Can you be a true 40K fan...

[Marshal Rohr]

That was all understood by most everyone prior to 8th Edition. Because back then, everything froze right as Abaddon had unleashed his strength through the EoT. Now, we might actually see them say ‘the Tyranids are finally here’ at the next Codex update.

[Donkey Kong]

 there is no "one true 40K" to document like that. There's no solid, central spine of truth. 

 

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

 

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.

 

I'd say I hate to say I told you so, but I don't. So, I told you so.

 

 

 

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. 

 

You may not have said it Aaron, but Gav did.

to suggest that anything else is non-canon is a disservice to the players and authors who participate in this world. To suggest that Black Library novels are somehow of lesser relevance to the background is to imply that every player who has created a unique Space Marine chapter or invented their own Elector Count is somehow wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.

 

 

Headcanon is not a symptom of loose canon, and is connected only in that loose canon tends to lead to less headcanon. It's those settings with Word of God that tend to have fandoms that are more inclined toward headcanon, the Star Wars setting and fandom being the largest example I know.

 

I also don't mean ask for the line of discussion to end after saying my piece so as not to risk rebuttal, but it has gone on long enough since WarriorFish brought to attention how off-topic it was. Feel free to message me if you'd like to.

 

Otherwise, let's end the discussion on 'loose canon' here and get back to the topic on how integral the concept of 'grim dark' is to the setting and fandom interest.

 

I disagree. I'd argue the opposite, that loose canon necessitates headcanon. If canon is the indisputable truth, and loose canon provides none, then anything, no matter how well substantiated, is headcanon. And I think that conversation needs to happen to answer OP's question, because it's only as integral as you want it to be, just like everything else.

 

 

 

 

the only conflict seems to be when you encounter an alternate view, and there's no canon bible to wave at them. 

 

 

Thats....kind of exactly it. I want answers, that are correct. I dont want answers, which are wrong.

 

And look, I'm HAPPY TO BE WRONG, if I can actually be corrected. 

 

I mean in the end, I want truth. I want a cohesive, and logical setting. 

 

Do you remember the Fluff Bible?

Do you remember the combined history/timeline of 40K (I believe it was only on Portent, and was lost...) written by MvS, of Liber Chaotica fame?

 

These are the things I want. Things to reference, to know as true.

 

I mean honestly, if someone just wants to jump in here and say 'Yo Scribe, sorry man but thats all dead and gone now, doesnt exist its not real, recognized, or legit as far as GW is concerned' thats more than fine, hell I may even thank you for the release. :]

 

 

Hey Scribe, dude, for what it's worth, I sympathize. I'd like that too, and I'd like to have a solid foundation, and I'd like to have objectively right and wrong answers, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong so I could adjust accordingly. But, as you've found out, and as I found out five-ish years ago (to probably very similar disappointment), the only official line is that it was never that way, and the canon was always loose, and there never was a canon. You're free, and you're free to never be wrong, and so is everyone else, and that's okay.

 

And I missed this one from the other day.

 

Quoting other people isn't an argument either, by the way.

 

Yes it is. It's called an argument from authority, and, at least in this instance, I'm comfortable saying it isn't a fallacy.

[Scribe]

 

Hey Scribe, dude, for what it's worth, I sympathize. I'd like that too, and I'd like to have a solid foundation, and I'd like to have objectively right and wrong answers, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong so I could adjust accordingly. But, as you've found out, and as I found out five-ish years ago (to probably very similar disappointment), the only official line is that it was never that way, and the canon was always loose, and there never was a canon. You're free, and you're free to never be wrong, and so is everyone else, and that's okay.

 

 

 

I appreciate that actually, and before this thread is locked, I just wanted to say thanks, I'll this to heart and work through what it means for me.

[DukeLeto69]

Hey Mods please don't close this topic for possibly straying off topic. This is a fascinating read and the whole grimdark question is integral to the cannon vs loose canon discussion and vice versa.

 

Personal opinion and preferences here...

