Conn Eremon Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Maybe it's because this setting places such an importance on the idea that we, the fans, can create our own personal part of it that makes people so much more likely to cling to it. Or because it's a setting for a game, and many of the people who play the game identify with their chosen faction, to a point of assumed ownership in some cases. They (GW and BL authors) are not just changing their 40k but they're changing my 40k. It's part of 40k's charm, to be sure. The feeling that each of us has our own claim to 40k. Downside to it is that when change occurs, it's like a CEO finding out the board came to a decision that fundamentally changes an aspect of the company. Even though, unlike that analogy, we in actuality have no claim, it still kind of feels like being left out the loop. To be bothered by it when the changes seem so . . . well small, is kind of silly to me. But then, I rather like the changes that have come about lately. Like the Horus Heresy or the Necrons, to name the first two to come to mind. But I also hear very, very often people say that they like to pretend that something never happened, or ignore a piece of new fluff or retconned fluff. Everybody seems to pick and choose what they take from the greater 40k into their personal 40k, even if it's nothing more than a shift of focus to the aspects you like most. If there's aspects of the Horus Heresy (or another fluff) that you feel you can't match with your personal view of 40k, then so be it. The greater 40k will move on, and your personal 40k can remain to your liking. If you feel that your personal 40k absolutely has to match with the greater 40k, then perhaps you should think about getting some thicker skin to the idea of changes to the canon. Because if the 40k canon is anything, it's fluid. It's not a mountain slowly building from a permanent base, it's a winding river that has been known to reverse current and run down different riverbeds. I think A D-B was spot when he said that this "Hm, I wonder how this new angle could work? What new stuff does this show that I've not considered before?" should be the first thing to come to a fan's mind, unlikely though it tends to be and guilty of not doing that as we all have been at some point. As a 40k fan, I'm not so much. But as a Star Wars fan, I know I am. Imagine what 40k would be like if Ward was not just one of the Codex writers, but in over-all charge of the IP and its creator. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2994933 Share on other sites More sharing options...
empty choke Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Personally when it comes to changing of the original canon, of the current plot I get a little "Meh" about it. Because coming into a game and growing a huge passion for it, and coming to know and love almost every single bit of the game, whether that be fluff or actually playing and then having to give up a piece that brought you into the game itself, makes me feel like I'm backwards again. All of us..Old and new to this hobby, are and trying to gain that feeling that we all got within our first few months of this hobby. And having a piece of fluff that has kind of struck a cord within you, just makes you feel further away from that feeling. Take the Necrons for example: I came into this hobby knowing them as utterly silent beings of complete hatred for anything in which draws breath. Then reading through the new codex.. I had lost that amount of fear..And respect for the Necrons that I had with their old visage.. I don't know maybe I just grow connected to things too easily? Anyway's just my $0.02 :cuss Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995045 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat33.1 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't want to come across as a 'fanboy' but I have to agree with ADB on this one. If fluff needs to be messed with to fit a story line and said storyline improves the understanding or brings a new twist to the whole genre then go with it. I understand the passion but some people need to be a little less precious otherwise were fixed to storyline that was never intended to be expanded to such a degree and was written with much less thought to where 40K would be in 25 months never mind 25 years! Most of the backstories in the dexs have been rewritten and expanded as they are updated so there needs to be room to grow in the HH novels too. Looking back whoever thought at the start of the HH novels that many of the traitor legions would have their own human back stories, with all there twists and turns, rather than just 'monsters' in power armour of old? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995103 Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurelian Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 In general, i also agree with A D-B on this one, though i see some things a little different. "You seem annoyed, mostly, because it's different and you can't see why it's different." Indeed, if really that's the case. But I don't think anyone would heed a stupid, raging fanboy's cursing over the above mentioned change of fluff, if it was really that primitive. I don't think that in this topic, such primitive arguments were ever, or would ever be made. The problems start when there really are incosistencies, as the topic title suggests. When it is not a complaining fanboy's short-sightedness, but actual mistakes in the story. Minor details can be ignored of course, and i really don't find it healthy if one can't enjoy an otherwise great story because of some contradiction to other fluff. It is more of a problem, however, if a newly written HH novel actually takes away important features from the original. The Index Astartes articles were short and sketchy, but exactly because of this, they were never lost in details, they never intended to be action-packed 40k novels. They had a focus that i sometimes miss from recent HH novels. The most recent example is Deliverence Lost, which could be a nice action-novel in a 40k setting, but comes soo far from the original depicting of Corax. And it is not change itself that is wrong, it is the loss of quality to an already existing story. Legion, A Thousand Sons, and The First Heretic did exactly what is good in the HH series: they have given deapth to the legions, the primarchs, the setting. Some other novels however do just the opposite, and the saddest thing is the loss of potential, of opportunity, as they all bear the authority of canon. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995148 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Take the Necrons for example: I came into this hobby knowing them as utterly silent beings of complete hatred for anything in which draws breath. Then reading through the new codex.. I had lost that amount of fear..And respect for the Necrons that I had with their old visage. It helped me to think of them this way: Now they are silent, merciless killing machines that hate everything that draws breathe and they think of new ways to kill the living. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995270 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftcosiris Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 It's hilarious that I just wrote a couple pages about my biggest annoyance in the HH series and now I see this topic. I just wrote about my way to fix Outcast Dead's timeline inconsistency (Magnus arriving after Isstvan V). http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...=0#entry2995276 That drove me nuts until I came up with my fix. Take a look if you have a moment. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995288 Share on other sites More sharing options...
