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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Your examples are pointless and nitpicky (Daemonhunter doesn’t cover all the ground the GK Codex does therefore they’re in opposition to one another? What? A throw-away WD Codex doesn’t contain all the stuff about faith that’s in Blood Of Martyrs, therefore BOM is an alternate universe? The 'Immortal' line? Come on... no one thinks Marines are immortal, and nothing was 'debunked' by anything), and you continue to be flat out wrong about this. Your constant appeals to authority ("You're calling ABD a liar!") don't help either.

Whilst you have a point about Daemonhunter, the other two examples just don't work the way you claim. The throw-away WD Codex (which, in spite of its pityfully small size is still a source of fluff), continueing the stance of the 3E WH Codex, does not just "not contain all the stuff about faith" - it is in direct opposition to how BoM claims that stuff works. So, yes, if one source says that the Sisters' abilities are merely psychological in nature, and the other source says that they're space magicians that can shoot light out of their eyes, then I daresay that the differences in depiction are notable enough to warrant saying that it's "two worlds".
Also, if the FFG material doesn't claim that Marines are immortal, why does it use the term "mortal" for non-Marines? To me, it does imply something that is supposed to differentiate between the two groups. And there are certainly enough Marine fans who think that's true. Do I really need to dig out the threads dakka had about this topic? Do you want me to dig through the Deathwatch forums?

As for my "appeals to authority" - you have attempted to establish yourself as an authority on the subject in this very thread yourself, so why are you condemning me for making use of statements made by other people? In my opinion, this is nothing condemnable. It's knowledge, after all, and why should we not use all the sources available to us to settle a conflict in opinion/interpretation? I thought this is how debates work.

I remain convinced that what you say is "many sandboxes" is a fallacy. If you have many sandboxes, then you also have many worlds. Certainly there's an overlap between them, and surely they all share some important basics (otherwise GW wouldn't greenlight them indeed), but that does not change what someone who actually did the greenlighting process had to say on the subject, even though you continue to ignore it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You recently stated that there’s a GW ‘version’ of the Deathwatch and an FFG ‘version’ of the Deathwatch. This is false as it implies that an organisation must operate in exactly the same way across the entire galaxy. ADB recently talked about the Horus Heresy lacking scope, and how, in SW, he found it hard to believe that a Bounty Hunter could become galactically famous given the scope of the universe. Now in the case of SW there is a reason for that (FTL travel is so insanely fast as is galactic communications, so their galaxy is ‘smaller’ in the same sense that our world has become ‘smaller’ with the advent of the Internet). To assume that the Deathwatch are the same everywhere ignores the scope of 40K.
There is no FFG ‘version’ of the Deathwatch. What FFG have is the Deathwatch of the Jericho Reach. If they only act that way in the Jericho Reach, then that doesn’t contradict the greater concept of the Deathwatch organisation, and nor does anything else they’ve written.

I disagree. Neither did FFG make any attempt to point out that the Jericho Reach'es Deathwatch is in any way special (need I remind you that their entire description was about the Deathwatch?), nor am I able to just swallow the claim that the massive discrepancies in hierarchy, allegiance, force projection capabilities and equipment can be explained using the usual "the galaxy is a big place" excuse. If it would work that way, I could just as well go and write a book about how the Black Templars in some part of the galaxy wear blue armour and have a heart for their insignia rather than a cross. I'm not sure people would agree this is "the same 40k". Just because the majority of gamers apparently does not know how the Deathwatch is portrayed in GW's old fluff (due to it only being available in non-current issues of White Dwarf and the Index Astartes book), and thus do not notice the differences, does not mean they do not exist.

Also, I am fairly sure FFG's Deathwatch would need to have those Battle Barges and Exterminatus Kill-Ships before they came to the Jericho Reach. It's not like they have been there for that long, yes?

H.B.M.C. wrote:40K has inconsistencies, retcons and outright contradictions. The source of those three types of instance is irrelevant.

This is the -one- thing we agree on.

Manchu wrote:First, we know there is no strict canon. That is not the issue. [...] Pieces that do not fit are mistakes.

Is this not the issue, really? I think it is.
If we do not have a strict canon, then we do have multiple interpretations of the setting - which means multiple worlds. What I have been saying all along. I'd also hazard a guess that HBMC would not call pieces that do not fit "mistakes" (after all, GW has to approve of everything, no?) although I'd certainly like to hear his detailed opinion on this statement.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because things that are different (and I mean really different, and not 'GW never said Marine Bolters differ from Guard Bolters!') aren't allowed. Deviate from what GW wants, and it doesn't go to print. It's their IP and their's alone, and they control it. It really is that simple.

