C'tan retconned into oblivion. - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Fluff Discuss GW background material here. All those bits in the Codex that aren't stat blocks or special rules. Post your custom character/chapter/army background in our Homebrew Fluff subforum!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 03:20 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoulGazer's Avatar
SoulGazer's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 411
Reputation: 1
Default C'tan retconned into oblivion.

Welp, I have the Necron Codex, and it's official: Anything you thought were C'tan were probably not. The codex states that no one can really tell a C'tan apart from, say, a Daemon or other energy-based being(cause there are so many different kinds, right?) except the Necrons; not even the Eldar know how many are still out and about. So basically, something scary with super powers may or may not be a C'tan. It even states that Imperial records are so terrible that they're probably all wrong. There is no mention at all of the Ultramarines encountering the Nightbringer. No mention of the Deceiver linked with Pariahs(Which aren't mentioned at all in the codex.) Nothing at all of the Void Dragon on Mars(Which it probably isn't true anymore.)

Everything that we thought we knew was wrong, apparently, and we are advised to simply take all that stuff as lies and misinformation. "Just pretend it didn't happen." C'tan are footnotes in the history of the War in Heaven, and now used as semi-useful, sometimes-annoying MCs on the tabletop.

I mad.

Yes, the new Cron stuff is cool. Yes, I like the dynasties and the characters and whatnot. But to have your race's gods be the sole reason that the Imperium exists as it does was pretty darn cool, and was the major reason why I loved Crons so much. Now? Who knows? There's nothing that explicitly denies all the old C'tan fluff, but there's now text that heavily implies all that stuff was untrue in the first place.

Ok, rant over, what do you guys think?

EA: The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Game companies rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. Bioware was not the first. By utilizing our funding, game companies develop along the paths we desire. They exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it.
SoulGazer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
MEQinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,212
Reputation: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulGazer View Post
not even the Eldar know how many are still out and about. So basically, something scary with super powers may or may not be a C'tan.
This in particular caught my attention as being wierd. Does that mean that it is no longer canon that only four C'tan exist? Or is it simply the idea that the 'shards' can be easily confused for the real deal because of their power level.

Quote:
It even states that Imperial records are so terrible that they're probably all wrong.
This isn't news, the Imperium's always been a pretty bad source for accurate information. Despite many viewing their in-character specualtions as fact.

Quote:
There is no mention at all of the Ultramarines encountering the Nightbringer. No mention of the Deceiver linked with Pariahs(Which aren't mentioned at all in the codex.) Nothing at all of the Void Dragon on Mars(Which it probably isn't true anymore.)
No mention doesn't mean it didn't happen. Given that GW generally considers everything it's ever written to be canon I would still view these events as having occured. This is particularly true of the Void Dragon as that info is presented by the Dragon (or a being pretending to be the Dragon while trapped on Mars) itself and though I see plenty of reasons to interpret the vision as allagorical I see no reason to dismiss it as false.

Quote:
But to have your race's gods be the sole reason that the Imperium exists as it does was pretty darn cool,
That's some pretty heavy duty Necron fanboism there. If any one being can claim to have created the Impeirum it's the Emperor (as in the being that moved the Void Dragon to Mars in the first place) not the Void Dragon (I assume that's what you're talking about).

"Look into my eyes, and see your death."
"Let them hate, so long as they fear."
MEQinc is offline  
post #3 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 03:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 90
Reputation: 1
Default

I think the new C'tan are a mistake. I think the "Necrons overthrow and enslave the Star Gods" concept is ridiculous.

Here's how I would have done it:
  • After the C'tan screwed the Necrons, the Necrons were their thralls. If a C'tan says jump, its Necrons jump. If they say go harvest sentients to feed to the C'tan, the Necrons do it
  • The Outsider and Nightbringer do their cannibalism thing, destroying most of the other C'tan. In the wake of this, those C'tan's Necrons are still under C'tan control, but their influence is attenuated.
  • This gives you a spectrum of Necrons, ranging from those whose personalities are crushed by the influence of the C'tan to those who still serve the C'tan, but have the capacity to think and work towards their own goals, like harvesting sentients for their own experiments. The former gets the projections of the C'tan's power (think Harbinger in ME2), the latter gets lesser lords and Necron special characters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulGazer View Post
But to have your race's gods be the sole reason that the Imperium exists as it does was pretty darn cool, and was the major reason why I loved Crons so much.
Only if you're a Necron player. To everyone else, it made them seem more like bad author insertion characters.

Don't get me wrong, I liked what the C'tan meant to the Necrons, but the "everything that ever happened is the C'tan's fault" stuff was just obnoxious. The only part I liked was that the God-Emperor of Mankind beat up a Star God, locked it in a box, and forced it to tell humanity its secrets.
AlexHolker is offline  
 
post #4 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:01 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoulGazer's Avatar
SoulGazer's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 411
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEQinc View Post
This in particular caught my attention as being wierd. Does that mean that it is no longer canon that only four C'tan exist? Or is it simply the idea that the 'shards' can be easily confused for the real deal because of their power level. It states that while most of them were blown up and captured, it doesn't account for the whole pantheon. However, it then goes on for a whole paragraph saying that just because there may be C'tan out there doesn't mean anyone actually encountered them or would even know what they were if they did find them. "There might be four C'tan, four-thousand, or any number in between."

No mention doesn't mean it didn't happen. Given that GW generally considers everything it's ever written to be canon I would still view these events as having occured. This is particularly true of the Void Dragon as that info is presented by the Dragon (or a being pretending to be the Dragon while trapped on Mars) itself and though I see plenty of reasons to interpret the vision as allagorical I see no reason to dismiss it as false.
The way it's worded really wants you to forget that stuff happened. The tone of the text says it all, I dunno how else to explain it, but when you read it for yourself you'll probably see which direction they want you to go with it. They've retconned stuff before, I don't see why they'd stop now. I still believe these events did take place, and the book even says that something probably happened. But what it was exactly that happened is up for debate, and heavily implied to not be C'tan.


That's some pretty heavy duty Necron fanboism there. If any one being can claim to have created the Impeirum it's the Emperor (as in the being that moved the Void Dragon to Mars in the first place) not the Void Dragon (I assume that's what you're talking about).Damn skippy it's fanboism. That's why I played Crons since they've been out and didn't care whether they were good or not, I just liked them cause their fluff was cool. It's just my personal reason for playing them, doesn't mean I expect every else to agree with me.
The wording makes all the difference. You'd think that if there were even rumors or myths about the Void Dragon being on Mars it'd be in the Necron codex. It doesn't even mention when Necrons landed on Mars.

EA: The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Game companies rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. Bioware was not the first. By utilizing our funding, game companies develop along the paths we desire. They exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it.
SoulGazer is offline  
post #5 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:03 PM
Vaz
Senior Member
 
Vaz's Avatar
Vaz's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, UK.
Posts: 12,830
Reputation: 79
Default

So you agree with the Old Ones but not the C'Tan, which are simply counterpoints to them?

And you hate how the Necrons overthrew their Vampire/Daemon/Gods when working as an entire race, yet you love how a single man was able to capture one like a man might have trapped a wild animal, and broken it into domestic life? Wow.

I don't have an opinion too much either way until I get the book in my hands.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi Baji View Post
It's not a black and white question really, there are different shades of anal probing,
a rectum spectrum, if you will
Vaz is offline  
post #6 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:06 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoulGazer's Avatar
SoulGazer's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 411
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexHolker View Post
Only if you're a Necron player. To everyone else, it made them seem more like bad author insertion characters.
Very much like Primarchs, actually. Yes, it's silly, but I still liked it. I don't begrudge anyone serving the all-powerful God-Emperor, after all. It's 40k, it's supposed to be a tad ridiculous.

EA: The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Game companies rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. Bioware was not the first. By utilizing our funding, game companies develop along the paths we desire. They exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it.
SoulGazer is offline  
post #7 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:08 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
SoulGazer's Avatar
SoulGazer's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 411
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
So you agree with the Old Ones but not the C'Tan, which are simply counterpoints to them?

And you hate how the Necrons overthrew their Vampire/Daemon/Gods when working as an entire race, yet you love how a single man was able to capture one like a man might have trapped a wild animal, and broken it into domestic life? Wow.

I don't have an opinion too much either way until I get the book in my hands.
I don't recall stating opinions on any of that, actually.

EA: The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Game companies rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished. Bioware was not the first. By utilizing our funding, game companies develop along the paths we desire. They exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it.
SoulGazer is offline  
post #8 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:19 PM
Senior Member
 
LukeValantine's Avatar
LukeValantine's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Regina, Sask, Canada
Posts: 4,277
Reputation: 21
Default

At the end of the day something had to be done to the c'tan. After all GW has been fairly firm about not allowing primarch level up creatures in 40k or even in appocalypse, and it seems GW's desire to keep them in the codex meant that they had to justify them being greatly reduced in power. Its a shame they did not just allow for some straglers that escaped the ire of the entire necron race like the big 4, yet I guess they also wanted to lazily justify not having to make new models for all the lesser defeated c'tan. Hence why the big four are not mentioned as being whole.


Medusa: "I'm a witch, its my job to blaspheme against Gods."

Two Slaanesh daemons on the first go...hmm I guess the fates have spoken emperors children here I come
LukeValantine is offline  
post #9 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 90
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
And you hate how the Necrons overthrew their Vampire/Daemon/Gods when working as an entire race, yet you love how a single man was able to capture one like a man might have trapped a wild animal, and broken it into domestic life? Wow.
Don't be obtuse. It wasn't "a single man", it was the God-Emperor of Mankind, one of the most powerful entities in the entire setting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulGazer View Post
Very much like Primarchs, actually.
Not at all like the Primarchs. Nobody's saying "the only reason the Orks exist is because of Marneus Calgar" or "Alcoholism never existed until Leman Russ invented it".
AlexHolker is offline  
post #10 of 28 (permalink) Old 11-04-11, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
 
MEQinc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,212
Reputation: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulGazer View Post
Very much like Primarchs, actually. Yes, it's silly, but I still liked it. I don't begrudge anyone serving the all-powerful God-Emperor, after all. It's 40k, it's supposed to be a tad ridiculous.
To expand on what AlexHolker said. Not only are the Primarchs not credited with infulencing the development of any other race (excepting instances where they ended it) but they, and their role, are a long established part of the 40k fluff. When the C'tan were introduced it seemed like the writers were desperately trying to come up with ways for them to be relivant, while also pretending they'd always existed. So you got, frankly odd fluff like the Nightbringer inventing 'fear of death', the Void Dragon being credited with the creation of the Adeptus Mechanicus (and thus having a potentially heavy impact on human technology). All in all it just struck me as being very heavy handed and not particularly well thought out.

Also, AlexHolker, Marneus Calgar isn't a Primarch, just a Mary Sue.

"Look into my eyes, and see your death."
"Let them hate, so long as they fear."
MEQinc is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Fluff

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome