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.

Lots of fluff errors on here haha

Ullanor is fleshed out in the betrayal book, its leaps and bounds bigger than Armageddon.

"to take a city, send a squad, to take a planet, send a company, to take an empire, send a legion, there are of course exceptions to this rule, the enigmatic eldar and the hordes of the orks, but in general the truth of it holds out"
Roboute guiliman, know no fear.

On topic: of the surviving primarchs only a few could take over as a leader of the imperium
Dorn: dorn has both the skill and the history as a builder and leader of men, he would be able to do the job with skill.
Guiliman: this would be his forte, he as the acme to to do the job and would have the loyalty of a vast majority of the chapters, he would of course not.rebuild his legion, I believe he would start by fortifying the ultramar sector and bring back the 500 world's ( or more now) then expand his sphere of.influence.

The other primarchs would work better as warmasters, the lion would be the best qualified, but he would have to.deal with the inherent corruption of his legion first, with the lion as warmaster and guiliman as the overall leader of the imperium I can see the nids going extinct pretty damn fast. Necrons would be next on the list and then dealing with the corruption and lack or.progress of the imperium, when this is resolved chaos would be weakened to the point that the imperium could start to strike.at them effectively.

Formosa wrote:Lots of fluff errors on here haha
Ullanor is fleshed out in the betrayal book, its leaps and bounds bigger than Armageddon.

Rather than fluff errors, it is more a matter of non-studio sources once again promoting a different interpretation of the setting. Working as intended. We should be used to that by now.

"This time the defenders of Armageddon were better prepared than they had been prior to the earlier invasions. Unfortunately for them, so was Ghazghkull. At the head of an Ork Waaagh! many times larger than any the galaxy had ever seen before, Ghazghkull was able to smash aside the defending Imperial fleet and land his forces all across the surface of Armageddon. A battle of unprecedented ferocity erupted - entire hive cities were destroyed by asteroids hurled at the surface from orbiting space hulks, the sulphur-yellow skies of Armageddon became interwoven with the twisting con-trails of thousands of aircraft battling for aerial supremacy, while on the ground, invading Ork hordes clashed with Imperial Guard armies.
Such is the size and enormity of this latest war that so far neither side has been able to gain the upper hand. Hive cities have fallen and been recaptured, and millions of Orks and Imperial warriors have died, but still the war continues with no end in sight. Armageddon is consumed by the greatest single planetary battle the galaxy has ever known."
- http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2110495_The_Battle_for_Armageddon

There's a reason for why the Orks call it the Muvva of all Battles, I guess.

Formosa wrote:"to take a city, send a squad, to take a planet, send a company, to take an empire, send a legion, there are of course exceptions to this rule, the enigmatic eldar and the hordes of the orks, but in general the truth of it holds out"
Roboute guiliman, know no fear.

Whilst on first glance this may sound like typical novel-based Astartes hyperbole, it actually supports my earlier notion regarding a lack of notable resistance during the Great Crusade - and as such for once is in perfect harmony released with the Codex fluff regarding Astartes capabilities and reliance on the Imperial Guard.

All horus heresy fluff is official, the betrayal was written in conjunction with black library, it's official too, Armageddon is a hell of alot smaller than ullanor, the orks there were enormous by 40k standards, there were a hell of alot more of them ( empires worth, not waaghs worth), ullanor was the biggest ork empire to have ever existed, the codex orks fluff is old, its been replaced to a certain extent, ghazy may have the biggest waaagh, but ullanor was the biggest empire, ghazy could.barely deal with 100k astartes and a few million guard, ullanor was whole titan legions, mechanicus skitarii, imperial army, and nearly 4 whole legions...if ghazy encountered even this? Well...

Guilimans quote cements the old "myth" that a single astartes is worth alot more than any other species equivalent, with exception to the eldar and the mass numbers of orks, now in 40k terms I think nids fall into the ork category and necrons/eldar

Formosa, last time when the Primarchs were in charge of anything, things did not go so well (you might have heard of it, it's called Horus Heresy.) Your confidence that they would make things better is unfounded. I'd not trust them to fix a broken tyre, let alone an empire.

Official doesn't make it true.

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it. Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascoigne, Editor, Black Library

If you want to read more on the subject, see this thread where you have an actual BL author who worked on the HH series - Aaron Dembski-Boweden - talk about the myth of canon.

