Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Charax wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
A retcon is an explicit retroactive continuity change (that's what it's short for).

Custodians were never described as being restricted to men, that the process only worked on men like marines. What we have is text that says 'the sons of nobility were given'. There is nothing in that that creates an actual in-universe barrier.

Not really seeing any wiggle room in the statement "All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra".

All. Custodes.

Not "some" Custodes
Not "many" Custodes
Not "a lot of" Custodes
All Custodes

"All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra" and "There have always been female custodes" are mutually exclusive statements, which does indeed make this retroactive - if they had said "There are now female custodes, then perhaps not, but you can't get a statement much more explicitly retroactive that stating something "has always been" a way.

And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.

My point on language is where that comes in. The sons of x is a common literary turn of phrase, and GW love using it. I mean, it's definitely the case that Rogue and Storm are X-Men, and are thus Men? The patriarchal nature of english has made some terms and phrases 'sound' more pleasing and they've stayed around.

My other point was that unlike marines, it never provides a REASON that they are sons. GW have a precedent for giving specific reasoning for sex specific forces - genetic incompatibility or law. This example uses none. It just says they start out as the sons of nobles, not because it's the law, and not because there are genetic restrictions.

So, at best you can infer that it's a cultural practice, reflective of the patriarchal nature of the imperial nobility. And so it's not a retcon that women can be custodes.

The distinction between 'women can be custodes' and 'all custodes have been men' is not the vast chasm that antigirl geneseed is.

Charax wrote:
And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.

I mean, we've had the entirety of the Ultramarines Chapter published in at least one codex before, and that didn't include Centurions, Storm Ravens or Venerable Dreadnoughts.


Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.

I don’t mind female representation in GW games since the entire setting is a universe with fluid stories and outcomes.

If the historical war game settings started doing it I might actually complain. The French conflicts, WW1, WW2, Iran/Iraq War, Russian/Afghan conflict, etc were all fought by men.

Make believe future settings are just that.

Master of Mankind was suppose to have a Female custode in it. But they didn't have the model in it to back it up, so it got vetoed.

This is a welcome correction

 insaniak wrote:
Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.

I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them

specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance

Greyknight7777 wrote:
Citing a questionable passage as evidence for why the passage isn't questionable is what's called a circular argument.

It’s really not. Not in 40K.

You’ll note I also included examples of other weapon types which received changes, yes?

Your stance is essentially “cyclonic torpedoes are colossal, therefore all cyclonic weapon systems must be colossal”.

This passage, which is canonical, demonstrates that family of weapons includes compact warheads. Therefore, not all cyclonic weapon system must be colossal.

 kodos wrote:
I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them

specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance

If someone is new to the game and 'This faction can have women in it now' is a legitimate problem, I suspect they weren't actually that invested in the game to start with.

I mean, women existing in the faction doesn't mean you have to buy them if you don't want to touch the icky girl models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Greyknight7777 wrote:
Citing a questionable passage as evidence for why the passage isn't questionable is what's called a circular argument.

It’s really not. Not in 40K.

You’ll note I also included examples of other weapon types which received changes, yes?

Your stance is essentially “cyclonic torpedoes are colossal, therefore all cyclonic weapon systems must be colossal”.

This passage, which is canonical, demonstrates that family of weapons includes compact warheads. Therefore, not all cyclonic weapon system must be colossal.

It was also stolen from some forbidden armoury of rare, esoteric weapons.

It isn't a normal device, it is some kind of archeotech that may even be singular within the Imperium of Man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Spoiler:

Charax wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
A retcon is an explicit retroactive continuity change (that's what it's short for).

Custodians were never described as being restricted to men, that the process only worked on men like marines. What we have is text that says 'the sons of nobility were given'. There is nothing in that that creates an actual in-universe barrier.

Not really seeing any wiggle room in the statement "All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra".

All. Custodes.

Not "some" Custodes
Not "many" Custodes
Not "a lot of" Custodes
All Custodes

"All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra" and "There have always been female custodes" are mutually exclusive statements, which does indeed make this retroactive - if they had said "There are now female custodes, then perhaps not, but you can't get a statement much more explicitly retroactive that stating something "has always been" a way.

And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.

