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.

He was born to a family in a village which is fact as he showed RA, it was way after as they had agriculture, dogs had been domesticated, they had mud huts, clay pots. they also had bronze swords etc so it was the bronze age at the time of his childhood.

“The boy who would be king held his father’s skull in his hands. He turned it slowly, running his fingertips across the contours of skinless bone. A thumb, still browned with field dirt, traced across the blunt ivory pegs of the gap-toothed death smile. He lifted his eyes to the stone shelf where the other skulls sat in silent vigil. They stared into the hut’s gloomy confines, their eyes replaced by smooth stones, their faces restored with the crude artistry of clay. It was the boy’s place to remake his father’s face in the same way, sculpting the familiar features with wet mud and slow swipes of a flint knife, then letting the skull bake dry in the high sun. The boy thought he might use sea shells for the eyes, if he could barter with the coastal traders for two that were smooth enough. He would do this soon. Such things were tradition. First he needed answers. He turned the skull once more, circling his thumb around the ragged hole broken into the bone. He didn’t need to close his eyes and meditate to know the truth. He didn’t need to pray for his father’s spirit to tell him what happened. He simply touched the hole in his father’s head, and at once he knew. He saw the fall of the bronze knife from behind; he saw his father fall into the mud; he saw everything that had happened leading to this moment in time. The boy who would be king rose from the floor of his family’s hut and walked out into the settlement, his father’s skull clutched in one hand. Mud-brick huts lined both sides of the river. The wheat-fields to the east were a patchwork sea of dark gold beneath the eye of the setting sun. The village was never truly quiet, even after the day’s work was done. Families talked and laughed and fought. Dogs barked for attention and whined for food. The wind set the scrubland trees to singing, with the hiss of leaves and the creak of branches forming their eternal song. A ragged dog growled as the boy passed, yet fled yelping when he gave it no more than a glance. A carrion bird, hunchbacked and evil of eye, cried out above the village." - master of mankind

Plus he planned to go to the cradle of civilisation, the city of Uruk (the first city) which is 5000 BC, after that village.

"The boy’s momentary silence told Ra that he had guessed wrong. ‘We are not far removed from those
beginnings, Ra, either in distance or time. You could walk to the cradle of civilisation from here, where
men and women made the very first city. When I leave this village, that is where I will go. That journey is
coming soon. But no, that is not what I mean when I speak of beginnings.’
The boy turned the skull over in his hands, just as he had done in the hut before. ‘This is where I first
learned the truth behind our species. This very eve, as I held my father’s skull and considered how to
restore his features according to our burial rites. When I learned of his murder, it was a revelation into the
heart of all of mankind. This is a world that has no need of you yet, Ra. It has no need for Imperial
bodyguards, for it is a world that knows nothing of emperors, or warlords, or conquerors. And therefore it
knows nothing of unity. Nothing of law."

Tonnes of evidence showing that he lived during the bronze age so actually after the rogue trader 8,000 BC. 3000-1200 BC is when he would have been born. Depending on accounts of the first bronze knife probably around 1900 BC.

It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.

GW don't tell black library writers what to write. This isn't conflicting as it replaces the rogue trader lore plus it comes from the Emperor so its fact in the lore now. You can't just dismiss it because, the Emperor is mysterious. Are you also going to dismiss his interaction with Drach'nyn because he's mysterious. You'll just need to accept it.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.

GW don't tell black library writers what to write. This isn't conflicting as it replaces the rogue trader lore plus it comes from the Emperor so its fact in the lore now. You can't just dismiss it because, the Emperor is mysterious. Are you also going to dismiss his interaction with Drach'nyn because he's mysterious.

Actually isn't that text you quoted from BL? If GW doesn't tell what to write that means BL isn't ultimate source for canon and thus GW written text trumps BL text.

Aaand of course. Wasn't that scene Emperor showing RA rather than Emperor's internal thoughts? If so that actually is zero proof. After all Emperor never ever EVER lied about anything oh no! You can obviously take his words at face value. Not at all previous record of lying for his purpose oh no.

We have actually zero direct undisputable evidence one way or another.

tneva82 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.

