and preferences.

In essence, for this discussion, I think the core difference between you and me (in my current position) - and in extension between you and the writers of these novels - is that you see the setting as something it isn't supposed to be/deliver.

I've already quoted Andy Hoare's explanation earlier, but here you have similar words from Gav Thorpe:
"I think that Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 have a unique advantage in the realm of tie-in backgrounds: they exist to allow personal creativity. Both are backdrops, nothing more. They were created to allow people to collect armies of toy soldiers and fight battles with them. They were conceived with the idea of the player’s creative freedom being directed but not restricted."

And crystal-clear:
"Perhaps you disagree with the portrayal of a certain faction, or a facet of their society doesn’t make sense in your version of the world. You may not like the answers presented, but in asking the question you can come up with a solution that matches your vision. As long as certain central themes and principles remain, you can pick and choose which parts you like and dislike."

There again, just as with "established facts," we have "as long as certain central themes and principles remain." Which are those?

Also, Mr. Thorpe's basic assumption is no longer correct: the fiction is no longer just pushing toy soldiers. It's become a money maker in its own right and things have begun to change accordingly. With the HH series, for example, there is an expectation of continuity across multiple authors. The "next book" just doesn't work without taking into about the others.

I think you'll find that since Mr. Gascoigne was at Bl there has been something of a change of view , in part, with regards to continuity.

I think they're following more or less that attitude for the regular/general releases but are not adopting it for the HH.

Hence the planning sessions and detailed notes they have on what is what, who is who and so on.

You'll note that the Visions of Heresy book is getting a reprint later this year

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Visions-Heresy-The-Horus/dp/1849702152

From the ashes of the Great Crusade, treachery was born. Always first among the superhuman primarchs, the newly dubbed Warmaster Horus turned his back upon the Emperor and embraced the dark powers of Chaos. With fully half the military might of the fledgling Imperium at his command, he set his sights upon the throne of Holy Terra and waged a war which would divide the galaxy forever...Visions of war, visions of darkness, of treachery and death - all of this and more is contained within this heretical volume. Iconic depictions of the Space Marine Legions and the heroes that commanded them are presented alongside artwork from renowned artists Neil Robert, as well as brand new historical notes on the Warhammer 40,000 universe by Alan Merrett. Witness the end of an era and the beginning of something far darker, as the Heresy continues to unfold.

note the underlining.

This version is also revised and in parts rewritten to tally with the HH books we've had/are getting..

I know at least one of the poor BL staff spent AGES correcting and fixing incorrectly labelled pieces of art.

I gather some of the more .... interpretative ..... pieces of artwork will have been replaced too.

It would seem that for the HH series -- and to an extent the ToL series in the Warhammer Fantasy setting -- there is indeed a specific canon/continuity.

... this year anyway.

It makes sense to allow "more room" for the general release stuff since those stories have very little context as regarding one another (at least as between series). But in a series, like the HH series, book 3 does not make sense if book 2 is a contradictory, equally valid "legend." Continuity does not exclude perspective, either -- as we have seen in A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting there is a hard and fast canon as with something like Star Wars. Rather, I'm saying for the purposes of discussion, we can only take what's published at its face value and when there is no contradiction that means taking it for "what happened."

Manchu wrote:There again, just as with "established facts," we have "as long as certain central themes and principles remain." Which are those?

Ask him.

Although, as mentioned before, I don't think they would be able to give you a precise answer, for I believe this to be a rather grey area that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, so it makes no sense to continuously ask for a true definition. As an example, however, I would say that things such as "the capital of the Imperium is Terra", "the Emperor is a half-dead husk in a permanent vegetative state", or "the four big Chaos Gods are Slaanesh, Khorne, Nurgle, and Tzeentch" are indeed "established facts", and that no book that says otherwise would be approved. The more it gets into details, however, every editor working at the BL will have his or her own idea of what still fits, and what is too much, just like we do.

For the purpose of the debate, we can only work with what we are being told. Or you can continue to make up your own stuff, but don't expect anyone to see that in the same light as the statements made by the people who make this stuff.

Manchu wrote:Also, Mr. Thorpe's basic assumption is no longer correct: the fiction is no longer just pushing toy soldiers. It's become a money maker in its own right and things have begun to change accordingly. With the HH series, for example, there is an expectation of continuity across multiple authors. The "next book" just doesn't work without taking into about the others.

