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.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Oh heaven forbid, 40K has new stuff added into it like new tech or new info or retcons. Hell if this is your opinion why the hell not have the same opinion about the Tau cause they're also new?

I understand his criticism, for - in my opinion - there's a huge difference between expanding the setting with new things and contradicting it stuff that, for whatever reason, bumps into something that had been established before, forcing the reader to choose one of the two (or more) versions for his own interpretation by using any of the popular conditions that are usually applied in such cases (publishing company, author credibility, release date comparison, or just plain and simple personal preference) - ending up in thousands of fans argueing about a truth that does not exist, each of them believing himself to be right. It's ... messy. I wish GW would at least make it completely clear that there is no canon (in terms of consistency) instead of forcing its fans to go hunt for quotes hidden in some obscure interview or blogpost or whatever.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:What you don't get Lynata is that GW don't care about canon and consistency [...]

Uh, isn't that exactly what I just wrote? I "got it" a few months ago - thanks to this forum, actually.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Who has ever stated that only rulebooks and codexes are canon? I'm generally interested in your sources and they better be recent.

I think he might refer to a report from the 2008 GW General Meeting, where George Mann - head of GW Publishing and chief editor of Black Library - was asked about the company's stance on this. I have used this interview for quite some time to back up my perspective when I still represented a similar position. However, said report is not a word-for-word interview and not sourced on an official website, so although I would still deem the source credible, ultimately I had to dismiss it in favour of the blogs from Gav Thorpe and ADB that presented a different view. Although both of them dance around the issue a bit and neither holds a position as important as Mann's, their blogs are sources that cannot be doubted in terms of origin, and their stances are largely compatible towards each other.
Here is the General Meeting report, by the way: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/218542.page

Kanluwen wrote:Part of the problem is that the Eisenhorn novels helped establish the current canon in regards to the Navy and Inquisition.
At the time of Eisenhorn, we didn't have all that much information about the Inquisition and the philosophies of the organization. We had some, but not all.
At the time of Eisenhorn, the Navy wasn't entirely well fleshed out other than we had very different sectorial fleets.

Phht. The Inquisition? Perhaps. But the Navy? There were quite a lot of articles in White Dwarf, the BFG books and the BFG Magazine. It's not GW's fault if people can't be bothered to look it all up, including the "minor sources", before beginning to write their stuff. We do know that the company is quite forthcoming to new authors who wish to gain access to such material, after all. If you're truly committed it's not that hard to retrieve such admittedly rare information - you'd be surprised what I managed to dig up on the SoB where people always claim that GW wrote next to nothing on them apart from the Codices.
I'd say it's much more plausible that Dan Abnett, who keeps displaying a rather liberal attitude on background details, simply prefers a greater deal of freedom, just like Andy Chambers and ADB do.

Lynata wrote:I understand his criticism, for - in my opinion - there's a huge difference between expanding the setting with new things and contradicting it stuff that, for whatever reason, bumps into something that had been established before, forcing the reader to choose one of the two (or more) versions for his own interpretation by using any of the popular conditions that are usually applied in such cases (publishing company, author credibility, release date comparison, or just plain and simple personal preference) - ending up in thousands of fans argueing about a truth that does not exist, each of them believing himself to be right. It's ... messy. I wish GW would at least make it completely clear that there is no canon (in terms of consistency) instead of forcing its fans to go hunt for quotes hidden in some obscure interview or blogpost or whatever.

Some people enjoy arguing with each other and having debates to achieve a consensus. Why try and destroy their fun?

Uh, isn't that exactly what I just wrote? I "got it" a few months ago - thanks to this forum, actually.

Hopefully, but as they say Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

At the time of Eisenhorn, we didn't have all that much information about the Inquisition and the philosophies of the organization. We had some, but not all.
At the time of Eisenhorn, the Navy wasn't entirely well fleshed out other than we had very different sectorial fleets Phht. The Inquisition? Perhaps. But the Navy? There were quite a lot of articles in White Dwarf, the BFG books and the BFG Magazine. It's not GW's fault if people can't be bothered to look it all up, including the "minor sources", before beginning to write their stuff. We do know that the company is quite forthcoming to new authors who wish to gain access to such material, after all. If you're truly committed it's not that hard to retrieve such admittedly rare information - you'd be surprised what I managed to dig up on the SoB where people always claim that GW wrote next to nothing on them apart from the Codices.
I'd say it's much more plausible that Dan Abnett, who keeps displaying a rather liberal attitude on background details, simply prefers a greater deal of freedom, just like Andy Chambers and ADB do.

GW themselves don't care about canon so why obsesses yourself over it. Juts enjoy 40k over the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't, just don't try and force that onto other and everyone is happy!

The only people I've ever seen this obsessed over canon are Trekkies. They can never stop bi*ching about what isn't or isn't canon by nitpicking quotes from directors or novel authors.

Lynata wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Part of the problem is that the Eisenhorn novels helped establish the current canon in regards to the Navy and Inquisition.
At the time of Eisenhorn, we didn't have all that much information about the Inquisition and the philosophies of the organization. We had some, but not all.
At the time of Eisenhorn, the Navy wasn't entirely well fleshed out other than we had very different sectorial fleets.

Phht. The Inquisition? Perhaps. But the Navy? There were quite a lot of articles in White Dwarf, the BFG books and the BFG Magazine. It's not GW's fault if people can't be bothered to look it all up, including the "minor sources", before beginning to write their stuff. We do know that the company is quite forthcoming to new authors who wish to gain access to such material, after all. If you're truly committed it's not that hard to retrieve such admittedly rare information - you'd be surprised what I managed to dig up on the SoB where people always claim that GW wrote next to nothing on them apart from the Codices.
I'd say it's much more plausible that Dan Abnett, who keeps displaying a rather liberal attitude on background details, simply prefers a greater deal of freedom, just like Andy Chambers and ADB do.

The problem is that while we had this supposed "wealth of information", it is basically useless when attempting to write a full novel. You'll usually find a small reference here or there with no real meat on the actual descriptions.

To give an example: Naval Armsmen were pretty generically described as normal men, trained in boarding actions, usually using solid slug weapons so as not to damage the hulls.

That doesn't tell you too much about them. So Abnett expanded it. The Scarus Elite became men raised from the militias of the various ranking families, equipped fairly well, and utilizing fairly complex solid slug weapons which were nasty as all hell in boarding actions.

If you call that "a rather liberal attitude on background details", I don't know what to tell you.

jeese I can tell you're a real joy at your local store, I don't know when I came across it - maybe it an Dabnett interview or maybe some more fallible source but it's essentially summed up by this webpage:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discontinuity/TabletopGames?from=Discontinuity.TabletopRPG

Technically, Black Library isn't canon when it contradicts lore established in the official Codices, so this trope is only tenuously applicable to Black Library. It's like feeling the need to ignore fanfiction.
Everything published by Games Workshop (Which includes Black Library) is canon. This is indisputable fact. Everything they put out is canon. Not everything that is canon is, however, true.

To clarify, it is assumed that many of the pieces of work are written by Imperial scholars, and thus the book you're reading could be true, or it could be nothing but propganda the Imperium has made up, or a plethora of other things.

so bl are on legitimate but fragile ground as the sovereignty of GWs direct publications always trumps them, which causes problems when they rewrite the codex fluff. Whatever I originally read/heard went one step further saying GW only recognised codexes as explicit canon and you can understand why (well you probably can't). I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to find it because you're not really a friendly a debater- more of an arse who drains enjoyment out of forums

as for the rpg lines - I don't think you really understand the greyness of this area and I'll let you research that on your own - it's not difficult to find

Sparks_Havelock wrote:-Every- Krieg Korpsman is expendable, hence why when Krieg officers have assumed command of non-Krieg units they've had near mutinies - because Krieg officers view casualties with no more interest than they would, as the Siege of Vraks book says, a list of expended ammunition stocks.
It just helps that the Krieg mentality is that when they go to war they expect to die for their Emperor - hope for survival doesn't come into it, which is why the DKoK are known for being grim, quiet and rarely mix with anyone who is not from Krieg.

Krieg soldiers are a wonderful tool in the eyes of a commander willing to use his troops as though they were just numbers/equipment - they won't run from the fight, won't question orders and will lay down their lives without thought for anything other than having done their duty to the Emperor.

Which makes DKok EXTREMELY STUPID. Most modern soldiers are taught that it's preferable to assist the enemy in dying for his emperor, rather than dying for your own. I expect a similar doctrine still carries on in 40k for the majority.

Atrocity Exhibition wrote:jeese I can tell you're a real joy at your local store, I don't know when I came across it - maybe it an Dabnett interview or maybe some more fallible source but it's essentially summed up by this webpage:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discontinuity/TabletopGames?from=Discontinuity.TabletopRPG

Technically, Black Library isn't canon when it contradicts lore established in the official Codices, so this trope is only tenuously applicable to Black Library. It's like feeling the need to ignore fanfiction.
Everything published by Games Workshop (Which includes Black Library) is canon. This is indisputable fact. Everything they put out is canon. Not everything that is canon is, however, true.

