The Eternal Crusader

[Archaon9]

Thanks for the review. Look forward to reading this.
 

I'm hoping they collect these into an omnibus at some point. They collected three David Annandale novellas into a hardback called Overfiend, so hopefully that is what they will do here as well. 

I'm sure later on they'll do a collection like they've done with other works. Armageddon seems to be their current theme so expect this, Angrons Monolith etc will be added together.
 

 

 

In regards of canon I'm split. On the one hand I think these are authors opinions of how they want to portray stories and so might be different to each other. Some people might like the old or new character of a chapter more and the main thing should be that the book is enjoyable. I liked the old necron canon about C'tan more than the current canon. I also like the depiction of Ahriman more in his triology and Thousand Sons than Atlas Infernal, but it's personal preference. Without new ideas sure they'd be less upset but they'd also be less chance for awesome stories to shine.

 

On the other hand though I don't think they should conflict too much with each other as they can be frustrating to continuation. I feel "new" chapters etc are easy to experiment with ideas. 40K is a massive universe for authors to create pretty much anything, but well known chapters shouldn't be radically changed unless a legitimate reason is given. If an author decided to flip characterics i.e. that actually Orks have evolved to be peaceful farmers people would get understandably upset. If an author seriously wanted to explore this they could say it was a group of Orks rather than the whole race due to freak circumstances.

[Stonerhino]

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. 

I agree we should get some Lucas Arts people and make GW a "Hard cannon" system.  Something like:

 

Codices

Forge Wold

Supplements

Novels

Shorts and audio dramas

Core Rule Books (40k, FFG's rpgs, Expanions, ect)

White Dwarfs

Comics

Video games

Fan Fiction

C.S. Goto

 

I realise the problems of going such a loose canon to to something like Star Wars' but will benefit the setting more.  Also as has been pointed out allows people to yell at others over the internet.

[Conn Eremon]

 

 

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.

I agree we should get some Lucas Arts people and make GW a "Hard cannon" system. Something like:

 

Codices

Forge Wold

Supplements

Novels

Shorts and audio dramas

Core Rule Books (40k, FFG's rpgs, Expanions, ect)

White Dwarfs

Comics

Video games

Fan Fiction

C.S. Goto

 

I realise the problems of going such a loose canon to to something like Star Wars' but will benefit the setting more. Also as has been pointed out allows people to yell at others over the internet.

NO.

[helterskelter]

On a personal level if I want to forget something, I take to the head vs hard object or copious alcohol (do not attempt what I have suggested, concussion/alcohol poisoning isn't fun kids) but I heard a wise forumite say.. "it's your hobby" for example everyone but me (it seems) likes dan abnetts work, thats just me, but this kind of over reaction is needless brothers. Put the book down/sell it/donate to charity/use as fuel, then move on and man up. Just my bit as an avid reader.

[Sete]

Read the book. I might say if i didn't have read the 4th edition codex yeah ok it would be a nice book.

But knelling to an astropath?

Having a guy with his small harem on the Eternal Crusader?

Turning BT into a 1000 Space Marine chapter?

There was a lot of stuff distasteful for the long BT fans.

Worshipping the Emperor does not bother me that much, but don't butcher the rest of their lore.

Next year we will have BT librarians at this pace.

[Stonerhino]

 

 

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.

I agree we should get some Lucas Arts people and make GW a "Hard cannon" system. Something like:

 

Codices

Forge Wold

Supplements

Novels

Shorts and audio dramas

Core Rule Books (40k, FFG's rpgs, Expanions, ect)

White Dwarfs

Comics

Video games

Fan Fiction

C.S. Goto

 

I realise the problems of going such a loose canon to to something like Star Wars' but will benefit the setting more. Also as has been pointed out allows people to yell at others over the internet.

NO.

 

Don't lie to yourself. You know you want to. 

[Conn Eremon]

I really can't stress enough how much I would absolutely hate if the horrifically bad state of Star Wars 'canon,' either before or after the Disney purchase, was in any way applied to Warhammer 40k.

[Chaeron]

But that's why they've employed people to try and bring it all together.

 

Now, we know that everything written about 40k is as true as you want it to be. Similar.

[incinerator950]

I would love it. Finally curb the disconnection and storyteller stretching that eats the continuum. The main books, codexes, and attached supplements and slates should be priority over novels. FW should be next but be written in context of the existing background, while Black Library and white dwarf should continue with reflections, viewpoints and stories on this context to expand the individual level of context and the gritty details. Likewise for video games, but they'll have the plot for gameplay, they just need to/be allowed to follow the story more.

