Primarch Role(S)?

[Bulwyf]

Had I been around during the changes during 1st Edition I might have felt the same way.

 

I see.

 

So your "i don't like retcons" principles are really meaningless, as you only judge some retcons unworthy and not others. It's all fine to gripe about retcons in general, but you more or less lose all believability on this account now that we saw you pick and choose "good" retcons and "bad" retcons. Not that it means you cannot dislike some of the recent changes, just that your status as an anti-retcon paladin is now gone and use of the oh, so convinient "i' don't like retcons" line seems way hypocritical coming from you now. ^_^

 

I think Legatus has a more than valid view that some of the long standing lore about the Heresy has been completely changed in the HH novels at what feels like the whims of individual authors. I do overall like the HH novels but I also do not enjoy some of the complete revision that has been done so far.

[Legatus]

Had I been around during the changes during 1st Edition I might have felt the same way.

I see.

 

So your "i don't like retcons" principles are really meaningless, as you only judge some retcons unworthy and not others. It's all fine to gripe about retcons in general, but you more or less lose all believability on this account now that we saw you pick and choose "good" retcons and "bad" retcons. Not that it means you cannot dislike some of the recent changes, just that your status as an anti-retcon paladin is now gone and use of the oh, so convinient "i' don't like retcons" line seems way hypocritical coming from you now. :)

Uh...

 

Legatus: "I don't like stories with dog protagonists! So I don't like 'Lassie's Adventures'!"

 

Unintentional Batman: "By that reasoning, you should also not like 'Bingo 2: Bingo's Return'?"

 

Legatus: "Had I read it, I would probably not have liked it!"

 

Unintentional Batman: "Ah-HAH! What a hypocrite!"

 

Obviously I will have a stronger opinion about retcons I am personally affected by. But we can talk in detail about every individual retcon, if you like. Some of them have at least some discernable merit, while others are entirely arbitrary. (Or at least appear that way until further story development is revealed.) For example, I can understand why they may have felt it a good decision to change the Legion sizes to 100,000. This makes the Legions feel "grander" than the 10,000 strong one's. However, the downside is that the 10,000 strong Legions had been the basis for a lot of other fundamental elements in the background (such as the Second Founding numbers or the Space Wolves, Salamanders and Deathguard company numbers), and it would require more retcons to properly integrate these new numbers into the background. On the other hand, I do not yet see any merit in changing the number of worlds that belong to Ultramar from 9 to 500, and so far only see downsides to that change (Guilliman now has been made the "empire builder" a lot of people had accused him to be, and Ultramar will now likely suffer heavily during the course of the Heresy). One can make judgements about the severity of different retcons and the merit or damage they cause to a story or setting. A retcon of one article that appeared in one publication and had existed for one or two years is not as severe as a retcon of background information that had existed for over ten years and had been reprinted in several official publications. And some retcons will be received as more positive by some people, while being more negative for others. A lot of Space Wolves players are thrilled that their Legion is now the "most brutal and terrifying" of the Legions. Fans of the World Eaters and Night Lords are not so thrilled.

 

So, in summary: Retcons vary in their severity, in how much positive and negative impact they have on a story or world. There will be people who prefer what a retecon brings, while some people will be affected more negatively by it. In general, retcons are a "destructive" tool, because they retroactively invalidate information that people have read, perhaps are attached to, and perhaps have payed money for.

 

There may be instances where a retcon is well justified and notably improves a story or setting, but ideally a story should be "good" as initially released, and there should not be a need for it. Even if the initial story was "flawed", there will be people who are attached to it and are then negatively affected by the retcon. So even in instances where the merits far outweigh the negatives, a retcon is unfortunate.

 

As far as the retcons of the Horus Heresy are concerned, I do not see the metits outweighing the negatives. I acknowledge that some people like the "new" Alpha Legion and the "new" Space Wolves, but I am not convinced that they could not have worked just as well if they had been kept as they had previously been known. I see no neccessity to change the Space Wolves from "people's heroes" to "most horryfing and brutal of the Legions" that would justify diminishing the World Eaters and Night Lords in the process. What I see is an author who did not like the original material and wanted to write something "awesome" about the Legion he was given to write about. And in doing so he ignored that Legion's original background and ignored the background of a few other Legions. A very poor example of a retcon.

[Unintentional Batman]

But we can talk in detail about every individual retcon, if you like.

 

Why should we? This was never about particularities of any single "retcon". It was about you, who made the blanket statement of "i don't like retcons".

