Was there ever doubt that the Emperor is still alive before Guy Haley's Dark Imperium book? Books before Dark Imperium confirmed that.
Guy Haley's Throneworld book from the Beast Arises confirmed that.
Such power made Lhaerial’s mind reel, and for a moment her contempt for the creatures of Terra wavered. The mind of the Emperor was a mountain in the surging madness of the Othersea, blinding in its brilliance. The Great Powers circled this place like razorshark waiting out the death throes of a void-whale. That terrible presence held them back, and all His little servants were ignorant of it! Unease gripped her, that she would be noticed by the Dark Gods or their defier, and the fragile flame of her being snuffed out.
The feeling passed. The regard of the things of the Othersea was ossified, so long had they fixed their gaze on the Earth. The Emperor did not shift His regard. His attention was elsewhere, upon the blinding pyre of souls, navigation beacon of the mon-keigh. She had no indication she was seen. There was little relief in that. She had laughed in the face of She Who Thirsts, but the Corpse Emperor filled her with a sense of dread.
And this from Aaron Dembski's Bowden's Talon of Horus.
We can see that light. Those of us within the Empire of the Eye can actually see it. The Astronomican reaches even to our purgatorial exile, and to us it is no mere mystical radiance illuminating the warp. It is pain, it is fire, and it plunges entire Neverborn worlds into war.
It would be a mistake to believe the Emperor’s power battles the Four Gods’ forces, here. It is not order against chaos, nor anything as crude as ‘good’ against ‘evil’. It is all psychic energy, crashing together in volatile torment.
Most of the Radiant Worlds are uninhabitable, lost in the lethal crash of conflicting psychic energies. Armies of fire angels and flame-wrought projections wage war against everything in their path. We call this region the Firetide. What made the Avernus Breach so valuable was its path, not its destination. It cut through the systems forever bleached bare of life by the Firetide, and into the calmer Radiant Worlds beyond. These are the star systems bathed in psychic light without burning in it.
Entire centuries will pass without a single vessel sailing the region, for it offers little to us beyond yet another example of soul energies manifesting in ways mortals can barely control. On more than one occasion the Mechanicum has sought to use Neverborn spirits bound within arcane flesh-machinery to record the Radiant Worlds in an ever-shifting, evolving map. Such attempts have fared as poorly as you might imagine.
And the Inquisition War shows him talking to Draco.
"40K Background
Debate and discuss the rich background of the Warhammer 40,000 universe."
The 40K Background section is for questions, debate and discussion of the background of the game. Threads like this are exactly what that section is made for
The Emperor was dead. 100% completely dead, never coming back. Marbo gazed upon His work with satisfaction. Killing the Emperor had been almost as much of a challenge as that time He had killed a traitor militia squad with a well-placed demolition charge. That is, not a challenge at all. The Emperor's psychic talents had been no match for His stealth and skill at infiltration and once the Emperor was in knife range, well, that was that. And the Chaos gods had thought that He might hesitate like most guardsmen, accepting that there was a target that He could not kill rather than defy His ruler. But no, He had taken their foolish dare and brought slaughter to the very heart of the Imperium. But the joke was on the gods, Marbo thought with a laugh, contemplating the Emperor's dying words.
There was never any real doubt about the Emperor still being alive. Dude's on life support, still has a hand in a bunch of things happening in the physical world and has spoken to a bunch of people relatively recently.
So, question answered. Yet another fun discussion stemming from a Onething thread. Dude, you really need to understand how discussions about background work. They require a question without a simple, unequivocal answer. There are ways of framing a potentially simple, straight-forward question that could instigate more interesting debate. For example, putting forward the notion the Emperor is actually dead, and the psychic essence that powers the Astronomicon is purely a result of the sacrificed psykers and nothing to do with the corpse sitting on the Golden Throne would actually stimulate debate. Posting a pair of quotes and a banal question is not how you start a discussion.
Slipspace wrote: There was never any real doubt about the Emperor still being alive. Dude's on life support, still has a hand in a bunch of things happening in the physical world and has spoken to a bunch of people relatively recently.
So, question answered. Yet another fun discussion stemming from a Onething thread. Dude, you really need to understand how discussions about background work. They require a question without a simple, unequivocal answer. There are ways of framing a potentially simple, straight-forward question that could instigate more interesting debate. For example, putting forward the notion the Emperor is actually dead, and the psychic essence that powers the Astronomicon is purely a result of the sacrificed psykers and nothing to do with the corpse sitting on the Golden Throne would actually stimulate debate. Posting a pair of quotes and a banal question is not how you start a discussion.
Alas, I fear your constructive criticism will go unheeded, he'll probably promptly abandon this thread and start another one about Perpetuals being unquestionably well written because some guy from Reddit said so, or that the Emperor is a psyker.
He really should just start his own blog at this point if these are the types of things he wants to "discuss".
Slipspace wrote: There was never any real doubt about the Emperor still being alive. Dude's on life support, still has a hand in a bunch of things happening in the physical world and has spoken to a bunch of people relatively recently.
So, question answered. Yet another fun discussion stemming from a Onething thread. Dude, you really need to understand how discussions about background work. They require a question without a simple, unequivocal answer. There are ways of framing a potentially simple, straight-forward question that could instigate more interesting debate. For example, putting forward the notion the Emperor is actually dead, and the psychic essence that powers the Astronomicon is purely a result of the sacrificed psykers and nothing to do with the corpse sitting on the Golden Throne would actually stimulate debate. Posting a pair of quotes and a banal question is not how you start a discussion.
Alas, I fear your constructive criticism will go unheeded, he'll probably promptly abandon this thread and start another one about Perpetuals being unquestionably well written because some guy from Reddit said so, or that the Emperor is a psyker.
He really should just start his own blog at this point if these are the types of things he wants to "discuss".
I think I should clarify. I said the Perpetuals are well-written. I did not say that they are indisputably good lore. And most of the time I was not saying they are well-written, I was just having quote Voltstagge show the Perpetuals are not necessarily bad parts of the lore.
I hope I haven't done anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Peregine's quote had me laughing.
There was a ton more doubt until recently. Only in the last few years have we gotten a hard yes or no the Emperor being alive. Additionally there is the more interesting question of what kind of state he is in mentally. More recent sources tend to show either not great or at least no longer pretending he cares.
Why was there ever a doubt ?All you need to do is read the books I quoted. And that's wrong, since Inquisition War and 1st Edition Rogue Trader showed he is alive.
Onething123456 wrote: Why was there ever a doubt ?All you need to do is read the books I quoted. And that's wrong, since Inquisition War and 1st Edition Rogue Trader showed he is alive.
Alive is a relative term and one that having mystery around made the setting more interesting. Is the Imperium still guided by it's God Emperor who is still active in subtle ways. Or are they ignorantly worshiping a corpse plugged into a machine that is essentially on auto pilot as long as you feed it fresh psykers. Either interpretation is valid and fits the setting. GW has pulled back a little to much mystery recently.
Inquisition War had the Emperor 'speaking' - so yes, confirmed he was still alive (as in 'conciously so') way back when in 1990 - albeit totally schizoid.
The difference with Gulliman's experience is essentially that a 'credible witness' has experienced it, rather than (a) an untrustworthy heretic (Draco) or (b) an untrustworthy Xenos (Lhariel).
That only matters for in-universe knowledge, though. Us readers are 3rd party omniscient, so it's all good.
It was from the Harlequin's perspective when she sensed the Emperor's power. And the Eldar hate the Emperor. And we see Draco in the quote talking to the Emperor. Its proof.
While there is something conscious in the Golden Throne most of those sources paint a fairly clear picture that what ever the emperor was before, he is something entirely different now.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While there is something conscious in the Golden Throne most of those sources paint a fairly clear picture that what ever the emperor was before, he is something entirely different now.
Yes. What do you think of the lore from 1st Edition Rogue Trader. Can you show me that quote you talked about in my other thread by putting it in a PM? I made a new reply to my thread about the Imperium's knowledge of Old Earth.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While there is something conscious in the Golden Throne most of those sources paint a fairly clear picture that what ever the emperor was before, he is something entirely different now.
Yes. What do you think of the lore from 1st Edition Rogue Trader. Can you show me that quote you talked about in my other thread by putting it in a PM? I made a new reply to my thread about the Imperium's knowledge of Old Earth.
It's page 72 of Prospero burns and the conversation goes on for several pages. Again, I'm not retyping pages of a novel. If you want to read it, give the book a read. It's one of the better heresy novels.
As for any Fluff from 1st Edition, I take it with a massive grain of salt unless it has been repeated in a more current edition or source. The setting and game were very different back then and a lot of concepts and information from 1st is not current.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While there is something conscious in the Golden Throne most of those sources paint a fairly clear picture that what ever the emperor was before, he is something entirely different now.
Yes. What do you think of the lore from 1st Edition Rogue Trader. Can you show me that quote you talked about in my other thread by putting it in a PM? I made a new reply to my thread about the Imperium's knowledge of Old Earth.
It's page 72 of Prospero burns and the conversation goes on for several pages. Again, I'm not retyping pages of a novel. If you want to read it, give the book a read. It's one of the better heresy novels.
As for any Fluff from 1st Edition, I take it with a massive grain of salt unless it has been repeated in a more current edition or source. The setting and game were very different back then and a lot of concepts and information from 1st is not current.
Thank you for the page number. 1st Edition Rogue Trader was better than most things in the Horus Heresy books.
In first edition he was described in some texts as being barely alive or functionally dead. A few cells alive and the soul departed into the warp, hence star child. But he was also described as being able to talk and make decisions, only he could order the creation of new chapters and the like. Since then he was kept “alive” by the throne which was failing.
I’m still not convinced he did talk to roboute. I think old big blue went in, saw what is basically a corpse and heard nothing. So he sat there all day then came out and said “he told me to be in charge! It’s all ok........he’s fine by the way.”
And somewhere in the distant warp a little star child sparkled.
I’m still not convinced he did talk to roboute. I think old big blue went in, saw what is basically a corpse and heard nothing. So he sat there all day then came out and said “he told me to be in charge! It’s all ok........he’s fine by the way.”
And somewhere in the distant warp a little star child sparkled.
I’m still not convinced he did talk to roboute. I think old big blue went in, saw what is basically a corpse and heard nothing. So he sat there all day then came out and said “he told me to be in charge! It’s all ok........he’s fine by the way.”
And somewhere in the distant warp a little star child sparkled.
Andykp wrote: In first edition he was described in some texts as being barely alive or functionally dead. A few cells alive and the soul departed into the warp, hence star child. But he was also described as being able to talk and make decisions, only he could order the creation of new chapters and the like. Since then he was kept “alive” by the throne which was failing.
I’m still not convinced he did talk to roboute. I think old big blue went in, saw what is basically a corpse and heard nothing. So he sat there all day then came out and said “he told me to be in charge! It’s all ok........he’s fine by the way.”
And somewhere in the distant warp a little star child sparkled.
Its confirmed fro his own thoughts that he did. Why the hell would he lie to himself? He was hurt learning that the Emperor never loved him and his brothers (or at least he thought he does not love them). What he did lie about was telling one Marine that the Emperor loved them all.
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end.
Crimson wrote: Can we get Andykp to write the fluff for GW? His take is way better than the official one.
The lore from 1st Edition Rogue Trader craps on just about everything in the Horus Heresy books. I say it craps on in my opinion even the Perpetuals or whatever was the best in the Horus Heresy books.
Crimson wrote: Can we get Andykp to write the fluff for GW? His take is way better than the official one.
If only I could spell! I like the question marks in 40k. Less we actually know the better.
Yes, absolutely! I hate how the HH series has revealed that what once seemed mythic and mysterious to be banal an juvenile.
FINALLY. I thought I was alone in that. The great time of myth and intrigue is just a load of emo kids with daddy issues! GW sold out on that one, the books made too much money not to be milked dry. Alan blighs forgeworld books were better because it was just historical style accounts of the military actions. Shame about him.
Andykp wrote: In first edition he was described in some texts as being barely alive or functionally dead. A few cells alive and the soul departed into the warp, hence star child. But he was also described as being able to talk and make decisions, only he could order the creation of new chapters and the like. Since then he was kept “alive” by the throne which was failing.
I’m still not convinced he did talk to roboute. I think old big blue went in, saw what is basically a corpse and heard nothing. So he sat there all day then came out and said “he told me to be in charge! It’s all ok........he’s fine by the way.”
And somewhere in the distant warp a little star child sparkled.
Its confirmed fro his own thoughts that he did. Why the hell would he lie to himself? He was hurt learning that the Emperor never loved him and his brothers (or at least he thought he does not love them). What he did lie about was telling one Marine that the Emperor loved them all.
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end.
And I see that is probably a joke.
Not really a joke. I like to think that’s what happened. Maybe not in those words. All that above could have hallucinations or dreams. He had been through a lot by then and was in stasis for millennia. The mind plays tricks on you when your tired and emotional.
Yeah. There are people today in the real world who think that god(s) talk to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: FINALLY. I thought I was alone in that. The great time of myth and intrigue is just a load of emo kids with daddy issues! GW sold out on that one, the books made too much money not to be milked dry. Alan blighs forgeworld books were better because it was just historical style accounts of the military actions. Shame about him.
There are plenty of people who feel like that, they just usually do not bother to bring it up as this section is the forum has been taken over by HH fans and it just leads to endless arguments.
Crimson wrote: Yeah. There are people today in the real world who think that god(s) talk to them.
But those people are real, and we don't have an omniscient third person view of their lives.
Guilliman is a fictional character in a book, who we have narrative focus on. From what we are presented with, Guilliman's perspective isn't false. The Emperor really DID communicate to him.
You might not like it. That's what headcanon's for. It's cool that you dislike the way GW have taken the story. You can carry on with your version of the story, that's fine, but if other people actually want to talk about the actual storyline as presented, and the way Games Workshop is taking it, there should be nothing wrong with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: FINALLY. I thought I was alone in that. The great time of myth and intrigue is just a load of emo kids with daddy issues! GW sold out on that one, the books made too much money not to be milked dry. Alan blighs forgeworld books were better because it was just historical style accounts of the military actions. Shame about him.
There are plenty of people who feel like that, they just usually do not bother to bring it up as this section is the forum has been taken over by HH fans and it just leads to endless arguments.
Arguments usually between people who follow the canon, and people who ignore the canon and spew headcanons everywhere. Headcanon's fine. Pretending that canon doesn't exist isn't great.
Besides - what's wrong with Horus Heresy fans? It's a far better STORY than most of 40k.*
*note, I say story, not setting. 40k used to have a near absence of story. That appears to be changing, for better or worse.
Crimson wrote: I think that absence of a story is preferable to presence of a bad story. HH was fine as barely remembered myths, it was way cooler that way.
Maybe it was. It doesn't change the fact that now things are different. We have definitive answer, opinions, streams of consiousness from characters. I don't think it's productive to ignore that because you don't like it.
Cool is also subjective too - "I THOUGHT it was way cooler" would be more apt.
My bigger problem with the HH novels is how uneven they are both in over all quality and tone and how bloated they have gotten. We have a ton of filler and it's fairly clear that BL doesn't have anyone looking over the entire series, spotting continuity errors or even a solid over all road map of the story they were trying to tell.
Onething123456 wrote: Was there ever doubt that the Emperor is still alive before Guy Haley's Dark Imperium book? Books before Dark Imperium confirmed that.
Guy Haley's Throneworld book from the Beast Arises confirmed that.
Such power made Lhaerial’s mind reel, and for a moment her contempt for the creatures of Terra wavered. The mind of the Emperor was a mountain in the surging madness of the Othersea, blinding in its brilliance. The Great Powers circled this place like razorshark waiting out the death throes of a void-whale. That terrible presence held them back, and all His little servants were ignorant of it! Unease gripped her, that she would be noticed by the Dark Gods or their defier, and the fragile flame of her being snuffed out.
The feeling passed. The regard of the things of the Othersea was ossified, so long had they fixed their gaze on the Earth. The Emperor did not shift His regard. His attention was elsewhere, upon the blinding pyre of souls, navigation beacon of the mon-keigh. She had no indication she was seen. There was little relief in that. She had laughed in the face of She Who Thirsts, but the Corpse Emperor filled her with a sense of dread.
And this from Aaron Dembski's Bowden's Talon of Horus.
We can see that light. Those of us within the Empire of the Eye can actually see it. The Astronomican reaches even to our purgatorial exile, and to us it is no mere mystical radiance illuminating the warp. It is pain, it is fire, and it plunges entire Neverborn worlds into war.
It would be a mistake to believe the Emperor’s power battles the Four Gods’ forces, here. It is not order against chaos, nor anything as crude as ‘good’ against ‘evil’. It is all psychic energy, crashing together in volatile torment.
Most of the Radiant Worlds are uninhabitable, lost in the lethal crash of conflicting psychic energies. Armies of fire angels and flame-wrought projections wage war against everything in their path. We call this region the Firetide. What made the Avernus Breach so valuable was its path, not its destination. It cut through the systems forever bleached bare of life by the Firetide, and into the calmer Radiant Worlds beyond. These are the star systems bathed in psychic light without burning in it.
Entire centuries will pass without a single vessel sailing the region, for it offers little to us beyond yet another example of soul energies manifesting in ways mortals can barely control. On more than one occasion the Mechanicum has sought to use Neverborn spirits bound within arcane flesh-machinery to record the Radiant Worlds in an ever-shifting, evolving map. Such attempts have fared as poorly as you might imagine.
And the Inquisition War shows him talking to Draco.
The astonomican works; therefore he's alive. No psyker is powerful enough to direct the astronominan other than the emperor, even Magnus could only do it for a short time and he died because of it and he's the rarest of the rare in terms of human psykers.
Onething123456 wrote: Was there ever doubt that the Emperor is still alive before Guy Haley's Dark Imperium book? Books before Dark Imperium confirmed that.
Guy Haley's Throneworld book from the Beast Arises confirmed that.
Such power made Lhaerial’s mind reel, and for a moment her contempt for the creatures of Terra wavered. The mind of the Emperor was a mountain in the surging madness of the Othersea, blinding in its brilliance. The Great Powers circled this place like razorshark waiting out the death throes of a void-whale. That terrible presence held them back, and all His little servants were ignorant of it! Unease gripped her, that she would be noticed by the Dark Gods or their defier, and the fragile flame of her being snuffed out.
The feeling passed. The regard of the things of the Othersea was ossified, so long had they fixed their gaze on the Earth. The Emperor did not shift His regard. His attention was elsewhere, upon the blinding pyre of souls, navigation beacon of the mon-keigh. She had no indication she was seen. There was little relief in that. She had laughed in the face of She Who Thirsts, but the Corpse Emperor filled her with a sense of dread.
And this from Aaron Dembski's Bowden's Talon of Horus.
We can see that light. Those of us within the Empire of the Eye can actually see it. The Astronomican reaches even to our purgatorial exile, and to us it is no mere mystical radiance illuminating the warp. It is pain, it is fire, and it plunges entire Neverborn worlds into war.
It would be a mistake to believe the Emperor’s power battles the Four Gods’ forces, here. It is not order against chaos, nor anything as crude as ‘good’ against ‘evil’. It is all psychic energy, crashing together in volatile torment.
Most of the Radiant Worlds are uninhabitable, lost in the lethal crash of conflicting psychic energies. Armies of fire angels and flame-wrought projections wage war against everything in their path. We call this region the Firetide. What made the Avernus Breach so valuable was its path, not its destination. It cut through the systems forever bleached bare of life by the Firetide, and into the calmer Radiant Worlds beyond. These are the star systems bathed in psychic light without burning in it.
Entire centuries will pass without a single vessel sailing the region, for it offers little to us beyond yet another example of soul energies manifesting in ways mortals can barely control. On more than one occasion the Mechanicum has sought to use Neverborn spirits bound within arcane flesh-machinery to record the Radiant Worlds in an ever-shifting, evolving map. Such attempts have fared as poorly as you might imagine.
And the Inquisition War shows him talking to Draco.
The astonomican works; therefore he's alive. No psyker is powerful enough to direct the astronominan other than the emperor, even Magnus could only do it for a short time and he died because of it and he's the rarest of the rare in terms of human psykers.