 

This is of course if GW/BL/FW/Designers would hold meetings and coordinate where the fluff would go instead of continually adding on to and overwriting a mess. That they should probably try and go for a higher standard of decisions and writing.

 

Quite honestly the EU had stagnated as bad as Lucas' oversight had shot his movies or his decisions for games. Cutting it off was a good start as it is that he is barred from all but the important canon decisions. Which for the record, he still does control.

[Marshal Rohr]

The whole problem would've been avoided if they had said some Templars worship the Emperor and some Templars hold wildly different beliefs about the nature of navigators, and the reason for lack of psykers in their ranks is debated, but ultimately lost to history. But concrete, blanket statements are the death of fan ideas.

[Chaeron]

Does the text include ALL Templars? Can the author speak for ALL Templars? Is he omniscient and a reliable narrator? 

 

I think you're probably looking at it far too literally.

[Marshal Rohr]

That's from the codex.

[A D-B]

I think it's telling that the (fairly limited, these days) cries for "Codex First, FW Second, Novels Third" is always about convenience, never quality. That alone should shoot it down, let alone the fact it's just not the way the license works, never has, and likely never will. It's anathema to the setting's function.

 

And on a related note, Star Wars's 5 levels of canon was a hilariously ugly mess of unending contradictions. It's worth remembering that as critical as a change might feel, it's not important. It's something 99.9% of the fandom simply don't care about at all, or acknowledge as the way things go with 40K.

[Conn Eremon]

There would be a bit of ridiculousness to use the Star Wars model of canonicity and apply it to the different branches of Games Workshop.

 

40k Canon:

Games Workshop over Games Workshop over Games Workshop over licensed by Games Workshop over approved by Games Workshop.

 

Yeah . . . Not to mention the list above essentially goes Dept. A over Dept. B over Dept. A, and so on and so forth.

 

Not to mention the fact that it would alienate the crap out of a heck of a lot of people.

 

Or the fact that Star Wars canon was basically one guy going "My stuff on top, and everything else I will profit off of, but is false and bad."

 

That will be a great system for 40k, you betcha.

[Perrin]

I don't agree with the levels of canonicity thing.

 

What I'm trying to say, and I've already posted it but it may have come off badly, is that some things should be sacred. There should always be constants around which the background is built.

 

That way you can have different authors exploring different themes of a Chapter, or even changing events or the names of characters or what happened to who, where and why.

 

For example, ADB said his Ragnar Blackmane stuff won't be the same as William King's RB stuff, and that he might have different things happen to him or different pack mates or mentor etc etc, but I think it's safe to say he isn't going to be an Ultramarine*

 

I'm pretty sure WK's Ragnar is massively different from the original codex one anyway.

 

Personally, I feel that things that should have been a constant in the background of the Black Templars have been changed.

 

 

 

 

*Even though he wishes he was

[Jareddm]

The whole problem would've been avoided if they had said some Templars worship the Emperor and some Templars hold wildly different beliefs about the nature of navigators, and the reason for lack of psykers in their ranks is debated, but ultimately lost to history. But concrete, blanket statements are the death of fan ideas.

They tried that with the new necron lore.  It didn't really help.

[Candleshoes]

Anyone here read comics? Not random singles, or bad runs of your favorite hero, but actually sat down and read a current AAA title like Scott Snyder's masterpeice Batman - Court of Owls? For those who may not follow, this (the current new 52 version of Batman) is considered the best portrayal of Batman since Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Or Jason Aaron's Marvel Now Thor: The God Butcher.

 

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p113/Darkbeastman/batman-courtofowls7_zps6beff31e.jpg

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p113/Darkbeastman/dead_zps49f53fed.jpg

 

I bring this up because it is an example of in universe canon done the right way. Snyder, like many say about ADB, was a fan first, and when writing about his characters, bases them off of the rock hard bones that made people love the genre and the characters - which is astounding when their portrayals hit print and people realize instantly why they like the characters in the first place. ADB has done this very well with the Night Lords, the Word Bearers, the World Eaters and the Dark Angels. You can go back and read his 1-3 paragraph view on what he believes makes them tick (recently he did one on the Blood Angels) and it is tough to not fall in love with the work of someone who reinvents the wheel, by making you remember why you loved it in the first place. Snyder respects that Batman has always been a detective first and foremost, and a hero second. That he hides his insecurities through making jokes, that there was a weight of history that he had to go through to make him wear a cape in the first place.

 

It is a perfect example when a property that has roots, and has been done to death, is viewed with fresh eyes and real life is breathed into it, that even the staunchest critic can appreciate and respect.

 

What breaks this, are the MANY MANY occasions that people are hired to take the reigns, and their views are just offbase and not well received (often reviled by the public at large such as the first several authors of the New 52's Green Arrow run) - or when Iron Man was in the gutter and sold nothing, until it was given life through Extremis. Even in comic universe, the fanbase and future authors are much better at "ignoring" previous canon, as long as it isn't a pillar that the character was founded upon.

 

I suppose the comic industry has an easier time covering up loose canon... if something falls flat and is hated (sometimes even by the creators themselves) they can reboot, recut, and even in the same run, or issue to issue, change authors and story and direction and people just accept it and roll with it. 40k is akward in that sense, we as readers want there to be a consistent world, and in-universe accounts and unreliable narrators is just grimdark seasoning.

 

For Black Library and the 40k license, it must be like turning a battleship to make that type of change, especially when author's take on the canon is different, like ADB vs Haley for Templars, or Old Iron Hands fluff vs the latest supplement. We just don't have the comic or star wars turnaround luxury to wait for balance to be restored, or to wait for someone to come along and show us that the World Eaters have actual worth and value in their character portrayal, other than as madmen and butchers. As with most things, we don't know what we want, but we sure as balls know what we don't want - and there inlies the problem!

 

That being said, hopefully the Templars in the future will not bend their knees so easily.

[ValkyrieUndead]

Having just read this, I found some of what it showed to be uncharacteristic for Templars but it is one story among many. I just plan on using my own armies background to errata this and keep going like nothing ever happened. One day it will come full circle i.e. when a new author picks up the Templars and morphs them to their own vision as all lore is subject to (stated above by Candleshoes very well)

[mc warhammer]

the superhero comic book comparison is a decent one- like 40k it's a property that is designed to last indefinitely (as long as it brings in cash-moneys). both franchises encourage their fiction to go through different incarnations to combat stagnation or convolution. i generally support that approach.

 

the difference with super hero comic books is the use of in-universe explanations to make that bitter continuity-pill easier for readers to swallow. ADB hand-waved the idea of alternate continuity as an unnecessary convenience allowing comic writers to cover up that they do exactly what the 40k writers do, but that dismisses the effect it has on reader’s suspension of disbelief.

 

suspension of disbelief. pretty damn important.

 

remove the sagging bandage of multiverses from marvel’s continuity sores and the rot will quickly kill the property.

 

with 40k, the only examples i can think of that intentionally push multiple interpretations are the IA articles with their "reader beware" disclaimers. i didn't know the truth because the articles themselves didn't and that was great. the abnett book ‘iron snakes’ seemed to implicitly present varying viewpoints of the same characters and their exploits. i can’t think of any others.

 

if contradiction is intentional and multiple viewpoints are an integral part of the universe's function then shouldn’t that concept be fed into the fictional universe of 40k in a less haphazard way? why only have the inconsistency from writer to writer or between works? if the night lords trilogy contradicts lord of night, why not have the trilogy contradict itself from book to book? or chapter to chapter? don’t say it’s a different viewpoint just cos- have it matter. really embrace it. reveal something through the contradiction, enlighten with a new viewpoint or subvert what was previously established to enrich the reader’s understanding. are the inconsistencies actually layers of an onion being peeled away? are they extra mud in the waters of some grand mystery?

 

or are they just inconsistent because they’re just inconsistent?

 

i like the explanation of how 40k canon works, but i don’t dig the results.

 

one franchise that is really clever about this is doctor who; it has a reboot button built-in to the actual mythology itself. silly or not, the ability to reincarnate the story and character isn’t just acceptable for viewers, it’s essential to its longevity.

 

i found this quote from tolkein (known for his world building with its own share of inconsistency), on what he felt fantasy authors must make:

 

“"... a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true': it accords with the laws of that world. ... The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed.”

 

seems like the spell has been broken for a few readers.

[A D-B]

the superhero comic book comparison is a decent one- like 40k it's a property that is designed to last indefinitely (as long as it brings in cash-moneys). both franchises encourage their fiction to go through different incarnations to combat stagnation or convolution. i generally support that approach.