Honestly, stuff like this should get rolled under 'granularity' and such. For 40k, weapons and armor tend to be rolled into a few basic categories due to limitations of the dice involved. There's no room to make bolters different (although they are: They're stock-issue for Space Marines, limited issue for Guard). The RPG rule sets have a lot more space as the base mechanics are different, so it's no big deal to add some tweaks to differentiate them.

Also 40k doesn't concern itself with the same logistics issues that are a bigger deal to RPGs... One potential point of differentiation is ammo capacity/reload speed, which the different weapons could ahve due to different requirements.

 Lynata wrote:
If we do not have a strict canon, then we do have multiple interpretations of the setting - which means multiple worlds.

All your arguments boil down to this.

But it is false. Multiple interpretations do not necessarily implicate multiple worlds. I'm really surprised to see you make this mistake, given your past emphasis on the relativity of perspective (and generally, that a thing exists independently of its interpretation). Even your strongest point, that the DW of FFG is completely different from the DW of GW/BL, can't survive the counterpoint that the Inquisition is an idiosyncratic organization.

Balance wrote:Honestly, stuff like this should get rolled under 'granularity' and such. For 40k, weapons and armor tend to be rolled into a few basic categories due to limitations of the dice involved. There's no room to make bolters different (although they are: They're stock-issue for Space Marines, limited issue for Guard). The RPG rule sets have a lot more space as the base mechanics are different, so it's no big deal to add some tweaks to differentiate them.
Also 40k doesn't concern itself with the same logistics issues that are a bigger deal to RPGs... One potential point of differentiation is ammo capacity/reload speed, which the different weapons could ahve due to different requirements.

But GW put out an RPG as well - "Inquisitor".
Its ruleset can be freely downloaded on the website: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350169a_m1320029_Inq_Rulebook_part_1.pdf

Stuff like dice limitations do not exist there, and ammo capacity is part of the rules. The creators still chose to let the guns retain an identical profile. Space Marines have unique equipment there as well - but it's not their weapons. Which fits to the fluff that was printed in the Codex material.

Manchu wrote:All your arguments boil down to this. But it is false. Multiple interpretations do not necessarily implicate multiple worlds. I'm really surprised to see you make this mistake, given your past emphasis on the relativity of perspective (and generally, that a thing exists independently of its interpretation).

I'm sorry, I really can't follow you here.

Are you basing your argument on there being a singular hypothetical "true" 40k world that we simply don't know anything about? If so, that seems like a weird excuse to me. We do not play or read about this one true world. We read about the various authors' interpretations, so the interpretations become our worlds. And since the interpretations are different, so are the worlds thus created by multiple mutually exclusive depictions of the setting.

So if that's your train of thought, it is exactly what I've been saying all along, just packed in a needlessly convoluting veil with the intention of sugarcoating the truth - that GW is entirely okay with the IP being riddled by countless contradictions and incompatible sources.

Manchu wrote:Even your strongest point, that the DW of FFG is completely different from the DW of GW/BL, can't survive the counterpoint that the Inquisition is an idiosyncratic organization.

As explained above, you cannot justify everything with spatial distance. Especially not when a source talks about all of the Deathwatch rather than just a part of it. If it works as an explanation to bring those contradictions in line with you, fine - but *I* can't accept it. The gap is too big, and it is by far not the only deviation. Next you're trying to tell me that on Vostroya it depends on the city whether the Guard is recruiting only sons (GW Codex) or both sons and daughters (Only War).

If people don't like what GW made up, fine, no problem with this - but they should at least be capable of admitting to make up their own version of the setting then. Else it gets real hypocritical, especially when someone on dakka is once again proposing Female Marines or whatever.

 Lynata wrote:
Are you basing your argument on there being a singular hypothetical "true" 40k world that we simply don't know anything about?

No, it is a fictional (not hypothetical) world that we know about.

 Lynata wrote:
We do not play or read about this one true world. We read about the various authors' interpretations, so the interpretations become our worlds.

Incorrect. I understand your viewpoint here:

- The 40k setting exists in the mind of the person writing/reading about it.
- More than one person writes/reads about the 40k setting.
- There is more than one 40k setting.

The first premise is false. The 40k setting exists not in the mind of the authors or readers but in the texts they produce and consume. The authors are not reporting their first-hand experience of the setting to us. They are making it up in the context of what has been made up before. Once fluff is published, it becomes part of the 40k setting, leaving the author behind. Similarly, the personal interpretation of the reader is always "up against" the published text. The "problem" of inconsistency arises not because of the relative viewpoint of the author-as-a-raconteur (much less because of reader preferences) but because of IP development and simple mistakes.

