That Burn is Audible

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.

**Wyzilla**

http://guyhaley.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/im-baaaacccckkk/#comment-5779

So it appears the numbers of the Black Templars is getting retconned from 6,000 to somewhat over a thousand. Ouch.

**Psienesis**

Not much of a burn, as he states that it's a GW decision, not a writer decision. I wonder if we will see a similar ret-con of the Space Wolves? Their recent Codex provided specific numbers for the 2 largest GCs, which gives a ceiling of less than 2200 Marines.

**Wyzilla**

Psienesis wrote:
Not much of a burn, as he states that it's a GW decision, not a writer decision. I wonder if we will see a similar ret-con of the Space Wolves? Their recent Codex provided specific numbers for the 2 largest GCs, which gives a ceiling of less than 2200 Marines.

No, I meant a burn on Black Templar players. First their codex is trashed, now their numbers got nerfed to a ridiculously small level.

**curran12**

If by trashed, you mean given things that other Marine codexes (Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels) wish they had in terms of units and items, sure I guess.

**Psienesis**

Well, I dunno that anyone was fielding all 6000 BTs on the table at one time, so Im not seeing that the players are losing anything (other than fluff)... but, then, I also noted that Guy Haley was factually wrong about other aspects of the franchise (the BT are not the only Chapter of Space Marines who worship the Emperor... I have a list) so... kinda taking what he says about it with a grain of salt.

**PhillyT**

As a former BT player, I don't think it is too bad, but they did lose some of their flavor.

Still, all of the non-codex space marine books could have and likely should have received similar treatment. Had the Dark Angels not been released first, they would have done well to be slotted into the book.

**Maximus Bitch**

Do Chapters consist of 1000 Marines because GW wants players to collect that many and does that by convincing players that they will possess the "full force"?

So I guess 1000 is the cap because few would collect more than that.

**Psienesis**

I wouldn't ever collect more than maybe 100 Space Marines (or even Sisters). That's a full Company (or Minor Order). I should never need to field more than that in a game...

... and, at this point, I'd never play a game where I had to field 100 SM and all the other vehicles and stuff. That game would take literally all day to play, and I dont have time for that.

**Veteran Sergeant**

Well you can't fight forever completely ignoring the need for battlefield artillery and integrating your lightly armored neophytes with your heavily armored shock troops and expect to maintain numbers.

This isn't a retcon. It's just 10,000 years of poor logistics and strategy catching up with them.

**BlaxicanX**

"It's GW's decision not the writers" more or less flies in the face of "GW doesn't believe in canon", does it not?

This incident would make it obvious that Games Workshop collectively has at least some sort of "ideal" for how the 40K universe functions, even if its not entirely fleshed out.

**Psienesis**

I've never doubted that GW has a concept for the "general feel" and "these things gotta be this way" for the setting. I mean, you rarely hear someone seriously posit that the Emperor was actually an Empress, or that Horus was the one they stuck on the Golden Throne and that the real Emperor died on that ship.

**BlaxicanX**

I've never doubted it either. I'm just curious to see if this changes anything for the certain members of this board who like to claim that "there is no right or wrong answer" for 40K fluff by GW's account.

**Veteran Sergeant**

BlaxicanX wrote:
I've never doubted it either. I'm just curious to see if this changes anything for the certain members of this board who like to claim that "there is no right or wrong answer" for 40K fluff by GW's account.

Those are all Sisters fans. Nobody else cares.

Though perhaps we'll see some Templars fans jump on that bandwagon.

**MasterSlowPoke**

Maximus Bitch wrote:
Do Chapters consist of 1000 Marines because GW wants players to collect that many and does that by convincing players that they will possess the "full force"?

So I guess 1000 is the cap because few would collect more than that.

GW wasn't thinking very critically in the 80's.

**Wyzilla**

The thing that sucks is the Black Templars were at least in logistical bodycount among the more "sensible" Chapters. Now really, we need to rise up and infiltrate GW dakkanites, and force sensible changes. Like boosting legion numbers to millions and chapter size to ten thousand space marines.

**Orblivion**

Wyzilla wrote:
The thing that sucks is the Black Templars were at least in logistical bodycount among the more "sensible" Chapters. Now really, we need to rise up and infiltrate GW dakkanites, and force sensible changes. Like boosting legion numbers to millions and chapter size to ten thousand space marines.

6000 is a fraction of a percent more sensible than 1000 when considering the scale of 40k. It never really bothered me to be honest, its all nonsense anyways

**jhe90**

I can choose to ignore this and carry on as a proud screw the codex arastes 6000 :-)

I did not choose them to obey the 1000 marine numbers.

**tgjensen**

BlaxicanX wrote:
This incident would make it obvious that Games Workshop collectively has at least some sort of "ideal" for how the 40K universe functions, even if its not entirely fleshed out.

It was also GW's idea that the Horus Heresy happened. That doesn't change the fact that every single source of information that we are presented with is written from an in-universe perspective. I'm not sure why you think this would change anything. You think it wasn't GW that passed down the idea of introducing the Tau?

The setting is just there to be a playground for the players. If Timmy wants to reveal in his campaign that the Blood Angels secretly were traitors all along and Dante is working together with Abaddon to destroy the Ultramarines, then he can. All those stories of the heroic Blood Angels fighting the traitors on the walls of the Palace on Terra were just lies and mis-information! Gasp!

**bocatt**

Psienesis wrote:
I've never doubted that GW has a concept for the "general feel" and "these things gotta be this way" for the setting. I mean, you rarely hear someone seriously posit that the Emperor was actually an Empress, or that Horus was the one they stuck on the Golden Throne and that the real Emperor died on that ship.

Welp not until you said that. Now my headcanon is that Horus was the Emperor's shunned, only daughter that tried to grow up to be his favorite "son" and at the climax of the Horus Heresy (a combination of PMS and severe daddy issues) Horus slew her father and took his place on the Golden Throne.

**BlaxicanX**

tgjensen wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that every single source of information that we are presented with is written from an in-universe perspective.

And? As I've said in another thread, for the purposes of a discussion, an unreliable narrative is still more valid than a non-existent one. If we're having a debate about the height of a Space Marine and I whip out a quote from five codices stating that Space Marines are on average 8 feet tall, telling me "b-b-but codices are just myths, legends and half-truths!" isn't an effective counter-argument for your claim that Space Marines are actually 20 feet tall on average, especially when you've failed to provide any sources from the fluff yourself.

There are however people on this board who attempt that very type of argument, and presume to think that it has legitimacy. And part of the reason why they make the claim that such an argument is legitimate stems from the idea that Games Workshop does no quality control and has no oversight on its fluff. There are people who will tell you that GW doesn't give a gak about what its authors write write when creating 40K fluff, and therefore as a result nothing a book says has any legitimacy. The more we hear about BL authors attending "mandatory quality-control meetings" where they present ideas for stories and have to defend them against critiques from other authors and GW representatives, and the more we hear little tidbits about GW making "executive orders" that change things, such as the incident this thread is about, the more we start to see that Games Workshop does in fact seem to have a "Universe as Intended" idea, even if they give players the option to ignore it.

The setting is just there to be a playground for the players. If Timmy wants to reveal in his campaign that the Blood Angels secretly were traitors all along and Dante is working together with Abaddon to destroy the Ultramarines, then he can

And? You can do the exact same thing with Star Wars and any other fictional Universe that has an officially recognized canon. "In my head-canon, Darth Vader was actually a wookie!" Is George Lucas going to sick his thought-police on me for committing such fluff heresy? No. That doesn't change the fact that imagining Darth Vader as a Wookie is an idea that doesn't jive with how the Star Wars universe has consistently been portrayed. Similarly, Timmy has all the freedom in the World to say that the Emperor is a grot, that doesn't mean that his interpretation is empirically sound or logical when compared to how the 40K universe has predominantly been displayed.

**tgjensen**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Proof?

Allow me to quote myself, quoting someone else, quoting a third person:

Well here's what Marc Gascoigne had to say on the subject:

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 that 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.

I grabbed that quote from a post that Aaron Dembski-Bowden made, just in case you think the current crop of Black Library authors have changed their position.

TL;DR: No omniscient narrators.

BlaxicanX wrote:
And? You can do the exact same thing with Star Wars and any other fictional Universe that has an officially recognized canon. "In my head-canon, Darth Vader was actually a wookie!" Is George Lucas going to sick his thought-police on me for committing such fluff heresy? No. That doesn't change the fact that imagining Darth Vader as a Wookie is an idea that doesn't jive with how the Star Wars universe has consistently been portrayed. Similarly, Timmy has all the freedom in the World to say that the Emperor is a grot, that doesn't suddenly make his interpretation of the 40K universe sensical or consistent.

You are right, but the difference is that Vader being a Wookie is a violation of the canon, whereas Timmy's traitor Blood Angels are an interpretation of the lore presented to us. If you don't care about violating canon, that's fine. In that case I guess this whole debate is irrelevant. But if you do care about canon, then the difference is that GW's loose canon policy invites interpretation and imagination, whereas Star Wars' expects adherence.

Edit: Aw, you changed your post. I see your point and don't disagree. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intended meaning of your original post. I will however insist that GW's canon policy, by its nature, invites interpretation. It's valid to say "by most accounts, Space Marines are 8 feet tall". It is also, however, valid to say "I prefer them to be 7 feet tall and interpret sources that say otherwise to be exaggerative hyperbole".

**BlaxicanX**

I edited the first part, as I realized after posting that I'd misread your claim.

My point is that ultimately there is no objective difference between "canon" and "how the creator's of a Universe think it functions". At the end of the day, there's still a specific interpretation of the Universe that's held by its creators, and your interpretation either aligns with it or does not. In both cases, there are no actual consequences for having a differing interpretation.

By the by, I wouldn't bring up anything ADB has to say on the subject. ADB is also on record for stating that the fandom's interpretations on some aspects of the fluff "are wrong" and "don't jive with the canon." Obviously he too believes that the setting has an "as intended" interpretation.

**tgjensen**

BlaxicanX wrote:
I edited the first part, as I realized after posting that I'd misread your claim.

My point is that ultimately there is no objective difference between "canon" and "how the creator's of a Universe think it functions". At the end of the day, there's still a specific interpretation of the Universe that's held by its creators, and your interpretation either aligns with it or does not. In both cases, there are no actual consequences for having a differing interpretation.

I think we are more or less in agreement in spirit, and at this point it's just a matter of semantics. But the word canon has a specific meaning, and I don't think it applies to what you describe, pretty much because we, the readers and players, are not "judged" by our adherence to the authors' concept of the 'true story' behind the fluff. We are in fact actively encouraged to interpret it. You may not care about being labelled non-canon (and I don't think you should) but a lot of people do. That's why we have all these discussions about canon, after all.
Again - Wookie Vader? That's not what happened. Non-canon, or "alternate universe" at best. Wretched, traitorous Blood Angels scum? It's possible!

Oxford Dictionary wrote:1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged:
the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity

2A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine:
the biblical canon

3 (also canon of the Mass) (In the Roman Catholic Church) the part of the Mass containing the words of consecration.

4 Music A piece in which the same melody is begun in different parts successively, so that the imitations overlap:
the very simple rhythmic structure of this double canon

But like I said, that's just semantics. I think we actually agree.

BlaxicanX wrote:
By the by, I wouldn't bring up anything ADB has said. ADB is also on record for stating that the fandom's interpretations on some aspects of the fluff "are wrong" and "don't jive with the canon."

Now I'm the one who has to ask for proof. Although mostly out of interest - either way, the meat of my quote is ADB quoting someone else, so it's that other person's credibility on the line.

**Mr. Burning**

The 1000 Marine limit works in the Iteration of 40k as a small, RPG lite, GM'd, skirmish game (Original Rogue Trader) and somewhat in 2nd edition.

Space Marines as a barely spoken of elite strike force. The majority of the Imperium not even aware of their existence except in myth. Individual Single Marines and small units appear to turn the tide of battles and insurgencies before disappearing to reequip to continue a doomed battle against mankinds innumerable enemies.

Not even mentioning the proper world ending utility of a handful of the Grey Knights (that was a narrative chapter if there ever was one).

Imagine a young player wishing he could field a full company of Marines at this stage of the games life cycle - knowing that you could never complete a game or find a table large enough to play against comparable forces.

Come 3rd edition onwards and SPACE MARINES IN SPACE, MARINES.

Marines appear to be everywhere. Black Templars get neophytes AND Marines!!!! Oh look Grey Knights start appearing everywhere too!
'Someone said Daemon!'
'No, I was calling for Damon'.
'Well, we are here now, a whole army of us!'
Its like Yellow Cake and WMD all over again.

Templars have 6000+ marines? sure, sounds good. Doesnt affect an army of plastic soldiers on a gaming table.

They only have 1000? Doesnt affect an army of plastic soldiers on a gaming table.

It doesn't affect any narrative element you may have in your head.

