The Eternal Crusader

[Marshal Rohr]

Such bull . Seriously. This is, by far, the highest level of stupidity I have seen from BL. Not FOUR years ago, Helsreach came out. Not ONE year ago, Blood and Fire was released. Has Guy Haley never heard of those two books? Has he never read them? What a joke. Here comes some new guy, and he just goes against everything A D-B wrote in his work. Whose idea was this? Seriously. Who gave this the OK?

This is why 40K is . This is why it has become a massive joke. The authors don't even take their work seriously. Just punching a clock, while the few that do give a try and keep the franchise afloat. I cannot believe I wasted so much time and money on such a worthless venture. Eight years of my hobby life down the drain, because these people can't be bothered to try and keep it consistent. Its one thing when it comes from the studio, because no one has expected them to be able to tie their shoes, much less develop well conceived background, since 4th Edition. It is entirely another, when Black Library, which has given the fan base so much amazing stuff in the past few years, just churns this waste out and legitimizes the crap coming from the studio.

My one, last hope for a reason to dust off my Templars, and again I'm handed and expected to be grateful for it.

On one hand, dude, I appreciate the fact that you liked my Templars. (I think you did, anyway. If I'm wrong, then leave me to my comforting assumptions.) And I realise your main objection is to overall inconsistency, rather than a specific grudge against divergence from what I wrote.

But.

And here's the big But.

This is what 40K is. We've not seen it much before because there's never been as much content before, but this is just what it is. There's no definitive 40K - there's many, many different artists and authors looking at a collected library of lore through their own lenses, telling their own stories. I've talked long and loud on it before as loose canon, and Marc Gascoigne explained it in a beautiful summation a while ago:

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note that answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.

Now, I'm pretty sure you, M2C, and most of the others in the thread have read all that before. But that's the thing, it goes both ways. Just like Ultimate Spider-Man isn't The Amazing Spider-Man or The Spectacular Spider-Man, they're all still Spider-Man; they're all just as valid as each other. Someone can fall back on the uninspired explanation of "multiverses" if they're so inclined, but the fact is that it's a core concept being written in different ways, with different events, by different authors and artists.

That's 40K. I'm not angry at Guy for his Black Templars stuff. Maybe he loved mine, maybe he hated it, maybe he never read it. It's ultimately meaningless, because he's allowed to do whatever he wants with Grimaldus and the Templars, just as I was allowed to do whatever I wanted. It doesn't invalidate mine, no matter what some fans might think about how "new stuff always deletes old stuff". Just like my Night Lords stuff doesn't delete Simon Spurrier's, or Chris Wraight's Space Wolves don't delete Bill King's. There are direct contradictions, but it's just one author's take against another. (And on that note, I tried very hard not to contradict Si Spurrier's work).

Say that someone's really tempted to write a series about Ragnar Blackmane's life story. That'd involve a completely different series of events and an entirely different host of characters than Bill King's series. Well... that author will come under a storm of criticism for "daring" to "ignore" Bill King's depiction of Ragnar, as if it was sacred lore (and sacred law) than can't be touched. But it'd be no less valid, just more recent. On the same note, there were a few initial reviews of my Night Lords stuff that absolutely trashed it purely because of the contradictions with Lord of the Night, which was one of the early Black Library's most beloved books. Now it's probably fair to say the tables have turned a little in terms of public perception.

On the other hand, while I like Guy immensely (he's bloody adorable, that dude) I also despise him because he writes about 4 novels and 2 novellas a year, or something. I added up his releases against mine over a couple of years (including some upcoming stuff) and it clocks up that he writes quite literally four times faster than I do. That's impressive, but also makes his lovable face completely worthy of hatred.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not unprofessional or wrong to do what Guy did. You take your own perceptions of a faction, maybe add in a previous interpretation or two, and then run with it. That's just how the licence works.

I get it. I really do. I just liked your version more. It's difficult to accept because this confirmed my fears that the new stuff in the codex would be continued on into the fiction, and that means I won't be able to enjoy any of the new Templar stories given my intense dislike of what people perceive them as.

You may not remember, but there was such a flurry of excitement around Helsreach's release that a bunch of us went around shaving Imperial Aquilas off and repainting our Grimaldus models with silvered helmets.

But, and I'm sure you know more being in the loop and all, it's pretty clear Keeler's talk with Sigismund is going to have a bigger impact on him than we realized, and more than likely will have him become a believer.

I have faith that your Sigismund vs Abaddon book will make Templars cool again, but I just wish I had something to rally behind for 40K. There aren't many stories coming out these days for 40K that make you set the book down after the final page, and immediately start that army with gusto like the boom in Word Bearers and Night Lords (and soon to be Black Legion).

Edit: Taking the concept of multiverses to another level, do the Night Lords, Black Legion, and Templars you've written all exist in the 'same' multiverse?

[deathspectersgt7]

Well put AD-B but they will still scream and kick non-the less.

[Wade Garrett]

*ADB tries to tell me that people who interpret 40k differently than me are not necessarily 'wrong'*

 

YOU SHUT YOUR DIRTY LYING MOUTH!

 

;)

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

This stuff is so difficult to contend with. Its super problematic trying to rationalize different interpretations of a Universe when you have personally invested years into exploring and developing background that is suddenly denied.

 

I mean, I like the idea of multiple, contradictory records of lore existing - except at the moment, I think its hard to see it as such. This is because there seem to be a long series of additions to existing background via books, codexes, etc. that have all abided by guidelines set out in previous lore, making slight refinements along the way. And then we have one or two accounts that are glaringly different, which come as quite a shock. Because these accounts are generally relatively recent, it can be easy to see them as defying the original 'canon'

 

The issue is that there's usually only two differing representations of the same events - leading the the 'retcon' interpretation. If there is ever going to be a pool of background that truly represents the alternative 'truths' of the Imperium's fragmented records, there needs to be more than two versions of any one given event (Extermination did it fantastically with the details of Alpharius' discovery). A really simple way to do this would be to have events which appear in more than one codex be described differently in each account - this would reject the idea that the most recent account is the official 'canon'.

 

Obviously with the limited time & resources of those who work within the IP, multiple accounts of the same events / factions will be unlikely, as there's just so much to explore within the universe, but having only two accounts that are different enough to be seen as alternative interpretations will never sit well with most.

 

That doesn't mean I am saying the changes to the Templars are justified (or those made to the Iron Hands, for that matter) - but that isn't because no change would be justified. Changes that create interesting alternative interpretations that are as original as the previous background would actually be really cool. However, the changes made to the Iron Hands and Black Templars in the most recent SM codex had a very obvious motive behind them that had nothing to do with creating an alternative interpretation to preceding lore - the changes were very simply made to make both chapters more codex-compliant, to bring them closer towards a template that had generally had a relatively negative reception.

 

I don't hate the Iron Hands Chapter as portrayed in the Clan Raukaan supplement because it is different to how the Chapter has been previously been portrayed - I hate it because it has lost so much of the originality that make the Iron Hands unique, and because the motive behind it was obviously nothing to do with creating interesting background. The 'new' Iron Hands are changed so that codex-adherent chapters don't look as dull, and so players not familiar with this (previous Legion!) Chapter feel more comfortable when their previous knowledge of Space Marines is likely very Ultramarine-centric.

 

If the multiple outlets of the IP can get it right, the myriad interpretations of the lore could add an interesting aspect to the Universe, and ultimately give players more freedom in generating their own versions of the background. But presenting alternative versions of events doesn't justify poorly handled fluff - ultimately the alternate version has to have enough depth and originality to justify its own exitence.

 

And if all else fails, there's always the FW HH series to fall back on, with it references to ancient background and insane ability to balance all existing accounts into one incredible resource. Plus, of course, there's A D-B's awe-inspiring works, and those of a handful of others at BL. Sure, in this IP you might have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but when its good, its really good.

[Perrin]

"We are the only Chapter that worships the Emperor as a God" isn't interpretation though. It's a flat-out statement that is right or wrong.

 

The Red Hunters have been around since the 2nd Founding, it's not like they could have not heard of them.

[Conn Eremon]

"We are the only Chapter that worships the Emperor as a God" isn't interpretation though. It's a flat-out statement that is right or wrong.

 

The Red Hunters have been around since the 2nd Founding, it's not like they could have not heard of them.

That quote right there fits exactly with what AD-B was talking about, so I'm not sure where you are going with using it as a contradiction.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Well, the idea is that the text itself, and the version of events it presents is the alternate interpretation, based on the maelstrom of propaganda, lies, ignorance and censorship that forms the records of the Imperium.

 

Also, the bit where I say that the alternate version needs to be just as good, if not better than existing one applies here - all saying that the Templars are the only Emperor - worshiping Chapter does is make the them look more like special snowflakes, which isn't really a good reason to do anything.

 

That said I haven't read to book, so I can reserve no judgement.

[Candleshoes]

I really always thought that with the Heresy, everything and everyone going to pot, roles and loyalties being shattered on such a grande scale, that there would be a single, solitary character that would always do what it says on the tin.

 

Sigismund was one of the only handful that had that direction already intact in the lore. His loyalty, his honour, his mastery at arms, and the fact that he collected the heads of champions in the Emperor's name without losing. At any point in the series up until The Crimson Fist, you always could count on Sigismund to be that one unshakeable character, who was a bastion for all things loyalist.

 

As the series panned out and broadened, and so many hidden tales and tragic heroes/villains made by their actions, Sig always seemed like the one choice to not add in a needless attack on his character, or a case of (insert tragic event that makes him and his actions misunderstood). He was unique and interesting in the way Captain America is, his choice and resolve is the flavour, it doesn't need the Wolverine or Green Arrow grit, some heroes are by their own deeds heroic enough.

 

Scraping this to have him secretly be disowned, and try to find redemption through now God-Emperor religon is... in my opinion only, a great diservice to this character. Author's points of view aside, I just think the story hook and now representation on the 40k level, could have been better if left alone.

[Wade Garrett]

The problem with ADB's approach (aside from the fact that it limits my opportunities to shout angrily at people over the Internet) is the novel format.

 

That is, when I'm reading Helsreach, it doesn't feel like a historical account an archeologist pieced together from a haiku, a picture on a broken vase, and the diary of an itinerant fur trader, it feels like I am right there in the thick of it, spilling my blood for every cobblestone and-ORK TO YOUR LEFT, DUCK ANDREJ!

 

So when events presented in said format are blatantly contradicted, the natural tendency isn't "Well, different perspectives, what's true for me may not be true for you, etc"; but

something more along the lines of:

 

"Cease assailing my ears with your heretical caterwauling! I was there. I was there, the day Grimmaldus dug his grave yet neither triumphed nor died..."

[Firepower]

Ugh.

[SteelPaladin]

Wow. This thread took a quite a turn since I checked it last...

 

Guy Haley is a fantastic author, if his interpretation is different than AD-B's, who cares, its still very well written. His new Templars do not cancel out those in Helsreach. Enjoy them both for what they are. 

[Conn Eremon]

The problem with ADB's approach (aside from the fact that it limits my opportunities to shout angrily at people over the Internet) is the novel format.

 

That is, when I'm reading Helsreach, it doesn't feel like a historical account an archeologist pieced together from a haiku, a picture on a broken vase, and the diary of an itinerant fur trader, it feels like I am right there in the thick of it, spilling my blood for every cobblestone and-ORK TO YOUR LEFT, DUCK ANDREJ!

 

So when events presented in said format are blatantly contradicted, the natural tendency isn't "Well, different perspectives, what's true for me may not be true for you, etc"; but

something more along the lines of:

 

"Cease assailing my ears with your heretical caterwauling! I was there. I was there, the day Grimmaldus dug his grave yet neither triumphed nor died..."

But there are aspects of novels that can be taken as half-truths, interpretations or potential falsehoods. A prime example being what Perrin quoted just above.

 

As for the rest, I understand and agree with you, but even still it could be like above. The whole book, even if it is written as a firsthand accounting of specific events, can be taken as potentially false or filled with half-truths. Or it could be the gospel truth. Thanks to the "loose canon" of 40k, it really is up to the reader to be as selective as they would like. Don't like the current trend of things? It's all false then. This book is an artistic depiction of a delusional priest's faulty recollection mixed with his hopeless wish of how things should be. AD-B's book is how things actually are. And this view is just as valid as the view that the current depictions are the more canon. Bam, problem solved.

 

Only, it really isn't. Because no matter that I can pick and choose what I like to be true or not, what I can't do is get over the fact that what I don't like is what is being produced. That part sucks. The part where what I like is no longer coming out, but what I don't like is.

 

Now, everyone has their opinions and others might like what I don't. But for me, it just sucks.

[Perrin]

"We are the only Chapter that worships the Emperor as a God" isn't interpretation though. It's a flat-out statement that is right or wrong.

The Red Hunters have been around since the 2nd Founding, it's not like they could have not heard of them.

That quote right there fits exactly with what AD-B was talking about, so I'm not sure where you are going with using it as a contradiction.

Not a contradiction, more of a disagreement I think. I struggle to put it into words that anyone would understand

ADB talks about different authors having different themes on certain Chapters, like his Space Wolves would be different from those of Dan Abnett and William King. That's fine. But he isn't going to ignore the whole Norse theme and make them Jamaicans in Space, because their Norse/Northern European theme is a constant.

Even a shared multiverse setting needs to have constants that each work of fiction share. For example, the basic background and setting of 40k is constant throughout every Codex and novel. To be even more specific, the general theme of each Chapter/Legion is the more or less the same wherever they are mentioned.

"The Black Templars are the only Chapter in the Imperium that worship the Emperor as a god, they are unique" and "A small number of Chapters worship the Emperor as a god" are completely opposing. I'm really focusing on the "BT are the only religious Chapter" statement because to me that's the most offensive part of it. It isn't just a separate theme that Guy Haley is exploring, like the BT grovelling over the astropath, but it's basically setting a law that constricts the entire setting.

"A small number of Chapters worship the Emperor as a god" was a constant in this disorganised mess of a fictional space opera universe setting that we all love, and a single sentence from this book topples it.

I don't want to step on Wade's toes by over-exaggerating to comedic effect to prove a point, but he might as well have written that the Emperor is actually a squat.

[Marshal Rohr]

Dudes. The Templars shouldn't be religious at all. The hypocrisy was the tastiest part.

[Deadman Wade]

Wow. This thread took a quite a turn since I checked it last...

 

Guy Haley is a fantastic author, if his interpretation is different than AD-B's, who cares, its still very well written. His new Templars do not cancel out those in Helsreach. Enjoy them both for what they are.

Who cares? Templar players care (yeah, there are Templar players, even if GW would want us to disappear). I care.

In our old codex BT were awesome, they hated witches, mutants and heretics.

Then there was a story about no-name chapter marine killing templar to get his gear. Then Templars became the only chapter stupid enough to worship Big E as a god (and new codex fluff is written so badly that I'm sure the author is Ward). And now BT kneel before witches and diminished to just another 1000-strong chapter.

I'd rather had no fluff at all than to see how the most independent and proud chapter became idiots who fall to their knees in presence of some psyker.

[Marshal Rohr]

What truly makes it nigh unbearable, is that we can't really hand wave it away. I can't create a PLOG with fluff in it, like the InMem project, because in InMem, it doesn't touch on anything FW would retcon (save locations, which is a Find->Replace away from being brought back into consistency). I can't do that with the Templars. I can't create with them anymore. :(

[Conn Eremon]

Perrin, this what I mean though. You are taking a line as being the gospel truth, when it is a prime example of what can be taken as false if desired. Some people said the Black Templars are the sole Chapter to believe?

 

Well gee, maybe those people are wrong. Maybe they don't know about the Fire Angels or Red Scorpions, or what they believe in. Maybe they just think that the Templars are the only ones. Maybe that statement is made in ignorance, and doesn't affect those other Chapters at all.

[Marshal Rohr]

I read through his blog. I was out of line. He is a good writer, and was doing the best to make the most out of the stuff he had to work with. I should just avoid posting about Templar stuff I read until I've had some time to digest.

[Wade Garrett]

Then Templars became the only chapter stupid enough to worship Big E as a god...

 

This post makes Battle Captain Nathaniel Garro a sad Knight Errant. :(

 

Not to mention that in the Index Astartes days, many Chapters worshipped the God Emperor, including the Iron Hands (!!!).

 

As did William King's Space Wolves.

 

IMO, this silly Imperial Truth business is the retcon that needs to take a long walk off a short pier, since with the VI's Uppland and Underverse, the V's Path of Heaven, the VII's temples to Martial Honor, the XVIII's Promethean Creed, the XV's Enumerations, and the Tech Priests it's starting to look like nobody except maybe the Raven Guard actually followed it. :p

[Perrin]

I've realised my issue is more with the whole "everything is canon" and "ignore what you don't like" mentality rather than Guy's work, so I'm ducking out of this debate.

 

Still not liking the "Black Templars are the only Emperor worshipping Chapter" bit, but meh. 

[Conn Eremon]

That's the thing though. The character making the statement is Helbrecht, does anyone honestly believe that someone in that position could possibly be so ignorant of the happenings of the galaxy? Looking at the passages that Lucian posted, the first one isn't even a character's opinion, it's the written word of the author/narrator.

Does anyone honestly believe that any one figure in all of 40k is anything but ignorant of most things in 40k?

 

As for the fact that it may have been directly from the author/narrator, does that change anything? Would that not also fall under what I wrote above? Because I specifically referenced just that.

 

This touches on something you mentioned in your last post not in response to mine, the whole "if you don't like it, it didn't happen" thing. What's the point in having any discussions on the background of 40k if everyone can just ignore any part of it they didn't like. "Horus crippled the Emperor? Nah I wasn't a fan of that so I ignored it, 40k is actually a human utopia where the Emperor won control of the Webway, exterminated all xenos and destroyed Chaos so you're wrong when you say Abaddon is going to win, he's already dead".

First off, what I have to say of this has nothing to do with you, or anything like that. It's just that this specific thing has been brought up a lot before, and it always seems so . . . irrelevant each time. I have no desire to retread it.

[Deadman Wade]

 

Then Templars became the only chapter stupid enough to worship Big E as a god...

 

This post makes Battle Captain Nathaniel Garro a sad Knight Errant. :(

 

Not to mention that in the Index Astartes days, many Chapters worshipped the God Emperor, including the Iron Hands (!!!).

 

As did William King's Space Wolves.

 

IMO, this silly Imperial Truth business is the retcon that needs to take a long walk off a short pier, since with the VI's Uppland and Underverse, the V's Path of Heaven, the VII's temples to Martial Honor, the XVIII's Promethean Creed, the XV's Enumerations, and the Tech Priests it's starting to look like nobody except maybe the Raven Guard actually followed it. :p

I have to admit, I've stopped reading HH novels, so I don't know about Garro.

If this whole Emperor worshiping was like "some chapters worship E as a god, but most do not", it would be ok, but now it all comes to "there is one million regular marines, and there are those pathetic losers and fools BT, who drop to their knees when they see a psyker". Next what, Helbrecht licking navigator's boots after successful travel through the warp?

