Can you be a true 40K fan...

[A D-B]

 

I'd be more inclined to recognize loose canon as a stroke of genius and not unabashed laziness if Games Workshop was a less sloppily run business.

 

You say you don't like it and you'd prefer a lore bible. That's all good, man. But there is no "one true 40K" to document like that. There's no solid, central spine of truth. I remember one of the freaking top brass in my car, explaining it to me once in a lovely analogy: "There's no one thing you can hold in your hands where everyone sees the same thing. Everyone looks into the mist, and sees a different side or angle of something huge in the darkness. It's everyone's personal take on what they see."

 

You may hate that, sure, but it's still the point of how it functions. Arguing that it's untrue means you're basing your entire case on imaginary foundations, so nothing you build on it will ever be right.

 

It doesn't excuse mistakes, and there's laziness in everything. But it's anything but unabashed laziness. It's a conscious choice to portray the scale and immunise the setting from One True Wayism. There can't be one definitive take on any one war or faction or army or character because of the way the IP functions. Which is a bloody good thing for a lot of us. I don't believe for a second you'd prefer the first way every army/faction/character was presented, and haven't ever preferred another designer/author/mini update's presentation over them. 

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

I'd be more inclined to recognize loose canon as a stroke of genius and not unabashed laziness if Games Workshop was a less sloppily run business.

 

You say you don't like it and you'd prefer a lore bible. That's all good, man. But there is no "one true 40K" to document like that. There's no solid, central spine of truth. I remember one of the freaking top brass in my car, explaining it to me once in a lovely analogy: "There's no one thing you can hold in your hands where everyone sees the same thing. Everyone looks into the mist, and sees a different side or angle of something huge in the darkness. It's everyone's personal take on what they see."

 

You may hate that, sure, but it's still the point of how it functions. Arguing that it's untrue means you're basing your entire case on imaginary foundations, so nothing you build on it will ever be right.

 

It doesn't excuse mistakes, and there's laziness in everything. But it's anything but unabashed laziness. It's a conscious choice to portray the scale and immunise the setting from One True Wayism. There can't be one definitive take on any one war or faction or army or character because of the way the IP functions. Which is a bloody good thing for a lot of us. I don't believe for a second you'd prefer the first way every army/faction/character was presented, and haven't ever preferred another designer/author/mini update's presentation over them. 

 

According to him, the Imperium can be run by Iron Man and Horus was actually Darth Vader, but ultimately defeated by Harry Potter and the Tyranids aren't actually trying to take over the galaxy they just want hugs, and also Zimbabwe isn't real because maps can lie. 

[A D-B]

This thread seems a bit mean.

[Donkey Kong]

 

 

I'd be more inclined to recognize loose canon as a stroke of genius and not unabashed laziness if Games Workshop was a less sloppily run business.

 

You say you don't like it and you'd prefer a lore bible. That's all good, man. But there is no "one true 40K" to document like that. There's no solid, central spine of truth. I remember one of the freaking top brass in my car, explaining it to me once in a lovely analogy: "There's no one thing you can hold in your hands where everyone sees the same thing. Everyone looks into the mist, and sees a different side or angle of something huge in the darkness. It's everyone's personal take on what they see."

 

You may hate that, sure, but it's still the point of how it functions. Arguing that it's untrue means you're basing your entire case on imaginary foundations, so nothing you build on it will ever be right.

 

It doesn't excuse mistakes, and there's laziness in everything. But it's anything but unabashed laziness. It's a conscious choice to portray the scale and immunise the setting from One True Wayism. There can't be one definitive take on any one war or faction or army or character because of the way the IP functions. Which is a bloody good thing for a lot of us. I don't believe for a second you'd prefer the first way every army/faction/character was presented, and haven't ever preferred another designer/author/mini update's presentation over them. 

 

Hi Aaron, pleasure as always. You know that you're affirming what I've been saying, right? That includes what I've said in the rest of the post that you quoted. I've said what I prefer but I recognize what is, and I've said I've seen the merits in it in this thread.