 

1. I too would prefer some solid foundations for the 40k setting (across the whole previous 10k years)

2. I like having the dates and hate the fact that they are gone and it is all so vague now but...

3. Would actually like some level of vagueness as after all 10k years of history, so much data loss, much has turned into myths and legends... So the dates could be something like "give or take a few decades/centuries"

4. I would love it if the codexes for each faction were written from the perspective of that faction giving their POV and understanding of the setting and history and for that to be contradictory to what another faction may say (but that could be a complete logistical nightmare for GW).

5. But in that approach grim dark is arguably only applicable to the human factions (even then contradiction between Mars and Terra would be cool) because Orks or Tyrannids or Eldar or Tau or Chaos will have a totally different outlook on life and the current situation.

 

Edit final point...

 

6. Actually I think it is a shame that from the beginning GW didn't map out the history (and flesh out over the years) but say that since 1987 in real world time, the game/timeline "history" was decided by the player base. So build in the results of global campaigns and adapt to the outcome.

[DukeLeto69]

As for maps, I'd offer this.

 

You see representations of the tendrils of Hive Fleet Leviathan on the galactic map. Those tendrils are drawn in a certain way, with a certain width shown, and widen the further they get from known space, connecting to imply an enormous mass from which they all ultimately spring.

 

OK. But are those tendrils actually as thick as drawn on the map? Because that would mean that, at the point where they enter the galactic plane, you're talking about a spread of Tyranid organisms floating through space that's wide enough to encompass . . . Well. There are at least 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

 

Look at this map. Any one of the smallest tendrils shown coming up in the Veiled Region would be wide enough to encompass tens of thousands of star systems. The thickest would encompass millions.

 

But that's not what is happening, is it? They're not literally occupying that volume of space at any one time. It's a representation of their general path, of the space through which they're advancing, not in a solid mass but in a very loose, general sense.

 

So, drawing too much in the way of conclusions as to how many are coming seems silly.

 

Additional factors:

 

a) every textual estimate of Tyranid numbers is all about how everyone estimates that what's shown up is only a scouting force, a fraction of the total - but those are estimates by Imperial scholars who, as we know, don't know a god from a corpse. Even the maps are presented as Imperial maps with representations of what they think is happening.

 

b) treating the Tyranids as an impending threat is also a bit silly, considering that there's no evidence of how far behind the current forces the "main strength" might be. If you want to be rigid about canon, it took the Tyranids nearly 10,000 years just to get their scout forces here. It could be 20,000 years before the "real" fleets show up.

 

All of which is to say, declarations about how the Tyranids are coming and the Imperium is doomed basically as of tomorrow isn't supported as concretely as people think. Nor is Chaos necessarily poised on the brink of taking over. Nor are the Necron tomb worlds guaranteed to wake up en masse next Thursday.

 

Which is all part of loose canon. Nothing is very seriously fixed. That's as much for GW's benefit, so they can do what they want to do without having to explicitly retcon or change it, as it is for ours.

Hmmm no I don't agree. Having just looked at a few codexes there is no evidence (that I have seen) that these are written or presented from the Imperial/Human perspective. They are not IN GAME. They are written from GW real world game explanation POV. Therefore the maps are provided to us as real world players by GW to help explain to us how everything fits together in the setting.

 

Case in point ...Genestealer Cults Codex... We (as players) learn all about their hierarchy and history and all sorts but IN GAME this knowledge is not known by The Imperium. Having said that there is some contradictory info.

 

On the point about maps. I still hold to my point that there are some that are included for flavour and colour and others that are more rule based instructional tools. You are right of course that the actual width of the tendrils would be light years across and hence absorb hundreds of star systems and we tend to hear about single planets (although as I type that what we actually know about is the human planets being attacked in the main). So yes there is definitely some artistic license going on there. However, the overall impression the maps give us (which is obviously intentional) is that the tendrils are the advanced party of something infinitesimally larger coming from deep extra galactic space. The reason for that is to give us players a sense of what is coming. Something that IN GAME the factions do not know.

[Ascanius]

The most concrete statement in the current codex is "Yet despite its colossal reach, Leviathan is but a fraction of the Tyranids' true number, and more horrors seep forth from the interstellar void with every passing year."

 

All I'm saying is: yes, there are more Tyranids coming, there's every indication of that - but no, it's not like ten times as many are going to arrive Any Day Now.

