The Eternal Crusader

[redmapa]

The retcon is not Haley's fault, he's a good writer and we should know better that as an employee he is probably being told to promote the new fluff by the higher ups who came up with the idea of retconning BT to change them into another chapter if you want to blame someone blame whoever is in charge of the IP (Merret, Johnson, Kirby, whoever else is making these decisions and overseeing development) because they are the ones that in the end let this through or probably encourage/direct it.

[b1soul]

The retcon is not Haley's fault, he's a good writer and we should know better that as an employee he is probably being told to promote the new fluff by the higher ups who came up with the idea of retconning BT to change them into another chapter if you want to blame someone blame whoever is in charge of the IP (Merret, Johnson, Kirby, whoever else is making these decisions and overseeing development) because they are the ones that in the end let this through or probably encourage/direct it.

 

I'm not really interested in blaming anyone. I'm saying the retcons (in my opinion) are rather needless and frankly quite lame regardless of who is responsible for them

[A D-B]

I find this "everything is canon, nothing is canon" policy to be incredibly lazy of BL

 

I mean, I'm OK with different writers having different "takes"...but there should be a consistent core. It's like different artists painting the same object. Despite different painting styles, different angles, different lighting, etc., it's still the same object.

 

When every authour is free to do their own thang with no regard for previous work...that way lies madness. Similarly, trying to achieve 100% "consistency" is also a silly endeavour.

 

The changes wrought by Haley smack of a needless retcon. The above of course is only my opinion and I don't expect BL to change its ways on my account

 

It's not BL. I can't explain that any more clearly, or any more often. It's not Black Library. Guy Haley didn't change anything - he illustrated the changes already inside the latest codex. It's not BL. It's everyone, since forever. The Night Lords aren't a Khornate Legion anymore. The Flesh Tearers aren't black anymore. Space Marines aren't gangland criminals with field police in their ranks. Landspeeders don't look like Ferris Wheel seats anymore. Are those "retcons" just as toxic to you? No, of course not.

 

And trust me, it's far, far from about laziness. It's a shame to take one of the strongest points of the way the license has functioned for 25+ years and believe it's down to something so unprofessional and childish. The way the license works goes both ways. It also means we're not bound to previous incarnations of things that we may not necessarily like, or - more importantly - don't match our perceptions of the setting. 

 

One of the setting's main strengths has always been how no one person's view is definitive. It's always been many authors and designers viewing the concepts through different lenses. Things change, and sometimes they change hugely, for better or worse, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You don't like how the license works and that's fine, and you specifically dislike this one change, but that doesn't make the whole concept flawed or lazy.

 

Why should we be fixed only on Bill King's Space Wolves or Ben Counter's Grey Knights or Graham McNeill's Ultramarines or my Night Lords? My Word Bearers are vastly different to Ant Reynolds's ones, especially in how Lorgar acts. Does that mean I shouldn't have been allowed to write The First Heretic? I went completely in my own direction for that, trying not to directly contradict dates and events in his work, but running entirely with my own story and characterisation because of how I viewed those characters and that Legion. By your logic, that level of independence should never be allowed. I like Graham's writing a lot, but if I wrote an Ultramarines novel, it would have precious little in common with Graham's characterisation of them, and I'd treat the Codex Astartes entirely differently, for better or worse. (As I'm sure he'd do with the Night Lords.) Again, by your logic, that wouldn't be allowed at all. Or, worse, it would be laziness in not adhering to what came before.

 

This has always happened, and always will happen. A recent major example of some people being dissatisfied about a lore change (and understandably so, given its specifics) doesn't equate to the concept having no value or being about laziness.

[b1soul]

 

It's not BL. I can't explain that any more clearly, or any more often. It's not Black Library. Guy Haley didn't change anything - he illustrated the changes already inside the latest codex. It's not BL.

 

OK...should I say it's GW then? I don't really care who it is. I'm not interested in pinning the blame on a certain party.

 

The Night Lords aren't a Khornate Legion anymore. The Flesh Tearers aren't black anymore. Space Marines aren't gangland criminals with field police in their ranks. Landspeeders don't look like Ferris Wheel seats anymore. Are those "retcons" just as toxic to you? No, of course not.

 

I would argue that "inconsistency" and retcons aren't the same thing. 

