Black Templar Fluff Retcon: Heresy or Not?

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.

**EngulfedObject**

arinnoor wrote:
The main problem is that BT had its own codex, one it deserved quite more then any other divergent IMO until it was eaten by the base marines. If GW was smarter the would reorganize the marine books by tactics.

I understand that and what I'm saying is it's irrelevant whether or not the BT deserve their own codex more than other chapters, and it makes sense for other codex-divergent First Founding chapters to be prioritized moving forward.

Again, that doesn't mean I'm happy about the fact that they don't have a current codex. The issue of them having their chapter and crusade numbers reduced is a separate issue for me (plus the recton comes from a BL book that has nothing to do with base chapters, not a codex as far as I'm aware).

arinnoor wrote:
BTW if GW was putting the original first founding ahead then that is very sad news indeed. Chaos has lost their first founding legions for the past three editions.

What they could do is have a codex astartes-adherent codex and one for divergent chapters (or actually roll them into one). The problem with that is players like to have a codex themed solely around their chapter, as evident with BT fans.

In a case of a shared codex, what GW shouldn't do is bury everything under Ultramarine fluff and instead give the other First Founding chapters more/equal face time. Chaos First Founding chapters seem fine to me as they all get some face time in the Chaos codices, plus there's no single legion that completely dominates all others (like the Ultramarines and their 60% of all chapters in existence do). They've also broken down into warbands so it's basically mix and match as you like.

IMO 1 codex for SM (Ultramarines basically), 1 for SW, and 1 for BT (Second Founding) wasn't going to work long term anyway, as that would mean prioritizing one First Founding chapter that doesn't have successor chapters plus one Second Founding chapter that already is a sucessor over all the other non-Ultramarine chapters.

And yes, I realize they are mostly codex-adherent and can be played by the rules in the base codex, doesn't mean they can't have more flavour added. Plus a big part of having a codex is the fluff. No DA/BA player wants to carry around a UM codex when SW have their own.

Edit: Besides, the DA and BA codices have been around forever, starting with Angels of Death, so if anything, them getting more "themed" units is long overdue.

And putting them the blame on them for the BT not having a current codex seems like a stretch as they already had a seperate codex when the first BT one came out.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codices_(List)

**Mr Morden**

arinnoor wrote:
EngulfedObject wrote:
CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
My point wasn't that you have to have a whole new codex because a chapter has one totally unique unit. In response to "why, rules-wise, would the Black Templars deserve a codex at all", I was just pointing out that for a long time they deserved a codex more than the Dark Angels because at least the Black Templars had a single unit that couldn't be represented with a vanilla unit plus a special rule. Dark Angels really had zero.

When you look at the fluff and chapter organisation, you realize there was a lot that could have been done with Black Templars to make them more unique; GW simply chose not to. Instead they lumped BT in with codex-adherent chapters (when really they along with Space Wolves are THE poster children for ignoring the codex in every possible way), and are slowly eroding what makes even the codex-adherent chapters different, while simultaneously making the codex-adherent BAs and DAs wacky caricatures of themselves to justify their independent codexes. It's a shame.
I get that but whether or not they had a single unit (or multiple) that couldn't be represented by the codex seems irrelevant in light of the recent changes, plus you could easily change that by releasing a rules sheet, either in the SM codex or separately (or even on their website). I'm not saying not releasing a new BT codex is the right move but I find the argument of them having had unique units before other chapters, and are therefore more deserving of a codex unconvincing.

I'm okay with the overall direction they're going in by making First Founding chapters more unique (whether or not they were "poster boys" for ignoring the codex astartes), though I think the BT should retain their former crusade numbers and if possible get their own codex (though in this case, I would prefer First Founding chapters get more attention over any other chapters, for reasons I have stated).

The main problem is that BT had its own codex, one it deserved quite more then any other divergent IMO until it was eaten by the base marines. If GW was smarter the would reorganize the marine books by tactics.

BTW if GW was putting the original first founding ahead then that is very sad news indeed. Chaos has lost their first founding legions for the past three editions.

IMO they should have just had two Adeptus Asartes Codexes - one for those who are codex followes and those who devliate - loads more options and intersting things for both and avoid the Bloodguns firing Blood Bullets, Wolf Sleighs and Dark Dark Missiles etc

**EngulfedObject**

Mr Morden wrote:
IMO they should have just had two Adeptus Asartes Codexes - one for those who are codex followes and those who devliate - loads more options and intersting things for both and avoid the Bloodguns firing Blood Bullets, Wolf Sleighs and Dark Dark Missiles etc

I agree, said pretty much the same thing above. That will give them enough space to have fluff for all First Founding chapters, plus some Second Founding and beyond examples, and could help avoid the number of codices from spiraling out of control.