My point on language is where that comes in. The sons of x is a common literary turn of phrase, and GW love using it. I mean, it's definitely the case that Rogue and Storm are X-Men, and are thus Men? The patriarchal nature of english has made some terms and phrases 'sound' more pleasing and they've stayed around.

My other point was that unlike marines, it never provides a REASON that they are sons. GW have a precedent for giving specific reasoning for sex specific forces - genetic incompatibility or law. This example uses none. It just says they start out as the sons of nobles, not because it's the law, and not because there are genetic restrictions.

So, at best you can infer that it's a cultural practice, reflective of the patriarchal nature of the imperial nobility. And so it's not a retcon that women can be custodes.

The distinction between 'women can be custodes' and 'all custodes have been men' is not the vast chasm that antigirl geneseed is.

I agree with your general point, although in a sense "man" when used in the general isn't patriarchal. The reverse is true- it has been co-opted to refer to males specifically. The Old English word for males was "wer", which survives in werewolf. "Man" meant people. "Wif" was woman, which survives in wife. Somewhat amusingly (and confusingly) woman and human come from two other etymological sources and share no root with man or each other.

 insaniak wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them

specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance

If someone is new to the game and 'This faction can have women in it now' is a legitimate problem, I suspect they weren't actually that invested in the game to start with.

I mean, women existing in the faction doesn't mean you have to buy them if you don't want to touch the icky girl models.

2 different things

One is being upset because people told you that this game is worth the money because of 30 years of well established lore when in reality it is just 3 years and not just the expensive rules are outdated, the lore is as well (so even the argument to buy the expensive books for the lore because that will last is not there and someone being angry as they were told differently is understandable)

One is not getting the "joke" about 40k, in both ways as some thought the fascist scifi setting is their safe space and others that think fascist regime is only against race and not sexism

And than there is also those who simply have a problem with corporation making money on a serious topic with hypocritical marketing

What’s hypocritical about it? I genuinely don’t follow you on that one.

As for “only three years of lore” I singularly disagree - and I do note that argument isn’t from yourself, but quoting/paraphrasing another poster. Since 40K first began in..1987? The background has been based on Unreliable Narrators.

Marines didn’t become what we know them as today straight off the bat. The Imperium has grown and fleshed out massively over its lifespan. And only a very little has been outright retconned. This happens to be one of those things.

But what difference does it actually make? A force of super spangly ultra mega humans is now clarified to be comprised of what were once regular human boys and girls.

That’s it.

Where’s the actual impact? Where’s the hypocrisy?

GW is a company that will do whatever makes them money

They are not showing Marines in pride colours in WD or add female Custodes because they care or think the fascist regime in the game needs to be more inclusive, but because they think they can make more money and nothing else
And if they think genderless Custodes makes more money, it get changed with the next book


And the 3 year lore is from me, for a little hyperbole as in reality it is more like 20 years and 6 years rather than 30 and 3, but if someone else came up with that too, well.

Point is, the valid canon lore in 40k is whatever the books of the current Edition have.
Whatever is written before that does not matter and is considered outdated and not canon.
Whatever a 3rd edition codex or novel wrote is irrelevant if the 10th edition codex writes something different

"Unreliable Narrator" is a good excuse for a company so they don't need invest time for checking consistency of their writing
The same way GW uses "casual game" as excuse for not investing time for checking the rules


That the army I chose because of the description in the codex, that was never the true background at all because the narrator was an idiot but the current backstory is the true one until the next codex is released is not good writing and is a good reason to stop being invested into it.

The only difference to other changes is simply that this time it causes more unrest because it hurts certain other people and therefore gets more attention

In addition to people who started during the last years not knowing that 40k had always been that way expected that the background is "stable" and not everything the know being wrong

That’s…quite the assertion. That GW are literally just “virtue signalling”. Do you have any actual evidence to support that claim? The only reason GW are showing any kind of diversity is For Money?

Unreliable Narrators has been 40k’s thing since the very, very early days. I’m privileged enough to have a complete set of the published Rogue Trader books, and so much shifted and changed over a very few years, rules and background both.

This is nothing new. At all. If you don’t like it, you don’t like it and that of course is entirely your prerogative. But the cynicism you’ve shown here is entirely unwarranted.

And who are these other people this has allegedly hurt? And how has it hurt them?

I don't like the "oh its unreliable narrators all the way down" argument. Taken to the logical conclusion, you would infer that you can know *nothing* of 40k's lore. There are certain franchises/universes that do that (looking at you World of Warcraft) - and I think they are the worse for it.

Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed. Look for example at how much salt was poured out over say Primaris coming into existence (and now they seem to be quietly being de-existed as a thing in themselves).

But that’s part of 40k’s attraction.

There’s no one reliable history, not really. Everything we’re privy to is subject to hubris, ego and ignorance.

Compare the two Xenology themed background books. One is by a Magos Biologist. The other by a Rogue Trader. Both are experienced in the Galaxy. And whilst the Rogue Trader’s volume is laughably inaccurate? It doesn’t mean the Magos Biologis’ work is accurate.

For instance, the dissection of an Eldar corpse. If memory serves it notes partially hollow bones. And we’re lead to believe it was a Craftworld Eldar. But that doesn’t necessarily mean “therefore all Eldar have partially hollow bones”. Not when we know Dark Eldar Scourges have that as an adaptation performed by Haemonculi, and that whilst not especially common, Eldar can and will go from Craftworlds to Commorite and vice versa. So it remains possible what was on the slab is a former Scourge, and that’s why the bones were partially hollow.

Nobody in 40K is playing with a full deck. Not one of them. The history is uncertain, allegorical, mythicised and now legend. That is why it’s so fascinating.

No it isn't. The unreliable narrator excuse at this Stage is a cheap copout for predictable patern.

Would be interesting if gw financials would show ties to esg or bridge.

Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.

So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.

This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.

I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.

If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.

If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.

I've always maintained I prefer to preserve the history/context of the lore to maintain the setting - in so I would vote no to include female Marines or Custodes, however wouldn't be at all bent out of shape if they did retcon to include them, and with this happening my prediction has come to light, I'm just accepting of it, it is what it is, it doesn't upset me but I am also not super enthusiastic about it, it is a change and that is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But that’s part of 40k’s attraction.

There’s no one reliable history, not really. Everything we’re privy to is subject to hubris, ego and ignorance.

Compare the two Xenology themed background books. One is by a Magos Biologist. The other by a Rogue Trader. Both are experienced in the Galaxy. And whilst the Rogue Trader’s volume is laughably inaccurate? It doesn’t mean the Magos Biologis’ work is accurate.

For instance, the dissection of an Eldar corpse. If memory serves it notes partially hollow bones. And we’re lead to believe it was a Craftworld Eldar. But that doesn’t necessarily mean “therefore all Eldar have partially hollow bones”. Not when we know Dark Eldar Scourges have that as an adaptation performed by Haemonculi, and that whilst not especially common, Eldar can and will go from Craftworlds to Commorite and vice versa. So it remains possible what was on the slab is a former Scourge, and that’s why the bones were partially hollow.

Nobody in 40K is playing with a full deck. Not one of them. The history is uncertain, allegorical, mythicised and now legend. That is why it’s so fascinating.

Whilst there is no completely reliable sources in some context for the setting, I think the setting requires certain anchors in the lore that cannot be ever adapted, changed or evolved. I'm not sure all Custodes being male is one of those anchors, but there must be some, and in a similar vein to all the issues with other licenses/games/shows that it is of prime importance that people involved in writing for the setting are true custodians of such anchors if/when they are decided and they are respected (pun intended).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But that’s part of 40k’s attraction.

There’s no one reliable history, not really. Everything we’re privy to is subject to hubris, ego and ignorance.

Compare the two Xenology themed background books. One is by a Magos Biologist. The other by a Rogue Trader. Both are experienced in the Galaxy. And whilst the Rogue Trader’s volume is laughably inaccurate? It doesn’t mean the Magos Biologis’ work is accurate.

For instance, the dissection of an Eldar corpse. If memory serves it notes partially hollow bones. And we’re lead to believe it was a Craftworld Eldar. But that doesn’t necessarily mean “therefore all Eldar have partially hollow bones”. Not when we know Dark Eldar Scourges have that as an adaptation performed by Haemonculi, and that whilst not especially common, Eldar can and will go from Craftworlds to Commorite and vice versa. So it remains possible what was on the slab is a former Scourge, and that’s why the bones were partially hollow.