This is still just wishful thinking. Black Library books have always been a money maker in their own right, else they would not be made. How much money they make, especially in comparison to the miniatures line, is something that (a) we do not know and (b) apparently did not change anything as far as GW is concerned - feel free to find a BL author saying otherwise. The majority of the quotes provided are fairly new, especially the ones from the HH authors themselves.
And, as we know, for quite a lot of people, there is also an expectation of continuity across multiple authors outside of the HH series. Expectations do not change the facts, though. As I said, it is this expectation which is the mistake. The fans are wrong here.

reds8n wrote:It would seem that for the HH series -- and to an extent the ToL series in the Warhammer Fantasy setting -- there is indeed a specific canon/continuity.

I actually agree that - to specific series - an expectation of continuity is not only understandable but should be a matter-of-course. In fact, ADB himself suggested as much:
"Interestingly, as creators in this setting, we’re under no strict obligation to reference one another, and cooperation is usually self-driven. (The exception to this is the Horus Heresy series, which is extremely well-organised, and all of us are in constant communication.) Sure, editorial prefers it when stuff ties in together, but it’s not a mandate. Everyone views the setting differently, after all."

What I'm saying is that the continuity that may or may not exist within the Horus Heresy books or any other series has no meaning whatsoever outside this limited scope. In essence, all HH novels ever should be treated as if they were a single book. It should be inernally consistent, but the contents are not any more valid or invalid than any other source. This is also not in contradiction to Mr. Gascoigne's explanation.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:There again, just as with "established facts," we have "as long as certain central themes and principles remain." Which are those?

Ask him.

Why? He's not a BL editor or GW IP manager or executive.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Also, Mr. Thorpe's basic assumption is no longer correct: the fiction is no longer just pushing toy soldiers. It's become a money maker in its own right and things have begun to change accordingly. With the HH series, for example, there is an expectation of continuity across multiple authors. The "next book" just doesn't work without taking into about the others.

This is still just wishful thinking.

No it's not, as reds8n demonstrated.

 Lynata wrote:
In essence, all HH novels ever should be treated as if they were a single book..

This is demonstrably false -- see e.g., A Thousand Sons and Propsero Burns.

Manchu wrote:Why? He's not a BL editor or GW IP manager or executive.

Given that he is in regular contact with them, and had them explain it to him, he'd still know more than me. Or you.

Manchu wrote:No it's not, as reds8n demonstrated.

He did not demonstrate anything in conflict with my post. Where is this proof for GW's supposed change of stance? I don't see it.

Manchu wrote:This is demonstrably false -- see e.g., A Thousand Sons and Propsero Burns.

Demonstrate, then.

PS: If I wanted to nitpick ... from the description that reds8n quoted:
"Visions of war, visions of darkness, of treachery and death - all of this and more is contained within this heretical volume."

Vision =/= Accurate Portrayal

 Manchu wrote:
This is demonstrably false -- see e.g., A Thousand Sons and Propsero Burns.

I think this was in reference just to internal consistancy. A single book can portray the same events from different viewpoints. In which case, I agree that the HH must be treated as a different beast from the rest of 40k. In this way, I would treat any individual 40k series with the same level of internal consistancy, whether it be Gaunt's Ghosts, Night Lords, or Salamanders. However, those different series would not need to be consistant with each other, nor with any other stand-alone books such as the space marine battle books.

jareddm wrote:
In this way, I would treat any individual 40k series with the same level of internal consistancy, whether it be Gaunt's Ghosts, Night Lords, or Salamanders. However, those different series would not need to be consistant with each other, nor with any other stand-alone books such as the space marine battle books.

Agreed -- as I said:

 Manchu wrote:
It makes sense to allow "more room" for the general release stuff since those stories have very little context as regarding one another (at least as between series). But in a series, like the HH series, book 3 does not make sense if book 2 is a contradictory, equally valid "legend." Continuity does not exclude perspective, either -- as we have seen in A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No it's not, as reds8n demonstrated.

He did not demonstrate anything in conflict with my post. Where is this proof for GW's supposed change of stance? I don't see it.

Did you ever read Visions of Heresy? Do you even know what it is? Apparently you did not understand why reds8n underlined the part about Merrett. The short of it is, Visions of Heresy was a set of books publishing artwork from the HH card game alongside of text by various BL authors and Alan Merrett, who had an editorial role as some kind of IP manager. There are captions in the original collected Visions that are now contradicted by the HH novels. Reds8n pointed out that the previous captions are now being revised by Merrett.

