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

 Envihon wrote:
Well, it has always been said many times that there is no actual canon in the 40k universe to partially give BL it's creative licenses as well as let GW change fluff at will in the Codices. I mean look how many fluff changes happened from 5th to 7th. Which codex has higher authority? It doesn't say that Anval Thawn is a perptual but it doesn't say that he isn't either. Do we bring in previous editions to argue the point or have them become moot now that a new codex is out?

The biggest reason why you should stick with "If it isn't mentioned, it's not a retcon" is because that's already been revealed to be the case on many occasions in GW's history. There are TONS of things mentioned in earlier codexes never mentioned in later codexes that eventually return somewhere, be it BL, Forge World, or back again with the latest codex. The most blatant being Pariahs, where everyone said they were retconned to not exist when the truth was really "they simply aren't mentioned in the newest codex at all". (Pariahs would then appear in a BL novel afterwards, albeit with a not-necessarily mutually-exclusive reason for their existance). Another example is Sargeant Centurius of the Legion of the Damned, who wasn't mentioned for forever until he finally showed up in a BL short story again and then later reappeared in the LoTD codex fluff.

I admit that in this cause, Thawn's death being mentioned but not his rebirth is a bit suspect (because, in this case, they DO mention Thawn. Just not ALL of Thawn). Had they not mentioned Thawn at all, I wouldn't take it to be a retcon at all.

That said, I'd still lean towards the "If the rest isn't mentioned, that doesn't mean it's a retcon" rule unless explicitly stated/proved otherwise.