Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.

Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.

They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.

They "know" that as that's what they are told. How many things IRL do we "know" right now as that is simply what we are told to be the truth?

The Mechanicus nowadays don't have a fething clue how it works, as this was kinda a huge plot point pre 8th ed. They had to resort to the Dark Eldar (IIRC) to find a method to fix it.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Yea, Angron, Curze, and Fulgrim are the picture of mental health.

Andykp wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The truth is that the people in the 40k setting now don’t know how the astronomicon works. They have no real idea if the corpse it’s plugged into is alive or dead, powering it or directing it. The number of people sacfificed to power it daily could actual be the only thing giving it its “light”.

Having the narrator describe what guiliman heard and felt still leaves enough ambiguity for us not to know for a fact what happened. We know what guiliman thought happened. There could be any number of explanations. I know people who believe god has spoken to them and I don’t think he has. But they “know” he has.

They know exactly how the psykers feeding the Astronomican works, the Emperor installed the technology in master of mankind. They power it, as he needed the extra power because he was having trouble fighting the daemon incursion in the webway and holding the Chaos gods back. Its the Emperor himself that directs it.

They "know" that as that's what they are told. How many things IRL do we "know" right now as that is simply what we are told to be the truth?

The Mechanicus nowadays don't have a fething clue how it works, as this was kinda a huge plot point pre 8th ed. They had to resort to the Dark Eldar (IIRC) to find a method to fix it.

The mechanicus dont “know” how most things work. That’s why they pray to engines. They build things and repair them without any understanding of how they work. That’s the point. As above, they didn’t know how to fix it. Big E might have but that doesn’t mean the adepts in the 40000s have any clue. Feed more people to it and keep hoping.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


They have a lot of knowledge, the machine has been working for 10,000 years. Yeah they don't know everything but saying they don't have a fething clue is miss-guided. They pray to the machine spirit, they don't pray to screws and expect that they'll turn themselves.

From mechanicum codex:

"The Tech-Priest custodians at work in the Emperor’s Palace uncover irrevocable failures in the mechanisms of the Golden Throne. A dozen contingency expeditions are immediately launched, including a Xanthite war procession sent through the Exhubris Portal. The Xanthites fight through Harlequin Troupes and Daemon hordes alike before reaching their intended destination. In the grave-cold oubliettes beneath Commorragh, a dark bargain is struck."

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


They have a lot of knowledge, the machine has been working for 10,000 years. Yeah they don't know everything but saying they don't have a fething clue is miss-guided. They pray to the machine spirit, they don't pray to screws and expect that they'll turn themselves.

Nope, they have no clue. Only what Big E has said is the depth of their knowledge of how it was run. To question that would be heresy. Big E isn't exactly in any position to tell them where they're going wrong.

And the Mechanicus absolutely "pray to screws". The example that immediately comes to mind is the ICBM from Storm of Iron and the "ritual" that must be performed to send it on its holy hunt.

From mechanicum codex:

"The Tech-Priest custodians at work in the Emperor’s Palace uncover irrevocable failures in the mechanisms of the Golden Throne. A dozen contingency expeditions are immediately launched, including a Xanthite war procession sent through the Exhubris Portal. The Xanthites fight through Harlequin Troupes and Daemon hordes alike before reaching their intended destination. In the grave-cold oubliettes beneath Commorragh, a dark bargain is struck."

The Throne was that fethed they had to resort to a bargain with the DE to fix it. What exactly that was, we don't know. That there is what is known as a closed door.

 Crimson wrote:
By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.

 Crimson wrote:
By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Andykp:

Spoiler:

Andykp wrote:The 40k setting was written as an open sand box for games to be set in. Lord of rings and starwars were stories first. 40k deliberately ambiguous, starwars an actual linear story. (Except in episode release order). The BL HH version of events is one version but there are many more from many perspectives. Many not yet written. Some people on here take a books word as gospel but dismiss the writings in an earlier book. Seemingly not realising that one day a book will replace the one they swear is “fact”.