 

("Infinitesimally larger" isn't the phrase you want, since that would mean "imperceptibly larger".)

[Phoebus]

I disagree. I'd argue the opposite, that loose canon necessitates headcanon. If canon is the indisputable truth, and loose canon provides none, then anything, no matter how well substantiated, is headcanon. And I think that conversation needs to happen to answer OP's question, because it's only as integral as you want it to be, just like everything else.

 

Hey Scribe, dude, for what it's worth, I sympathize. I'd like that too, and I'd like to have a solid foundation, and I'd like to have objectively right and wrong answers, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong so I could adjust accordingly. But, as you've found out, and as I found out five-ish years ago (to probably very similar disappointment), the only official line is that it was never that way, and the canon was always loose, and there never was a canon. You're free, and you're free to never be wrong, and so is everyone else, and that's okay.

 

And I missed this one from the other day.

 

Quoting other people isn't an argument either, by the way.

 

Yes it is. It's called an argument from authority, and, at least in this instance, I'm comfortable saying it isn't a fallacy.

 

What was it that Nietzsche said? Oh, yeah:

 

"Whoever argues against canon should see to it that in the process they does not couch their arguments as canon." Or something like that.

 

All joking aside, think about this. I have nothing but respect for Dembski-Bowden, Gascoigne, Thorpe, and the many other people employed by Games Workshop and Black Library who have taken the time to explain to us how this property is handled. I believe them when they explain the concept of "loose" (or even non-existent) canon, and I both recognize and embrace the intent behind it: to foster creativity (perhaps among other things, but definitely this).

 

That having been said, all of us discussing this topic here know full well that there is an editorial process involved in writing these novels, and that part of this process does involve keeping the authors in check in terms of (very broad generalization follows) what they write and how they write it. I am ninety-nine point-nine-nine repeating percent positive that A D-B himself has casually mentioned (perhaps here, perhaps in his blog) that certain lore aspects are cross-checked.

 

There is indeed great creative freedom in this setting, and this is intended for hobbyists and gamers just as much as authors. There are limits, however, and they are (or at least would appear to be) imposed - even on the people most trusted with bringing this setting to life. Those limits are nebulous (intentionally so) and I would argue (based on the same responses you quoted) that they are situational, as well. That is to say, I'm guessing it was more a case of Laurie Goulding providing feedback informed on the guidance he received from the property managers rather than A D-B being issued an annually-updated PDF full of no-go items.

[Lucerne]

Making 40k into a generic good vs evil narrative with a clear unambiguous poster boy making things better kills the setting. Guilliman's recent handling has been somewhat botched in that regard and cheapens every other 40k story.

[Ascanius]

The man is dedicated to grinding his one :cussing axe.

[Scribe]

 

That having been said, all of us discussing this topic here know full well that there is an editorial process involved in writing these novels, and that part of this process does involve keeping the authors in check in terms of (very broad generalization follows) what they write and how they write it. I am ninety-nine point-nine-nine repeating percent positive that A D-B himself has casually mentioned (perhaps here, perhaps in his blog) that certain lore aspects are cross-checked.

 

There is indeed great creative freedom in this setting, and this is intended for hobbyists and gamers just as much as authors. There are limits, however, and they are (or at least would appear to be) imposed - even on the people most trusted with bringing this setting to life. Those limits are nebulous (intentionally so) and I would argue (based on the same responses you quoted) that they are situational, as well. That is to say, I'm guessing it was more a case of Laurie Goulding providing feedback informed on the guidance he received from the property managers rather than A D-B being issued an annually-updated PDF full of no-go items.

 

 

What I currently believe is that there are limits of what GW/BL/FW will officially say.

 

The cross checking of certain aspects or events, pertaining to the lore.

 

Reading some of the quotes from ADB, or Gav, or others, however makes clearly that externally, the setting is what the whole of the community makes it. If we all somehow came to an agreement on something new for example (Dornian Heresy, Female Marines) then it would become 'canon'.

 

I'm stepping back to re-calibrate my view on the setting as a whole, I may need to purge what I currently believe and come in clean, I may need to simply walk away for good, or I may need to simply not bother with this section of the forum, but I am working through all the official GW 8th Edition content now, to come up with my own 'truth', and will proceed from there.

[Phoebus]

Your first statement is basically where I stand. I think your second statement is also accurate, but that the amount of “check” that is applied goes farther than that.

 

I disagree with the the third, however. I think the freedom that we are afforded extends to what we are able to do, e.g., on a gaming table or a tournament. That is to say, in engagements and interactions with as many people as are willing to participate. Your head-canon then joins that of others to become a shared-canon that exists within the setting... within the limited scope of your collective audience. With respect, I don’t see the point of hypothetical “universal accord” scenarios because they’re neither here nor there: they’ll never come to pass. On the other hand, we do know that even the results of the biggest shared wargaming scenario Games Workshop held are not considered sacrosanct. Gav, for instance, offered that The Unforgiven can be read as a substitute for the Dark Angels’ events prior to and during the Thirteenth Black Crusade; for his part, Aaron has expressed his doubts more than once as to whether a decade-old competition is binding where writing literature is concerned.

 

None of which is to say that your position is wrong. I don’t agree with it, per se, but I’m not a Games Workshop intellectual property manager and thus all I can do is express my opinion on the matter. I think, at the end of the day, the answer is in none of the extremes that a lot of posters hinge their arguments on (because, let’s face it, the decisions the GW and BL folks make aren’t extreme), but in something as simple as it is broad: a determination on whether what is proposed is apropos to the setting or, if new, something that improves it.

 

At the end of the day, we each have our own tastes and preferences. I certainly hope yours don’t take you from this board, because I genuinely enjoy reading your contributions.

[Scribe]

For what its worth, the Thirteenth Black Crusade event was rolled back, that counts in my book as a clear ret con example, thats all.

[Marshal Rohr]

Your first statement is basically where I stand. I think your second statement is also accurate, but that the amount of “check” that is applied goes farther than that.

 

I disagree with the the third, however. I think the freedom that we are afforded extends to what we are able to do, e.g., on a gaming table or a tournament. That is to say, in engagements and interactions with as many people as are willing to participate. Your head-canon then joins that of others to become a shared-canon that exists within the setting... within the limited scope of your collective audience. With respect, I don’t see the point of hypothetical “universal accord” scenarios because they’re neither here nor there: they’ll never come to pass. On the other hand, we do know that even the results of the biggest shared wargaming scenario Games Workshop held are not considered sacrosanct. Gav, for instance, offered that The Unforgiven can be read as a substitute for the Dark Angels’ events prior to and during the Thirteenth Black Crusade; for his part, Aaron has expressed his doubts more than once as to whether a decade-old competition is binding where writing literature is concerned.

 

None of which is to say that your position is wrong. I don’t agree with it, per se, but I’m not a Games Workshop intellectual property manager and thus all I can do is express my opinion on the matter. I think, at the end of the day, the answer is in none of the extremes that a lot of posters hinge their arguments on (because, let’s face it, the decisions the GW and BL folks make aren’t extreme), but in something as simple as it is broad: a determination on whether what is proposed is apropos to the setting or, if new, something that improves it.

 

At the end of the day, we each have our own tastes and preferences. I certainly hope yours don’t take you from this board, because I genuinely enjoy reading your contributions.

I think with a bit of reflection we can all see the underlying reason for the ‘official’ view we are told. It’s to not alienate people who want to do what they wanna do with their models. If they wanna stick massive breasts on their models and call them Ultramarines. If they want a Necron-Blood Angel alliance because they’ve bought those two armies or their best friend plays Necrons, go for it! They want you to have that freedom and they want the background to reflect scenarios where such an extreme alliance might be possible.

 

Tyrannicide and I spend all day texting each other fluff ideas. Half of these ideas we shoot down because it doesn’t fit one of our ideas as being cool or epic or not campy. Never once has he whipped out the loose canon argument when I’ve told him I didn’t like something he did. Never once have I said, well canon doesn’t exist when he told me it was stupid for something dumb I wanted to try. We explain why things don’t work to each other. Same with Noctis Cornix and Hyaenidae before he left.

