# Contradictions of HH Novels



## Warsmith40 (Feb 8, 2010)

After finishing _A Thousand Sons_, I've come to love and hate the Horus Heresy series for some of the inconsistencies that crop up. _A Thousand Sons_ ended *Spoiler Alert!* 

with Magnus transporting the remaining Thousand Sons to the Planet of the Sorcerers via a powerful spell.

However, in C:CSM, it states on page 50 in Ahriman's background that:


> Stunned by the magnitude of this unexpected attack, the Thousand Sons saved what they could and fled. They summoned sorcerous wards to protect themselves, and then *broke the Space Wolves' blockade in their surviving ships to seek sanctuary with Horus.*


Such a blatant contradiction occurs to me as an obvious oversight by the author, and has occured in a couple of the other HH books as well, such as the differentiation of the primarchs' hair colors between differing authors. Overall, I feel as though the Heresy books draw in Warhmmer fans further into the 40k mythos, but at the same time destroys some established perceptions of that dark time in Imperial history.

However, I digress, and return to the original purpose of this post, and present a question: how do you, the Heresy Online community, view the inconsistencies between the BRB & codexes and the Horus Heresy novels? Do you follow the codex history, or feel the portayals of the legends in the novels are more apt?


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Generally speaking the Heresy series is expanding on the current lore and fleshing it out so to speak. 

Besides Codicies and other sources contradict themselves anyway. _Codex: Chaos Space Marines_ is the only source which notes the Thousand Sons breaking through the Space Wolves' blockade and seeking direct sanctuary with Horus. All other sources have them escaping into the Eye of Terror (Planet of the Sorcerers) directly from Prospero, which is something _A Thousand Sons_ expanded upon.

That having been said, neither the Codicies (and other GW sources) or the Heresy series (and other BL novels) take technical precedence in terms of right and wrong. Both are equally valid in the eyes of the lore.


----------



## Alpha Legionaire (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm nearing the end of First Heretic at the moment and I was a little irritated when I first started about a contradiction with it and the Scions of the Storm short story in Tales of Heresey. This is a MINOR SPOILER ALERT as it happens at the beginning of First Heretic. 
(I don't know how to do the clever clicky button you put on Warsmith 40, but if I make the text black maybe that will work)...
In Scions of the Storm it says that the Emporer speaks to Lorgar on the Emperor's flagship (which is abviously where he chastises Lorgar for his worship) but in First Heretic the Emperor chastises Lorgar in front of the entire legion as well as Guillman.

At first I was irritated by this but I've decided it doesn't bother me now. The way it is re-written in First Heretic is much more dramatic and symbolic scene and it gives added emphasis to the novel. Basically it makes a better story and is more entertaining and that's the main thing I want from a book.

I know some inconsistencies are as a result of laziness on part of the author and GW but sometimes it doesn't matter and sometimes it makes it better. Anyway, our realworld history is littered with inconsistencies and conflicting accounts, perhaps it makes it a bit more real that the 40k universe contradicts itself and has big gaps in it's history...

... or maybe that's just rubbish.


----------



## Sgt Pasanius (Jul 24, 2008)

i personally like the contradictions, i feel that they leave events open to discussion.
Its almost like the real world in that people will tell the same story but in different ways and with different details.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Have you seen the amount of contradictions on Magnus eye lol? 

But yeah the escaping Propsero thing in the codex was quite odd, all other sources had a large battle on Prospero, complete with the Custodes(Valdor cutting off Bjorns hand to stop the chaos taint) and ending with Russ about to deliver the killing blow to Magnus when he whispers something and vanishes along with the rest of the legion.


----------



## Warsmith40 (Feb 8, 2010)

I'm starting to agree with all of the "variations on history" idea. It makes alot of sense, and does fit with the ancient-history-forgotten theme core to 40k.

Also, if the current issue of the CSM codex is the only place where the Thousand Sons escape on ships, why did the codex's author make the change? It may just be a simple mistake or a purposeful change, but I enjoy reading the differing (or unanimous as the case may be) opinions of my fellow wargamers.


----------



## World Eater XII (Dec 12, 2008)

Im more with "simple mistake" with regards to the T-son fluff. 

I always heard and assumed they escaped by teleporting.


----------



## Flayed 0ne (Aug 29, 2010)

i like to sort of count the codecies as more of "Official" Documentation...ie, as if the information was "made available" to us by the Imperium as -they- would have us percieve it..."editions" are constantly revamped to produce a kind of "consensus"...whereas the BLB's are the "live feed" into what actually happened...this is -often- pointed out in several BLB's where it states that the "Imperial Record shows...but what actually happened was..." 