Malcador. The Emperor directs the Astronomican, he does not power it. But he is the only one who can do it.
Onething123456 wrote: Was there ever doubt that the Emperor is still alive before Guy Haley's Dark Imperium book? Books before Dark Imperium confirmed that.
Guy Haley's Throneworld book from the Beast Arises confirmed that.
Such power made Lhaerial’s mind reel, and for a moment her contempt for the creatures of Terra wavered. The mind of the Emperor was a mountain in the surging madness of the Othersea, blinding in its brilliance. The Great Powers circled this place like razorshark waiting out the death throes of a void-whale. That terrible presence held them back, and all His little servants were ignorant of it! Unease gripped her, that she would be noticed by the Dark Gods or their defier, and the fragile flame of her being snuffed out.
The feeling passed. The regard of the things of the Othersea was ossified, so long had they fixed their gaze on the Earth. The Emperor did not shift His regard. His attention was elsewhere, upon the blinding pyre of souls, navigation beacon of the mon-keigh. She had no indication she was seen. There was little relief in that. She had laughed in the face of She Who Thirsts, but the Corpse Emperor filled her with a sense of dread.
And this from Aaron Dembski's Bowden's Talon of Horus.
We can see that light. Those of us within the Empire of the Eye can actually see it. The Astronomican reaches even to our purgatorial exile, and to us it is no mere mystical radiance illuminating the warp. It is pain, it is fire, and it plunges entire Neverborn worlds into war.
It would be a mistake to believe the Emperor’s power battles the Four Gods’ forces, here. It is not order against chaos, nor anything as crude as ‘good’ against ‘evil’. It is all psychic energy, crashing together in volatile torment.
Most of the Radiant Worlds are uninhabitable, lost in the lethal crash of conflicting psychic energies. Armies of fire angels and flame-wrought projections wage war against everything in their path. We call this region the Firetide. What made the Avernus Breach so valuable was its path, not its destination. It cut through the systems forever bleached bare of life by the Firetide, and into the calmer Radiant Worlds beyond. These are the star systems bathed in psychic light without burning in it.
Entire centuries will pass without a single vessel sailing the region, for it offers little to us beyond yet another example of soul energies manifesting in ways mortals can barely control. On more than one occasion the Mechanicum has sought to use Neverborn spirits bound within arcane flesh-machinery to record the Radiant Worlds in an ever-shifting, evolving map. Such attempts have fared as poorly as you might imagine.
And the Inquisition War shows him talking to Draco.
The astonomican works; therefore he's alive. No psyker is powerful enough to direct the astronominan other than the emperor, even Magnus could only do it for a short time and he died because of it and he's the rarest of the rare in terms of human psykers.
Malcador. The Emperor directs the Astronomican, he does not power it. But he is the only one who can do it.
He used to power it and direct it, but that's irrelevant, he needs to direct it because he's the only one powerful enough to do it.
Or that's what the authorities say. Maybe the real reason for all the witch hunts is to find poweful psykers they can install on the throne until they burn out and it is time to switch in the new one like a lightbulb. There's a giant unmarked pile of bones behind the Imperial Palace for the remains of all those psykers, the bones of the original Emperor laying on the bottom of it.
(No need to chime in to tell me how that cannot be because on page 128 of this and that BL book a Primarch said it isn't so while angsting and punching titans to death. I know.)
The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
Andykp wrote: The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
We know he did. Why the hell would he hallucinate it? Primarchs are mentally healthy beyond mortal ways. Gulliman has no mental problems.
Its a fact that it happened. Move on. Case closed.
Mind closed. Who know roboute mental state. It could have been tzeentch talking to him. Tomorrow GW could release a book undoes all of thei canon in a flash.
Andykp wrote: Mind closed. Who know roboute mental state. It could have been tzeentch talking to him. Tomorrow GW could release a book undoes all of thei canon in a flash.
I prefer that it was the Star Child. There was Table Top for the Sensei as champions of the Star Child in 1st Edition Rogue Trader. They could ascend to the Sensei equivalent of a Daemon Prince as a champion of the Star Child, and freely go between the warp and the materium. 1st Edition Rogue Trader was the best.
Andykp wrote: Mind closed. Who know roboute mental state. It could have been tzeentch talking to him. Tomorrow GW could release a book undoes all of thei canon in a flash.
Could.
If they do, that's canon, and I'll take it. As it currently stands, the wider contextual stance taken by GW implies that it was genuinely the Emperor talking, and the fan-theories that Guilliman is hallucinating are just that - fan-theories.
We know he did. Why the hell would he hallucinate it? Primarchs are mentally healthy beyond mortal ways. Gulliman has no mental problems.
Yeah, 'mentally healthy' certainly is not a description that I'd apply to Primarchs... these guys are bonkers. And let's not forget that the guy was popsicle for several millennia and resurrected by xeno-necromancy and heretech. Who knows what that sort of thing does to your brain.
Also, stop being so boring and literal. It's fiction anyway, none of it is real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: It could have been tzeentch talking to him.
Or Ynnead. That would make sense. The whole thing could be an Ynnari plot to manipulate the Imperium for their purposes.
We know he did. Why the hell would he hallucinate it? Primarchs are mentally healthy beyond mortal ways. Gulliman has no mental problems.
Yeah, 'mentally healthy' certainly is not a description that I'd apply to Primarchs... these guys are bonkers. And let's not forget that the guy was popsicle for several millennia and resurrected by xeno-necromancy and heretech. Who knows what that sort of thing does to your brain.
Also, stop being so boring and literal. It's fiction anyway, none of it is real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: It could have been tzeentch talking to him.
Or Ynnead. That would make sense. The whole thing could be an Ynnari plot to manipulate the Imperium for their purposes.
At this point you are making balls-out assumptions. Guy Haley's Throneworld and Aaron Dembski-Bowden's Talon of Horus show he is alve. An Eldar Harlequin sensed the Emperor's power while she was on Terra, and the Emperor in the other book, Talon of Horus created the Angels of fire from the Astronomican.
And what you said would not do crap to the Primarch's mental health.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But everything in 40k is told from unreliable narrators. That is the point of the setting.
Crimson wrote: Also, stop being so boring and literal. It's fiction anyway, none of it is real.
Yay! Let's ignore everything about 40k background in the Background section!! It's fiction, so stop reading it and making rationalisations about it!!! It's not like people have done that for years with, I don't know, literally every fictional franchise ever? Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo etc etc...
If people want to read the lore, and codify canon for it, why is that boring?
Crimson wrote: Also, stop being so boring and literal. It's fiction anyway, none of it is real.
Yay! Let's ignore everything about 40k background in the Background section!! It's fiction, so stop reading it and making rationalisations about it!!! It's not like people have done that for years with, I don't know, literally every fictional franchise ever? Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo etc etc...
If people want to read the lore, and codify canon for it, why is that boring?
40K used to be different. The lore was a weird mess of lies and half truths. lot of things could be true, but many times no one really knew what was true for sure. That was interesting and the fans used to understand this. But nowadays it must be just the one way, and here are the quotes. So that's boring. If the point is just to verify the facts, you can go read the Lexicanum or the books in question; there is no need for an discussion forum.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I though Magnus could as well, at least in theory, since his father's plan for him was ultimately to be a living warp battery.
Magnus is no longer on the Imperiums side though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Or that's what the authorities say. Maybe the real reason for all the witch hunts is to find poweful psykers they can install on the throne until they burn out and it is time to switch in the new one like a lightbulb. There's a giant unmarked pile of bones behind the Imperial Palace for the remains of all those psykers, the bones of the original Emperor laying on the bottom of it.
(No need to chime in to tell me how that cannot be because on page 128 of this and that BL book a Primarch said it isn't so while angsting and punching titans to death. I know.)
Well its possible as Lord Viktor LaHayn used the 'engine' that could create a psyker as powerful or near powerful as the Emperor in theory, out of a worlds population. So there is possibilities but for human born psykers it is incredibly unlikely, the black ships were in use for the great crusade and no psyker could be found anywhere near Malcador's strength, let alone the strength of the Emperor, plus there is nothing special about the Emperor if they could, there would be something like him in all the time of the age of strife, unification all the way up to the 41st millennium. Plus they'd need a constant supply of Malcadors as he was burned up by doing it for a short period of time. Plus Malcador was said to be stronger than Magnus, so I doubt the human physiology can handle doing it. So I really doubt it, the odds are too vast.
And what you said would not do crap to the Primarch's mental health.
Ah, good to see you're the resident expert on fictitious races and their fictitious gods and the effects they have on fictitious metahumans brains after their fictitious resurrections using means that are utterly beyond our current human understanding.
Crimson wrote: Also, stop being so boring and literal. It's fiction anyway, none of it is real.
Yay! Let's ignore everything about 40k background in the Background section!! It's fiction, so stop reading it and making rationalisations about it!!! It's not like people have done that for years with, I don't know, literally every fictional franchise ever? Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo etc etc...
If people want to read the lore, and codify canon for it, why is that boring?
40K used to be different. The lore was a weird mess of lies and half truths. lot of things could be true, but many times no one really knew what was true for sure. That was interesting and the fans used to understand this. But nowadays it must be just the one way, and here are the quotes. So that's boring. If the point is just to verify the facts, you can go read the Lexicanum or the books in question; there is no need for an discussion forum.
I could sum up your argument in one word.
Was.
Just because you find it boring and uninteresting doesn't mean everyone else does. Some people want to discuss the actual canon on discussion forums. In those same forum, you can discuss maybe what it *should* be like, according to yourself, but on a thread which is about current canon?
Maybe this will all be a was too, but it ain't yet.
Andykp wrote: The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back while powering and directing the Astronomican. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.
Andykp wrote: The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.
They "know" that as that's what they are told. How many things IRL do we "know" right now as that is simply what we are told to be the truth?
The Mechanicus nowadays don't have a fething clue how it works, as this was kinda a huge plot point pre 8th ed. They had to resort to the Dark Eldar (IIRC) to find a method to fix it.
The 40k setting was written as an open sand box for games to be set in. Lord of rings and starwars were stories first. 40k deliberately ambiguous, starwars an actual linear story. (Except in episode release order). The BLHH version of events is one version but there are many more from many perspectives. Many not yet written. Some people on here take a books word as gospel but dismiss the writings in an earlier book. Seemingly not realising that one day a book will replace the one they swear is “fact”.
At the end of the day we don’t know what GW plan to do with the setting. The authors of the books you claim to be so reliable urge you to not take everything in them literally. The point of this discussion forum is to discuss the background. The background is still thankfully ambiguous enough to allow you to tell your own story in it. My groups games are all set in a remote area in the dark imperium so the people there’s knowledge of the emperor and things would be nothing to do what was in those books. They wouldn’t know a thing about the HH in detail, it would be mythical legend time. Same with guiliman coming to see the emperor. 40k is a game first. The story is their to support the game and sell models.
In summary I think people need to take it less seriously, it isn’t history your debating here it’s a fictional war game setting. To me there is no difference between head cannon and official cannon. It’s all as valid as anything else from someone’s view point. The eldar don’t think the same about the emperor as the humans do etc.
Andykp wrote: The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.
They "know" that as that's what they are told. How many things IRL do we "know" right now as that is simply what we are told to be the truth?
The Mechanicus nowadays don't have a fething clue how it works, as this was kinda a huge plot point pre 8th ed. They had to resort to the Dark Eldar (IIRC) to find a method to fix it.
The mechanicus dont “know” how most things work. That’s why they pray to engines. They build things and repair them without any understanding of how they work. That’s the point. As above, they didn’t know how to fix it. Big E might have but that doesn’t mean the adepts in the 40000s have any clue. Feed more people to it and keep hoping.
Just because you find it boring and uninteresting doesn't mean everyone else does. Some people want to discuss the actual canon on discussion forums. In those same forum, you can discuss maybe what it *should* be like, according to yourself, but on a thread which is about current canon?
Maybe this will all be a was too, but it ain't yet.
40K still has no hard canon, it never had. People just don't get it.
Spoiler:
Marc Gascoigne, former head of Black Library wrote:
"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about “canonical background” will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history…
Here’s our standard line: Yes it’s all official, but remember that we’re reporting back from a time where stories aren’t always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let’s put it another way: 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.
I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.
Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note that answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.
But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.
It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nuclear war; that nails it for me."
Furthermore, the speculation about the Ynnari plot or Guilliman being nuts are perfectly valid even in the light of the books being quoted. If only thing we can do is to quote stated facts as they appear in books without inserting any personal interpretation, what's the fething point? As i said, read the bloody book, then you know what it says, no discussion needed.
Andykp wrote: The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.
They "know" that as that's what they are told. How many things IRL do we "know" right now as that is simply what we are told to be the truth?
The Mechanicus nowadays don't have a fething clue how it works, as this was kinda a huge plot point pre 8th ed. They had to resort to the Dark Eldar (IIRC) to find a method to fix it.
Even if they didn't know, we know well if you have read the master of mankind that is. The Emperor needed the extra psykers for power, saying we don't know is just 'yeah but what if' and that kind of thinking can leave you saying 'what if' to everything, Horus beat the Emperor 'what if.'
Andykp wrote: The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.
Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.
They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.
They "know" that as that's what they are told. How many things IRL do we "know" right now as that is simply what we are told to be the truth?
The Mechanicus nowadays don't have a fething clue how it works, as this was kinda a huge plot point pre 8th ed. They had to resort to the Dark Eldar (IIRC) to find a method to fix it.
The mechanicus dont “know” how most things work. That’s why they pray to engines. They build things and repair them without any understanding of how they work. That’s the point. As above, they didn’t know how to fix it. Big E might have but that doesn’t mean the adepts in the 40000s have any clue. Feed more people to it and keep hoping.
They have a lot of knowledge, the machine has been working for 10,000 years. Yeah they don't know everything but saying they don't have a fething clue is miss-guided. They pray to the machine spirit, they don't pray to screws and expect that they'll turn themselves.
They have a lot of knowledge, the machine has been working for 10,000 years. Yeah they don't know everything but saying they don't have a fething clue is miss-guided. They pray to the machine spirit, they don't pray to screws and expect that they'll turn themselves.
Nope, they have no clue. Only what Big E has said is the depth of their knowledge of how it was run. To question that would be heresy. Big E isn't exactly in any position to tell them where they're going wrong.
And the Mechanicus absolutely "pray to screws". The example that immediately comes to mind is the ICBM from Storm of Iron and the "ritual" that must be performed to send it on its holy hunt.
From mechanicum codex:
"The Tech-Priest custodians at work in the Emperor’s Palace uncover irrevocable failures in the mechanisms of the Golden Throne. A dozen contingency expeditions are immediately launched, including a Xanthite war procession sent through the Exhubris Portal. The Xanthites fight through Harlequin Troupes and Daemon hordes alike before reaching their intended destination. In the grave-cold oubliettes beneath Commorragh, a dark bargain is struck."
The Throne was that fethed they had to resort to a bargain with the DE to fix it. What exactly that was, we don't know. That there is what is known as a closed door.
By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.
They have a lot of knowledge, the machine has been working for 10,000 years. Yeah they don't know everything but saying they don't have a fething clue is miss-guided. They pray to the machine spirit, they don't pray to screws and expect that they'll turn themselves.
Nope, they have no clue. Only what Big E has said is the depth of their knowledge of how it was run. To question that would be heresy. Big E isn't exactly in any position to tell them where they're going wrong.
And the Mechanicus absolutely "pray to screws". The example that immediately comes to mind is the ICBM from Storm of Iron and the "ritual" that must be performed to send it on its holy hunt.
From mechanicum codex:
"The Tech-Priest custodians at work in the Emperor’s Palace uncover irrevocable failures in the mechanisms of the Golden Throne. A dozen contingency expeditions are immediately launched, including a Xanthite war procession sent through the Exhubris Portal. The Xanthites fight through Harlequin Troupes and Daemon hordes alike before reaching their intended destination. In the grave-cold oubliettes beneath Commorragh, a dark bargain is struck."
The Throne was that fethed they had to resort to a bargain with the DE to fix it. What exactly that was, we don't know. That there is what is known as a closed door.
They have no clue on how to stop the 'golden throne' from failing, that's all been written about the extent they don't know. We 'know' that the psykers feed his body and power the astronomican and that he guides it, I mean this is fundamental lore, its been stated throughout 40k history lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.
Yeah only because its his first time talking with the Emperor interred on the throne, his psyche has literally been destroyed and has been called insane by Dorn. He is in eternal torment and has been spread out in the warp looking after the Imperium and fighting Chaos, so I doubt he had words of encouragement or fatherly pride to impart to Guilliman.
Andykp wrote:The 40k setting was written as an open sand box for games to be set in. Lord of rings and starwars were stories first. 40k deliberately ambiguous, starwars an actual linear story. (Except in episode release order). The BLHH version of events is one version but there are many more from many perspectives. Many not yet written. Some people on here take a books word as gospel but dismiss the writings in an earlier book. Seemingly not realising that one day a book will replace the one they swear is “fact”.
Thought I'd emphasise the "was". 40k USED to be that. Now, with the push towards story driven events (Vigilus, the Horus Heresy, the war for Konor), 40k isn't what it used to be.
The BLHH stories fundamentally ARE facts. Now, could certain things be down to the interpretation? Yes. However, the claims and evidence for those interpretations are from in-universe sources. Allow me to explain: the infamous Word Bearers saying that the Ultramarines absorbed the other Legions. Is it a fact in-universe that those Word Bearers believe it? Yes. Is their belief in-universe enough to make a fact? No.
I'm not advocating "whatever we're told from a character's speech is true!!". Characters can lie (when speaking). Characters can be wrong. When you compare things to the wider context of the universe, using canon, you can see if that character could be in a position to be correct and is correct, or if they're wrong in-universe.
However, the thing I'm saying is that sometimes, in the books, we have cases of ABSOLUTE facts,, due to the third-person-omniscient narrative style. The fact we can see into a character's head means we can know some absolute facts. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes* the Emperor spoke to him. It makes no sense that he, in-universe, didn't believe the Emperor spoke to him, and then, for us, the reader, says that he believes he did.
We know for a fact that, when a character says something or does something that we as the reader see first hand, that action occurred. Was what they said a lie? Perhaps, but we know that they at least said it. This is canon. Guilliman believing he heard the Emperor is canon.
*Just because I said he believes he heard the Emperor doesn't mean he did. It might not have been the Emperor he heard. However, in my opinion, the way it's written, the way it's supported in general Games Workshop writings, and all the rest imply to me that it was genuine.
At the end of the day we don’t know what GW plan to do with the setting. The authors of the books you claim to be so reliable urge you to not take everything in them literally.
No, they argue not to take the opinions of characters as fact. Which I don't. I do, however, take the holistic picture and evidence from the setting, and create a framework of what we know to be accurate and true. This forms canon.
The point of this discussion forum is to discuss the background. The background is still thankfully ambiguous enough to allow you to tell your own story in it. My groups games are all set in a remote area in the dark imperium so the people there’s knowledge of the emperor and things would be nothing to do what was in those books. They wouldn’t know a thing about the HH in detail, it would be mythical legend time. Same with guiliman coming to see the emperor. 40k is a game first. The story is their to support the game and sell models.
Which is fine. You've found a way in-universe for YOUR dudes to be out of the loop - that's genuinely great! I like that. However, the story still exists outside of that universe that we can read. Just because your guys in-universe aren't part of that particular story doesn't mean it's not happening.
Which is my whole point: you can avoid the main story and it's canon as much as you like. You don't need to engage with it. But it doesn't change the fact it's still there.
In summary I think people need to take it less seriously, it isn’t history your debating here it’s a fictional war game setting. To me there is no difference between head cannon and official cannon. It’s all as valid as anything else from someone’s view point. The eldar don’t think the same about the emperor as the humans do etc.
It's a fictional setting with history. History is history. Why can't I debate it?
There's nothing inherently worse about headcanon. The issues arise when canon discussions conflict with headcanon ones.
Of course the Eldar think differently about the Emperor. But I'm not talking about the Eldar's viewpoint. I'm talking about ours, as a reader, gleaned from the various viewpoints and fact in-universe.
Crimson:
Spoiler:
Crimson wrote:40K still has no hard canon, it never had. People just don't get it.
