# Deathwatch: Rites of Battle [Warning]



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

*Deathwatch: Rites of Battle [Warning!]*

Just a note about the new supplement for the Deathwatch RPG, whilst it's a fantastic book filled with absolutely loads of juicy fluff some of it directly contradicts canon.

2 Examples I've noticed so far are a speech by Rogal Dorn about how the Imperium has stood for 10,000 years against it's enemies- impressive speech considering Dorn has been dead for nearly 10,000 years- and the statement that Lion El'Jonson was the first Primarch found, which is silly as there are numerous sources (GW and BL) which state it is Horus.

So just a heads up- check to see if the info in Deathwatch: RoB is contradicted elsewhere before using it as a reference source in fluff arguments.

If anyone notices any other unusual statements in the book feel free to post them up and we can see if theey contradict canon if you yourself are not sure.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Good to know it contains different information form other sources, and having a list of what those differences are will help in assessing what might be correct out of character.

However, I challenge the assumption that DW: RoB is wrong because previously published sources have stated something different. If we assume later works that disagree with former are always wrong then Tigurius is half-Eldar and always will be. The best we can say is that a number of sources across a number of years agree on something and only one disagrees so it is more probable that the former represent an accurate picture.

Given the amount of revisionist history in the modern world, I believe that the tyranny of the Imperium has changed many things, including which Primarch was found first, so maybe neither of them was actually first (leaving aside the question of accurate timestamps in a Warp travel society).


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

> and the statement that Lion El'Jonson was the first Primarch found, which is silly as there are numerous sources (GW and BL) which state it is Horus.


Does it say that the Lion was the first Primarch found or the first Primarch? Because if it is just the first Primarch, then it is right. The Lion is the first Primarch just as the DA are the first Legion.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> However, I challenge the assumption that DW: RoB is wrong because previously published sources have stated something different. If we assume later works that disagree with former are always wrong then Tigurius is half-Eldar and always will be. The best we can say is that a number of sources across a number of years agree on something and only one disagrees so it is more probable that the former represent an accurate picture.
> 
> Given the amount of revisionist history in the modern world, I believe that the tyranny of the Imperium has changed many things, including which Primarch was found first, so maybe neither of them was actually first (leaving aside the question of accurate timestamps in a Warp travel society).


So your saying that Dorn is actually alive and he was never killed on the Sword of Sacrilege and the majority that say Horus was the 1st primarch found was wrong.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Akatsuki13 said:


> Does it say that the Lion was the first Primarch found or the first Primarch? Because if it is just the first Primarch, then it is right. The Lion is the first Primarch just as the DA are the first Legion.


First found- I shrugged off the Dorn speech as a misprint, maybe it's supposed to have been delivered by someone else, but the Lion El'Jonson comment raised an eyebrow of confusion.

But anyways I'll have a casual read through again tonight to see if there's anything else that disagrees with established canon.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

locustgate said:


> So your saying that... the majority that say Horus was the 1st primarch found was wrong.


No; I am saying that there is no absolute wrong only degrees of likelihood.

If one source disagrees with another then the closest to the truth we can get is to choose a source which is more likely to be true, and the most common way to do this is to choose the version with the highest number of sources that support it.

Rogue Trader does not mention the Horus Heresy, so we know that history has changed



locustgate said:


> OK then the Tau are as old as the eldar and the eldar are actually the youngest race in 40k and the Tau are such powerful psykers that they just seem non psykers.


Ruleswise it does not change anything.

Give me a citation for that and I will decide how likely I view it fluff-wise.


----------



## Coder59 (Aug 23, 2009)

I noticed those errors too. I should probably point out that many fluff heavy Tabletop Gaming books have a mistake or two in it. But it's no biggy.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of this book. Also, if those are the only two mistakes you found, I'd wager it's probably one of FFG's best-edited books to date :biggrin:


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but The Lion wasn't the first primarch created, they were all pretty much made in one go. The legion was made first however, even then though i doubt it was by alot. Has there ever been any proper clarification on the numbering of the legions? Another thing thats very easily possible is that the emp simply numbered the primarch tubes 1-20 and then followed it onto the legions, with the actual order meaning fuck all.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Well we know the Dark Angels were the first legion created (it's confirmed as much in _The First Heretic_) and that the Alpha Legion were the last legion created, mere decades before Alpharius was discovered (ref. _Index Astartes_).

In what order the others were created isn't really known for sure but if I was to guess I imagine they were made in the order they were numbered- with rare exception the Emperor didn't know which Primarch he would encounter next so it would be difficult to create the Legions in order of Primarch discovery if said Legions had been operating for decades before their sire was found.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Indeed, the problem begins when you take into account that Horus was found first, yet commanded the XVI Legion. There could be a number of ways to get around this, but it's odd none the less


----------



## Jerushee (Nov 18, 2010)

There is no concrete right or wrong in the wh40k mythos, the infrastructure to the story is deliberately hinged on being open ended in every way possible. It gives gamesworkshop freedom from their own words, and infinite potential in story progression and editing ability.