 

I hated the concept of loose canon when I first heard about it. I still hate it now. But, seeing how Disney is handling Star Wars and traded in the Holocron Continuity Database for the Lucasfilm Story Group, I've come to the conclusion that maybe having license to headcanon isn't so bad after all. Can you be a true 40k fan if you don't like the GrimDark^TM yeah sure, whatever. I just have to accept the tradeoff that your 40k isn't my 40k.

 

 In a way, I've grown to appreciate loose canon, mostly because I've accepted that it isn't going away. But, in its favor, it's liberating to have license to pick and choose and confabulate lore as I see fit, with the freedom to know that I can't be wrong.

[Sandlemad]

40k is a unique beast. i don't know of too many other fictional universes that have such a large cycle of influence between publisher and reader and where the readers are active rather than passive participants.

 

not even your dragonlance and forgotten realms stuff had that particular relationship, to my knowledge.

 

in a lot of ways, it almost defies classical definitions of canon. you can have "official lore canon"- anything ever published by gw/bl. "tabletop canon", which is that 1000 strong hybrid reality between gamer and games workshop that gav speaks about. "head canon"- you are your own master...just don't expect anyone else to jump on board. "fanon" - most likely where things like the dornian heresy sit. and there's plenty of overlap between all of these.

 

My go to example of a fandom doing this better is the Elder Scrolls games, where 'readers' are much more active participants, and have debated and theorised these questions to a far more sophisticated level in the face of an occasionally corporate-mandated canon. It's not an attitude that everyone with an interest in 40k is going to love but it has true potential for thinking about canon.

 

It comes from this idea of C0DA, a form of writing that examines a universe or IP from a different angle by accepting and celebrating the inherently fictional nature of that universe. It's liberating and largely seems to come from the same 'let a thousand flowers bloom' impulse that drove the early GW writers, albeit without the corporate need to allow everyone their own line of plastic miniatures.

 

 

Think of the Elder Scrolls universe (the universe - not the games) as Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Each game, book, art piece, playthrough, etc. are then different versions of this one central piece of fiction, just like there are many different editions of Shakespeare’s play. There are books, movies, theatre productions, audiobooks, a ballet… but they are all Romeo and Juliet. Some of the editions make only minor edits to the “real,” original work of fiction, others make sweeping alterations. C0DA, in this analogy, is something like West Side Story. Or, to use another play as the starting point, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It takes some of the themes of the world and shifts everything around them in order to examine them from another angle.

 

Michael’s C0DA is, in other words, not just his view on the world. C0DA isn’t a fancy word for headcanon, unless your headcanon is a work of fiction set in a different genre and a different setting than the original universe with the expressed purpose of reinterpreting the world rather than expanding it. C0DA isn’t a fancy word for fanfiction or apocrypha or anything else you want to call it - though your fanfiction could certainly be a c0da.

 

C0DA is speculative fiction about an already fictional universe.

 

I personally see a lot of this applying well to some of the better modelling/background blogs on B&C but not so much elsewhere.

 

Yea but truly I say unto you that TES fans dwell in blissful heightened contemplation, unbound from the relentless cycle of canon arguments. Compared to these philosopher-kings we 40k fans are as brutes crawling in darkness. We debate the locations of hive fleets while they are plumbing the depths of what-might-be, wielding Crowleian metaphysical heuristics as we would a nasty comeback to a poster we disagree with. They have broken free.

 

Ahem. It's a lot to work through and it's not for everyone but at its heart it shows that saying 'it's all made up' is not a dead end. Worth digging into a bit, if only because it removes a venue for sniping at each other.

[DukeLeto69]

Kinghongkong - no you didn't quote Andy Chambers, totally my bad apologies. Teach me to be on here while trying to do other things!

 

It was someone Else.

[Wargamer]

A lot of the arguments people are making have historical parallels as well. Did the battle of Zama really happen? Was JFK assassinated by the CIA? Are the Russians really controlling the President from the shadows?

 

All of these questions must have an objectively correct answer, but people disagree on what that answer is. These people are all living in the same universe.

 

Within 40k we find matching discrepancies. Leandros thinks the Codex Astartes is the literal Word of God and must be obeyed to the letter. Captain Titus thinks it's a set of guidelines. Both are Ultramarines, and both are reading the same book.

