PDA

View Full Version : Black library is an offical place for 40k fluff.?



40kdhs
08-06-2008, 23:05
Black library is an offical place for 40k fluff.?

sigur
08-06-2008, 23:10
What do you mean exactly?

Basically, "official" 40k background is what you want to take for "official". There are a few cornerstones but apart from that, it's more or less up to you. If you prefer older background (which in small details contradicts newer stuff), so be it.

Me, I don't take BL novels for a good fluff source. The way I see it, it's stories about the 40k setting but not the 40k setting.

Grimtuff
08-06-2008, 23:18
I'm seeing both a full stop AND a question mark.

So is this a statement or a question? :confused:

Torga_DW
08-06-2008, 23:58
Game related fluff (rulebooks, codexes, etc) trumps black library fluff imo.

Khornies & milk
09-06-2008, 00:16
If it's a statement, do not in any way shape or form suggest that the GK Novels by Ben Counter should be taken as Gospel for GK 'Fluff'.
Talk about been lead up the garden path if you do...

As has been said already BL Fluff pales in comparison to the Rulebook & Codexes.

legio mortis
09-06-2008, 00:18
Yes, Black Library stuff is considered official canon. However, it's always smart to take everything you read or see with a little salt, including the stuff you find in the codex and the rulebook. If it's in line with previously established fluff, then it's fine, but if it greatly deviates, then it's not very reliable.

Shadowheart
09-06-2008, 00:33
I believe they said sometime ago that everything GW or its subsidiaries produce is equally official or canonical. A better way to put it is that 40K doesn't have a canon. At best, there's a consensus about some stuff.

Drakon
09-06-2008, 00:45
is there a one stop shop (website) for fluff?

I find its hard to find and scattered all over the place and i dont like wiki.

Plastic Rat
09-06-2008, 01:03
I believe they said sometime ago that everything GW or its subsidiaries produce is equally official or canonical.

*shudder* That makes the drek that Ian Watson wrote canon... I think my mind (and respect for 40k) is safer simply picking and choosing what *I* think is canon.

I'd say the vast majority is great stuff and fits well, but there are a fair number of things out there written by people that had no clue what they were writing about, or arrogantly felt that they had the right to re-define 40k.

Doctor Thunder
09-06-2008, 02:07
I don't consider BL stuff to be cannon at all.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
09-06-2008, 02:14
Yeah same here. There's too much bad fiction to treat it all as canon, although if I like something I've read then I'll incorporate it into my take on the 40k universe. Just because something isn't offical doesn't mean you can say "I've based my army off of this book".

Brother Loki
09-06-2008, 08:05
GW's position is that everything is equally valid - even if it directly contradicts itself. Every piece of fiction and background is one account of events - different people's accounts of the same events may differ widely (ask any policeman!).

Kulgur
09-06-2008, 08:39
...wouldn't that make CS Goto canon?

teh_soldier
09-06-2008, 08:57
...wouldn't that make CS Goto canon?

Unfortunately yes. But no-one would actually link his work to the rest of the 40K Universe. I consider the stuff he writes to be in its own little 40k "sub-universe" where it can't effect the good work that goes into the rest of the background work.

I mean marines with multi-lasers, dear god man.

Jedi152
09-06-2008, 09:20
Since the world doesn't exist outside of your/your gaming group's imagination, just take as much as canon as you'd like.

Don't like C.S Goto? Don't read it and pretend it doesn't exist. Don't like Ian Watsons earlier work? Ditto.

Bregalad
09-06-2008, 10:28
Ideally the BL stuff expands the fluff of the Codex, rulebook etc. . But the fluff control is low, and leads to books often contradicting official fluff (even if some GW guy called them canonical).
Sometimes this freedom of writing is acceptable, as in Abnett books, sometimes it is just annoying, as in the books of "the author who shall not be named".

So: BL books should be official fluff, but in reality don't count on it.

Killgore
09-06-2008, 11:13
all that is wrote by BL goes through the head fluff master in GW afaik


but alot of which is wrote is in the perspective of a particular individual or race and doesnt give a grand overview of everything... much the same as most of the 40k fluff

Huw_Dawson
09-06-2008, 11:25
Well, look at Gaunt's Ghosts. They're now 100% canon, and Abnett greatly deviated from the fluff of the time (Colonel-Commisar?).

They're just books, though.

- Huw

MrBigMr
09-06-2008, 11:28
If this thread is up once I get home, I'll add an official statement on the matter of BL, GW and canon.