 

So no, I don't have any inclination to discuss particularities of the retcons, I was just pointing out how really your whole view of 40K is based on "retconned" material and you still have the audacity to make such a blanket claim because it's seen as vaild to rage against "retcons" in some circles. But you should get off your high horse about "retcons" when it was MY Rogue Trader era your stuff "retconned" away - making your generation of "canon" the villains, villains before the Black Library era you so abhor.

 

Anyway, I can't see how you can blanket whine about "retcons" in 40K "canon" if you have a honest bone in your body. :)

 

tl;dr - either no primarchs for you, or no blanket whining about BL "retcons", Mr. Legatus.

[Legatus]

I can asure you that I whined at length about each individual retcon, and not just about retcons in general. But when you have a long list of recent retcons by Black Library books, indeed an entire campaign which is not only recognised to include retcons by the IP department but perhaps even meant to, then "blanket" complains about the retcons of Black Library are completely justified.

 

And I had hoped that I had sufficiently explained why even "positive retcons" are an unfortunate thing.

 

I suggest we discuss the 2nd Edition retconning in a different thread, since it has little to do with this topic. Suffice it to say that retcons have zero impact on people who only just start out with the retconned material.

[Unintentional Batman]

I suggest we discuss the 2nd Edition retconning in a different thread, since it has little to do with this topic. Suffice it to say that retcons have zero impact on people who only just start out with the retconned material.

 

Fair enough. I'll accept your "retcons are bad for only those who notice the retcon" way of seeing it. Sorry if I read a bit more hostile about this than I actually meant, it's just a bit of a pet peeve for me when folks complain about retroactive continuity and canon changes in Warhammer, when most of the current foundation has been been built on those and have have been part of the Warhammer non-canon from the start - I just wanted to get my general gripe aired and aimed it at your post, as it was conviniently there. So let us consider this tangent of discussion over ;)

[Gree]

A lot of Space Wolves players are thrilled that their Legion is now the "most brutal and terrifying" of the Legions. Fans of the World Eaters and Night Lords are not so thrilled.

 

I'm a fan of both Legions and I don't mind that much.

 

There may be instances where a retcon is well justified and notably improves a story or setting, but ideally a story should be "good" as initially released, and there should not be a need for it. Even if the initial story was "flawed", there will be people who are attached to it and are then negatively affected by the retcon. So even in instances where the merits far outweigh the negatives, a retcon is unfortunate.

 

Do you realize how unlikely it would be for a setting like 40k to stay static with no change at all?

[TheGreatChonricler]

This is longer than any philosophical page or thesis i have read brain is frayed.

[Wade Garrett]

. And some retcons will be received as more positive by some people, while being more negative for others. A lot of Space Wolves players are thrilled that their Legion is now the "most brutal and terrifying" of the Legions. Fans of the World Eaters and Night Lords are not so thrilled.

 

You (and, to be fair, a whole heaping horde of Space Wolf fans) keep throwing that around as if it is holy writ carved into granite by somewhere by the flaming sword of a mighty archangel. Yes, Prospero Burns contains a passage that says that. But you have to look who's saying it and what the context of it was. In this case, that quote comes from a Sgt. in the Imperial Guard, whose only basis for comparisons are the pre Red Thirst and Black Rage Blood Angels and the pre Plague Marine Death Guard. So if anyone is going to get their drawers in a twist it should be such preening poofs as like the Sparkly Vampire Marines and all both of the Mortarion fans out there.

 

This is why it helps to actually READ the books before you form opinons of them, as it allows one to place otherwise cherry picked lines in their proper context. I will agree with you that the Horus Heresy novels have made some blunders (Deliverance Lost made me so mad I headbutted a wall, which did nothing to Gav Thorpe for ruining the Raven Guard but did give me a headache) but for whatever my opinion is worth, so far the hits have outweighed the misses.

[Wade Garrett]

On the subject of Primarch roles, several of the First Founding Legions (the War Hounds, Dusk Raiders, and Imperial Heralds come to mind) had their tactical and strategic doctrines heavily altered once they were reunited with their founding fathers. If the Emperor had already planned out the roles each Primarch was going to play, wouldn't he have already begun training their Legions to fit into those parts, thus removing any need for the gene fathers to make huge sweeping changes to how their sons made war?