Since I know you'll be interested:

As one of Games Workshop's longest serving employees, Alan Merrett has held many important posts over the years - from being in charge of miniatures design, the production studio, the Golden Demon awards and the Black Library - to his current position overseeing the development of Games Workshop's wealth of intellectual proprety. Underpinning all these key roles has been his complete enthusiasm for the model soldier - an enthusiasm which has resulted in Alan being one of the driving forces behind Games Workshop's imagery.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Authors/Alan-Merrett.html

To me at least, I thought it was fairly obvious that A Thousand Sons/Prospero Burns were much more perspective than omniscient narration? I felt it was quite clear in the way they were written...

That's my point -- just as I wrote it -- perspective poses no problems for continuity. Those two novels are absolutely in continuity with one another despite being from very different general perspectives.

Ah, OK, in which case I agree.


That said, you do get a lot of people taking them at face value in my experience.

Well, in those books there are events and there are what characters think of those events. Just because a TS and a SW have different feelings about what happened over the course of those two novels does not mean that the two novels should be read separately as two of these ten thousand overlapping visions Lynata is always going on about. And that's not just limited to A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns -- that's just the most obvious example. The entire HH is linked as a series.

Manchu wrote:Apparently you did not understand why reds8n underlined the part about Merrett.

No, what I don't understand is where you see the relevance to this discussion.

Manchu wrote:Just because a TS and a SW have different feelings about what happened over the course of those two novels does not mean that the two novels should be read separately as two of these ten thousand overlapping visions Lynata is always going on about.

Please. This is not what I wrote. jareddm understood my post.

Quoting myself - as perhaps you did not read this clarification:
"What I'm saying is that the continuity that may or may not exist within the Horus Heresy books or any other series has no meaning whatsoever outside this limited scope. In essence, all HH novels ever should be treated as if they were a single book. It should be inernally consistent, but the contents are not any more valid or invalid than any other source. This is also not in contradiction to Mr. Gascoigne's explanation."

So in regards to internal consistency I am actually agreeing with you.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Apparently you did not understand why reds8n underlined the part about Merrett.

No, what I don't understand is where you see the relevance to this discussion.

Because its shows BL now has concern for continuity.

They've even said that as/when Deilverance Lost gets a reprint they're going to edit the wee passage about the Primarch order so it tallies with their revised/final version.

IIRC Mr. Kyme's Dwarf ToL book is getting a similar treatment with regards to some place names/similar.

... dunno if they'll reduce the number of Dragon Princes he mentions at the start, which did raise a few eyebrows amongst those overly who are into the fine details like that.

.. he typed with a bare faced lack of irony !

Manchu wrote:Because its shows BL now has concern for continuity.

Within their Horus Heresy series.

Do you think this was ever different, as far as other series (Gaunt's Ghosts, Enforcer, Daemonifuge, etc.) are concerned? I would assume that the things which are meant to tie into each other also should do so. The mistake would be to believe that this intent for consistency expands beyond a single series. But if I understand you correctly, we are actually in agreement here.

I actually remember that in the reprint of "Inquisitor", they edited the squat engineer out of the story, so there's a historic precedent for BL retroactively changing details.

My reprint of Inquisition War (from the late 2000s) retains the Squat. I have never seen a version where he is edited out although I have often heard that happened.

Do you not think that the expansion is inevitable ?

Mission creep kind of thing.

We've already had/got The Fang battle book and at least one justpostHHera Flesh Tearer book which follow on from/acknowledge the continuity of the HH series, whilst not being part of it directly.

Mr. Abnett has woven links a'twixt his HH works and elements of his "modern" 40k books, and there's obvious links between Mr. McNeill's HH books and his Ultramarine/Chaos books.

IIRC there's links between the Word Bearer stuff from the HH and the later A. Reynolds' series too.

They'll always leave gaps to room to fit ones own stuff in -- one thing the setting is not short of is time eh ? -- and they've said over and over again that those 2 shall not be named or revealed ( Personal theory : we will see them one day. Either due to demand from the customers or the need to extract £/$s suddenly from the customers.. but that's a whole other thread ) , and I think they'll never give a complete list of ( for example) Captains of the Ultramarines so you can indeed build, paint and most of importantly of all buy a captain model and proudly proclaim him to be Captain Steve Holt of the 7th company.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Because its shows BL now has concern for continuity.

Within their Horus Heresy series.

That's what's interesting about this project. Collected Visions was the first deep look at the HH -- and not in terms of a novel series but basically as an art book that contained fiction. It's not like BL has a rule that it's continuity only exists within the HH series, as if nothing that happens in the HH series matters to any other book. There's already some cross pollination there, as I recall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
so you can indeed build, paint and most of importantly of all buy a captain model and proudly proclaim him to be Captain Steve Holt of the 7th company.

