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.

I can agree with that.

How about if we switch out "BA wear red" with "Ultramar is semi-autonomous"?

Hmmh, Ultramar is not as recurring an aspect of the setting as the Blood Angels' armour, which we have seen a million times on countless photos and in countless descriptions over the past decades. Hence, I would imagine lots of people to have slightly differing interpretations of the exact style of governance and integration.

That said, "semi-autonomous" is still a rather vague a term to begin with... If you mean that it is comparable to other Marine fiefdoms, I suppose that might count. However, when we go even further into detail ... that's where it could get tricky.

That's exactly my point -- there is no clear distinction between what is an "established fact" and what isn't. What those ex-GWers and freelance writers are really saying boils down to "there is no canon except for what's canon."

Hm, I think it's more a case of applying different standards to themselves (or rather, products published under the license) than to the franchise as a whole (including the fans' interpretations).

But yes, a clear distinction would not exist either way. To have such a thing would require a huge tome of "official facts", and I don't think something like this exists, or can even be created without expending lots of resources on such a project.

I believe something like that did exist, at least regarding the Inquisition. But it was probably written in a deliberately distorted way, a la Xenology.

Do you mean the "Inquisition Illustrated Guide"? It's a neat book, I have it, but (a) it is very focused on Abnett's novels and (b) a Black Library product intended for customers.

I was more referring to an internal guide for the writers and editors. From what I've heard, authors can ask the editors and get suggestions etc, but that's obviously not quite as solid as a sort of "fluff bible".

Something to consider is that maybe Gav was only talking from his own opinion as an editor when he was referring to those "established facts", meaning that this is something he'd criticise in a review. Although I would hope it is more than that.

My point is, we don't need to rely on Gav Thorpe or any other individual who has or does work for, on a full time or freelance basis, GW or its affiliates or licensees to know that Blood Angels wear red rather than blue armor.

Which is probably why that is one of the lesser debated topics on dakka. The things the fluff nuts are butting heads over are way more specific, less established (meaning: not thrown in your face all the time like it is with BA = red), and thus more controversial.

Any issue of uncontradicted fluff is no more controversial than BA wearing red armor.

I'd disagree. There's certainly a difference between basically growing up seeing BA wear red armour, and some writer adding entirely new ideas.
Namely, that the latter are new, and thus may not synch well with the various interpretations of the setting we have become accustomed to.

We've all come to like the setting because it looks like it does, and any "late changes" threaten this idea and thus affect our perception of said changes.

Doesn't matter. As you said, it's not our franchise. All we can do is take uncontradicted fluff on its face value.

It's not an established fact, therefore I don't have to heed it.

Your interpretation again throws up a contradiction with the explanations we've been given by the people who create this material.
As you said, it is not our franchise.

GW just does not care about the fluff at the level of detail the fans often become interested in. In fantasy and 40k anything can be retconned.

I dont mind that a lot of RT era stuff has been retconned because the setting has evolved from a pretty silly rpg setting to a more comprehensive science fiction fantasy universe. Some stuff just needed to change. Space marines were originally more or less a bunch of mercenaries and orks were just over the top silly.

The fact that they apparently do not have a handbook of defined canonical material is absurd and a very sloppy way of managing their IP.

As far as inconsistencies in the various novels go, I just ignore them because it is GW after all and so I dont expect them to be consistent.

Regarding that sloppy management - I think I'm actually slowly coming around to see it ADB's way. The flaw lies in the fans expecting this level of consistency in the first place, when nothing GW has ever published ever evoked that idea. It was just wishful thinking in the first place, and the biggest issue is that we now "have to snap out of it".

I still have a preference for settings that actually have a canon policy, as it makes the various sources build towards a greater whole. However, I can see that the approach GW has taken has its own advantages as well, namely that it allows both writers and readers/gamers more freedom in how to see their version of the 41st millennium.
And if you think about it, for a miniatures game that thrives on customising armies and doing conversions and coming up with your own ideas for your minis, this is rather fitting, as this way "your" 40k will never be invalidated by some official product. It is an act of preservation, and meant as a service to the players.

From an interview that ADB gave for the Lord Inquisitor movie:
"Canon doesn't really exist in Warhammer 40,000. Not as it does in other licenses. The very point of the setting is to offer some structure, then open it up to personal interpretation."

 Lynata wrote:
As you said, it is not our franchise.

No need to put your words in my mouth.

JWhex wrote:
The fact that they apparently do not have a handbook of defined canonical material is absurd and a very sloppy way of managing their IP.

I generally agree. It certainly leads to some bizarre sentiments. I mean, to see Lynata's posts one would think every page of every source is totally inconsistent with every other page. That's completely false of course. 40k is rather consistent. There are some details that various authors don't trouble over too much, like how exactly a bolter works. But that's hardly important considering it is made up technology and 40k is not actually hard scifi -- that is, it's not really about how bolters work. When it comes to broad strokes, however, the things that 40k is actually about, it's quite manageable. Some contributors simply don't do their homework on every issue, that's all. But it can be done, as anyone reading Alan Bligh's masterful work in the FW books can tell. The man is real fan, however, which is quite a high standard. When Mr. Bligh writes something, one can tell he's been reading everything previously written on the subject. Even so, the setting is immense. There's tons of space and time -- and therefore room for things to fit reasonably well together.

In essence, this is entirely simple: we simply take what has been published at face value and everything that cannot fit is left to discussion. This isn't necessarily sloppy. The missing legions for example are meant to be missing. It doesn't mean that if I write fanfiction about one or both of them that said fanfiction is just as valid as something published by BL.

Manchu wrote:No need to put your words in my mouth.

My mistake, I thought you repeating them was a sign of adoption.
Still, I could have worded it in a better way.

Manchu wrote:I mean, to see Lynata's posts one would think every page of every source is totally inconsistent with every other page.

Not really. Just inconsistent enough to be a concern, at least for those of us who are interested in details. We've all seen the criticism regarding that aspect of the franchise. That 40k is "rather consistent" when it comes to what I think Gav refers to the "established facts" is not really the subject of the debate - but I do think you greatly downplay the role and the deviation of details.

Manchu wrote:Some contributors simply don't do their homework on every issue, that's all. But it can be done, as anyone reading Alan Bligh's masterful work in the FW books can tell.

Heh. "Sisters of the Blue Robe".

I'm sure it seems like a much lesser issue if one just does not notice the inconsistencies.

Manchu wrote:In essence, this is entirely simple: we simply take what has been published at face value and everything that cannot fit is left to discussion. This isn't necessarily sloppy. The missing legions for example are meant to be missing. It doesn't mean that if I write fanfiction about one or both of them that said fanfiction is just as valid as something published by BL.

The people who work at BL still disagree with you on the latter. And "everything that cannot fit" is still left up to the individual's interpretation. What if I say that there seems to be a lot in the HH novels that "cannot fit"?
It doesn't really get us anywhere, we would only argue in circles. Which is why I think that your solution is not simple at all. The easy way to do it like the people who write this stuff suggest we consume it. Not come up with complicated policies that are, in the end, just wishful thinking.

You are only quoting ex-employees and freelancers. More troublingly, what they say does not actually make sense. You put way too much stock in what comes down to a marketing plan. It is a lot simpler than that.

"More" troublingly? They are still the ones knowing what's going on. Not me, or you. We're just fans, and we can only go by what we're being told.
Also, Marc Gascoigne was still head editor of the Black Library at the time he made that statement I quoted earlier, and was commenting in that capacity.

It is simple. It is even simpler than what you came up with.
It is "everything and nothing is true".

PS: Times like these I wish dakka had a chatroom.

"Everything and nothing is true" is not a sensical statement. It is a mystical sounding excuse to change the product at any time.

If, with product, you mean the setting ... then yes. That is precisely what it's meant to do. And it is insofar sensical in that Wh40k is not some coherent saga (see also "why doesn't the timeline move forward?") but a playground for our individual ideas and preferences.

In essence, for this discussion, I think the core difference between you and me (in my current position) - and in extension between you and the writers of these novels - is that you see the setting as something it isn't supposed to be/deliver.

I've already quoted Andy Hoare's explanation earlier, but here you have similar words from Gav Thorpe:
"I think that Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 have a unique advantage in the realm of tie-in backgrounds: they exist to allow personal creativity. Both are backdrops, nothing more. They were created to allow people to collect armies of toy soldiers and fight battles with them. They were conceived with the idea of the player’s creative freedom being directed but not restricted."

And crystal-clear:
"Perhaps you disagree with the portrayal of a certain faction, or a facet of their society doesn’t make sense in your version of the world. You may not like the answers presented, but in asking the question you can come up with a solution that matches your vision. As long as certain central themes and principles remain, you can pick and choose which parts you like and dislike."