If 40k has no hard canon, do you mean to tell me that there's a chance Space Marines do not exist? Or that humanity is actually extinct? Or there's actually only Nurgle, and the other Chaos Gods as we know them don't actually exist?
Saying 40k has no hard canon is simply untrue. It has canon. It has facts. A lot of those facts are behind opinions, but with the books, we have facts of things that were said and done, even if we don't know the intent behind them.
Marc Gascoigne, former head of Black Library wrote:
SNIP
Emphasis - former.
And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.
Furthermore, the speculation about the Ynnari plot or Guilliman being nuts are perfectly valid even in the light of the books being quoted. If only thing we can do is to quote stated facts as they appear in books without inserting any personal interpretation, what's the fething point? As i said, read the bloody book, then you know what it says, no discussion needed.
Those interpretations are just fine. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make them. I'm saying that denying facts, such as actual speech or actions, is counter-canon.
As I see it, we should "quote stated facts as they appear in books", but our interpretations come from those facts in conjuction with other facts in the setting, as to our hypothesis. There's room for personal interpretation, using evidence of facts in the books. Of course, just my view on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.
Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.
Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.
If I was an alien seeking to undermine humanity, I wouldn't have tried to communicate in the first place and prove the "Death" of the Emperor, but we have different methods.
Andykp wrote:The 40k setting was written as an open sand box for games to be set in. Lord of rings and starwars were stories first. 40k deliberately ambiguous, starwars an actual linear story. (Except in episode release order). The BLHH version of events is one version but there are many more from many perspectives. Many not yet written. Some people on here take a books word as gospel but dismiss the writings in an earlier book. Seemingly not realising that one day a book will replace the one they swear is “fact”.
Thought I'd emphasise the "was". 40k USED to be that. Now, with the push towards story driven events (Vigilus, the Horus Heresy, the war for Konor), 40k isn't what it used to be.
The BLHH stories fundamentally ARE facts. Now, could certain things be down to the interpretation? Yes. However, the claims and evidence for those interpretations are from in-universe sources. Allow me to explain: the infamous Word Bearers saying that the Ultramarines absorbed the other Legions. Is it a fact in-universe that those Word Bearers believe it? Yes. Is their belief in-universe enough to make a fact? No.
I'm not advocating "whatever we're told from a character's speech is true!!". Characters can lie (when speaking). Characters can be wrong. When you compare things to the wider context of the universe, using canon, you can see if that character could be in a position to be correct and is correct, or if they're wrong in-universe.
However, the thing I'm saying is that sometimes, in the books, we have cases of ABSOLUTE facts,, due to the third-person-omniscient narrative style. The fact we can see into a character's head means we can know some absolute facts. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes* the Emperor spoke to him. It makes no sense that he, in-universe, didn't believe the Emperor spoke to him, and then, for us, the reader, says that he believes he did.
We know for a fact that, when a character says something or does something that we as the reader see first hand, that action occurred. Was what they said a lie? Perhaps, but we know that they at least said it. This is canon. Guilliman believing he heard the Emperor is canon.
*Just because I said he believes he heard the Emperor doesn't mean he did. It might not have been the Emperor he heard. However, in my opinion, the way it's written, the way it's supported in general Games Workshop writings, and all the rest imply to me that it was genuine.
At the end of the day we don’t know what GW plan to do with the setting. The authors of the books you claim to be so reliable urge you to not take everything in them literally.
No, they argue not to take the opinions of characters as fact. Which I don't. I do, however, take the holistic picture and evidence from the setting, and create a framework of what we know to be accurate and true. This forms canon.
The point of this discussion forum is to discuss the background. The background is still thankfully ambiguous enough to allow you to tell your own story in it. My groups games are all set in a remote area in the dark imperium so the people there’s knowledge of the emperor and things would be nothing to do what was in those books. They wouldn’t know a thing about the HH in detail, it would be mythical legend time. Same with guiliman coming to see the emperor. 40k is a game first. The story is their to support the game and sell models.
Which is fine. You've found a way in-universe for YOUR dudes to be out of the loop - that's genuinely great! I like that. However, the story still exists outside of that universe that we can read. Just because your guys in-universe aren't part of that particular story doesn't mean it's not happening.
Which is my whole point: you can avoid the main story and it's canon as much as you like. You don't need to engage with it. But it doesn't change the fact it's still there.
In summary I think people need to take it less seriously, it isn’t history your debating here it’s a fictional war game setting. To me there is no difference between head cannon and official cannon. It’s all as valid as anything else from someone’s view point. The eldar don’t think the same about the emperor as the humans do etc.
It's a fictional setting with history. History is history. Why can't I debate it?
There's nothing inherently worse about headcanon. The issues arise when canon discussions conflict with headcanon ones.
Of course the Eldar think differently about the Emperor. But I'm not talking about the Eldar's viewpoint. I'm talking about ours, as a reader, gleaned from the various viewpoints and fact in-universe.
Crimson:
Spoiler:
Crimson wrote:40K still has no hard canon, it never had. People just don't get it.
If 40k has no hard canon, do you mean to tell me that there's a chance Space Marines do not exist? Or that humanity is actually extinct? Or there's actually only Nurgle, and the other Chaos Gods as we know them don't actually exist?
Saying 40k has no hard canon is simply untrue. It has canon. It has facts. A lot of those facts are behind opinions, but with the books, we have facts of things that were said and done, even if we don't know the intent behind them.
Marc Gascoigne, former head of Black Library wrote: SNIP
Emphasis - former.
And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.
Furthermore, the speculation about the Ynnari plot or Guilliman being nuts are perfectly valid even in the light of the books being quoted. If only thing we can do is to quote stated facts as they appear in books without inserting any personal interpretation, what's the fething point? As i said, read the bloody book, then you know what it says, no discussion needed.
Those interpretations are just fine. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make them. I'm saying that denying facts, such as actual speech or actions, is counter-canon.
As I see it, we should "quote stated facts as they appear in books", but our interpretations come from those facts in conjuction with other facts in the setting, as to our hypothesis. There's room for personal interpretation, using evidence of facts in the books. Of course, just my view on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.
Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.
Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.
If I was an alien seeking to undermine humanity, I wouldn't have tried to communicate in the first place and prove the "Death" of the Emperor, but we have different methods.
Exalted. Sums up exactly what I think the approach to fluff should be (at least within the confines of the Dakka background sub-forum). It always baffles me when the people use the loosey goosey hand wave term "there is no canon!", as if that absolves them from having to back up their points. Head-canon is fine, but given its inherently subjective nature and it lacking any canonical authority, it never really has much place when discussing actual events that occur in the modern fluff. Otherwise, all we have are people saying "but from my point of view, the Jedi are evil" to one another.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.
I really think it is mistake to think that there is a third person omniscient narrator. There is third person narrator, yes, but not omniscient one. Like Gascoigne says the story with this narrator may be a legend or a rumour. And all that is written cannot literally be true at the same time, because there are contradictions. The Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named by Ollanius... or was it a Imperial Fist Terminator who saved him? Or perhaps a Custodian? All these are from third person perspective, all them are canon. The canon being wibbly doesn't mean space marines do not exist in the setting or some nonsense like that, but exact details of the events are only approximations, and may well be somewhat different when the next writer recounts them.
Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.
Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.
I mean sure, that's probably how the writer meant it, as it is the most boring explanation possible and the defining characteristic of Guilliman is that he is boring as feth. But the facts presented here would still allow some writer with more imagination (or probably more accurately a writer with a GW supervisor who was willing to take more risks) to do something more interesting with them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.
I really think it is mistake to think that there is a third person omniscient narrator. There is third person narrator, yes, but not omniscient one. Like Gascoigne says the story with this narrator may be a legend or a rumour. And all that is written cannot literally be true at the same time, because there are contradictions. The Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named by Ollanius... or was it a Imperial Fist Terminator who saved him? Or perhaps a Custodian? All these are from third person perspective, all them are canon. The canon being wibbly doesn't mean space marines do not exist in the setting or some nonsense like that, but exact details of the events are only approximations, and may well be somewhat different when the next writer recounts them.
Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.
I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.
Considering that the Emperor being alive and capable of communication has been established for a long time consistently, and supported by the wider GW stance, it stands to reason that him actually speaking to Guilliman is more likely canon.
The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.
Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.
Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.
I mean sure, that's probably how the writer meant it, as it is the most boring explanation possible and the defining characteristic of Guilliman is that he is boring as feth. But the facts presented here would still allow some writer with more imagination (or probably more accurately a writer with a GW supervisor who was willing to take more risks) to do something more interesting with them.
I think this is perfectly interesting. The facts presented make Guilliman's actions the most in-character choice he could have taken, which I appreciate. Guilliman's character is about order and duty. Him choosing that over some petty "ooh lets go cause another civil war!!" plotline is a dodged bullet for me.
Tomato, tomato.
I'm also noticing a lot of explicit language cropping up here - glad to see the censor function is working.
Smudge you reply to me which I won’t quote misses the point. To me there is no distinction between head canon and canon. It isn’t one is worse than the other they are the same thing. Me waving things away as “there is no canon” is no different than you waving away all the fluff writers saying don’t take it as fact. Yes marines exist, but there are enough of them you can have marines be whatever you want. It’s all open ended. The key to the 40k setting is that no one person knows the facts. The imperium is so big and so cumbersome that it’s impossible. In these books I are getting snippets but the head of the department says they deliberately made them confusing and contradictory, the reason they do that is because in the setting information is confusing and contradictory. Therefore the stories that come out of it are too.
So you might regard these things as fact but I do not. I follow the advice of those writing these things and doubt everything. U cannot tell me I’m wrong to do that. The history of the setting is about the last 30years and the people who wrote it. It was all head cannon. Before BL started screwing it all up it used to be games and narratives that drove the stories. Now it’s sales.
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
Andykp wrote: Smudge you reply to me which I won’t quote misses the point. To me there is no distinction between head canon and canon. It isn’t one is worse than the other they are the same thing. Me waving things away as “there is no canon” is no different than you waving away all the fluff writers saying don’t take it as fact.
Okay, simple question: are there official publications by Black Library? Are those publications referenced, and marketed, as part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe?
Yes? In which case, they are in the running to be canon.
All those fluff writers, from how I read what they've said (including Gascoigne), seem to imply that what characters say isn't always factual. Perceptions might not be factual. It's essentially a get-out clause. I respect that. However, how it is written, literally in the language, implies facts within the text. It is a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor. That is not up for debate.
Yes marines exist, but there are enough of them you can have marines be whatever you want. It’s all open ended.
But how can Marines exist? There's no canon, remember! No marines exist, because anything that says there is must be propaganda, or lies, or madness.
If you can handwave facts in-universe with "but there's no canon", there's no point in having this subforum, because it's based on something as ephemeral as mist.
The key to the 40k setting is that no one person knows the facts. The imperium is so big and so cumbersome that it’s impossible. In these books I are getting snippets but the head of the department says they deliberately made them confusing and contradictory, the reason they do that is because in the setting information is confusing and contradictory. Therefore the stories that come out of it are too.
No, that USED to be 40k. With more and more being written all the time, facts are emerging. The Sons of Horus were once called the Luna Wolves. Horus was the first Primarch found. Loken is the Captain of the 10th Company of the Sons of Horus.
These are facts. Do you dispute these?
If these are false, explain how? The way the book is written (Horus Rising) is written in such a way that it is linguistically not possible for it to be a recollection, or retold legend, or ancient myth.
There may be discrepancies between books. This is where canon-forming comes in to play, where people take quotes from the books, form hypotheses from them, test the validity of the quotes, and test those hypotheses to create canon.
So you might regard these things as fact but I do not. I follow the advice of those writing these things and doubt everything. U cannot tell me I’m wrong to do that. The history of the setting is about the last 30years and the people who wrote it. It was all head cannon. Before BL started screwing it all up it used to be games and narratives that drove the stories. Now it’s sales.
I can't say you're wrong. I'm saying I disagree with you.
Again, I'd like to sum up your point in the last paragraph with three words:
"...used to be...
That's not what going on right now. Used to be less factual. Used to be undefined. Still is about your own games and narratives - I still forge my own narratives and storylines. I enjoy it a great deal. But I forge those narratives on the metaphorical anvil of what I define to be 40k canon. A canon exists. If you don't like it because it's not how it used to be, that's your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact it exists.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Because it's most likely their way of copping out continuity errors, perhaps?
Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
Yes, and then people can look over the evidence provided as to if X or Y happened, drawn from the existing canon, and from that, formulate which book has incorrect lore. Formulation which happens via discussion on these forums.
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
What? I think you're missing his point. There is plenty of area for discussion within the constraints of canon, since not everything is spelled out for you. (i.e. the exact origins of the Emperor, the conflict between Alpharius and Omegon's factions in the Alpha Legion). I don't see how that ruins the fun for anyone, since you're not forced to give up your head-canon in any way. It's simply that your headcanon should not be a factor when attempting to convince others of your own takes of the current modern fluff, since it has no basis in the current canon. Similarly, outdated fluff like Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau would not be a good representation of the Inquisition in 40K as it is now.
Otherwise, using your own "there is no canon" argument you'd have no way to refute that I say that the Emperor is in fact a magical toaster that farts rainbows, while Eldar are a younger species than humanity and Slaanesh, was in fact, born from the copious lovemaking of both Nurgle and Khorne, and that SpongeBob is one of the missing Primarchs. It's my headcanon, it ain't any less genuine than yours, is it?
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
What? I think you're missing his point. There is plenty of area for discussion within the constraints of canon, since not everything is spelled out for you. (i.e. the exact origins of the Emperor, the conflict between Alpharius and Omegon's factions in the Alpha Legion). I don't see how that ruins the fun for anyone, since you're not forced to give up your head-canon in any way. It's simply that your headcanon should not be a factor when attempting to convince others of your own takes of the current modern fluff, since it has no basis in the current canon. Similarly, outdated fluff like Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau would not be a good representation of the Inquisition in 40K as it is now.
Otherwise, using your own "there is no canon" argument you'd have no way to refute that I say that the Emperor is in fact a magical toaster that farts rainbows, while Eldar are a younger species than humanity and Slaanesh, was in fact, born from the copious lovemaking of both Nurgle and Khorne, and that SpongeBob is one of the missing Primarchs. It's my headcanon, it ain't any less genuine than yours, is it?
LOL. Magical toaster that farts rainbows. The shaman origin is from 1st Edition Rogue Trader.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity. I've had this argument with you before, but like I said the last time I can find you stating 'facts' all over this website.
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
What? I think you're missing his point. There is plenty of area for discussion within the constraints of canon, since not everything is spelled out for you. (i.e. the exact origins of the Emperor, the conflict between Alpharius and Omegon's factions in the Alpha Legion). I don't see how that ruins the fun for anyone, since you're not forced to give up your head-canon in any way. It's simply that your headcanon should not be a factor when attempting to convince others of your own takes of the current modern fluff, since it has no basis in the current canon. Similarly, outdated fluff like Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau would not be a good representation of the Inquisition in 40K as it is now.
Absolutely what I am aiming for.
I'm not saying you shouldn't and cannot discuss the books. I'm saying what could be discussed are motives, exact origins, what-ifs, etc etc, as well as more mundane questions.
If having an "official" chain of events is that much of an issue, I hate to say it, but that's the norm, and those other settings have plenty of fun. Fun for myself, and the fans of them, at least.
Otherwise, using your own "there is no canon" argument you'd have no way to refute that I say that the Emperor is in fact a magical toaster that farts rainbows, while Eldar are a younger species than humanity and Slaanesh, was in fact, born from the copious lovemaking of both Nurgle and Khorne, and that SpongeBob is one of the missing Primarchs. It's my headcanon, it ain't any less genuine than yours, is it?
I've always hated the "nothing is canon" argument. It's frankly just a cop-out answer. Saying that "not every opinion presented by characters is factual" is perfect. Saying that "nothing is factual" devalues both the books, and essentially renders any discussion into little more than just opinions crashing against eachother.
If you remove facts and canon, then you might as well just remove the entire setting.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.
They do, but that is besides the point.
Do you have a quote?
From how they write it doesn't seem like they do:
"I’m a big fan of long-reaching character arcs. In a series like this, you’re not going to get very far
without some rich and compelling narrative arcs. Just as Lorgar in The First Heretic was the one
primarch to have failed the Emperor and never really reached his potential, we’re seeing through
Aurelian, The Butcher’s Nails and now Betrayer that who he was at the Heresy’s beginning isn’t who
he’ll be when (to use his own words) ‘the final day dawns.’ Angron is running along a similar
trajectory. He’s not flawless. He’s not invincible. Like every primarch, he’s a reflection of humanity,
with many aspects manifested and magnified – and with all the blessings and curses that come with
such a mind. He also has the Nails as his personal cross to bear. Of all the primarchs, Angron is the
one thwarted above all others. He’s the one that could never truly become what he might have been.
There’s tragedy inherent in his tale.
He’s largely in control of himself – more or less – at the beginning of Betrayer. As the story
develops, he regresses to his even more unstable self, reliving the past as he walks on the world
where he was raised.
By the end? Well…"
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.
They do, but that is besides the point.
Do you have a quote?
From how they write it doesn't seem like they do:
"I’m a big fan of long-reaching character arcs. In a series like this, you’re not going to get very far
without some rich and compelling narrative arcs. Just as Lorgar in The First Heretic was the one
primarch to have failed the Emperor and never really reached his potential, we’re seeing through
Aurelian, The Butcher’s Nails and now Betrayer that who he was at the Heresy’s beginning isn’t who
he’ll be when (to use his own words) ‘the final day dawns.’ Angron is running along a similar
trajectory. He’s not flawless. He’s not invincible. Like every primarch, he’s a reflection of humanity,
with many aspects manifested and magnified – and with all the blessings and curses that come with
such a mind. He also has the Nails as his personal cross to bear. Of all the primarchs, Angron is the
one thwarted above all others. He’s the one that could never truly become what he might have been.
There’s tragedy inherent in his tale.
He’s largely in control of himself – more or less – at the beginning of Betrayer. As the story
develops, he regresses to his even more unstable self, reliving the past as he walks on the world
where he was raised.
By the end? Well…"
"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW
"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."
Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)
"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP."
Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series
"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it."
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.
No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.
The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.
They do, but that is besides the point.
Do you have a quote?
From how they write it doesn't seem like they do:
"I’m a big fan of long-reaching character arcs. In a series like this, you’re not going to get very far
without some rich and compelling narrative arcs. Just as Lorgar in The First Heretic was the one
primarch to have failed the Emperor and never really reached his potential, we’re seeing through
Aurelian, The Butcher’s Nails and now Betrayer that who he was at the Heresy’s beginning isn’t who
he’ll be when (to use his own words) ‘the final day dawns.’ Angron is running along a similar
trajectory. He’s not flawless. He’s not invincible. Like every primarch, he’s a reflection of humanity,
with many aspects manifested and magnified – and with all the blessings and curses that come with
such a mind. He also has the Nails as his personal cross to bear. Of all the primarchs, Angron is the
one thwarted above all others. He’s the one that could never truly become what he might have been.
There’s tragedy inherent in his tale.
He’s largely in control of himself – more or less – at the beginning of Betrayer. As the story
develops, he regresses to his even more unstable self, reliving the past as he walks on the world
where he was raised.
By the end? Well…"
"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW
"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."
Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)
"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP."
Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series
"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it."
Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library
Well there it is, there is absolutely cannon in GW though, but they are kinda wrong because the community decides that its cannon. But people can feel free to see it as having no cannon, but there is absolutely no reason on coming to a background forum if they do, even people that I've talked to that espouse that, use it not to be wrong, as they state things as fact on every other thread. Obviously the writers are going to state that, it pre-empts them when they write something that contradicts the lore and they are being a bit humble rather than saying 'what I state is gospel lol
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.
Same way than Iliad does. It is third person narrative from several viewpoints, it probably is not an accurate account of Trojan War. All these stories naturally inform our understanding of the setting, but I absolutely reject the notion that the format in which the strory is written has anything to do with the reliability of the story or what story 'takes precedence' in the case of a conflict. The format of a story is merely an artistic choice by the author.
I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.