 

To me, inconsistency refers to the lack of a standard ("nothing is canon"), whereas a retcon is simply a changing of the standard. Thus in the case of a retcon, the authours go from following the old standard to following the new standard. I'm OK with that. In the case of "nothing is canon", every authours is free to produce a wildly divergent treatment of the same faction in the same period. I don't like that. Fundamental consistency (sticking to a standard) is good in my book. That's not to say I want all authours to write exactly like each other.

 

Again, allow me to fall back on analogy. Three artists are painting an apple in front of them. The apple represents established canon for a certain faction. I don't want artist 1 to paint an apple, artist 2 to paint an orange, and artist 3 to paint a banana. Now, none of them is going to pain an elephant...but it's still annoying when 2 and 3 are painting an orange and a banana.    

 

It appears that the new BT fluff is a case of retconning and not a case of inconsistency. If that is so, I hope that authours at least try to stick to the new fluff  in the future. If BT books are released in the future and some revert back to the old fluff, others stick to the new fluff, and others introduce something altogether different...I would be rather annoyed.

 

As for the fluff changes you've listed above, I actually think those examples count as improvements. I don't think the recent BT retcon represents an improvement. In my opinion, it's different but it's not better. I even think it's worse as it reduces the uniqueness of the BT...IMO of course. I think you're implying that I'm one of those guys who doesn't want whatever he's familiar with to be changed. That's not true. I was familiar with the Oldcrons before the introduction of the Newcrons. I much prefer Newcrons to Oldcrons. However, my subjective opinion is that the new BT fluff isn't an improvement over the old BT fluff. On the contrary, the new fluff is worse.      

 

 

 

Why should we be fixed only on Bill King's Space Wolves or Ben Counter's Grey Knights or Graham McNeill's Ultramarines or my Night Lords? My Word Bearers are vastly different to Ant Reynolds's ones, especially in how Lorgar acts. Does that mean I shouldn't have been allowed to write The First Heretic? I went completely in my own direction for that, trying not to directly contradict dates and events in his work, but running entirely with my own story and characterisation because of how I viewed those characters and that Legion. By your logic, that level of independence should never be allowed.

 

Some "inconsistency" isn't really inconsistency. 40K Wolves/Word Bearers/primarchs =/= 30K Wolves/Word Bearers/primarchs. 

 

There is plenty of room for varying portrayals 

 

A character changes over time, has different sides to his personality, may be mercurial... 

A faction changes over time, has different sub-factions within it, may have a complex ideology...  

 

An object could look very different from varying angles. That's the gist of it. However, as I've said, the same object from a different angle is still the same object. It's not always that obvious whether a new portrayal is consistent or inconsistent with a prior portrayal. I'm only annoyed when the inconsistency is glaring. 

 

Kings Wolves and Abnett's Wolves have 10,000 years separating them....and I believe your Word Bearers and Reynold's Word Bearers are similarly separated. It's great that Warhammer 40K covers 10,000 years. It gives authours freedom to do their own things. Superb! 

 

Transplanting King's Wolves into 30K would annoy me. I believe your 40K Wolves are quite distinct from King's 40K Wolves (though the difference between Abnett's 30K Wolves and King's 40K Wolves is greater than the difference between your 40K Wolves and King's 40K Wolves). However, I'm not really bothered by that because King's novels are practically ancient. You guys aren't simultaneously releasing contradicting visions of the 40K Wolves. I think most people would find it far more jarring if say The Emperor's Gift were released in between two SW novels by King. 

[A D-B]

 

Transplanting King's Wolves into 30K would annoy me. I believe your 40K Wolves are quite distinct from King's 40K Wolves (though the difference between Abnett's 30K Wolves and King's 40K Wolves is greater than the difference between your 40K Wolves and King's 40K Wolves). However, I'm not really bothered by that because King's novels are practically ancient. You guys aren't simultaneously releasing contradicting visions of the 40K Wolves. I think most people would find it far more jarring if say The Emperor's Gift were released in between two SW novels by King. 

 

And yet, that would have been perfectly valid to do, in certain circumstances. Like how codexes can vastly change the factions they describe.

 

I can't keep coming back to this - it's time-consuming as hell (and not much fun), so please excuse me for bailing on this after one last explanation.