[SteelPaladin]

 

Wow. This thread took a quite a turn since I checked it last...

 

Guy Haley is a fantastic author, if his interpretation is different than AD-B's, who cares, its still very well written. His new Templars do not cancel out those in Helsreach. Enjoy them both for what they are.

Who cares? Templar players care (yeah, there are Templar players, even if GW would want us to disappear). I care.

In our old codex BT were awesome, they hated witches, mutants and heretics.

Then there was a story about no-name chapter marine killing templar to get his gear. Then Templars became the only chapter stupid enough to worship Big E as a god (and new codex fluff is written so badly that I'm sure the author is Ward). And now BT kneel before witches and diminished to just another 1000-strong chapter.

I'd rather had no fluff at all than to see how the most independent and proud chapter became idiots who fall to their knees in presence of some psyker.

 

Ok, so feel free to ignore Haley's Templars and stick to what you like. Problem solved.

 

Just because his stuff is newer, doesn't mean that it is the 100% gospel truth. And that's a beautiful thing. 

[A D-B]

I know I'm preaching to the choir, M2C, but I try to over-explain and reiterate myself a lot somewhat as insurance, because otherwise I get taken out of context elsewhere and I have to deal with irritating "ADB says X, look..." stuff, when I said nothing of the kind.

So, yeah, I know you get it, no worries.

And I understand a lot of people's various complaints and resistances to certain aspects of the new Templars and Iron Hands lore, too. I'm not blind to that or dismissing their perspective - I'm purely just explaining how the cogs turn, for clarity's sake. It's not about what I think.

The problem with ADB's approach (aside from the fact that it limits my opportunities to shout angrily at people over the Internet) is the novel format.

Phrasing! It's not my approach, it's how the licence works. Key difference, there. I know what you mean but - again - that's the kind of thing that will doubtless show up somewhere as me forcing my perspective on something, rather than just explaining how it works.

"We are the only Chapter that worships the Emperor as a God" isn't interpretation though. It's a flat-out statement that is right or wrong.

The Red Hunters have been around since the 2nd Founding, it's not like they could have not heard of them.

That quote right there fits exactly with what AD-B was talking about, so I'm not sure where you are going with using it as a contradiction.

Not a contradiction, more of a disagreement I think. I struggle to put it into words that anyone would understand

ADB talks about different authors having different themes on certain Chapters, like his Space Wolves would be different from those of Dan Abnett and William King. That's fine. But he isn't going to ignore the whole Norse theme and make them Jamaicans in Space, because their Norse/Northern European theme is a constant.

That's the thing, though. I'm not just talking about different authors with different themes; like the Marc Gascoigne quote said (and like I referenced if anyone ever wrote their own Ragnar series) I'm talking about completely different and contradictory events and ideas, as well. That's all part of it, too.

In X years, someone might do an Abaddon/Black Legion series that completely ignores mine. All good. The same way that in 50 years (or whatever) the Heresy series could get entirely redone. These are crazy examples rather than actual plans, but the process is the same. It wouldn't make my Black Legion series or the Heresy series wrong, just earlier iterations.

[Deadman Wade]

Ok, so feel free to ignore Haley's Templars and stick to what you like. Problem solved.

 

Just because his stuff is newer, doesn't mean that it is the 100% gospel truth. And that's a beautiful thing.

Except it's not. If we go your way, I can say "I don't like this book where Horus betrays the Emprah, I'll ignore it, therefore Black Legion doesn't exist and they are still loyalists Luna Wolves". Or "Boromir didn't die 'cause I don't like it" (yeah, I know, LotR).

Fluff is the only reason why 40k was great, there's no way to ignore parts of it. Old fluff, which made BT awesome is replaced by a new, which makes them look like a bunch of idiots. It looks like authors take whatever part of 40k universe they want and write whatever they want without even thinking, why this part was good and liked.

Basically, all new fluff is a giant middle finger to BT.