Thought I'd emphasise the "was". 40k USED to be that. Now, with the push towards story driven events (Vigilus, the Horus Heresy, the war for Konor), 40k isn't what it used to be.

The BL HH stories fundamentally ARE facts. Now, could certain things be down to the interpretation? Yes. However, the claims and evidence for those interpretations are from in-universe sources. Allow me to explain: the infamous Word Bearers saying that the Ultramarines absorbed the other Legions. Is it a fact in-universe that those Word Bearers believe it? Yes. Is their belief in-universe enough to make a fact? No.

I'm not advocating "whatever we're told from a character's speech is true!!". Characters can lie (when speaking). Characters can be wrong. When you compare things to the wider context of the universe, using canon, you can see if that character could be in a position to be correct and is correct, or if they're wrong in-universe.

However, the thing I'm saying is that sometimes, in the books, we have cases of ABSOLUTE facts,, due to the third-person-omniscient narrative style. The fact we can see into a character's head means we can know some absolute facts. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes* the Emperor spoke to him. It makes no sense that he, in-universe, didn't believe the Emperor spoke to him, and then, for us, the reader, says that he believes he did.

We know for a fact that, when a character says something or does something that we as the reader see first hand, that action occurred. Was what they said a lie? Perhaps, but we know that they at least said it. This is canon. Guilliman believing he heard the Emperor is canon.

*Just because I said he believes he heard the Emperor doesn't mean he did. It might not have been the Emperor he heard. However, in my opinion, the way it's written, the way it's supported in general Games Workshop writings, and all the rest imply to me that it was genuine.

At the end of the day we don’t know what GW plan to do with the setting. The authors of the books you claim to be so reliable urge you to not take everything in them literally.

No, they argue not to take the opinions of characters as fact. Which I don't. I do, however, take the holistic picture and evidence from the setting, and create a framework of what we know to be accurate and true. This forms canon.

The point of this discussion forum is to discuss the background. The background is still thankfully ambiguous enough to allow you to tell your own story in it. My groups games are all set in a remote area in the dark imperium so the people there’s knowledge of the emperor and things would be nothing to do what was in those books. They wouldn’t know a thing about the HH in detail, it would be mythical legend time. Same with guiliman coming to see the emperor. 40k is a game first. The story is their to support the game and sell models.

Which is fine. You've found a way in-universe for YOUR dudes to be out of the loop - that's genuinely great! I like that. However, the story still exists outside of that universe that we can read. Just because your guys in-universe aren't part of that particular story doesn't mean it's not happening.

Which is my whole point: you can avoid the main story and it's canon as much as you like. You don't need to engage with it. But it doesn't change the fact it's still there.

In summary I think people need to take it less seriously, it isn’t history your debating here it’s a fictional war game setting. To me there is no difference between head cannon and official cannon. It’s all as valid as anything else from someone’s view point. The eldar don’t think the same about the emperor as the humans do etc.

It's a fictional setting with history. History is history. Why can't I debate it?

There's nothing inherently worse about headcanon. The issues arise when canon discussions conflict with headcanon ones.

Of course the Eldar think differently about the Emperor. But I'm not talking about the Eldar's viewpoint. I'm talking about ours, as a reader, gleaned from the various viewpoints and fact in-universe.

Crimson:

Spoiler:

Crimson wrote:40K still has no hard canon, it never had. People just don't get it.

If 40k has no hard canon, do you mean to tell me that there's a chance Space Marines do not exist? Or that humanity is actually extinct? Or there's actually only Nurgle, and the other Chaos Gods as we know them don't actually exist?

Saying 40k has no hard canon is simply untrue. It has canon. It has facts. A lot of those facts are behind opinions, but with the books, we have facts of things that were said and done, even if we don't know the intent behind them.

Marc Gascoigne, former head of Black Library wrote:
SNIP

Emphasis - former.

And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.

Furthermore, the speculation about the Ynnari plot or Guilliman being nuts are perfectly valid even in the light of the books being quoted. If only thing we can do is to quote stated facts as they appear in books without inserting any personal interpretation, what's the fething point? As i said, read the bloody book, then you know what it says, no discussion needed.

Those interpretations are just fine. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make them. I'm saying that denying facts, such as actual speech or actions, is counter-canon.

As I see it, we should "quote stated facts as they appear in books", but our interpretations come from those facts in conjuction with other facts in the setting, as to our hypothesis. There's room for personal interpretation, using evidence of facts in the books. Of course, just my view on this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
By the way, it is pretty interesting how Guilliman's vision of Emperor shows the Emperor in pretty bad light; it practically confirms Guilliman's worst fears about him, emphasises the things that would personally hurt the Primarch the most. If I were a manipulative warp entity of non-human origin, and my goal was to get Guilliman to eventually betray the Emperor (or the idea of the Emperor, really; that's what's holding the Imperium together) then that would be exactly the sort of vision I'd show to him.

Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.

Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.

If I was an alien seeking to undermine humanity, I wouldn't have tried to communicate in the first place and prove the "Death" of the Emperor, but we have different methods.

 Grimtuff wrote:
So it's treason then...?

 Grimskul wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
So it's treason then...?

The moderators will decide your fate.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.

Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.

Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yes, he isn't wrong. Some of it is contradictory. But some things are facts. We know them to be true, because we, as the third-person-omniscient reader see them narratively. We see, for example, the fact it was the Campanile that crashed into Calth that started the Betrayal at Calth. We know for a fact that Guilliman believes he heard the Emperor, because he's thinking it directly to us. We know for a fact that Calgar feels failure when he is dealing with Macragge rebels, because the books tells us in black and white ink.

I really think it is mistake to think that there is a third person omniscient narrator. There is third person narrator, yes, but not omniscient one. Like Gascoigne says the story with this narrator may be a legend or a rumour. And all that is written cannot literally be true at the same time, because there are contradictions. The Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named by Ollanius... or was it a Imperial Fist Terminator who saved him? Or perhaps a Custodian? All these are from third person perspective, all them are canon. The canon being wibbly doesn't mean space marines do not exist in the setting or some nonsense like that, but exact details of the events are only approximations, and may well be somewhat different when the next writer recounts them.

Or, maybe (and as it seems to be), Guilliman almost suspected it to be this way, and even after knowing, despite his own foundations being shook, his sense of duty overrides something that might have ruined another Primarch.

Guilliman always did seem like the most rational and orderly. Him still carrying out his duty, despite what the Emperor said, is absolutely predictable.

I mean sure, that's probably how the writer meant it, as it is the most boring explanation possible and the defining characteristic of Guilliman is that he is boring as feth. But the facts presented here would still allow some writer with more imagination (or probably more accurately a writer with a GW supervisor who was willing to take more risks) to do something more interesting with them.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

Andykp wrote:
Smudge you reply to me which I won’t quote misses the point. To me there is no distinction between head canon and canon. It isn’t one is worse than the other they are the same thing. Me waving things away as “there is no canon” is no different than you waving away all the fluff writers saying don’t take it as fact.

Yes marines exist, but there are enough of them you can have marines be whatever you want. It’s all open ended.

The key to the 40k setting is that no one person knows the facts. The imperium is so big and so cumbersome that it’s impossible. In these books I are getting snippets but the head of the department says they deliberately made them confusing and contradictory, the reason they do that is because in the setting information is confusing and contradictory. Therefore the stories that come out of it are too.

So you might regard these things as fact but I do not. I follow the advice of those writing these things and doubt everything. U cannot tell me I’m wrong to do that. The history of the setting is about the last 30years and the people who wrote it. It was all head cannon. Before BL started screwing it all up it used to be games and narratives that drove the stories. Now it’s sales.

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.

Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

 Grimskul wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

What? I think you're missing his point. There is plenty of area for discussion within the constraints of canon, since not everything is spelled out for you. (i.e. the exact origins of the Emperor, the conflict between Alpharius and Omegon's factions in the Alpha Legion). I don't see how that ruins the fun for anyone, since you're not forced to give up your head-canon in any way. It's simply that your headcanon should not be a factor when attempting to convince others of your own takes of the current modern fluff, since it has no basis in the current canon. Similarly, outdated fluff like Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau would not be a good representation of the Inquisition in 40K as it is now.

Otherwise, using your own "there is no canon" argument you'd have no way to refute that I say that the Emperor is in fact a magical toaster that farts rainbows, while Eldar are a younger species than humanity and Slaanesh, was in fact, born from the copious lovemaking of both Nurgle and Khorne, and that SpongeBob is one of the missing Primarchs. It's my headcanon, it ain't any less genuine than yours, is it?

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

 Grimskul wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

What? I think you're missing his point. There is plenty of area for discussion within the constraints of canon, since not everything is spelled out for you. (i.e. the exact origins of the Emperor, the conflict between Alpharius and Omegon's factions in the Alpha Legion). I don't see how that ruins the fun for anyone, since you're not forced to give up your head-canon in any way. It's simply that your headcanon should not be a factor when attempting to convince others of your own takes of the current modern fluff, since it has no basis in the current canon. Similarly, outdated fluff like Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau would not be a good representation of the Inquisition in 40K as it is now.

Otherwise, using your own "there is no canon" argument you'd have no way to refute that I say that the Emperor is in fact a magical toaster that farts rainbows, while Eldar are a younger species than humanity and Slaanesh, was in fact, born from the copious lovemaking of both Nurgle and Khorne, and that SpongeBob is one of the missing Primarchs. It's my headcanon, it ain't any less genuine than yours, is it?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.

No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.

Onething123456 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.

No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.

They do, but that is besides the point.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.

No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.

They do, but that is besides the point.

Do you have a quote?

From how they write it doesn't seem like they do:

"I’m a big fan of long-reaching character arcs. In a series like this, you’re not going to get very far
without some rich and compelling narrative arcs. Just as Lorgar in The First Heretic was the one
primarch to have failed the Emperor and never really reached his potential, we’re seeing through
Aurelian, The Butcher’s Nails and now Betrayer that who he was at the Heresy’s beginning isn’t who
he’ll be when (to use his own words) ‘the final day dawns.’ Angron is running along a similar
trajectory. He’s not flawless. He’s not invincible. Like every primarch, he’s a reflection of humanity,
with many aspects manifested and magnified – and with all the blessings and curses that come with
such a mind. He also has the Nails as his personal cross to bear. Of all the primarchs, Angron is the
one thwarted above all others. He’s the one that could never truly become what he might have been.
There’s tragedy inherent in his tale.
He’s largely in control of himself – more or less – at the beginning of Betrayer. As the story
develops, he regresses to his even more unstable self, reliving the past as he walks on the world
where he was raised.
By the end? Well…"

Onething123456 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Onething123456 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah people that say writers or narrators are unreliable is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The narrator by definition in a third person omniscient novel, all knowing. The only thing you can say is not reliable is when the narration says 'character x thinks this or that' etc. When the narration says x happens, it happens and is complete fact. Otherwise if everything in the lore can be taken as implied or implicit then what is the point of reading them. People only say this when they lose an argument or are proven wrong with lore, because we 'all' hold concrete explicit facts. Like the Emperor is on the golden throne or the HH happened. Everything becomes 'up for interpretation' when they are given examples of lore that contradicts them. Its so infuriating arguing with someone like that.

The writers of the books say that it’s all unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because one book says x or y happened doesn’t mean the next book isn’t going to say the opposite. Both are lore.

