"The March of Time" vis-à-vis the UM Timeline Project

[Brother Pariah]

Gathered Librarians,

 

Some of this is cut 'n pasted from a recent thread I made in Amicus, but I've made changes, and am calling for discussion by members who are interested in the Ultramarines Timeline Project.

 

Background:

 

In Rick Priestley's original article "The March of Time" in White Dwarf 97, he said,

0001987.M41. Segment 1. Our year 40987 and the "current" year in the WH40K universe.

 

As the last example explains, the current year in the WH40K mythos is the year 987/M41. The current "real" [year] is, of course, year 987/M2. Because it makes the game easier to write for, I usually refer dates in the WH40K mythos to the approximate 1987 equivalent at the time of writing.

 

Now, my impression is that they generally stuck to this plan throughout 1st and 2nd edition and into 3rd edition. I'm almost certain that, for instance, nothing was referred-to as having happened in 996/M41 back in 1994, for instance. Stuff like Armageddon 2 and 3, Hive Fleet Kraken, and many other smaller wars took place exactly 39,000 years in the future. Indeed, in this 2004 interview of Pete Haines, conducted by Dysartes, such a practice is noted because of its apparent discontinuation:

 

Dysartes: "Judging by the 40k timeline we've reached the end of the 41st millennium. Does this mean 4th edition will push on into the 42nd millennium or will you go back and fill out the older fluff?"

 

Pete Haines: "We have no plans to change the name of the game, we have 10,000 years of imperial history to play with and that should be enough."

 

I hope that this is sufficient evidence to convince those reading this that the "date + 30,000 years" practice was widely used in the previous millennium. I am willing to dig up additional evidence if necessary, however. It has been ten years, after all!

 

 

Problem:

 

We have a lot of orphaned events that we haven't been able to place in the Timeline. Important battles that have gone unrecorded in this forum's primary repository of Ultramarines history, because we are unable to find any explicit dating cues in the source materials. Many of these events are from over a decade ago, and probably will not be revisited by GW in the future, so the chance of further details regarding these events coming to light is slim.

 

 

Proposal:

 

I propose that, for pre-2000 material only, and in the absence of any other dating cues, we assume that any event takes place 39,000 years in the future from the publication of the first mention of that event.

 

For example: I look through my copy of Space Marine Battles (1993). I find a nice batrep with quite a bit of fluff attached to it, only lacking the date of the event in question. I know that this was reprinted from an issue of White Dwarf, so I look it up in the White Dwarf index and discover that the article "The Assault on Barbarius" was originally printed in White Dwarf 160, the April 1993 issue. So I could come up with an entry like so: "993/M41: Ultramarines, together with elements of the Fifth Xenophonian Guard and the Legio Metalica, put down civil disturbances on Barbarius. The Eldar attack the planet, and the 10th Company is deployed by Thunderhawk Gunship to assist the Imperial forces against the Eldar. (WD 160, p. 21-22. Forward-dated 39,000 years from original publication in 1993)"

 

 

So that's it. I'm opening the floor for discussion about the pros and cons of this change in methodology. Once everyone has had their say, I'll start a new thread where we can vote on whether to adopt my proposed methodology (or some other variant that comes out of the discussion).

[Legatus]

That is certainly a possibility, all while the item in question would be marked as only assumed to having taken place at that date. However, was there perhaps a difference between "historical events" and "current events" even back then? I.e., a story written in 1993, if intended to describe current events, would then logically be set at 993.M41. But if it was instead intended to be a historical event, it could have been anywhere in the 40K past.

[Brother Pariah]

Let's see. "Heretic," in WD 187, about the Korsk II rebellion, is written in a historical style. The articles describing the first global campaign (Ichar IV, in WD 191-192) are written in a mish-mash of styles. Volistad IV campaign in the Final Liberation User Manual is in a historical style, identical to how that book describes the Horus Heresy and other ancient history.

 

EDIT: That wasn't very clear. My point is that most of these things are written in a historical style, even if they are explicitly-stated to have taken place in the "current" 40K-year.

[The Emperor's Champion]

When was DSBS written? If it was 2002 then that explains why my last frame for "current" is set at 002.M42....

 

Anyhow, I support the idea.

[Cptn. Palladorus]

I like it. I say we use it until we find a better system, and mark every date that's derived from that formula so when we revise the timeline we can spot them.

[Brother Pariah]

When was DSBS written? If it was 2002 then that explains why my last frame for "current" is set at 002.M42....

It came out in 2004, I'm afraid. You'll have to come up with another explanation.

[apologist]

I think this is an excellent idea.

 

As an addendum, the first number in the Imperial dating system is a check number:

 

Check NumberThe check number refers to the accuracy in the date, required for clarity due to distortions of linear time while within the warp, an innacuracies in timing on remote or isolated worlds/systems.

 

• 0/1 - Earth standard date. Referring to an event which happened within the Sol system. '0' is most commonly used to refer to event which occured on Terra.
  
• 2 - Direct. Source in direct psychic contact with Earth when date reference was made.
  
• 3 - Indirect. Source is in direct contact with a Class 2 source, though not Sol itself.
  
• 4 - Corroborated. The source is in contact with a Class 3 source.
  
• 5 - Sub-Corroborated. The source is in direct psychic contact with a corroborated source.
  
• 6 - Non-referenced, 1 year. The source is not in contact with a Class 0 to 5 source when the date reference was made, though it is a continuation of a timeline referenced by a Class 0 to 5 source.
  
• 7 - Non-referenced, 10 years. As with Class 6 sources, but with a greater time span to allow for larger inaccuracies.
  
• 8 - Non-referenced, 11+ years. As Class 7, though unsourced for a longer period of time.
  
• 9 - Approximation. Used when worlds using a Non-Imperial calander, must reference an event in that worlds history.

Simply using the '9' check number indicates uncertainty, so it'd make sense to use it on these sort of examples. Alternatively, the check number could be replaced with an 'X' or '?', to indicate its unverifiable/non-canonical nature. :pinch:

[The Emperor's Champion]

True, but that doesn't really work without the year fraction, does it?

I guess we could just put "9000" at the front of every assumed date....

 

Like the events of DSBS would be 9000001.M42 since the events happened in warpspace and we don't know what part of that year....

[Brother Pariah]

We could calculate the year fraction based on the release month of whatever magazine the reference appeared in, but I think that's taking things a bit too far, personally. I think that just using the year is probably sufficient for these entries.

 

As far as Dead Sky, Black Sun goes, it was published after 1999, so it would not be eligible for this dating method. It seems clear to me that GW abandoned this practice at the turn of the millennium.

[The Emperor's Champion]

Well I say 001.M42 for DSBS since we have quotes of Ventris being banished then.

[Brother Pariah]

Well I say 001.M42 for DSBS since we have quotes of Ventris being banished then.

Well yeah, that's already in the timeline, though. I remember scouring through those novels for time references. It was a pretty dreadful task, as I recall. (shudders)

[The Emperor's Champion]

Well I say 001.M42 for DSBS since we have quotes of Ventris being banished then.

Well yeah, that's already in the timeline, though. I remember scouring through those novels for time references. It was a pretty dreadful task, as I recall. (shudders)

*pat pat pat*

A noble sacrifice on your part. ;)