Steve Holt!

 Manchu wrote:
My reprint of Inquisition War (from the late 2000s) retains the Squat. I have never seen a version where he is edited out although I have often heard that happened.

Have that one....Is it woth of reading?

Manchu wrote:It's not like BL has a rule that it's continuity only exists within the HH series, as if nothing that happens in the HH series matters to any other book.

Of course not. Just like they don't have a rule that it has to matter to any other book. Author's choice, going by ADB's explanations.
I'd not be surprised if more people jump on board, though. The series does seem fairly popular, from all I've heard.

DarthMarko wrote:

Manchu wrote:My reprint of Inquisition War (from the late 2000s) retains the Squat. I have never seen a version where he is edited out although I have often heard that happened.

Have that one....Is it woth of reading?

I only have "Inquisitor" (my first 40k novel .. before I even knew what 40k actually is ), but it's actually a book I like to read again every couple years or so. Narratively, it's well written (imho) and the characters are as diverse as they are enjoyable.

I am interested in seeing the rewrites of Battle for the Abyss and The Outcast Dead above all others, I might actually buy these two again.

Inquisitor/Draco is a great read, Ian Watsons style is very different to a lot, if not all, of the current 40k writers and like Lynata says, it's an enjoyable read.

The Deathwing anthology short story "Warped Stars" originally had Grimm the Squat in it but he was replaced byGrill the Tech Priest in the version I have.

Pardon my ignorance - but how do this rewrites work ? Like, what PoV the reader's mind must take ?

 DarthMarko wrote:
Pardon my ignorance - but how do this rewrites work ? Like, what PoV the reader's mind must take ?

Honestly mate, I don't know. I guess the stories will be the same but the continuity errors and the like will be addressed. With the Warped Stars short I mentioned that was amended by the editor, so I don't know if it will fall down to them or the actual writer of the book.

In the case of BftA, I want to see how they rewrite the Supplicants masking the Word Bearers assault.

Well it's the bonus for the guys who are reading books for the first time, certainly, but I don't think my mind would endure some radical changes...
I'mean I've read the book which (in my mind) goes into history ( with all fluff flops and changes )...So with this, they might add even more contradiction to already contradicting universe....

I wonder if they will update the audio books as well?

For example in Know no Fear



but in Garro: Legion of One




But, yeah, it could make them even worse, Sanguinius might now have pink hair as well!

It's a stretch but IIRC it is possible for the gene seed to be removed from a marine prior to their death.

I guess this might have happened here..?

 reds8n wrote:
It's a stretch but IIRC it is possible for the gene seed to be removed from a marine prior to their death.

I guess this might have happened here..?

That's true red, but when would Erebus have had the opportunity? Tariks not the kind of guy to let Erebus have his way with him.

Unless in the dead of night, Erebus the Geneseed burglar skulked in the shadows and stole it from underneath Tariks pillow

I have also have a question for the masses about the series - Has anyone actually bought every single short story and mp3 that has been released, can someone advise if they are worth buying or not? I am also interested in the Advent Calendar they released that has some Heresy stuff in it, is that worth getting?

With all these mini stories, new formats and mp3s I am finding it a little hard to keep interested if I am honest.

i've noticed that BL is running the HH in a very comic book style. What I mean is in a long running comic series, when a new character is introduce, there's usually a seperate tie-in comic focused on that character and explaining the events that led to their appearance in the main story. For instance, I never got a chance to read Kryptos so when I started Angel Exterminatus, the Raven Guard and Iron hands characters meant nothing to me. However, when Kryptos was referenced, I knew that those characters played an important role in that short story. And I'm okay with that. I'd bet money that the Salamander characters from Strike and Fade will feature in Vulkan Lives, but if you hadn't read Strike and Fade, to you they'd just be new characters. Knowing how they got to where they are is nice, but it's not crucial. That's been the case with all of the short stories and mini audiobooks they've been releasing. Though Warmaster was a pretty cool insight into Horus's mind, even if it was only 9 minutes long.

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
My reprint of Inquisition War (from the late 2000s) retains the Squat. I have never seen a version where he is edited out although I have often heard that happened.

Have that one....Is it woth of reading?

It is my favorite 40k fiction of all.

A few quick questions, more about how BL is actually selling the books:

Will Angels Exterminatis and on (the hardcovers) ever be released as small paperbacks? Ive seen them in paperback, but much larger than my existing collection.

Will the Scripts Volume 1 be released in paperback? It's been 5 months since the Hardcover release and I've seen nothing.