[oreryan]

i think the retcon to the wolves only intended to give em more depth, not just viking in space, i know its cool but i like that deeper fluff

 

having suffered retcons in lot of games and in few comics too, i know how it feels man, you get used to one thing and enjoy it and them BAM they change it

 

nobody likes changes but sometimes they are for good

 

still believe that the new fluff for wolves doesnt overlaps with the eaters and the night lords,

for me lords are the incanation of the fear you should feel of the power of the emperor, they create fear, its part of their "way", the wolves just tear everthing apart because the objective is the murder make, i mean there is a reason because certain thing has to go down, they take it down completely, fear is a by product =P=P

my 2 cents

really enjoying this thread =)=)

[Legatus]

Do you realize how unlikely it would be for a setting like 40k to stay static with no change at all?

There are enoough opportunities for new development or new information without having to invalidate previous material. Hive Fleet Leviathan is not a retcon, neither are the Third War for Armageddon or the 13th Black Crusade. But one does not need to advance the time line in order to present new material. There are a million unknown worlds and over nine hundred unknown Space Marine Chapters.

 

 

i think the retcon to the wolves only intended to give em more depth, not just viking in space, i know its cool but i like that deeper fluff

What makes their background a little deeper is the revelation that they put on an act, that they only pretend to be a bunch of barbarians. That would have worked with the "old" Space Wolves as well. I am not sure making them "the Emperor's Executioners, because they are the most brutal of them all" was neccessary for that. That seems to be a move purely to appeal to fans of the Legion.

[Gree]

Do you realize how unlikely it would be for a setting like 40k to stay static with no change at all?

There are enoough opportunities for new development or new information without having to invalidate previous material. Hive Fleet Leviathan is not a retcon, neither are the Third War for Armageddon or the 13th Black Crusade. But one does not need to advance the time line in order to present new material. There are a million unknown worlds and over nine hundred unknown Space Marine Chapters.

 

But people don't really care about those things. They want to read about the popular stuff and the popular armies. That stuff sells more. Then, given GW's lax attituide to continuty and they freely encourage writers to pull off their own spin on things. If you think Games Workshop is bad with retcons, then you should read DC and Marvel.

[Legatus]

You can include the popular Chapters in new stories. Somehow the same couple of Chapters end up being involved anyway. We don't know all campaigns the Blood Angels lr Space Wolves were involved in the last hundred years, let alone the last millennium.

[Gree]

You can include the popular Chapters in new stories. Somehow the same couple of Chapters end up being involved anyway. We don't know all campaigns the Blood Angels lr Space Wolves were involved in the last hundred years, let alone the last millennium.

 

You can expect popular events and people to be revisted in the past and changed because frankly many of the earlier game designers were not that good or comprehensive with that essentially was a bunch of background material written down for some beer and pizza tabletop wargaming.

 

It's pretty much a fact of life in long running serial settings that major properties are often revisted and revamped by the company. I would use American comics as a comparison since it's also a static setting like Warhammer. Superman, for example has had at least three seperate origin stories as his ''offical'' origin in the comics written in the past ten years, to say nothing of the major continuty retcon recently.

 

It's the nature of the settings. Things changed and are retconned. It's rather unrealistic to expect the same background to be adhered to in that kind of serial setting. It's time to roll with the punches and accept that.

[Legatus]

Well, for one thing "continuity mistakes" or "retcons" are lamented in comic books just as they are in movies. But when you buy another comic book that tells the origin story and changes things up, you get a "different" story. If you have a game setting, and a new publication changes events, then your older material is now useless. The old comic book or old episode of a series still tells the same story when you watch or read it, even if its significance for the series has changed. But the purpose of "fluff" is to give you information about a faction or a major event of a game. Some people might invest a significant amount of money in products based on the background descriptions. They decide whether they want to play that particular character or faction. In such an environment it can be especially harmful to alter a faction's background, because it could invalidate the reasons for why someone invested money into that faction in the first place. The same will be rare for comic books or movies. There may be the odd one who only started buying Star Wars merchandise because of how cool it was that Han Solo did not hesitate and shot first, but this is not really to be expected. In a game setting, it absolutely is expected that how a faction or character is presented will influence people's decision to invest into them.

[Gree]

Well, for one thing "continuity mistakes" or "retcons" are lamented in comic books just as they are in movies.

 

Hardly, ask Batman fans about Grant Morrison's work on Batman or Nolan fans about the Schumacher films. True, comic fans can be divisive, but I can pull up many, many retcons people were grateful for. Unless you are going to start criticising Nolan for changing the background that was in the Adam West TV show or the Schumacher films?

