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.

 Da Boss wrote:
In games, we are the creators. We create our stories, come up with our ideas for our armies and figure out how to implement them. We can make or adjust our own rules and design our own scenarios, and play them out at the table together.

I'm not sure who 'we' are supposed to be here. When I picked up my first miniature figures as a kid, and had no one to game with, sure, I did that.
When I started playing with other people... no. 'We' made army lists, had battles, and played the rules as a presented. That hasn't really changed in 30+ years.
I can remember naming characters out of habit and getting odd/puzzled reactions, even from people who also play RPGs.

At least some of it is a reaction to people who want to talk about who special their own personal space marine chapter is and how they don't fall prey to the usual faults of the Imperium (don't kill civilians, don't blindly follow the Emperor, are outcast but not chaos, etc, etc ad nauseum). That sort of thing just isnever going to matter to other people, its like listening to someone obsessed with recounting their dreams, no matter how incoherent or boring they are.

If you are MAKING books, comics or films then I agree 100% they are more creative. If you are just consuming them, as most people do, then in no way are they more creative.

I find most people are inspired by books, comics and films, and add a lot to them, even if its just in their own heads. You can see that even here as people discuss lore and background- the shared part of Warhammer is the background, setting and stories.
But many/most don't tend to do that for actual games they play. Lore discussion is one thing, the games are largely army lists, rules and by-the-book scenarios.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
...even if we limit it to GW space marines...

There are no Space Marines.

Exactly.
Every time the issue of canon comes up, it really turns out that those arguing "no canon" really do have a canon in mind even if they don't call it as such. Even saying there is such as thing as a Space Marine or that bolters exist is a form of canon.

Voss wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
In games, we are the creators. We create our stories, come up with our ideas for our armies and figure out how to implement them. We can make or adjust our own rules and design our own scenarios, and play them out at the table together.

I'm not sure who 'we' are supposed to be here. When I picked up my first miniature figures as a kid, and had no one to game with, sure, I did that.
When I started playing with other people... no. 'We' made army lists, had battles, and played the rules as a presented. That hasn't really changed in 30+ years.
I can remember naming characters out of habit and getting odd/puzzled reactions, even from people who also play RPGs.

At least some of it is a reaction to people who want to talk about who special their own personal space marine chapter is and how they don't fall prey to the usual faults of the Imperium (don't kill civilians, don't blindly follow the Emperor, are outcast but not chaos, etc, etc ad nauseum). That sort of thing just isnever going to matter to other people, its like listening to someone obsessed with recounting their dreams, no matter how incoherent or boring they are.

If you are MAKING books, comics or films then I agree 100% they are more creative. If you are just consuming them, as most people do, then in no way are they more creative.

I find most people are inspired by books, comics and films, and add a lot to them, even if its just in their own heads. You can see that even here as people discuss lore and background- the shared part of Warhammer is the background, setting and stories.
But many/most don't tend to do that for actual games they play. Lore discussion is one thing, the games are largely army lists, rules and by-the-book scenarios.

I dunno, your experience is pretty different to mine! When I started we absolutely made stories for all our dudes, invented characters and rules, made scenarios and used the games as springboards for further stories.
Wargames are not like computer games, you have way more creative input into the game. Even into my adult life I have continued to play games like this, narrative campaigns often with groups of up to 15 other people where we told stories around our games. I think your characterisation of this as being like someone being obsessed with recounting their dreams is a bit mean to be honest.

Narrative gaming and coming up with a background for your dudes has been part of the fantasy wargaming hobby since it was invented.

That's literally how absurd a setting with no canon becomes.

How can you discuss even the existence of Space Marines if - by definition - there are no canon Space Marines?
You can't.
The entire setting just becomes an insubstantial mush which is unique to each individual person - and therefore ceases to exist.

Literally every fictional setting has a canon.

When Person A says 'Space marine', Person B can understand that as a genetically enhanced human super soldier, clad in power armour etc. etc. The only reason Person A and Person B are able to have any shared understanding of the concept of 'Space Marine' is because there is a canon which describes what that means.

So, is that the only level at which you want to have this discussion?

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Why do the nerds always ruins their own interests (comics, wargames, movies…), trying to nail everything with absolutely no ambiguity?
Because they have a very childish understanding of them.

Adults actually have minds developed enough to easily compensate and further expand upon any fluff or cannon developments.

Why did you not know that?