Iracundus
09-06-2008, 12:07
GW's position is that everything is equally valid - even if it directly contradicts itself. Every piece of fiction and background is one account of events - different people's accounts of the same events may differ widely (ask any policeman!).

It's doubletalk for basically "We're too lazy and can't be bothered to take a stance on what is or is not canon so we'll just say everything is, even when they're mutually exclusive and contradictory, and let all you fanboys argue it out and stop bothering us."

Temprus
09-06-2008, 13:09
It's doubletalk for basically "We're too lazy and can't be bothered to take a stance on what is or is not canon so we'll just say everything is, even when they're mutually exclusive and contradictory, and let all you fanboys argue it out and stop bothering us."
It used to work well for Star Wars. :D Expanded Universe used to be canonical, especially in the early years. Now only the Two Trilogies and Clone Wars shows are canonical, nothing else, even though they contradict each other, but the "fanboys" still argue over what is "canon".

tsutek
09-06-2008, 13:20
I think there's no one 'official' way to see the 40k universe - It is simply so vast in terms of time&space! If you have a universe filled with millions of inhabited civilizations and 40,000 years of time to cover, you have practically limitless possibilities on how to justify just about anything in the 'gameworld'

I found the contradicting fluff troubling at first (thought along the lines of 'they just too lazy to keep it together') but now I'm actually starting to love it - If there's no 1000% 'official', non-conflicting canon for everything in the 40k universe, then well, we can all agree to disagree about all fluff forever! :) Just what the interweb needs, right?

MrBigMr
09-06-2008, 13:46
Ok, lets see...

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...


Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.


I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you.
I don't think there any disputing the evidence here anymore.

If you think about it, how correct data are you getting of world events, or even about history? You got different sources claiming different things, you got experts that can't agree on something, so pretty much every study is different according to who wrote it. Even "objective studies" are subjective, since people will always press their own view on them no matter how little they try to do it. There's always new ecidence cropping up and new theories, so the "facts" are always changing.

The "objective" narration of various codexes and rulebooks feels like someone is reading the 40wiKipedia. It's a general cut of the subject, but search any opus on the same subject you read at Wikipedia and I'm sure you'll find plenty of contradictions.


In the end it merely comes down to what you believe in. I think that the GW style of keeping things open via It's A Big Universe(tm)(r)(c) has actually worked in favour of the hobby. If everything was ultimate and final, we might as well have ready painted armies, since there's not room for anything else.

As a person who likes to let all the flowers bloom, I can understand the negativity that some things get. People press their own subjective views on someone else with little to nothing to back up the claims. I don't care what the latest piece of cra... fluff says, GW if the boss of the fluff and GW says "make stuff up and have fun". If someone can't sleep at night knowing that someone out there is "wrong", then I'll roll a tear for them before I go to bed.

Shadowheart
09-06-2008, 14:08
Yeah, that's the one. Rather pathetic the way they're trying to make their lack of consistency sound like an intentional asset. They could've just said "GW doesn't care about canon", but no, it's all part of a master plan.

I suppose the only real problem for us is that we've got to be clear about what particular version of the story we're talking about. When you're asking or answering a question about the background, you've got to specify your sources (including your own imagination).

==Me==
09-06-2008, 14:19
I've never seen that statement before and I really like it, good show MrBigMr.

It's a big galaxy and I sincerely doubt everything that is told can be true. With time displacements caused by Warp travel (forward and back), different races, the lack of instant communications or fact-checking, and even the difference between people on the same planet can have facts corrupted into inaccurate, legends, or outright lies. But who knows, as the truth has been lost over the millennia. Very fitting with the 40k universe, if you ask ==Me==. I've always preferred the darkness and hopelessness of the setting, trying to impose order and defnition goes against this nature. Nobody knows what happened 1000 years ago, who was involved, or why we are even fighting, but we still do it because it is all we know. That's why I like the 40k background.

MrBigMr
09-06-2008, 17:09
==You== are quite correct. Besides, GW does a game, not fine art. Alterations... No, too harsh of a word. 'Fluxuation', yes, that's better, in the background allows to develope the game. How in the hell could the erase and add races if everything was set in stone? How can you suddenly add new gear or remove them? How can you reorganize things, etc. Especilly when the timeline is pretty dead set and you can't have things added along the time.

40kdhs
09-06-2008, 17:44
I read GK novel from BL and all I can say is UNBLIEVABLE. If you read DH codex and the latest BL book (Hammer of Daemon), you will see a lot of contradiction.