For Chaos, they could do two books, each themed around two Chaos gods. Or one "general" one (like the current one) and one themed around warbands dedicated to a single god (so 4 sections, divided between the gods). Though I think the current single one has worked well enough so far.

**EmperorsChampion**

From what I had read in the codex, it never said they were a normal size chapter. Just because they have 10 black swords doesn't mean each Crusade has an Emperor's Champion. I will always consider them much larger.

**Selym**

EngulfedObject wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
IMO they should have just had two Adeptus Asartes Codexes - one for those who are codex followes and those who devliate - loads more options and intersting things for both and avoid the Bloodguns firing Blood Bullets, Wolf Sleighs and Dark Dark Missiles etc
I agree, said pretty much the same thing above. That will give them enough space to have fluff for all First Founding chapters, plus some Second Founding and beyond examples, and could help avoid the number of codices from spiraling out of control.

For Chaos, they could do two books, each themed around two Chaos gods. Or one "general" one (like the current one) and one themed around warbands dedicated to a single god (so 4 sections, divided between the gods). Though I think the current single one has worked well enough so far.

I you mean the current single CSM codex, then no. It's terrible in every way. Apart from being underpowered, it cannot represent any CSM warband or legion. At all. It's like C:SM, if it hadn't been updated past 5E, and lost a bunch of stuff.

**Adrik**

Am I the only one to remember that Black Library is not canon? I mean if it is than you have some big problems with Angels of Darkness where Astelan says that the Lion was sitting in the warp waiting to see who won, Horus or the Emperor, before picking a side. THat book ends with the Interrogator Chaplain telling Astelan that he is right and then kills him. Also, which book do we take to heart? Eternal Crusader or Helsreach? In Helsreach, Grimaldus notes that the Templars are massive and that to call them a chapter is wrong because they do not function as a chapter. That every crusade is organized differently, fights differently, and has different traditions and beliefs. He asserts that the Templars are more like a loose confederation of crusades bound together under the same banner.

So which book do you take?

**Selym**

Helsreach, by far. I've not read the other one, but Grimaldus was a badass in Helsreach, and the book used the good BT fluff.

**Adrik**

Black Library is kind of a mix blessing. Some of their products are good but other stuff they have is just meh. They do not always follow the established storyline and many of times the material is written by people who are oblivious to the universe they are writing about. I mean if you look at Dark Apostle a possessed space marine is effectively unkillable.

Currently, GW has been having an issue of consistency with its fluff. I mean Kauyon is a great example of that as well. In game a battle cannon can pierce the armor of a Stormsurge however in the book the Battlecannon bounced harmlessly off the thermoplastic armor. I think the issue is the fluff hit its Apex in 4th edition and lately with all the new writers the story is starting having major issues with authorial fiat.

**Selym**

That and the fact that GW will happily butcher established fluff to make a quick buck.

**Adrik**

Well, if you look at Kauyon, that book is nothing more than a sales magazine. It kinda confirmed my view that they are having a hard time selling the Tau which I doubt that this changed anything. However, if you look at the battles you noticed that the space marines did not deploy any grav-weapons nor were centurions deployed. The other critique of that book is they glossed over Tau losses which again is a sales tactic.

Anyway, back to Black Templar from what I remember codex trumps all.

**EngulfedObject**

Selym wrote:
I you mean the current single CSM codex, then no. It's terrible in every way. Apart from being underpowered, it cannot represent any CSM warband or legion. At all. It's like C:SM, if it hadn't been updated past 5E, and lost a bunch of stuff.

Don't have the new CSM codex

(but I like the 5ed one). Well then multiple codices would be better, though one for each Chaos god might be overkill. 2 in one might work. Nurgle/Khrone = tanky and melee oriented builds, Tzeentch/Slaanesh = speed, stealth, and sorcery type warbands. Maybe...?

The FFG Black Crusade tomes pairs the legions like this (if I remember correctly): Alpha Legion + Thousand Sons = Tzeentch, Night Lords + World Eaters = Khorne, Slaanesh = Emperor's Children + Word Bearers (I know), and Nurgle = Death Guard and Iron Warriors. That could be used as a template for similar warbands that emphasize different aspects of the original legions and gods.

**Shadow Walker**

1000 Templars is a heresy like all of their new fluff. Previously they were awesome, psyker hating [actually only ones still following dictates of Nikaea] and secular crusaders [only ones still true to Great Crusade] and now they are basically SM version of Sisters of Battle.

**Wonderwolf**

Black Templars were a regular. Codex-compliant 1000-Space Marine chapter with a Librarius and everything in 2nd. Ed.

Good to see them going back to their roots.

**dusara217**

Wonderwolf wrote:
Black Templars were a regular. Codex-compliant 1000-Space Marine chapter with a Librarius and everything in 2nd. Ed.

Good to see them going back to their roots.

**GAdvance**

Yeah whoever said there should be two big book Codex's for marines one of Codex adherents and another of non adherents could be decent, but we still have the main problem that the current adherents book has in that it runs out of space.

Seriously i think a good way to move forward would be to have a smaller cheaper basic marines codex and then cheaper books to add on similiar to kauyon that add to each chapter, so i don't have to buy a huge book that has mostly fluff on armies i don't even play

**1hadhq**

GAdvance wrote:

Seriously i think a good way to move forward would be to have a smaller cheaper basic marines codex and then cheaper books to add on similiar to kauyon that add to each chapter, so i don't have to buy a huge book that has mostly fluff on armies i don't even play

3rd Edition WH40k ?

**Icculus**

I think its heresy. Well I think what they are trying to do is imprint the image that things are really dire and we are this close to the brink of destruction. They do that by saying that perhaps the Black Templar were nearly 5,000 strong, but recently their numbers have dwindled and they are now down to 1,000 left.

But we get it, its grimdark, you don't have to reduce the Black Templar numbers down to everyone else's size to make that point

So in my fluff for my Black Templar chapter, there are still thousands upon thousands of Black Templar around the galaxy.

**slade the sniper**

Wyzilla wrote:

^ That, whatever else it may be, is very definitely heresy.

-STS

**AlmightyWalrus**

The entire debate about "first founding" and "second founding" really ought to be moot; up until Guilliman split the Legions the Imperial Fists Chapter and the Black Templars Chapter were both part of the Imperial Fists Legion. Their history up until that point is the same. Why, then, should "First Founding" Chapters be prioritized over "Second Founding" Chapters? They're both the same age as Chapters.

**Selym**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The entire debate about "first founding" and "second founding" really ought to be moot; up until Guilliman split the Legions the Imperial Fists Chapter and the Black Templars Chapter were both part of the Imperial Fists Legion. Their history up until that point is the same. Why, then, should "First Founding" Chapters be prioritized over "Second Founding" Chapters? They're both the same age as Chapters.

Because day 1 post-codex, Sigismund forgot all about the defence of Terra.

It was that badly (some say bawldly) written.

**Veteran Sergeant**

Harriticus wrote:
GW is slowly making all other Chapters abide by the Codex Astartes. Non-Codex chapters like the Iron Hands, whose Companies were self-contained "Clans" each with their own vehicles, librarius, ships, etc.. are now codex clans. The "10th Clan" of the Iron Hands now uses scouts like a good codex chapter for instance.

As fun a bit of trivia, the Iron Hands were one of the original "Codex Chapters" from the very first White Dwarf article. Though, granted that was before the "modern" depiction of the Codex Astartes as written by Guilliman.

As a second bit of fun trivia, in Codex: Ultramarines, the Black Templars are listed as a Codex Chapter too.

**Stormonu**

Its not like you're going to field them all in a single game, so why care?

**Darth Bob**

Wyzilla wrote:

Spoiler:

To be fair, the guy has also said that any fluff from the Black Library supercedes anything produced in a Codex or Supplement put out by Games Workshop and nothing, including dedicated fluff articles, in the White Dwarfs is canon. Coincidentally, he also happens to be the lead editor of the Horus Heresy, so it seems mighty convenient he'd put the stuff he's editing at the forefront. He also brought this up as a counterpoint to people on Warseer, a place he once called "a nest of mewling fethers", and it's well known that he likes to gak on their community.

He's also twisting ADB's (and arguably Alan Merret's) point in saying "oh that's not what they meant" despite the fact that ADB has written an article indicating that it is, indeed, what he meant (http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/). Regardless, just because you're some editor at Black Library doesn't mean you get to arbitrarily decide the importance of canon from various sources, across the many mediums of the game. He's trying to apply the laws of Star Wars canon to 40k, with a hierarchical list he just came up with that goes against what other editors and authors have said before. Like here:

Marc Gascoigne, former Publisher, Author, and Editor for the 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 thet 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 nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you."

Or here:

Andy Hoare, Game Designer and Codex Writer at Games Workshop wrote:"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."

And here:

George Mann, the Big Boss at Black Library wrote:"In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work."

It seems to me that Mr. Goulding is the only one that seems to support this "there is a rigid canon hierarchy and Black Library is at the forefront of it" idea. I'll take the word of veterans to the industry and heads of the company over this one guy that more or less seems to want to troll the Warseer community.

*Edited to fully flesh out one of the quotes.

**Selym**

So. Rulebook + Codex > BL Book, where BL Book is "Optional Cannon". Coolio.

**Darth Bob**

Selym wrote:
So. Rulebook + Codex > BL Book, where BL Book is "Optional Cannon". Coolio.