MESSAGE TOTALLY EDITED.

Because most adult nerds forgets to be adults, when they start to talk about the fictional franchise they love.
Think about comics writers of nowadays comics and how they are written: the writers of nowadays try continuously to write their own epic vision of the greater stories of the past, they rewrite continuously the past, to adapt it to the stories they want write, they ignore continuously the works of the previous writers (in short they act more like a fanfiction writer, than a professional comic writer) and if the readers dare complain about the stories they read, they are able to answer: «If you don't like my book, don't buy them»; like it happened more than one time.
Obviously I don't want start a polemic about how the comic writers work, but explain my statement about how the people who works in certain business (comic book, wargame, role playing game…) too often acts; at least this is what I saw.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Because most adult nerds forgets to be adults, when they start to talk about the fictional franchise they love.
Look for example to Batman: I have seen people discuss for days about the inconsistencies in the canon, without understand no one can memorize more than eighty years of stories.

With Batman, 80 years of stories is compartmentalised into explicit alternate universes, such as the '66 Adam West universe or the DCAU. While the guy who reminded Robin to cross the street at the cross walk and the guy who shoved dynamite down a criminal's trousers are not the same person, you can have meaningful discussion of each one and how they relate. The continuity of any given version of Batman is important to create buy-in. If Batman was murdering henchmen one week and helping children retrieve their kittens stuck in trees the next, it would be impossible to be invested in an ongoing story.

40k has excellent narrative mechanisms to explain away light pedantry like Captain Soandso being on opposite sides of the galaxy simultaneously, or fighting before he was born:

Parallel reality
Temporal/warp glitches
Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and lies (unreliable narrator)
Honour names

However creative you get with 40k, you still need some continuity, some 'anchor points' to allow you to be talking about the same universe.

'On my world/Regiment/Chapter all the rulers are benevolent and kind' is different from saying 'In my Imperium all the rulers are benevolent and kind', a fundamental change to the setting.
You could get away with an adeptus mechanicus force that uses advanced crystals to power all their tech- but if you say 'my spacemarines are implanted with crystals rather than geneseed' they cease to be spacemarines in the meaning of 40k.

 Da Boss wrote:
So, is that the only level at which you want to have this discussion?

The level of logic and reality?
Yes.

I notice that you've presented no counter argument...

Well, your argument is based on taking what I said as literally as possible to catch me out. What I mean when I say canon being applied to 40K is strict canon that leaves no room for interpretation, which is the usual way we all mean it.
So you win the argument, if that means anything to you, and the discussion is over from your POV.
My fault for not expressing myself with the maximum amount of conditional language on an informal discussion board, I know.

 =Angel= wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Because most adult nerds forgets to be adults, when they start to talk about the fictional franchise they love.
Look for example to Batman: I have seen people discuss for days about the inconsistencies in the canon, without understand no one can memorize more than eighty years of stories.

With Batman, 80 years of stories is compartmentalised into explicit alternate universes, such as the '66 Adam West universe or the DCAU. While the guy who reminded Robin to cross the street at the cross walk and the guy who shoved dynamite down a criminal's trousers are not the same person, you can have meaningful discussion of each one and how they relate. The continuity of any given version of Batman is important to create buy-in. If Batman was murdering henchmen one week and helping children retrieve their kittens stuck in trees the next, it would be impossible to be invested in an ongoing story.

40k has excellent narrative mechanisms to explain away light pedantry like Captain Soandso being on opposite sides of the galaxy simultaneously, or fighting before he was born:

Parallel reality
Temporal/warp glitches
Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and lies (unreliable narrator)
Honour names

However creative you get with 40k, you still need some continuity, some 'anchor points' to allow you to be talking about the same universe.

'On my world/Regiment/Chapter all the rulers are benevolent and kind' is different from saying 'In my Imperium all the rulers are benevolent and kind', a fundamental change to the setting.
You could get away with an adeptus mechanicus force that uses advanced crystals to power all their tech- but if you say 'my spacemarines are implanted with crystals rather than geneseed' they cease to be spacemarines in the meaning of 40k.

