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.

Just try to learn as you post. That's all I ask.

I feel as if I know a decent bit, Manchu. But yeah i am not up to par. I have read a lot of books contrary to popular belief

There are some extremely good posters here if you want to learn about 40k. Pilau Rice, Lynata, pretre, Omegus, Just Dave, H.B.M.C., BrookM and especially Kid_Kyoto and reds8n are all good people to ask questions.

Manchu wrote:

Lynata wrote:Didn't they lump in Feudal with Feral in the 6E rulebook, merging it into a single category?

I don't know, I don't have a copy of 6E. But surely this very example shows how that would make no sense.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:But surely this very example shows how that would make no sense.

Well, the Norscans are arguably more feral than feudal for one. The Empire isn't the only civilization down there. And considering that an Imperial World can mean anything from basic industrialization to high-tech science, the differences between feral and feudal are not that much more significant. It all depends on the scale we'd be judging something on, I think.

On that note I think they also removed the Agri-World classification. Perhaps they still exist, but just as a sub-type of fewer but more general classes? I'd have to take another look to be sure.

Sure?
6th ed "hides" the classification at pages 152/153 a bit. No chart this time just text. ( and 2 pics, suffering from 'blanchitsu' ).

2 Methods mentioned:
- per use, ie agriworld, forgeworld, etc
- per developement, ie feral, feudal, industrialized, etc

No more tithes shown, population sizes etc etc...But generally its not bad. Just a few examples instead of 'solid' data in 6th ed.

Nearly missed page 149: its the administratum that classifies planets and they got so many sub-divisions the data is there, its only nigh impossible to get a complete picture of a planet as the bureaucrats create more data than they can deliver in a understandable and useful format.

kowbasher wrote:I
My only evidence for my theory is the maps of the WHFB world look alot like earth if the continents drifted around for tens of thousands of years. Though my knowledge of such things is quite limited and I'm really just spitballing here, lol.

Yeah I noticed that too. To include the Generic races present in each location (Lizard men being based on the Aztcs in South America, the Tomb Kings being in what would be Africa, TheEmpire Bretonia being Europe and lets not even get into Araby and Nippon ). I do belive this was done INTENTIONALY however. My only gripe with this is that why is North America home of the Dark Elves and the High Elf land being a Fabulous Island nation cut off from the other parts of the world? Actualy I can make my own conclusions on that one

Also is there a referance for the WFB Planet being in the Eye of terror or is that the accepted location. Either way I am cool with that.

This is from my small knowledge of the fluff: Okay so the old ones (aka the Necrons or Eldar pending on that fluff you read.) created "The Old World" in order to have a world of perfection. Over time the taint of chaos found it's way to the planet and screwed up the old ones plans. Thus "magic" and the races of chaos were born on the planet.

Now as far it's classification it would be a feudal world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dooley wrote:

Yeah I noticed that too. To include the Generic races present in each location (Lizard men being based on the Aztcs in South America, the Tomb Kings being in what would be Africa, TheEmpire Bretonia being Europe and lets not even get into Araby and Nippon ). I do belive this was done INTENTIONALY however. My only gripe with this is that why is North America home of the Dark Elves and the High Elf land being a Fabulous Island nation cut off from the other parts of the world? Actualy I can make my own conclusions on that one

Also is there a referance for the WFB Planet being in the Eye of terror or is that the accepted location. Either way I am cool with that.

High Elves : GB / Atlantis/ Rome
Dark Elves: Us/Canada
Chaos Warriors: Vikings
Ogres :Hunns
Empire: Holy Roman Empire
Bretonia : Middle Ages France
Lizards: Aztechs
Skaven: Black Death
Wood Elves: Yoman class and/or Celtis
Ogres: Hunns
Tk: Egypt
VC: Burgandy? or Easter Europeans
Dwarfs: Normands? or Sweeds
Orcs and Goblins: Scotts or Germanic Barbarians

I figured the Fantasy world was just an experiment.

Maybe a forgotten maiden world.

Ulthuan or whatever is on a huge crater.

The Dark Elves found power armour, power weapons, powerfist and bolt weapon on the Isles of Albion.

Didn't Chaos marines sometimes walk out of the northern wastes?

Didn't a scribe from the fantasy universe take a trip with Plague Marines into the 40k universe and meet Mortarion?

DeffDred wrote:.

Didn't Chaos marines sometimes walk out of the northern wastes?