Nobody in 40K is playing with a full deck. Not one of them. The history is uncertain, allegorical, mythicised and now legend. That is why it’s so fascinating.

No. Background books are very different from codexes.

GW does change things all the time - usually just to give Marines yet another unit....

Personally I want:

Astartes: Marines are male only - (note chaos Marines are different as their bodies can be changed into anything - eps those who serve Slaanesh or Tzeentch) however mortal staff of both genders
Sororitas: Sisters are female only. The greater Church however has both genders
Sisters of Silence: Female only.

Custodes - happy with both genders. My one issue with now suddenly having them is once again they ignore Sisters of Silence.

I'm surprised no one has asked the obvious question:

What happens when a male and female Custodes love each other very much?

Tyel wrote:
Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.

So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.

This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.

I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.

If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.

If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.

GW has intentionally put contradictory fluff in Codexes to reinforce that nothing/everything is Canon and there is no objective truth.

Iracundus wrote:
I'm surprised no one has asked the obvious question:

What happens when a male and female Custodes love each other very much?

I suspect very little, as even relatively healthy humans can have trouble conceiving. And Custards are heavily, heavily genhanced.

Even if they do hop on the good foot and do the bad thing, and a baby could result? I guess that entirely depends on how the gene editing is done. If nothing is changed in the gonads? You’re not gonna get a child Custodes. Spesh as women are born with all the gametes they’ll ever have - which is before, so far as we know, any kind of tinkering goes into it. So at least half the equation isn’t gene edited. As the male gamete is constantly produced? I guess it depends what the DNA that created your taddies has done to it during the process.

Tyel wrote:
Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.

So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.

This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.

I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.

If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.

If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.

several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.

So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.

This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.

I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.

If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.

If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.

several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts

3rd edition Basically all the 3rd edition codices are written from an Imperial in-universe perspective (the Tau codex stands out as being different in this regard- perhaps this was an account provided by the Water Caste instead). The 2nd Imperial Guard codex of 3rd even has some speculation about an old formation (which is a Rogue Trader reference) in the section of the book that would be written like objective fact in later codices. I think it is a real shame 40k moved away from this more-ambiguous approach to codex lore.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts

I don't think this is right. The 2nd Ed Eldar codex is very much written from a Gods-Eye perspective.

The 3rd Ed can be more arguable - as its lore is usually expressed as a story, rather than a stated history. But there's still a reasonable about of Gods-Eye declarations. The little unit descriptions for instance are objective, not subjective like the stories.

For example: "Warp Spiders are named after the tiny crystalline creatures that roam a craftworld's infinity matrix, purging it of non-eldar psychic presences."

This isn't a character telling me this. Its GW telling me this. If I'm meant to think "actually they could be named after something else", then all I can have is "everything GW may be writing here could be wrong". Which you might think is fine - but to my mind, effectively deletes the universe.

Tyel wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts

I don't think this is right. The 2nd Ed Eldar codex is very much written from a Gods-Eye perspective.

ah, it was third edition i was thinking of (and specifically the craftworlds book; they got two that edition)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
ah, it was third edition i was thinking of (and specifically the craftworlds book; they got two that edition)

I think you've still got the difference between say subjective in-character reports by Inquisitor Czevak, and say the little info-blurbs by the units. I.E. Black Guardians are a standing army rather than a militia, hence they have extra training. [And this is why they are WS or BS 4 rather than 3 like regular Guardians.]
This isn't the inquisitor telling me - its GW telling me.

A good example of potential lore conflict would be whether Eldrad caused the 2nd War of Armageddon. We get told that by a captured Eldar Ranger (IIRC). We get Czevak telling us that some of his colleagues believe it happened. These are however subjective IC takes. The Ranger and Inquisitors could all be wrong.

But then we have say the 4th edition book, where it clear states under Eldrad's Section - "yeah, he did this". This isn't offered as an opinion. Its stated as having happened.
If GW were to then go "ah... no, uh, a C'Tan did it" - we are moving away from "characters can be wrong/misled/confused" to "GW are not telling you the truth".