Formosa wrote:Guilimans quote cements the old "myth" that a single astartes is worth alot more than any other species equivalent, with exception to the eldar and the mass numbers of orks, now in 40k terms I think nids fall into the ork category and necrons/eldar

I don't think anyone ever doubted that? I'm a disciple of the "Dorn formula" that 1 Marine = 10 Guardsmen myself.

You still don't attack a city with 100 Guardsmen if you are expecting serious opposition, though.

Some of the primarchs did indeed make things better and would.do so if they returned, guiliman, dorn, lorgar all made the old imperium a near utopia, peturabo would have done had horus not dicked him over too.

Certain primarchs would not and could not lead a new imperium, lion for example would be great at organising and directing wars, but due to his inherent lack of empathy could not lead as a new emperor, others were too much like living weapons or had no aspiration to lead.

Now if we apply this to 40k and the god like cults of personality that have risen around the loyal primarchs, it would be very easy for certain primarchs to take the role of leaders of mankind, the high Lord's would carry on to a certain extent but would almost universally bow to primarchs like guiliman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
Official doesn't make it true.

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it. Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascoigne, Editor, Black Library

If you want to read more on the subject, see this thread where you have an actual BL author who worked on the HH series - Aaron Dembski-Boweden - talk about the myth of canon.

Formosa wrote:Guilimans quote cements the old "myth" that a single astartes is worth alot more than any other species equivalent, with exception to the eldar and the mass numbers of orks, now in 40k9 terms I think nids fall into the ork category and necrons/eldar

I don't think anyone ever doubted that? I'm a disciple of the "Dorn formula" that 1 Marine = 10 Guardsmen myself.

You still don't attack a city with 100 Guardsmen if you are expecting serious opposition, though.

That black library quote is an oldie for sure, I accept it when we read about index astartes, but horus heresy is from a first person perspective, this means what we are seeing IS true..from the perspective of character in general, if lorgar tells me that angron can flip a chimeras and index astartes tells me that he can lift a mountain..it's not that hard to know which is hyperbole/myth and the other is true.

That it is written from first person perspective does not make it any more or less true.

Gav Thorpe, ADB, Andy Hoare have all made it quite clear that there are no "facts" in 40k fluff - only lots of overlapping interpretations with various subtle or not-so-subtle differences. So we end up with many contradictions and conflicts and have to pick which version we want to follow. It's just how things are in this franchise.

Anyone who believes that all the stuff is actually supposed to seamlessly tie into all the other products is deluding himself.
Seriously, read the thread I linked. And do not presume that you know better than the authors who actually write what you are basing your vision on.

"from the perspective of the character in general"
Thought I would quote myself there as you clearly missed it haha.

In plain English, if I'm given a first person account, a historical account, and then an account written several thousand years after the fact, I will take the first person account as being the most accurate.

Now I know bias will always be a factor, first person accounts are quite prone to this, as are historic account, mythic accounts are usually the most biased.
So with this scale if I see corax useing a power whip and the story is from his perspective, then it's true, if a codex tells me that he only ever used twin thunder hammers 10k years after the fact and from a historic point of view, then I know to take it as a pinch of salt.

A good example of this
Dw terminators are the best terminators in the galaxy.
Grey knight terminators are better.
The in universe writer would not actually know of the grey knights in all likely hood, so this makes both statements true, from his perspective.

Fair enough - it's all up to us which material to go by, and we all have our own rationalisations on why we do so.

My own preference for studio material originates both from a respect towards the original creators of the setting as pioneers of the past and the future of 40k, as well as the realisation that the more authors join into the process of fleshing it out without strict continuity control, the more contradictions arise (inb4 multilasers). Thusly, by largely limiting myself to a smaller circle of authors I gain a more consistent interpretation of the 41st millennium.

Needless to say, this approach is neither less nor more viable than yours or anyone elses, so the only downside is that it makes a lot of discussions "unsolvable" as we lack a common ground. Alas, that's nothing any of us could change but simply the result of an intentional policy from the powers that be.
Ultimately my original point still stands - there were no "fluff errors" here, just deviating interpretations.

PS: Are the HH novels really written from first person perspective? That would be a fairly new approach; most Black Library books are third person.

Formosa, that's just a silly position. There are all sorts of real myths and legends that are told from someone's perspective. That does not make them any more likely to be true.

Tsk tsk crimson, reading fail on your behalf, I made a distinctio between first person, historical, and mythic.

A mythic story from a first person perspective, is still a myth.

A first person perspective from the ACTUAL person himself that is not historical, or mythic, is... Well first hand knowledge.

Another good example.
I can watch a film about world war 2, saving private Ryan, this film is a myth, these events never happened, but there is some truth in the setting.
I can read a history book from an "expert" on the subject, the book will be written according to the authors bias, it will normally have good information and be well researched.
Or I could go and speak to someone that was actually there, he will more and likely not have the.same over all information that the historian has, but.his version is.first hand, his information feels alot.more real, he was there.

So are "Betrayer" and "Know No Fear" written from first person perspective, and not third?

That said, Black Library's Xenology is also first person, and look how they portray Tau feet or describe the colour of Ork blood.
Just as, to pick up on your example, speaking to someone "who was actually there" does not necessarily grant you a more accurate insight into events. People's memories can be flawed, and in many cases may intentionally omit bad things or emphasise the good, especially where war memories are concerned. For example, the Space Wolves' sagas are ridiculed in-setting as being full of gak, and they are the result of "people who were there" telling their story.

Also, this is an excellent explanation for how the height of Space Marines in the novels keeps changing back and forth between 8 and 14 feet, even though we have the creators of the setting clearly saying it's 7 both in OOC interviews as well as with lifesize design drawings. I suppose in some books, your narrator might just "spice up" things a bit more like in others?
In fact, this might be a viable way to rationalise the novels as part of the wider background. I mean, taking a page from how the Battletech franchise treats its canon, they simply declared the old Battletech cartoon a piece of in-universe holovid propaganda.

 Formosa wrote:
horus heresy is from a first person perspective, this means what we are seeing IS true

It's still just propaganda from an age of legends.

If you want to take EVERYTHING from BL as truth, you'll get a very inherently contradictory view of hte lore.

Formosa, what makes you conclude that HH books are more like accurate eyewitness accounts, rather than like Legends of King Arthur or Gilgamesh, or the stories in the Bibble?

 Formosa wrote:
Tsk tsk crimson, reading fail on your behalf, I made a distinctio between first person, historical, and mythic.

A mythic story from a first person perspective, is still a myth.

A first person perspective from the ACTUAL person himself that is not historical, or mythic, is... Well first hand knowledge.

Another good example.
I can watch a film about world war 2, saving private Ryan, this film is a myth, these events never happened, but there is some truth in the setting.
I can read a history book from an "expert" on the subject, the book will be written according to the authors bias, it will normally have good information and be well researched.
Or I could go and speak to someone that was actually there, he will more and likely not have the.same over all information that the historian has, but.his version is.first hand, his information feels alot.more real, he was there.

But you have to subtract his obvious bias first...oooo and authors bias too....Its called subjective and objective perspective....

Disagree 10001 % with you...no offense


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
horus heresy is from a first person perspective, this means what we are seeing IS true

It's still just propaganda from an age of legends.

If you want to take EVERYTHING from BL as truth, you'll get a very inherently contradictory view of hte lore.

Just like I said - authors and special characters PoV are not too much objective and ofc their interpretation is contradicting in the end...

Agree 10001 %

 Melissia wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
horus heresy is from a first person perspective, this means what we are seeing IS true

It's still just propaganda from an age of legends.

If you want to take EVERYTHING from BL as truth, you'll get a very inherently contradictory view of hte lore.

I said horus heresy, not all black library.

The point I'm trying to.make ( but clearly must be failing.at) is that if a codex or index astartes article says "the death guard legion was 500k strong, and the horus heresy books say "the death guard legion is 800k strong", im going with the horus heresy account, the modern day ( heh) account looks back with a low amount of accuracy, the heresy account is a version from a character that actually would have that info.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
horus heresy is from a first person perspective, this means what we are seeing IS true

It's still just propaganda from an age of legends.

If you want to take EVERYTHING from BL as truth, you'll get a very inherently contradictory view of hte lore.

I like the way you totally ignored the caveat at the end of the sentence "from the perspective of the character",

 Formosa wrote:

I said horus heresy, not all black library.

Why? What makes HH books special?