empty choke Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Don't get me wrong here folks, I love hearing new pieces of fluff being added into the Universe. Just I have a difficult time adjusting to knew changes on certain things that just absolutely love. What must be done, will be done. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995317 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haranin Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Another way to view it is that the fluff is all in character, from a source. After 10k years, good luck finding out the truth. Inconsistencies can ignored as source issues. It would be like reading Monty's and Patton's versions of WWII side by side. You are going to have a very different perspective on WWII and will be confused by how different the narratives are. Then read a book on german armor production... and be confused how two allied generals could kill several times the armor inventory germany had for the war on the same front... while 80% of the army was fighting the Russians. History is messy. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995428 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat33.1 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Another way to view it is that the fluff is all in character, from a source. After 10k years, good luck finding out the truth. Inconsistencies can ignored as source issues. It would be like reading Monty's and Patton's versions of WWII side by side. You are going to have a very different perspective on WWII and will be confused by how different the narratives are. Then read a book on german armor production... and be confused how two allied generals could kill several times the armor inventory germany had for the war on the same front... while 80% of the army was fighting the Russians. History is messy. This is a very good point to make :P Similar to some issues that SW fans had with 'Doom of Mymeara' relating to the artwork notes, it described pack leaders as veteran sergeants. The Wolfy ones don't have veteran sergeants but the book is written from the perspective of an Inquisition report... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995458 Share on other sites More sharing options...
A D-B Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 In general, i also agree with A D-B on this one, though i see some things a little different. "You seem annoyed, mostly, because it's different and you can't see why it's different." Indeed, if really that's the case. But I don't think anyone would heed a stupid, raging fanboy's cursing over the above mentioned change of fluff, if it was really that primitive. I don't think that in this topic, such primitive arguments were ever, or would ever be made. The problems start when there really are incosistencies, as the topic title suggests. When it is not a complaining fanboy's short-sightedness, but actual mistakes in the story. Definitely. It's a nebulous area, though. Because so many fans believe their perception of 40K is objectively 40K as it is, they see any difference as an error. So there's very often no difference in fan reaction to something that's updated, or changed after a long time, compared to something that's actually incorrect. I've seen countless book reviews that mark a novel down because "the author got X wrong". And whether I like the novel or not, I know full well that Detail X isn't wrong, it's just that author's take on Subject Y, or the author is acting on information outside of public knowledge. But it's almost always considered "wrong", not "a different perspective". Actual errors shouldn't be handwaved away with "But it's my interpretation". I definitely agree with that. As a random example that, thankfully, I've not yet seen in a review, several of Dan's fans have told me I do lasguns "wrong" because I don't see them functioning the same way Dan describes in his novels. But that's fine. Dan likes them working and firing X way. I prefer them working and firing Y way. Neither of us are wrong. That's pretty much the point of 40K's design ethos. It is more of a problem, however, if a newly written HH novel actually takes away important features from the original. The Index Astartes articles were short and sketchy, but exactly because of this, they were never lost in details, they never intended to be action-packed 40k novels. They had a focus that i sometimes miss from recent HH novels. I agree with that, too. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995474 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavement Artist Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 As for my personal annoyances, the Heresy books just don't mesh with the established fluff very well in general but there are two that really stand out. 1: Omegon: What a load, the Alpha Legion only ever had the one Primarch, not this twin-deal that's going on now. I don't buy it and refuse to accept it. 2: Cypher: Comparing the old fluff for him with the character in the books, I'm convinced they are not the same person. The Cypher of 40k may be the sucessor to the position of Cypher, but he is not the Cypher from the novals. Not unless he managed to get younger, decided hang around to get a new set of armour with a spunky new paint job and some robes before grabbing the Lion Sword and buggering off. Agree about Omegon. Can't stand that piece of fluff, it's ridiculous. The idea of 7 years between the Dropsite massacre and siege of Terra annoys me intensely also. You're a crap commander if it takes you 7 years to build up your forces, and it's just doesn't mesh with the older fluff. The twin primarchs was a fluff nugget given to Dan abnett by alan merrett, keeper of the holy IP. According to Mr abnett, Alan merrett said they had "always assumed alpharius was a twin". The Horus heresy novels were simply the first tome this was presented. What do you dislike about it so much? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2995998 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimdarkness Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Change is bad take a good look at the legion numbers I know it made me smile to see the UM standard next to the EC. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2996013 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epistolary Exander Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The one issue in the series atm that irks me the most is how it took Valdor less than 2 years to get back to Terra from Prospero, while it took the SW the best part of 7 years to get anywhere near Earth from the same planet. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2996292 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrin Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah but the Space Wolves stopped off on the way to kill some traitors, then met up with the DA, so it is possible that while they were fighting for an undisclosed amount of time (could have been years) the warp storms could have got much worse than when Valdor set course back to Terra. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2996356 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Father Ferrum Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I assume its a lot easier for one vessel -- Valdor's, carrying the Custodes and Sisters -- to make it through a warp storm than it is for a whole fleet of vessels (Russ' fleet) to do the same. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2996380 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 as already said, i doubt Russ immediately returned to Terra after Prospero. I imagine he might have went to Fenris, rearmed and supplied, before making any trip to Terra. And if i remember my Collected Visions right, he was also ordered by Dorn to led the Alpha Legion as far away as possible when he was ambushed on his way to Terra. WLK Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/247186-biggest-inconsistencies-qa/page/2/#findComment-2996383 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.