Of course we then have the wholesale retcon of events at the end of the Eye of Terror campaign as an example of well... retcons not just being a function of unreliable narrator.

I'd argue the same with the 8th/9th edition lore squeeze, which initially dashed forward 112 years (prompting the need to explain what everyone's been up to), before deciding "no, actually, lets make it 12" so they could return to to GW's patented "everything is happening everywhere, but not actually ever concluding" from pre-8th.

To me the fact that every Codex lets the described faction shine and be the most awesome and strongest out there hints at the "unreliable narrator" even in these "god's eye" books. So, Orks are the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy. As long as you don't read the CSM Codex and learn that ackshually Chaos is the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy.

Also we have BL books detailing stories that first appear in Codizes and "putting them right" so to say, like Grey Knights beating Mortarion.
I also highly doubt the notion the fluff is redone with the editions. If anything, there are things from 1st and 2nd edition that are very far from things every edition later on told differently, like the names of the Primarchs, or Rainbow Warriors being a founding legion and so on. Everything since 3rd edition overall describes a setting that follows the same rough guidelines. Yes, some things like the Necrons later on changed quite fundamentally, but then again their 3rd edition Codex and BFG were written from an imperial perspective and they just didn't know better apparently.

Tyel, I think a setting can be described entirely by unreliable narrators and still be tangible. Even if you can never fully trust individual reports, there will be through-lines and consistencies that allow a consensus to be formed, with outliers holding less weight. Arguably this is very similar to real-world history, where the objective truth of a matter is often clouded and inferences with varying degrees of confidence must be corroborated from various sources. I suppose the 40k equivalent of archaeology is the model range

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
To me the fact that every Codex lets the described faction shine and be the most awesome and strongest out there hints at the "unreliable narrator" even in these "god's eye" books. So, Orks are the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy. As long as you don't read the CSM Codex and learn that ackshually Chaos is the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy.

The main exception is typically the Imperial Guard codex, which often features as many "glorious sacrifices" as victories

I agree that the authoritative tone and lack of attribution to an in-universe author does not necessarily mean the Codices are in fact written by an omniscient narrator rather than an in-universe one (see the first few pages of Codex: Imperial Guard (3rd edition, 2nd Codex) for a good example of where I am pretty confident it is an in-universe perspective that is unattributed). But I think GW increasingly wants them to be read that way as they've let nuance decline in 40k. I'm inclined to agree with Insaniak's perspective that GW treats new codices and rulebooks as a replacement of their predecessors in all matters, not an addition (at least at a corporate level).

Also we have BL books detailing stories that first appear in Codizes and "putting them right" so to say, like Grey Knights beating Mortarion.
I also highly doubt the notion the fluff is redone with the editions. If anything, there are things from 1st and 2nd edition that are very far from things every edition later on told differently, like the names of the Primarchs, or Rainbow Warriors being a founding legion and so on. Everything since 3rd edition overall describes a setting that follows the same rough guidelines. Yes, some things like the Necrons later on changed quite fundamentally, but then again their 3rd edition Codex and BFG were written from an imperial perspective and they just didn't know better apparently.

I think that most stuff from the end of 2nd is also pretty congruent with the 3rd+ state of the lore, but not so much stuff from early 2nd which was closer to Rogue Trader. IMO 2nd was the edition where 40k found its feet from a lore perspective, with 3rd being the consolidation.

going by that, it could be Horus sitting on the Golden Throne sacrificed himself freely to save the Emperor from Sanguinius and E. himself is still alive but running from Russ who swore to find and kill him

and it was the Lion with Russ who killed of the 2 lost Legions as those were female Marines who were protected by Horus and the other 2 did not accepted woman among the crusade

this is also the real reason why the Lion returned, because Cawl is going to bring the female Marines back and he wants to stop it

every story that say different is just narrators who messed up the details over 10k years or in universe propaganda

Not Online!!! wrote:
No it isn't. The unreliable narrator excuse at this Stage is a cheap copout for predictable patern.

Would be interesting if gw financials would show ties to esg or bridge.

Addendum

Nope, they just have vanguard and blackrock as shareholders, some of the bigger ones


Yeah say goodbye to any decent story writing.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics