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.

As far as I recall it was 'standard' Battle-Brothers carrying them instead of bolters.

I'm fine with deviations as long as it's nothing extreme like back flipping terminators surfing on vehicles, sticks crashing a Wave Serpent or molesting or slaanesh worshiping farseers.

To be fair those things are very extreme but I can't understand how the hell they got to be published.

jgehunter wrote:To be fair those things are very extreme but I can't understand how the hell they got to be published.

Everyone's threshold is different, and everyone has a different awareness of various details in the background.

Maybe the editor of that novel didn't know that Terminators have always been described as lumbering.
Just like, maybe, the editor of Sandy Mitchell's novels doesn't know how the Schola and the Sororitas work. Would you?

Yes, they should, and more importantly, they could. GW and the BL don't purely out of laziness. It's just easier for them to make half-assed statements like "everything is canon and nothing is".

The Star Wars Expanded Universe is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy bigger than the WH40K's universe is, as far as products, yet LucasArts has done a decent job of keeping everything mostly consistent. And furthermore, there is no shortage of "creativity" from the authors, either.

The BL writers, as talented as they are, are more than able to make a fresh, entertaining story that also fits in with the rest of the story.

I think that ADB is the best in this regard, and while he made that lulzy comment about canon being a fallacy, I think he was just trying to not badmouth his fellow writers. Just looking at his work, especially with the "twist" in The Emperor's Gift, it's very clearly that he highly respects consistency within the universe.

BlaxicanX wrote:The Star Wars Expanded Universe is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy bigger than the WH40K's universe is, as far as products, yet LucasArts has done a decent job of keeping everything mostly consistent. And furthermore, there is no shortage of "creativity" from the authors, either.

Lucas has a whole internal database (the Continuity Holocron) and Leland Chee dedicated to the task of keeping things consistent. One could argue that it's a matter of money (SW is a much bigger franchise), but ... yeah, I think it's more of a conscious decision as well. Not exactly laziness, just the opinion that it's actually better this way.

"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.
I understand that Tolkien took decades developing his setting before publishing the stories set within it, and still made mistooks. 40k is an ever-evolving setting designed first and foremost to house a really cool game, and as such things don’t always mesh or translate, or they (actually very occasionally) get changed outright. I know which I’d rather be reading and writing. "
-- Andy Hoare

BlaxicanX wrote:I think that ADB is the best in this regard, and while he made that lulzy comment about canon being a fallacy, I think he was just trying to not badmouth his fellow writers. Just looking at his work, especially with the "twist" in The Emperor's Gift, it's very clearly that he highly respects consistency within the universe.

The "canon is a fallacy" actually came from Gav Thorpe. ADB just flat-out said "there is no canon". That he has volunteered to try and respect the source material as best as possible would unfortunately seem to be the exception of the rule, as far as writers are concerned. Most value their artistic freedom - as well as the uniqueness of their take on the setting.

Matter of personal preferences - as this poll shows as well.

BlaxicanX wrote:
I think that ADB is the best in this regard

I thought so too, and then I red Brothers of the Snake. I mean, I don't have a problem with Marines being semi-godlike warriors, if they are described as ultra-armoured, well armed shocktroops using futuristic tactics to fight enemies that seems stuck in a pre- WWI mentality of never ducking for cover.

In BotS, 50 marines stand their grounds against thousands of charging Orks. They wait until the Orks are ten meters away from them to open fire. And then proceed to massacre the entire horde in close combat using lances. Without losing a single men.

So yes, they should try to stick to a certain canon. It really wouldn't be so hard, by the way. The good ones would already be fine ; Ravenor, Eisenshorn, Titanicus, Double Eagle, the Grey Knights serie... Funny how the best novels seems to be also those which are the most accurate and the most developped (and those that lacks the most Marines ^^)

I grew up reading Star Trek and Star Wars novels. If continuity particularly bothered me, I would have gone mad years ago.

(Actually, I quite enjoy the efforts that various Star Wars writers go to in order to try to explain away plot issues created by other publications or by Lucas randomly changing stuff)

Solid continuity is nice, but really not essential to enjoying a story, which for me is far more reliant on entertaining writing than on actual content.

If you look at each book as a 'what if...' rather than as gospel, those continuity issues just don't matter as much.

Lynata wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:The Star Wars Expanded Universe is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy bigger than the WH40K's universe is, as far as products, yet LucasArts has done a decent job of keeping everything mostly consistent. And furthermore, there is no shortage of "creativity" from the authors, either.

Lucas has a whole internal database (the Continuity Holocron) and Leland Chee dedicated to the task of keeping things consistent. One could argue that it's a matter of money (SW is a much bigger franchise), but ... yeah, I think it's more of a conscious decision as well. Not exactly laziness, just the opinion that it's actually better this way.

"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.
I understand that Tolkien took decades developing his setting before publishing the stories set within it, and still made mistooks. 40k is an ever-evolving setting designed first and foremost to house a really cool game, and as such things don’t always mesh or translate, or they (actually very occasionally) get changed outright. I know which I’d rather be reading and writing. "
-- Andy Hoare

BlaxicanX wrote:I think that ADB is the best in this regard, and while he made that lulzy comment about canon being a fallacy, I think he was just trying to not badmouth his fellow writers. Just looking at his work, especially with the "twist" in The Emperor's Gift, it's very clearly that he highly respects consistency within the universe.

The "canon is a fallacy" actually came from Gav Thorpe. ADB just flat-out said "there is no canon". That he has volunteered to try and respect the source material as best as possible would unfortunately seem to be the exception of the rule, as far as writers are concerned. Most value their artistic freedom - as well as the uniqueness of their take on the setting.

Matter of personal preferences - as this poll shows as well.

Yes, I'm aware that the their canon policy is what it is because that's how they want it to be. That's redundant. Obviously, if they didn't want their policy to be what it was then it wouldn't be. A personnel preference is not a justification, however.

The justification is that they're lazy, and don't care about the issue enough to do anything about it. LucasaArts does, and whoever manages Star Trek does, but GW does not. And they suck for it, imo. The universe would be a lot better if they made it more consistent.

As I understand it the majority of the BL authors DO research their material (even if it is sometimes contradictory). Sometimes there is extensive material spread across lots of varied sources - sometimes there are a couple of lines in a Codex. Whether any of the research to the obsessive lengths that we fans do is more debatable!

re specific matters:
Multilasers and Marines - I have no problem with a Marine using a Multilaser as an alt heavy weapon - basic weapon no.
Terminators are not agile - that should have been picked up but the level of agility in Power armour is soemtimes variable - My version is that users of pwoer armour are both quick and agile inside thier armour.
Sandy Mitchels single dubious Sororitas character has been debated at very great length - however the atmosphere of the Schola is right looking at the source material with the possible exception of the fact that both sexes are housed in the same complex (*) . Since GW confirmed that there are females in all branches of the Imperium (except the Astartes) some of the older material that only talks about "men" in relation to these organisations makes a lot less sense.

Popularity is not always a good measure of the quality of a piece of writing - but Sandy Mitchel's works are consistantly up there as some of the most lauded BL book series along with Dan Abnet and ADB.

(*) what Codex SOB says is that following the Reformation : "...each habitat maintains a strict seperation between the two genders and contact between them is restricted to purely religious ceremonies." not that they are not in the same location but that they keep girls and boys apart - one of the many ways that for me at least the whole Schola Progenium is a grimdark version of the English Public School System - although with added extras like live firing practice on criminals and classes on interogation/torture (both mentioned in SM's descriptions of the Schola)

Those SW novels I have read were far too full of character with ubreakable plot shields - one of the strengths of 40K is that although there are important and powerful figures in 40K lore - there are plenty of room for creating new epic charatcers who can also die.

Also I don't think it should be understimated about how much BL has added to the 40k background and lore - expanding on very minor details and giving the universe more flesh - In particular Dan Abnet's early works gave us many now stock 40K background like what the people eat and drink etc.

Mr Morden wrote:Since GW confirmed that there are females in all branches of the Imperium (except the Astartes) some of the older material that only talks about "men" in relation to these organisations makes a lot less sense.

In all branches, but not all positions. I think Drill Abbots have always been described as male - even the article about the recruitment of Ephrael Stern that GW posted on their homepage not too many years ago still mentions a guy handling her transfer. Similarly, I don't think you would have girls in the Storm Trooper regiment. Females who qualify for this role are sent to the Orders Militant instead. The entry requirements of both organisations (purity, discipline, physical prowess) seem to be fairly uniform - which is why I think that the Storm Troopers as well as the Sisters of Battle make fitting "high-end career junctions" for the Schola, with the best boys going to one and the best girls going to the other.

Mr Morden wrote:Popularity is not always a good measure of the quality of a piece of writing - but Sandy Mitchel's works are consistantly up there as some of the most lauded BL book series along with Dan Abnet and ADB.

