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've just finished reading the last instalment of the Legacy of Caliban trilogy, which is set pretty much at the present time of 40k, as far as i can tell. One of the characters who shows up is the Master of the 10th company, who the book names as Master Eradon.

The Dark Angels Codex, which is also set in the present time, lists the Master of the 10th company as Master Renaeus.

Have you found that GW is known for these inconsistencies? I've not noticed any others in the BL books i've read, and its fun to read about the guys in your codex, so this kind of thing makes me grumble.

40k's all about inconstinencies, it's supposed to let your "forge your own narrative", or some bs like that. It's really just an excuse for a metric asston of lazy writing, though, so it's generally just best to love the good of 40k, and stick to whatever has the most support in lore (for instance, something being cited in 4 novels instead of 1).

 nwabudikemorgan wrote:
I've just finished reading the last instalment of the Legacy of Caliban trilogy, which is set pretty much at the present time of 40k, as far as i can tell. One of the characters who shows up is the Master of the 10th company, who the book names as Master Eradon.

The Dark Angels Codex, which is also set in the present time, lists the Master of the 10th company as Master Renaeus.

Here's the thing. Is it set "pretty much" at the present time or is it set "at" the present time? Because I've seen people use the former when describing events in 600.M41, a full four hundred years before the "present". A lot can happen during that time. Hell, a lot can happen even if the story were set in 950.M41! I haven't read it so I can't comment on specifics.

That said, nine times out of ten I'll go with a novel interpretation over a codex. A codex may have a one or two sentence description compared to a novel. It's like comparing an essay on a subject to a tweet on that same subject. Not to mention, regardless of which one is picked, truth is a completely irrelevant concept in 40k.

 nwabudikemorgan wrote:
One of the characters who shows up is the Master of the 10th company, who the book names as Master Eradon.

The Dark Angels Codex, which is also set in the present time, lists the Master of the 10th company as Master Renaeus.
.

That's nothing, he's just some obscure Captain. In both editions of the Vraks book(s) Forge World has Azrael as Supreme Grand Master in 821.M41, even though both the 3rd and 6th edition codices explicitly state he didn't attain that position until 939.M41..

jareddm wrote:

 nwabudikemorgan wrote:
I've just finished reading the last instalment of the Legacy of Caliban trilogy, which is set pretty much at the present time of 40k, as far as i can tell. One of the characters who shows up is the Master of the 10th company, who the book names as Master Eradon.

The Dark Angels Codex, which is also set in the present time, lists the Master of the 10th company as Master Renaeus.

Here's the thing. Is it set "pretty much" at the present time or is it set "at" the present time? Because I've seen people use the former when describing events in 600.M41, a full four hundred years before the "present". A lot can happen during that time. Hell, a lot can happen even if the story were set in 950.M41! I haven't read it so I can't comment on specifics.

That said, nine times out of ten I'll go with a novel interpretation over a codex. A codex may have a one or two sentence description compared to a novel. It's like comparing an essay on a subject to a tweet on that same subject. Not to mention, regardless of which one is picked, truth is a completely irrelevant concept in 40k.

Codices have just as much ground as novels, the only differnce is that Codices have shorter snippets that are generally easier to understand, while novels generally give MORE info, while making it more complex,and often screwing it up.

 dusara217 wrote:

Codices are official GW lore, though. BL novels are infamously inconsistent and contradictory, whereas Codices are less so. Basically, Codices are less specific, but if something contradicts them, then Codex wins imho

"Official" is a meaningless term. The codexes aren't even consistent within themselves and that's the point. When it comes to current 40k, Horus Heresy being an exception, there doesn't need to be consistency.
http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/

Azrael is easily explained. They're hunting Fallen and certainly wouldn't be above using the eccentricities of the warp to go back to a time when they knew a Fallen was present. Given the historical authorship of the Vraks book, this is certainly not something that would've been known by the scribe who was writing it.

If you're wondering how they eat and breathe and other science facts, repeat to yourself "It's just a game, I should really just relax!"

Leave it to the intricacies of the Warp and the dangers inherent in traveling through it. Some kind of anomoly happened. Best report it to the Administratium, I'm sure someone will get to study it in the next 1k yrs.

 nwabudikemorgan wrote:

Have you found that GW is known for these inconsistencies?

Here is a compilation of references giving us the height of a space marine.


Andy Chambers once said that it doesn't pay to be too exact with the fluff. He said this because he was combining the 2nd ed Necron stuff from White Dwarf with the barely referenced stuff on the C'tan and creating the 3rd ed Necron fluff.

Among other things, there are many older references that have been ret-conned. The most notable to me is that orks used to have females and children like any other race, but they would wait until later in their life to breed (yes, these were stated details). That's clearly not true anymore.

jareddm wrote:

 dusara217 wrote:

Codices are official GW lore, though. BL novels are infamously inconsistent and contradictory, whereas Codices are less so. Basically, Codices are less specific, but if something contradicts them, then Codex wins imho

"Official" is a meaningless term. The codexes aren't even consistent within themselves and that's the point. When it comes to current 40k, Horus Heresy being an exception, there doesn't need to be consistency.
http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/

Azrael is easily explained. They're hunting Fallen and certainly wouldn't be above using the eccentricities of the warp to go back to a time when they knew a Fallen was present. Given the historical authorship of the Vraks book, this is certainly not something that would've been known by the scribe who was writing it.