Thanks! I've been a bit out of it lately on the fictional side of the Hobby.

 jifel wrote:
A few quick questions, more about how BL is actually selling the books:

Will Angels Exterminatis and on (the hardcovers) ever be released as small paperbacks? Ive seen them in paperback, but much larger than my existing collection.

Will the Scripts Volume 1 be released in paperback? It's been 5 months since the Hardcover release and I've seen nothing.

Thanks! I've been a bit out of it lately on the fictional side of the Hobby.

Yes they will. the way it works is the hardcover and ebooks are sold at the same time, then a few months down the line, the trade paperback is released, then a few more months and the mass market paperback is released (the one you're familiar with). A number of publishers work this way but for BL it's especially sneaky because they know a lot of people will buy the trade paperback because they don't want to wait, but then will also by the mass market paperback to complete the collection.

Also, over time, the older books will be getting hardcover and trade paperback releases as well. These will include some continunity corrections that have since been established (size of legions, order of primarch discovery, etc)

Dang, that is sneaky. I am equally impatient and cheap... Quite a conflict of nature here! I suppose I can try to wait for the normal paperbacks...

jareddm wrote:

 jifel wrote:
A few quick questions, more about how BL is actually selling the books:

Will Angels Exterminatis and on (the hardcovers) ever be released as small paperbacks? Ive seen them in paperback, but much larger than my existing collection.

Will the Scripts Volume 1 be released in paperback? It's been 5 months since the Hardcover release and I've seen nothing.

Thanks! I've been a bit out of it lately on the fictional side of the Hobby.

Yes they will. the way it works is the hardcover and ebooks are sold at the same time, then a few months down the line, the trade paperback is released, then a few more months and the mass market paperback is released (the one you're familiar with). A number of publishers work this way but for BL it's especially sneaky because they know a lot of people will buy the trade paperback because they don't want to wait, but then will also by the mass market paperback to complete the collection.

Also, over time, the older books will be getting hardcover and trade paperback releases as well. These will include some continunity corrections that have since been established (size of legions, order of primarch discovery, etc)

Additional - trade paperback release is 6 months after, mass paperback is 3 months after that. BL has stated that any series that was initially published in MPPB format will carry on in that format, eventually, but anything new will only be issued in trade size - personally I would have been happy with price increases but keeping the MPPB size.

I don't believe"everything is canon and nothing is canon" is a marketing gimmick. (And I have to admit, I'm not sure why the very phrase seems to inspire so much rage, Manchu.) Rather, it's a way to absolve themselves of having to do a rather ridiculous amount of internal editing, retcon work, etc. The folks are GW/BL/FFG/whatever might be on the same page. They may even be on the same sentence. But that's pretty much as far as it goes. They simply appear to have an organizational and editorial style that's uninterested in making sure everyone's on the same word.

Which, fair enough. Want to see nerds really freaking out over canon, hit up any Star Wars forum sometime. I think we've got enough to yell at each other about in 40K without getting into the mud as to whether Horus wore red or pink lipstick.

 Seaward wrote:


Which, fair enough. Want to see nerds really freaking out over canon, hit up any Star Wars forum sometime. I think we've got enough to yell at each other about in 40K without getting into the mud as to whether Horus wore red or pink lipstick.

Red...It looks nice with the black armor

 farmersboy wrote:

jareddm wrote:

 jifel wrote:
A few quick questions, more about how BL is actually selling the books:

Will Angels Exterminatis and on (the hardcovers) ever be released as small paperbacks? Ive seen them in paperback, but much larger than my existing collection.

Will the Scripts Volume 1 be released in paperback? It's been 5 months since the Hardcover release and I've seen nothing.

Thanks! I've been a bit out of it lately on the fictional side of the Hobby.

Yes they will. the way it works is the hardcover and ebooks are sold at the same time, then a few months down the line, the trade paperback is released, then a few more months and the mass market paperback is released (the one you're familiar with). A number of publishers work this way but for BL it's especially sneaky because they know a lot of people will buy the trade paperback because they don't want to wait, but then will also by the mass market paperback to complete the collection.

Also, over time, the older books will be getting hardcover and trade paperback releases as well. These will include some continunity corrections that have since been established (size of legions, order of primarch discovery, etc)

Additional - trade paperback release is 6 months after, mass paperback is 3 months after that. BL has stated that any series that was initially published in MPPB format will carry on in that format, eventually, but anything new will only be issued in trade size - personally I would have been happy with price increases but keeping the MPPB size.

It's the other way round: trade is 3 months after release, and mass market a further 6 months after that.