:victory:


----------



## Boganius Maximal (Oct 31, 2009)

The HH series has been written to give life to that major period in 40K mythology. To me everything else thats been written is by 'historians' that are describing that period and the characters in it based on hearsay and whatever fragmented pieces of info still survive


----------



## Thyr (Oct 25, 2010)

Boganius Maximal said:


> The HH series has been written to give life to that major period in 40K mythology. To me everything else thats been written is by 'historians' that are describing that period and the characters in it based on hearsay and whatever fragmented pieces of info still survive


I agree. That's how I look at it as well.


----------



## Brother Subtle (May 24, 2009)

Of course there's going to be contradictions. Too many authors, working on such a vast project. It's bound to happen regularly.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Ultimately, I take my cues from the style/perspective of the story told.

For example, if a Codex or Index Astartes story is told from the outsider perspective (e.g., an invisible observer who could NOT be a person within the fictional universe), I take it as fact. For example (for those who have the 2E "Angels of Death" Codex), no one in the Dark Angels could know that the Lion was secreted in the Rock, watched over by the Watchers in the Dark. Since the story is not told from the perspective of a Watcher in the Dark, I can confidently assume it's true, since it's not being relayed by a person within the milieu that might be dishonest or relaying incorrect information.

Where Horus Heresy information is concerned, if I am being provided information "in real time" by an eye-witness, I consider what he *saw* to be the end-all be-all canon. With an important qualification: just because Character X was told something by Character Y in "real time" within the novel doesn't mean it was true.

So, to sum up.

The majority of Codex and Index fluff is, to me, information relayed as part of a historical archive that could be incomplete, incorrect, or willfully distorted as part of a propaganda effort.

As such, I will give more weight to Horus Heresy information that contradicts it, as long as there is reason to believe the information provided within the novel is accurate.

But that of course doesn't take away from the fun of the "incorrect" fluff. The inaccuracies can be entertaining if for nothing else than exposing the hubris and hypocrisy of the "good guys". It's no different than flipping open Arrian and reading nice yarns about Alexander whooping a million Persians at Arbela. Does this take away from Alexander's genius? No. Does it expose the cult of superiority early Greco-Roman writers were trying to further? Yeah. Such with the Imperium.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

Bah, the HH novels destroy the Mythos faster than George Lucas does.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Brother Subtle said:


> Of course there's going to be contradictions. Too many authors, working on such a vast project. It's bound to happen regularly.


It's also intentional in some cases.


----------



## Warsmith40 (Feb 8, 2010)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> It's also intentional in some cases.


That piqued my attentions. Do tell...


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Warsmith40 said:


> That piqued my attentions. Do tell...


Some of the Heresy authors have stated that some contradictions are intentional to inspire debate and personal perspectives. Also to not make the tale so clear cut as 'white and black' or 'good and evil' but for people to make their own conclusions, about the plot and individual characters. It's part of what 40k (30k) lore is about.

For example Abnett and Mcneill have informed us that several contradictions occur between _A Thousand Sons_ and _Prospero Burns_ for just the above reason. We sympathised with Magnus and the Thousand Sons in _A Thousand Sons_, _Prospero Burns_ will be an entirely different perspective I feel however.


----------



## CaptainLoken (May 13, 2009)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> Prospero Burns[/I] will be an entirely different perspective I feel however.


That is what they want as well. As you see it from both sides of the battle.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't mind authors doing that if it's done in the sense of McNeill writing "Ahriman heard that Amon said X" and Abnett writing "Ohthere, on the other hand, heard that Amon said Y". Nor do I mind if "A Thousand Sons" shows that Legion bravely defending their homeworld against savages (the Thousand Sons' biased perspective) while "Prospero Burns" depicts a bunch of foul sorcerers using fell magic to protect their unholy artifacts (the Space Wolves' biased perspective).

Flat out contradictions, though, such as a scene being described two fundamentally different ways (e.g., Han shot Greedo first becomes Han was shot by Greedo first) will just anger me.


----------



## Oldenhaller (Nov 28, 2008)

I like to think of it as different versions of the same tale which have grown in their own way in the telling, re-telling, loss and rediscovery which only a 10,000 year game of chinese whispers can manage. Look what's happened in 2000 years with one set of stories - we've got three big books, persecution, religious war and schism over how things were written or translated!

Consider it like H2G2 - a tale told in many ways but essentially the same story in the end of the troubled times of an Earthman who could never really get the hang of Thursdays.

~O


----------