I agree with you that GW is "entirely okay with the IP being riddled by countless contradictions and incompatible sources" -- except that I think you're making mountains out of molehills. In all seriousness, the contradictions are almost entirely minor. If we were dealing with the real world, the "importance" of such inconsistencies would be irrelevant to our analysis. But in an imaginary world created to sell a product (where the world itself is also a product), there is a hierarchy of reality. There are "hard" elements, those most resistant to development and contradiction. And there are "soft" elements, which contributors constantly rework. This is further complicated by GW's own strategy of "softening" harder elements, both through retcons and stylistic considerations (ironic humor, self-aware propaganda, etc). You are mistaking the cultivation of market flexibility with an intentional multiverse.

As to the Deathwatch: no doubt you have read more about it than me but I cannot recall the FFG books explicitly making the points you are inferring from them.

The annoying part about this is that there is a really simple explanation for the better Marine bolter thing... but I'm not allowed to tell you what it is (and yes, I realise how much of a cop out that must sound like, but NDA's are NDA's). Suffice to say it, it would bring an end to the "DW Bolters are different therefore it's a different universe" argument in one fell swoop...

Fortunately, that argument is hardly a good one.

Manchu wrote:The "problem" of inconsistency arises not because of the relative viewpoint of the author-as-a-raconteur (much less because of reader preferences) but because of IP development and simple mistakes.

You say "incorrect" and then go on trying to explain inconsistencies by referring to "mistakes", when they are only mistakes in your personal opinion. You had this discussion already with ADB himself in the other thread, don't you remember?

If you really ...

Manchu wrote:[...] agree with you that GW is "entirely okay with the IP being riddled by countless contradictions and incompatible sources" [...]

... then you'll have to face the fact that:

a) not every inconsistency is actually a mistake, but rather the simple product of the author thinking "this would be cooler" - and GW being okay with this
b) this intentional inconsistency between sources resulting in what can essentially only be treated as "parallel worlds" - overlapping, yet independent of each other

Apart from this having been stated by multiple people with a much closer connection to the IP than either of you: Who would be going to decide what is a "mistake" and what is "GW changing their opinion"? You? It's certainly not the authors, and neither GW themselves (aside from rare exceptions such as the THQ guy admitting that the Space Marine game takes place in "an alternate timeline" after being called out on the contradictions). Thus, acknowledging the inconsistencies, and accepting that they result out of / in divergent interpretations, is the only way to deal with the issue at hand. At least I have yet to hear a better suggestion from either you or HMBC.

It's nice for you that you are still able to maintain your perspective of "contradictions almost entirely being minor" and have not yet discovered a large-enough amount of cracks to it. It's not been that long that I have held the same opinion, but the amount as well as the dimensions of the contradictions just kept on growing. Perhaps it is just a matter of time until you reach your "breaking point" as well.
I suppose whether a contradiction is minor or major can lie in the eye of the beholder much of the time. I can only say that it has become too much for me. Which was when I started hunting down those quotes and questioning this urban myth of a "canon", which, due to GW never actually stating such a policy, is apparently born entirely out of wishful thinking and false expectations.

Manchu wrote:You are mistaking the cultivation of market flexibility with an intentional multiverse.

No, I don't. Because effectively there is no difference between the two - as long as hard facts are stated and they contradict each other in different sources. What you are mistaking is the licensing of an IP with the creation of a singular "canon" truth. I can only recommend to read Gav Thorpe's blogpost again as far as that is concerned. The problem is that apparently these days, in their "quest for canon", gamers and readers put way too much emphasis on the source of fluff, clearly distinguishing between "official" and fanmade. I don't really think this is what the creators had in mind when they came up with 40k, which gets especially obvious when you read Gav placing Black Library stories on the same level as players making up background for their custom Marine Chapters. Or when he talks about the possible and optional transference of Black Library material into "the worldview promulgated by the studio books".

That's the one big overlapping theme between Gav's blog, ADB's, and Andy Hoare's comment to it. That indeed each source of fluff offers a different worldview - which, in the end, means a different world for us as the consumers of said material.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The annoying part about this is that there is a really simple explanation for the better Marine bolter thing... but I'm not allowed to tell you what it is (and yes, I realise how much of a cop out that must sound like, but NDA's are NDA's). Suffice to say it, it would bring an end to the "DW Bolters are different therefore it's a different universe" argument in one fell swoop...