GW don't tell black library writers what to write. This isn't conflicting as it replaces the rogue trader lore plus it comes from the Emperor so its fact in the lore now. You can't just dismiss it because, the Emperor is mysterious. Are you also going to dismiss his interaction with Drach'nyn because he's mysterious.

Actually isn't that text you quoted from BL? If GW doesn't tell what to write that means BL isn't ultimate source for canon and thus GW written text trumps BL text.

Aaand of course. Wasn't that scene Emperor showing RA rather than Emperor's internal thoughts? If so that actually is zero proof. After all Emperor never ever EVER lied about anything oh no! You can obviously take his words at face value. Not at all previous record of lying for his purpose oh no.

We have actually zero direct undisputable evidence one way or another.

Yeah but the person I replied to called it GW, so I just made things simple rather than explaining something he already knows. Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL. The Emperor says himself and you are not taking that as proof, this just incredibly ridiculous. Why on earth would the Emperor lie in this case. If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong. Until a writer writes a new novel in which the Emperor said 'ah I just lied about that', its fact. Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k. I already regret this thread because here comes the 'nothing in the lore is concrete' 'nothing about the Emperor us true because he's mysterious, even when he shows people his past.' facile logic. The Emperor could literally say, I was born to shamans in the bronze age and show his birth certificate and tell people his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries and people would say 'we can't take that as concrete' lol

All this thread did for me was to wish we'd hurry up and adopt the Holocene calendar already.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All this thread did for me was to wish we'd hurry up and adopt the Holocene calendar already.

The what?

pm713 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All this thread did for me was to wish we'd hurry up and adopt the Holocene calendar already.

The what?

The Holocene calendar, also known as the Holocene Era or Human Era (HE), is a year numbering system that adds exactly 10,000 years to the currently dominant (AD/BC or CE/BCE) numbering scheme, placing its first year near the beginning of the Holocene geological epoch and the Neolithic Revolution, when humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture and fixed settlements.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All this thread did for me was to wish we'd hurry up and adopt the Holocene calendar already.

The what?

The Holocene calendar, also known as the Holocene Era or Human Era (HE), is a year numbering system that adds exactly 10,000 years to the currently dominant (AD/BC or CE/BCE) numbering scheme, placing its first year near the beginning of the Holocene geological epoch and the Neolithic Revolution, when humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture and fixed settlements.

Yeah but bronze technology was between 3000-1200BC so nope.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Yeah but the person I replied to called it GW, so I just made things simple rather than explaining something he already knows. Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL. The Emperor says himself and you are not taking that as proof, this just incredibly ridiculous. Why on earth would the Emperor lie in this case. If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong. Until a writer writes a new novel in which the Emperor said 'ah I just lied about that', its fact. Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k. I already regret this thread because here comes the 'nothing in the lore is concrete' 'nothing about the Emperor us true because he's mysterious, even when he shows people his past.' facile logic. The Emperor could literally say, I was born to shamans in the bronze age and show his birth certificate and tell people his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries and people would say 'we can't take that as concrete' lol

Eh BL being separate means BL doesn't actually automatically override...

And Emperor says himself BUT HE SAYS IT TO ANOTHER PERSON! Emperor says many things to many people. He claims to primarch they are his truest followers. Then he goes and says same thing to custodes. Both statements CANNOT be true. That means he LIED to one person.

I can say I am god. Does that mean I am god? Or does that mean I'm lying?

"Third person omiscient novel". Okay so Emperor says always the truth even when he's clearly lying. Good logic you have.

We have multiple instances of Emperor flat out LYING TO PEOPLE yet you take whatever he says to another person at face value. Okay I hope you don't get Nigerian letters seeing how you buy up instantly whatever story you are told to without thinking that "maybe known lier is lying once more"

Whole point of 40k fluff is that it's not set in stone. IT IS MEANT FOR PLAYERS TO DO THEIR OWN STORIES! Why you are looking at definities with zero mysteries when that goes against the root concept of the whole 40k setting?

tneva82 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Yeah but the person I replied to called it GW, so I just made things simple rather than explaining something he already knows. Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL. The Emperor says himself and you are not taking that as proof, this just incredibly ridiculous. Why on earth would the Emperor lie in this case. If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong. Until a writer writes a new novel in which the Emperor said 'ah I just lied about that', its fact. Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k. I already regret this thread because here comes the 'nothing in the lore is concrete' 'nothing about the Emperor us true because he's mysterious, even when he shows people his past.' facile logic. The Emperor could literally say, I was born to shamans in the bronze age and show his birth certificate and tell people his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries and people would say 'we can't take that as concrete' lol

Eh BL being separate means BL doesn't actually automatically override...

