Jump to content

Feud between Guilliman and Alpharius


RapatoR

Recommended Posts

Umh, only that both the IF feud and the UM feud come from "40K" sources.

 

Also, I prefer to see Codex books as "historical" descriptions, since they are meant to give background information on a given faction. Sometimes the background is intentionally left vague and written so that a lot is speculation or lost to time, sometimes it is not. But this is supposed to tell you about the faction you want to start an army for. This must be factually accurate, and cannot just be bull:cuss. These are essentially "documentaries".

 

Black Library books on the other hand are "action" or "adventure" stories. There is no need for historical accuracy here, since it is more important to tell a cool story. Ultramar consisting of 500 worlds sounds much more impressive, so that is what the "action movie"about the Battle for Calth will tell you. And because the film maker is slightly biased towards the traitors, in his movie the Word Bearers actually win. Cool. But also historically inaccurate. The actual "historical" sources tell us that Ultramar only consisted of 9-10 worlds, that the attack on Calth happened near the end of the Heresy, not near the beginning, and that the Word Bearers were unable to achieve their obective.

 

If you want to play the Dark Anges, for example, no one will tell you that you have to read 'Angels of Darkness' in order to learn what your faction is all about. You have to read the Codex Dark Angels to get your essential information about the Dark Angels. And when a Black Library story contradicts the information given in the Codex Dark Angels, then it is inaccurate. Warhammer 40K is not the boardgame for the Black Library novel series. The Black Library novel series are stories for the Warhammer 40K boardgame.

Legatus: A fair point. I seem to have gained fresh insight from a couple of respected sources today across the threads. Sometimes we forget just what is the important part of this hobby and what is just added entertainment. :(

Loose Canon Theory

 

EDIT: OUt of curiosity, how can an author be biased against a specific faction when the "historical texts" say that faction won? Also, aren't the Codices supposed to be written from the 40k perspective which is supposed to have lost so much of its history and only has bits and pieces along with the legends that surround them while both the BL Horus Heresy and the Forgeworld Horusy Heresy series are from the 30k persepective and other than one or two possible conflicts, are agreeing on every point as at least the BL Series is being confirmed by GW's IP department? Or does GW actually approving what is being written proof that is "historical fiction?"

Isn't it also kinda preposterous to claim that a 40k Codex written by Mad Ward is more "historically accurate" and reliable than the novels when all Ward does is add more and more bells and whistles to... everything, often invalidating material from earlier releases or other authors?

 

I dunno about you, but I'd consider the Heresy meetings and the blessing of the IP gurus more than capable of ensuring rather accurate depictions of these historic events. Much more so than the "hey Ward, we've got new sculpts, make up something to represent them in the game"-approach.

Everything you been told is a lie.

 

Legatus: I've seen you dismiss Rogue Trader sources constantly in your posts of the past especially if they do not agree with your vision of how things should be. Seems like cherry-picking to me.

Everything you been told is a lie.

 

Legatus: I've seen you dismiss Rogue Trader sources constantly in your posts of the past especially if they do not agree with your vision of how things should be. Seems like cherry-picking to me.

 

 

It is because Rogue Trader is outdated, and the fluff is 100 percent different, pretty much.

Everything you been told is a lie.

 

Legatus: I've seen you dismiss Rogue Trader sources constantly in your posts of the past especially if they do not agree with your vision of how things should be. Seems like cherry-picking to me.

 

 

It is because Rogue Trader is outdated, and the fluff is 100 percent different, pretty much.

Some of the sources Legatus holds onto are now "old" and "outdated" but he doesn't give them up.

Oy vey!

 

EDIT: OUt of curiosity, how can an author be biased against a specific faction when the "historical texts" say that faction won? Also, aren't the Codices supposed to be written from the 40k perspective which is supposed to have lost so much of its history and only has bits and pieces along with the legends that surround them while both the BL Horus Heresy and the Forgeworld Horusy Heresy series are from the 30k persepective and other than one or two possible conflicts, are agreeing on every point as at least the BL Series is being confirmed by GW's IP department? Or does GW actually approving what is being written proof that is "historical fiction?"

