Possible Saturnine box?

[Antarius]

Yeah, I mean, I know it's been mentioned. I've just somehow never noticed it, which is sort of weird, because I used to read everything in those books.

[LSM]

The earliest use of 'Saturnine' may be 2012's The Horus Heresy Book One -Betrayal, where in the 'Terminator Armour [Great Crusade Era]' text (pg 237) it says:

 

"...Several different Terminator armour patterns were developed roughly concurrently by different Forge Worlds during the later decades of the Great Crusade, including the Indomitus, Tartaros and Saturnine patterns, most of which were functionally identical."

 

Cataphractii TDA had a separate entry, noting that it was more heavily protected and slower than the other three patterns. Rules wise, Legion Terminator Squads had 'generic' TDA, and could exchange it with Cataphractii TDA for free. 

[TheVoidDragon]

13 hours ago, Bryan Blaire said:

I can think of only one other model of a Terminator armor (also an early model) that doesn’t have a specific pattern name, what is listed as “early design #2” on Lexicanum. Early design #3 bears all the hallmarks of what became Indomitus, so I would not be convinced that it actually would be called anything other than prototype Indomitus, but hey, GW could surprise us - maybe that’s what Gav was remembering as Nocturne.

 

 

 

It wasn't those other ones Gav was saying might be Nocturne, it was in response to one of the pieces of art that the community commonly claimed was "Saturnine".

 

Quote

So in the entire grand scheme, yes, it seems like GW had only a few options - make an armor style similar to the pre-existing “early design #1” and call it Saturnine, make an armor style based on the (IMO) even uglier “early design #2” and call it Saturnine, or make up a completely new style of armor and call it Saturnine.

 

Or they could have made a miniature similar to the classic designs and called it something entirely different than "Saturnine". It's not as if there's some sort an exhaustive list they have to choose names from and that was literally all they could go for.

 

Quote

 

So in all likelihood, the community and GW may have picked the same style to call Saturnine at around the same time and there wasn’t anything other than simple logic that moved us down the road to where we are today.

 

So no, I don’t think it’s a leap at all and have outlined a perfectly plausible alternate to your “constant repeated misinformation” claim of naming influence, which frankly seems more ludicrous given that GW both listens and also doesn’t give a rat’s rear end what the community wants or says, as evidenced by numerous decisions they have made it the last couple of years. GW really does what it wants independent of the clamor from the community.

 

So what you think happened is basically this, then:

• The name "Saturnine" first appeared in the rulebook " Horus Heresy - Betrayal" released in 2012, which consisted of a simple mention of examples of names for armour patterns alongside Indomidus and Tartarus,  No description of the suit was given.
• GW then at some point decides that that single off-hand mention name must be the original Terminator miniatures, as if they plan out lore to the extent where they'd feel a need to connect two arbitrary things even when they were not doing anything with them. They keep that information to themselves.
• The community also coincidentally happens to see that name and looks at that specific miniature, and also decides that must be "Saturnine", despite that not once having been canonically mentioned. Over the years it's then repeated so much that that style "Saturnine" that most claiming that don't realize that not once been described to us as Saturnine officially.
• The armour is next officially mentioned by GW 7 years after it first was, in a Warhammer community article specifically talking about Terminator armour variants. They include art and links for all the other patterns. They mention saturnine, and even though at this point they apparently must have behind the scenes consider those classic styles "Saturnine", still make absolutely no hint towards that being the case.
• The armour is officially mentioned again in version 2 of the Horus Heresy rulebook from 2022. It's featured on a timeline of armour patterns, right at the end making it one of the latest suits. Again no hint or mention is given to what they consider Saturnine to actually be.
• And now eventually, they decided to make miniatures featuring that classic aesthetic - but it totally had nothing to do with the community having eagerly posted miniatures and discussions of that being "Saturnine" for all those years. GW just coincidentally also call it "Saturnine" because that's what they've considered it to be for the past 10+ years since it was first mentioned even though they just didn't say so, meaning even though the community had claimed for years that that style is canonically "saturnine" (even though it had never been said) it is just a completely irrelevant coincidence that had absolutely no bearing on now getting a miniature with that specific name that they also happened to give it.
• It also just happens to make all those community claims of it being canonically "Saturnine" totally correct after all because even though it had not once been said to us, they were actually just repeating super secret information that no one knew but GW!  Claiming something as if it were a canon fact even when we had not once been told that wasn't actually "misinformation" because they were in actuality just repeating hidden lore knowledge yet to be told to us until years later (that has also not even been revealed to us as having been the case anyway)! Doesnt matter what the lore/canon does tell us....it's what they we have absolutely no indication/affirmation of that matters most!

That level of jumping through hoops is what you consider just as "perfectly plausible" as simply the idea that an off-hand name mentioned in a book that the community latched onto as "Saturnine" and talked about as such for years, prompted GW to finally make those "Saturnine" Terminators everyone kept going on about for years? 

 

 

Quote

And provide proof to back your assertions

 

 

You started this whole thing off by trying to make out that not having proof something isn't the case is an indication that it actually is the case, remember.

This argument has gone on enough I think though. Again, they're cool miniatures and it's nice to have something based on that classic design. I just would have preferred that they had been called something other than "Saturnine". You clearly like it being called that while I'm not too fond of it, but neither is wrong.

Edited 3 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[siegfriedfr]

13 hours ago, Bryan Blaire said:

So no, I don’t think it’s a leap at all and have outlined a perfectly plausible alternate to your “constant repeated misinformation” claim of naming influence, which frankly seems more ludicrous given that GW both listens and also doesn’t give a rat’s rear end what the community wants or says, as evidenced by numerous decisions they have made it the last couple of years. GW really does what it wants independent of the clamor from the community.

 

(And by all means, edit away - it’s already in clear text what you originally said and agreed with alongside the date/time stamp, but if you don’t think it’s a clear reflection of your views, then you should say what you mean, and provide proof to back your assertions.)

 

The only "proof" that exists is the accumulation of sources.

You can see this in this part of the article on the lexicanum which has documented the use of "saturnine" in the warhammer publications, as well as the only known artworks of eggheads terminators :

 

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour#Development

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour#Salamanders_prototype_Terminators

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Terminator_Armour#Saturnine_Pattern

 

Saturnine was never linked to the eggheads terminators by GW, only by some parts of the 40k online community.

 

GW has eventually seen it fit to finally make the link between egghead and saturnine, so the case is closed, but it does feel like they didn't care to actually check their own lore, and just googled it, making fanlore canon. Not the first time they made that mistake, as exemplified by the little drama surrounding the Old World map (please google that yourself for "proof").

[TheVoidDragon]

13 minutes ago, siegfriedfr said:

Not the first time they made that mistake, as exemplified by the little drama surrounding the Old World map (please google that yourself for "proof").

 

 

Had forgot about that, was wondering if there were any examples of when something like that happened!

Edited 3 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Bryan Blaire]

I’ve already indicated that I did think that creating a new Terminator armor style was a missed opportunity here with the “Saturnine” armor.

 

And yes, I consider the concurrent evolution of the naming, independent of any factual evidence to the contrary, to be as plausible as your “story you tell yourself making it true from your point of view” that GW only named it that because the community said so.

 

And you are incorrect in stating that a lack of proof was requested as evidence. Here is what I said:

Quote

 

”

Do you have actual proof of that which shows that GW never intended the original Terminator suits to be named “Saturnine” pattern or is that your inference because they haven’t said it outright until now?

 

If there is lore somewhere that shows that, then yes, you have a point - you probably should quote it as support of your claims. If you don’t, then your argument that it’s “incorrect lore” is off the mark and you are likely spreading misinformation yourself.”

 

 

 

So as we can see, I asked for positive proof showing that GW had not intended to name this pattern as Saturnine - this could have been something as simple as Gav saying “that armor is the officially called Nocturne” - we can see that he himself said that wasn’t official though, which means he never spoke to what it officially was called internally (if anything). This entire time I’ve been asking you to post proof of your assertions that it was only named “Saturnine” because the community kept repeating it, and you have failed to do so as yet - I have not said that a lack of evidence is somehow evidence, that has been your misinterpretation it seems.

 

[LSM]

While I'm going to choose to avoid having a horse in this race...

 

If one is trying to descry whether the original intent of the use of 'Saturnine Pattern' was in reference to the "egg-man" TDA design, I'd lean towards no. Betrayal had two types of TDA: a 'generic' pattern, and then a heavier, bulkier, slower, better-shielded pattern. If Saturnine had been intended to be the egg-man, it seems to me that it should have been mentioned as a named alternative to Cataphractii, rather than Tartaros/Indomitus. 

 

(And of course neither fits with what we are now seeing, which fratres in the other thread are noting almost seem ill-named as Terminators in general - more befitting of being "Saturnine Warsuits"; precursors of Centurions and Obliterators.)

[TheVoidDragon]

57 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

And yes, I consider the concurrent evolution of the naming, independent of any factual evidence to the contrary, to be as plausible as your “story you tell yourself making it true from your point of view” that GW only named it that because the community said so.

 

It is honestly just absurd if you genuinely think that situation I described in the previous post is equally as likely as GW just having seen that the community mistakenly thought that was "Saturnine" for years and then deciding to make "Saturnine" terminators because of how much they were talked about.

 

57 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

And you are incorrect in stating that a lack of proof was requested as evidence. Here is what I said:

 

 

So as we can see, I asked for positive proof showing that GW had not intended to name this pattern as Saturnine - this could have been something as simple as Gav saying “that armor is the officially called Nocturne” - we can see that he himself said that wasn’t official though, which means he never spoke to what it officially was called internally (if anything). This entire time I’ve been asking you to post proof of your assertions that it was only named “Saturnine” because the community kept repeating it, and you have failed to do so as yet - I have not said that a lack of evidence is somehow evidence, that has been your misinterpretation it seems.

 

 

You don't seem to realize that is exactly what you are doing there by asking for that. It's making out that, unless I can provide proof of a negative, that that is an indication towards it being the case - that is not how it works.