And Emperor says himself BUT HE SAYS IT TO ANOTHER PERSON! Emperor says many things to many people. He claims to primarch they are his truest followers. Then he goes and says same thing to custodes. Both statements CANNOT be true. That means he LIED to one person.

I can say I am god. Does that mean I am god? Or does that mean I'm lying?

"Third person omiscient novel". Okay so Emperor says always the truth even when he's clearly lying. Good logic you have.

We have multiple instances of Emperor flat out LYING TO PEOPLE yet you take whatever he says to another person at face value. Okay I hope you don't get Nigerian letters seeing how you buy up instantly whatever story you are told to without thinking that "maybe known lier is lying once more"

I didn't say BL automatically overrides, I said it trumps 30 years lore.

"And Emperor says himself BUT HE SAYS IT TO ANOTHER PERSON! Emperor says many things to many people. He claims to primarch they are his truest followers. Then he goes and says same thing to custodes. Both statements CANNOT be true. That means he LIED to one person." So what, just because he lied there doesn't mean he always lies lol Many characters lie in HH and 40k, but just because the Emperor is mysterious oooohhhhhhhhh, you can't take what he says on face value, jesus you must be fun debating the lore. The Emperor told Magnus not to use sorcery, ah he always lies therefore Magnus was right to do what he did. The Emperor wanted the webway destroyed.

I can say I am god. Does that mean I am god? Or does that mean I'm lying? Yes it means you are lying. The Emperor never said he was a god.

Again just because he lied doesn't mean he is always lying lol Explain why he would lie about that. You logic is 'if someone lies, they always lie' if you gave me a reasonable and logic example of why he would lie to Ra then I might take you seriously. Do you know how you know he lied, because its in the lore. Show me lore where the Emperor says he is lying or tells a Primarch that he was born Jupiter to his mother Zeebo and his father Zog.

Previous lore says 8000BC, this lore says 300-1200BC - that is the most insane thing I've ever heard, he's lying. He wanted Ra to know he was born then, even though Ra has no ability to tell what time he is born in because pretty much all earth history is lost as it is 32,000 AD. I mean Ra is an old earth historian and all.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL.

That's not how it works. There is no defined method of what overrides what. It is all canon, and canon may be contradictory. Nolan's Batman films did not override Burton's Batman films, they're just a different versions of the same basic story. It is canon that Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named Ollanius, it is also canon that he was saved in that same situation by a Imperial Fist terminator, it is also canon that he was saved by a Custodian. So take your pick, or embrace the ambiguity!

If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong.

It's a story. The format of the story does not make it any less or more true. Iliad is not more accurate account of ancient Greece than history books even though it written from character level.

Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k.

Now you're getting it!

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL.

That's not how it works. There is no defined method of what overrides what. It is all canon, and canon may be contradictory. Nolan's Batman films did not override Burton's Batman films, they're just a different versions of the same basic story. It is canon that Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named Ollanius, it is also canon that he was saved in that same situation by a Imperial Fist terminator, it is also canon that he was saved by a Custodian. So take your pick, or embrace the ambiguity!

If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong.

It's a story. The format of the story does not make it any less or more true. Iliad is not more accurate account of ancient Greece than history books even though it written from character level.

Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k.

Now you're getting it!

No its not, GW said the codex lore trumps BL lore. Its not all cannon, Space Marines used to feel fear, they now don't. You have to have common sense and be logical about lore or there is no point in talking to a person like that about the lore. Its fine to say, yeah but rogue trader stated this etc. Its only all relative if there is no definitive answer like Oll and the IF terminator or what the Emperor looks like. The Illad was never a defined piece. It was written probably as history, though we know obviously its mythology. We don't live in the time of the Illiad so we know if a book is fiction or fact, or third person or omniscient.