Dan Abnett is often criticised for deviations from GW's vision as well, I believe. Isn't that where the term "Abnettverse" comes from? I have not read any of his books yet, but I distinctively recall discussions about stuff like "Navigator Servitors".

Mr Morden wrote:Also I don't think it should be understimated about how much BL has added to the 40k background and lore

True enough. I have added certain elements of various Black Library products I deemed "fitting" to my own interpretation of the setting as well. I only nerdrage about the instances where they conflict with what I've grown up with, which tends to be the original studio material - especially when they conflict in a way that they attack the very role and perception of my favourite army, of course. I am only human.

Psienesis wrote:No, they shouldn't, because it stifles artistic creativity, and, at times, can prevent the telling of a good story. .

Being lazy prevents telling a good story too. /shrug

A good writer can tell a good story and still stay within the confines of the fluff. It isn't like they're overly restrictive. It's a massively wide open license. Failing to fact check is just poor writing.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Psienesis wrote:No, they shouldn't, because it stifles artistic creativity, and, at times, can prevent the telling of a good story. .

Being lazy prevents telling a good story too. /shrug

A good writer can tell a good story and still stay within the confines of the fluff. It isn't like they're overly restrictive. It's a massively wide open license. Failing to fact check is just poor writing.

Pretty much. There's no reason why the fluff shouldn't follow continuity. I think it would add greatly to the universe, so we actually can know what the dickens is going on without a dozen other POVs getting in the way.

These books aren't random stories told by dudes who knew a dude. These writers are making this up, they should be able to maintain coherency within the overall plot and story without stepping on each others toes.

Except when one author uses a term one way, which completely flies in the face of every other established use of the term, such as Abnett's servitors having full-blown conversations, arguments and story-telling time with Ravenor and his retinue. Not to mention same servitor being able to express human emotions such as fear, uncertainty and doubt.

There is no continuity to Warhammer. It's a setting, not a narrative tale. There's absolutely no need to have an author be forced to read the Dataslate Directive to ensure that he can have Character X do Thing Y in year 787.M41 but not in 788.M41 because Character C in Other Dude's Book from last quarter was doing Thing Z over there, which would make Thing Y illogical.

It's crazy to expect a stable of a dozen authors to keep all that straight.

Warhammer 40,000 isn't the only massive universe out there, and some of those other universes manage to keep their stuff straight. Whether it's crazy or not, it would make for a more cohesive narrative.

Warhammer is a game. The setting is the Milky Way galaxy. The story is how each species/army finds its way through the grim darkness and the events that occur within the galaxy. Certain events are bigger than others (like the Emperors chair failing and him needing more psyker souls). The entire back half of the new rulebook is dedicated to developing a baseline of what's happened.

It's like Avatar: The Last Airbender. It's just a TV show. The characters and events they take part in make the story and overall plot of the show. The story grows as the characters do.

Similarly, the plot and story of 40k is driven by characters. Has anyone looked how many characters exist within 40k? Dozens. Each one of their stories contributes to a whole, how they react to a given situation adds another part to that whole. Having the same character react differently to the same event in two different books is dumb, having the same event unfold two different ways is dumb. The authors can and should maintain plot/story/character consistency in order to deliver a stronger narrative. There is really no reason why they can't do it, unless you expect each author to read the others work and simply memorize the events. Creating a physical timeline would do wonders to keep the fluff straight.

Psienesis wrote:
It's crazy to expect a stable of a dozen authors to keep all that straight.

Good authors do research and don't make amateur mistakes.

You're not talking overly hidden nuances of the universe. Not talking about tiny goofs. Avoiding talkative servitors takes ten seconds to realize is wrong.


Look, I understand some people are less discerning when it comes to literature and will just take what they can get. But you're never going to convince anyone that failing to adhere with the basic established material is anything other than lazy and bad writing. It's just excuse making.

Yes, canonical inconsistency really bugs me.

Psienesis wrote:
It's crazy to expect a stable of a dozen authors to keep all that straight.

It really isn't. In fact, depending on the size of the book and intricacies of the story, it might be a huge freaking help to have a pre-established canon. Otherwise the authors need to re-write them all over every time.

WIthout an established canon, a writer is free to tell his story as he sees fit, rather than worry about making sure he's not contradicting something found on page 347, paragraph D, line 3, sixth word from a novel written 12 years ago that sold only 45,000 copies world-wide.