You quite literally claimed that it's not "incorrect lore" for the community to have gone "This is canonically saturnine" because for some strange reason you appear to think GW not having said "This is not canonically saturnine" (as if they ever do that sort of thing) is the more important factor than them NOT having said "This is canonically saturnine" so repeating that claim it is Saturnine is correct even when that had never been said or even hinted at.  That's just a very, very strange and convoluted way to determine what the lore is.

 

What's canon is what's stated to be canon, not what isn't said. If everyone instead started repeating the claim that "One of the missing Primarchs is canonically 3 Ratlings in a trenchcoat" it would be just utter nonsense to go "Well, give proof of where GW has said he wasn't! Can't do that? Then it's not incorrect to say it's true". That would be misinformation to claim that's what the lore is when it literally had not been said anywhere as they would be making out.

Edited 2 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Petitioner's City]

The other thing is a number of the team are part of our generations - in their 20s and 30s - Quinn "Iron Hands Fanatic" (formerly of this parish), Ben "Horus Heretic", etc - alongside old vets (and fans) like Hoare himself.

 

FW - especially the fw era that Hoare was part of in the early 10s (alongside what SG and Specialist Design Studio have done since) was a business of deep cuts, playing with fan ideas, and drawing connections between things assumed and believed with the content of games & lore.

 

By canonizing "saturnine" as that armour, by making fanon into canon, the SDS team are simply doing what anyone of us as fans might do if they they came into that position.

[LameBeard]

The best example is the canonisation of “choom”.  This is great and calling it meme lore would be a disservice. We as fans help create the universe - why not?

[phandaal]

I thought the armor was called Saturnine. For me, it is Saturnine because the name sounds neat.

[CL_Mission]

For me the bigger lore issue is what happened to Satur one through eight?

[phandaal]

13 minutes ago, CL_Mission said:

For me the bigger lore issue is what happened to Satur one through eight?

 

And when did GW retcon that seven eight nine?

Edited 52 minutes ago by phandaal

[LittlePlasticHomies]

Flowchart for this thread:

 

This armor does/not have a name I like ->
This is because of [insert reasons] ->
I am angered ->
Everyone who disagrees is an idiot

[Carach]

Bit surprised to see the debate going on here. 

 

Was a fan favourite of old art, was it not? It's nice to see it brought into the new world, whatever they deigned to call it.

 

They try and do nice things for us! Yet some people want to argue over imagined slights and semantics.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 50 minutes ago by Carach

[Bryan Blaire]

1 hour ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

It is honestly just absurd if you genuinely think that situation I described in the previous post is equally as likely as GW just having seen that the community mistakenly thought that was "Saturnine" for years and then deciding to make "Saturnine" terminators because of how much they were talked about.

 

 

You don't seem to realize that is exactly what you are doing there by asking for that. It's making out that, unless I can provide proof of a negative, that that is an indication towards it being the case - that is not how it works.

You quite literally claimed that it's not "incorrect lore" for the community to have gone "This is canonically saturnine" because for some strange reason you appear to think GW not having said "This is not canonically saturnine" (as if they ever do that sort of thing) is the more important factor than them NOT having said "This is canonically saturnine" so repeating that claim it is Saturnine is correct even when that had never been said or even hinted at.  That's just a very, very strange and convoluted way to determine what the lore is.

 

What's canon is what's stated to be canon, not what isn't said. If everyone instead started repeating the claim that "One of the missing Primarchs is canonically 3 Ratlings in a trenchcoat" it would be just utter nonsense to go "Well, give proof of where GW has said he wasn't! Can't do that? Then it's not incorrect to say it's true". That would be misinformation to claim that's what the lore is when it literally had not been said anywhere as they would be making out.

And it’s honestly just absurd that you are bent out of shape over a story that you have in your head that GW did something you don’t know is true or are able to prove. ;)  Especially as you agreed that none of us actually know when the decision to call the armor something officially in GW occurred or for what reason.

 

The community was wrong for using the word “canonically” when they said “This is Saturnine”, sure - I’m not opposed to that concept at all.

 

I am opposed to your idea that you know that GW named this newly redone armor pattern “Saturnine” exclusively due to the community continually repeating that statement without any proof they did so. I have reiterated my reasons several times. You aren’t going to convince me that your anger at this story is justified unless you have proof that it’s correct and you shouldn’t spread your misinformation as if it’s fact when it isn’t.

 

Phandaal and CL_Mission - not sure, but clearly whatever happened, Saturnine managed to escape the apparent cannibal slaughter of one through eight.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Bryan Blaire

[Lysimachus]

=][= OK, this is getting slightly ridiculous. Everyone has clearly stated their argument. We don't currently have any confirmation one way or the other from GW, and probably won't ever get one. So it's time to agree to disagree, and drop it. =][=

 

 

[Armchair Warlord]

Box ticked!

We now have Saturnine terminators................... Bet no one's gonna be arguing as much if we get a plastic Amhut Voyager!

Edited 15 minutes ago by Armchair Warlord
addition plus spelling amendment