 

The liver used to be a hot bed of activity and one of the most frequented subforums on the board. The posters would put forward an idea, defend it, edit it, alter it, and so on. It was polished until this little piece of headcanon someone would throw out was a solid idea. There was always the understanding that something might be extreme, and it was your right to claim license to some extremity in the name of the rule of cool for a conversion or army theme. Like dreadnaught swords or an all terminator first company.

 

Then loose canon came along and killed that cooperative atmosphere. Because ‘hey, man, loose canon’ became an excuse for everything. No one tried to explain themselves anymore because they didn’t have to. They had the community equivalent of nihilism to fall back on. It stopped being an argument against group think and became the crutch used by every one.

 

Some ideas aren’t good. Fan made or produced by a GW section, sometimes ideas fall flat. Mine do, all the time. I’m my own harshest critic. I hate my work. But I can’t post them here anymore. ‘Loose canon’ made people stop caring to give feedback or challenge ideas. It was an idea that never should’ve left the halls of GW proper. Sure people might get a little heated about whether a chapter needs to be dark Founding or follow the codex. That was still preferable to nothing being discussed ever again because ‘loose canon’ means it doesn’t matter.

 

I can appreciate that people should have the freedom to develop their own headcanon, but the ‘anything goes’ mentality really makes the setting as a whole lose a fair amount of legitimacy as a setting. Why should anyone care to put out good ideas, when no one cares what those good ideas are, because bad ideas are just as valid?

[Scribe]

I would hope you know that I can understand where you are coming from Rohr. I think it just is what it is. I dont know when this loose canon concept really took hold or was externally communicated, or maybe I just continue to misunderstand...but it is what it is.

 

My plan now is to essentially ignore all discussion, or interpretation, outside of well myself, and people I know approach the setting in the same way I do, because its a non-starter to discuss things now.

 

Its not what I want, but it is what it is.

 

Maybe I just go back to playing the game, understanding my own view of the setting, and leave the discussion here, to others.

 

I think you warned me to not get too hung up on the setting some time ago actually, I should have listened. :p

[Phoebus]

Here’s the thing: it’s easy to say loose canon should’ve been kept in-house by GW. The fact of the matter is, if they had done that you’d have just as many headaches of people complaining about how Thing One is no longer canon because of Thing Two. People would be having just as many arguments, just in a different part of the forum. Now, where the Liber is concerned, I don’t frequent there that much because of the lack of activity. When I do offer constructive criticism, though, it’s almost always well-taken. I say “almost” because I’m sure there’s been a time when someone just didn’t even take notice of it, but every person I recall interacting with was respectful and appreciative. Everyone will have their own flavor of tea that they prefer, and not everyone will like everyone else’s final product, but the desire to make whatever it was they created better is nonetheless there.

[Marshal Rohr]

The arguments of Thing One replacing Thing Two were there, sure. But that’s when Loose Canon would actually help. Because it would stop one group from having be ability to preach a one true interpretation against the heretics and apostates. I know, it used to be so tedious to read about whether a bolter round was a rocket assisted grenade or a explosive bullet. People would get hyper aggressive about if a Legion had 10,000 or 100,000 legionaries.

 

But it’s those questions Loose Canon was made for, but it gets applied to everything. It’s the equivalent of moral relativity, you know? The layman believes moral relativity means anything goes, but the person who sees the real argument knows it means relative to other things. It’s tolerating different views on divorce, not saying child marriage or wife beating is okay. Loose canon means it’s an exploding bullet or a rocket assisted grenade, not ‘Tyranids aren’t actually a threat to the galaxy’.

 

As many times as an author or mouth piece has said loose canon is law of the land, we’ve also got instances of them saying the BL Heresy series is ‘what actually happened’ and the Forge World Series ‘might not be accurate’. We’ve got the nature of the emperor being defended as old lore that hasn’t changed, as well as the thirteenth black crusade and codex black legion not being binding tomes of truth.