No I'm not getting it, that is just incredibly stupid. If its all implicit why read it. Its like reading a novel that all the way through it says a. happened then b happened but c also said that d happened but could either have happened, then e. happened and f. but again either could have happened. The Dannans invaded Troy, or did they.

When has GW said that codex lore trumps BL lore? (I mean it definitely does in my head canon, but I don't remember ever hearing anything official about that.)

But your mistake is thinking that 40K has one consitent continuity, it does not. The thing about Emperor's past may be one way in one book and another way in other book. Studio fluff seems to be pretty consistent with itself, so you can probably treat it as one whole. Things like BL books, RPGs and computer games are adaptations though, and are not necessarily consistent with the studio fluff. BL books from different authors are not even consistent with each other.

This is why I make these comic book comparisons, it is kinda like that. MCU is not consistent with X-Men films and neirher are consistent with Marvel Comics. So a things that are 'true' in HH books are not necessarily true in GW studio fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the actual passage, yes a bronze knife would
place it in 5th millennium BC in the earliest. Then again, maybe it was a mistake and it was a copper knife? And this is Emperor reminiscing much later right? If it has really been tens of thousands of years, his memory may not be that accurate...

Then again, maybe it was not that long time ago at all. The description could fit a primitive society in any era, perhaps during the Age of Strife...

I think ADB put it well: "...40K is historical fiction, just from a future history. "

 Crimson wrote:
When has GW said that codex lore trumps BL lore? (I mean it definitely does in my head canon, but I don't remember ever hearing anything official about that.)

But your mistake is thinking that 40K has one consitent continuity, it does not. The thing about Emperor's past may be one way in one book and another way in other book. Studio fluff seems to be pretty consistent with itself, so you can probably treat it as one whole. Things like BL books, RPGs and computer games are adaptations though, and are not necessarily consistent with the studio fluff. BL books from different authors are not even consistent with each other.

This is why I make these comic book comparisons, it is kinda like that. MCU is not consistent with X-Men films and neirher are consistent with Marvel Comics. So a things that are 'true' in HH books are not necessarily true in GW studio fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the actual passage, yes a bronze knife would
place it in 5th millennium BC in the earliest. Then again, maybe it was a mistake and it was a copper knife? And this is Emperor reminiscing much later right? If it has really been tens of thousands of years, his memory may not be that accurate...

Then again, maybe it was not that long time ago at all. The description could fit a primitive society in any era, perhaps during the Age of Strife...

No, you like to view the lore as interchangeable. But you don't even believe that, because you know fine well that you hold 'definitive and explicit' lore. You know the Emperor is on the golden throne and you would never dispute that. See people that try and push this, its all interchangeable; there is no concrete lore, only say that when they have been proven wrong on something in the past and use this as an excuse, because where you would get logic like that is beyond me. You hold concrete beliefs but when you don't like the lore or someone proves you wrong you decide its all subjective and implicit.

Are you also going to be skeptical of the Emperor sitting on the throne because some author could write a novel disputing that, saying it was a dream.

Yeah, Black Library and GW just don't have a consistent continuity, nor do they have any sort of overarching guidance for their authors. Looking for internal consistency is a fool's errand.

Also, taking historical evidence from that scene isn't proof of anything when you consider the author may well have been unaware of the inconsistencies in his description.

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, Black Library and GW just don't have a consistent continuity, nor do they have any sort of overarching guidance for their authors. Looking for internal consistency is a fool's errand.

Also, taking historical evidence from that scene isn't proof of anything when you consider the author may well have been unaware of the inconsistencies in his description.

Yes there is consistency and we ally it ourselves nearly all 40k fans will agree that really old lore like rogue trader is out of date and will go with current lore unless that lore hasn't been replaced. Most people take a logical approach of new lore trumps old lore. Are toy going to follow 4th edition fluff in the codex when the 8th edition codex contradicts it? No, yeah because that's the logical thing to do.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


No, you like to view the lore as interchangeable. But you don't even believe that, because you know fine well that you hold 'definitive and explicit' lore. You know the Emperor is on the golden throne and you would never dispute that. See people that try and push this, its all interchangeable; there is no concrete lore, only say that when they have been proven wrong on something in the past and use this as an excuse, because where you would get logic like that is beyond me. You hold concrete beliefs but when you don't like the lore or someone proves you wrong you decide its all subjective and implicit.

