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.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

You can but that's as non canon as me maintaining that oldcrons are still a thing.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

And you would be right, there are different types of perspectives when it comes to writing.

For example Inferno is written in

The Unreliable Narrator. This type of narrator cannot be trusted to accurately convey the story. He or she is skewed.

While Prospero Burns is

Third Person Multiple. This point of view can follow multiple people, switching back and forth between their individual stories or perspectives.

With a lot of

The Protagonist. He or she is the main character in the story. The protagonist shares what happens to him first-hand, along with commentary.

Thrown in.

The FW HH books are written as "historical" pieces and are less reliable that the first person protagonist and third person multiple stories that we have in the novels.

in fact the inclusion of sons of horus could be constrewed as PURE imperial propaganda. "nope it was all those sons of Horus advisors"

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

You can but that's as non canon as me maintaining that oldcrons are still a thing.

So, if the old Necron background and the new Necron background contradict each other, does that mean you accept both as being true parts of the background? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

You can but that's as non canon as me maintaining that oldcrons are still a thing.

So, if the old Necron background and the new Necron background contradict each other, does that mean you accept both as being true parts of the background? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

This is a debate I have been having for a while, I maintain that certain narratives are more reliable than others both in universe and out, if I have 20 books telling a marines capabilities and one contradicting that, I go with the 20, if I have sources of fluff written from different perspectives then I go with the one with the clearest indication of what happened, so first person "in the head" over 3rd person historical look back, in spite of what other people say 40k is extremely consistent with its fluff compared to other universes, take a look at battletech or Star Wars if you want major inconsistencies, we don't even know what kind of Jedi even existed anymore for example.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

You can but that's as non canon as me maintaining that oldcrons are still a thing.

So, if the old Necron background and the new Necron background contradict each other, does that mean you accept both as being true parts of the background? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

No. For any fan lore I make the oldcron lore is what they have and newcron lore doesn't exist at all. There are no C'Tan shards or Trazyn or named characters. But that's not how the canon works. The canon is the newcron stuff.

 Formosa wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

You can but that's as non canon as me maintaining that oldcrons are still a thing.

So, if the old Necron background and the new Necron background contradict each other, does that mean you accept both as being true parts of the background? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

This is a debate I have been having for a while, I maintain that certain narratives are more reliable than others both in universe and out, if I have 20 books telling a marines capabilities and one contradicting that, I go with the 20, if I have sources of fluff written from different perspectives then I go with the one with the clearest indication of what happened, so first person "in the head" over 3rd person historical look back, in spite of what other people say 40k is extremely consistent with its fluff compared to other universes, take a look at battletech or Star Wars if you want major inconsistencies, we don't even know what kind of Jedi even existed anymore for example.

Battletech in fairness has been ironing out most of the inconsistancies etc. it helps that all their sourcebooks are IC so they can just dismiss it with "X was misinformed"

I don't think you know how canon works.

If two official sources conflict on something, as Formosa said, it makes sense to think about how the information was presented, and if some was from an "in universe" perspective and thus not reliable.

I also consider some sources more official than others. The background in the Games Workshop books I think is more official than stuff from Black Library novels, which is more official than Forge World stuff.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think you know how canon works.

If two official sources conflict on something, as Formosa said, it makes sense to think about how the information was presented, and if some was from an "in universe" perspective and thus not reliable.

I also consider some sources more official than others. The background in the Games Workshop books I think is more official than stuff from Black Library novels, which is more official than Forge World stuff.

Pretty much agree bar a slight point, GW codex specifically mostly ignored as propaganda and not reliable as a source compared to the others, over arching source books fall into the same category, take dark imperium (novel) for example, this is a lot more reliable than codex space marines when it comes to what is going on in universe, gathering storm I just think of as propaganda too, it's so OTT and "just as planned" it hurts, most codexs are written in the grey area between the truth and a lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Well, that directly contradicts the events in the novel Prospero Burns. Given how terrible the Forge World writing is, I think I'll stick with what is in the Horus Heresy novels.

You can but that's as non canon as me maintaining that oldcrons are still a thing.

So, if the old Necron background and the new Necron background contradict each other, does that mean you accept both as being true parts of the background? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

This is a debate I have been having for a while, I maintain that certain narratives are more reliable than others both in universe and out, if I have 20 books telling a marines capabilities and one contradicting that, I go with the 20, if I have sources of fluff written from different perspectives then I go with the one with the clearest indication of what happened, so first person "in the head" over 3rd person historical look back, in spite of what other people say 40k is extremely consistent with its fluff compared to other universes, take a look at battletech or Star Wars if you want major inconsistencies, we don't even know what kind of Jedi even existed anymore for example.

Battletech in fairness has been ironing out most of the inconsistancies etc. it helps that all their sourcebooks are IC so they can just dismiss it with "X was misinformed"

It just clicked your name was Davion lol, filthy Surat

But yep, that just illustrates my point, battletech lore is very unreliable.

Speaking of which, it's literally the only other universe I can think of that competes for sheer depth with 40k.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think you know how canon works.

If two official sources conflict on something, as Formosa said, it makes sense to think about how the information was presented, and if some was from an "in universe" perspective and thus not reliable.

I also consider some sources more official than others. The background in the Games Workshop books I think is more official than stuff from Black Library novels, which is more official than Forge World stuff.

There's also the fact that some things are just flat out replaced. There isn't a conflict one is just wrong. There's not more 'official' and less official.

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think you know how canon works.

If two official sources conflict on something, as Formosa said, it makes sense to think about how the information was presented, and if some was from an "in universe" perspective and thus not reliable.

I also consider some sources more official than others. The background in the Games Workshop books I think is more official than stuff from Black Library novels, which is more official than Forge World stuff.

There's also the fact that some things are just flat out replaced. There isn't a conflict one is just wrong. There's not more 'official' and less official.

Do the games count? Like DOW and that?

I don't think they do personally but curious to what others think

 Formosa wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't think you know how canon works.

If two official sources conflict on something, as Formosa said, it makes sense to think about how the information was presented, and if some was from an "in universe" perspective and thus not reliable.

I also consider some sources more official than others. The background in the Games Workshop books I think is more official than stuff from Black Library novels, which is more official than Forge World stuff.

There's also the fact that some things are just flat out replaced. There isn't a conflict one is just wrong. There's not more 'official' and less official.

Do the games count? Like DOW and that?

I don't think they do personally but curious to what others think

The storyline of the game counts the random bits of gameplay don't. For example it's canon the Blood Ravens lost in Kaurava it isn't canon they fed Marines into a meat grinder squad by squad against the Sisters like I did.

Is https://regimental-standard.com/ "canon"?