They're just ase canon than this book about Guilliman we were talking about. Sure, these things do not jibe with many other things we have heard about the setting, but contradictions can exist in a canon. Certainly you know from where word canon originates? It is not like the Bible is free of contradictions.
The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.
Nah. They're just stories. And there are three stories about how the Empreror was saved, all of them canon. Just like there are several contradicting accounts of Jesus' last words, all canon.
Or to use a less grandiose example, in one version of Batman's origin it is Joker who kills Bruce Wayne's parents, and in another version it is someone else. One of these versions is not 'wrong' they're just different versions of the same story. People can somehow live with Gotham TV series not being consistent with the comics or Batman films, or MCU not being consistent with the Marvel Comics, even though the characters and basic plots threads are the same. I really don't understand why it is so hard to treat 40K this way too, even though the creators of this fiction pretty much have explicitly told us to do so.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.
Same way than Iliad does. It is third person narrative from several viewpoints, it probably is not an accurate account of Trojan War. All these stories naturally inform our understanding of the setting, but I absolutely reject the notion that the format in which the strory is written has anything to do with the reliability of the story or what story 'takes precedence' in the case of a conflict. The format of a story is merely an artistic choice by the author.
I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.
They're just ase canon than this book about Guilliman we were talking about. Sure, these things do not jibe with many other things we have heard about the setting, but contradictions can exist in a canon. Certainly you know from where word canon originates? It is not like the Bible is free of contradictions.
The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.
Nah. They're just stories. And there are three stories about how the Empreror was saved, all of them canon. Just like there are several contradicting accounts of Jesus' last words, all canon.
Or to use a less grandiose example, in one version of Batman's origin it is Joker who kills Bruce Wayne's parents, and in another version it is someone else. One of these versions is not 'wrong' they're just different versions of the same story. People can somehow live with Gotham TV series not being consistent with the comics or Batman films, or MCU not being consistent with the Marvel Comics, even though the characters and basic plots threads are the same. I really don't understand why it is so hard to treat 40K this way too, even though the creators of this fiction pretty much have explicitly told us to do so.
It does have something to do with the format. Third person omniscient writes from all perspectives, even non protagonists thoughts, feelings and opinions are known to the narration, so are all situations and circumstances. Are you really suggesting that, In Horus Rising everyone's perspective is right except for Horus' or everyone's perspective is wrong except for Loken. Its just stupid, unless you actually have an ex-machina at the end stating yeah he actually thought this, but still whats the point, if Horus was wrong, what was he wrong in, was everything he said thought and felt wrong and didn't happen, or specific things. Why you would think that, when there is absolutely nothing suggesting that. its 'what is the meaning of the book' gone crazy. I can't even begin to understand that. as for opinions and feelings being incorrect, yeah that isn't being brought into question, opinions and belief are by definition fallible, but if the character knows their folly a narrator makes it known, Otherwise its up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong. But if the narration makes a factual claim; its a factual claim. A narration in third person omniscient is omniscient. Does the writer know 3 quarters of everything that happens and 1 quarter, they only have a good idea, I mean how do you work out what to take for granted and what not to, even when its written from an omniscient format. I don't know how you can accept factual claims by the narrator you like and chop up those you don't or that don't agree with you to, ah its implicit. Plus when you take into account that other writers carry on writing the same characters, with the same beliefs and opinions and personality with new ones based on that same existing characters personality etc. it becomes even more bizarre for me to understand that.
It is true for that story, might not be true for another story. Like the multilaser terminators are true in one story, not true in another. Do you understand that fiction can be inconsistent? Do you understand that for example events in MCU and Marvel Comics do not match exactly, even though it is roughly the same setting?
Or perhaps one could view it as a historical story written in a novel style. You know, like if one does all the research and writes a novel about the Queen Elizabeth I and tries to get the characters' actions and thoughts portrayed as historically accurately as possible but it still just an approximation of what really happened. I think this is probably something what the 40K authors mean when they say it can be just a rumour or a legend.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing.
Speaking of the most absurd things I've ever heard...that final sentence shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how unreliable narrators work as a concept I'm not sure it's worth even attempting to explain it. Unreliable narrations can be third person and given multiple people involved with BL and GW have mentioned the fact that there is no official "one true canon" and several have referred to the stories as more like legends, it's not hard to imagine there is a degree of unreliability there. When someone recounts a myth or piece of folklore, it's often in third person form but we wouldn't say it's 100% authoritative.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
If that's so absurd how come those things exists?-)
And of course we have the authors themselves saying it's not absolute truth. But yeah I'm sure you know better what's reliable and what's not than the person writing the books in question
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Delvarus Centurion wrote: It does have something to do with the format. Third person omniscient writes from all perspectives, even non protagonists thoughts, feelings and opinions are known to the narration, so are all situations and circumstances. Are you really suggesting that, In Horus Rising everyone's perspective is right except for Horus' or everyone's perspective is wrong except for Loken. Its just stupid, unless you actually have an ex-machina at the end stating yeah he actually thought this, but still whats the point, if Horus was wrong, what was he wrong in, was everything he said thought and felt wrong and didn't happen, or specific things. Why you would think that, when there is absolutely nothing suggesting that. its 'what is the meaning of the book' gone crazy. I can't even begin to understand that. as for opinions and feelings being incorrect, yeah that isn't being brought into question, opinions and belief are by definition fallible, but if the character knows their folly a narrator makes it known, Otherwise its up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong. But if the narration makes a factual claim; its a factual claim. A narration in third person omniscient is omniscient. Does the writer know 3 quarters of everything that happens and 1 quarter, they only have a good idea, I mean how do you work out what to take for granted and what not to, even when its written from an omniscient format. I don't know how you can accept factual claims by the narrator you like and chop up those you don't or that don't agree with you to, ah its implicit. Plus when you take into account that other writers carry on writing the same characters, with the same beliefs and opinions and personality with new ones based on that same existing characters personality etc. it becomes even more bizarre for me to understand that.
1st, 2nd, 3rd person. They can all be unreliable narrators. It's common enough trick in books to have unreliable narrators even in 2nd/3rd persons.
40K clearly has a canon in operation even if they don't use that term. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A loose canon and riddled with retcons compared to some other universes, but the fact that there are stable "THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE" facts about the universe is the definition of a canon. Space Marines exist. Bolters fire bolts. Horus existed and rebelled. The fact there may be some mistakes, contradictions, or retcons does not in itself mean there is no canon. It means the canon is imperfect but then so is just about every other IP property.
See this following quote from Gav Thorpe on his website about submitting to BL:
Approved submissions get notified, and we work out the next step. Usually this is “Await our instructions”, but it could be specific feedback like “You’ve not quite got the dialogue for Space Marines right, please make more formal” or “This isn’t how the warp works, please check the 40k rulebook” or “Would this not be better from the Tau point of view?” At this stage we are inviting the submitter to tweak their work to make up for what we see as its weak points.
The fact that aspiring writers sending in submissions to BL have to adhere to certain standards and facts about the 40K universe show there is an operating canon. If the editors can say "This isn't how the warp works" (i.e. "You've got it wrong") shows it is not anything goes, and those limits are what canon is. Without canon, fictional settings collapse because limits on what exists, what happened, or what can happen in a setting is what canon is.
Marc Gascoigne's statement was a simple cop out of having to exercise any quality control. He was simply wrong about this just as he was wrong about the supposed impossibility of writing from a xenos POV (which was the supposed rationale for the "Human POV only forever" BL policy). The fact there are now multiple works in which there are xenos POV show it is not the impossibility he thought it was. There are far more than a dozen examples if one includes the xenos POV parts in human protagonist POV novels in addition to the pure xenos POV novels. Clearly Marc Gascoigne's statements are not set in stone Word of God statements.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.
Same way than Iliad does. It is third person narrative from several viewpoints, it probably is not an accurate account of Trojan War. All these stories naturally inform our understanding of the setting, but I absolutely reject the notion that the format in which the strory is written has anything to do with the reliability of the story or what story 'takes precedence' in the case of a conflict. The format of a story is merely an artistic choice by the author.
But the Illiad is factually a retelling of a real life event. It is not the sole account of that event, nor is it the only reality upon which that event occurs. It was real.
Compare to 40k, where the events in those books ONLY occur in those books. They're not real. There is no account of those events - save for the books. With any of the real life examples, they cannot be applied, because there is an objective reality, because it happened. With fiction, reality is essentially mutable and based upon the only actual data we have - the books.
Yes, the Illiad may have the same narrative style, but it is REAL. Know No Fear is only real in that book, and with that book being the only thing that makes those events real, the book becomes the event itself. Real life cannot be compared to fiction in terms of validity.
I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.
They're just ase canon than this book about Guilliman we were talking about. Sure, these things do not jibe with many other things we have heard about the setting, but contradictions can exist in a canon. Certainly you know from where word canon originates? It is not like the Bible is free of contradictions.
No matter where canon originates, but canon has been co-opted as a term. Canon essentially means the one "true" chain of events, what definitively happens.
The Bible is written by multiple people, from multiple groups, over a long long time, and it is suffice to say that some things in the Bible CANNOT be canon (due to these contradictions). But the Bible is still based on reality. The people who wrote it believed that it actually happened. 40k is not real. The only reality in which the events displayed happen is IN those books. The events of the Bible happened in our reality (or people believed so).
Backflipping Terminators is not canon, for the reasons I've given above - what is said about that is not consistent with the meta of 40k, it's not consistent with previous, current and future publications of the same material, it's simply not in line with the world presented. That world can change, retcons can happen, but they need to be supported and reinforced. This was not.
The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.
Nah. They're just stories. And there are three stories about how the Empreror was saved, all of them canon. Just like there are several contradicting accounts of Jesus' last words, all canon.
Again, Jesus definitively DID have last words, and that is OBJECTIVE. No matter how many different versions there are, one must be correct. Thus, there is only one canon. We just don't know which is it.
There are three stories about how the Emperor was saved. Only one, or none of them, could be canon. It's the point of these discussions to methodically determine which version is canon, using all sources presented in the world of 40k as to which is most likely. Only one event really happened, and the others, as you've said, are legends, retellings, etc etc. But they are not CANON. They're headcanons in-universe.
Or to use a less grandiose example, in one version of Batman's origin it is Joker who kills Bruce Wayne's parents, and in another version it is someone else. One of these versions is not 'wrong' they're just different versions of the same story. People can somehow live with Gotham TV series not being consistent with the comics or Batman films, or MCU not being consistent with the Marvel Comics, even though the characters and basic plots threads are the same. I really don't understand why it is so hard to treat 40K this way too, even though the creators of this fiction pretty much have explicitly told us to do so.
Surely you understand that those shows are all different universes, right?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same as the Marvel Comics Universe. They have a canon each. The canon of the Cinematic Universe is not the same as the canon of the Comics Universe. Do they use the same characters and plots sometimes? Yes. Does it make them the same universe? No. What happens in the Cinematic Universe has no bearing on what happens in the Comics Universe. The same occurs for Batman. Who cares if Gotham has a different canon to the comics - they're not the same universe. They're two (or more) separate universes with similar characters.
40k is not like this. Now, you can make an argument that things like the video games or the Ultramarines Movie are universes unto themselves (due to not being Black Library), but I don't know how strongly I feel on that. Regardless, the Black Library is confirmed to be one single universe. It's not seperate universes sharing characters and plotlines. It's one entity, and as such, has one canon, one "true" chain of events. There may be three in-universe retellings of an event, but there must be a "true" way that event occured.
The only universe I've seen that can pull off the "multiple outcomes are true" style of canon is the Elder Scrolls, via their use of Dragon Breaks. 40k does not have that.
Iracundus wrote:40K clearly has a canon in operation even if they don't use that term. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A loose canon and riddled with retcons compared to some other universes, but the fact that there are stable "THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE" facts about the universe is the definition of a canon. Space Marines exist. Bolters fire bolts. Horus existed and rebelled. The fact there may be some mistakes, contradictions, or retcons does not in itself mean there is no canon. It means the canon is imperfect but then so is just about every other IP property.
Exactly. There are facts, there are truths. Do we need to discuss and dig to find some of them? Yes. Does it change the fact that those truths exist? No.
See this following quote from Gav Thorpe on his website about submitting to BL:
Approved submissions get notified, and we work out the next step. Usually this is “Await our instructions”, but it could be specific feedback like “You’ve not quite got the dialogue for Space Marines right, please make more formal” or “This isn’t how the warp works, please check the 40k rulebook” or “Would this not be better from the Tau point of view?” At this stage we are inviting the submitter to tweak their work to make up for what we see as its weak points.
The fact that aspiring writers sending in submissions to BL have to adhere to certain standards and facts about the 40K universe show there is an operating canon. If the editors can say "This isn't how the warp works" (i.e. "You've got it wrong") shows it is not anything goes, and those limits are what canon is. Without canon, fictional settings collapse because limits on what exists, what happened, or what can happen in a setting is what canon is.
If there was no canon, then Thorpe's quotes on "this isn't how the Warp works" or "you've not quite got the dialogue right" would make no sense.
40k has canon. If it didn't, there'd be no universe.
Marc Gascoigne's statement was a simple cop out of having to exercise any quality control. He was simply wrong about this just as he was wrong about the supposed impossibility of writing from a xenos POV (which was the supposed rationale for the "Human POV only forever" BL policy). The fact there are now multiple works in which there are xenos POV show it is not the impossibility he thought it was. There are far more than a dozen examples if one includes the xenos POV parts in human protagonist POV novels in addition to the pure xenos POV novels. Clearly Marc Gascoigne's statements are not set in stone Word of God statements.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing.
Speaking of the most absurd things I've ever heard...that final sentence shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how unreliable narrators work as a concept I'm not sure it's worth even attempting to explain it. Unreliable narrations can be third person and given multiple people involved with BL and GW have mentioned the fact that there is no official "one true canon" and several have referred to the stories as more like legends, it's not hard to imagine there is a degree of unreliability there. When someone recounts a myth or piece of folklore, it's often in third person form but we wouldn't say it's 100% authoritative.
Yup. If you want one of the OG examples of an unreliable narrator look no further than The Adventures of Tristram Shandy. The titular narrator isn't even born until about a 3rd of the way into the book and the book itself is far more omniscient as it mourns the death of another character (one page of the book is entirely black).
Is anyone else as disturbed as I am that several GW/BL writers apparently have no idea what the word 'canon' even means?
If a fictional setting has "established or agreed-upon constraints governing the background narrative, setting, storyline, characters, etc.", then it has a 'canon'. That's literally the definition of the word as it applies to a fictional setting.
It's especially absurd/hypocritical of Gav Thorpe to claim that there are no wrong or invalid interpetations of the fluff, as he was always one of the most vociferous critics of interpretations that didn't match his own. He devoted a section of the WD article introducing the 3rd edition Eldar codex to lambasting people who considered the Eldar to be the setting's "good guys".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But the Illiad is factually a retelling of a real life event. It is not the sole account of that event, nor is it the only reality upon which that event occurs. It was real.
Compare to 40k, where the events in those books ONLY occur in those books. They're not real. There is no account of those events - save for the books. With any of the real life examples, they cannot be applied, because there is an objective reality, because it happened. With fiction, reality is essentially mutable and based upon the only actual data we have - the books.
Yes, the Illiad may have the same narrative style, but it is REAL. Know No Fear is only real in that book, and with that book being the only thing that makes those events real, the book becomes the event itself. Real life cannot be compared to fiction in terms of validity.
Jesus. It was an example how narrative regardless of format can be unreliable. And often the BL books are not the only versions of the events, for example for many events of the HH there exist several accounts in different publications, rulebooks, codices, White Dwarfs, FW books etc.
No matter where canon originates, but canon has been co-opted as a term. Canon essentially means the one "true" chain of events, what definitively happens.
The Bible is written by multiple people, from multiple groups, over a long long time, and it is suffice to say that some things in the Bible CANNOT be canon (due to these contradictions). But the Bible is still based on reality. The people who wrote it believed that it actually happened. 40k is not real. The only reality in which the events displayed happen is IN those books. The events of the Bible happened in our reality (or people believed so).
Backflipping Terminators is not canon, for the reasons I've given above - what is said about that is not consistent with the meta of 40k, it's not consistent with previous, current and future publications of the same material, it's simply not in line with the world presented. That world can change, retcons can happen, but they need to be supported and reinforced. This was not.
Again, Jesus definitively DID have last words, and that is OBJECTIVE. No matter how many different versions there are, one must be correct. Thus, there is only one canon. We just don't know which is it.
You literally do not understand what canon means. All of the different account's of Jesus' last words are obviously canon. Canon is not same as true. It is a body of work, in this case body of work that is official. All lore ever published under GW (including BL and FW) is canon, the stuff I made up about my homebrew chapter is not. What you are talking about is continuity, and 40K doesn't have solid continuity, it has kinda wobbly 'it was probably a bit like this' continuity.
There are three stories about how the Emperor was saved. Only one, or none of them, could be canon. It's the point of these discussions to methodically determine which version is canon, using all sources presented in the world of 40k as to which is most likely. Only one event really happened, and the others, as you've said, are legends, retellings, etc etc. But they are not CANON. They're headcanons in-universe.
No, they're all canon. And sure, they cannot all be'true' at the same time in one continuous universe, but that doesn't change their canonity.
Surely you understand that those shows are all different universes, right?
Yes, I do understand that!
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same as the Marvel Comics Universe. They have a canon each. The canon of the Cinematic Universe is not the same as the canon of the Comics Universe. Do they use the same characters and plots sometimes? Yes. Does it make them the same universe? No. What happens in the Cinematic Universe has no bearing on what happens in the Comics Universe. The same occurs for Batman. Who cares if Gotham has a different canon to the comics - they're not the same universe. They're two (or more) separate universes with similar characters.
Right, we're getting close!
40k is not like this.
No, 40K is like that. They just do not label things so clearly. There are contradicting versions of things that cannot be true. BL books often contradict studio fluff and often each other. Abnet's books deviate so greatly from how the lore is depicted in other sources that many refer his version of the setting Abnetverse.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But the Illiad is factually a retelling of a real life event. It is not the sole account of that event, nor is it the only reality upon which that event occurs. It was real.
Compare to 40k, where the events in those books ONLY occur in those books. They're not real. There is no account of those events - save for the books. With any of the real life examples, they cannot be applied, because there is an objective reality, because it happened. With fiction, reality is essentially mutable and based upon the only actual data we have - the books.
Yes, the Illiad may have the same narrative style, but it is REAL. Know No Fear is only real in that book, and with that book being the only thing that makes those events real, the book becomes the event itself. Real life cannot be compared to fiction in terms of validity.
Jesus. It was an example how narrative regardless of format can be unreliable. And often the BL books are not the only versions of the events, for example for many events of the HH there exist several accounts in different publications, rulebooks, codices, White Dwarfs, FW books etc.
But the format you're using is a retelling of a REAL event. They're not even closely related.
The Black Library books, whilst not the only source of events, are the most comprehensive, and therefore have more validity (according to general scientific method).
No matter where canon originates, but canon has been co-opted as a term. Canon essentially means the one "true" chain of events, what definitively happens.
The Bible is written by multiple people, from multiple groups, over a long long time, and it is suffice to say that some things in the Bible CANNOT be canon (due to these contradictions). But the Bible is still based on reality. The people who wrote it believed that it actually happened. 40k is not real. The only reality in which the events displayed happen is IN those books. The events of the Bible happened in our reality (or people believed so).
Backflipping Terminators is not canon, for the reasons I've given above - what is said about that is not consistent with the meta of 40k, it's not consistent with previous, current and future publications of the same material, it's simply not in line with the world presented. That world can change, retcons can happen, but they need to be supported and reinforced. This was not.
Again, Jesus definitively DID have last words, and that is OBJECTIVE. No matter how many different versions there are, one must be correct. Thus, there is only one canon. We just don't know which is it.
You literally do not understand what canon means. All of the different account's of Jesus' last words are obviously canon. Canon is not same as true. It is a body of work, in this case body of work that is official. All lore ever published under GW (including BL and FW) is canon, the stuff I made up about my homebrew chapter is not. What you are talking about is continuity, and 40K doesn't have solid continuity, it has kinda wobbly 'it was probably a bit like this' continuity.
You're missing my point.