They have effectively shifted any sense of blame and error away from their own self, and created a proxy to act as a heat sink for it. This literature construct is in essence that they have stated all books (most of them) are written from the imperfect view and by the hand of a imperfect fictional character. Thus with that in mind, it is entirely possible and acceptable for them to have directly contradicting sources within their mythos, as it can be written off as "different sources of information available to different fictional characters".

Thus it is why I do not subscribe to the idea that Dorn was killed on the chaos warship, or that night haunter is dead, or horus was this or that or even that horus was the main rebel of the heresy.

For all we know it could be lies, or partial truths mixed with a plethora of exagerations. I view the wh40k mythos much like this reality I live in now, history, fact, is all influenced by the ones shaping society for the majority.

Truth is what the majority agree on, and what "majority" you are part of it, well usually you have less choice in that then most would like to believe. You're paradigm is more deeply colored and shaped by those around you, then you will likely ever realize, as is apparent by the very opinions the users here have regarding fluff.


----------



## Coder59 (Aug 23, 2009)

Or it could just be an editing error. I think taking it as verbatim that the book is actually saying "Lion Was the First Primarch!" is a mistake. I've got literally shelves full of Tabletop RPG books and there isn't a single one of them without some huge glaring clanger of a mistake in it's fluff. 

The fact that Rites of Battle only has two makes it one of the better ones. You should see some of the old World of Darkness stuff it's contradicting itself every other paragraph.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Coder59 said:


> Or it could just be an editing error. I think taking it as verbatim that the book is actually saying "Lion Was the First Primarch!" is a mistake. I've got literally shelves full of Tabletop RPG books and there isn't a single one of them without some huge glaring clanger of a mistake in it's fluff.
> 
> The fact that Rites of Battle only has two makes it one of the better ones. You should see some of the old World of Darkness stuff it's contradicting itself every other paragraph.


2 that I noticed, I wasn't exactly reading it cover to cover more like a quick skim.


----------



## Coder59 (Aug 23, 2009)

I've read it pretty much cover to cover. They're the only two major errors in the entire thing.


----------



## Ardias26 (Sep 26, 2008)

Do the writers of the rpg books even read the background at all. I often get the impression that they have employed C.S Goto to write for them sometimes.

Don't get me wrong though, the books are filled with some great stuff and artwork, but sometimes I just seems that many of the writers havent either havent done their fluff research or simply ignore some of the 'canon' stuff. Although I'm not a canon fanatic when it comes to inuniverse backgrounds, I at least like the creators to keep some kind of consistancy.


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

I don't know about that. I've yet to crack open a Deathwatch book, but I do have a number of the Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy books. And I've found them fairly dead on when it comes to the fluff and often when they do have gray or wrong stuff, more than not, it's stuff that the people in-universe think rather what we know as correct. Remember that while we have an omnipresent view of universe and now what is right and what is wrong, that is not the case with people within the 40k universe. The truth is we have far more knowledge on the universe than any mortal in it.

Who's to say that Dorn didn't make a speech like that at one point prior to his death. He died thousands of years ago, so who's to say that his speech has become muddled and incorrectly remembered since then.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these books written by Fantasy Flight, as opposed to a BL author? I know there would be some BL oversight, but we've all seen just how lax that can be. Maybe the crew working on them is not quite as familiar with the 40k history as they should be.


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

Possibly. But of the only two examples of major goofs on their part in DW: RoB, Dorn's speech and the Lion as the First Primarch, the former could be as I suggested a intentional error to illustrate some of the incorrect facts they have about their own history. But the later just seems like too big a fluff goof. It is possible that it was a typo on the part of the writer and missed by a less informed editor.


----------



## Coder59 (Aug 23, 2009)

Akatsuki13 said:


> Possibly. But of the only two examples of major goofs on their part in DW: RoB, Dorn's speech and the Lion as the First Primarch, the former could be as I suggested a intentional error to illustrate some of the incorrect facts they have about their own history. But the later just seems like too big a fluff goof. It is possible that it was a typo on the part of the writer and missed by a less informed editor.


Exactly. Many RPG books are like this. You have to take into account that we're fans so we would pick up something like that. The Lion mistake was probably let through by an editor who had maybe a list of Space Marine Primarchs and thought that the Legion number corresponded to the order they were rediscovered in.


----------



## merp141 (Aug 1, 2012)

Emm, hello. This is my first post.

I know the thread is very old by now, but I just thought I'd offer my 2 cents as regards the numbering issue as it is.

Scientists tend to just label things arbitrarily, and when you have a product from a sample you tend to label it in a way that allows you to easily remember what its derived from.

So what I would say is that the emperor, when he was creating the primarches and when he was getting the tubes ready, labeled them (1, 2, 3....20) before he made the primarches and put them in the tubes. Later when he was using their DNA samples to produce the space marines he names the tubes I, II, III, IV..... XX.

I know its mundane and banal and the emprah is amazing and doesn't NEED to label tubes but lets face it, if Robute Gulliman had ended up leading the Space Wolves due to a labeling error or memory lapse....? THAT would have been weird...

Sorry if its irrelevant but thats the way I see it! =)


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wouldnt the wolves themselves have recognised the difference? Scent, etc?


----------