Not really, because that implies there is anything in the fluff that is objectively true or more-true than other parts of it. That'd be how Star Wars works with the movies superseding everything, followed by the TV shows, etc. There is no established hierarchy of canon in 40k because of the various reason listed above, mostly in the quotes by Andy Hoare and Marc Gascoigne. There is no infallible, true form of the 40k canon. It's all "maybe, maybe not." It's all legends, stories, propaganda, and half truths. It's like reading a collection of history books that cover the history of a decaying empire covering over 40,000+ years of galactic history, and history always has stuff missing and/or purposely left out because it's always written from the writer's perspective.

It's up to you to believe what you want to believe and decide what fits your vision of the 40k universe. If your vision stems from the older fluff saying that the Black Templars have more than the Codex Astartes allows, then you go right ahead and hold that canon as true. Your vision is no more or less valid than those that hold to a book that says there's 1000 of them. There are unalterable themes in the 40k fiction, and it's those themes that are important rather than the "legitimacy" of particular details of the canon.

That said, I think there's more fluff to indicate they're non-codex compliant given the enormous amount of deviations from the Codex Astartes that they exhibit.

**KingDeath**

Stormonu wrote:
Its not like you're going to field them all in a single game, so why care?

Because the Templars used to be interesting, with distinct strenghts (large numbers, extreme zeal) but also weaknesses (no librarians, general distrust of psykers, overreliance on close combat).
They were the ultimate expression of the close minded 40k space nazi. Likeable only by embracing the underlying parodistic elements of 40k, quite comparable to the Iron Hands in that regard.
Slowly eroding their fluff, of which their high numbers were a part, makes them ever blander.

**Psienesis**

Adrik wrote:
Am I the only one to remember that Black Library is not canon? I mean if it is than you have some big problems with Angels of Darkness where Astelan says that the Lion was sitting in the warp waiting to see who won, Horus or the Emperor, before picking a side. THat book ends with the Interrogator Chaplain telling Astelan that he is right and then kills him. Also, which book do we take to heart? Eternal Crusader or Helsreach? In Helsreach, Grimaldus notes that the Templars are massive and that to call them a chapter is wrong because they do not function as a chapter. That every crusade is organized differently, fights differently, and has different traditions and beliefs. He asserts that the Templars are more like a loose confederation of crusades bound together under the same banner.

So which book do you take?

There is no canon in 40k... so it's all equally canon.

**Wonderwolf**

Psienesis wrote:

There is no canon in 40k... so it's all equally canon.

Not really. There is apparently still a hierarchy of things that need to be adhered to, with Codex/Rules > Novels, etc..

Dan Abnett or Gav Thorpe or whoever writing a new novel about ... say ... Blood Angels, generally need to adhere to the things in the Blood Angels Codex. But they don't necessarily need to adhere to an older Blood Angels novel by, say, James Swallow.

Inversely, if Phil Kelly or whoever is writing a new Blood Angels Codex, he's free to ignore all the above novels, because Codex > Black Library. The respective novel simply gets filed away under "alternative universe/interpretation"

That said, the Codex stuff still isn't super sacrosanct. While a Black Library author might not be allowed to touch it, future Codex writers and/or management/higher-up intervention can still change it in the future.

**Selym**

At least this means that it is cannon (mostly) thaat Land Raiders aren't equipped with multilasers, and that they don't arbitrarily transform into Razorbacks.

**Psienesis**

Wonderwolf wrote:
Psienesis wrote:

There is no canon in 40k... so it's all equally canon.

Not really. There is apparently still a hierarchy of things that need to be adhered to, with Codex/Rules > Novels, etc..

Dan Abnett or Gav Thorpe or whoever writing a new novel about ... say ... Blood Angels, generally need to adhere to the things in the Blood Angels Codex. But they don't necessarily need to adhere to an older Blood Angels novel by, say, James Swallow.

Inversely, if Phil Kelly or whoever is writing a new Blood Angels Codex, he's free to ignore all the above novels, because Codex > Black Library. The respective novel simply gets filed away under "alternative universe/interpretation"

That said, the Codex stuff still isn't super sacrosanct. While a Black Library author might not be allowed to touch it, future Codex writers and/or management/higher-up intervention can still change it in the future.

No, no there isn't. If Dan Abnett writes something in a book that you like the cut of better than something in a side-bar in a Codex? Feel free to run with what Dan said. There's no hierarchy, no "this trumps that", no "this is newer so it's truer"... the setting/IP doesn't work like that. All of those concepts and "rules" are fan-created constructions, because what is presented in a Codex, or a BL novel, as in-universe information, is true, or possibly true, or might be true, or is a rumor, legend, myth, barroom story, or complete fabrication.