Yes, there are some core facts that are basic building blocks of the setting that are effectively immutable. Just like Bruce Wayne's parents are killed and he eventually becomes a vigilante wearing a funny costume and is called Batman. But with each adaptation the details differ. Do you have a problem with this too? Do you agonise over how details from Gotham TV series line up with Nolan's Batman films?

Are you also going to be skeptical of the Emperor sitting on the throne because some author could write a novel disputing that, saying it was a dream.

And about that spcific thing, the core fact is that the Imperium's populace believes that the Emperor sits on the Golden Throne. But who knows, maybe the original Emperor died seven thousand years ago. Since then the Custodes have been changing powerful psykers to the throne like one changes a lightbulb. There is a giant unmarked pile of bones behind the Imperial Palace containing the remains of all the occupants of the Trone. The original Emperor's bones lie at the bottom of it.

Despite GW's past cop-out statement, it is clear there is a de-facto unofficial canon of sorts in use by GW and BL, even if the boundaries of that are indistinct. For example, you will never see a bolter portrayed as shooting "laser bolts" as opposed to what are effectively gyrojets. If somehow someone did write that, they would be told they got it wrong rather than they gave a valid interpretation of what Space Marines fire from their guns. Having immutable facts is the definition of canon. It is a loose canon because it is riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and retcons. The cop-out statement was more an excuse of editor laziness and sloppiness.

However any information given by any in-character in-universe source is always inherently suspect because they are fallible sources and may have other motives for not portraying the truth assuming they know what it is. The Emperor is an in-universe source. Visions are also potentially fallible sources as well.

The Emperor had a past...but what that is we as readers are not entirely certain because aside from the old Rogue Trader information (which was conveyed in OOC narrator format), all the rest of it has been in the form of in-character in-universe sources. At most we can say the Emperor showed or claimed certain things about himself, but whether that is really the truth, we cannot say. Having canon does not mean everything has to be known or revealed.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Previous lore says 8000BC, this lore says 300-1200BC

The only thing in the passage you quoted that doesn't fit with the old lore is the bronze knife. Everything else was around in the Neolithic. The earliest bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (yes, humans made arsenical bronze artefacts before the 'official' start of the Bronze Age).

Master of Mankind also refers to the 'First City' being near to the Emperor's birthplace (i.e. in Anatolia) and having just recently been founded. This would probably be Çatalhöyük, which might have existed as far back as 8000 BCE (or maybe Göbekli Tepe, which was certainly around by then but probably wasn't big enough to be called a city). By the Bronze Age, though, there were lots of cities and nobody would be likely to remember which one was the 'first'. The 'First City' thing is strong evidence that we're still in the Neolithic.

I actually think ADB just made a mistake and it was supposed to be a copper knife (copper was already in use in 8000 BCE).

The thing about the shamans is the truth.

Stop the spewing of misinformation, heretics.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Previous lore says 8000BC, this lore says 300-1200BC

The only thing in the passage you quoted that doesn't fit with the old lore is the bronze knife. Everything else was around in the Neolithic. The earliest bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (yes, humans made arsenical bronze artefacts before the 'official' start of the Bronze Age).

Master of Mankind also refers to the 'First City' being near to the Emperor's birthplace (i.e. in Anatolia) and having just recently been founded. This would probably be Çatalhöyük, which might have existed as far back as 8000 BCE (or maybe Göbekli Tepe, which was certainly around by then but probably wasn't big enough to be called a city). By the Bronze Age, though, there were lots of cities and nobody would be likely to remember which one was the 'first'. The 'First City' thing is strong evidence that we're still in the Neolithic.

I actually think ADB just made a mistake and it was supposed to be a copper knife (copper was already in use in 8000 BCE).

That seems the most likely thing to me as well. Black Library don't exactly fact check everything they do. Hence why we have Tyranids and casualties for planet wide war being a few million.