As a GK, how could you possibly allow yourself to be captured by daemons and fight for daemons as a gladiator.?

Grimtuff
09-06-2008, 17:55
As a GK, how could you possibly allow yourself to be captured by daemons and fight for daemons as a gladiator.?

You've done it again. Is this a statement or a question?

You do not need a full stop and a question mark at the end of a sentence. Only 1 will suffice, as ATM nothing you say makes any sense.

40kdhs
09-06-2008, 18:07
You've done it again. Is this a statement or a question?


it's a question. Do you care to answer my question?



ATM nothing you say makes any sense.

If i want to make sense, I will never choose to play Warhammer. When a GW writer is given a task to write a book or codex, he has his own vision about the background and units in his new book or codex. As a result, a reader can easily be confused because of contradicted information. I'm not sure if this new writer checks the work of previous writer to make sure everything matchs.

MrBigMr
09-06-2008, 18:15
In the grim darkness of the future, s*** happens.

Codex info it about the general things, novels pict the little things. I mean, it's like army doctrines vs. real life situations. While the US army didn't give their guys AK, it didn't stop them from picking them up and doing all sorts of alterations to their gear to suit the situations. In the army they never gave us medics duct tape, but our trainer, who has been around the world on UN missions, said that a roll of duct tape should be part of a medic's kit. There's a million and one uses for it.

Are you gonna tear your power pants that in Daemon World there are Chaos thunderhawks, assault marines and even an assault cannon dreadnougth leading them, as I'm pretty sure the latest CSM codex doesn't talk about any of these things? Or that in the very same codex a Chaos marine has a sniper bolter? Or that in Fire Warrior a Tau uses a meltagun and plasma pistol? Or that in Storm of Iron the Iron Warriors use Deathwing drop pods?

Things like these happen in the "real world" no matter what the codex might say. Those things are guidelines rather than actual rules. It's like if you read the Codex Astartes to the letter, quite few chapters actually fit into it's rules. Hell, even the Ultramarines aren't that big on following it.

So yes, even a GK can be capture. At least the WHFB daemon armybook mentions Khorne snatching mortals, whether they're Chaos or not, into his real to do battle. If they survive long enough, they might get elevated into daemonhood. Whether they want it or not.

TheDarkDuke
09-06-2008, 18:19
is there a one stop shop (website) for fluff?

I find its hard to find and scattered all over the place and i dont like wiki.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page

Is a place where they put all the codex, rule book, BL, etc info into one place.

40kdhs
09-06-2008, 18:59
So yes, even a GK can be capture. At least the WHFB daemon armybook mentions Khorne snatching mortals, whether they're Chaos or not, into his real to do battle. If they survive long enough, they might get elevated into daemonhood. Whether they want it or not.

I thought GKs would not allowed to be captured. They would fight until they die. What is the point of going through extensive background and training to resist the temptation of Daemons when you are captured and told what to do by Daemons.?

I had this discussion with Redshirts and they shook their heads and one of them told me that he never reads BL book for a reason. I'm glad that i didn't buy any BL book.

It's too much for me to handle.:D

MrBigMr
09-06-2008, 19:22
Depends on if there was some method behind the GK's madness. I don't know the story, just heard the premise. He might as well have known what he was doing. And I don't think your conviction has much to do whether you're captured or not. A GK is a marine, no matter what, and a marine is human with some special stuff. So he might be super resilien to corruption and knows much about Chaos, but they're not tougher than any normal marine with some years behind them.

You know that the Japanese in WW2 considered surrender a great dishonour and would fight to death, but did the Americans capture any Japs? Did Japan in the end surrender?


As for the redskirt, maybe he should try it before knocking on it. It's like some politician talking about video games without ever even having played one. If you haven't done it, you can't really make a judgement call on it. Just because the premise doesn't float your boat or fit your view of the world, doesn't make it any less. If you've made up your mind before you even read the first page, might as well let it be. Don't read too much into the 40K fluff. An open mind is a good thing.

It's funny that I've sometimes asked around on various subjects on this forum and others as well, and quite often the reply is "no, never gonna happen" or "totally bad idea." But after I've taken all the feedback and put it into a full story, I haven't heard much opposition on the ideas and there's people lining up to read the next one.

Victomorga
09-06-2008, 19:50
as I was reading through this thread, I was waiting for someone to mention lexicanum.

a distaste for wikis was mentioned earlier, which is understandable, but when the pages have bibliographies they often aren't that bad, or at least the bibliography itself can get you onto the right path for what you are looking for.