 

the difference with super hero comic books is the use of in-universe explanations to make that bitter continuity-pill easier for readers to swallow. ADB hand-waved the idea of alternate continuity as an unnecessary convenience allowing comic writers to cover up that they do exactly what the 40k writers do, but that dismisses the effect it has on reader’s suspension of disbelief.

 

suspension of disbelief. pretty damn important.

 

 

 

Absolutely, but that's entirely subjective. Bear in mind that I'm explaining how it is, not what I think is the best way ever, of all time, to do something. I can see plus points and negatives in a bunch of approaches, hence that long-ass article on the subject linked earlier. But, here, what you say is pretty subjective - to you, the multiverse approach in Marvel works and adds to your suspension of disbelief; to me, it's hokey and painfully lame. I find it much easier to believe different writers and artists interpreting the same characters without needing to shelve them in different universes. Peter Jackson's Frodo and Aragorn don't exist in different realities and worlds to Tolkien's, accessible by magic and spaceships. It's just a different take on the same thing.

 

I can understand that it's key to Marvel's IP, but it's not something I love about it. It doesn't add to my suspension of disbelief, it threatens it.

 

 

with 40k, the only examples i can think of that intentionally push multiple interpretations are the IA articles with their "reader beware" disclaimers. i didn't know the truth because the articles themselves didn't and that was great. the abnett book ‘iron snakes’ seemed to implicitly present varying viewpoints of the same characters and their exploits. i can’t think of any others.

if contradiction is intentional and multiple viewpoints are an integral part of the universe's function then shouldn’t that concept be fed into the fictional universe of 40k in a less haphazard way? why only have the inconsistency from writer to writer or between works? if the night lords trilogy contradicts lord of night, why not have the trilogy contradict itself from book to book?

 

 

It does. Frequently. In fact, that's the main core of the series. Like the lore, several characters all put forward their ideas and ideals on what really happened in the Legion's formation; who's really dead; and what the Legion's ethos is really all about. Any one of them might be right or wrong, without any actual confirmation one way or the other. 

 

See, some of us understand this stuff very well and take it quite seriously.

 

 

  one franchise that is really clever about this is doctor who; it has a reboot button built-in to the actual mythology itself. silly or not, the ability to reincarnate the story and character isn’t just acceptable for viewers, it’s essential to its longevity.

 

 

Ouch. Not a great example. In fact, possibly the worst one you could've used. Dr Who gets mentioned in the earlier article, and its canon is treated almost exactly the same as 40Ks over a variety of media, with practically an exact approach to universal canonicity, even when stuff contradicts. And, like GW, the creators of Dr Who simply don't discuss canon at all. It all happens, somehow, as far as they're concerned. I get that you're praising one aspect of how that IP functions, but the bigger picture involves that particular IP being just about the closest to how 40K's IP functions. Almost identically, in fact. Dr Who fandom is riven with canon and retcon debates* that would make a 40K fan blush. 

 

 

* -- among the 0.1% bleeding edge, like the online vocal minority of any fandom.

[Marshal Rohr]

How do you build an army around the idea of loose canon though?

[Conn Eremon]

The same way everyone else who accepts the standard line of loose canon does? Which seems to be the exact same way everyone else does?

[mc warhammer]

 

Absolutely, but that's entirely subjective. Bear in mind that I'm explaining how it is, not what I think is the best way ever, of all time, to do something. I can see plus points and negatives in a bunch of approaches, hence that long-ass article on the subject linked earlier. But, here, what you say is pretty subjective - to you, the multiverse approach in Marvel works and adds to your suspension of disbelief; to me, it's hokey and painfully lame. I find it much easier to believe different writers and artists interpreting the same characters without needing to shelve them in different universes. Peter Jackson's Frodo and Aragorn don't exist in different realities and worlds to Tolkien's, accessible by magic and spaceships. It's just a different take on the same thing.

 

I can understand that it's key to Marvel's IP, but it's not something I love about it. It doesn't add to my suspension of disbelief, it threatens it.

never thought you were doing anything but explaining ”how it is”, i’m pretty careful with this stuff.

 

now, when you say "you" you're using the generic you, right? i don't have a personal opinion on marvel's multiverse, but i can understand why its fandom accepts it and find it a necessity ( i work professionally in entertainment media, so its part of my job to take an interest in these matters, it doesn't mean i am a personal fan of them).