Not quite "meaningless", but I see your point. Thanks for the article.

GW doesn't care about inconsistencies. This is justified as "there is no real canon".

But, this is just a lazy excuse. There is canon in 40k. No BL book has the Emperor walking around doing gak in M41 and Orks hugging bunnies.

I have to disagree with those who write GW inconsistency off to PURE laziness.

First, with all the fingers that are in the creative pot creating real consistency is very, very hard.

Get three of your friends together and try to write the history of some 40k campaign from the perspectives of your respective armies and watch what happens. Then multiply the number of writers by ten, the number of armies by three and the number of perspectives by thirty.

The sheer volume of background material is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing for it's depth and richness, and a curse because it splinters, seperates and recombines without a unified vision or consistent oversight.

On top of that, use twelve different editors and two or three creative oversight teams. Top the whole thing off with a board of directors which insists on their own input for financial reasons and you have a right bloody hot mess.

Look, even Tolkien had issues; he wrote everything himself and he was a fanatic for consistency. He completed most of his work before editors and publishers got their mitts on it (Christopher Tolkien finishing his unfinished works aside) yet he still found shortcomings right up to his death.

Aside from the difficulty of the work, consider that it's been created over thirty years or so. There have been so many changes in artistic direction and leadership that 'canon' resembles a Tasmanian Devil with Multiple Personality Disorder.

Then there's the GW party line that this is about forging individual narratives. I for one buy this, mainly because it's the best way for GW to sell merchandise. If you can find a way to like, nay love, the faction of your choice you'll buy crap and defend 'your' faction passionately. If, however, you 'know' your faction will lose, or even win in the end it erodes the passion. Uncertainty breeds loyalty, and inspires sales!

Not that laziness or sloppiness isn't also part of the equation, of course. We're dealing with humans after all.

My two cents.

 Harriticus wrote:
GW doesn't care about inconsistencies. This is justified as "there is no real canon".

But, this is just a lazy excuse. There is canon in 40k. No BL book has the Emperor walking around doing gak in M41 and Orks hugging bunnies.

The entire HH series is BL with the Emperor walking around doing stuff.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
GW doesn't care about inconsistencies. This is justified as "there is no real canon".

But, this is just a lazy excuse. There is canon in 40k. No BL book has the Emperor walking around doing gak in M41 and Orks hugging bunnies.

The entire HH series is BL with the Emperor walking around doing stuff.

Which is why I said "in M41"

Captain Tycho is a perfect example. He is present in all codicies up till Armageddon when he died. In the second to last blood Angels codex he is gone replaced by a new captain. Now in the most recent Blood Angel Codex he is listed again as Captain of the same company.

 Generalstoner wrote:
Captain Tycho is a perfect example. He is present in all codicies up till Armageddon when he died. In the second to last blood Angels codex he is gone replaced by a new captain. Now in the most recent Blood Angel Codex he is listed again as Captain of the same company.

I think thats because 6th/7th edition has actually moved further back in time compared to say 6th ed. in the 5th edition SM 'dex Captain Idaeus had just died and his replacement had not been offically announced (honestly I kinda liked that they had a company whose commander wasn't named, it gave people a chance to do their own thing). the 6th and 7th 'dexes lists Idaeus as CO.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Generalstoner wrote:
Captain Tycho is a perfect example. He is present in all codicies up till Armageddon when he died. In the second to last blood Angels codex he is gone replaced by a new captain. Now in the most recent Blood Angel Codex he is listed again as Captain of the same company.

I think thats because 6th/7th edition has actually moved further back in time compared to say 6th ed. in the 5th edition SM 'dex Captain Idaeus had just died and his replacement had not been offically announced (honestly I kinda liked that they had a company whose commander wasn't named, it gave people a chance to do their own thing). the 6th and 7th 'dexes lists Idaeus as CO.

Yup, the Blood Angels codex went back in time to add in the Shield of Baal campaign. The time in which Shield of Baal takes place is the same time that Tycho is leading his company on Armageddon.

In regards to the OP's question, maybe his name is Eradon Renaeus (or Renaeus Eradon)?

Idaeus is replaced in the Ultramraine Novels by Uriel Ventris, and he has been captain of the 4th company for 6 or 7 books now. The reason for a lot of inconsistencies like that is that it is really hard to pin down what "time" is the actual present date of the information you are reading.

Dan Abnett is fairly good about giving dates with his stuff, but for all I can tell reading the Ultramarine novels, the 13th black crusade might be over and done with. Ever sence the 13th black crusade world campaign was retconned out of existence and all the events contained there in removed from the fluff, GW has not done a very good job of keeping the fan base in touch with what is going on at all in the time lines "present."