GW's official stance on the issue of "cannon" is all that can really be expected of them. what else can they say? of course there are going to be contradictions; there are too many writers and artists working on too many drawings / paintings / books / short stories for every piece to be edited in regards to every other piece it may relate to.

any expanded fictional universe contributed to by multiple people ends up stepping on its own toes. sometimes its worse than others, true, and some authors who don't seem to even bother trying to get things right (Goto) ought not to be given more work by GW.

40kdhs
09-06-2008, 19:51
You know that the Japanese in WW2 considered surrender a great dishonour and would fight to death, but did the Americans capture any Japs? Did Japan in the end surrender?


Between surrender and totally annihilation, which one do you choose? I don't think your honour is going to do you any good if your country is wiped out.




As for the redskirt, maybe he should try it before knocking on it. It's like some politician talking about video games without ever even having played one. If you haven't done it, you can't really make a judgement call on it. Just because the premise doesn't float your boat or fit your view of the world, doesn't make it any less. If you've made up your mind before you even read the first page, might as well let it be. Don't read too much into the 40K fluff. An open mind is a good thing.



I don't like to be confused. When GW express their different views about GKs on the book and codex, I don't know which one to believe any more.

For a record, I actually bought the book but quickly RETURNED it for my refund because I didn't want to be confused any more. When I was asked the reason, I told redshirts what I thought about the book.

In fact, they didn't answer my question because they don't want to be confused either after putting their OWN 'spins' on why GK is captured before reading the book. In the end, they told me that BL is not a place to look for 'fluffs'.

I will enjoy reading the book more if the content is consistent with the fluffs in a codex. Is it confusing for you to read when two persons work in the same company have different views about GKs.?

MrBigMr
09-06-2008, 20:23
Between surrender and totally annihilation, which one do you choose? I don't think your honour is going to do you any good if your country is wiped out.
Now I'm confused. On the other hand surrender to the American was worse than death, yet they chose surrender over death.

I better lie down...


I don't like to be confused. When GW express their different views about GKs on the book and codex, I don't know which one to believe any more.
I'll make it simple: Grey Knights = The chapter, a Grey Knight = one Grey Knight. Grey Knights fight to the death, a Grey Knight might not. Simple as that. What's true for the group isn't nessesarily true for the individual. Eldar might be arrogant bastards who don't care a bit about the other races, yet there is fluff of the Eldar aiding other races and few pieces of them getting intimate with humans (WD97 and Necromunda Special Characters).

My head hurts...


In the end, they told me that BL is not a place to look for 'fluffs'.
If that was true (dear god, it was said by a GW employee, so it must be true!), then a good deal of Special Characters should be erased from codexes, along with bits of the fluff.

There's grey goo leaking from my ears...


I will enjoy reading the book more if the content is consistent with the fluffs in a codex. Is it confusing for you to read when two persons work in the same company have different views about GKs.?
What about when codexes contradict each other? How will your brain handle the fact that one codex says one thing and another contradicts it completely.

But other than that, I don't know what to say. In the end it's your own damn problem really. I can't help it a bit.

40kdhs
09-06-2008, 22:24
Now I'm confused. On the other hand surrender to the American was worse than death, yet they chose surrender over death.

I better lie down...


Yes, you are. If two atomic bombs don't pursuade you to surrender, is it too late to reconsider after the third bomb was dropped.?

We may not see Japan if they chose death over surrender. Look at Japan today and you tell me that they made a bad decision?




I'll make it simple: Grey Knights = The chapter, a Grey Knight = one Grey Knight. Grey Knights fight to the death, a Grey Knight might not. Simple as that. What's true for the group isn't nessesarily true for the individual.


If an individual fights as a part of a group and gladly lay his life down for his combrade, how can it not be true.?


Eldar might be arrogant bastards who don't care a bit about the other races, yet there is fluff of the Eldar aiding other races and few pieces of them getting intimate with humans (WD97 and Necromunda Special Characters).


Eldar will do what is best for them. If screwing another race up helps them achieve their objective, so be it.



What about when codexes contradict each other? How will your brain handle the fact that one codex says one thing and another contradicts it completely.



It's inconsistent and my brain will explode. It's a good reason not to think GW's fluff too much if you don't want headache.