Also, IIRC, the old lore actually gave the Emperor's birth date as "the 8th millennium BCE", not specifically 8000 BCE. So that could be anything from 8000 to 7001, which means Çatalhöyük could certainly be the 'First City' mentioned without having to fudge the chronology at all (archaeologists date its founding to c.7500 BCE).

Yeah, I'm even more certain that bronze knife is just a mistake. Literally everything else the Emperor shows Ra indicates he was born in the 8th millennium BCE in Anatolia.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Previous lore says 8000BC, this lore says 300-1200BC

The only thing in the passage you quoted that doesn't fit with the old lore is the bronze knife. Everything else was around in the Neolithic. The earliest bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (yes, humans made arsenical bronze artefacts before the 'official' start of the Bronze Age).

Master of Mankind also refers to the 'First City' being near to the Emperor's birthplace (i.e. in Anatolia) and having just recently been founded. This would probably be Çatalhöyük, which might have existed as far back as 8000 BCE (or maybe Göbekli Tepe, which was certainly around by then but probably wasn't big enough to be called a city). By the Bronze Age, though, there were lots of cities and nobody would be likely to remember which one was the 'first'. The 'First City' thing is strong evidence that we're still in the Neolithic.

I actually think ADB just made a mistake and it was supposed to be a copper knife (copper was already in use in 8000 BCE).

And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin. As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


No, you like to view the lore as interchangeable. But you don't even believe that, because you know fine well that you hold 'definitive and explicit' lore. You know the Emperor is on the golden throne and you would never dispute that. See people that try and push this, its all interchangeable; there is no concrete lore, only say that when they have been proven wrong on something in the past and use this as an excuse, because where you would get logic like that is beyond me. You hold concrete beliefs but when you don't like the lore or someone proves you wrong you decide its all subjective and implicit.

Yes, there are some core facts that are basic building blocks of the setting that are effectively immutable. Just like Bruce Wayne's parents are killed and he eventually becomes a vigilante wearing a funny costume and is called Batman. But with each adaptation the details differ. Do you have a problem with this too? Do you agonise over how details from Gotham TV series line up with Nolan's Batman films?

Are you also going to be skeptical of the Emperor sitting on the throne because some author could write a novel disputing that, saying it was a dream.

And about that spcific thing, the core fact is that the Imperium's populace believes that the Emperor sits on the Golden Throne. But who knows, maybe the original Emperor died seven thousand years ago. Since then the Custodes have been changing powerful psykers to the throne like one changes a lightbulb. There is a giant unmarked pile of bones behind the Imperial Palace containing the remains of all the occupants of the Trone. The original Emperor's bones lie at the bottom of it.

Yeah and how do 'you' decide what are core facts I decide by making sure there are no contradictions, that it is written explicitly and is not written as a belief or something that might or might not be true, or is implied as a lie etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any other subject other than the Emperor or the Warp and everyone has the same outlook. Mention the Emperor or Chaos and we stop talking about the lore and start debating the fundamentals of epistemology.

Someone writes a thread, 'Kruze told Sevatar that he hated his legion." everyone looks up Shadows of Treacheries and concludes 'yep he certainly did,' Change the name to the Emperor and the subject to his birth etc. 'he's lying, cause mystery' I literally only get this kind of feedback when its the Emperor or the Warp.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.

Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.

As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.

You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.

This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.

There was a wrist watch in Ben-Hur so it must be set in the 20th century... Or you know, sometimes mistakes happen.

 Crimson wrote:
There was a wrist watch in Ben-Hur so it must be set in the 20th century... Or you know, sometimes mistakes happen.

I doubt the people writing for GW, FW or BL have the knowledge available to write consistently and catch minor details like this. I mean as pointed out they fudge their army and war numbers terribly when all it would take to add some realism is type WW2 into wikipedia and look up some numbers. Now we're expecting them to open multiple wikipedia pages to look up bronze and copper when they seem to be incapable of even opening one. Its fiction, not gospel, they can't keep up with their own writing half the time.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.

Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.

As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.

You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.

This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.

Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?

Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.

I'd go more likely that the author got a relatively minor detail wrong.