Particular canon and interpretation changes over time, and any player will find some aspect to suit them.

**PhillyT**

Well hold on guys, there is nothing definitive here. It can easily be a vague wave at the claimed size of the Templar. They aren't running around claiming to have 6000 marines. They tell the Inquisition and High Lords they have about 1000, which is what is desired for by those groups. The old fluff can still be equally valid since it says there are many more than that. A BL novel doesn't remove that.

**Wyzilla**

Mr. Burning wrote:
The 1000 Marine limit works in the Iteration of 40k as a small, RPG lite, GM'd, skirmish game (Original Rogue Trader) and somewhat in 2nd edition.

Space Marines as a barely spoken of elite strike force. The majority of the Imperium not even aware of their existence except in myth. Individual Single Marines and small units appear to turn the tide of battles and insurgencies before disappearing to reequip to continue a doomed battle against mankinds innumerable enemies.

Not even mentioning the proper world ending utility of a handful of the Grey Knights (that was a narrative chapter if there ever was one).

Imagine a young player wishing he could field a full company of Marines at this stage of the games life cycle - knowing that you could never complete a game or find a table large enough to play against comparable forces.

Come 3rd edition onwards and SPACE MARINES IN SPACE, MARINES.

Marines appear to be everywhere. Black Templars get neophytes AND Marines!!!! Oh look Grey Knights start appearing everywhere too!
'Someone said Daemon!'
'No, I was calling for Damon'.
'Well, we are here now, a whole army of us!'
Its like Yellow Cake and WMD all over again.

Templars have 6000+ marines? sure, sounds good. Doesnt affect an army of plastic soldiers on a gaming table.

They only have 1000? Doesnt affect an army of plastic soldiers on a gaming table.

It doesn't affect any narrative element you may have in your head.

Particular canon and interpretation changes over time, and any player will find some aspect to suit them.

No, it drastically effects the narrative by removing what made the Black Templars unique and special in the first place (refusing to acknowledge the Codex Astartes and abusing a clause on crusading chapters), not to mention completely destroys the force projection they had previously. Now instead of having the ability to slam down on enemies with the force of six chapters and thus making them highly mobile and durable..... they're now just another generic chapter of space marines who have a knack for melee. It looks like GW is just throwing salt on the wound.

**BrianDavion**

honestly if the only reason you like the black templars is because you like bragging they can zerg another chapter thats pretty silly.

Honestly 6000 Marines seems a bit much as it'd be OBVIOUSLY too big. well I'm the sure high lords, inqusition etc are willing to be flexable, and don't care about a by the letter following of the codex, I can't imagine they'd turn a blind eye to a chapter that is obviously SUBSTANTIALLY bigger. because if the BTs ever decided that ohh.. the high lords where heretics, they could with their numbers become a threat.

**PhillyT**

Thats the other thing, they got away with it because they are divided by Crusades, not companies. They NEVER dropped all of their forces on anything. To do so would have created an unavoidable situation where the Inquisition couldn't have ignored the obvious violations.

**Wyzilla**

BrianDavion wrote:
honestly if the only reason you like the black templars is because you like bragging they can zerg another chapter thats pretty silly.

Honestly 6000 Marines seems a bit much as it'd be OBVIOUSLY too big. well I'm the sure high lords, inqusition etc are willing to be flexable, and don't care about a by the letter following of the codex, I can't imagine they'd turn a blind eye to a chapter that is obviously SUBSTANTIALLY bigger. because if the BTs ever decided that ohh.. the high lords where heretics, they could with their numbers become a threat.

6,000 Black Templars are a drop in a bucket and are laughably outgunned by the Terran defenses. They wouldn't be a threat to the HLOT unless they grabbed every Imperial Fist descendent and marched on Terra with a full fleet, and even then they'd probably be stomped into the dirt.

Also, without the numbers the Black Templars don't make a lick of sense, not to mention again, it horribly nerfs their actual power by a ridiculous degree. Crusades numbering roughtly around a thousand each are serious business and can put the hurt on multiple enemies simultaneously. Crusades numbering roughly a hundred and fifty each are absolutely pathetic and could be laughed off by a lot of factions.

**Veteran Sergeant**

Wyzilla wrote:Now instead of having the ability to slam down on enemies with the force of six chapters and thus making them highly mobile and durable..... t

They never had this ability.

The only reason they got away with being illegally large was because they were spread all over the place and it was impossible to prove they had too many guys.