But it is by far not just the bolters, is it? Also, was that referring to an in-universe technical explanation for the gap, or an out-of-universe explanation for why the rules had to be written this way? Because the former is actually already provided in the books (and it conflicts with GW's material on the subject). The latter ... should not be of any relevance for this discussion, as it revolves entirely around fluff rather than mechanics, I think. Explanations on why a contradiction might have been deemed "necessary" are pointless - what matters is that they exist.
Although I would certainly enjoy a discussion about the mechanics as well, as I think there might have been other, more elegant solutions to certain issues that are often theorised to be the cause of the gap.

Also, I apologise for only revisiting this argument now; I just had too much stuff going on and did not visit dakka in the previous couple days.

This thread has gone pretty off-topic, someone get a mod!

Seriously though, I'm not wanting to throw myself into this argument, but I am very curious about the following statement.

 Lynata wrote:
But GW put out an RPG as well - "Inquisitor".
Its ruleset can be freely downloaded on the website: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350169a_m1320029_Inq_Rulebook_part_1.pdf

Considering your attention to detail, I'm surprised that you would call Inquisitor an RPG. It's not, and as far as I know GW has never presented it as such. I'm not necessarily saying this undermines your point in any way, mind.

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:Considering your attention to detail, I'm surprised that you would call Inquisitor an RPG. It's not, and as far as I know GW has never presented it as such. I'm not necessarily saying this undermines your point in any way, mind.

Hmmh, how is Inquisitor not an RPG? It requires a GM to narrate events, and the purpose of the game is for the players to, or so the introduction goes, "create characters and a story on the tabletop". And from one of the PDF supplements: "with the emphasis on character-driven narrative, and the potential for further, potentially off-table role-playing elements, character is everything in a game of Inquisitor."
Granted, GW only ever advertises it as a "narrative wargame", but in the end that only means there's a focus on combat. Not different from, say, Deathwatch. If people would say that, for example, Fallout is an RPG, then I don't see too many differences to Inquisitor, other than one requiring a computer and the other a bunch of minis. The newest version of D&D does so as well, or so I've been told. Although I am fairly sure that neither Inquisitor nor D&D truly "need" minis to be played ...

I do see your point and admit that it might be a "grey zone", though! Not that it matters much for the discussion at hand, for the level of detail remains the same, as far as weapon stats and other rules are concerned.

And yeah, this discussion is pretty much 100% OT by now. I've only jumped at it because HMBC and I have been "butting heads" on this particular topic before, so I'm trying to see if we can't have it resolved once and for all, as it is a crystal-clear issue to me thanks to public statements from GW veterans themselves, and how the various products licensed under this IP tie together (or don't).
It would probably deserve a thread of its own, but since the original post was already answered I thought it fair to hijack it.

Coincidentally, the linked supplemental PDF also mentions how "authors are open to interpretation" when it discussed Black Library novels as a potential inspiration for Inquisitor characters.

 Lynata wrote:
You had this discussion already with ADB himself in the other thread, don't you remember?

Verily. His answer was basically "this is how it works but the company doesn't like one artist to say his opinion is how it works but I asked them about it first but I am doing the fans a favor by talking about it because I have gotten into trouble" blah blah blah blah. In other words, he can only tell us his own opinion and it's not representative of the corporate position anyway. Also, I hope you realize that NOTHING he said supported your idea of multiple, parallel universes. That is uniquely your error.

 Lynata wrote:
If you really ...

Manchu wrote:[...] agree with you that GW is "entirely okay with the IP being riddled by countless contradictions and incompatible sources" [...]

... then you'll have to face the fact that:

a) not every inconsistency is actually a mistake, but rather the simple product of the author thinking "this would be cooler" - and GW being okay with this
b) this intentional inconsistency between sources resulting in what can essentially only be treated as "parallel worlds" - overlapping, yet independent of each other

None of your points necessarily follow from the point you quoted me on. What I'm saying (what I thought we were agreeing about) is that GW doesn't care about the mistakes. So, maybe "mistake" is confusing you because it seems to imply (the lack of) intent. I'd use "error" but that also seems to imply GW's intent to create a coherent, unified universe -- which I think is not true at the granular level preoccupying you. So, let's talk about "discrepancies."