Bregalad
09-06-2008, 23:26
BTW Ben Counter's Grey Knight books are very close to official fluff and fully aware of it. The first Grey Knight novel is my personal favorite 40k novel (now equal with "Legion"). The "Hammer of Daemons" is the weakest in the series IMHO, but everything is explained. He fights as a gladiador to survive (surrender to Chaos is not an option) and finally do his job (and taking revenge).

On the other side there are BL writers like "the author who shall not be named", who have no clue about background, don't give a damn and write absolute non-sense. Calling their stuff canon is courtesy, but just wrong.

Plastic Rat
10-06-2008, 01:12
Well, look at Gaunt's Ghosts. They're now 100% canon, and Abnett greatly deviated from the fluff of the time (Colonel-Commisar?).

They're just books, though.

- Huw

To be fair Gaunt's Ghosts points out on numerous occasions that a Commisar holding the title of Colonel in addition to their Commisariat rank is extremely, extremely rare. Gaunt in fact picks up a fair amount of flak for being the nail that sticks out in the Imperium.

In the case of Watson and Goto, they offer up no such apologies and make it appear that their deviations from commonly accepted points are simply the norm.

...scatter lasers my hairy white bum cheek...*grumble*

Iracundus
10-06-2008, 01:45
Yeah, that's the one. Rather pathetic the way they're trying to make their lack of consistency sound like an intentional asset. They could've just said "GW doesn't care about canon", but no, it's all part of a master plan.


That's exactly what it boils down to. Hyperbole and propaganda around what really amounts to laziness and lack of effort. The excerpted quote around even seemingly concrete facts below shows this:


Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

All that really amounts to is an excuse for a carte blanche answer of "maybe" to any question about 40K. It is just an answer to avoid having to really give an answer period.

starlight
10-06-2008, 01:48
Quite frankly it comes down to this:

GW exists to sell toy soldiers. Whatever helps this goal is fair game for them. They never claimed to be concerned with creating an all encompassing accurate to the last detail universe, but simply a background in which to play our games.

If you don't like the background that contradicts your personal world view, GW has given you full rights to ignore everything else as foul lies and base heresy. :D

Something I like that contradicts GW's *official* world view due to my disagreements with it:

Females in Marine armies. I'm currently working on several variations on this theme. My Legio Phoenix Templar Marines have many female members, both in regular power armour and TDA. I also have a complete female Deathwing :D in addition to the beginnings of three all female Chaos *Deathwings*. :p


If you don't like GW's *official* version...don't use it, they even said you can (if that was ever important :p ).


My take? Dependance on *canon* = hiding from taking responsibility for your own decisions. Your toy soldiers, your background, do what makes you happy.

Khornies & milk
10-06-2008, 02:15
Damn...Starlight, I would love to see your 'all Female DW'...sounds sweet and awesome all rolled into one. Closest I can get to it is doing a Deathwing 'counts as' using Deathwatch Terminators in a similar style to 'Kill-Team'...Chapter iconography, colour scheme.

Also, your 'take' on the issue is spot on.

starlight
10-06-2008, 02:27
I was fortunate to get my hands on some of Doctor Thunder's female TDA, PA and Cadian models. Unfortunately they are all in storage right now as I head back to the north to work, but in time they will see the battlefield. :evilgrin: They are an actual Deathwing, simply with female models instead of regular GW TDA. :D

The *Chaos Deathwings* are simply the models that came out of the moulding process much the worse for wear in the early stages of casting. The worst will be Nurgle:D, and the allegiance of the others will depend on my mood at the time. ;) These will be my first ever Chaos armies, so I'm not in a rush to finish them...especially given the many other armies I have to complete...

Shadowheart
10-06-2008, 02:33
In the case of Watson and Goto, they offer up no such apologies and make it appear that their deviations from commonly accepted points are simply the norm.
Hardly fair to apply that to Watson though. He wrote for GW in the early days, when both 40K and GW's attitude towards it were very different. They're Rogue Trader books.

azimaith
10-06-2008, 02:36
My take? Dependance on *canon* = hiding from taking responsibility for your own decisions. Your toy soldiers, your background, do what makes you happy.
A little passionate on the matter perhaps? I find it hard to believe, and often amusing that people would take something as mundane as toy soldiers and somehow apply that to the persons most basic flaws.