 

But when you buy another comic book that tells the origin story and changes things up, you get a "different" story. If you have a game setting, and a new publication changes events, then your older material is now useless.

 

I'm not sure the difference, in fact if anything I would say it's the other way around, as Games Workshop is much more lax on it's continuty than DC or Marvel is. I'm not sure why your older material would be useless under GW's 'loose canon'' policy.

 

The old comic book or old episode of a series still tells the same story when you watch or read it, even if its significance for the series has changed. But the purpose of "fluff" is to give you information about a faction or a major event of a game. Some people might invest a significant amount of money in products based on the background descriptions. They decide whether they want to play that particular character or faction. In such an environment it can be especially harmful to alter a faction's background, because it could invalidate the reasons for why someone invested money into that faction in the first place. The same will be rare for comic books or movies. There may be the odd one who only started buying Star Wars merchandise because of how cool it was that Han Solo did not hesitate and shot first, but this is not really to be expected. In a game setting, it absolutely is expected that how a faction or character is presented will influence people's decision to invest into them.

 

And that still exists. I'm not sure why newer retcons being presented would prevent anybody from preferring the older material and ignoring the new ones.

 

But obviously I can tell you are not very familar with the comics fandom or the investment many people put into those comics. All the arguments you make about investment in fluff can be very easily applied to the current comics fandom, especially in light of the new 52 reboot. Speaking in the long term, comics are suprisingly expensive to buy in the long term if you want to collect all the issues of a writer's current run, let alone if you follow multiple series. In fact when I started in comics I was suprised at just how much money I had to shell out if I wanted to read all the titles that I liked on a monthly basis.

[Unintentional Batman]

If you have a game setting, and a new publication changes events, then your older material is now useless.

 

No it isn't. I still run games* based heavily on Rogue Trader era fluff, with everything in between from Ian Watson's books to the most current Heresy novels also being throwin in the mix. And the RT era things, I decide to use are still just as valid as they were back in the day. I have even managed to mix in 1d4Chan stuff and so far the Games Workshop blackbag squads have stayed away from our gaming garage. :)

 

*mostly on the RPG side of things, where Fluff actually matters, but there's still squats used in our 40K group, damnit!

 

Canon is in your head, mang. Everything else is just some other nerd and said nerd's canon. The non-reality of 40K is subjective.

 

*sound of window breaking as a blackbag squad asssaults in*

[Legatus]

Comics offer entertainment value. They are not informational material you use to inform your "actual" hobby (unless you only acquired the comics because you are looking for inspiration for cosplay costumes or something like that). If a new series comes out that re-tells the events of a series you have collected, you still have that series you had collected and can still read it.

There is a modification of the greater mythology of the series you like if stories are retconned, but the main purpose of an individual comic book is not changed. It will still tell the same story it did before.

The "fluff" for a game on the other hand is informational material that informs a player's choices in the "actual" hobby. So the two cases are very different. But aside from that, there are often "alternate universe" versions for the popular titles. Readers are fully aware that the events in those separate series are not to be taken as the new canon. If there was a clear declaration that the Horus Heresy was meant as the "popcorn" version of the Heresy story, I would not complain as much. (And indeed, a declaration of sort did exist briefly, in the form of a statement made by the then head editor of Black Library George Mann, explaining on an investors conference that only Studio material was binding, while Black Library material was merely meant to tell entertaining stories.)

[Gree]

Comics offer entertainment value. They are not informational material you use to inform your "actual" hobby (unless you only acquired the comics because you are looking for inspiration for cosplay costumes or something like that). If a new series comes out that re-tells the events of a series you have collected, you still have that series you had collected and can still read it.

 

The same applies to 40k fluff. You still have the fluff you collected and can still read it.

 

 

The "fluff" for a game on the other hand is informational material that informs a player's choices in the "actual" hobby. So the two cases are very different.

 

I'm not seeing any difference here.

 

But aside from that, there are often "alternate universe" versions for the popular titles. Readers are fully aware that the events in those separate series are not to be taken as the new canon. If there was a clear declaration that the Horus Heresy was meant as the "popcorn" version of the Heresy story, I would not complain as much. (And indeed, a declaration of sort did exist briefly, in the form of a statement made by the then head editor of Black Library George Mann, explaining on an investors conference that only Studio material was binding, while Black Library material was merely meant to tell entertaining stories.)

 

There is no obligation for you take the Black Library series as much as a Codex sourcebook. A peice of 40k fluff is only as canon as much as you want it to be. Are you familar with loose canon?