Sometimes a Codex source will intentionally be written so that it describes "lost" knowledge. Like when the missing Great Companies of the Space Wolves are described. No one knows what happened to them. In other instances, though, we will be told straight up what happened, such as in the case of the Fall of Caliban and the whereabout of Luther and Jonson. No one in the Imperium knows about that, so these are not "current day knowledge of those events". It is not recorded anywhere, and no one in the Imperium is privy to that information. Those are plain facts about what haqppened to them.

Sometimes information in a Codex will be framed as "legend says.." or "some believe..." or "he is recorded as saying". In those cases it could just be a myth. But not all Codex material is framed that way, and sometimes we are told things that would not come from any Imperial database.

 

 

Isn't it also kinda preposterous to claim that a 40k Codex written by Mad Ward is more "historically accurate" and reliable than the novels when all Ward does is add more and more bells and whistles to... everything, often invalidating material from earlier releases or other authors?

 

I dunno about you, but I'd consider the Heresy meetings and the blessing of the IP gurus more than capable of ensuring rather accurate depictions of these historic events. Much more so than the "hey Ward, we've got new sculpts, make up something to represent them in the game"-approach.

In case of the Ultramarines and the Blood Angels, Matt Ward had simply copy and pasted the 2nd Edition background material into the 5th Edition Codex, with only the slightest bit of rephrasing. His own contributions are mainly the unit descriptions and the "current day campaigns" described later in the book (like Calgar fighting an Avatar). The bit about Guilliman growing up on Macragge and fighting in the Great Crusade, and the bit about the different worlds of Ultramar (all eight of them, lacking only Prandium which was lost to the Tyranids), is all long established material. In the specific case of the Ultramarines, I rarely just quote passages from the 5th Edition Codex. I personally prefer the 2nd Edition material, but I will usually point out that the passages I quote are given in both the 2nd and th 5eth Edition Codex, so the material is neither outdated nor was just made up by Matt Ward on the spot.

 

 

Legatus: I've seen you dismiss Rogue Trader sources constantly in your posts of the past especially if they do not agree with your vision of how things should be. Seems like cherry-picking to me.

Of course. Rogue Trader was a very different universe. GW fundamentally revamped the Warhammer 40K universe during the end stages of 1st Edition, and launched a very different one with 2nd Edition. (E.g. the Ultramarines had been described as a "Third Founding Chapter" in a 1st Edition Index Astartes article, but were then later changed to a First Founding Chapter in the Epic Space Marine rulebook, still during the run of 1st Edition 40K.) The universe that had been established in 2nd Edition has persisted to this day, with only minor changes being made (the Black Tenmplars being changed from a Codex Chapter to a very divergent Chapter being the most significant change I can think of). The 5th Edition Codices in particular copy large passages and several pages straight from the 2nd Edition Codices. There is a large amount of overlap in the Space Marines, Blood Angels and Space Wolves Codices, with several pages being almost identical. Anyone studying the material will soon see that the 1st Edition universe was very distinct from what we have today, while the universe established during late 1st Edition and during the course of 2nd Edition is still pretty much what we have today.

 

 

Some of the sources Legatus holds onto are now "old" and "outdated" but he doesn't give them up.

If it is an outdated source, or a source that has been contested by a more recent one, I will usually point that out. The 2nd Edition Codices are largely still relevant, seeing how large passages from the 2nd Edition Codices have been reprinted almost verbatum in the 5th Edition Codices. About the most challenged element from the 2nd Edition Codices is the descriptions of the Horus Heresy and the Primarchs, since that was so fundamentally altered in the Black Library series. However, there are some elements (such as the eight worlds of Ultramar) that had only recently been reprinted, but still they are changed in the Horus Heresy novels. The novels are not just disregarding 2nd Edition sources. (And 3rd Edition sources, since they basically ignore the Index Astartes series entierly). They are also disregarding/changing 5th Edition material.

But since the changes are given the go ahead of the same IP department that was in charge of the 5th Edition series, wouldn't that mean that the changes are, what's the word I'm looking for..........."authentic" since the Heresy series is at Ground Zero while all previous sources about the Heresy were from 40k era when information has been lost and corrupted and even the First Founding Chapters don't know their true histories? Or does that not have any bearing as even though we do know that when Codex-related information is from an Imperial viewpoint, it sometimes conflicts with Codex-related information that is from non-Imperial viewpoints?

Legatus, the 40k encyclopedia on legs, as always your knowledge about previous editions and fluff is interesting. You're like an old veteran Astartes counciling the yongins on history.

 

"Back in my day we had sticks and a rock for the whole squad...and we had to share the rock!"

But since the changes are given the go ahead of the same IP department that was in charge of the 5th Edition series, wouldn't that mean that the changes are, what's the word I'm looking for..........."authentic" since the Heresy series is at Ground Zero while all previous sources about the Heresy were from 40k era when information has been lost and corrupted and even the First Founding Chapters don't know their true histories? Or does that not have any bearing as even though we do know that when Codex-related information is from an Imperial viewpoint, it sometimes conflicts with Codex-related information that is from non-Imperial viewpoints?

And as soon as the 6th Edition Codices include all those changes, they can be considered officially changed, establishing a new continuity for the Warhammer 40,000 game universe. Until that happens, the "older" 5th Edition books are still the authoritative sources. If you want to learn about the Warhammer 40,000 game universe, your first sources are the rulebooks and Codices. You are not required to read a long novel series to get the "real" story. It cannot work that way. Although if GW is now making more money with the Black Library publications than with the Warhammer 40,000 game, I could understand why they would take the position that the (altered) Black Library continuity is really the correct telling of the story. It would be a shame if GW felt that way about their game universe they have sold publications for for over two decades, but they are a business and like money.

 

If you buy a sourcebook for the Warhammer 40,000 game, that sourcebook has to give you the accurate background for the universe and the specific faction described in the book. It is part of what you pay for when you buy a sourcebook. The sourcebook can leave things vague, or state that the events have long been forgotten. But the sourcebook CANNOT tell you some inaccurate bullcrap that is later revealed in a merchandise publication by a subsidiary company to be really completely different.

 

E.g. the Codex Dark Angels cannot tell a player that Jonson and the contemporary Dark Angels are loyal to the Emperor, but then a Black Library short story reveals that they are really traitors. It cannot work that way. The Codex Dark Angels must give the player accurate information about the faction he will then potentially spend money on building an army of. There is no such requirement for Black Library novel. A reader either enjoys the story, or he does not. They do not have to be factually accurate, only entertain. They are not intended to inform the player about a potential investment in a particular faction. That may be an ulterior motive for GW, but that is not generally why someone would invest in a series of novels.

So what is your stance on the first Heresy Forgeworld book, then? You know, since Forgeworld is absolutely entitled to expanding the IP and even create new stuff, and is getting legitimized for normal tabletop action these days.

 

Look through that first volume and then let us talk about the novel-characters getting accepted as canon in there, and all the detailed first-hand info on the actual Heresy.

It cannot work that way.

Actually, that part is bogus. Someone can actually read the novels and never touch GW except for when they see the little advertising in the back of the book. I didn't for the longest time. I knew who Black Library was before I knew GW even existed because I didn't look at the advertisements and back then, most of them were advertisements to join the BL forums, which are not GW related and very little if any discussions were GW related, they were background related. So saying that the only way to learn about the background is from the sourcebooks is bull:cuss, pardon my language. If you want to learn rules and what to do in a game, yes. But the background is something entirely different and is not contained solely within the rulebooks and sourcebooks.

 

Although by your logic that updated rulebooks and sourcebooks authorized by GW are needed, then there is Forgeworld's Heresy series, which goes along with Black Library's Heresy series. Or does it have to be published by GW rather than just approved in order to be good enough for you?

 

Also, what BL story has said Lion was traitor against the Emperor?

Actually, that part is bogus. Someone can actually read the novels and never touch GW except for when they see the little advertising in the back of the book. I didn't for the longest time. I knew who Black Library was before I knew GW even existed because I didn't look at the advertisements and back then, most of them were advertisements to join the BL forums, which are not GW related and very little if any discussions were GW related, they were background related. So saying that the only way to learn about the background is from the sourcebooks is bull:cuss, pardon my language. If you want to learn rules and what to do in a game, yes. But the background is something entirely different and is not contained solely within the rulebooks and sourcebooks.

The important part is that when someone starts with the Warhammer 40,000 game and picks a faction and the appropriate source book, he will then go on and invest 200$, 300$ or even more in that army. In such a case GW better damn well give him accurate information about the faction he wants to play. If you enjoy the Black Library novels, great. Have fun with them. As long as you don't even intend to play the game and invest hundreds of dollars into it, you don't have to care that you are being given the "soap" version of the background, and not the accurate descriptipon. The game material must be accurate, because it informs players about the factions in the game and will influence their decision whether to financially commit to an army. With the Black Library novels there is no such obligation.

 

Of course, when someone either reads exclusively the GW studio sourcebooks or exclusively the Black Library material, he does not care one bit that the other side tells a different story. But as soon as someone is reading about both and is engaged in the game, he has to realize that the game sourcebook descriptions take precedence. They are of much greater significance to the game, and are mainly responsible for financial decisions that are made in terms of model and army purchases.

 

 

Edit:

Also, what BL story has said Lion was traitor against the Emperor?

That was alleged in 'Angels of Darkness', and even though it was a biased and uninformed source, a large part of the readers took it at face value. But I was more speaking of a hypothetical Black Library story that would say such a thing. There are several black Library sources that flat out contradict what the GW material has been saying for years. The Dark Angels being traitors is just a very poignant example.

 

 

So what is your stance on the first Heresy Forgeworld book, then? You know, since Forgeworld is absolutely entitled to expanding the IP and even create new stuff, and is getting legitimized for normal tabletop action these days.

Is forgeworld also entiteled to change the IP? But to answer your question, Forgeworld does not have a much higher relevance than Black Library, since it is not usually sold in all official GW stores, and also not translated into all the lamguages where GW material is published. Every Warhammer 40,000 fan or player can go into a GW store and buy the current Codex Dark Angels. And at the time they were released, every player or fan could go into a GW store and buy the Index Astartes volumes. But a fan or player cannot go into a japanese or french or german GW store and get the Forge World books or the Black Library books. GW publishes the Warhammer 40,000 game in several different countries. But they are not publishing the Forgeworld or the Black Library material in all of those countries. Though in recent years Black Library has started to translate their material into other languages.

You can still see the background without ever doing the game. That was my original intent when I found out about the game, which was two years after I found out about Warhammer 40k by finding a random book at a Wal-Mart. My original intent was just to get the background material. ironically what turned me onto actually trying to play, was the painting and modelling, which will most likely be my weakest aspects in my involvement. My point is that in this day and age when two separate publishers are publishing material and both have changed the fluff(Forgeworld's most notable is the Astral Claws background with the Badab War in general taking second), it is wrong, or at least inaccurate, to say that the sourcebooks are the only way someone can learn about the background. It might be the only canonical way(if such a thing exists in a mutable background) but it is not the only way especially since so much of it is given the go ahead by GW's IP department.

 

EDIT: I also apologize for blasting you Legatus.

Yes of course. People can learn about the background without ever playing the game. But my point is that the game is still the heart and soul of the Warhammer 40,000 franchise, and people who have an interest to get into the game and invest no small amount of their time and money into an army, these people will generally get their background from the game material first. And since they are committing a lot of time and money, the material they are being provided with by GW ought to be more accurate and relevant than the material that is sold without such close ties to the game system. It would be borderline fraudulent if the official position of GW was that the material the players are given in their chosen faction's source book is not neccessarily accurate, and that the material provided to people who simply invest in a few books becausde they like to read the dark tales of the 40K universe takes precedence.

 

There may be people who get into the hobby via the Black Library books, but as I said, GW is marketing their games in a lot of different countries, but they are not marketing the Black Library or the Forge World material in all of those countries. The most relevant source for a new player who is interested in building an Ultramarines force should be the Codex Space Marines, not the Uriel Ventris series.

Trying to find truth in a world where the history constantly contradicts, overrides and re-overrides each other is a fallacy though. The entire galaxy exists in a big grey area where certain events might be known to be as fact such as: Yes, the Heresy happened. The specifics, who was involved or why isnt generally known to a citizen in the realm and the way the information is transferred to us only compounds the fog of 'history' in our fictional setting. Black and white versions do not work with a majority of the background.

 

Sure the material might have been changed and updated but that does not make it dismissible. The fact that you hold the older background in such contempt is dismaying. I try to accept it all, even if it doesnt make sense, even if it doesnt work together, warts and all. That is the beauty of the setting after all; once great empires and civilizations in decay who are fighting to try and continue existence in the end of days.

Sure the material might have been changed and updated but that does not make it dismissible.

It can well do that. Depends on what you are discussing. I am aware about a lot of the Rogue Trader material (though there may be a lot I have not yet discovered, having started in 2nd Edition myself). But if someone asks who the Ultramarines are, I will probably answer that they are one of the First Founding Chapters. I will not present him with the "possibility" that they may be a Third Founding Chapter and let him decide what he prefers. Seventeen years after the Codex Ultramarines, that issue should be settled. (Technically they were made a First Founding Chapter even before that, in the 'Space Marine Epic' rulebook.) And I will not tell him that they have been a fleet based Chapter for the past ten thousand years, who were only recently áwarded fiefdom over Macragge due to their participation in the last of many Tyrannic Wars over the past seven thousand years. If someone asks what the allegiances of the Night Lords or the Iron Warriors are, I will not tell him that they may be a Legion of Khorne followers or Slaanesh followers respecively. If someone wants to know how the background has been developed over the years, we can discuss all that. But if we are just talking about the "current" background for any of those factions, the Rogue Trader material just has no relevance at all.

And what has been retconned out of the Rogue Trader era is just as much out as anything that has been retconned out from any later edition, if you cling to silly ideas like "canon" - as you seem to do. But dismissing some retcons as "okay" makes you nothing but someone who cherrypicks what retcons one likes (probably cause RT didn't have Ultramarines as 1st founding chapter, you are okay with removal of RT material) and tries to disguise it as something with more validity.

 

Besides, much of the RT era stuff is much better than 2-5th edition stuff. And Black Library stuff is the only things that have came close to being as awesome as RT was. If anything is "irrelevant" it's the stuff in between these two periods of awesomeness. But that's just my personal preference, I don't try to make claims that something is "universal canon" and something is "invalid now". Cause that would be silly.

And what has been retconned out of the Rogue Trader era is just as much out as anything that has been retconned out from any later edition, if you cling to silly ideas like "canon" - as you seem to do.

So, if I decided to go into a GW store tomorrow and to buy a Codex Space Marines, would that Codex Space Marines tell me that Ultramar consisted of about 500 world at some point, or would it tell me that Ultramar has always consisted of about 8-9 worlds?

 

 

But dismissing some retcons as "okay" makes you nothing but someone who cherrypicks what retcons one likes (probably cause RT didn't have Ultramarines as 1st founding chapter, you are okay with removal of RT material) and tries to disguise it as something with more validity.

Uh... the 'Rogue Trader' era lasted from 1987 till 1993, where the 2nd Edition of Warhammer 40,000 was releaed. The background was already changed towards what it would eventually become with 2nd Edition during the second half of the Rogue Trader era, and later White Dwarf articles or source books of the Rogue Trader era already pretty much described the 2nd Edition lore. Since 2nd Edition, the lore has remained largely consistent, with only slight changes for some specific factions, such as the Black Templars being fleshed out and being turned from a Codex adherant Chapter (2nd Ed.) to a very divergent Chapter (3rd Ed.). So, after 3 yeras of early Rogue Trader lore, and 3 more years of remodelling their game universe, we essentially have had the "2nd Edition lore" for the past 19 years.