 

So why should we assume that we aren't all adhering to the same universe, given the precedent we have to go by?

[Scribe]

Because, there are no female space marines.

Because, 1000 Souls are offered up to the Emperor daily, to power the Astronomicon.

Because, the Emperor slayed his son Horus.

 

EDIT: Here is the crux of it to me.

 

If you folks, and you as well ADB, want to tell me that a handful of people on this board with questionable (at best) views and interpretations of the setting have AS MUCH validity on those views as ADB, and Laurie...

 

Then I'm done with this setting completely.

[Knight of the Raven]

You say you don't like it and you'd prefer a lore bible. That's all good, man. But there is no "one true 40K" to document like that.

That reminds me.

 

In the translation to the designers' notes about the 3,5 (I think) edition Chaos Space Marines codex in the French White Dwarf 102 from October 2002, Andy Chambers mentions a 'never-published treatise on the nature of Chaos written by Rick Priestley at the end of the distant eighties' as one of the several sources he and Pete Haines worked with for the codex's lore.

 

This sentence was brought to you by Mouthful Ltd.

 

While Andy Chambers (or at least the French translator - 'Sire Lambert,' I believe?) makes sure to say 'treatise' rather than 'bible,' would that be the closest there is to the official canon some people would like? Assuming it still exists fifteen years after that White Dwarf was published, that is.

[A D-B]

 

If you folks, and you as well ADB, want to tell me that a handful of people on this board with questionable (at best) views and interpretations of the setting have AS MUCH validity on those views as ADB, and Laurie...

 

I struggle to see my posts, either here or in the last decade, as saying that. 

 

But at the same time, the canon is loose. There is no canon. Interpret that how you will!

[Scribe]

You cant have it both way's. I'm trying to reconcile your posts, with the fact that certain things are simply RIGHT, and others are simply WRONG.

 

'Loose Canon' cannot be an excuse for saying 'well its a valid interpretation, we just dont know'.

 

How?

 

We DO know that psykers are fed to the Emperor and/or Golden Throne. This is a true statement.

 

We DO know that Space Marines come from young men/children. This is a true statement.

 

Loose Canon as a definition, does not go nearly far enough, when there are actual factual events within the context of the setting.

 

Is Lemartes in the grip of the Black Rage? Yes!

Did Tycho fall at Amageddon? Yes!

 

I mean am I being unclear here? This Loose Canon argument simply fails to me.

 

There are facts within this setting, and the Earth is not flat.

[Frater Cornelius]

I love the grimdark, when it is juxtaposed with light. How can I appreciate the darkness, if there is nothing to compare it to? Pain only works, because thr nerves are stimulated multiple times in succession. If it was a constant trigger without downtime, you would feel no pain, to use a nerdy biological analogy. I enjoy light vs dark stories. It gives me someone to root for ;)

[A D-B]

You cant have it both way's. I'm trying to reconcile your posts, with the fact that certain things are simply RIGHT, and others are simply WRONG.

 

'Loose Canon' cannot be an excuse for saying 'well its a valid interpretation, we just dont know'.

 

How?

 

We DO know that psykers are fed to the Emperor and/or Golden Throne. This is a true statement.

 

We DO know that Space Marines come from young men/children. This is a true statement.

 

Loose Canon as a definition, does not go nearly far enough, when there are actual factual events within the context of the setting.

 

Is Lemartes in the grip of the Black Rage? Yes!

Did Tycho fall at Amageddon? Yes!

 

I mean am I being unclear here? This Loose Canon argument simply fails to me.

 

There are facts within this setting, and the Earth is not flat.

 

I'm not even disagreeing with you, but you're acting like I am, because you're bogged down in a single slice of minutiae. There's no need to reconcile my posts because they're already reconciled. They always say the very same thing. They have for a decade, now. Maybe you don't like the explanation, and that's fine. But it's still the way it is. It's not even my explanation. It's just... what it is. As evidenced by several other IP-involved folks saying the same thing.