 

http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/

 

If it does not fit your personal vision of 40k then you are not obligated to include it if you don't like it.

[Unintentional Batman]

The "fluff" for a game on the other hand is informational material that informs a player's choices in the "actual" hobby.

 

There's no "canon" for the fluff. It's what you make of it, what your group makes of it. You seem to be hugely stuck with the notion it matters one bit what the suits at GW try to push as the canon-de-jour, and frankly, because of that you go to the wrong direction the moment you step your foot out of the door.

[oreryan]

yeah maybe ur right legatus

that executioner thing is kind o cheesy

 

still, i think the new fluff its better than vikings in space,

[Gree]

Actually I think I might have to give this some more thought.

 

Obviously I will have a stronger opinion about retcons I am personally affected by. But we can talk in detail about every individual retcon, if you like. Some of them have at least some discernable merit, while others are entirely arbitrary. (Or at least appear that way until further story development is revealed.) For example, I can understand why they may have felt it a good decision to change the Legion sizes to 100,000. This makes the Legions feel "grander" than the 10,000 strong one's. However, the downside is that the 10,000 strong Legions had been the basis for a lot of other fundamental elements in the background (such as the Second Founding numbers or the Space Wolves, Salamanders and Deathguard company numbers), and it would require more retcons to properly integrate these new numbers into the background.

 

think there might be something in the "Great" and "Grand" prefixes there. It's entirely possible that they use the Great/Grand Companies as ceremonial units but they divide into smaller, more flexible units for day-to-day operations. Given that the modern Marines find that most of the time even a company is excessive for their needs, and that's just a hundred Marines, even the "old style" Space Wolves and Salamanders companies of around a thousand men would be unwieldy and unnecessary.

 

As far as the retcons of the Horus Heresy are concerned, I do not see the metits outweighing the negatives. I acknowledge that some people like the "new" Alpha Legion and the "new" Space Wolves, but I am not convinced that they could not have worked just as well if they had been kept as they had previously been known. I see no neccessity to change the Space Wolves from "people's heroes" to "most horryfing and brutal of the Legions" that would justify diminishing the World Eaters and Night Lords in the process. What I see is an author who did not like the original material and wanted to write something "awesome" about the Legion he was given to write about. And in doing so he ignored that Legion's original background and ignored the background of a few other Legions. A very poor example of a retcon.

 

Right, so that's totally anecdotal. Some Imperial Army officer reckons the Wolves are the worst of the lot - he's probably not all that qualified to make that judgment, though. He'll be going by hearsay rather than by hard evidence. This is a novel about Space Wolves, so I wouldn't expect to see the officer telling us how scary the Night Lords are, because it's completely irrelevant. It's a literary device, not hard fact. As with all these things, it's fuzzy. How many "closest brothers" does Horus have? Four, five? How many Legions are widely considered to be the best? (A few) Which Legion is the scariest? Depends who you ask, what they know, who they've spoken to. We know the World Eaters disconcert the Luna Wolves. We know that Konrad Curze frightens Rogal Dorn. It's not really that cut and dried.

[Legatus]

I see no neccessity to change the Space Wolves from "people's heroes" to "most horryfing and brutal of the Legions" that would justify diminishing the World Eaters and Night Lords in the process. What I see is an author who did not like the original material and wanted to write something "awesome" about the Legion he was given to write about. And in doing so he ignored that Legion's original background and ignored the background of a few other Legions. A very poor example of a retcon.

Right, so that's totally anecdotal. Some Imperial Army officer reckons the Wolves are the worst of the lot - he's probably not all that qualified to make that judgment, though.

That is the author's own explanation for why the Space Wolves were meant to be used against other Legions, though.

"Space Marines are inherently tough, but Space Wolves are particularly dangerous. They are ruthless, they are savage, they are brutal. It begs the question: Why would the Emperor permit something quite so dangerous and untamed to exist? And that would be to take down another Legion!"

Meanwhile, the World Eaters are censured for their brutal campaigns, and entire systems surrender rather than to face them...

 

Edit: Not to mention that Guilliman had planned to have a word with Angron about his Legion's conduct, but considered Leman Russ one of his "dauntless few".

[Gree]

That is the author's own explanation for why the Space Wolves were meant to be used against other Legions, though.

"Space Marines are inherently tough, but Space Wolves are particularly dangerous. They are ruthless, they are savage, they are brutal. It begs the question: Why would the Emperor permit something quite so dangerous and untamed to exist? And that would be to take down another Legion!"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

 

I couldn't really care less about the interview. That's just Abnett speculating in a non-canonical setting. See Apart from that it's just the author's opinion.