 

Rogue Trader had some very different concepts, not just for individual Chapters (such as the Ultramarines, or the Night Lords of Khorne) but for Space Marines and how they worked in general. Space Marines were initally not as long lived, with Marneus Calgar being out of action at an age of around 80 years. Space Marines were also recruited from criminals, who served penalty as Space Marines. Half-xenos were not unheard of, and the Ultramarines had inherited a half-eldar Astropath from the Dark Angels. The Tyranids had been a hated foe since the 33rd Millennium, and the Imperium had fought several wars against them. The Tyranids had a "diplomat" sub species called the Zoats, who would demand that the worlds they attacked surrendered to the Tyranids. (I am going on memory here, since I do not have my sources at the moment.)

 

The Rogue Trader lore was indeed very different from the lore that was established in 2nd Edition, which then has remained largely consistent for the following two decades, with only minor tweaks for individual parties here and there. So, accusing someone who dismisses the Rogue Trader material for the purpose of discussing contemporary lore of "cherry picking" seems a little detached. Especially since we are not usually talking about new retcons introduced in a new Codex (though I usually dislike those too), but about "retcons" (or "mistakes" if you will) in secondary literature that is not directly tied to the Warhammer 40,000 game.

And the Ultramar stuff is now retconned by Black Library and thus that Codex is now just as outdated as Rogue Trader if you believe in silly things like "canon".

 

But you masterfully danced around the main accusation that you only accept retconning of Rogue Trader era material because of your bias and the fact Ultras were not a first founding chapter and merely put out words that had no relevance to the discussion. You should try politics :D Anyway, you seem to be one of those guys who actually thinks there is some sort of "canon" in 40K. And that your view of the setting must be that one single canon - even if it means reshaping reality to fit your view. And that makes you wrong, cherrypicking and mightily arrogant to top it all. You'd be happier if you just accepted the fact there isn't, and should not be, "canon".

 

Legatus: "B...b...but Ultras."

 

No, not even for Ultras.

 

And it was very cute of you to "educate" me on Rogue Trader and concepts like the zoats, child of the 2nd edition.

But you masterfully danced around the main accusation that you only accept retconning of Rogue Trader era material because of your bias and the fact Ultras were not a first founding chapter and merely put out words that had no relevance to the discussion.

And here I thought I had laid out quite conclusively why no one really takes Rogue Trader material serious. I actually formulated quite an extensive argument based on the life cycles of the "Rogue Trader canon" and the "contemprary canon", and supported it with several examples. Is that what is considered "dancing around the issue" nowadays?

 

 

And the Ultramar stuff is now retconned by Black Library and thus that Codex is now just as outdated as Rogue Trader if you believe in silly things like "canon".

Not if your understanding of "canon" is that the Warhammer 40,000 game canon is created by the Warhammer 40,000 game material, and that publications by subsidiaries that are released to a smaller and restricted audience are of less relevance.

 

If someone is interested in the Ultramarines and is thinking about starting an army, he can go into a GW right now and get the appropriate source book for them, which is the Codex Space Marines. That Codex will tell him that Ultramar has allways consisted of the same worlds around Ultramar, throughout the Crusade and the Heresy, and to this day. You can be the one telling him that the book he just purchased from the official store contains a lot of outdated material. I for one can assure him that the material he just purchased is entirely official.

And here I thought I had laid out quite conclusively why no one really takes Rogue Trader material serious. I actually formulated quite an extensive argument based on the life cycles of the "Rogue Trader canon" and the "contemprary canon", and supported it with several examples. Is that what is considered "dancing around the issue" nowadays?

 

No one? There are many folks who think the RT era stuff still has a huge boatload of charm and validity and beats quite a lot of stuff. But that's not the point - you cherrpick what retcons you tolerate - and you dance around the accusation that the only reason you consider Rogue Trader invalid (while trying to disguise it, naturally) is that in the original fluff, before it was retconned (which is what you claim to HATE HATE HATE), Ultramarines were not a first founding chapter.

 

Oh, THAT retcon? That is all-okay!

 

Cause, you know, Ultramarines "benefit".

 

The prosecution rests.

 

To your other bitching, the canon is loose. Quit worrying and complaining and maybe you don't get an ulcer.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.