A warp portal opened on the planet and Daemons invaded

High Elves : GB / Atlantis/ Rome
Dark Elves: Us/Canada
Chaos Warriors: Vikings
Ogres :Hunns
Empire: Holy Roman Empire
Bretonia : Middle Ages France
Lizards: Aztechs
Skaven: Black Death
Wood Elves: Yoman class and/or Celtis
Ogres: Hunns
Tk: Egypt
VC: Burgandy? or Easter Europeans
Dwarfs: Normands? or Sweeds
Orcs and Goblins: Scotts or Germanic Barbarians

High Elves: Atlantians
Dark Elves: Great Lakes Region of US and Canada
Chaos Warriors: Norway, Sweden, Iceland
Ogres: Hymalayan
Empire: Dark Ages Germany
Bretonia: Grail Knights from French literature
Lizard Men: Inca, Mayan, Aztec
Skaven: Modern America
Wood Elves: Celtic, Druid
Tomb Kings: Egyptian
Vampire Counts: Romania
Dwarves: Scottish
Orcs: Mediteranan pirates

That's what I gather from the imagery and maps of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkWind wrote:

DeffDred wrote:.

Didn't Chaos marines sometimes walk out of the northern wastes?

A warp portal opened on the planet and Daemons invaded

Yes I kow but I'm refering to the "Lost and the Damned" and "Slaves to Darkness" where chaos in all it's forms were the samething no matter what dimention.

Maybe Draigo sometimes pops out of the warp gate in the North and slaughters most of the WoC so they can't do much to the Empire. LOL.

Daemon World...

DeffDred wrote:Empire: Renaissance Germany
Bretonia: Grail Knights from English literature
Skaven: Rats, generally

Generally agree, but just wanted to call you out on those three. Not seeing the modern American thing in Skaven... especially since by location they're worldwide.

Manchu wrote:There are some extremely good posters here if you want to learn about 40k. Pilau Rice, Lynata, pretre, Omegus, Just Dave, H.B.M.C., BrookM and especially Kid_Kyoto and reds8n are all good people to ask questions.

I'm touched Manchu ... in my special place

Here a quote from the author of Liber Chaotica which is one of the often cited books saying that the Warhammer world is in the Eye of Terror. Basically, it's different universes connected by the Warp.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?45416-Warhammer-Cross-Over-Fluff&p=871142#post871142

Pilau Rice wrote:

Here a quote from the author of Liber Chaotica which is one of the often cited books saying that the Warhammer world is in the Eye of Terror. Basically, it's different universes connected by the Warp.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?45416-Warhammer-Cross-Over-Fluff&p=871142#post871142

Is it canon though? As in, can we now say that there is conclusive proof that the WHFB world is in the eye of terror?

hellspawn22 wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:

Here a quote from the author of Liber Chaotica which is one of the often cited books saying that the Warhammer world is in the Eye of Terror. Basically, it's different universes connected by the Warp.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?45416-Warhammer-Cross-Over-Fluff&p=871142#post871142

Is it canon though? As in, can we now say that there is conclusive proof that the WHFB world is in the eye of terror?

As much canon as you are ever going to get, as there is no canon in 40k.

Pilau Rice wrote:

As much canon as you are ever going to get, as there is no canon in 40k.

But in other threads you call me out over my interpretations and theories...are you going Nikaea, Mr. Rice?

Tadashi wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:

As much canon as you are ever going to get, as there is no canon in 40k.

But in other threads you call me out over my interpretations and theories...are you going Nikaea, Mr. Rice?

Hey, I don't have to agree with GW

Believe me, I think their stance on it is half arsed and lazy, but what can you do. I'll argue my point till I'm blue in the face as long as I have some proof of what I am saying.

Edit: Spellinz

Pilau Rice wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:

As much canon as you are ever going to get, as there is no canon in 40k.

But in other threads you call me out over my interpretations and theories...are you going Nikaea, Mr. Rice?

Hey, I don't have to agree with GW

Believe me, I think there stance on it is half arsed and lazy, but what can you do. I'll argue my point till I'm blue in the face as long as I have some proof of what I am saying.

Fair enough, I suppose.

GW has no stated position on canon. The "nothing is canon" thing comes from something writers like Andy Hoare and Gav Thorpe have said in their capacity as individuals rather than employees. And the full statement is "everything is canon and nothing is canon."

Manchu wrote:And the full statement is "everything is canon and nothing is canon."

I think the actual statement was "everything is true and nothing is true", which is a difference. And the aforementioned writers did not just speak in their capacity as individuals, but also reported from experience how things were handled daily within the studio.