To clarify, it is assumed that many of the pieces of work are written by Imperial scholars, and thus the book you're reading could be true, or it could be nothing but propganda the Imperium has made up, or a plethora of other things.

so bl are on legitimate but fragile ground as the sovereignty of GWs direct publications always trumps them, which causes problems when they rewrite the codex fluff. Whatever I originally read/heard went one step further saying GW only recognised codexes as explicit canon and you can understand why (well you probably can't). I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to find it because you're not really a friendly a debater- more of an arse who drains enjoyment out of forums

as for the rpg lines - I don't think you really understand the greyness of this area and I'll let you research that on your own - it's not difficult to find

Thanks for the link and I just have to say this; I try and be a calm debater but the topic of canon is a topic whose facts never change but instead get repeated over and over and over again that its simply gets me so tired of hearing the same crap over and over again that I snap. You don't have to deal with what I have to deal with when it comes to debates against other verses like 40k vs trek movies for example. The debates of this kind of threads derail because of one topic -canon. Trek fans never, ever stop nitpicking 40k canon trying to get rid of everything but codexes which tell us nothing so they can declare victory like the asses they are. There are also 40k fans who due to their own opinions want to get rid of BL or FFG just because they don't like what they produce even though others do like it but to hell with the others opinion.

Although the insults you posted were not needed you know. I never acted like an ass to you. I just asked if you had a link.

I hope this explains why I'm such an ass .

IG GENERAL wrote:Which makes DKok EXTREMELY STUPID.

No, they're not stupid, they just have a desperate need to make amends for the events that led to their planet being viral bombed for 500 years. DKoK see being killed for the Emperor & the Imperium as a way of being forgiven for Kriegs transgressions. Commissars are attached to Krieg Regiments for the opposite reasons they're attached to regular Guard - to keep the zealous nature of the DKoK in check to make sure they don't sacrifice themselves pointlessly (as well as liasing between Krieg & non-Krieg Regiments). It's not as if they'll just try and die, they will attempt to take as many enemies of the Emperor as they can with them, they just don't have any qualms about being killed.

alright Reznov sorry for calling you an arse, you did come across very heavy handed in a forum that was pretty light and jovial... I have no idea about Star Trek fans as it's not my kind of thing and I'm sure the topic of canon does come up alot. It's not that I'm disregarding BL and RT/DH they are official and they are canon (I just put things into different leagues/endorsed canon until trumped and I had honestly read from a what I thought at the time was a legit source that GW keeps the canon crown under vault and key). For instance it's hard for me to accept the original publication of Chaos Child as canon (which I'm currently reading). Returning to topic my personal take is that Battlefleet Kronos is actually the best rationalised canon for IN as RT seemed to be more concerned with consistent and thorough information than GW and BL have ever been (whether that's a strength or weakness is another pandoras box).

Now I'm sure I saw somebody giving a conclusive answer to this topic sometime in the last day - that the stormtroopers in Eisenhorn were part of an elite force of that battlefleet... which would bring us back to square one that they could look like practically anything and would be a good project

p.s.

I think he might refer to a report from the 2008 GW General Meeting, where George Mann -

yeah Lynata you're right it would have been that or some off shoot from that comment , tbh I had no idea that it was all such a raging debate- fwiw I come out in favour of BL and RT 's legitimacy but I also have a pinch of salt to hand just incase

wow, two parties interact, discuss, disagree, insult each other, then moderate themselves, apologise and back on thread. All in less than 2 pages, superb way to set a precedent, I wish more dakkanauts would follow you leads as the amount of good topics that de-railed by perceived slights and insults is pretty high. I am as guilty as anyone else for following this kind of behaviour.

Back on topic, I wonder if FW will ever get round to doing some IMPERIAL NAVAL MODELS as they and the MECHANICUM are the forgotten military arms of the Imperium.

the Moderati look practically the same as the boarding parties pictured above, I'd considered buying them and making little alterations but at £16 it didn't seem worth it

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/TITAN-CREW-ON-FOOT.html

and have you seen this guys conversion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/89240-.html

which is pretty awesome but at the same time the general look of the boarding parties seem too RT era to me. Ultimately I'd like GW to release a couple of boxes of general Imperial citizenry - factory workers, pilgrims, aristocrats etc and if they were plastic multipart kits then it would open up a whole world for conversions. Would be cool to have a team of armsmen led by a fleet officer embedded within an IG platoon, not very fluffy though...