 

As an example, I'm writing about Ragnar Blackmane right now. I read Bill King's stories over a decade ago, though I've got every edition of the Space Wolf codex ever published, and I've had the current one for a long time. There's very little about Ragnar, relatively speaking, in the codexes, and what there is I'm going to cleave to because that's how I do this stuff. But I'm not going to re-read the Space Wolf novels, and although I'm pretty aware about not overlapping the events and dates that I remember, it also doesn't matter if I do. Ragnar Blackmane isn't just what Bill King said he is. That's one author's telling of that character's story, with that author's events and supporting cast. Mine, where it touches on certain aspects of Ragnar's life, will be different. I don't mention the characters that get mentioned in that series. I don't mention the events that took place. It's vague enough that you could say they happened and aren't being mentioned, or that they simply didn't happen at all. Those novels aren't definitively what happened to Ragnar. They're what two authors have described happening to him, to their tastes. Several other authors are free to describe other events, even if they overlap. That's not a betrayal of previous lore, and it's nothing personal. Just like the people that write Ultimate, Spectacular, and Amazing Spider-Man aren't trying to disrespect each other.

 

Now, this kind of rewriting is usually something I try to avoid, but it happens, and I couldn't go forever without doing it. Sometimes you have to reboot something, or move on and overwrite older lore. As a further example, if I ever wrote the tale of Ragnar's youth and induction into the Chapter, it would probably be under the guidance of Ulric the Slayer, not Ranek Icewalker like in the old novels, and it would have entirely different events. And that, too, would be perfectly valid. It's not a retcon as applies in Star Trek or Star Wars. It's a different take on a very vague and undetailed character. To a degree you'd find jarring, yes. But it's a game of degrees. That doesn't change what it is. I'm sure there'd be people that said "I prefer these events and this characterisation", just as there'd be those that said it sucked compared to Bill's.

 

There are hundreds and hundreds of portrayals/events/dates/characterisations/descriptions, etc. over the last 25+ years that directly contradict previous stuff. I'm not saying it's not jarring or that it's something you have to like, but it's also not rare, and if you expect a cat to bark, you're going to be disappointed.

 

That's the main problem with your analogy about the apple. There's no objective thing that they all draw to their own tastes. It's not three artists drawing an apple that exists right before them. There's no apple there. It's three artists drawing what they think apples are, from the massively varied and often conflicting notes of what 200 people have themselves written about apples in the course of a quarter of a century. 

[Lucien Eilam]

"Inconsistency good, retcons bad!"

 

http://cdn.lightbringers-space-marines.net/wip/CodexChapters.jpg

 

"All retcons are equal, but some retcons are more equal than others."

[Marshal_Roujakis]

And we then find out that nothing in all the lores are real... they are all in the Emperor's head while he plans to conquer the known galaxy, he's just using his precognitive powers to foresee every possible future 10k-20k years from the Unification wars on terra...

 

Some future becomes AD-Bs Templars... some Guy Haley's... some M2C's and in some cases there were no Templars at all...

 

The Emperor sees all... and knows all...

 

He is the most powerful Man in all the galaxy... with 100% brain capacity, and more than 1000 psykers in his head.... who knows ;)

[Marshal Goderic]

That's the main problem with your analogy about the apple. There's no objective thing that they all draw to their own tastes. It's not three artists drawing an apple that exists right before them. There's no apple there. It's three artists drawing what they think apples are, from the massively varied and often conflicting notes of what 200 people have themselves written about apples in the course of a quarter of a century.

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

b1: great example

ADB; we love you, we hear you, just to reiterate, you don't have to defend all that GW does from our internet frenzying but we appreciate that you try.

[Deadman Wade]

"Inconsistency good, retcons bad!"

 

http://cdn.lightbringers-space-marines.net/wip/CodexChapters.jpg

 

"All retcons are equal, but some retcons are more equal than others."

Some retcons make SM chapter unique, awesome and loved by fans, some turn it into a bunch of pathetic idiots kneeling before a psyker.

[Lucien Eilam]

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

 

The point is that a Black Templar is not like an apple. Apples actually exist. There is no single objective reality of what a Black Templar is supposed to be. The closest you'll ever get is presumably "Alan Merrett says they're this". Instead there are dozens of stories, miniatures, artwork, etc. created by dozens of people with slightly or wildly different perspectives over a period of 20+ years. You may, for a while, find broad consensus on some topics, but that doesn't make those sources "real" and the inconsistencies not.