There again, just as with "established facts," we have "as long as certain central themes and principles remain." Which are those?

Also, Mr. Thorpe's basic assumption is no longer correct: the fiction is no longer just pushing toy soldiers. It's become a money maker in its own right and things have begun to change accordingly. With the HH series, for example, there is an expectation of continuity across multiple authors. The "next book" just doesn't work without taking into about the others.

I think you'll find that since Mr. Gascoigne was at Bl there has been something of a change of view , in part, with regards to continuity.

I think they're following more or less that attitude for the regular/general releases but are not adopting it for the HH.

Hence the planning sessions and detailed notes they have on what is what, who is who and so on.

You'll note that the Visions of Heresy book is getting a reprint later this year

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Visions-Heresy-The-Horus/dp/1849702152

From the ashes of the Great Crusade, treachery was born. Always first among the superhuman primarchs, the newly dubbed Warmaster Horus turned his back upon the Emperor and embraced the dark powers of Chaos. With fully half the military might of the fledgling Imperium at his command, he set his sights upon the throne of Holy Terra and waged a war which would divide the galaxy forever...Visions of war, visions of darkness, of treachery and death - all of this and more is contained within this heretical volume. Iconic depictions of the Space Marine Legions and the heroes that commanded them are presented alongside artwork from renowned artists Neil Robert, as well as brand new historical notes on the Warhammer 40,000 universe by Alan Merrett. Witness the end of an era and the beginning of something far darker, as the Heresy continues to unfold.

note the underlining.

This version is also revised and in parts rewritten to tally with the HH books we've had/are getting..

I know at least one of the poor BL staff spent AGES correcting and fixing incorrectly labelled pieces of art.

I gather some of the more .... interpretative ..... pieces of artwork will have been replaced too.

It would seem that for the HH series -- and to an extent the ToL series in the Warhammer Fantasy setting -- there is indeed a specific canon/continuity.

... this year anyway.

It makes sense to allow "more room" for the general release stuff since those stories have very little context as regarding one another (at least as between series). But in a series, like the HH series, book 3 does not make sense if book 2 is a contradictory, equally valid "legend." Continuity does not exclude perspective, either -- as we have seen in A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns.

Anyhow, I'm not suggesting there is a hard and fast canon as with something like Star Wars. Rather, I'm saying for the purposes of discussion, we can only take what's published at its face value and when there is no contradiction that means taking it for "what happened."

Manchu wrote:There again, just as with "established facts," we have "as long as certain central themes and principles remain." Which are those?

Ask him.

Although, as mentioned before, I don't think they would be able to give you a precise answer, for I believe this to be a rather grey area that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, so it makes no sense to continuously ask for a true definition. As an example, however, I would say that things such as "the capital of the Imperium is Terra", "the Emperor is a half-dead husk in a permanent vegetative state", or "the four big Chaos Gods are Slaanesh, Khorne, Nurgle, and Tzeentch" are indeed "established facts", and that no book that says otherwise would be approved. The more it gets into details, however, every editor working at the BL will have his or her own idea of what still fits, and what is too much, just like we do.

For the purpose of the debate, we can only work with what we are being told. Or you can continue to make up your own stuff, but don't expect anyone to see that in the same light as the statements made by the people who make this stuff.

Manchu wrote:Also, Mr. Thorpe's basic assumption is no longer correct: the fiction is no longer just pushing toy soldiers. It's become a money maker in its own right and things have begun to change accordingly. With the HH series, for example, there is an expectation of continuity across multiple authors. The "next book" just doesn't work without taking into about the others.

This is still just wishful thinking. Black Library books have always been a money maker in their own right, else they would not be made. How much money they make, especially in comparison to the miniatures line, is something that (a) we do not know and (b) apparently did not change anything as far as GW is concerned - feel free to find a BL author saying otherwise. The majority of the quotes provided are fairly new, especially the ones from the HH authors themselves.
And, as we know, for quite a lot of people, there is also an expectation of continuity across multiple authors outside of the HH series. Expectations do not change the facts, though. As I said, it is this expectation which is the mistake. The fans are wrong here.

reds8n wrote:It would seem that for the HH series -- and to an extent the ToL series in the Warhammer Fantasy setting -- there is indeed a specific canon/continuity.