The feel I'm getting is that people don't mind the little inconsistencies, ("par d line 3 sixth") but are bothered when major aspects of the fluff, found in lots of different sources, are suddenly different.

Servitors for example: pretty universally "mindless"(that might not be the most appropriate adjective, but the point should be understood).

How hard is it to tweak the character just a touch, initiate who failed to become spess muhrine,

Psienesis wrote:WIthout an established canon, a writer is free to tell his story as he sees fit, rather than worry about making sure he's not contradicting something found on page 347, paragraph D, line 3, sixth word from a novel written 12 years ago that sold only 45,000 copies world-wide.

Not really. I mean, it doesn't stop him from using whatever themes he wants to use, or to tell the story in a particular way. It just stop him from applying themes to whicever part of the canon he wants, like, let's say, a lovestory between a vindicare and an farseer.

If Abnett wanted to have servants talking back to Ravenor, he could've just called them 'servants', or 'minders' or whatever. A quick search for 'servitor' would've shown him they were lobotomised half man half robots... That wouldn't have stiffled his creativity.

And in comparison to someone writing, let's say, an historical fiction, the level of research needed would be really small.

The problems with 40k cannon I have are:
A) GW changes the cannon itself every few years, keeping the entire boat stable when it gets hit by that wave is difficult.

B) Continuous HARD lines make certain stories impossible - if we followed popular lore, orks would just charge at an enemy and try to overwhelm them with bodies. Some of the Best Ork stories I'v read are when they've deviated from this policy ever so slightly.

Um....

Right. Abnett would have had to trash the entire plotline about


... allowing Abnett to have these sorts of things in the Daniverse actually enriches the setting, rather than making everything fairly boiler-plate standard, and allowing wider avenues of interpretation helps the table-top game, too, as no one is stuck in the straight-jacket of "not fluffy!".

Psienesis wrote:Abnett would have had to trash the entire plotline

Currently finishing the 1st Ravenor book, I'll pass commenting on the 'Slite' incident before I read it.

the_ferrett wrote:The problems with 40k cannon I have are:
A) GW changes the cannon itself every few years, keeping the entire boat stable when it gets hit by that wave is difficult.
B) Continuous HARD lines make certain stories impossible - if we followed popular lore, orks would just charge at an enemy and try to overwhelm them with bodies. Some of the Best Ork stories I'v read are when they've deviated from this policy ever so slightly.

GW's fluff is fairly stable. They do make changes in-between editions (most recently the GK stuff, I suppose), but outside of the big "re-imagination" that happened from 1E to 2E there have, as far as I'm aware, not been too many changes. At least not of the kind that I notice all the time in licensed publications.

Regarding the impossibility of "certain stories" - yeah, of course hard lines would limit the creativity and freedom of writers; it's why some of them prefer things how they are. I don't regard that as negative, however. Every world has its rules, and an author who thinks he cannot work with them really is lazy. Look at our real world, there's countless novels and TV shows and movies who manage delivering a compelling story without breaking its hard lines. Of course you can always "pep things up" by introducing stuff like paranormal phenomena or aliens and zombies, but that doesn't mean that this has to be the one and only way, right?

Also, I'm just going to point out that GW itself described a specific group of Orks waging a guerilla war on Armageddon. Plus, there is the entry for Kommandos in the 4E Ork Codex. If "popular lore" means what a lot of fans believe, then I will say that "popular lore" is often not quite what the studio actually wrote.

Psienesis wrote:Um....

Right. Abnett would have had to trash the entire plotline about

Spoiler:

Slyte's awakening on the starship and the mutiny that occurred there because of its awakening, because the crew were mostly servitors apart from like half a dozen guys, not to mention in the previous Eisenhorn book when they destroy the giant, sentient Chaos Crystal (and who says that one kid's ideas about psychic crystals is bad?) with the lithopede, as those were all servitors and skitaari, the trip to the Wytch-House, the servitor-astropath Eisenhorn used to use and whom the character was apparently fond of, and so forth and so on

.

Changing them into something besides servitors wouldn't have ruined the storyline at all. All that stuff could have happened if those had all been regular people or servants.

I take it you aren't a writer, are you? Part of a writer's job is being able to make up a story using the materials available to you.

Like,do you think that if Dan Abnett had a story he wanted to tell, but the only way he could tell it the way he wanted it to be told was to include a scene where Marneus Calgar and four other Ultramarines have wild sex with Sororitas on top of the Golden Throne, would you seriously advocate that scene on the basis that "well if Abnett didn't include that scene then his story would have been trashed so it's okay!" or would you say "What the hell dude? He should have used his brain and figured out a way to tell his story without that scene"?