 

the comparison of lotr movies to books doesn't quite hold up as it's not meant to be a continuous flow between the two. they're obviously marketed as distinct interpretations. one is tolkien's lotr, the other is peter jackson's lotr (inspired by tolkien). it's a blatant adaptation (even if some rabid fans refuse to see that). as far as i understand, i'm not meant to read fellowship of the ring, then watch the two towers and expect a seamless continuity. i'm not meant to view them as a complete work. more like retellings of the king arthur tale- each one is different and distinct and only connected by inspiration.

 

i don't remember that distinction being raised in the publication of the horus heresy series or most 40k books. i've come to know about some of it from trawling forums, but without this board, i'd have never even guessed that was the intent behind the fictional universe. to follow the above line of thinking is to suggest that readers consider this latest templars story to be a retelling of the templars distinct from your own, rather than having real continuity between them. each story is then an adaptation of the original idea of 40k and unconnected by anything other than that inspiration (and some handy ip).

 

fair enough. i guess. i'm just saying that's not what i saw written on the tin.

 

It does. Frequently. In fact, that's the main core of the series. Like the lore, several characters all put forward their ideas and ideals on what really happened in the Legion's formation; who's really dead; and what the Legion's ethos is really all about. Any one of them might be right or wrong, without any actual confirmation one way or the other.

 

See, some of us understand this stuff very well and take it quite seriously.

absolutely. i think my point has been missed, so let me try again.

 

i remember the characters possessing varying viewpoints and personal realities that did not match with one another or with objective reality itself, i don't recall where they were depicted contradicting their own inner logic or changing characterization from book to book. it’s not as if in book 3 you decided that uzas should not be a night lad anymore and never mentioned him again. differences in character depiction seemed to be part of an arc rather than on a whim. you had written them with very tight consistency and logic throughout the trilogy ; a decent example of in-universe justification for conflicting narratives and viewpoints.

 

from what i see in this thread, the complaints come down to contradictions that readers are struggling to reconcile between different depictions of the same characters or groups in the same world. things that lack what you brought to the table.

 

i mentioned this on another thread, that the consistency and cohesion of the night lords trilogy is one (very important) reason why it is superior to the opening horus heresy trilogy. does anyone honestly believe the night lords series would have been improved by 3 different authors? there's a reason nobody does.

 

 

Ouch. Not a great example. In fact, possibly the worst one you could've used. Dr Who gets mentioned in the earlier article, and its canon is treated almost exactly the same as 40Ks over a variety of media, with practically an exact approach to universal canonicity, even when stuff contradicts. And, like GW, the creators of Dr Who simply don't discuss canon at all. It all happens, somehow, as far as they're concerned. I get that you're praising one aspect of how that IP functions, but the bigger picture involves that particular IP being just about the closest to how 40K's IP functions. Almost identically, in fact. Dr Who fandom is riven with canon and retcon debates* that would make a 40K fan blush.

you had it, but then you ruined it. i was just praising that aspect and only that aspect. I find it exceptionally clever. it’s a little on the intellectually dishonest side to suggest i was comparing the doctor who canon as a whole to the 40k canon. admitting that you knew i wasn't doing that, while replying as if i was really actually doing that anyway ain't cool. i didn’t even so much as mouth the word 'canon'. not a peep. nope.

 

not a doctor who fan, so i don't know enough about its canon issues to go deeply into them (i'm assuming it's to do with somehow reconciling the novels and audio books and u.s productions with the two broadcast runs. i read ha ). the point stands- it has an inbuilt device to allow it to reboot and to make in-universe sense. it has an even bigger in-universe reasoning for retcons and mistakes... time travel. it's a silly get-out-of-jail card too, but it's also part of the mythological narrative. they get cake and they get eating privileges.

 

40k's narrative also has an inbuilt excuse. i just don't think it's used as well as it should be (especially in 30k). you can't escape the multiverse of superheroes or the timeline altering of dr who but the “everything is true and nothing is” aspect of 40k seems to slip through the cracks at times. does it apply to 30k as well? is it just because of political misinformation? is it because of loss of knowledge? is it because chaos lies? is it because of personal viewpoints? is it all of the above? is it just...i dunno...postmodernism?

 

some inconsistencies are definitely part of the mythos and some are just...there.

[Marshal Rohr]

I mean, if I wanted to build a crusade for one of the other Marshals at Armageddon, are they there or not? Should I just focus on the Crusade itself and not the battle it's fighting in, like chaos players do with their warband.

[Conn Eremon]

I mean, if I wanted to build a crusade for one of the other Marshals at Armageddon, are they there or not? Should I just focus on the Crusade itself and not the battle it's fighting in, like chaos players do with their warband.

Yes