 

Meanwhile, the World Eaters are censured for their brutal campaigns, and entire systems surrender rather than to face them...

 

Edit: Not to mention that Guilliman had planned to have a word with Angron about his Legion's conduct, but considered Leman Russ one of his "dauntless few".

 

It's not inconsistency. It's perspective. It's unreliable narration. It's people being multifaceted. Different people probably have different opinions on who Horus has the closest relationship with, and they probably have different opinions on who the "scariest" Legion is. Even the same people will have different opinions at different times or in different contexts.

 

Speaking entirely for myself here, I don't particularly want a story about Space Wolves sidetracked by a conversation between ill-informed soldiers about the 30K equivalent of pirates versus ninjas, which is what such a conversation would amount to. Maybe if they cut out some of the prologue of Prospero Burns they could have space for it.

 

The purpose in that line is to establish that the Space Wolves are "scary, even for a Space Marine". Which they are: even if they rank only #3 on the Official Most Terrifying Legions List that's still a lot scarier than your average Marine, and establishing that is basically the point. The line's purpose would be sort of defeated if instead it were, "the Space Wolves are the most brutal and terrifying Legion. Well, apart from the Night Lords, obviously. And the World Eaters, I guess. And I don't like yellow, so the Imperial Fists kind of creep me out. Well, the Space Wolves are pretty scary, anyway".

 

Plus there's all the other stuff that comes from this being just a random dude spouting his opinion in-character. Different people find different things terrifying. Maybe the methodical destruction of the Space Wolves comes across as worse to this commentator than the mindless butchery of the World Eaters. Maybe the guy has heard about the Night Lords but has written them off as stories to scare children with. It's not exactly definitive.

[Vesper]

Obviously I will have a stronger opinion about retcons I am personally affected by. But we can talk in detail about every individual retcon, if you like. Some of them have at least some discernable merit, while others are entirely arbitrary. (Or at least appear that way until further story development is revealed.) For example, I can understand why they may have felt it a good decision to change the Legion sizes to 100,000. This makes the Legions feel "grander" than the 10,000 strong one's. However, the downside is that the 10,000 strong Legions had been the basis for a lot of other fundamental elements in the background (such as the Second Founding numbers or the Space Wolves, Salamanders and Deathguard company numbers), and it would require more retcons to properly integrate these new numbers into the background. On the other hand, I do not yet see any merit in changing the number of worlds that belong to Ultramar from 9 to 500, and so far only see downsides to that change (Guilliman now has been made the "empire builder" a lot of people had accused him to be, and Ultramar will now likely suffer heavily during the course of the Heresy). One can make judgements about the severity of different retcons and the merit or damage they cause to a story or setting. A retcon of one article that appeared in one publication and had existed for one or two years is not as severe as a retcon of background information that had existed for over ten years and had been reprinted in several official publications. And some retcons will be received as more positive by some people, while being more negative for others. A lot of Space Wolves players are thrilled that their Legion is now the "most brutal and terrifying" of the Legions. Fans of the World Eaters and Night Lords are not so thrilled.

 

So, in summary: Retcons vary in their severity, in how much positive and negative impact they have on a story or world. There will be people who prefer what a retecon brings, while some people will be affected more negatively by it. In general, retcons are a "destructive" tool, because they retroactively invalidate information that people have read, perhaps are attached to, and perhaps have payed money for.

 

There may be instances where a retcon is well justified and notably improves a story or setting, but ideally a story should be "good" as initially released, and there should not be a need for it. Even if the initial story was "flawed", there will be people who are attached to it and are then negatively affected by the retcon. So even in instances where the merits far outweigh the negatives, a retcon is unfortunate.

 

As far as the retcons of the Horus Heresy are concerned, I do not see the metits outweighing the negatives. I acknowledge that some people like the "new" Alpha Legion and the "new" Space Wolves, but I am not convinced that they could not have worked just as well if they had been kept as they had previously been known. I see no neccessity to change the Space Wolves from "people's heroes" to "most horryfing and brutal of the Legions" that would justify diminishing the World Eaters and Night Lords in the process. What I see is an author who did not like the original material and wanted to write something "awesome" about the Legion he was given to write about. And in doing so he ignored that Legion's original background and ignored the background of a few other Legions. A very poor example of a retcon.

 

I feel warm inside. I feel... so fully understood.