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 used to frequent reddit and B&C and warseer back in the day (2015-2023) and the concept that there were 'different' versions of warhammer 40k was known, if not widely accepted, throughout all three media forums. My question is this, when did the concept of there being different incompatible versions of the same setting even originate? I vaguely remember people saying, for example, that the 'abnett-verse' was much 'lighter' in tone than the 'GW-verse.'



And for that matter, why are some 'fans' insistent that the GW-setting (and the company) doesnt exist? Ive noticed that attitude more as of late.

First time I've ever heard about such terms.. and I used to post on Warseer quite a bit back in the day

 tauist wrote:
First time I've ever heard about such terms.. and I used to post on Warseer quite a bit back in the day

Reddit was reaaal big on it. They were talking about it even before my time

I know people have always had levels of canon. With different levels of distain for anything below their chosen tier. Ie anything is the core rulebook and codex was true, anything else was suspect.

I’ve not heard of those classes, but they do not surprise me.

GW doesn’t help with the “everything/nothing is canon” POV.

I've never seen it claimed that the Abnett-verse (for example) is incompatible with the broader 40k-verse. It's usually more of a recognition that the themes, tone, stories etc. are slightly different and/or more self contained.


As for claims that the setting as a whole doesn't exist, that's just an outgrowth of 'nothing is canon!' *dribble* which is peudo-intellectual apologia for GW's poor consistency.

Never heard of this idea before either.
That said it just sounds like geeks trying to make sense of the fact that GW's lore isn't 100% iron clad in terms of its content and structure. It's a monster created over 40 years by dozens of different authors and creators in different mediums which can each bring their own challenges in how something is interpreted and then displayed.

Alongside that you've had the tabletop game and the fact that many publications are designed to advertise/support the tabletop and so on and so forth.


So yeah I'm not surprised some tried to theory-craft that each different major medium and author was creating their own unique world. Esp fans who are perhaps used to DC/Marvel comics where each creator arc is often a stand-alone interpretation of a character and operates in its own "Universe" and only come together in "multiverse" series (or christmas specials)

For those in the UK this is far less a thing (we get the comics but its not as much of a cult following as in the USA) so its not something we instinctively jump to thinking about.

Instead most accept its 1 universe that changes, shifts and evolves and has different takes and so on and so forth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:

and for that matter, why are some 'fans' insistent that the GW-setting (and the company) doesnt exist? Ive noticed that attitude more as of late.

That just sounds like trolling teens on reddit

I legit just had some on this site claim GW doesnt exist??

I diiid notice the biggest 'clash' was between book fans and the tabletop players on reddit. Lots of snobbery, hostility and gatekeeping from the book readers towards the players.

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
I legit just had some on this site claim GW doesnt exist??

In the context of that thread (which I only happened to now spot) the statement doesn't meant that "GW doesn't exist" it means that "GW" isn't a singular entity with a singular vision and set of information for their setting.

That its a variable thing that has evolved over time as noted above. So whilst there ARE rules and they do aim to preserve elements of its internal structure; things also change; shift and adjust about.

It is amusing that people expect a crystal clear timeline and compatible events in a fictional setting, compared tot he real world where objective facts are disregarded and history constantly being written over.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is amusing that people expect a crystal clear timeline and compatible events in a fictional setting, compared tot he real world where objective facts are disregarded and history constantly being written over.

Also sometimes its not even that details are wrong or different. There is a timeline and things do change; furthermore different characters will interpret the same information in different ways and thus different stories told from different perspectives can certainly change how one might describe a situation or a thing in the setting.



Oh another one is that even people reading the same information will interpret it differently. Eg there are those who like to interpret a lot of the Marine stuff as overblown propaganda and thus get really annoyed when a video game or tabletop element might actually make one of those "overblown exaggerations" "real" in the setting.

It’s all unreliable narrators.

The Eldar remember their history as mythic cycles and allegory.

The Necrons, those that still have personality engrams, are quite mad.

Orks? Yeah Orks don’t really do history as such.

Chaos? Madness again, and self interest.

Imperium? The longest lasting human civilisation we know of which has forgotten so much. Oh, and propaganda. So much propaganda.

Tau? Only the Ethereals really know, and they’re not telling.

Kin? Somewhere between Imperial and Eldar, but still not dealing with the whole deck of historical facts, quite possibly by design. Well, the design of their designers.

Consider modern history and modern media. Much more than 200 years ago and widespread literacy, a lot of it is educated guesswork based on, as you go back, less and less reliable sources.

There’s also a lot of Personal Experiences presented as objective reality.

Classic Example? Ork guns only work because the believe they work. But…who is our source? A Tech Priest. Who aren’t known for really, truly, understanding technology. Coloured by the cultural impression of Orks being backward idiots.

A single study, by someone we know will be biased and uninformed, studying only a single piece of evidence before coming to a conclusion.

No study of the Orks wielding the weapons, for instance. So we can’t rule out genetic scanner safeties (to prevent theft), or the underlying principle of the gun being beyond the Tech Priest’s knowledge.

For comparison? We give a TV Repairman from the 1940’s a modern, 4k UHD TV with no external buttons, and ask him to explain how the channel was changed, volume adjusted etc - the basic functions. He is not shown or told of the invention of remote controls. He can plug it in and see it display an image, but no more. How might they explain it? What are the chances he’d get the right answer, when he doesn’t know that technology exists, nor is common place. The fact it doesn’t have a valve tube and is so skinny would also be new.

So, as far as the Tech-Priest is concerned, psychics is a plausible explanation, but is far from the only explanation.

And so we come back to everything is canon, nothing is true. It’s canonical that Tech-Priest made the study and offered the conclusion. But that doesn’t mean that’s the truth of the matter.

For Space Marines, a given tradition or approach may very well not extend beyond the Chapter in question. They’re all autonomous after all. There will be commonalities, yes. But stuff like when is the Progenoid extracted can easily vary Chapter to Chapter, even when otherwise Codex Compliant. So we as the audience can’t simply pick one bit of background or a novel and present it as a universal truth.

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
I legit just had some on this site claim GW doesnt exist??

No I didn't, you're taking what I said out of context.
Please do not do that.

I think it was trying to square the inconsistencies between how the setting is shown in the novels vs how it is shown in the game rules/rulebooks.

Abnett gets his own "verse" because he's so prolific and popular, but also because he likes to link his stuff together and make his ideas fairly plot central.

Like some examples of Abnett-versisms:
Samus - originally a cool spooky daemon that shows up in First and Only, it shows up again in Horus Rising, I thought as an easter egg nod to fans. But then it turns out that Samus is super important and is a daemon of the dark king blah blah blah.

Enuncia - shows up in Ravenor (IIRC) as a weird form of magic. By the end of the Horus Heresy it's more powerful than Warp magic and does the most damage to Horus of anything in the entire Heresy.

Perpetuals - OCs invented by Abnett probably riffing on the Sensei concept that end up being totally plot central. Ollianus Pius is one, there's a special secret agent one who fights Horus, the Emperor, Malcador and Vulcan are ones and so are half the founders of the Inquisition. (Gah, can you tell I hate this? Especially the not just "I live forever" schtick but also the "I regenerate from anything if I die, unless I DON'T BECAUSE OF AN EVEN BIGGER PLOT CONTRIVANCE!)

So I think the Abnettverse stuff started as a way to take note of his early linking of his stories together and as his prominence in the background has grown with his influence on the Horus Heresy it really begins to take on a different character because he's really making core setting things more "Abnett-y". I don't think you can point to a single point in time when this emerged because I think the meaning has changed over time.

I also note the reddit guys being snobs about the game and only being book fans. It's fine, I don't need to care about their opinions.

 Da Boss wrote:

So I think the Abnettverse stuff started as a way to take note of his early linking of his stories together and as his prominence in the background has grown with his influence on the Horus Heresy it really begins to take on a different character because he's really making core setting things more "Abnett-y". I don't think you can point to a single point in time when this emerged because I think the meaning has changed over time.

Personally it is also a way to try to quarantine it, Abnettverse stuff is basically setting cancer as there is no way to reconcile all these super plot important contriveances with the rest of the setting.

The Abnettverse has been around for decades, we used it in the Inquisitor (the game) community to describe the disconnect between the Imperium depicted in the rest of the lore (stagnant tech, oppressed citizens, subsistence level living) and the stuff in Abnett's novels (civilian grav-cars, overall less dark and more pulp sci-fi setting), it caused quite a disconnect when people designing character backstories based on one universe encountered one based on the other

Hmmm. So now we've established that the abnett-verse as a concept has been known for decades. Which, as my research has already suggested wasnt surprising, although it is older than i thought.


I just need to track down the origins and proliferation of the term 'bl-verse' and 'gw-verse'.

Perhaps i should just email corporate? They soometimes answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
I legit just had some on this site claim GW doesnt exist??

No I didn't, you're taking what I said out of context.
Please do not do that.

Maybe try not putting yourself in a situation where people can source , quote and cite you.

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
Hmmm. So we've established that the abnett-verse as a concept has been known for decades. Which, as my research has already suggested wasnt surprising, although it is older than i thought.


I just need to track down the origins and proliferation of the term 'bl-verse' and 'gw-verse'.

Perhaps i should just email corporate? They soometimes answer.

Can't hurt.

I remember when GW took the Calixis Sector / Jericho Reach /etc from all the Fantasy Flight games and added them to the Core maps.

There's always room for more stories. It's a big universe...

 Tyran wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

So I think the Abnettverse stuff started as a way to take note of his early linking of his stories together and as his prominence in the background has grown with his influence on the Horus Heresy it really begins to take on a different character because he's really making core setting things more "Abnett-y". I don't think you can point to a single point in time when this emerged because I think the meaning has changed over time.

Personally it is also a way to try to quarantine it, Abnettverse stuff is basically setting cancer as there is no way to reconcile all these super plot important contriveances with the rest of the setting.

Taking aside opinions of the abnett-verse, ive noticed that thats the most common complaint between 'gw-verse'ers and 'bl-verse'ers. Both think the other is incompatible with each other.

I think all the inconsistencies of the lore actually work in favour of the setting. Mythical folklore of history is often described in slightly varying stories and fables, varying by perspective as well as in details, and I've always thought the "space fantasy" angle means we are simply hearing long lost folklore from the future ("fantastical" time does not always move in the same direction)

If this makes me a pseudo-intellectual, meh. Been called way worse

Back to the OP, if those terms originated and were heavily used in Reddit, it's possible the terminology never caught on elsewhere.. AFAIK, many Reddit culture things are like that, they tend to stay inside their own domain

 tauist wrote:
I think all the inconsistencies of the lore actually work in favour of the setting. Mythical folklore of history is often described in slightly varying stories and fables, varying by perspective as well as in details, and I've always thought the "space fantasy" angle means we are simply hearing long lost folklore from the future ("fantastical" time does not always move in the same direction)

If this makes me a pseudo-intellectual, meh. Been called way worse

Back to the OP, if those terms originated and were heavily used in Reddit, it's possible the terminology never caught on elsewhere.. AFAIK, many Reddit culture things are like that, they tend to stay inside their own domain

At present, it appears the term "Abnett-verse" predates reddit by a few years. I'm still trying to track down the other two catagories.

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
Maybe try not putting yourself in a sutuation where people cant source , quote and cite you.

You can literally quote any post on DakkaDakka and post it.

 Overread wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is amusing that people expect a crystal clear timeline and compatible events in a fictional setting, compared tot he real world where objective facts are disregarded and history constantly being written over.

Also sometimes its not even that details are wrong or different. There is a timeline and things do change; furthermore different characters will interpret the same information in different ways and thus different stories told from different perspectives can certainly change how one might describe a situation or a thing in the setting.



Oh another one is that even people reading the same information will interpret it differently. Eg there are those who like to interpret a lot of the Marine stuff as overblown propaganda and thus get really annoyed when a video game or tabletop element might actually make one of those "overblown exaggerations" "real" in the setting.

I think the general concept, well, how it was presented to me at the time, was the "GW-verse"ers believe that there is a hard-canon. For example, they believe that Ultramarines are, for example, blue, because that is how the artwork depicts them, that is how painting guides say to paint them, that is how video tutorials say to paint them, that is how the various photos on the website and rulebooks portray them.

Whereupon a "BL-verse"er would not believe in hard-canon and consequently might happily believe or not believe that Ultramarines are blue/not blue because a in-universe character said so.

Same thing with power levels, like "GW-verse"ers believe SM are stronger than humans because the stats and rulebook and advertisements say so. Whereupon a "BL-verse"er might believe that SM are stronger than Custodes because of that scene in Outcast Dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
Maybe try not putting yourself in a sutuation where people cant source , quote and cite you.

You can literally quote any post on DakkaDakka and post it.

Spoiler:

 Gert wrote:

Firstly, there is no "GW". 40k is over 35 years old with a huge number of writers for both main publications and BL books all of whom interpret or write things differently.
"Everything is canon, nothing is true" is the official stance on background.
The article you're taking from also explicitly says that the information from Index: Astartes is considered outdated and that the background has developed and changed since 2002.

My condolences.

Especially because the Warhammer Community post is from 2016. More importantly, if you adhere to the concept of "everything is canon, nothing is true", that also means that that source is canon whether you like it or not. Unless you believe in hard-canon, which you clearly don't.

The excerpt is from 2016, which itself is a reprint from 2002.
In that very WarCom article it is also noted that this excerpt is considered outdated by the time of posting.
For someone who is demanding sources left right and centre, it's pretty ironic you can't get your own ones right.

Once again, please do not take my post out of context and misrepresent what I have said. You have the ability to quote the post, please do so if you wish to discuss it elsewhere.