[Servant of Dante]

I don’t really get the issue here, the Liber would always have been people giving critiques based on their interpretation of 40K, and the person writing could always just say “that’s not what I want to do”

 

As always, it’s up to the hobbyist how much they want to align their fluff with the fluff interpretations of those around them. People can still argue about legion sizes or bolt round sizes or whatever they want, and just like before someone could say “that’s just not how I see it”

 

If someone is asking for feedback then they are obviously going to take responses into consideration. And they’ll likely have a reasoning for what they did and which suggestions they do and don’t take.

 

(In my opinion arguing details of fluff where there are conflicting or nonexistent sources with strangers is tedious at best and often feel poIntless)

[Marshal Rohr]

It’s not about the minutiae of the fluff being argued, it’s the larger scope of creative writing. Is it a good idea if you were writing Star Wars fanfic to give all stormtroopers lightsabers? No. They aren’t force users. Well there is a piece of artwork from the concept artist with a stormtrooper wielding a lightsabers, so I guess they can do that. Sure, but is it a good idea? Does it stay in the lines? When you color outside the lines, has it added any value or is it a vanity being indulged?

 

The fact you’re dismissing my point as ‘being like it always was’, means you’re not understanding my argument. If it was always like that, it wouldn’t be like it is now.

[mc warhammer]

it did seem like you were specifically aiming your point at game players who were using loose canon as a giant excuse to do what they want, but now it seems like you’re directing it at the actual publishers (who, lets be honest, you don’t have to worry will be “sticking breasts on ultramarines”)

 

i may be misreading you too, but maybe you can see how we got that impression?

[Marshal Rohr]

I guess I’m trying to say that loose canon shouldn’t be an excuse to never have a debate about whether or not a concept adds something to a story. ADB used the example of knowing Darth Vader built C3PO as a boy. What did it add? If C3PO was Vader’s creation, why do other protocol droids look like C3PO? Did Vader actually scrap 3PO? Why did he say he built him then?

 

Obviously these are rhetorical questions, I’m not trying to discuss Vader or Star Wars. I’m just trying to illustrate my point. A lot of the prequel trilogy can be excellent examples of the ‘what did it add’ lens of critique. The overall arch of Vader falling to the dark side was awesome, worthy of a Greek tragedy. It’s execution left much to be desired. In that same vein, Loose Canon is so often applied at the wrong level here - online, as it is a nuanced policy and the internet doesn’t do nuance. Authors should be free to write the stories they want, without worrying about Multilaser devastators or the exact vertical leap distance of terminator armor. Players should be free to ally their Blood Angels with Necrons.

 

Posters on the BnC shouldn’t be using that loose canon policy to say ‘well nothing ever written in 40k matters’ as an argument from authority (because it’s a :cuss fallacy all the time, whether someone like it or not). If someone supposed the Tyranids are attacking the galaxy, and uses the codex map as an illustrative device to give another poster an idea of what those attack vector look like, Loose Canon doesn’t mean that map is lying. It means the map can be inaccurate or outdated. It doesn’t mean that map is wrong, it means that map might not be right. That doesn’t mean it’s mutually exclusive.

 

Again, that’s a nuanced view, and the internet, especially the memeific 4chan crowd that has seeped into our board, is incapable of understanding nuance.

[Servant of Dante]

I’m not saying you can say the fluff is wrong, I’m saying you can choose to ignore whatever you want to ignore. Additionally, having a hard canon doesn’t force someone to have a discussion if they write something that disagrees with it.

 

As for storm troopers with lightsabers, I personally don’t find the idea entertaining, but whether or not it’s an interesting concept is up to the individual to decide.

 

Edit: I don’t really appreciate being apparently lumped into “the 4chan croud that seems to have seeped into the board.” Im perfectly happy to have a discussion, I just feel that people who use “loose canon” as an excuse to not discuss a criticism were unlikely to have a discussion on that point regardless of how hard or loose the canon is.

[Phoebus]

Again, with the extremes!