GW doesn't care about the discrepancies to a pretty generous extent. It doesn't care that a bolter works like this in such-and-such novel and like that in so-and-so RPG. The reason that they don't care is NOT because they are interested in publishing parallel 40k settings. They don't care about the internal consistency, at a granular level, of any 40k setting much less the multiple settings that you are positing. In fact, the point of all this publishing is NOT to create a "universe" as such, that is, an internally consistent world. The point is to create a setting with which to market miniatures. How exactly X works or how exactly Y happened simply don't matter to that marketing goal. We can see this at work regarding BL authors. Traditionally, BL authors have only had to answer to high-level "style book" considerations. There is a semi-corpse on the Golden Throne. A long time ago, some bloke called Horus put him there. Etc, etc, etc. Otherwise, the only consistency they seem to worry about is (a) voluntary as to the work of other authors (which is rare, only really seen since the HH series began, and it has now become less voluntary) and (b) with regard to their own work (both as between different pieces and within one piece). The only further complication, the intentionally misleading information, only exists with regard to snippets of information in the codices, which are so thoroughly tongue-in-cheek as to be obvious. If you're reading a passage that is propaganda, you will know it. This doesn't apply to BL novels, which are not in-universe accounts.

So, process-wise, that's why we have all these contradictions. Now, given that GW itself couldn't give a gak about whether there is any sort of "canonical" perspective on their marketing material, the question is: what do we fans do with it? My argument is that we treat it, as far as possible and with a preference to the newest additions, as a coherent whole. Your argument is that we sort the information into multiple universes based on discrepancies. My argument is better than yours for two very simple reasons: (1) the discrepancies are invariably minor relative to the massive amount of continuity and (2) there is no indication in any GW or affiliate publication nor in the relationship between GW and its affiliates that multiple 40k setting exist; to the contrary, there are plenty of indications (e.g., Blood Ravens) that there is only one 40k setting. Please carefully note that I am not conflating the terms "universe" and "setting." GW promulgates a setting. Fandom receives a universe.

 Lynata wrote:
It's nice for you that you are still able to maintain your perspective of "contradictions almost entirely being minor" and have not yet discovered a large-enough amount of cracks to it. It's not been that long that I have held the same opinion, but the amount as well as the dimensions of the contradictions just kept on growing.

I think you are assuming a kind of black and white stance, where black is the Star Wars approach and there is only one other and completely opposite approach. Your argument seems to be that since GW does not follow the Star Wars approach, it must therefore follow the complete opposite one. What you seem to fail to understand is that both are "strict canon" approaches: strict as to one unified master narrative or strict as to each of a series of alternate narratives. This is where it's worth considering the THQ guy's comment about Space Marine being an "alternate timeline." This is obviously a post hoc rationalization of a perceived failure. Just think about it: what if something at the beginning of the game conflicted with something at the end of the game? Would he say that the beginning and the end of the game represented alternate timelines? Also, keep in mind that we're talking about a perceived failure so we have to ask (as I'm sure you will): a failure in who's eyes? Clearly not THQ's, at least until there is a critical mass of fan criticism. The failure is in the eyes of the fans, who are being sold a setting and transforming it (now are you remembering my actual points to ADB?) into a universe.

So let's drop this strict canon pretension, whether as to a unified setting or alternate and parallel setting, because it is clearly not contemplated by GW. GW is not doing what the Star Wars people have done and it's not doing the opposite of that, either. In fact, it's doing a third thing: instead of either strict canon approach, it deals in pseudo canon. Another point from the exchange with ADB: pseudo canon is the marketing consequence of sales success. It's not that GW is establishing the pseudo canon. Nope, that's up to the fandom. GW throws a lot of gak at the wall but only some of it sticks. We're that wall. And GW will throw more of the gak that sticks with us. "Oh you like that Primarch stuff from Index Astartes huh? How about 20+ novels about the HH then?" What's really interesting is that this loose approach to the material is starting to get more complicated. More and more, GW realizes that meeting fan expectations drive their sales success. The key development here is the transition from selling miniatures that incidentally have a backstory to selling backstory (i.e., novels) without any reference to miniatures. This is the story of the HH series and it's no coincidence that BL has had to be stricter about having the authors working on that series coordinate. In other words, the specter of strict canon arises! Graham McNeill can no longer write whatever the hell comes to his mind from story to story -- hence his next audio drama "Wolf Hunt," which is a canon bandaid.

As for "the amount as well as the dimensions of the contradictions," you have not demonstrated sufficient molehills to make a mountain. And even if you could, it still wouldn't matter. No one was trying to achieve the kind of granular consistency you seem to want -- so it's lack signifies exactly nothing.

Manchu wrote:In other words, he can only tell us his own opinion and it's not representative of the corporate position anyway.