The point I'm trying to.make ( but clearly must be failing.at) is that if a codex or index astartes article says "the death guard legion was 500k strong, and the horus heresy books say "the death guard legion is 800k strong", im going with the horus heresy account, the modern day ( heh) account looks back with a low amount of accuracy, the heresy account is a version from a character that actually would have that info.

So legend of King Arthur is more reliable source of information about early-medieval Britain than modern scholarship?

Sure some elements of king Arthur would be more accurate than some sources, it would give a good account ( from the writers of the original) of.how they spoke at the time, how language was used in literature, it would also give a stylised version of how the nobility of the age lived, also examples of livery of the noble families.

Also useing modern day "thesis" is a god awful example, we as a culture are not trying to actively suppress the knowledge of the dark ages, nor has it been 10k years since the incident happened, nor do we worship king Arthur as a living god and his children as avatars of his will.

As to what makes hh so special: prior to the black library books ( and ffg) the entire heresy was mapped out in thr current 40k timeline, the index astartes articles were historical looks back on what happened, filled with conjecture and updates on what happened to certain characters after the heresy.
Now the hh books are coming out they are filling in the large gaps left by the rt/index astartes/ffg versions, these stories are told by people that are living at the time, they are told to us by a character, for example a thousand sons is both told from ahirmans, rembrwncers, and Magnus perspective, it's then all written down by ahirman in his own version of events.
We then have Prospero burns, this is the same story but told from a conflicting side, both stories are true, from the perspective of the characters telling them.

 Formosa wrote:
Sure some elements of king Arthur would be more accurate than some sources, it would give a good account ( from the writers of the original) of.how they spoke at the time, how language was used in literature, it would also give a stylised version of how the nobility of the age lived, also examples of livery of the noble families.

Except most of it never happened. They fought dragons and giants for example.

Also useing modern day "thesis" is a god awful example, we as a culture are not trying to actively suppress the knowledge of the dark ages, nor has it been 10k years since the incident happened, nor do we worship king Arthur as a living god and his children as avatars of his will.

Yes, 40K entierly lacks perspective that tries to be neutal and objective. This still does not make HH books more true.

As to what makes hh so special: prior to the black library books ( and ffg) the entire heresy was mapped out in thr current 40k timeline, the index astartes articles were historical looks back on what happened, filled with conjecture and updates on what happened to certain characters after the heresy.
Now the hh books are coming out they are filling in the large gaps left by the rt/index astartes/ffg versions, these stories are told by people that are living at the time, they are told to us by a character, for example a thousand sons is both told from ahirmans, rembrwncers, and Magnus perspective, it's then all written down by ahirman in his own version of events.
We then have Prospero burns, this is the same story but told from a conflicting side, both stories are true, from the perspective of the characters telling them.

Maybe if you accept it as an historical account rather than a legend, but there is no compelling reason to do so. HH books might just as well be mythologised versions of true events that may or may not have happened, just like IA stories about Primarchs. Many legends are written from someone's perspective, that does not make them true. Hell, even autobiographies that are supposed to be first hand historical accounts are often full of gak.

In any case, this thread has marvellously strengthened my opinion on HH books being a horrible idea.

True about the dragons and giants, but thats why I said "elements"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Except the horus heresy books are not legends, they are a from the perspective of people that are alive at the time of writing, legends are written after the fact, only 1 hh book is written in that fashion, a thousand sons, it is written by ahirman as demonstrated at the start and.end of the book, none of the other
Books are written in that style

Legends can be written from the perspective of characters. Odyssey is (partly) written from the point of view of Odysseys. It does not mean it is not a legend! How hard this can be?

 Crimson wrote:
Legends can be written from the perspective of characters. Odyssey is (partly) written from the point of view of Odysseys. It does not mean it is not a legend! How hard this can be?

People perform legendary feats, the primarchs are legendary, this is all true, but the books are not written in this format, thats what stops.them being.legends.
If the stories were written in that format I would agree, but there not.

 Formosa wrote:
I said horus heresy, not all black library.

The Horus Heresy is no different. In fac,t given that there's been at least three different versions, it's a great example of the inherently contradictory nature of 40k.

What format is that? That they're not written in Iambic pentameter doesn't mean that they cannot be legends.

Seriously, did you even read what Lynata posted on what the Black Library editor had to say on this subject?