Board Thread:Warhammer 40k General Discussion/@comment-7699236-20150618150629/@comment-8881468-20151224215001

just a heads up: if you have canon sources that confirm existing facts, thus retconning them would actually mean that you declare vast tracts of books and information obsolote. the novel "space marine" retconning is quite different from various books accepting and using the same mindset and information.

it is quite amusing.

you assumption about "life experience" is quite amusing as you have fairly little knowledge of my circumstances or experience, hence again an argument ad hominem approach is quite poor in that regard.

It is quite amusing that you want to go for that point in such serializations, we get to a problem which has been discussed more often in  the comic areas and franchises like SW or ST. continuity.

the more information you püile up on one side of an issue, the harder it becomes to feasibly explain a change in that regard. (f.e. look at the superman abilities when he first appeared to those that he has now)

however, considering that several authors over several years, using different settings, all align in that regard, company policy seems to be, that as far as w40k is concerned, that is definite canon. other arguments support that notion as well... the rest is quite simple:

What ifs and but ifs are of no consequence as the surroundings and official line that could allow them, do not exist, nor are they likely to exist.

As for writers.. depends on how they use science and understanding, how well they do their research (as seen with the writer of "the martian" who handed our his story while it was written to get scientificcally correct feedback. or we could look at the star trek techno babble and science consultants.

alas, as none of us have information on the modus operandi of those Black library writers or about the procedures and working through written material before release.