It is "fairly" representative when he points out what freedoms he is given, or when he quotes from Marc Gascoignes article which had, after all, been printed in White Dwarf. Yes, personal experiences may vary (see HMBC's posts), especially when different editors are involved, and thus need not always be accepted "as is". However, when they add to other, similar reports of well-known writers and game designers from 40k, then it starts to get more and more meaning, as the different pieces of the puzzle shed more and more light on the bigger picture.

Manchu wrote:Also, I hope you realize that NOTHING he said supported your idea of multiple, parallel universes. That is uniquely your error.

I am surprised how we are still argueing about this point, when there is so much overlap between our observations.

It honestly seems to be a matter of semantics by this point.

To reiterate, I am claiming that GW being entirely fine with deviating accounts automatically results in "alternate worlds" simply because they lose compatibility with other products. Since GW does not care about such discrepancies and will simply continue writing their own stuff, the "newer source trumps older" approach does not work as a solution, because the studio does not at all feel obliged to follow some external product's established deviations. They may cherrypick and adopt what they like, or they may simply ignore it and continue with their own ideas. Most of the time, it is the latter. The same holds true for Black Library (as explained by ADB on his blog), and by now FFG has started to retcon its own setting as well.

Perhaps you thought I was promoting the idea that there would be multiple realities of 40k in-universe, especially as you mentioned Marvel's Multiverse later on. If so, I can only strongly deny that this was not at all what I was saying. The multiple realities of 40k exist solely within our own heads, entirely dependend on whatever books we have read, as they may sometimes paint a very different picture. Just look at Mitchell's Ciaphas Cain novels, for example.

Manchu wrote:My argument is better than yours for two very simple reasons: (1) the discrepancies are invariably minor relative to the massive amount of continuity and (2) there is no indication in any GW or affiliate publication nor in the relationship between GW and its affiliates that multiple 40k setting exist; to the contrary, there are plenty of indications (e.g., Blood Ravens) that there is only one 40k setting.

Your "invariably minor discrepancies" have fairly far-fetching consequences when they change the perception of an entire faction. To me, an altered perception means an alternate world, as far as subjective perspectives are concerned. Which is what we are talking about here.
As for your (2) ...

Manchu wrote:No one was trying to achieve the kind of granular consistency you seem to want -- so it's lack signified exactly nothing.

The Background forum of dakka would suggest otherwise. Even you do, too, when you complain about GW not caring for those "mistakes". It seems to me that the majority of fans just expect things to tie into each other, even when this was never of any importance to the creators of the setting, and Black Library was founded specifically to distance novels from the studio vision. This "urge" is why 90% of the community still seem to believe in some sort of "canon" (actually there is something like that, but it is by far not what people would expect or hope for), and this is why we have countless debates about how book X says this but book Y says that.

As to the "black and white stance", it is worth considering that I am merely repeating how veteran GW employees have explained it, and I still believe that those guys should logically be the ones with the best understanding on how the company deals with things. From what I can see in the ongoing deviations from studio worldview throughout various licensed products, it fits entirely to how they described it.

I would appreciate more continuity and consistency between the sources as well, but the fandom has shown that - as much as they love to cling to a supposed canon - they are only okay with it if it is their canon. In other words: it is simply too late by now. People's visions have deviated too far from one another, and the gap has become too big.

 Lynata wrote:
The multiple realities of 40k exist solely within our own heads

If this is all that you mean, then I completely agree. But I really doubt that's all that you mean, considering you seem to say that FFG's products "happen" in a universe separate from the "studio" products. That's not in "our" heads.

 Lynata wrote:

Spoiler:

Gav Thorpe wrote:If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books.

This isn't evidence of "alternate realities." This is the marketing deal I was talking about, where GW throws a bunch of gak out and sees what sticks on us. (And if you had wanted to make the alternate reality point using Gav's outdated memoirs, why didn't you use his indolently grand "overlapping realities" language? -- which by the way is still more marketing strategy.)

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No one was trying to achieve the kind of granular consistency you seem to want -- so it's lack signified exactly nothing.

The Background forum of dakka would suggest otherwise. Even you do, too, when you complain about GW not caring for those "mistakes".

This is why I went out of my way to emphasize the difference between what GW publishes (a setting) and what the fandom, the community of fans rather than individual fans, receives (a universe).

 Lynata wrote:
People's visions have deviated too far from one another, and the gap has become too big.