 

Assuming you're referring to the head-canon of other people, Servant of Dante, yeah, sure. No one should be obligated to recognize my index Astartes article, for instance. If you're referring to actually published material, though, "Choose to ignore whatever you want to ignore" strikes me as a terrible position to hold. Worse, it strikes me as a pointless position to hold. I like the Dark Angels, but - at the risk of being rude - I'm also an adult human being. If I feel that C.Z. Dunn's Pandorax failed to convey Azrael as a ruthless, pragmatic, and yet honorable and strategically brilliant warlord, I'm not going to close my eyes and pretend that novel doesn't exist. If I find myself engaged in a debate in this forum and someone argues that Azrael is strategically inept based on his depiction in said novel, I'll remind them that not all authors always hit the mark with regard to their subject matter. I'll remind them of how Azrael is depicted in practically every other work he's appeared in. If that doesn't work, then I think the ideal course of action is to shake hands and walk away.

[Servant of Dante]

I’m saying that, as someone who really dislikes the way Celestine is represented in the new fluff (and to an extent the old fluff) my headcanon basically excludes everything GS forward. Or, more accurately, i have 2 headcanons, the more concrete one that ends before the fall of Cadia, and one that goes to the “present” of the setting but I basically ignore the existence of Celestine because I can’t stand her implementation.

 

So in this case, I looked at the GS books, and I looked at how I perceive the Sisters, based on a mix of various sources I like, and I basically decided the things that didn’t fit with my interpretation would just hurt my enjoyment of the setting if I forced myself to take them as hard facts of the setting.

 

It’s interesting, since I talk about new Celestine on this forum with people, so I don’t refuse to acknowledge the fluff’s existence, I just kinda accept that my headcanon varries from the GW material. And I believe that’s what everyone does to some extent.

 

Edit: I apologize if I’m not sounding particularly cogent. Essentially, however someone wants to engage with a piece of fiction (in this case the 40k setting) is fine. There’s no wrong way to enjoy fiction, but there are more common ways. There are things that basically every 40k fan will agree on, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with enjoying the setting and changing or ignoring that detail of the fluff in your interpretation.

 

Edit the second: I would agree it’s a bad idea to flat pretend a book doesn’t exist. Going back to my example of the Gathering Storm, if someone asked me to justify not liking it, I could explain the way that I view the Sisters and the elements that fluff that bother me, and provide other sources that led me to my current interpretation. My point was simply that there’s nothing wrong with interpreting the setting however makes it most enjoyable for you. You’ll of course have to accept that if you go against the “standard” interpretation or widely repeated fluff on a particular point, your headcanon on that point won’t be worth much in a forum discussion (i.e. I’m not going to go around telling people Celestine has no connection to the warp, since GS makes it clear she has one, but I will say that my headcanon diverged on that point even though I have little basis for that beyond it’s what I want from the setting).

[b1soul]

I think it's valid to debate what enhances the official fluff and what detracts from it. Headcanon is another issue.

 

At the end of the day, we should remember that GW will try to mold the fluff to drive sales. Whether it actually improves sales is another matter.

 

This process may result in developments you love or hate. GW may also choose not to rock the boat if they think the effects of a major fluff change are too unpredictable.

 

If GW had firm data that making 40K into a StarWars clone would quadruple their profits, they'd do it. Nothing is sacred at the official level.

 

What is sacred? Player's personal attachments to the setting.

 

I understand the love for a certain type of Grimdark, even though I don't agree with it. I understand the love for Baal as a deathworld system. I understand the love for legion bloodlines' double-edged flaws. I wouldn't want the WS to become UM clones.

 

Sometimes, I'm rather torn myself. How is this setting gonna evolve? I like the Primaris...but are they going to turn the loyalist chapters into a giant UM legion?

 

 

These are exciting times

[Phoebus]

Servant,

 

Right on. The nice thing about conversations like this is that they allow us to clarify positions and, very often, help us recognize how close our positions are.

 

b1soul,

 

To your closing point, and at the risk of going off-topic, I think it comes down to the amount of time and indoctrination the Primaris undergo away from their parent Chapter, the amount of time they subsequently spend campaigning separately, etc. I mean, it's worth remembering that the XIIIth Legion gave birth to many distinct Chapters: the Mortifactors are drastically different from the Praetors of Orpheus, who are drastically different from the Doom Eagles. Thus, even if the Primaris assigned to an existing Chapter outnumber the battle-brothers that preceded them, it's unlikely that they would maintain a homogeneous shared culture with the rest of their brethren.