Jesus was real. He was only capable of saying his last words once, so there can be only one set of "last words". Therefore, they cannot all be canon. Bear in mind I am using the contemporary definition of canon, being what Duskweaver provided.
And hold on - you've literally just said GW have canon, but you've also said they don't? Which one is it? Do they have a canon or not?
Plus, 40k DOES have continuity. It can be buggy, but it has continuity. Ultramarines are blue. Horus was a traitor. That's continuity. With the HH books, that continuity becomes stronger, like it of loathe it.
There are three stories about how the Emperor was saved. Only one, or none of them, could be canon. It's the point of these discussions to methodically determine which version is canon, using all sources presented in the world of 40k as to which is most likely. Only one event really happened, and the others, as you've said, are legends, retellings, etc etc. But they are not CANON. They're headcanons in-universe.
No, they're all canon. And sure, they cannot all be'true' at the same time in one continuous universe, but that doesn't change their canonity.
Yes, but the 40k universe IS continuous. Therefore, there is only one canon, and they cannot all be true, and therefore canon within that single universe!
They physically cannot exist as truths within the same universe - which 40k is. It's the Warhammer 40,00 UNIVERSE after all.
Surely you understand that those shows are all different universes, right?
Yes, I do understand that!
Which is why they have different canons, right? But 40k isn't like that, so they can't have the same diversity of canon between shared characters.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not the same as the Marvel Comics Universe. They have a canon each. The canon of the Cinematic Universe is not the same as the canon of the Comics Universe. Do they use the same characters and plots sometimes? Yes. Does it make them the same universe? No. What happens in the Cinematic Universe has no bearing on what happens in the Comics Universe. The same occurs for Batman. Who cares if Gotham has a different canon to the comics - they're not the same universe. They're two (or more) separate universes with similar characters.
Right, we're getting close!
Yes, we are.
40k is not like this.
No, 40K is like that.
Nope.
They just do not label things so clearly. There are contradicting versions of things that cannot be true. BL books often contradict studio fluff and often each other.
Because some of them are these aforementioned propaganda and lies, yes! But some of them, and I'd say the vast majority, are simply flubs by the authors. They can make mistakes. They can write non-canon material in, but it doesn't magically make it canon.
There's still a canon, like it or not.
Abnet's books deviate so greatly from how the lore is depicted in other sources that many refer his version of the setting Abnetverse.
But that only pulls into question those few things that Abnett writes about, not the whole setting? Which is what the discussions I refer to talk about - debating if those parts of the "Abnettverse" are supported by other aspects for 40k.
Yea, Angron, Curze, and Fulgrim are the picture of mental health.
Outside influences with Butcher's nails, a Daemon sword and Kurze's time on his homeworld.
I love this argument.
Bobby G could be insane.
Nope, Primarchs can't be insane.
Well look at all these outside influences that could have hurt his mental health. It's happened to other Primarchs.
Nope, those other guys went insane from outside influences. +Proceed to list them+
Smudge, stop misusing words. We really do not know whether Jesus even existed nor does his existence has anything to do with canonity of his last words. Biblical canon is what's recorded in the Bible just as 40K canon is what is published by GW. Nothing in this requires either to be contradiction free or indeed true. And of course in case if fiction none of it is really true anyway so contradicting accounts can be eqaully true.
There literally is no reality here, for example you cannot just declare that BL version of events is true while contradicting version of the same events in a codex is in error. First of, you don't have that authority and fiction doesn't work like that in the first place. You saying that makes about as much sense than saying a Batman film is in error because it depicts Batman's origins differently than the comics. You seem to have no trouble in undersranding this in case of superheroes, so I really don't get why you do not understand it in case of 40K. Is it because it is not clearly labelled? (Though it kinda is, Black Library is a different brand.) And of course non-labelled muddy continuity is not unique to 40K. Pre-Craig Bond films are in kinda-sorta-but-not-really in continuty with each other, while Craig films are more clearly a different thing, with it not being stated and by the same company. And then there is Never Say Never again which is a retelling of Thunderball, with the same actor but by a different company.
Crimson wrote: Smudge, stop misusing words. We really do not know whether Jesus even existed nor does his existence has anything to do with canonity of his last words. Biblical canon is what's recorded in the Bible just as 40K canon is what is published by GW. Nothing in this requires either to be contradiction free or indeed true. And of course in case if fiction none of it is really true anyway so contradicting accounts can be eqaully true.
Firstly, there is evidence that a Jesus of Nazereth existed, and was executed. What we don't know is if he was the son of God, but that's off topic.
In fiction, contradiction can be equally true, but only if the fictional rules of the setting permit for such a duality. Elder Scrolls universe supports it. Warhammer does not. If someone in 40k says something, there isn't a universe where they don't say it. Or, the three heroes in the Vengeful Spirit encounter: it cannot be Ollanius Pius, an Imperial Fist AND a Custodes at the same time. The way the universe is built means they cannot all be true. Therefore, only one (or none) of these encounters can be canon, but the existence of the other beliefs and retelling is still canon.
There literally is no reality here, for example you cannot just declare that BL version of events is true while contradicting version of the same events in a codex is in error. First of, you don't have that authority and fiction doesn't work like that in the first place.
Which is why people research it, discuss it, to create logical truth. I can absolutely declare BLs version to be true if I can prove why it's more valid. I can't impose my opinion on other people, but if enough people support the same idea, and comes to a consensus, then that IS canon.
You saying that makes about as much sense than saying a Batman film is in error because it depicts Batman's origins differently than the comics. You seem to have no trouble in undersranding this in case of superheroes, so I really don't get why you do not understand it in case of 40K.
Because Movie Batman is not the same universe as Comic Batman! There isn't the same split in Warhammer. There isn't X universe of 40k vs Y universe of 40k. It's one single universe, told via multiple possibly contradictory tales, but fundamentally there IS a truth. There could be miles upon miles of lies before the nugget of truth, but there is that nugget, and that nugget forms the basis of canon.
Stop comparing comic-to-movie canons to 40k. They're not the same.
Is it because it is not clearly labelled? (Though it kinda is, Black Library is a different brand.) And of course non-labelled muddy continuity is not unique to 40K. Pre-Craig Bond films are in kinda-sorta-but-not-really in continuty with each other, while Craig films are more clearly a different thing, with it not being stated and by the same company. And then there is Never Say Never again which is a retelling of Thunderball, with the same actor but by a different company.
Bond's continuity is all over the place, but it has a canon. That canon being that Bond IS 007, they're a British spy, and they like their martini shaken, not stirred.
The real question of James Bond's continuity is if it's the same James Bond, which it largely appears it is not. It far more likely seems that James Bond 007 is a psuedonym for whoever takes up the mantle, which essentially fixes the most of the "muddy continuity".
40k is similar, but it has a canon too. It is told through multiple lenses, some more truthful than others (and some which essentially leave no room for doubt or bias), but it remains connected. Some things we are told are inconsistent with the wider universe. As such, they are non-canon, because they simply do not fit into the logic of the universe. It's not a dozen parallel universe running in tandem - it's a single universe, a single setting, with multiple opinions spread among a core of facts. That core of facts is getting larger, if you like it or not.
Historicity of Jesus is far from certain. Sure, he probaly existed but all records of him are from time decades after he supposedly lived. We don't know he existed in the same way we for example know that Alexander the Great existed. There is like shitton of scholarship on this if you're interested, not that this is really relevant.
As for the actual topic, no there is no real truth about who saved the Emperor, there are just different stories. And they can all be equally true, because there is not some underlying reality behind them. Your harebrained theory abot Bond being a pseudonym is an another example of you not getting how loose centinuity works in fiction.
Furthermore, you don't decide what is canon and it is not same as continuity. Conflicting things can be both canon. In Star Trek it is canon that Federation encounteted the cloaking device first time in 2260s... and were involved in a war where cloaking devices were extensively used in 2250s... Both of those are canon. Sure, it is a continuity error if we assume both of those events to be in continuity with each other but neither of them is non-canon or even wrong.
Crimson wrote: As for the actual topic, no there is no real truth about who saved the Emperor, there are just different stories. And they can all be equally true, because there is not some underlying reality behind them. Your harebrained theory abot Bond being a pseudonym is an another example of you not getting how loose centinuity works in fiction.
There is a real truth. Someone saved the Emperor. Not all three. We just don't know which story (if any) is true. If the BL books come around to it, it is logical to assume that it will be the canon truth that what happens in that chamber is the real event.
The Bond theory isn't my own. It's a widely held one, designed to essentially make the Bond canon make as much sense as possible if it's a single universe. I know how loose continuity works. I'm saying that 40k's loose storytelling doesn't change the fact that there are facts in the universe, and that 40k's storytelling is becoming a lot more comprehensive, less obscure, and more based on "this is what happened".
I know that's a bit of a culture shock to you, but that's how things seem to be swinging these days.
Furthermore, you don't decide what is canon and it is not same as continuity. Conflicting things can be both canon. In Star Trek it is canon that Federation encounteted the cloaking device first time in 2260s... and were involved in a war where cloaking devices were extensively used in 2250s... Both of those are canon. Sure, it is a continuity error if we assume both of those events to be in continuity with each other but neither of them is non-canon or even wrong.
No, what needs to be questioned in that situation is which event is the factual one to determine a true canon.
What one would do is question the validity of both sources, to ascertain which is the most relevant. Then, it would be settled that the one which is more relevant is canon, and the other is a continuity error, which might have manifested as an in-universe error.
Take the interpretation of the Codex Astartes. We have 41st millenium Ultramarines and Space Marines in general adhering to the Codex like it's a holy text, something that cannot be broken or disobeyed, who claim that it is what Guilliman intended. That USED to be canon, because it was answer that made the most sense with the data at the time. However, then we get actual spoken dialogue from Guilliman, in the third person omniscient, saying that he doesn't intend for the Codex to be treated like a holy text, and that it should be broken when needed. Therefore, due to the reinforcement and increased validity of what Guilliman says being "correct", that becomes the new canon. The previous canon of "THE CODEX CANNOT BE DISOBEYED" is no longer canon, but it IS an in-universe belief held incorrectly by characters in-universe.
That's how you reconcile conflicting continuity - only one can be canon, but the rest can be explained by in-universe errors, or if that doesn't suffice, simply poor writing on the author's part.
This is not how it works! None of it is real! There doesn't need to be one true version about who saved the Emperor any more than there needs to be one true account about who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents!
The way the Horus Heresy is being written? The way GW is fleshing everything out? It might not have before, but it seems to now.
None of it is real!
It's real in-universe.
There doesn't need to be one true version about who saved the Emperor any more than there needs to be one true account about who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents!
Again, missing the point. In every Batman universe, there is only one true account on who kills Batman's parents. The difference is that there are multiple Batman universes.
There is only one 40k universe. There is a true account of it, because that's how logic works.
Look, you dislike it. That's fine, can't make you like something. But it's simply untrue to say that GW don't have a canon and a storyline with fixed elements in place. Dislike it all your want to. It's still there.
No offense here Crimson, but you're coming off as a bit hysterical. Your logic is kinda circular at this point, since Sgt_Smudge has already repeatedly disproven that the idea there is no canon is factually untrue. I mean consider what you're saying, you're already taking the fact that the Emperor was saved at all was true at face value, but how can you if there is no canon? There's clearly elements in 40K that are relatively immutable, and until there are explicit retcons from GW, these are basically the basis of the canon you so apparently despise. Frankly, what's the appeal of 40K if you can make up whatever you want? Then it's not even grimdark anymore if you can just headcanon that a 40K version of the human Federation from Star Trek comes in swooping to save humanity with new tech that wipes out the Nids, seals off the warp and brokers piece with xenos.
The one consistent 40K universe is your headcanon. You can construct such in your mind by picking and choosing from conflicting facts but that is just your choice. Some other person might do the same but choose differently in those conflict situations and neither if your headcanon would be more correct or less correct.
40K has canon (the lore bublished by GW) it doesn't have one unbroken consistent continuity, so in that sense it is more like these Batman examples.Conflicting accounts of events can and do exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: No offense here Crimson, but you're coming off as a bit hysterical. Your logic is kinda circular at this point, since Sgt_Smudge has already repeatedly disproven that the idea there is no canon is factually untrue. I mean consider what you're saying, you're already taking the fact that the Emperor was saved at all was true at face value, but how can you if there is no canon? There's clearly elements in 40K that are relatively immutable, and until there are explicit retcons from GW, these are basically the basis of the canon you so apparently despise. Frankly, what's the appeal of 40K if you can make up whatever you want? Then it's not even grimdark anymore if you can just headcanon that a 40K version of the human Federation from Star Trek comes in swooping to save humanity with new tech that wipes out the Nids, seals off the warp and brokers piece with xenos.
The canon is the lore published by GW. Thus we know that there are three conflicting accounts of who saved the Emperor. Similarly there are many other canonical facts, known to us because GW published them. And some of those facts conflict. Doesn't mean some of them are not canon. What I am disputing that there is some underlying 'real consistent true setting' under all this. There is not. In one story guardsman saves the Emperor in another it is a Custodian. In third it is a terminator, who is not carrying a multilaser this time, but in another story might. None of these accounts are more true or less true, they all can exist simultanously andbe 'true' just like Batman's varius origins can be all 'true' in the context of the stories they appear.
Crimson wrote: The one consistent 40K universe is your headcanon. You can construct such in your mind by picking and choosing from conflicting facts but that is just your choice. Some other person might do the same but choose differently in those conflict situations and neither if your headcanon would be more correct or less correct.
Agreed that neither headcanon is stronger than any other. It's all opinion. However, to say that there isn't a consistent 40k universe with facts, narrative certainties, and events/thoughts/words set in stone is frankly untrue.
Evidence, Gav Thorpe's words when referring to the Black Library submissions. If your argument was true, how could Gav claim "that's not how a Space Marine speaks", or "that's not how the Warp works"? Like it or not, 40k has rules in it's setting. It is written in stone, until GW decide to change that via retcons. These "continuity errors" or multiple consecutive events occurring simultaneously are just things stopping us from seeing the true words written in that stone.
40k has facts. If you want to ignore that, you're free to. That's your headcanon. But arguing headcanon against canon is kinda insulting from a discussion perspective (when the discussion is about actual canon, not "how I wish the lore was")
40K has canon (the lore bublished by GW) it doesn't have one unbroken consistent continuity, so in that sense it is more like these Batman examples.Conflicting accounts of events can and do exist.
So much for "GW has no canon", which you previously espoused?
40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: What I am disputing that there is some underlying 'real consistent true setting' under all this. There is not. In one story guardsman saves the Emperor in another it is a Custodian. In third it is a terminator, who is not carrying a multilaser this time, but in another story might.
And one of those stories may hold the ACTUAL truth of the event.
The stories are canonical. The events of those stories don't have to be. I'm not talking about the story of the Custodian who saved the Emperor. I'm talking about what really happened on the Vengeful Spirit's bridge.
As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!
The event of the Emperor being saved occurs once, and there is a single factual case of it. If the HH books show this scene, that will probably be the canon explanation for what happens there. You don't like it? Off to headcanon.
None of these accounts are more true or less true, they all can exist simultanously andbe 'true' just like Batman's varius origins can be all 'true' in the context of the stories they appear.
But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.
In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.
40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.
And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?
As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!
No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.
But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.
In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.
40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.
And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?
In the same plane that all fiction resides in? The one that it crafted for that universe? What "platonic plane" of "real reality of this fictional setting" does the Lord of the Rings inhabit? Star Wars? Star Trek?
It's called a Fictional Universe.
You keep mentioning these "explicit quotes", but ignore other "explicit quotes" that suggest the opposite. What's true? We don't know, but, just like in 40k, there's a nugget of truth somewhere.
Guess someone would have to discuss that and present a rational hypothesis to find it.
As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!
No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.
No they wouldn't.
The accounts would be canon. The events within those accounts would not.*
But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.
In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.
It is one universe only in your head.
Seems like it's more than just myself. If it was just in my head, how come there's forums all about it, webpages like Lexicanum displaying the history and fact of 40k, and discussion in general?
40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.
And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?
As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!
No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.
But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.
In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.
It is one universe only in your head.
I can say that the Emperor is magical toaster that farts rainbows, and you cannot disprove because there is no canon. Don't use that argument.
40k does have an unbroken continuity. It has conflicting accounts, but there IS an actual correct answer at the centre of it. Just because there might be 5 explanations for how a thing is done doesn't mean they're all correct. Only one of them, if any at all, can be the correct answer. That is canon. You just choose to ignore it.
And in what weird platonic plane might this real reality of this fictional setting reside? This is quite a bizarre though, this is not real history where there is a reality behind all the stories even though we may not know it. This is fiction the stories is all it is. How can it be this hard to understand even though we have explicit quotes from the creators of this fiction about how they meant it to be approached?
In the same plane that all fiction resides in? The one that it crafted for that universe? What "platonic plane" of "real reality of this fictional setting" does the Lord of the Rings inhabit? Star Wars? Star Trek?
It's called a Fictional Universe.
You keep mentioning these "explicit quotes", but ignore other "explicit quotes" that suggest the opposite. What's true? We don't know, but, just like in 40k, there's a nugget of truth somewhere.
Guess someone would have to discuss that and present a rational hypothesis to find it.
As far as you seem to care, the Emperor could have been saved by a grot. Or Trazyn. Or Guilliman, with nothing but a rusty spoon and frying pan. Because hey, they're all canon, right!!
No, but if GW woul publish those accounts they would be both canon bespite being mutally incompatible.
No they wouldn't.
The accounts would be canon. The events within those accounts would not.*
But Batman's origins are not simultaneously true, at least, not in the same universe.
In one universe, Batman's origin is EXCLUSIVELY X. In another, it's EXCLUSIVELY Y. The only reason we can have multiple "true" Batman origins is because we have multiple Batman universes. 40k does not have that. There is one universe, with one chain of events. The retelling of those events may change in-universe, but in-universe, there is ONE definitive resolution for that event.
It is one universe only in your head.
Seems like it's more than just myself. If it was just in my head, how come there's forums all about it, webpages like Lexicanum displaying the history and fact of 40k, and discussion in general?
You seem to have mixed up headcanon and canon.
*unless a grot really did save the Emperor.
Whoa, don't infringe on my headcanon now, from my point of view it was a SQUIG that saved the Emperor! Get your filthy canon out of here
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing.
Speaking of the most absurd things I've ever heard...that final sentence shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how unreliable narrators work as a concept I'm not sure it's worth even attempting to explain it. Unreliable narrations can be third person and given multiple people involved with BL and GW have mentioned the fact that there is no official "one true canon" and several have referred to the stories as more like legends, it's not hard to imagine there is a degree of unreliability there. When someone recounts a myth or piece of folklore, it's often in third person form but we wouldn't say it's 100% authoritative.
They can be third person but not third person omniscient.
Grimskul wrote: Whoa, don't infringe on my headcanon now, from my point of view it was a SQUIG that saved the Emperor! Get your filthy canon out of here
"From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
"Then you are... correct? I guess there's no canon any more, so I guess I can't say you're wrong?"
Grimskul wrote: Whoa, don't infringe on my headcanon now, from my point of view it was a SQUIG that saved the Emperor! Get your filthy canon out of here
"From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
"Then you are... correct? I guess there's no canon any more, so I guess I can't say you're wrong?"
The ending to RoTS everyone asked for. When there is no canon, there is no high ground!
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.
If that's so absurd how come those things exists?-)
And of course we have the authors themselves saying it's not absolute truth. But yeah I'm sure you know better what's reliable and what's not than the person writing the books in question
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Delvarus Centurion wrote: It does have something to do with the format. Third person omniscient writes from all perspectives, even non protagonists thoughts, feelings and opinions are known to the narration, so are all situations and circumstances. Are you really suggesting that, In Horus Rising everyone's perspective is right except for Horus' or everyone's perspective is wrong except for Loken. Its just stupid, unless you actually have an ex-machina at the end stating yeah he actually thought this, but still whats the point, if Horus was wrong, what was he wrong in, was everything he said thought and felt wrong and didn't happen, or specific things. Why you would think that, when there is absolutely nothing suggesting that. its 'what is the meaning of the book' gone crazy. I can't even begin to understand that. as for opinions and feelings being incorrect, yeah that isn't being brought into question, opinions and belief are by definition fallible, but if the character knows their folly a narrator makes it known, Otherwise its up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong. But if the narration makes a factual claim; its a factual claim. A narration in third person omniscient is omniscient. Does the writer know 3 quarters of everything that happens and 1 quarter, they only have a good idea, I mean how do you work out what to take for granted and what not to, even when its written from an omniscient format. I don't know how you can accept factual claims by the narrator you like and chop up those you don't or that don't agree with you to, ah its implicit. Plus when you take into account that other writers carry on writing the same characters, with the same beliefs and opinions and personality with new ones based on that same existing characters personality etc. it becomes even more bizarre for me to understand that.