We both know the answer is option 2. If a writer is creating a story that's set within an established universe, it's his job as a writer to weave his story around the pre-established material, not smash right through it and then state that it was a necessity.

I've read several dozens books between the Star Wars EU and the Black Library. I have never read a BL book and thought to myself "wow, this craps all over anything I've read from Star Wars EU", nor vice versa. From an actual writing perspective, I'd say their respective writers are about equal. The difference is that Star Wars novels are fairly consistent with each other, while 40K novels aren't. Thus, your point is empirically incorrect. Star Wars authors have been writing creative plotlines for over 30 years, and none of them have ever thrown their hands up in the air out of frustration because they weren't allowed to have Luke Skywalker blow up a planet by farting, or have all the characters in the story call the Death Star "Doom Sphere".

insaniak wrote:I grew up reading Star Trek and Star Wars novels. If continuity particularly bothered me, I would have gone mad years ago.

(Actually, I quite enjoy the efforts that various Star Wars writers go to in order to try to explain away plot issues created by other publications or by Lucas randomly changing stuff)

I actually found Star Wars canon quite consistent. For universes of that size, SW probably has the most consistent fluff of all.

I'd agree. Star Wars continuity is in really good shape.

Star Wars biggest problem is power creep and redundancy. The "super skilled prodigy Jedi gets corrupted to the dark side and engulfs the Galaxy in war! Then regrets his actions and dies" plot has the been the mainstay in almost every major character arc thus far. It's beyond old. As well, that the authors feel the need to one-up each other with each novel, Luke's powers are so crazy now that he could probably wipe his ass with the Emperor. It's silly.

BlaxicanX wrote:Star Wars biggest problem is power creep and redundancy. The "super skilled prodigy Jedi gets corrupted to the dark side and engulfs the Galaxy in war! Then regrets his actions and dies" plot has the been the mainstay in almost every major character arc thus far. It's beyond old. As well, that the authors feel the need to one-up each other with each novel, Luke's powers are so crazy now that he could probably wipe his ass with the Emperor. It's silly.

That's probably my biggest gripe with that franchise - the original movie characters have become so popular that it started to get unthinkable to have them fail at something or *gasp* even die. It gets a bit silly when Han & Co. are still travelling the galaxy kicking ass at the age of 60 or whatever.

The better story arcs are usually those that focus on new or barely established characters as their protagonists, though some rare few suffer from an attempt by the author to make his or her character/s as awesome as the movie cast.
Random fact: Michael A. Stackpole had himself photographed for the TCG picture of the character of Corran Horn, the protagonist of each of his Star Wars novels, who is an extremely capable Jedi and starfighter pilot. Also, because Corellian Jedi are special, he gets to have romances with various women (including antagonists, who fall for his charms), and his flightsuit and X-Wing have the colour green rather than Republic standard.
That is, fortunately, one of the few negative examples that come to mind. The Expanded Universe has also come up with lots of pretty cool new characters, heroes and villains alike. The newest era established by the franchise is called "Legacy", and takes place about 120 years after the movies, where none of the original heroes are still alive so there's plenty of room for new characters to step forward and fight for their place in the setting.

The 40k cannon has evolved over time. There will be some minor changes here and there, so try not to get your knickers in a twist over it. The original Rogue Trader had an inquisitor named Sherlock Obiwan Clouseau. It also had half-eldar librarians. I think we can agree that moving away from some of these original "fluff points" is a good thing, no?

It's the logical failures that are so egregious and should be heckled. Fulgrim choking out a Wraithlord (which doesn't breathe) and the timeline issues in The Outcast Dead (Specifically around Magnus) come to mind.

kronk wrote:The 40k cannon has evolved over time. There will be some minor changes here and there [...] It's the logical failures that are so egregious and should be heckled. Fulgrim choking out a Wraithlord (which doesn't breathe) and the timeline issues in The Outcast Dead (Specifically around Magnus) come to mind.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, where would you draw the line? What is a logical failure, and what is a minor change ... maybe Wraithlords do need to breathe now, and maybe some events happened at a different date?

Consistency requires some hard rules. The number of people allowed to make changes has to be limited, else you just end up with everybody doing his own stuff - as it happens today. So it pretty much boils down to individual opinions about who has the right to further develop the setting and in what way (simply adding stuff versus offering conflicting "updates").