I really could not disagree more if I tried. What I see in the Background section is a lot of agreement or -- and to be honest, this is what I see as the experience of fandom and most important -- the process of agreement (which also entails the inevitability of disagreement).

 Lynata wrote:
It honestly seems to be a matter of semantics by this point.

I hind of hoped so but it doesn't seem so ...

Manchu wrote:If this is all that you mean, then I completely agree. But I really doubt that's all that you mean, considering you seem to say that FFG's products "happen" in a universe separate from the "studio" products. That's not in "our" heads.

Okay, I'm sorry, maybe I failed to accurately convey my thoughts somewhere along the line.

No, I do not believe in actual "alternate dimensions" within 40k (other than the Warp, of course), I really am referring to what we - both as creators as well as consumers - make of it. When I am saying something along the lines that it's a different world, then this is just my way of emphasising the contradictions, sometimes also just because of the volume of content. Usually, I also refer to it as "X's vision" or "X's interpretation" when I post on topics concerning contradictory fluff. Basically, I regard these terms as interchangeable.

And here I was going all "that's exactly what I'm saying!" and "whyyy are we still argueing?!"...

Sorry to have wasted both our time with this circular argument.

Manchu wrote:I really could not disagree more if I tried. What I see in the Background section is a lot of agreement or -- and to be honest, this is what I see as the experience of fandom and most important -- the process of agreement (which also entails the inevitability of disagreement).

Ah, but the agreement often comes out of people believing in a false hierarchy of sources, such as someone saying "X is newer", and then the other party caving in because they assume that's how 40k "canon" works. Other times, people resort to crafting excuses and possible explanations to force something to fit together, even though it was never meant to.

The latter is not truly a problem, but the former is.

Me, I am quite sure that I'm only on this crusade because I feel my favourite faction is hit be these discrepancies the most, because their coverage is so low that people do not even recognise a conflict. Example: Cain novel gets released, people go "look, SoB aren't celibate!"

That's what I mean about changing perceptions. Or crafting them, where they did not before. The SoB are perhaps most vulnerable to this because for way too many people it's like tabula rasa - a blank slate to be filled by whatever popular novel - or RPG - comes first.

Just to clarify:

I am okay with "alternate realities" in the sense of the DH campaign you or me or HBMC runs with our friends existing separately from everything that is published, like in the sense of fan fiction. I am not okay with the notion that FFG fluff cannot be used by fans in chatting with other fans about "the 40k universe" that we are constantly building together - OR - put it another way, that FFG fluff has a kind of "fan fiction" relationship to "studio fluff."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
Sorry to have wasted both our time with this circular argument.

Even if we already agree, the pleasure is truly mine.

Manchu wrote:Just to clarify:
I am okay with "alternate realities" in the sense of the DH campaign you or me or HBMC runs with our friends existing separately from everything that is published, like in the sense of fan fiction. I am not okay with the notion that FFG fluff cannot be used by fans in chatting with other fans about "the 40k universe" that we are constantly building together - OR - put it another way, that FFG fluff has a kind of "fan fiction" relationship to "studio fluff."

Hmm, then we may still have a bit of a discrepancy here. Maybe.

Even though I'm not fond of parts of FFG fluff, I do believe it should be mentioned when discussing "the 40k universe". But only if the other fluff, especially GW's, is mentioned as well. Basically, to me it is important to present all options available to a curious reader, and to make it clear that none of them is "the ultimate truth", but rather that they are all just possible visions. There is no inherent difference between studio fluff, novel fluff, FFG fluff, or even fan fluff - the decision what to prefer rests entirely with the individual gamer.

Example: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/475342.page?userfilterid=45703

Now, I am biased due to my own preferences (not just concerning the Deathwatch but concerning a supposed need to deviate from pre-established material as well), but I still hope the above is worded in a way that (a) clarifies that there are different versions and (b) that neither of them is "truer" than the other.

This is what 99% about fluff on dakka are still missing, imho. The realisation and the disclaimer that it's all a big "pick what you like" rather than "THIS is the TRUTH".

PS: edited my previous post to reply to a point you added whilst I was already typing - just in case you missed

 Lynata wrote:
There is no inherent difference between studio fluff, novel fluff, FFG fluff, or even fan fluff - the decision what to prefer rests entirely with the individual gamer.

That's what I think as well.

 Lynata wrote:
This is what 99% about fluff on dakka are still missing, imho. The realisation and the disclaimer that it's all a big "pick what you like" rather than "THIS is the TRUTH".