I must thank you, because I was try to explain my point in a very convoluted way. What I wanted say is that nowadays most of the nerds who turn their passion in a job, try to rewrite the stories they loved, without understand what actually makes great the franchise. For example Warhammer 40.000 is made great just due all its flaws: its lore is contradictory, full of gaps, excessive, broken; but in spite of everything a continuity exists. It is everything a canon shouldn't be, but just thank of that it is so captivating, because only in this way the reader/player can be involved in the grim dark universe of the forty-first millenium, letting him feel the events exactly like a man of that future could feel them.
But I suggest to drop the matter, because there is the risk it will become an off topic.

people always claimed that the main advantage for 40k over other SciFi games is the backstory and how detailed and deep it is compared to other

yet going the way of "you just need to make the details up on your own to make sense" or "this is just there to add space for people to be creative" brings it back in the same level as any other theme

If I need to make up everything on my own, I could also create a Imperium with Space Marines were those are exactly what I want inside the Warpath or Star Wars universe and be done, no need for 40k


the overall problem is a different story, as GW does not know if they want to ave and advancing story or not

40k until the last years was setting with a fixed ending that just filled up the past with books and campaigns
they tried to advance the story once and made that it never happend shortly after because somebody things it will kill the setting if we advance past 40.999 and "doom" finally happens

but this collides with the need to bring in new models/designs to drive sales were an ongoing story has the advantage (there would still be possibilities though)

the big advantage and the main thing for 40k is the background and the setting, doing stupid things here causes more damage than making bad rules or models

 kodos wrote:
people always claimed that the main advantage for 40k over other SciFi games is the backstory and how detailed and deep it is compared to other

yet going the way of "you just need to make the details up on your own to make sense" or "this is just there to add space for people to be creative" brings it back in the same level as any other theme

If I need to make up everything on my own, I could also create a Imperium with Space Marines were those are exactly what I want inside the Warpath or Star Wars universe and be done, no need for 40k


the overall problem is a different story, as GW does not know if they want to ave and advancing story or not

40k until the last years was setting with a fixed ending that just filled up the past with books and campaigns
they tried to advance the story once and made that it never happend shortly after because somebody things it will kill the setting if we advance past 40.999 and "doom" finally happens

but this collides with the need to bring in new models/designs to drive sales were an ongoing story has the advantage (there would still be possibilities though)

the big advantage and the main thing for 40k is the background and the setting, doing stupid things here causes more damage than making bad rules or models

They advanced the story/timeline at a steady rate throughout all of 2nd edition. It's not like it has never been done before. That is how individual small stories, character stories, like Tycho came about. First he was a generic captain that was struck down in a battle report by an Ork psychic power, then he became a Phantom of the Opera mask wearer, and finally he got some measure of final peace in dying on Armageddon. Did it really break the universe or how the BA and Orks stood? Not at all.

So timeline advancement is not some super dangerous radical idea.

 =Angel= wrote:

40k has excellent narrative mechanisms to explain away light pedantry like Captain Soandso being on opposite sides of the galaxy simultaneously, or fighting before he was born:

Parallel reality
Temporal/warp glitches
Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and lies (unreliable narrator)
Honour names

However creative you get with 40k, you still need some continuity, some 'anchor points' to allow you to be talking about the same universe.

There is no question that as far as tightness goes, 40K has a fairly "loose" canon compared to other fictional universes. GW does not have religious proofing and cross checking of every detail and errors, sometimes quite big ones creep in. A canon doesn't mean every last detail has to be nailed down or known with perfect clarity, and plenty is left unelaborated on or there are retcons. Nonetheless there is still a de facto canon at work. A Black Library writer that tried to submit a work saying bolters fired soft nerf bullets would be told they are wrong, which is only possible if there is a fixed definition of what a bolter is within the universe.

Iracundus wrote:

So timeline advancement is not some super dangerous radical idea.

than why does GW retcons with each new edition?

the only thing is that how the advances changes each time but we are still at the same spot in time were we already were, some 150 years into M41

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If you don't specify when/where you are, nobody can tell you that you're lost.

It's genius!

The sad thing is that some real world factions have donethings just like this. In ww2 it was common not to give some ships a due to arrive date so as not to tip enemy submarines off when ships would be arriving, and since a ship didn;t have a due date, it couldn't be overdue.

This happened to the USS Indianoplis, the ship that transported the first atomic bomb. Since it wasn't overdue no search started until a lot of the survivors were chomped by sharks.

There has to be some conon for some level of consistency in the setting. In the early days the setting was largely made up of history and the imperium didn’t change and that stagnation was part of the hopeless setting.