If you like canon, great, if you don't, great. I like my background thats based in 40k established background, doesn't make me a defective person any more than someone diverging from it is defective.

starlight
10-06-2008, 02:49
Nope, quite the opposite. Apathetic in fact. I simply find it sad that some people rail on endlessly as if the background of 40K was a sacred historical document that *must* be defended at all costs... :rolleyes: I'd rather be rolling dice. :D

I like what works for me, I write new stuff if I feel the need to create a background more suiting my armies. If heretics discount my version as foul lies and heretical works, then we settle it on the tabletop where stuff like this belongs. :D

Unfortunately there *is* no *established* background since what there is usually has contradictory stories in other GW publications. I *like* the fact that GW doesn't try to create the all encompassing *canon*. I think that it encourages us to exercise our imaginations and come up with stories and backgrounds that enrich the hobby.

That said I'd be a little happier if they caught the *Marines with Multilasers* stuff, but it doesn't bother me much simply because I don't read much (lately any) BL stuff because so much of it is simply poor writing. :( One day maybe I'll get off my duff and submit some of the stuff I've written, but I'm just too busy these days...

Khaine's Messenger
10-06-2008, 03:29
Depends on if there was some method behind the GK's madness. I don't know the story, just heard the premise.

It can be summarized by a post I made before I even read it: here (http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2255788&postcount=121). I actually enjoy the Grey Knight books, personally--Alaric's a quite likable character. And it made for better reading than the novel Eye of Terror, even though I think EoT is a more "quintessentially 40k" novel than Hammer of Daemons.

Anyway. I personally just try to reconcile the books with what I know about 40k. And having read and skimmed a few editions' worth of it, all I have to say is that being contrary just to be contrary is more infuriating than being contrary for the purpose of telling a story, making an honest mistake, or throwing out an interesting plot hook. And the majority of 40k background and Black Library's use of creative license seems to fit into the second mold rather than the first. So I just roll with it, regardless of GW or BL's official policy on the matter.

Drakon
10-06-2008, 07:52
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page

Is a place where they put all the codex, rule book, BL, etc info into one place.

Cheers for this its not too bad and i thnk ill source some info from there.

MrBigMr
10-06-2008, 08:51
I also got some of those Dr. T female models. Cadian ones are going for my IG army while a termie is going to be converted as an obliterator techmarine for my Chaos army and I'll most likely turn one of the power armoured models as well into a Chaos model.

Though there are more women in the army than that, I decided not to go with the "boob cup = female" with this one (this from a guy who runs an all female daemon army). Those two are "special characters" so I wanted them to have a more special appearance, but the others will be in the same armour as the men.


Nope, quite the opposite. Apathetic in fact. I simply find it sad that some people rail on endlessly as if the background of 40K was a sacred historical document that *must* be defended at all costs... :rolleyes: I'd rather be rolling dice. :D
"Stop trolling, keep on rollin'"?


That said I'd be a little happier if they caught the *Marines with Multilasers* stuff, but it doesn't bother me much simply because I don't read much (lately any) BL stuff because so much of it is simply poor writing. :( One day maybe I'll get off my duff and submit some of the stuff I've written, but I'm just too busy these days...
It's funny that I've actually wondered why multi-lasers aren't used more often. I mean, scale one down to a marine size, like the lascannons and you'll have yourself a nice high T, low save and light vehicle hunting gun. Why is it that multi-lasers are so rare? How many of them do we got in the game? Lets see, there's the Chimera gun and then there's the Sentinel one. Oh, damn, two multi-lasers in the entire game and both of them in the same army.

Come on GW, if laser weapons is suppose to be so neat and simple and nice, why blocking it? Imagine Land Raiders with TL ML sponsons, Predator with TL multi-lasers on the turret, Leman Russ with a hull mounted ML, IG HW teams with MLs, Devastators laying down ML fire upon the Orks, etc.

Certainly as stupid as an IG commander running around with a wrist mounted storm bolter and a pair of lightning claws (I'm looking at you, DoW: Winter Assault).



And like Khaine's Messanger pointed out, it's about telling the story. It's like this: Codex is the dull informative historybook and a novel is the Commando Comics version of the world. Does one bleed from their anus when watching Saving Private Ryan vs. some real life documentary that tells all the phases of the operation in detail? Does one feel a sting in their heart when Brad Pitt doesn't mount up anywhere near what the real Achilles was like? How can one watch Jackson rape the Lord of the Rings with his visions instead of following the books and background to the letter?


If one doesn't like what BL squeezes out of their backdoor, he or she can always follow starlight's advice and stuff your own stories up there. But question is, will BL take them? They have their own regulations to follow, so even if the story is good in BL scale, it might not get anywhere because it doesn't fit into their template.

Or maybe I'm just bitter. Who knows?