I suppose there are different definitions of truth at issue. In one sense, nothing about 40k can ever be conceived of as true -- not because it is fictional (but "true," I don't mean "non-fictional") but rather because it is not designed to be "true" in the sense of consistency. That has never been its point until, in a comparably small way, very recently with the HH series. But I don't think that is the truth that we are really interested in as far as the fluff threads are concerned. What I see more of (and this is undoubtedly an issue of bias based on my preferences as defined extensively in this chat we've been having) is discussion of the sense of "truth" that 40k does entail, what Gav Thorpe calls "the facts" on the one hand and what I'll call "the implications" on the other. So what kind of things are facts? The things that are never contradicted except by reason of mistake. If you ever see a BA not wearing red armor it is because someone (maybe you as a matter of perception) has screwed up. If someone says Magnus was not a psyker, it doesn't matter if they're Gav Thorpe or ADB or Jervis or Tom Kirby, that's just not true. So, knowing that Magnus is "factually" a psyker and, moreover, that he is "factually" one of the most powerful psykers ever, we can have a chat about the implications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
Me, I am quite sure that I'm only on this crusade because I feel my favourite faction is hit be these discrepancies the most, because their coverage is so low that people do not even recognise a conflict.

Keep in mind, we share a favorite faction there. As to the Cain book, it is the most easily dealt with of all issues because unlike all other 40k books it is told from a first person limited POV by a liar.

Manchu wrote:So what kind of things are facts? The things that are never contradicted except by reason of mistake. If you ever see a BA not wearing red armor it is because someone (maybe you as a matter of perception) has screwed up. If someone says Magnus was not a psyker, it doesn't matter if they're Gav Thorpe or ADB or Jervis or Tom Kirby, that's just not true. So, knowing that Magnus is "factually" a psyker and, moreover, that he is "factually" one of the most powerful psykers ever, we can have a chat about the implications.

Well, that's kind of what Gav was saying as well - the bit about Ultramarine armour being blue etc. And this is where GW apparently does intend to enforce some measure of overlap between the various sources, by having editors greenlight or refuse submitted entries from the various contracted writers. Some things may still slip through, just like some editors may be more zealous than their employee demands... but all in all, this is why I think actual mistakes in the various sources are fairly low, and most of them rather being intentional deviations. Unless we expand this term to include instances where an author may have written it differently were he or she aware of something they did not find in their research.

Manchu wrote:As to the Cain book, it is the most easily dealt with of all issues because unlike all other 40k books it is told from a first person limited POV by a liar.

Granted, that would be a good explanation. Still, Inquisitor Vail doesn't call him out in her "comments", and on some stuff she even agrees...
And it was just one of many examples, anyways. Biased me also do not agree with the treatment they received in FFG's RPG - not with turning Acts of Faith into actual space magic (eyeball-searchlights etc), nor with their equipment being that much worse than that of the Marines, when it was clearly pointed out in GW's vision it'd be equal. Here, the perception of the reader is pushed to conceive the Sororitas as a much less capable fighting force, barely able to deal with Orks and renegade IG, and certainly not able to pull off the stuff they do in GW's books. At least this is how it appears to me when I compare the material.

I had so very high hopes back then when DH first came out, and really embraced the Inquisitor's Handbook. That one was still written by the Black Industry writers, mind you. Fast forward to Blood of Martyrs and the Sisters in the Calixis Sector get turned from a single elite 50-girl-garrison into thousands of troops (one of the retcons I mentioned earlier, likely to grant players more choice) using weapons that aren't even able to reliably wound an Astartes - and their previously unique and vague Acts of Faith get turned into advanced space sorcery that almost anyone can access.
Then we have the Inquisition-independent Deathwatch with its automated Exterminatus-Kill-Ships and Battle Barges. Vostroya also recruiting daughters rather than just sons. Temple Assassins on permanent assignment to Inquisitors. All las arms receiving charge sliders because the fans lobbied for it. The list goes on. Most of the stuff is indeed minor, but there are a few fairly big deviations as well. At this point, I only wish more people would be aware of the alternatives rather than just swallowing anything they're given. It could really change someone's world.

... makes me remember I intended to mod the Only War ruleset into a crossover supplement, though. If only I wouldn't be so easy to distract.

 Lynata wrote:
Still, Inquisitor Vail doesn't call him out in her "comments", and on some stuff she even agrees...

Amberly is
(a) an inquisitor
(b) writing consciously for posterity
(c) who had feelings for Cain.

I wouldn't call her reliable, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any case, I am very pleased that we appear to have come to agreement on this issue. We just need to see if HBMC can join in and then this thread will go down in history as one of the most productive ever posted.