1st, 2nd, 3rd person. They can all be unreliable narrators. It's common enough trick in books to have unreliable narrators even in 2nd/3rd persons.
What you's don't understand is that, the writers say that because its an overarching series where there are so many writers and novels, that not all the writers have; read, or even remembers everything they've read. But a third person omniscient novel is 'omniscient' there is no interpretation to third person omniscient, by definition or by action. The narration knows every thought, feeling and belief in the story, every situation... its omniscient, if you are trying to be 'creative' you could say or imply at the end that none of this happened, or it was a dream, but to do that you would have to imply it, or state it. This is what annoys me, you say its unreliable, or that its to be taking implicitly and interpreted from a default position, even though the novel does not show that in anyway. If you show me a quote where it makes one BL novel call into question the validity of the novels story and the perspectives of the character. Even implying it. I'd agree with you, but instead of using real examples, where it shows this, you's are just in the default, eh none of its true. That is totally absurd.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the same plane that all fiction resides in? The one that it crafted for that universe? What "platonic plane" of "real reality of this fictional setting" does the Lord of the Rings inhabit? Star Wars? Star Trek?
It's called a Fictional Universe.
And surprisingly enough, none of those fictional setting have reality beyond the stories they're composed of. As a life long aficionado of both Middle-earth and Star Trek I can tell you that both of these setting contain incompatible and conflicting accounts and events (the latter much more than former, for obvious reasons.) None of these conflicts render any of the material noncanonical, nor is there some 'real right answer' to these conflicts. There is no one true answer to when the Federation first encountered the cloaking device. You can create headcanons in order to attempt to explain these conflicts, but those are just headcanons. As recent and blatant example, USS Enterprise NCC-1701 appeared ins Star Trek Discovery, and looks drastically different than it did in the original series. The exact same ship, roughly the same time period, in series that according the producers are supposed to be in continuity with each other (as strenuous as that claim may seem.) It would be pointless to argue which depiction of the ship is the 'real' Enterprise; they're both equally real and also incompatible. So in similar way all the accounts on who saved the Emperor can be equally 'real.'
No they wouldn't.
The accounts would be canon. The events within those accounts would not.*
Wrong. Again, the accounts are all there is, there is not some real reality behind them.
(Why am I spending my time explaining to people that fiction is not real?)
Seems like it's more than just myself. If it was just in my head, how come there's forums all about it, webpages like Lexicanum displaying the history and fact of 40k, and discussion in general?
Yes, you can collect the information in one place, just like Memory Alpha meticulously lists all facts that appear in Star Trek, conflicts and incompatibilities included.
You seem to have mixed up headcanon and canon.
No, it is you who does so. You for some reason seem not only to assume that there is some mysterious real reality behind all these stories, but that you have some magical ability to determine what it is.
*unless a grot really did save the Emperor.
Are you sure that this didn't happen in the secret real reality of 40K which exist somewhere independently of all the stories published?
It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.
There are certain tenets in 40k that are definite. Things like ORKS, eldar and marines. Basic history like the heresey happens. The fall happened. All in there.
Now we have multiple sources telling stories around those “facts” for want of a better word. The publisher, writers and editors of these books and the company that owns the copyright all say don’t take everything at face value. Things may not be as they seem and expect contradictions.
But according to some those people are doing it wrong. Interpreting their own work incorrectly. And these people on the internet who are in no way associated with the firm producing this material are the only ones doing it right.
What I think would solve it would be if there was a separate forum for the discussion of the black library HH series. This I have noticed is the main issue. Some love those books and take them as gospel. Here we should be allowed to discuss all aspects of the background and all theories about it. Free from being told we are doing wrong and are only saying what the authors say because we have lost some debate about the facts in a fictional setting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.
With the warp stuff that’s entirely plausible and I like it. But be prepared to be told U are wrong and having a chunk of text quoted to you to “prove” it.
There are certain tenets in 40k that are definite. Things like ORKS, eldar and marines. Basic history like the heresey happens. The fall happened. All in there.
Now we have multiple sources telling stories around those “facts” for want of a better word. The publisher, writers and editors of these books and the company that owns the copyright all say don’t take everything at face value. Things may not be as they seem and expect contradictions.
But according to some those people are doing it wrong. Interpreting their own work incorrectly. And these people on the internet who are in no way associated with the firm producing this material are the only ones doing it right.
What I think would solve it would be if there was a separate forum for the discussion of the black library HH series. This I have noticed is the main issue. Some love those books and take them as gospel. Here we should be allowed to discuss all aspects of the background and all theories about it. Free from being told we are doing wrong and are only saying what the authors say because we have lost some debate about the facts in a fictional setting.
Yeah, good summary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.
It is actually an interesting theory that the conflicting realities do not only exist as fiction on narrative sense, but as parallel realities in the setting itself as metaphysical sense. I think I like this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the same plane that all fiction resides in? The one that it crafted for that universe? What "platonic plane" of "real reality of this fictional setting" does the Lord of the Rings inhabit? Star Wars? Star Trek?
It's called a Fictional Universe.
And surprisingly enough, none of those fictional setting have reality beyond the stories they're composed of. As a life long aficionado of both Middle-earth and Star Trek I can tell you that both of these setting contain incompatible and conflicting accounts and events (the latter much more than former, for obvious reasons.) None of these conflicts render any of the material noncanonical, nor is there some 'real right answer' to these conflicts. There is no one true answer to when the Federation first encountered the cloaking device. You can create headcanons in order to attempt to explain these conflicts, but those are just headcanons. As recent and blatant example, USS Enterprise NCC-1701 appeared ins Star Trek Discovery, and looks drastically different than it did in the original series. The exact same ship, roughly the same time period, in series that according the producers are supposed to be in continuity with each other (as strenuous as that claim may seem.) It would be pointless to argue which depiction of the ship is the 'real' Enterprise; they're both equally real and also incompatible. So in similar way all the accounts on who saved the Emperor can be equally 'real.'
In the Star Trek example, that would have prompted me to come to the conclusion of "logically, with what we're presented with, something must be false. Either they are not in the same universe, the ship design is wrong, or the time period is wrong.
You say yourself that their claim is strenuous. Therefore, as the weakest link, it is deemed untrue, leaving us with with an Enterprise which isn't in the same universe as the OG series, and is instead in an alternate, but similar universe of it's own. Canon fixed. If that wasn't the weakest link, then I would rectify it another way, so that you don't end up with two different things which exist in this Schrodinger's Cat reality of being genuine and not genuine simultaneously.
That's how one resolves canon conflicts, and establishes a logical Fictional Universe.
No they wouldn't.
The accounts would be canon. The events within those accounts would not.*
Wrong. Again, the accounts are all there is, there is not some real reality behind them.
(Why am I spending my time explaining to people that fiction is not real?)
I am under no doubt that 40k isn't real. What I'm saying is that the universe within the fiction IS real. As in, there is reality within that fictional universe. You couldn't just waltz into Star Wars and say "nah, Luke never existed. Jedi neither." Luke and the Jedi are real within the universe of Star Wars. Why can events not also be real in the universe of 40k?
Seems like it's more than just myself. If it was just in my head, how come there's forums all about it, webpages like Lexicanum displaying the history and fact of 40k, and discussion in general?
Yes, you can collect the information in one place, just like Memory Alpha meticulously lists all facts that appear in Star Trek, conflicts and incompatibilities included.
But why then do people and pages alike show these "true events" and talk about them too, if it's only in my head?
You seem to have mixed up headcanon and canon.
No, it is you who does so. You for some reason seem not only to assume that there is some mysterious real reality behind all these stories, but that you have some magical ability to determine what it is.
Well, there IS a reality in there. The reality of the universe of 40k. It's not tangibly real to us, the reader, like any fictional story. However, it does have a reality within the universe. Things REALLY happen. So while there may be 3 explanations for an event in in-universe, and out of universe, we could attribute it to any of them, the fact is that in the universe of 40k, only one explanation will be correct for that event.
Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.
*unless a grot really did save the Emperor.
Are you sure that this didn't happen in the secret real reality of 40K which exist somewhere independently of all the stories published?
Well, it could be. If it were the logical conclusion, drawn from the existing truths we know in the 40k universe, then yes, a grot would have saved the Emperor.
Nurglitch wrote:It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
Oh, I don't mean that in general. It's not even about "storytelling" as such. It's more about universe and world building. To say that your universe has no facts, has no true factual outcomes? That ruins all interest in that universe, because what about that universe makes it special if it can't stick to a premise?
Nurglitch wrote: It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.
No, its not about how personally people see the story, everyone takes away different accounts. As a community; however, we have to agree to a social contract and we all do it all the time, no matter how many people say 'Its just an interpretation'. BL have made no attempts to say what is cannon and obviously not, they are a business. Its unlikely someone will refuse to read a book because its out of date with the cannon, but that is still how a business makes decisions, it could possibly hurt them by making a standard, it absolutely won't if they don't. There are so many social contracts, new lore and multiple lore takes precedence over old or single sourced lore, explicit evidence is stronger than implicit, dialogue vs situational facts. Everyone I have argued with that says 'its all interpretations' follow these social contracts, all the time. Most people that say this do it when they are wrong. You can't adhere to standards of how we look at evidence in the community and then also hold the belief that its up for interpretation. Its also a nice open minded stance to have, but we are a community and communities make standards and rules in spite of your open mindedness or manipulation of debating standards to not be wrong. Otherwise there is no point in coming on these threads, there is nothing more irritating than arguing with some that says 'Yeah but Horus may have lead the Horus Heresy and battered the Emperor, but all this could also just a dream and he is actually still on the Vengeful Spirit relaxing during the great crusade. However, a novel that you look at stand alone that is third person omniscient, ignoring other books around it are factual in the fictional sense. You can't just say, I don't like strict adherence so I don't see them as that way. The narrator knows everything about the setting, all the thoughts and opinions of the characters, by definition and application its omniscient.
Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.
Andykp wrote: Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.
You are the one I've argued with that actually uses the ambiguity not to be wrong. You make concrete factual statements all the time, we've been down this road. You'll use facts to be right, but when you are contradicted, you say 'nuance and ambiguity.'
Nurglitch wrote: It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.
No, its not about how personally people see the story, everyone takes away different accounts. As a community; however, we have to agree to a social contract and we all do it all the time, no matter how many people say 'Its just an interpretation'. BL have made no attempts to say what is cannon and obviously not, they are a business. Its unlikely someone will refuse to read a book because its out of date with the cannon, but that is still how a business makes decisions, it could possibly hurt them by making a standard, it absolutely won't if they don't. There are so many social contracts, new lore and multiple lore takes precedence over old or single sourced lore, explicit evidence is stronger than implicit, dialogue vs situational facts. Everyone I have argued with that says 'its all interpretations' follow these social contracts, all the time. Most people that say this do it when they are wrong. You can't adhere to standards of how we look at evidence in the community and then also hold the belief that its up for interpretation. Its also a nice open minded stance to have, but we are a community and communities make standards and rules in spite of your open mindedness or manipulation of debating standards to not be wrong. Otherwise there is no point in coming on these threads, there is nothing more irritating than arguing with some that says 'Yeah but Horus may have lead the Horus Heresy and battered the Emperor, but all this could also just a dream and he is actually still on the Vengeful Spirit relaxing during the great crusade. However, a novel that you look at stand alone that is third person omniscient, ignoring other books around it are factual in the fictional sense. You can't just say, I don't like strict adherence so I don't see them as that way. The narrator knows everything about the setting, all the thoughts and opinions of the characters, by definition and application its omniscient.
At the minute you are trying to set the standards, everyone else is wrong. And this idea that you have won any arguments is crazy. The standards we should adhere to as a community are surely the ones suggested by the producers of the material. And the points of these forums is to come and hear great ideas like nurglitches. Or the one about old ones or DAOT emperor. That’s fun to me and interesting because as the authors and producers say anything can happen.
Andykp wrote: Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.
You are the one I've argued with that actually uses the ambiguity not to be wrong. You make concrete factual statements all the time, we've been down this road. You'll use facts to be right, but when you are contradicted, you say 'nuance and ambiguity.'
I honestly don’t think you have understood a single thing I, and many others have tried to say to you on hear. U produce a quote and declare that it is fact. And no matter how many people show you that it is in fact ambiguous you won’t accept it and then start throwing insults around. Then get suspended. I simply point out that it might not be as simple as you think.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the Star Trek example, that would have prompted me to come to the conclusion of "logically, with what we're presented with, something must be false. Either they are not in the same universe, the ship design is wrong, or the time period is wrong.
You say yourself that their claim is strenuous. Therefore, as the weakest link, it is deemed untrue, leaving us with with an Enterprise which isn't in the same universe as the OG series, and is instead in an alternate, but similar universe of it's own. Canon fixed. If that wasn't the weakest link, then I would rectify it another way, so that you don't end up with two different things which exist in this Schrodinger's Cat reality of being genuine and not genuine simultaneously.
That's how one resolves canon conflicts, and establishes a logical Fictional Universe.
Well, there IS a reality in there. The reality of the universe of 40k. It's not tangibly real to us, the reader, like any fictional story. However, it does have a reality within the universe. Things REALLY happen. So while there may be 3 explanations for an event in in-universe, and out of universe, we could attribute it to any of them, the fact is that in the universe of 40k, only one explanation will be correct for that event.
Do you realise that you just applied what I proposed for 40K in Star Trek? (Albeit in bizarrely literalistic and technical manner.) Why the in the name Ynnead's shiny arse would you just casually apply such multiple universe explanation to Star Trek, against the explicit intent of the producers, whilst simultaneously rejecting same approach with 40K, a property with far looser continuity? (Also, most people do not think it in so literal terms, the setting being either the same or not the same, most are fine with it being sameish, even though everything doesn't match 100%.)
Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.
Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.
Nurglitch wrote: It's kind of funny to see how people can argue that there's only one true way to tell a story.
I like to think of 40k as being a battle across realities. In some realities Chaos wins as some earlier juncture, and sometimes they're held back. In some realities the Primarchs are giants, and in some they're just normal-sized artificial humans. In some universes the Emperor was betrayed by his sons, and in others he's dying of his immense age.
No, its not about how personally people see the story, everyone takes away different accounts. As a community; however, we have to agree to a social contract and we all do it all the time, no matter how many people say 'Its just an interpretation'. BL have made no attempts to say what is cannon and obviously not, they are a business. Its unlikely someone will refuse to read a book because its out of date with the cannon, but that is still how a business makes decisions, it could possibly hurt them by making a standard, it absolutely won't if they don't. There are so many social contracts, new lore and multiple lore takes precedence over old or single sourced lore, explicit evidence is stronger than implicit, dialogue vs situational facts. Everyone I have argued with that says 'its all interpretations' follow these social contracts, all the time. Most people that say this do it when they are wrong. You can't adhere to standards of how we look at evidence in the community and then also hold the belief that its up for interpretation. Its also a nice open minded stance to have, but we are a community and communities make standards and rules in spite of your open mindedness or manipulation of debating standards to not be wrong. Otherwise there is no point in coming on these threads, there is nothing more irritating than arguing with some that says 'Yeah but Horus may have lead the Horus Heresy and battered the Emperor, but all this could also just a dream and he is actually still on the Vengeful Spirit relaxing during the great crusade. However, a novel that you look at stand alone that is third person omniscient, ignoring other books around it are factual in the fictional sense. You can't just say, I don't like strict adherence so I don't see them as that way. The narrator knows everything about the setting, all the thoughts and opinions of the characters, by definition and application its omniscient.
At the minute you are trying to set the standards, everyone else is wrong. And this idea that you have won any arguments is crazy. The standards we should adhere to as a community are surely the ones suggested by the producers of the material. And the points of these forums is to come and hear great ideas like nurglitches. Or the one about old ones or DAOT emperor. That’s fun to me and interesting because as the authors and producers say anything can happen.
Andykp wrote: Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.
You are the one I've argued with that actually uses the ambiguity not to be wrong. You make concrete factual statements all the time, we've been down this road. You'll use facts to be right, but when you are contradicted, you say 'nuance and ambiguity.'
I honestly don’t think you have understood a single thing I, and many others have tried to say to you on hear. U produce a quote and declare that it is fact. And no matter how many people show you that it is in fact ambiguous you won’t accept it and then start throwing insults around. Then get suspended. I simply point out that it might not be as simple as you think.
You make factual claims:
"If the above happens then both books would have correct lore" - this is your quote.
"They were all manipulated into turning. It’s what chaos does." this is your quote
This is one where you said they cannot be known then, you actually state their behaviour and what they are, I point out you are doing what you are inditing me of doing, then you pull the nuance thing:
"They don’t have personalities or emotions as we do but are discribed as such as it’s the only to comprehend what is going. It so anathema to mortals that it drives most of them insane on coantct. To try and measure a ‘gods’ knowledge is undoable. As was said before, they are." Your quote
"They really don’t care about infrastructure and supply routes. In the heresey, as they have since they just used the mortals to create chaos. There is no in or lose. Just chaos. Humans are important now but before that it was the eldar who were played with. The need the mortal universe to exist in a ting and yang way but they aren’t running spreadsheets on success or failure. They are deities with power, knowledge and abilities beyond our comprehension. If you haven’t, read the realms of chaos books from 1st edition era. They are a wealth of great info on chaos a huge source of inspiration." - your qoute
"Why does nurgle keep a tally? What does he do with it? Why does he make some of his mortal followers takes this endless meaningless tally? Their is no knowable point. All he wants is chaos.
Chaos couldn’t give a damn about supply routes and all the rest of it. Nothing like that matters in the warp, time and distance are irrelevant. U are picturing chaos as ordered and structured. It’s the opposite. It’s CHAOS!"
"Knowing “facts” without being able to read between the lines and see the bigger picture renders the facts as pointless. In the thread where you are arguing about the emperors deal it’s clear you have missed the subtlety of the story telling. " your quote
This is an example of you doing that. You do exactly what I do, you state concrete facts, however when you are inconsistent or wrong you say 'nuance', we ALL adhere to similar rules considering lore. I mean anyone that says its all up for interpretation, I can find them making concrete facts. Its fine to theorise, but only when you are talking about theories in the lore, you can't say this is fact and then when you are contradicted say its up for interpretation, there is a time an place for interpretation and theories.
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm stating my arguement of how I think the community should act and in fact does act.
Andykp wrote:Smudge, in your last paragraph you forgot to use some worlds. It ruins it FOR YOU. Not for everybody. I like the ambiguity. 40k is a sandbox to populate with your dudes.
My apologies, you are right. Genuinely mean that, it's not some kind of passive-aggressive response!
Crimson wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the Star Trek example, that would have prompted me to come to the conclusion of "logically, with what we're presented with, something must be false. Either they are not in the same universe, the ship design is wrong, or the time period is wrong.
You say yourself that their claim is strenuous. Therefore, as the weakest link, it is deemed untrue, leaving us with with an Enterprise which isn't in the same universe as the OG series, and is instead in an alternate, but similar universe of it's own. Canon fixed. If that wasn't the weakest link, then I would rectify it another way, so that you don't end up with two different things which exist in this Schrodinger's Cat reality of being genuine and not genuine simultaneously.
That's how one resolves canon conflicts, and establishes a logical Fictional Universe.
Well, there IS a reality in there. The reality of the universe of 40k. It's not tangibly real to us, the reader, like any fictional story. However, it does have a reality within the universe. Things REALLY happen. So while there may be 3 explanations for an event in in-universe, and out of universe, we could attribute it to any of them, the fact is that in the universe of 40k, only one explanation will be correct for that event.
