So let us list the differences

This is consistent with the 'fluff' from 1E to 3E. It is inconsistent with 4E only if you apply it to all human ships and not ships of the Imperium, and by Imperium I referring to those of the 'state'.

Automatic adoption of the requirement that every ship has a Navigator and Astropath either creates the "every world is a castle" approach, or the requirement for absolutely millions, perhaps billions, of Astropaths and Navigators... unless you reinforce the "every world is a castle" approach by reducing the number of ships and only having the 'state' as capable of interstellar travel. This would conform to some peoples' interpretations as well as a superficial reading of the 'fluff' for the wargame.

Again, dynamic universe or static, image-laden setting/backdrop which is otherwise inflexible and predicated upon the determinations of a limited few (read GW and their employees). You, the fan, are unimportant.


It is what a consideration of the various 'fluff' suggests it is. A 'reactive' database of designs which may or may not interact with 'machines' to more directly create these devices.


The ASP view is consistent with 1E through 3E, at least. It creates a system by which, depending on what you want to do, you can take either view point. Flexibility; dynamic. Not static; inflexible.


There is no detailed information on the eldar in the 'fluff'. They are "side kicks", alone. A race to die naturally or on the bayonet of your average WW2 grunt.


This was then. 4E reinforces the galactic Astronomican in direct contradiction to 1E through 3E. The question is whether this is adopted or not.

It seems Navigators/ Astropaths are as common as the arcane and rare Warp Engine

Navigator = Pilot (rare)
Astropath = A servitor like ‘Warp Radio/ telephone’ (not so rare)
Warp Engine = Drive (rare)

Basically, Phillip is arguing what is presumably the official GW stance - and 4E - that "every world is a castle". Only the Imperium has warp drives because, well, they're rare and that's part of the new image. (Arguably it is part of how some people view the old image as well...)

Image-laden setting, once again.

Again, as in numerous threads at the moment - so numerous it comes down to a point of deleting them all but for one saying "Why we should use 4E and stick to everything GW says" - to whether you want an image-laden "backdrop" that is otherwise superficial, or a deeper, dynamic and more vibrant universe that is not specifically created through a tapestry image but rather consistent thought and extrapolation. After all, that was what the project was about in the first place.

Edit... And it's actually me who is going off on one yet again. <sigh>

The problem in defining the differences between the various editions is that they are not specifically a change in the details, but rather the feel. 1E you had a feel of sci-fi (soft, shading towards space opera/sci-fantasy). Technology was a part of the setting. Then the universe received more detail and you find out about the superstition about technology, the nature of Chaos in the 40k universe, the origins of the Emperor and the Imperium, etc. You learn such things as the Emperor is apotheosised, but is otherwise just a very powerful psyker... You're still at a core of sci-fi/fantasy.

Then the feel begins to change. What was an interesting detail becomes fossilised by colour text, so that suspicion and 'secret organisations' becomes fossilised as religious misunderstanding... You can see this by a consideration of the origins of the Chaos Gods and the Emperor detailed in The Lost and the Damned. GW focusses upon humanity and suddenly they are the origins of the Chaos Gods. This doesn't stand up to reasoned consideration, but it is the image. Either you accept it without thinking about it, or you consider just what the implications are and extrapolate... But, of course, later the background changes to the more tempered position but still with the directional bias offered by an Imperium-centric product.

As more detail is added, the feel of the universe was changed. Phillip would call this maturation of the vision or image of the 40k universe, and in some ways quite rightly so... Now we move into 4E, which is released in the context of what is in essence a 'high fantasy' product. The concept of superstition of technology that moved into misunderstanding/lack of knowledge is reinforced such that now what was reasonably a technological system now, because of that reinforcement of the inapplicability of techological items (e.g. "heroic fantasy"), it is the hero that is paramount.

Thing is if you put it in those terms, i.e. it is the 'hero' of the story that is paramount, it doesn't sound like a bad thing. Heck we all do that... But it is when 'heroism' is all that remains that it becomes a problem. Why is such a person stronger than another? Well, it's more heroic. Why is someone shaped like that? Well, it was a cool image and this has been perpetuated, so now we're stuck with it and, given the heroic context, it makes sense obviously!

Picking up specific differences is made further difficult by personal interpretation. We all do that as well... I've argued for certain things long and hard and, amusingly if Phillip's points raised elsewhere are to be taken as true, these are being thrown back at me as if they are novel. But such is the way of the development/'maturation' of 40k to 'high fantasy'. It still maintains some of the roots, but the overall 'feel' of the product is different.

So, specific differences? Basically it is the context that has changed, where little bits of writing have created an entirely different interpretation because it "sounds cool" (and just because it sounds cool doesn't mean that it was not a deliberate act). It's like taking your chess pieces to one of the public chessboards. The pieces are the same, but the board and therefore the whole experience of the game may change depending on what you plan on.

As to specific changes from 1-3E... Again, I would argue that it was more the change of that board. Between 4E? Well, the obvious ones have already been mentioned and this is not based exclusively on experience: quite simply to get a copy of the book I would have to buy it and I'm not willing to spend a rather large amount of money on it at this point.

The differences between the various editions, or more specifically 4E since that seems to be the crux of peoples' argument, again that is not something that I can specifically comment on other than reminding people of the original goals of the ASP.

The originals... If there are new ones around then, from the above, I wouldn't have them. My personal approach is this: Since I don't play the wargame and have no real desire to do so, there is little point in buying wargame-heavy books. BL novels, while by most standards 'pulp' (and I doubt due to inability on the authors part, but the plots rather simplistic), do present a living and dynamic universe which is separate from the 'setting' presented in the rulebooks and, as such, are generally a tad more interesting.

So, yes, the originals.

Actually, kind of but no.

I'm suggesting that we create a universe that is living... dynamic... This means that we think about each aspect separately and consider how it might vary from the setting. And this is the point of the project... we consider each aspect of the universe and move from there. It's not just about what is most recently said, but what has been said since the beginning. If some of the old 'fluff' doesn't work with the new and the new is "better", then throw out the old! If the new 'fluff' is biased, or not as "good" then that should be ignored in favour of a better place...

All you get is a fun place which takes the best of the 'fluff' and moves from there...

That has been the premise of the ASP from the beginning, which is why it has become infuriating of late...

Then perhaps - just perhaps - it would be interesting to argue from the entire 'fluff', not just 4E? That is what the project has been about from the start. We question everything as a rule and if something appears wrong, we consider it and if necessary change it.

And the Astropath thread was deleted by request and, to be fair, I'm rather tired of being at logger-heads merely for wanting to have something that is as consistent with all editions rather than just the latest re-write and the obvious shifts in genre.

So with the statement that Navigators and Astropaths must be necessary... Perhaps since that is not true in other editions why it must 'suddenly' be 'true'? Perhaps there are alternative causes, of which some horrendously obvious ones spring to mind pretty much without breaking a neural sweat!