With that in mind you can then release lots of books in a universe of almost endless opportunities but you still have to make sure the universe is recognisable with those consistencies.

I think largely this was fine for quite a long time even with names characters but it’s recently that GW have tried to apply a proper time line to 40K to enable the introduction of primaris and change some of the other armies. This seems to be to do with the introduction of trademark names and justify that in the canon.

Now it’s all a bit of a pickle because GW has contradicted itself and doesn’t really understand when they turned a setting into a story because there was no defined start and end like in WFB and AOS. I was removed from 40K during a lot of this so it’s what I’ve picked up.

But I think the main thing is that in lieu of a strict canon for many years, we have all created our own cannon. I have posted many times that I hate seeing inquisitors with with xenos tech and I think the Van Saar gang would have been hunted down by the Ad Mech for their grab tech and STC.

What I think I’ve learned is the debate on these subjects is a debate between multiple interpretations of the setting, depending on what speaks to you and which books you’ve read and maybe when you were first exposed to 40K.

If GW want to apply a stricter canon that ties the game up with the books then they have a lot of in picking to do because any official Canon that applied would probably be contradicted somewhere because GW really have done what ever they wanted if they thought it was cool and would appeal to customers

mrFickle wrote:

I think largely this was fine for quite a long time even with names characters but it’s recently that GW have tried to apply a proper time line to 40K to enable the introduction of primaris and change some of the other armies. This seems to be to do with the introduction of trademark names and justify that in the canon.

There's been a proper timeline for decades.

It has only been relatively recently that GW stopped giving timeline entries actual dates - presumably because it's a) easier not to bother and b) they insisted on ramming everything into 999.M41 for some reason, which very obviously snarled up the timeline.

The major change seems to have been that where previously the timeline moved along reasonably organically (and slowly), now GW are trying to craft some grand pre-designed narrative - and making a complete hash of it.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

mrFickle wrote:

I think largely this was fine for quite a long time even with names characters but it’s recently that GW have tried to apply a proper time line to 40K to enable the introduction of primaris and change some of the other armies. This seems to be to do with the introduction of trademark names and justify that in the canon.

There's been a proper timeline for decades.

It has only been relatively recently that GW stopped giving timeline entries actual dates - presumably because it's a) easier not to bother and b) they insisted on ramming everything into 999.M41 for some reason, which very obviously snarled up the timeline.

The major change seems to have been that where previously the timeline moved along reasonably organically (and slowly), now GW are trying to craft some grand pre-designed narrative - and making a complete hash of it.

I saw not giving timelines or dates as a lazy move TBH. Don't have to worry about even the slightest attempt at continuity if you don't give dates.

The problem with that is it then becomes hard to actually keep track of the sequence of events in their narrative then, especially if they start inserting new stuff in between other stuff.

That is really all the dates matter for though; putting things in order. Personally as long as there is a reasonably comprehensive timeline I don't care if they attach arbitrary numbers to them. It is extra work in writing and double-checking exact numbers both in implementation and for future fluff. Being able to simply put an event as 'after A but before C" saves effort on busy work that adds little to the setting.

We don't know how event D relates to A or C though.

Also, the Imperial dating system includes a provision for the date being wonky, which GW could easily take advantage of to avoid the need for prescision (not that getting dates of events correct/consistant should be as difficult as they manage to make it look).

 Lord Damocles wrote:
We don't know how event D relates to A or C though.

Also, the Imperial dating system includes a provision for the date being wonky, which GW could easily take advantage of to avoid the need for prescision (not that getting dates of events correct/consistant should be as difficult as they manage to make it look).

Yes, the check number allows them wiggle room with regard to dating.

The problem is GW not using dates now, and not telling things in a chronological order. So if Event C is inserted later between Event A and Event B, readers would have to rely on contextual clues within the sources (if any). That creates a very choppy disconnected series of vignettes rather than a timeline, and while that might well describe the situation post Rift opening, it is a frustrating exercise for the reader.

You guys highlight another reason exact dates don't matter; they can canonically change them at a whim anyways. A cohesive timeline is important, the numbers next to those events much less so. Though in the context of immediately post rift I think it is better that they don't even have that. In this very specific case having a jumbled mess of event chronology is a good thing because it really sells the anarchy going on in the galaxy. Now as the timeline moves away things should be brought back into an order, but personally I think having the first 50 years or even century of events following the rift being 'they all happened in this time frame no one knows in what order' is great.