Do you realise that you just applied what I proposed for 40K in Star Trek? (Albeit in bizarrely literalistic and technical manner.) Why the in the name Ynnead's shiny arse would you just casually apply such multiple universe explanation to Star Trek, against the explicit intent of the producers, whilst simultaneously rejecting same approach with 40K, a property with far looser continuity? (Also, most people do not think it in so literal terms, the setting being either the same or not the same, most are fine with it being sameish, even though everything doesn't match 100%.)
With Star Trek being rebooted that many times, and you yourself saying you found their claim dubious, I don't think it's that similar to 40k.
Besides, you've not said "I believe 40k takes place over multiple universe with different truths" - you seem to maintain that 40k is one universe, with multiple contradictory truths present.
Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.
Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.
There is literal truth in 40k. It just so happens to be fictional events, but the fact that they are true events in the reality of that fiction is unchanged.
Just because the universe of 40k isn't tangibly REAL, it doesn't mean that within the fictional world of it there are REAL events, like all fiction. Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor is real in LOTR. Kirk being the Captain of the Enterprise is real in Star Trek.
Just because there are in-universe conflicts doesn't mean that they're all true. It means that either a meta conflict has happened (such as just purely a writing error) or there is misinformation in-universe. Regardless, if the structure of 40k as a causal universe is to be maintained, only one outcome between two mutually exclusive ones can be canon within a single universe.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: With Star Trek being rebooted that many times, and you yourself saying you found their claim dubious, I don't think it's that similar to 40k.
Star Trek havs officially ever been rebooted once. Abrams's Star Trek Films take place in different universe (known as Kelvin Universe) while all other Star Trek takes place in the Prime Universe, and are supposed to be in the same continuity (even though numerous conflicts exist.)
Besides, you've not said "I believe 40k takes place over multiple universe with different truths" - you seem to maintain that 40k is one universe, with multiple contradictory truths present.
That's really just a different way to describe the same thing.
Just because the universe of 40k isn't tangibly REAL, it doesn't mean that within the fictional world of it there are REAL events, like all fiction. Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor is real in LOTR. Kirk being the Captain of the Enterprise is real in Star Trek.
Yes, and Kirk being the first to encounter the cloaking devices while there was a war where the cloaking devices were extensively used ten years earlier is also 'real.'
Just because there are in-universe conflicts doesn't mean that they're all true. It means that either a meta conflict has happened (such as just purely a writing error) or there is misinformation in-universe. Regardless, if the structure of 40k as a causal universe is to be maintained, only one outcome between two mutually exclusive ones can be canon within a single universe.
Me, or the creators of the setting are not interested in maintaining such one coherent causal universe. That is your headcanon, your obsession. I am perfectly willing to accept that it is multiple universes, or universe with literally unknown things or whatever, or indeed a fictional creation composed of contradicting stories.
Del, thank you for taking the time to quote me so much. I remember when you tried to convince me that the chaos gods cared about logistics. As I said in my summary before, yes we can all agree there are some points of absolute, the existence of marines etc. But what is not absolute is the word of the narrator in the HH books. Or any of the books. Or any of the characters opinions. Thank you for not resorting to insults and name calling this time.
Sgt smudge. Cheers. We can all enjoy the hobby our own way.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing.
Speaking of the most absurd things I've ever heard...that final sentence shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how unreliable narrators work as a concept I'm not sure it's worth even attempting to explain it. Unreliable narrations can be third person and given multiple people involved with BL and GW have mentioned the fact that there is no official "one true canon" and several have referred to the stories as more like legends, it's not hard to imagine there is a degree of unreliability there. When someone recounts a myth or piece of folklore, it's often in third person form but we wouldn't say it's 100% authoritative.
Yup. If you want one of the OG examples of an unreliable narrator look no further than The Adventures of Tristram Shandy. The titular narrator isn't even born until about a 3rd of the way into the book and the book itself is far more omniscient as it mourns the death of another character (one page of the book is entirely black).
And I saw some people on another site say Gulliman was lying about meeting the Emperor. Yeah, right. Why would he lie to himself? The below quote leaves no room for doubt. Gulliman as least thinks it happened.
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end
Another way to look at the above quote is who ever the emperor was prior to getting on the throne, what he is now is something fundamentally different. Perhaps it is as Guilliman thinks, simply the Emperor dropping the curtain and no longer pretending that he cared about his kids.
Or alternatively, 10,000 years of being stuck on the throne, combined with having thousands of pyskers sacrificed into him for the last 10,000 years has effectively left us with an entity that in a meta physical sense is a different conscious. The thing that Bobby G had a talk with very well not be the same person that he knew during the heresy.
Onething123456 wrote: And I saw some people on another site say Gulliman was lying about meeting the Emperor. Yeah, right. Why would he lie to himself? The below quote leaves no room for doubt. Gulliman as least thinks it happened.
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end
.
People lie to them selves all the time, it’s very common.
Onething123456 wrote: And I saw some people on another site say Gulliman was lying about meeting the Emperor. Yeah, right. Why would he lie to himself? The below quote leaves no room for doubt. Gulliman as least thinks it happened.
With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end
.
People lie to them selves all the time, it’s very common.
As I have said before. Maybe he believed it happened but it didn’t. It was a dream or hallucination. Maybe he’s just being dramatic and nothing happened. Who knows?
Onething123456 wrote: With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end.
So according to this little paragraph, the Emperor is sort off alive and the sort of guy who really dislike his creation because he is fundamentally a megalomaniac narcissist. Who knew that a guy who declare himself emperor and savior of all humanity would be that sort of person? On another note, does that mean the greatest secret of the Emperor is that he secretly always anted girls and no boys? Guilliman spent about 10K out of order after getting his throat slit and needed some arane and xenos tech to be revived, meanwhile Celestine bounces back from being disintegrated in a nuclear holocost, chopped into pieces, shot, etc. like if these were just scratches. Why the favoristism?
On another note, I question the conclusion that the Emperor is alive based on this blurb. In 40K there seems to be such a thing as life after death and a transcendental propriety to the soul. I think hte Emperor is dead, but his soul lives on. The Emperor doesn't live, he's a ghost and he will never live again. In fact, having lost "his humanity" he might as well lose what made him an individual and be transformed in nothing more than the collective desire of humanity to survive. In that everything is a tool, not just Guilliman or the other Primarch.
Onething123456 wrote: With words of light and fire, the Emperor had conferred with His returned primarch, the last of His finest creations. A creation. Not a son. The living Emperor had been an artful being, as skilled at hiding His thoughts as He was at reading those of others. What remained of Him was powerful beyond comprehension, but it lacked the subtlety He had had whilst He walked among men. Speaking with the Emperor had been like conversing with a star. The Emperor’s words burned him. What hurt most deeply was what went unsaid. The Emperor greeted Guilliman not as a father receives a son, but as a craftsmen who rediscovers a favourite tool that he thought lost. He behaved like a prisoner locked in an iron cage who is passed a rasp. Guilliman had no illusions. He was not the man who brought the rasp; he was the rasp.While the Emperor had walked abroad, He had cloaked His manipulations in love. He had let His primarchs call Him father; He had let them call themselves His sons. He had rarely spoken those words Himself, Guilliman now realised, and when He had He had done so without sincerity. Buffeted by the full might of the Emperor’s will unclothed in flesh, a cloak had been ripped from Guilliman’s eyes. The Emperor had allowed them to love Him, and to believe He loved them in return. He had not. His primarchs were weapons, that was all. Though His power was immense, perhaps greater than it had been before He ascended, the Emperor’s humanity was all but gone. He could no longer mask His thoughts with a human face. The Emperor’s light was blinding, all encompassing, but finally – finally – Guilliman had seen it as a whole. The being he had thought of as a father could hide nothing from him. The Emperor did not love His sons. They were things. Guilliman, all his brothers, were nothing but a means to an end.
So according to this little paragraph, the Emperor is sort off alive and the sort of guy who really dislike his creation because he is fundamentally a megalomaniac narcissist. Who knew that a guy who declare himself emperor and savior of all humanity would be that sort of person? On another note, does that mean the greatest secret of the Emperor is that he secretly always anted girls and no boys? Guilliman spent about 10K out of order after getting his throat slit and needed some arane and xenos tech to be revived, meanwhile Celestine bounces back from being disintegrated in a nuclear holocost, chopped into pieces, shot, etc. like if these were just scratches. Why the favoristism?
On another note, I question the conclusion that the Emperor is alive based on this blurb. In 40K there seems to be such a thing as life after death and a transcendental propriety to the soul. I think hte Emperor is dead, but his soul lives on. The Emperor doesn't live, he's a ghost and he will never live again. In fact, having lost "his humanity" he might as well lose what made him an individual and be transformed in nothing more than the collective desire of humanity to survive. In that everything is a tool, not just Guilliman or the other Primarch.
Fundamentally a megalomaniac narcissist. You say that as if megalomaniacs do not believe in their (ignoring the fact the Emperor does not display characteristics of a "Megalomaniac narcissist", and is not one) causes. Hitler clearly believed in Aryan supremacy.
Why do you question it? Gulliman mulled (thought) about his meeting with the Emperor. Oh, I see.
Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.
Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.
It actually is the same. Caesar probably existed and he was probably murdered. but at this point there is no way to be certain of it, or the details of the 'literal truth' of how it happened. A lot is lost, possibly purposefully obscured by opponents (or allies) or confused with various dramatizations that influenced Shakespeare's version.
Plutarch and especially Suetonius are not the most reliable of historians (Suetonius is far more interested in the idea that Julius was bedding Augustus, for example), but both maintained he said nothing at all during the assassination, others say he actually said, 'You too, child?' in Greek, and the famous line (Et tu, Brute?) doesn't actually appear much at all until the 16th century.
So while there is a 'literal truth' that happened, it is effectively unknowable and pretty arguably unimportant, or at least less important than the stories created around it that establish an understanding of the person, culture and era.
Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.
Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.
It actually is the same. Caesar probably existed and he was probably murdered. but at this point there is no way to be certain of it, or the details of the 'literal truth' of how it happened. A lot is lost, possibly purposefully obscured by opponents (or allies) or confused with various dramatizations that influenced Shakespeare's version.
Plutarch and especially Suetonius are not the most reliable of historians (Suetonius is far more interested in the idea that Julius was bedding Augustus, for example), but both maintained he said nothing at all during the assassination, others say he actually said, 'You too, child?' in Greek, and the famous line (Et tu, Brute?) doesn't actually appear much at all until the 16th century.
So while there is a 'literal truth' that happened, it is effectively unknowable and pretty arguably unimportant, or at least less important than the stories created around it that establish an understanding of the person, culture and era.
To further complicate things, warp shenanigans makes reality hard to keep track of, which is why the Ordo Chronos was tasked with maintaining a coherent timeline... but they disappeared.
It's also funny that the dating system is potentially off by a full millennium.
Take our real world. There could be multiple mutually exclusive explanations for why something happened (I don't know, let's say, the stabbing of Caesar), but only one of those could be true. While 40k is fictional, the process of causality is still present in the universe of it.
Except it is not the same. There literally is literal truth about Caesar's death, there is no such truth in fiction. Sometimes the creators have not decided how a thing is, sometimes they have ether accidentally or intentionally created a conflicting descriptions of events.
It actually is the same. Caesar probably existed and he was probably murdered. but at this point there is no way to be certain of it, or the details of the 'literal truth' of how it happened. A lot is lost, possibly purposefully obscured by opponents (or allies) or confused with various dramatizations that influenced Shakespeare's version.
Plutarch and especially Suetonius are not the most reliable of historians (Suetonius is far more interested in the idea that Julius was bedding Augustus, for example), but both maintained he said nothing at all during the assassination, others say he actually said, 'You too, child?' in Greek, and the famous line (Et tu, Brute?) doesn't actually appear much at all until the 16th century.
So while there is a 'literal truth' that happened, it is effectively unknowable and pretty arguably unimportant, or at least less important than the stories created around it that establish an understanding of the person, culture and era.
I think comparing history to fiction is absolutely ludercris. there are some VERY VERY big differances between them.History is full of holes, we're limited by what we can see, nd seldom if ever are told what people are thinking at the time it happens, sure we get memiors sometimes but how many of those are TRUELY honest? let's face it, people want to present themselves in the best light possiable. If Brutus had say written a memior and gotten it published, he'd have claimed he was thinking of the health of the Roman Republic and other novel thoughts, even if the truth of the reality is that at the time he was REALLY just angry at Caeser for an affair he ahd with his mother.
meanwhile in fiction, we often get pov of view of someone ON the scene, and get to actually hear what they're thinking at the time, historians would KILL FOR THIS. There's some levels we need to consider for 40K canon. 1st off is "absolute canon" in 40k mankind worships the emperor of mankind, there are space marines called Ultramarines who wear blue, etc. this is absolute utter canon. there's no room for argument here. then you have what I'd call event canon, this is "this event happened, here's how it unfolded" one can, by virtue of it being rare for differant authors to write about the same event without cordinating a LITTLE generally be accepted as canon, sometimes you might however have cases where the event is never referanced again, or referances to it make you suddenly question if it's basicly being swept under a rug. and then you have "detail canon" that, TBH rarely is all that canon, stuff like how space marine autosenses work, the calibur of bolt shells etc. that pretty much seem to bounce around from writer to writer.
I think comparing history to fiction is absolutely ludercris. there are some VERY VERY big differances between them.History is full of holes, we're limited by what we can see, nd seldom if ever are told what people are thinking at the time it happens, sure we get memiors sometimes but how many of those are TRUELY honest? let's face it, people want to present themselves in the best light possiable. If Brutus had say written a memior and gotten it published, he'd have claimed he was thinking of the health of the Roman Republic and other novel thoughts, even if the truth of the reality is that at the time he was REALLY just angry at Caeser for an affair he ahd with his mother.
meanwhile in fiction, we often get pov of view of someone ON the scene, and get to actually hear what they're thinking at the time, historians would KILL FOR THIS.
It all makes way more sense if you assume that the BL books are historical novels even in the setting. So they have same relationship to truth than a novel based on actual historical events in our world would. I think this is what the creators basically imply when they say it is 'rumour and legends'.
Not really, no one would EVER finish a 40k novel in the 40k setting before they got burnt at the stake for heresy
now the codices? I can READILY belive that. hell if I was in charge of GW I'd order an entirely new approuch to codices when the next edition change over came out and have them specificly be written ICly,
BrianDavion wrote:I think comparing history to fiction is absolutely ludercris. there are some VERY VERY big differances between them.History is full of holes, we're limited by what we can see, nd seldom if ever are told what people are thinking at the time it happens, sure we get memiors sometimes but how many of those are TRUELY honest? let's face it, people want to present themselves in the best light possiable. If Brutus had say written a memior and gotten it published, he'd have claimed he was thinking of the health of the Roman Republic and other novel thoughts, even if the truth of the reality is that at the time he was REALLY just angry at Caeser for an affair he ahd with his mother.
History has holes, but so does our understanding of 40k.
And yes, people often do narrate of themselves in a false way to make themselves justified. People do that in 40k too - the difference is that we can't see in people's heads IRL, but we can see in 40k definite truths in a character's head.
However, my point about history=fiction is that in history, an event DID occur. How it happened, why, and all of those vagarities can be up for debate, but fundamentally, there was ONE true outcome. 40k, if we're treating the universe as a single one, with causality and all that jazz, also may have those vagarities of detail, and the exact retellings might be varied, but fundamentally, if something took place, there is only ONE true way it went down.
Let's take Calgar being defeated by the Tyranids during the Battle of Macragge. We have some sources that say it was done by Hive Fleet Locust. We have others say it was Hive Fleet Behemoth. Others say it was the Swarmlord, others don't mention it. However, in the universe of 40k, if Calgar was even defeated at the Battle of Macragge, it could only have been done once, and therefore, it cannot be true that both Locust and Behemoth did it in the same instance.
meanwhile in fiction, we often get pov of view of someone ON the scene, and get to actually hear what they're thinking at the time, historians would KILL FOR THIS. There's some levels we need to consider for 40K canon. 1st off is "absolute canon" in 40k mankind worships the emperor of mankind, there are space marines called Ultramarines who wear blue, etc. this is absolute utter canon. there's no room for argument here. then you have what I'd call event canon, this is "this event happened, here's how it unfolded" one can, by virtue of it being rare for differant authors to write about the same event without cordinating a LITTLE generally be accepted as canon, sometimes you might however have cases where the event is never referanced again, or referances to it make you suddenly question if it's basicly being swept under a rug. and then you have "detail canon" that, TBH rarely is all that canon, stuff like how space marine autosenses work, the calibur of bolt shells etc. that pretty much seem to bounce around from writer to writer.
Since we're dealing with "event canon", as you call it, while an event may be reported with conflicting accounts in- and out-of-universe, it doesn't change the fact that in the fictional world of the universe, there was a definite TRUE event. Whether that TRUE event is supported by in-universe accounts, or even if it's told at all, the TRUE event must have happened a certain way.
I fully agree that in-universe sources are canon - in that the sources themselves are canon. Say we have two reports of Event 1, Report A and Report B. Both A and B exist within universe, and are canon. However, it does not mean that A or B is necessarily equal or truthful as 1. 1 has a canon outcome, and that canon outcome does not have to be A or B, but it cannot be both A and B.
In- or out-of-universe sources might be canon, but they might not be TRUE.
Crimson wrote:It all makes way more sense if you assume that the BL books are historical novels even in the setting. So they have same relationship to truth than a novel based on actual historical events in our world would. I think this is what the creators basically imply when they say it is 'rumour and legends'.
It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.
Any discrepancies within the books or series, if not an in-universe fabrication/mistake/rumour, is a simple writing error by the BL team.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: if we're treating the universe as a single one, with causality and all that jazz,
We are not.
Let's take Calgar being defeated by the Tyranids during the Battle of Macragge. We have some sources that say it was done by Hive Fleet Locust. We have others say it was Hive Fleet Behemoth. Others say it was the Swarmlord, others don't mention it. However, in the universe of 40k, if Calgar was even defeated at the Battle of Macragge, it could only have been done once, and therefore, it cannot be true that both Locust and Behemoth did it in the same instance.
Or that there are several conflicting stories, each of which is true in context of that story, but not in the context of another story.
It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.
Yeah, no. This is absolutely the most infuriating thing about the BL fans. They insist that the BL version of the setting is somehow more true and only 'real' version. Utter bollocks. "The sky of Mars is orange" and "Guilliman observed with his magnificent manly eyes the greenness of the martian sky while thinking about the terrible burden of being the most awesome person in existence" are both sentences that tell us about the colour of the sky of Mars, and the latter being in a form of bad prose doesn't mean it any more authoritative.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: if we're treating the universe as a single one, with causality and all that jazz,
I am not.
Fixed for you.
Black Library treats it as one.
Let's take Calgar being defeated by the Tyranids during the Battle of Macragge. We have some sources that say it was done by Hive Fleet Locust. We have others say it was Hive Fleet Behemoth. Others say it was the Swarmlord, others don't mention it. However, in the universe of 40k, if Calgar was even defeated at the Battle of Macragge, it could only have been done once, and therefore, it cannot be true that both Locust and Behemoth did it in the same instance.
Or that there are several conflicting stories, each of which is true in context of that story, but not in the context of another story.
But 40k IS one story. Within the story, there are conflicting accounts, but 40k itself has one story.
This isn't a "MCU event =/= Comics Universe event but are both canon" situation. For that, it works because there are two separate universes. 40k doesn't have that.
At least, Black Library support that.
It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.
Yeah, no. This is absolutely the most infuriating thing about the BL fans. They insist that the BL version of the setting is somehow more true and only 'real' version. Utter bollocks. "The sky of Mars is orange" and "Guilliman observed with his magnificent manly eyes the greenness of the martian sky while thinking about the terrible burden of being the most awesome person in existence" are both sentences that tell us about the colour of the sky of Mars, and the latter being in a form of bad prose doesn't mean it any more authoritative.
Why isn't the BL version the canon one? As it is written, the linguistic way the books WORK is not as a retelling. The "reports" and other such in-universe sources do make sense they could be fictional. The BL books do not, due to their narrative style.