No they don't lol You tried to say this before with a quote from the writer, who didn't even actually say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
If the above happens then both books would have correct lore, that’s the point. Who are you to say the authors are wrong. If there wasn’t ambiguity then this forum wouldn’t be needed it’d be just a series of facts. No discussion. Your way is a good way to suck the fun from the setting.

The only things taken for ambiguity are those written with ambiguity.

They do, but that is besides the point.

Do you have a quote?

From how they write it doesn't seem like they do:

"I’m a big fan of long-reaching character arcs. In a series like this, you’re not going to get very far
without some rich and compelling narrative arcs. Just as Lorgar in The First Heretic was the one
primarch to have failed the Emperor and never really reached his potential, we’re seeing through
Aurelian, The Butcher’s Nails and now Betrayer that who he was at the Heresy’s beginning isn’t who
he’ll be when (to use his own words) ‘the final day dawns.’ Angron is running along a similar
trajectory. He’s not flawless. He’s not invincible. Like every primarch, he’s a reflection of humanity,
with many aspects manifested and magnified – and with all the blessings and curses that come with
such a mind. He also has the Nails as his personal cross to bear. Of all the primarchs, Angron is the
one thwarted above all others. He’s the one that could never truly become what he might have been.
There’s tragedy inherent in his tale.
He’s largely in control of himself – more or less – at the beginning of Betrayer. As the story
develops, he regresses to his even more unstable self, reliving the past as he walks on the world
where he was raised.
By the end? Well…"

"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."

Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)

"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP."

Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series

"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."

Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.

I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.

The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, explain to me how a book like Know No Fear, which is written following a variety of characters, in a variety of factions, with multiple breaks in time, has an unreliable narrator.

Same way than Iliad does. It is third person narrative from several viewpoints, it probably is not an accurate account of Trojan War. All these stories naturally inform our understanding of the setting, but I absolutely reject the notion that the format in which the strory is written has anything to do with the reliability of the story or what story 'takes precedence' in the case of a conflict. The format of a story is merely an artistic choice by the author.

I'm absolutely open to the internal stream of consciousness of a character being biased or incorrect. However, certain things make no logical sense in how they are written to be legends or rumours. All that is written can't be true - this is why discussions about canon exist, because people analyse patterns and relevancy of aspects within the Black Library series to define what is, and is not, more relevant or not, and therefore, what is canon. For example, CS Goto - what he's written is unsupported by other authors and is inconsistent with both past, contemporary, and future publications. Therefore, his obsession with multilasers, backflipping Terminators, and Slaaneshi Dark Eldar are non-canon.

They're just ase canon than this book about Guilliman we were talking about. Sure, these things do not jibe with many other things we have heard about the setting, but contradictions can exist in a canon. Certainly you know from where word canon originates? It is not like the Bible is free of contradictions.

The Emperor being saved has changed multiple times due to retcons, but every time that extra has come up, it's been in the form of a third person PAST TENSE account. The Horus Heresy, and most Black Library books, are set largely as the action occurs. With accounts set using past tense vocabulary and phrasing, I understand what you mean about legends and myth. With the Horus Heresy and other BL books being set in as close to present tense as it's possible to get (without sounding awkward), they simply logically cannot be ancient legends or misheard tales.

Nah. They're just stories. And there are three stories about how the Empreror was saved, all of them canon. Just like there are several contradicting accounts of Jesus' last words, all canon.

Or to use a less grandiose example, in one version of Batman's origin it is Joker who kills Bruce Wayne's parents, and in another version it is someone else. One of these versions is not 'wrong' they're just different versions of the same story. People can somehow live with Gotham TV series not being consistent with the comics or Batman films, or MCU not being consistent with the Marvel Comics, even though the characters and basic plots threads are the same. I really don't understand why it is so hard to treat 40K this way too, even though the creators of this fiction pretty much have explicitly told us to do so.