It is true that GW themselves (there only was an official statement of sorts from Black Library once, from Marc Gascogne, quoted by ADB over in that SoB thread) never released an official clear-cut statement, however. And I doubt they ever will. They have nothing to gain from it, after all, only to lose (given how some fans still buy products just because they think it adds to a consistent setting rather than for the product's contents alone ... when said consistency is not even intended to exist in the first place).

Lynata wrote:And the aforementioned writers did not just speak in their capacity as individuals, but also reported from experience how things were handled daily within the studio.

That's still speaking as an individual.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:And the full statement is "everything is canon and nothing is canon."

I think the actual statement was "everything is true and nothing is true", which is a difference.

Manchu wrote:That's still speaking as an individual.

Not when he's posting on the official Black Library forum. In doing so, he was posting in his capacity as Black Library's head publisher.
It would've been different if he did that on his own private blog like, say, Gav.

Lynata wrote:I agree that the words are literally different but what difference do you see in the meaning?

Well, I'd agree that it depends on the exact definition of canon. Some people refer to canon as "anything officially published as part of a license/franchise". Others think of canon as being "anything that officially adds to a consistent setting". The latter seems to be the more prevalent definition, however, so it's the one I'm going by.

To say it in the shortest manner: Canon implies a consistent setting, true / not true simply implies potential for mistakes. Given how the writers working on the setting explained it, they aim as the latter as an excuse for the inconsistencies, as the former would still require a cooperation and level of uniformity that does not exist and is not intended. The sources simply ignore each other and everybody largely does their own thing.

Lynata wrote:Not when he's posting on the official Black Library forum. In doing so, he was posting in his capacity as Black Library's head publisher.

Do you have a link handy? I'd like to add it to my bookmarks.

Lynata wrote:To say it in the shortest manner: Canon implies a consistent setting, true / not true simply implies potential for mistakes.

Sorry, how does this explain the difference between truth and canon regarding a fictional setting? If something is inconsistent, then there has been a mistake. Could you perhaps rephrase?

Manchu wrote:Do you have a link handy? I'd like to add it to my bookmarks.

Black Library closed it down. :(

If you're willing to invest some time, however, you might still be able to locate it with the wayback machine ... http://archive.org/web/web.php

Lynata wrote:Sorry, how does this explain the difference between truth and canon regarding a fictional setting? If something is inconsistent, then there has been a mistake. Could you perhaps rephrase?

Uh, sorry, I meant a mistake made by the "narrators", not the writers. You know, an in-setting mistake, like people truly believing this stuff. As if the Black Library novel you were holding in your hand is some sort of tome written by someone who lives in the 41st millennium.

Yeah, I find it silly, too, but that's how it was explained.

"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. [...]"
-- Marc Gascogne

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Do you have a link handy? I'd like to add it to my bookmarks.

Black Library closed it down. :(

If you're willing to invest some time, however, you might still be able to locate it with the wayback machine ... http://archive.org/web/web.php

So, in other words, the statement has been effectively retracted?

Lynata wrote:You know, an in-setting mistake, like people truly believing this stuff.

What you're talking about is still in the realm of "canonical truth." For example, "Imperial Citizen Tim believes the Emperor is a god." The true, canonical statement here is that Tim believes the Emperor is a god rather than that the Emperor is a god. So, I still don't see a difference between truth and canon for the purposes of this discussion.

Manchu wrote:So, in other words, the statement has been effectively retracted?

No, the entire website was restructured. The statement was merely "collateral damage".

By definition, an official retraction would require another statement that basically says "this is BS and you should forget it ever existed". Such a statement, however, has never been released.

Manchu wrote:What you're talking about is still in the realm of "canonical truth." For example, "Imperial Citizen Tim believes the Emperor is a god." The true, canonical statement here is that Tim believes the Emperor is a god rather than that the Emperor is a god. So, I still don't see a difference between truth and canon for the purposes of this discussion.

The difference is that nobody ever implied that something like a "canonical truth" would actually exist. This all came from the community as a mixture of wishful thinking and "experience" from how it was handled in other franchises.

But sure, if you want you could see it like a sort of canon that has no consistency, simply because nobody knows for sure what is actually "true" - although this kind of defeats the definition of what canon actually is. In the end, we still get to the same result: "There is no canon." You're just using other words to describe this situation, kind of like some of the writers who do not wish to be as direct as Andy or Gav.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:So, in other words, the statement has been effectively retracted?

No, the entire website was restructured. The statement was merely "collateral damage".