You wouldn't turn around and say that "I don't like MCU fans because they insist the film versions of the MCU are more true and real". Sorry, but that's the literal creators' official publications. Can there be mistakes, and retcons, and simple author lapses? Yes. You just have to change the canon to amend for those IRL mistakes.
What is wrong with having a True Event? You can do your headcanon. You can still go about your life unaffected.
Not really. Where are the multilaser terminators in the later books? They kinda try to keep the HH thing consistent (it isn't though) as it is one continuing stry, but outside that writers can do pretty much what they want. Abnett is notorious for this.
But 40k IS one story. Within the story, there are conflicting accounts, but 40k itself has one story.
Nope. Sure, there exists the roughly unchanging narrative core, but such exists in all the different version of Batman too.
This isn't a "MCU event =/= Comics Universe event but are both canon" situation. For that, it works because there are two separate universes. 40k doesn't have that.
It does, it just isn't so clearly labelled. Though BL is a different brand, so there is already an intentional separation there. And of course there was the Fantasy Flight version of the setting, which was clearly different. And as noted earlier, differnt BL authors have their own versions of the setting whaich are not necessarily compatible with each other, or the studio fluff. It is unlabelled very loose continuity Bond. And no, it is not several different agents named James Bond, nor are there several different Felix Leiters, it is just very loose or nonexistent continuity.(Sure, the cover identity is an interpretation you can apply (though not a good one), but that is basically your headcanon; it was not intended to work that way.)
Why isn't the BL version the canon one?
It is canon. And so is the studio version. Even if they conflict.
As it is written, the linguistic way the books WORK is not as a retelling. The "reports" and other such in-universe sources do make sense they could be fictional. The BL books do not, due to their narrative style.
Utter bollocks. The narrative style doesn't make it any less or more true, this is patently ludicrous claim. If anything, a claim could be made that statements made in a neutral textbook manner would be more authoritative, as they're free of artistic interpretations that the prose inherently requires.
You wouldn't turn around and say that "I don't like MCU fans because they insist the film versions of the MCU are more true and real".
Because those people do not think MCU is the real version of the Marvel setting and supersedes the comics because we can see real people in it whilst the comics are just drawings. I mean, that would be an absurd way to think.
Sorry, but that's the literal creators' official publications. Can there be mistakes, and retcons, and simple author lapses? Yes. You just have to change the canon to amend for those IRL mistakes.
A different version of a story is not a mistake.
What is wrong with having a True Event? You can do your headcanon. You can still go about your life unaffected.
Whats so wrong in accepting that there is no one unified continuity? You can still impose your headcanon on it like you do with Bond. Trying to insist on one true interpretation is futile, even the writers themselves do not have that.
Smudge you said “It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.“
This is contracting hiw the producers of these documents say they should be considered.
Andykp wrote: Smudge you said “It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.“
This is contracting hiw the producers of these documents say they should be considered.
And to suggest that "there is no canon" as they've also said has been contradicted by themselves too. So which is it? They maintain simultaneously that there both is no canon, but also IS a canon.
As far as I see it, the "no canon" stance by BL is a cop-out from admitting that sometimes they can make mistakes as a writing team.
All that the BL say is not to take anything you read as absolute. Question it all and don’t be surprised to hear it contradicted. In a way your headcanon is that what’s in the books is the truth.
I personally doubt it’s a cop out. I think it’s more how the setting has always been. It’s how it functions and is how it has always been portrayed. So it’s more like you should enjoy your head canon and me and crimson will keep on questioning what’s happening in the messed up confusing real canon that is full of contradictions and unanswered questions.
So, would BL publish a story where the Emperor, the primarchs and the space marines were actually all women, and them being men was just propaganda? No?
How about a story where orks are actually pink and the green 'skin' is just warpaint? No?
OK, would they publish a story where it turns out the Chaos Gods don't exist and it's all an elaborate trick by the old eldar gods wearing Halloween masks? No?
Or a story where space marines are aliens, not genetically enhanced humans? No again?
Or one where the Emperor is actually an ork with a very kunnin' disguise? No dice?
No to all of those? Well, then there is definitely a canon. Anyone at GW/BL who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or doesn't know what the word 'canon' means when applied to a fictional setting.
Duskweaver wrote: So, would BL publish a story where the Emperor, the primarchs and the space marines were actually all women, and them being men was just propaganda? No?
How about a story where orks are actually pink and the green 'skin' is just warpaint? No?
OK, would they publish a story where it turns out the Chaos Gods don't exist and it's all an elaborate trick by the old eldar gods wearing Halloween masks? No?
Or a story where space marines are aliens, not genetically enhanced humans? No again?
Or one where the Emperor is actually an ork with a very kunnin' disguise? No dice?
No to all of those? Well, then there is definitely a canon. Anyone at GW/BL who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or doesn't know what the word 'canon' means when applied to a fictional setting.
What they say is to not take anything as hard and definite fact. Consider the level of in universe understanding and the bias of perspective. Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too. If you want “canon” the codexses are the best place to look.
Also, it’s amazing to hear so many people tell the creators of one of the most successful war games settings that they are doing it wrong and don’t understand their own product!
Andykp wrote: Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too.
Well, it obviously is just as Canon as other books published by GW.
Andykp wrote: Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too.
Well, it obviously is just as Canon as other books published by GW.
Mind you most the depictions of the primarchs is very much pre teen drama now anyway. Daddy issues ahoy. What I want to see is the primarchs mum rock up and kick arse.
Andykp wrote:What they say is to not take anything as hard and definite fact.
Some things clearly are "hard and definite fact", though. Orks are green. Eldar have pointy ears. There are plenty of things that are presented as just some character's opinion. But not everything, by any means. Therefore, there is a canon. There are things that are objectively true within the setting and other things that are objectively not the case within the setting.
what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel
You think I'm a BL fanboy? Hahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Also, it’s amazing to hear so many people tell the creators of one of the most successful war games settings that they are doing it wrong and don’t understand their own product!
I'm not claiming the creators are "doing it wrong and don’t understand their own product". I am, however, suggesting that the quotes some people keep posting of GW/BL people saying there's no canon in 40K indicate that those people do not know what the word 'canon' means.
Most people here don't seem to know what canon means.
But that the continyity is loose and messy doesn't mean there aren't any facts about the setting at all. James Bond is always a British secret agent that is very particular about his martinis. But a lot of other details may vary between the different stories about him.
Duskweaver wrote: So, would BL publish a story where the Emperor, the primarchs and the space marines were actually all women, and them being men was just propaganda? No?
How about a story where orks are actually pink and the green 'skin' is just warpaint? No?
OK, would they publish a story where it turns out the Chaos Gods don't exist and it's all an elaborate trick by the old eldar gods wearing Halloween masks? No?
Or a story where space marines are aliens, not genetically enhanced humans? No again?
Or one where the Emperor is actually an ork with a very kunnin' disguise? No dice?
No to all of those? Well, then there is definitely a canon. Anyone at GW/BL who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or doesn't know what the word 'canon' means when applied to a fictional setting.
What having no hard canon means is that those informations might change, changes that can be imposed by the community. If I paint my orks pink, they are pink and my ork army is just as valid as that of the GW studio. If I say my orks are pink because of the strange and unique radiation comming from a space anomaly then it's a fact. What I can't say is that ALL orks are pink because obviously some people painted their orks in different shades of green, black, white, etc. What having no hard canon means is that the fluff you create and the fluff they write in BL or codexes are just as valid. There is no mention in the fluff of the Space Marine Chapter of the Pearl Raven, but that's the name of my Space Marine Chapter. What that means is that BL fluff is nothing more than the headcanon of a studio of people based on the same premise. That Dan Abnett said something about the univers of 40K doesn't make it more real than what I say about my fluff. You can't tell me that my orks can't be pink and if they are pink, then you have to accept that some orks are pink because my army is part of the 40K univers. GW is very aware that their players are writting and producing fluff based on their IP and they want people to invest themselves in their IP like so. That's why they say there is no hard canon. Because they don't want to place their fluff in a position of authority compared to my fluff or yours. If I don't like the idea of Primarchs and prefer to see them just as particularly high ranking Space Marines, no bigger or better than those living 10 000 years later, I can explain so by saying all the Horus Heresy books are basically legends and Guilliman superior abilities comes from his unique equipment. If you like it, then maybe what's told by BL is completly true. Which one of us is correct? There is no way to tell with certitude. At least, that's how I understand their position on the 40K fluff.
Andykp wrote: Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too.
Well, it obviously is just as Canon as other books published by GW.
Pretty much.
Unless it severely deviates from the universe established, and isn't supported by future releases (aka, is this a retcon, or just incongruous to the 40k canon).
However, I think it's probably going to be canon, and I welcome that.
epronovost wrote: What having no hard canon means is that those informations might change, changes that can be imposed by the community. If I paint my orks pink, they are pink and my ork army is just as valid as that of the GW studio. If I say my orks are pink because of the strange and unique radiation comming from a space anomaly then it's a fact. What I can't say is that ALL orks are pink because obviously some people painted their orks in different shades of green, black, white, etc. What having no hard canon means is that the fluff you create and the fluff they write in BL or codexes are just as valid. There is no mention in the fluff of the Space Marine Chapter of the Pearl Raven, but that's the name of my Space Marine Chapter.
True. You have taken aspects and realities of the 40k universe (radiation messing with skin colours, Space Marine chapters existing and having names like "Pearl Raven"), and used them to make a headcanon for yourself. Your things aren't canon, but they fit into the 40k universe. It's a fact that in your headcanon, that's a thing, and because you've used things from the main canon to validate it, it's more truthful to the canonical universe.
I disagree with you with BL's canonicity: BL stuff is more canon. I do agree in that being BL stuff doesn't necessarily make it more valid to you personally.
My custom Chapter, led by a homebrew character, draws from the established possibilities of the setting, but I don't pretend that it's universal canon they exist. They exist in my headcanon, but I've used canon elements to make my headcanon more like normal canon. However, just because it's still not "canon" doesn't mean it's less true to me.
What that means is that BL fluff is nothing more than the headcanon of a studio of people based on the same premise. That Dan Abnett said something about the univers of 40K doesn't make it more real than what I say about my fluff.
Except he is writing on behalf of the Black Library. The official body of 40k lore. His stuff, should it remain congruous to the 40k lore established (and isn't the setting up of a retcon), is official. It doesn't make it have more value than your headcanon, but it IS canon.
You can't tell me that my orks can't be pink and if they are pink, then you have to accept that some orks are pink because my army is part of the 40K univers. GW is very aware that their players are writting and producing fluff based on their IP and they want people to invest themselves in their IP like so. That's why they say there is no hard canon. Because they don't want to place their fluff in a position of authority compared to my fluff or yours.
But you cannot deny that there are truths of the setting.
You might find your headcanon more important to you than anything BL puts out. Which is fine. It doesn't mean yours is canon though.
Canon =/= the most valid.
If I don't like the idea of Primarchs and prefer to see them just as particularly high ranking Space Marines, no bigger or better than those living 10 000 years later, I can explain so by saying all the Horus Heresy books are basically legends and Guilliman superior abilities comes from his unique equipment. If you like it, then maybe what's told by BL is completly true. Which one of us is correct? There is no way to tell with certitude. At least, that's how I understand their position on the 40K fluff.
I understand your position, but I disagree with certain elements of it.
I maintain there is a canon, there is a True universe. However, it is limited to what GW/BL put out. If you wish to expand that, by taking inspiration from the canon or going completely off the beaten track, then that's headcanon. However, just because it's headcanon should not, and in my opinion, does not make it have any less value.
I support canon for the sake of discussion of a shared and consistent universe, purely because with headcanon, the value is intrinsic to the bearer of the headcanon.
Or, think of it as the difference between fact and opinion. Fact is concrete (until it is disproven, or in this case, retconned), and is used in more empirical discussions. This particular thread is, from what I gather, one of those discussions.
Headcanon is opinion, and while I encourage sharing of opinions, they hold no weight in an empirical discussion because they have no proof. Therefore, they are of potentially infinite value to yourself, but hold no weight beyond that. That doesn't mean they're useless, and you shouldn't have a headcanon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: It is not 'probably' going to be canon, it will be canon. Its canonity has nothing to do with it contradicting other 40K lore or vice versa.
Again, I disagree. There is a single True Canon, with contradictions to it either being in-universe beliefs or errors, or out-of-universe writing deviations. But we've gone over that already, and I think we've peaked on it.
Actually, if you look at the biblical canon for example (the grand dad of all canon so to speak). Yes, the most popular version/vision is what was defined as canon. A canon is simply a set of beliefs or idea commonly held about something or considered true by a majority. A canon has no factual value. A ''true canon'' only exist if it's possible to prove a story. Since 40K is a fiction, there can be no facts, only commonly accepted idea that forms a canon and GW doesn't enforce any form of canon on people for obvious reasons and they don't value their fluff over that of their customers. Now, we can discuss the virtues, characteristics and consequences of certain pieces of fluff, but we can hardly make turth claim unless it's self referential. Thus, has GW described Corax as a man is a factual statement with evidence. Is Corax a man is open to people declaring that Corax is acutally a man or a woman. The canon answer would be the most commonly agreed answer, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't agree with the majority are ''wrong'' to consider Corax a woman. At best you can critique the logic behind that choice.
Actually, if you look at the biblical canon for example (the grand dad of all canon so to speak). Yes, the most popular version/vision is what was defined as canon. A canon is simply a set of beliefs or idea commonly held about something or considered true by a majority. A canon has no factual value. A ''true canon'' only exist if it's possible to prove a story. Since 40K is a fiction, there can be no facts, only commonly accepted idea that forms a canon and GW doesn't enforce any form of canon on people for obvious reasons and they don't value their fluff over that of their customers. Now, we can discuss the virtues, characteristics and consequences of certain pieces of fluff, but we can hardly make turth claim unless it's self referential. Thus, has GW described Corax as a man is a factual statement with evidence. Is Corax a man is open to people declaring that Corax is acutally a man or a woman. The canon answer would be the most commonly agreed answer, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't agree with the majority are ''wrong'' to consider Corax a woman. At best you can critique the logic behind that choice.
I think the bible is a bad analogy for this argument as it does contain some things that are historical fact.
A better analogy is Star Wars. There is a 'canon' which consists of all the official Lucasfilm/Disney releases. These contain errors, contradictions and continuity problems but they remain Canon. There are Star Wars licensed releases which are not Canon (I. E the Lego Star Wars stories), and there is fan fiction which is not Canon despite how plausible it is.
The star wars Canon is everything officially released as Canon.
The 40k Canon is everything officially released by GW/BL.
Actually, if you look at the biblical canon for example (the grand dad of all canon so to speak). Yes, the most popular version/vision is what was defined as canon. A canon is simply a set of beliefs or idea commonly held about something or considered true by a majority. A canon has no factual value. A ''true canon'' only exist if it's possible to prove a story.
But the Bible is set in the real world, and thus, real things happened.
Due to the nature of causality, there is only one True Outcome in the real world.
Let's take the assassination of MLK. There could be countless theories on how he died, if he even did at all, but fundamentally, there is only one True way he died (or didn't).
Furthermore, I think the term "canon" has evolved beyond it's root. It now seems, in fiction, to mean true in that fictional universe. Therefore, I don't think the biblical definition is appropriate here, seeing as it's not really a "fictional" application, and more of a series of accounts from real people. I'll also reiterate for clarity: something like an Inquisitor's report of an event, whilst the report is canon in that it exists within the 40k universe, the things the report tells us are not. They might be, but they might not be congruent to the True event it tries to report.
Since 40K is a fiction, there can be no facts, only commonly accepted idea that forms a canon and GW doesn't enforce any form of canon on people for obvious reasons and they don't value their fluff over that of their customers.
40k being fiction means it would use the definition of canon that I mentioned above - aka, that it can have one.
GW do enforce a canon. They might claim with one interview that they don't have a canon, but I disagree. There is a clear canon, both explicitly and implicitly established. Implicitly, the fact that the universe describes things the same, the fact that core concepts remain, the fact that names rarely change for important character, etc etc implies a defined canon.
Explicitly, we have Gav Thorpe (I think), who outlines for the BL writing contest that BL do turn round to people and say "that's not how a Space Marines would talk" or "that's not how the Warp works" - which would be impossible to say if they didn't have a canon.
Now, we can discuss the virtues, characteristics and consequences of certain pieces of fluff, but we can hardly make turth claim unless it's self referential. Thus, has GW described Corax as a man is a factual statement with evidence. Is Corax a man is open to people declaring that Corax is acutally a man or a woman. The canon answer would be the most commonly agreed answer, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't agree with the majority are ''wrong'' to consider Corax a woman. At best you can critique the logic behind that choice.
They're not wrong to consider Corax a woman. They're just not canon. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that.
It's not wrong, but it is headcanon, because it deviates from canon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RobS wrote: The 40k Canon is everything officially released by GW/BL.
Mostly agree, but I hesitate to say *everything*.
Where things conflict, one would consider the validity of the book, if it's part of a retconning, the source of the information (is it an in-universe source, or something which is delivered via omniscient narrator?) and other aspects to ascertain if it is canon.
Or, to put it another way: "Canon is material BL/GW officially release, but not everything BL/GW officially release is canon."
No, you're simply wrong. You're just misusing words. Canon doesn't mean 'true', RobS' definition is spot on. Your insistence to sort canonical things into 'true' and 'not-true' piles is just your headcanon and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual canon.
Crimson wrote: No, you're simply wrong. You're just misusing words. Canon doesn't mean 'true',
Show me the definition of canon, in a fictional sense, please. Here's what I have.
"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in the fictional universe of that story..." "...The term "canon" nowadays refers to all works of fiction within a franchise's fictional universe which are considered "to have actually happened" within the fictional universe they belong to."
That’s the definition. Non of them really apply here.
This bit possibly.
1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
‘the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity’
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
‘the biblical canon’
More example sentences
Or
2.1 The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
‘the Shakespeare canon’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.2 The list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
‘Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry’
That’s the definition. Non of them really apply here.
This bit possibly.
1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
‘the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity’
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
‘the biblical canon’
More example sentences
Or
2.1 The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
‘the Shakespeare canon’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.2 The list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
‘Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry’
Which is why I'm referring to the version of canon which applies to fiction, the one first used with Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.
Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of canon (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council
b : a provision of canon law
2 [ Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model ] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3 [ Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard ]
a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b : the authentic works of a writer
the Chaucer canon c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
the canon of great literature 4a : an accepted principle or rule
b : a criterion or standard of judgment
the canons of good taste c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
according to newspaper canon … a big story calls for a lot of copy
— A. J. Liebling
Oxford Dictionary wrote:canon2
NOUN
1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
‘the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity’
1.1 A Church decree or law.
‘a set of ecclesiastical canons’ mass noun ‘legislation which enables the Church of England General Synod to provide by canon for women to be ordained’
2A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
‘the biblical canon’ 2.1 The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
‘the Shakespeare canon’ 2.2 The list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
‘Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry’
This is how it used with Star Trek and Star Trek too, although in those cases it is obviously the creations of the company, rather than one author*. Canon implies authenticity and officialness, Even your somewhat misleading definition included term 'officially accepted'. If GW would make statements about which books to include and which to ignore when considering the continuity of the setting (like CBS/Paramount did with the animated Star Trek and Lucasfilm/Disney with the Star Wars books) it would carry some weight. But instead their statements do the exact opposite. It is 'rumours, legends, may be true, maybe not." They explicitly refuse to take stance on validness of any material.
*(And canon of both of those properties, while far more carefully curated than 40K ever has been, still contain numerous contradictions.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Which is why I'm referring to the version of canon which applies to fiction, the one first used with Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes canon is the Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle. Later additions by other authors are not canon. And yes, there are some* contradictions withing that canon, and the readers have come up with some creative explanations for those contradictions, but the fact remains that the said contradictions are canon and the fan explanations are 'headcanon.'
* (Super mild and trivial contradictions, mainly related to chronology. It is after all work of one very well organised person, set in (then) contemporary world and dealing with quite self contained situations.)
s".
As I said in my summary before, yes we can all agree there are some points of absolute, the existence of marines etc. But what is not absolute is the word of the narrator in the 