[evilmittens]

Thank goodness I am just a lore fan versus invested in a army.  My criteria is the story good in and of itself. I am not suprised that many are frustrated, but we have to remember the things that lead to retcons and other changes we dont like also lead into retcons and changes we like. 

[Marshal_Roujakis]

MY Templars will stay true to my idea of Templars... even if AD-B or Haley gave them a good story or bad story it doesn't change the fact that MY lore will stick to witch hating 5000+ strong Chapter that it was and always will be...

 

When people at my LGS tell me that I should ally/run Psykers with my Templars since in the Codex it says somewhere that we don't mind... I tell them that there is no such thing in MY Codex proof?

 

 

http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o622/Marshal_Roujakis/photo1_zps34ea210e.jpg

 

 

If GW decides to change Templars just for the sake of changing the Templars... well we really don't have a say in it now don't we?

 

I haven't read this new book as well, but I do hope that Haley did read Helsreach just for the sake of the continuity of the story...

 

There is another Templar book out: here is actually the Templar books bundle: Black Templars Quick Reads Collection

 

Note: The price here might be Australian so don't die from shock...

[Kilofix]

Just commenting that - in general:

 

If you limit inception or filter fluff decisions through a small controlling group - then you're going to get much less creativity and content. Same as if you limit retcons - you get stagnation to an extent.

 

Otherwise, if it is going to be a large collaborative effort - then it can't be helped that some things will get positive feedback and some won't - and by different audiences.

 

We can talk academically about how it would be ideal if all fluff were consistent and great from day one but practically that can't be enforced as such and not everyone can be pleased. In saying the latter I don't mean to discount the opinions of many that have posted here (in fact I agree those opinions make sense and should be voiced). But, I'm just saying that at some point we have to move on to "acceptance".

 

Sorry if the above inadvertantly ruffles feathers - it isn't my intent for such.

[A D-B]

That's the main problem with your analogy about the apple. There's no objective thing that they all draw to their own tastes. It's not three artists drawing an apple that exists right before them. There's no apple there. It's three artists drawing what they think apples are, from the massively varied and often conflicting notes of what 200 people have themselves written about apples in the course of a quarter of a century.

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

b1: great example

ADB; we love you, we hear you, just to reiterate, you don't have to defend all that GW does from our internet frenzying but we appreciate that you try.

Two things, quickly. Firstly, I defend - by which I mean, explain - about 0.1% of the things GW is attacked for, and I'd really rather avoid a meme saying otherwise. I reply to practically no attacks unless they're misunderstandings of something, and even then it's only usually elements of the IP I'm directly involved in.

And secondly, no. It's honestly not a great example. It sounds great, but doesn't match the scenario at all.

This does:

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

The point is that a Black Templar is not like an apple. Apples actually exist. There is no single objective reality of what a Black Templar is supposed to be. The closest you'll ever get is presumably "Alan Merrett says they're this". Instead there are dozens of stories, miniatures, artwork, etc. created by dozens of people with slightly or wildly different perspectives over a period of 20+ years. You may, for a while, find broad consensus on some topics, but that doesn't make those sources "real" and the inconsistencies not.

This. This is it, exactly.

It's more complicated and less snappy, making for a less quirky soundbite, but it's actually true.

[Lucien Eilam]

Some retcons make SM chapter unique, awesome and loved by fans, some turn it into a bunch of pathetic idiots kneeling before a psyker.

 

Which is to say "I'm perfectly happy with GW making sweeping modifications to their IP, which might change everything important to somebody liking their army, as long as *I* like the result."

 

Which, for some value of "I", is all they've done this time too. There'll be loads of players who like the changes (maybe because they took the bajillion instances in the 4th edition codex of words like "holy", "divine", "prayer", "worship", "sacred", etc. literally, in the absence of an explicit statement either way). Loads more who don't care, or even notice, because a box-out about religion or psykers had nothing to do with them playing Black Templars. Maybe they just liked the aesthetic, or the fleet-based crusading bit. And probably plenty of players coming to the game for the first time who flick through the Space Marine codex and decide that that's the chapter for them - the religious lunatics with the funny ideas about psychic powers.