The statement was on the forum. The forum was deleted. The overall restructuring is immaterial. BL did not want anyone, including its own employees, discussing its products on its own page. I think it's reasonable to conclude that they wanted to avoid the exact sort of claims you are making: BL author says something on a BL forums so it's accepted as BL's or GW's position. If you recall, GW also got rid of their forum.

Lynata wrote:The difference is that nobody ever implied that something like a "canonical truth" would actually exist.

Again, this statement does not clarify the distinction between canon and truth regarding a fictional setting. If there is no canon, then there is no truth -- and vice versa. How can you have truth without canon in a fictional setting? The word "consistency," which was your first pass at this issue, doesn't help. The existence of canon itself, your more recent pass at the issue, doesn't clear it up, either. I'm on board with the idea that there is no canon -- but I don't think that can simultaneously mean that "everything is canon." And it certainly doesn't tell me how canon is different from truth.

What I'm circling around here is how statements made by Andy Hoare and Gav Thorpe and Aaron Dembski-Bowden on this subject actually give us nothing meaningful with regard to how the fluff should be talked about -- that is, unless we should just talk about each individal short story or novel or RPG sourcebook or codex as a completely discrete thing not related at all to anything else. And that's obviously false. Excuse me being coarse, but all of the wide-eyed eurekas that Aaron posted about this on his site and on Dakka are just farts in the wind. Same thing with Gav "I write what I please" Thorpe and even Andy Hoare.

Manchu wrote:The statement was on the forum. The forum was deleted. The overall restructuring is immaterial. BL did not want anyone, including its own employees, discussing its products on its own page.

Maybe, but #1 we do not know this and #2 that is still different from a "retraction".
If somebody were to finally put the Bill of Rights into the trash can, would you say it was retracted?

Manchu wrote:Again, this statement does not clarify the distinction between canon and truth regarding a fictional setting. If there is no canon, then there is no truth -- and vice versa.

Not quite. Canon can contain truth as well as non-truth. But not all non-truths are automatically part of some sort of canon. It's simply two different levels we're talking about, not equal stages.

Manchu wrote:but I don't think that can simultaneously mean that "everything is canon."

Which nobody actually said - that's what prompted me to reply here in the first place. Note that Marc Gascogne said "everything was official". Which it is. It's all officially licensed by Games Workshop who is cashing in the fees for use of their franchise.

Lynata wrote:Maybe, but #1 we do not know this and #2 that is still different from a "retraction".
If somebody were to finally put the Bill of Rights into the trash can, would you say it was retracted?

That's why I said "effective retraction" rather than "retraction." You could also call it "constructive retraction." And yes, if the government made and enforced laws that violated the Bill of Rights, I would call this effective or constructive retraction.

Lynata wrote:Canon can contain truth as well as non-truth.

Canon cannot contain non-truth. The truth at issue is that it is true that someone believes or has promulgated a non-truth. Luther turning on Jonson cannot be canonical at the same time Luther not turning on Jonson is canonical. That the Imperium believes that xenos are inferior is canonical; the inferiority of xenos is not canonical. Perspective is not a matter of canon except inasmuch as we're talking about the existence of said perspective.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:but I don't think that can simultaneously mean that "everything is canon."

Which nobody actually said - that's what prompted me to reply here in the first place..

Somebody did say that: according to you it was Andy Hoare. and I know he said "true" instead of "canonical" but you still haven't managed to clarify whether there is a difference.

Manchu wrote:And yes, if the government made and enforced laws that violated the Bill of Rights, I would call this effective or constructive retraction.

But neither GW nor BL ever "made and enforced" anything that violated Marc Gascogne's post. Nothing was retracted. When something disappears, it does not automatically mean it is no longer valid. At least when this disappearance happened not on purpose but was just one of many effects of a website restructuring effort.

Manchu wrote:Canon cannot contain non-truth. The truth at issue is that it is true that someone believes or has promulgated a non-truth.

Which is precisely what Marc has described the published material as. It's not an objective glance at the setting, it is a flawed account. One of many interpretations.

Manchu wrote:Somebody did say that: according to you it was Andy Hoare. and I know he said "true" instead of "canonical" but you still haven't managed to clarify whether there is a difference.

If he said "true" rather than "canonical" then nobody said that. "Everything is canon" is a twisted paraphrase, and I think spreading it will only cause more people to fall for this urban myth about a "canon".

As for the difference - maybe it's a language thing, but I don't know how to clarify it further. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on it, then.