 

At no point am I agreeing with KHH, but I can see why he and you would take it that I am. Again, misunderstanding (and misattributing importance) to a single slice of minutiae. There is canon, but it's loose. Or there's no canon. Phrase it and parse it however you like, but the official explanations we keep giving won't change. Especially ease up with the "Your posts" lark, chief. I don't want to say "Deal with it" here, as that's tacky, but it's not just my posts. It's several IP creatives and, well, how it works. It's been explained in detail, so many times.

 

I mean, you have 5,000+ posts on here. Seems like you've handled it fine for years now. Keep it up!

[Scribe]

I don't think it's that I don't like it, I feel I'm just flailing about in my misunderstanding and ignorance of what you are saying. :(

[Wargamer]

Because, there are no female space marines.

We are TOLD there are no female Space Marines, and the sources appear to be written by someone with very little grasp of biology. This is coming from a theocratic dictatorship known to actively lie to the populace about some very important things (like "Daemons are real").

 

Because, 1000 Souls are offered up to the Emperor daily, to power the Astronomicon.

Which is likely a simplification. Psykers certainly die working the Astronomicon, but that doesn't mean the Emperor is eating them.

 

Because, the Emperor slayed his son Horus.

Which I will bet good money a future Horus Heresy book will throw into doubt. That said, the IMPERIUM believes this to be true, which is likely more important than the truth itself.

[WarriorFish]

I think there's some confusion on what "loose canon" actually means. It doesn't mean anything goes, but rather there's scope for filling in gaps (and in a galaxy across ten thousand years - that's a lot more gap than not). By contrast a game with a tighter canon and much less freedom to play would be for example a historical game.

 

You can get your WWII American army to fight the Soviets, but it'll only ever be a "what if?". In 40k, you can have your DIY Chapter jaunting across the galaxy high fiving Autarchs and kindness to all creatures kicking Orks as much as you like. Creating their nemesis, planets to fight over etc - all sorts is open to you to get creative with. 40k is a setting and a framework, that's one of its strengths I'm sure we can agree

 

I think this should cover that, as this topic is not about the canon directly. The answer to the original question is: no, because there's no such thing as a "true" fan of anything

[Scribe]

So, I've got a batch job running, so I have some time.

 

Its not that I dont like the answer. Its my inability to grok the answer, with what I based on many clear cut examples accept as factual information.

 

The easy one is 'Space Marines begin life as Male'.

 

Now, we can argue out of game that that is a short sighted choice made as a sign of the times. All one need to do is look at how Sigmarines were handled on release, and then many months later, we have some females.

 

For the sake of argument, lets accept however that within the game lore, SM = Dudes.

 

Wargamer does not agree. Thats their choice, and based on the last few posts here thats a valid choice to make because the canon is loose.

 

You call in minutiae, I call it one piece of the tapestry, all of which form the basis of the setting within which the story is told.

 

So...I just cant move past this, not from a 'no I cannot be wrong' but from a

 

A != B

A == C

Therefore  C != B

 

Type situation.

 

Honestly, I would rather have an official 'yes you are wrong', because despite examples to the contrary, I would rather adjust my stance, than remain incorrect in my assumption of truth.

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

 

 

Something on the map discussion, is MAPS DO LIE. Well kinda. The classic map lying, is if you look at your normal. Ever notice how large a place like Alaska is vs continental US? While we have a so that we can be certain of the exact location, but maps can certainly be false or lie. A classic modern example, is South China Sea. One map might have China have sovereignty and another map might give I think its Singapore?

 

Point is maps can 'lie' depending on who the author. Just not in the way, when I say I am a three foot elf making Christmas toys for good Space Marines in the 41st Millennium is a lie.

 

------------------

I’ll put my two cents down. I was reading the first post and expected “argh another GS and Primaris Rant”. But to build on the question, I believe a true fan of 40K needs to enjoy the ‘Grim Dark’ but not the Dark itself of Grim Dark. There is saying that a hero is measured not by themselves, but by their enemies.

 

For Andrej of Helsreach we need to know how hopeless his situation is. How futile in the end his life. So when Andrej takes up the Flashlight, and cracks a joke we see Andrej for who Andrej is. Grimaldus a Space Marine, was quite poetic as monologue on and about the events in Helsreach. How fruitless it all seemed to him.

 

The near defeat yet he stood. The sense of relief when the Salamanders came. When brothers and cousins, Dragon and Knight fought side by side. That glint of hope. Followed by a shattering as Grimaldus and Salamander faced disagreement and left less then amicable terms.

 

You need that harsh fact of reality that grimness for the world to work. Gulliman temporarily stopping the clock with the introduction of Primaris would been meaningless. Without the last editions of near complete hopelessness. Even then it is rage against the encroaching death spiral. Rage soon the pass. But it’s a moment of light in the grim darkness.

 

Without that grim darkness of the far future in the 41st Millennium, the light would have no meaning.

[DukeLeto69]

 

Because, there are no female space marines.

We are TOLD there are no female Space Marines, and the sources appear to be written by someone with very little grasp of biology. This is coming from a theocratic dictatorship known to actively lie to the populace about some very important things (like "Daemons are real").

Because, 1000 Souls are offered up to the Emperor daily, to power the Astronomicon.

Which is likely a simplification. Psykers certainly die working the Astronomicon, but that doesn't mean the Emperor is eating them.

Because, the Emperor slayed his son Horus.

Which I will bet good money a future Horus Heresy book will throw into doubt. That said, the IMPERIUM believes this to be true, which is likely more important than the truth itself.

But but but... Isn't that exactly what I have been saying is the difference between IN GAME (which is what you are describing above) and real world that we as players/readers know about?

 

ie. WE know daemons are real but the In game characters do not (unless they are in the Inquisition or Grey Knights etc)

[Marshal Rohr]

I have an Atlas from 1940. Guess how large Germany is. Guess what countries exist? Guess what didn’t change? The location of Berlin, Königsburg, or London. Does that mean that Kaliningrad, Berlin, and London aren’t real, or my map is inaccurate?

[1ncarnadine]

The map info is even more confusing and mis-informational because there's a Z-axis. All planets are not on a flat horizontal. Both Dante and Devastation of Baal describe the Tyranids of Kraken as arriving from below the galactic plane, for example. So if you see a giant arrow indicating the Tyranid advance, it's not really indicating it properly. It's rendering what should be a 3D concept on a 2D map.

[Marshal Rohr]

The map literally has a cross section of leviathan coming up from below the galactic plane. This stuff is covered, guys.

[Wargamer]

I refer again to my historical examples. Did the Battle of Zama actually happen?

 

Official history says that it did, but you need to remember that official history was written by a Roman, and Hannibal had been making Roman generals look like chumps for years. If Hannibal simply faded into history, people would remember those victories. No, Rome had to take Hannibal to school - and how convenient that Rome was able to bring him to battle and outplay him, proving forever that Scipio Africanus was the superior general.

 

See how the truth isn't so clear anymore?

 

Maybe Zama happened as described. Maybe it was made up. That's not actually important - what matters is that people believe it happened. What matters is that Carthage fell and Rome did not.

 

Broad strokes, not fine detail.

[DukeLeto69]

Actually this is all so interesting (to me) because GW have created this "problem" of interpretation.

 

Us players/readers in the real world are given a mix of material in rule books and codexes that provides both "colour/flavour" by being presented using an in game narrative/voice alongside real world "word of God" information such as rules for different factions and their fighting style and equipment.

 

The point about maps is therefore mixed because some are clearly "colour/flavour" such as the one on this thread posted by KHK (taken from Dark Heresy) vs those presented in the codexes which I think are real world illustrations (in two dimensions) of the galaxy and relative position of each faction.

 

To ME the "colour/flavour" content (inc maps) is completely suspect and open to interpretation (as it right in game) but the instructional content presented in a Codexes (to show players where the respective factions and battlefields are) is accurate in terms of what GW is telling us.

[Wargamer]

I've long held that GW should use objective narration as little as possible for this very reason. When every book is clearly written from the point of view of the faction in question, people will naturally adjust their thinking to assume the truth is obfuscated.