 

And they'll be just as right as you were back in 2000, when other players were finding out they couldn't take their Librarians any more with the Chapter they'd been playing for 5 years, and all their painstakingly painted unit markings were wrong. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

It happens to all of us eventually - I created my own Chapter with the express intention of avoiding being bound by background I didn't like, and still wound up with an entire army waving around chainswords they're no longer allowed to take. Sooner or later you have to accept that the rule of cool is the only one that really counts, and that you get to decide which bits are cool.

[b1soul]

*Well-meaning and well reasoned response by A D-B*

The thing with you is...when you make changes, they're usually better than the prior fluff. I can't really get mad at you. It's frustrating when changes are made...and (I believe) those changes are bad

For instance: Gav Thorpe's Deliverance Lost

I mean...if you're going to change the lore, at least make it better

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

b1: great example

Thank you, that's the idea

The point is that a Black Templar is not like an apple. Apples actually exist. There is no single objective reality of what a Black Templar is supposed to be.

Let me give you an example...

Prospero Burns, Legion, and Brotherhood of the Storm/Scars would be "apples" in the context of the Horus Heresy series.

Major legion-building (some would say legion-establishing) novels in BL's flagship series. What I advocate is that subsequent authours respect PB, Legion, and Scars when writing about Heresy-era Wolves, AL, and Scars. I don't think I'm asking much.

What I wouldn't appreciate as much is if another authour (say...McNeill) is in charge of writing the next HH White Scars novel, and he completely ignores the themes, tone, and flavour established by Chris Wraight simply because McNeill has his own (significantly different) vision for how the WS should be portrayed.

[Lucien Eilam]

Prospero Burns, Legion, and Brotherhood of the Storm/Scars would be "apples" in the context of the Horus Heresy series.

 

But they're not. They're just… not.

 

Why shouldn't Dan Abnett have "respected" the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons as presented by Ben Counter's earlier Battle for the Abyss? Or for that matter Bill King's Wolves, or Andy Hoare's Alpha Legion? Because you happen to like Abnett's version better, so that makes it okay? Plenty of people enjoyed earlier portrayals of all those factions, published years earlier and in just as much detail.

 

BL authors having the freedom to do their own thing resulted in portrayals you prefer to what had come before. That could not have happened if the setting worked the way you're asking for.

[Sete]

Like I said before the new fluff has come to stay. GW does not give a :cuss if we like it or not. That was pretty obvious with the loss of codex.

About our 1000 chapter limit, this indeed was the number Helbrecth had at Armaggedon, but its weird the Black Templars only having 2 more marshall's. The High Marshall vote would be a bit weird. There are more crusades spread across the galaxy I reckon. And only the High Marshall has acess to that information. It would be a bit weird appearing with more than 1k marines.

I liked the book, and if these changes bring more attention and goodies for us Templars I welcome it.

Today it was us. Tomorrow it could be DA SW BA or GK.

Just suck it up, and keep purging xenos for the Emperor.

And for the writers of BT novels: Stop killing the god damn Emperor champion!

[b1soul]

 

But they're not. They're just… not.

 

Why shouldn't Dan Abnett have "respected" the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons as presented by Ben Counter's earlier Battle for the Abyss? Or for that matter Bill King's Wolves, or Andy Hoare's Alpha Legion?

 

LOL...what?

 

Battle of the Abyss is not a "legion-building" novel by any means. It shows a few isolated individuals who aren't necessarily typical of their respective legions. BotA doesn't establish the flavour of whole legions. It's a story focusing on only a few individuals and thus it allows subsequent authours plenty of room to engage in "legion-building". BotA is in no way comparable to Legion, PB, or Scars. Furthermore, BotA is universally panned, whereas PB is generally considered to be very good in the legion-building department.    

 

Bill King's Wolves and Andy Hoare's Alpha Legion (heavily corrupted by Chaos) are 40K, not 30K. The fact that you're citing them in an attempt to counter my argument tells me that you haven't read my entire argument.

 

Consider what I'm saying. I'm saying that I'd like the legions to be portrayed consistently in the HH series. Why in the world is that a bad thing? 30K Wolves are the Vlka Fenryka. You're telling me other authours should be free to ignore that concept? How is that good for a series?    

[Marshal Goderic]

That's the main problem with your analogy about the apple. There's no objective thing that they all draw to their own tastes. It's not three artists drawing an apple that exists right before them. There's no apple there. It's three artists drawing what they think apples are, from the massively varied and often conflicting notes of what 200 people have themselves written about apples in the course of a quarter of a century.

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

b1: great example

ADB; we love you, we hear you, just to reiterate, you don't have to defend all that GW does from our internet frenzying but we appreciate that you try.

Two things, quickly. Firstly, I defend - by which I mean, explain - about 0.1% of the things GW is attacked for, and I'd really rather avoid a meme saying otherwise. I reply to practically no attacks unless they're misunderstandings of something, and even then it's only usually elements of the IP I'm directly involved in.

And secondly, no. It's honestly not a great example. It sounds great, but doesn't match the scenario at all.

This does:

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

The point is that a Black Templar is not like an apple. Apples actually exist. There is no single objective reality of what a Black Templar is supposed to be. The closest you'll ever get is presumably "Alan Merrett says they're this". Instead there are dozens of stories, miniatures, artwork, etc. created by dozens of people with slightly or wildly different perspectives over a period of 20+ years. You may, for a while, find broad consensus on some topics, but that doesn't make those sources "real" and the inconsistencies not.

This. This is it, exactly.

It's more complicated and less snappy, making for a less quirky soundbite, but it's actually true.

True points, sorry about the defending comment, explaining is more true, still, that's how I believe lots of people here feel, it was more intended to be complimentary but hey whatever. Apple, apple, tomay-toe, tomah-toe. I love semantics You are right it's not like an apple from that angle, it's like a game!!!

Fine, so there is no apple or spoon. We are now talking about a better analogy which is a sport also known as a game; baseball (not the darned ball, the sport itself). Also capable of being categorized as something which does not objectively exist. The rules change over the years in small increments but there are no uber drastic changes to the extent that people need to check a ticket stub to confirm that they did in fact purchase a ticket to a baseball game after people on the field start playing with sticks and nets (like lacrosse). If we talk periods of decades or more then perhaps yes we can see a progression that has led to the re-shaping of the game in certain ways where it looks significantly different from one perspective to another in terms of decades. There are never any insanely jarring changes like that. I'd love to put up a wall of text further reasoning this entertaining debate but I'm only on here at work and have limited time to engage. And while i'm still irked at the utter lack of BT love GW has, my Thousand Sons are shining like gold now so I've got my fluffy army that I'm super happy to play and that keeps my good vibes flowin. It's just sad that all happened. That said, I hope I see Space Jamaicans sometime in the near future fighting the enemies of the Emperor.

[Bulwyf]

I don't mean to diminish anyone fan of BT but am I the only fan of GW that simply ignores changes to canon/fluff that I don't agree with? I mean the BT have as long as I can remember been extremely anti pysker, anti xeno and I think still running around believing it is still the Great Crusade. Which means they certainly wouldn't believe the Emp is a god.

 

So if someone in GW decides to change that...it sucks, yes, but why would it stop you from collecting the army? Or enjoying the previous lore/fluff? Just ignore the parts you don't agree with. I know I have done it with previous changes in FB or 40k.

[Bulwyf]

That's the main problem with your analogy about the apple. There's no objective thing that they all draw to their own tastes. It's not three artists drawing an apple that exists right before them. There's no apple there. It's three artists drawing what they think apples are, from the massively varied and often conflicting notes of what 200 people have themselves written about apples in the course of a quarter of a century.

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

b1: great example

ADB; we love you, we hear you, just to reiterate, you don't have to defend all that GW does from our internet frenzying but we appreciate that you try.

Two things, quickly. Firstly, I defend - by which I mean, explain - about 0.1% of the things GW is attacked for, and I'd really rather avoid a meme saying otherwise. I reply to practically no attacks unless they're misunderstandings of something, and even then it's only usually elements of the IP I'm directly involved in.

And secondly, no. It's honestly not a great example. It sounds great, but doesn't match the scenario at all.

This does:

Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting b1soul's point but there is one object that they draw to their own tastes; the apple (whether or not it's present). It seems we can all agree at least that they're still supposed to be painting an apple. Right? One may be green and another red but hopefully no one is painting an elephant.

The point is that a Black Templar is not like an apple. Apples actually exist. There is no single objective reality of what a Black Templar is supposed to be. The closest you'll ever get is presumably "Alan Merrett says they're this". Instead there are dozens of stories, miniatures, artwork, etc. created by dozens of people with slightly or wildly different perspectives over a period of 20+ years. You may, for a while, find broad consensus on some topics, but that doesn't make those sources "real" and the inconsistencies not.

This. This is it, exactly.

It's more complicated and less snappy, making for a less quirky soundbite, but it's actually true.

If I may distill your argument to a catchphrase I have used on various boards and sites of the various fandoms I enjoy:

It is canon until they change it.

[Marshal Rohr]

I don't mean to diminish anyone fan of BT but am I the only fan of GW that simply ignores changes to canon/fluff that I don't agree with? I mean the BT have as long as I can remember been extremely anti pysker, anti xeno and I think still running around believing it is still the Great Crusade. Which means they certainly wouldn't believe the Emp is a god.

 

So if someone in GW decides to change that...it sucks, yes, but why would it stop you from collecting the army? Or enjoying the previous lore/fluff? Just ignore the parts you don't agree with. I know I have done it with previous changes in FB or 40k.

I enjoyed the 'consensus' that following codex fluff allowed for on community forums. It gave us the ability to discuss purely hypothetical situations and temperament of the Templars, like how they would treat Astropaths and Navigators as penitents, and the juicy hypocrisy of being anti-theist crusading knights. Without that consensus, and some embracing the new fluff compared to the old, that sense of community was taken out back and shot. Now it's just about Zeal, or whatever, and the less fulfilling aspects of the fluff. Just being zealous isn't what made them cool, it was the whole concept of what they were that is gone now. I'm free to carry on with my 'old way' Templars, but I can't ever start a topic about what kind of serf caste would be responsible for acting as intermediaries between the knights and mutants, or how the Templars would have cultural differences with chapters like the Fire Hawks during the Terran Crusade. Those used to be some of the more intellectually fulfilling hobby discussions a few years back, but now they won't happen again. Worse still, is after the new fluff becomes the normative consensus, discussions about how intertwined with the Ecclesiarchy the chapter is, and how difficult their mission is with only one crusade of 1000 knights will be so distasteful to me, I wouldn't find any enjoyment participating in them and would be the curmudgeonly poster constantly citing old fluff sources or being a buzzkill by talking about how the old fluff was better.

[Bulwyf]

 

I don't mean to diminish anyone fan of BT but am I the only fan of GW that simply ignores changes to canon/fluff that I don't agree with? I mean the BT have as long as I can remember been extremely anti pysker, anti xeno and I think still running around believing it is still the Great Crusade. Which means they certainly wouldn't believe the Emp is a god.

 

So if someone in GW decides to change that...it sucks, yes, but why would it stop you from collecting the army? Or enjoying the previous lore/fluff? Just ignore the parts you don't agree with. I know I have done it with previous changes in FB or 40k.

I enjoyed the 'consensus' that following codex fluff allowed for on community forums. It gave us the ability to discuss purely hypothetical situations and temperament of the Templars, like how they would treat Astropaths and Navigators as penitents, and the juicy hypocrisy of being anti-theist crusading knights. Without that consensus, and some embracing the new fluff compared to the old, that sense of community was taken out back and shot. Now it's just about Zeal, or whatever, and the less fulfilling aspects of the fluff. Just being zealous isn't what made them cool, it was the whole concept of what they were that is gone now. I'm free to carry on with my 'old way' Templars, but I can't ever start a topic about what kind of serf caste would be responsible for acting as intermediaries between the knights and mutants, or how the Templars would have cultural differences with chapters like the Fire Hawks during the Terran Crusade. Those used to be some of the more intellectually fulfilling hobby discussions a few years back, but now they won't happen again. Worse still, is after the new fluff becomes the normative consensus, discussions about how intertwined with the Ecclesiarchy the chapter is, and how difficult their mission is with only one crusade of 1000 knights will be so distasteful to me, I wouldn't find any enjoyment participating in them and would be the curmudgeonly poster constantly citing old fluff sources or being a buzzkill by talking about how the old fluff was better.

 

 

Embrace your role as a curmudgeon. I have done it myself both with Chaos Dwarf and Squats as someone old enough to have some of the actual TT units and armies.  There is no reason to let this one recent change retcon the entire history of the BT. I understand where you are coming from in that this new wrinkle causes not just current headache but future ones we all.

[Marshal Rohr]

I'd prefer to positively contribute, rather than derail discussion some people may find fulfilling. It's probably best for my warning limit if I just stick to my 30K Imperial Fists for a while :P