I actually agree that - to specific series - an expectation of continuity is not only understandable but should be a matter-of-course. In fact, ADB himself suggested as much:
"Interestingly, as creators in this setting, we’re under no strict obligation to reference one another, and cooperation is usually self-driven. (The exception to this is the Horus Heresy series, which is extremely well-organised, and all of us are in constant communication.) Sure, editorial prefers it when stuff ties in together, but it’s not a mandate. Everyone views the setting differently, after all."

What I'm saying is that the continuity that may or may not exist within the Horus Heresy books or any other series has no meaning whatsoever outside this limited scope. In essence, all HH novels ever should be treated as if they were a single book. It should be inernally consistent, but the contents are not any more valid or invalid than any other source. This is also not in contradiction to Mr. Gascoigne's explanation.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:There again, just as with "established facts," we have "as long as certain central themes and principles remain." Which are those?

Ask him.

Why? He's not a BL editor or GW IP manager or executive.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Also, Mr. Thorpe's basic assumption is no longer correct: the fiction is no longer just pushing toy soldiers. It's become a money maker in its own right and things have begun to change accordingly. With the HH series, for example, there is an expectation of continuity across multiple authors. The "next book" just doesn't work without taking into about the others.

This is still just wishful thinking.

No it's not, as reds8n demonstrated.

 Lynata wrote:
In essence, all HH novels ever should be treated as if they were a single book..

This is demonstrably false -- see e.g., A Thousand Sons and Propsero Burns.

Manchu wrote:Why? He's not a BL editor or GW IP manager or executive.

Given that he is in regular contact with them, and had them explain it to him, he'd still know more than me. Or you.

Manchu wrote:No it's not, as reds8n demonstrated.

He did not demonstrate anything in conflict with my post. Where is this proof for GW's supposed change of stance? I don't see it.

Manchu wrote:This is demonstrably false -- see e.g., A Thousand Sons and Propsero Burns.

Demonstrate, then.

PS: If I wanted to nitpick ... from the description that reds8n quoted:
"Visions of war, visions of darkness, of treachery and death - all of this and more is contained within this heretical volume."

Vision =/= Accurate Portrayal

 Manchu wrote:
This is demonstrably false -- see e.g., A Thousand Sons and Propsero Burns.

I think this was in reference just to internal consistancy. A single book can portray the same events from different viewpoints. In which case, I agree that the HH must be treated as a different beast from the rest of 40k. In this way, I would treat any individual 40k series with the same level of internal consistancy, whether it be Gaunt's Ghosts, Night Lords, or Salamanders. However, those different series would not need to be consistant with each other, nor with any other stand-alone books such as the space marine battle books.

jareddm wrote:
In this way, I would treat any individual 40k series with the same level of internal consistancy, whether it be Gaunt's Ghosts, Night Lords, or Salamanders. However, those different series would not need to be consistant with each other, nor with any other stand-alone books such as the space marine battle books.

Agreed -- as I said:

 Manchu wrote:
It makes sense to allow "more room" for the general release stuff since those stories have very little context as regarding one another (at least as between series). But in a series, like the HH series, book 3 does not make sense if book 2 is a contradictory, equally valid "legend." Continuity does not exclude perspective, either -- as we have seen in A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No it's not, as reds8n demonstrated.

He did not demonstrate anything in conflict with my post. Where is this proof for GW's supposed change of stance? I don't see it.

Did you ever read Visions of Heresy? Do you even know what it is? Apparently you did not understand why reds8n underlined the part about Merrett. The short of it is, Visions of Heresy was a set of books publishing artwork from the HH card game alongside of text by various BL authors and Alan Merrett, who had an editorial role as some kind of IP manager. There are captions in the original collected Visions that are now contradicted by the HH novels. Reds8n pointed out that the previous captions are now being revised by Merrett.

Since I know you'll be interested:

As one of Games Workshop's longest serving employees, Alan Merrett has held many important posts over the years - from being in charge of miniatures design, the production studio, the Golden Demon awards and the Black Library - to his current position overseeing the development of Games Workshop's wealth of intellectual proprety. Underpinning all these key roles has been his complete enthusiasm for the model soldier - an enthusiasm which has resulted in Alan being one of the driving forces behind Games Workshop's imagery.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Authors/Alan-Merrett.html

To me at least, I thought it was fairly obvious that A Thousand Sons/Prospero Burns were much more perspective than omniscient narration? I felt it was quite clear in the way they were written...