Does the Luke I Am Your Father bit really count as a retcon? I thought it was made clear that Obi Wan, you know, lied.

Discussion on the page (and it's subtropes) as a whole here.

Feel free to join in.

Ret Con's are a large part of franchise media. That being said....Why is the picture for this page from some obscure manga that very very very few people would know? Is that really the best we can do to show what a retcon is?

Removed:

• This has changed, actually. The official stance on the Squats is now that they never existed. To reinforce this concept, the publishers have actually revised past publications to remove any mentions of Squats and have stopped publishing any works where Squats play a major role.

• A new army book writer whos name will not be mentioned has caused a large [[Hatedom|Hatedom]] following to spring up in recent years as GW transitions from 5th to 6th Edition Warhammer 40000. He is know for creating huge, Egregious, glaring, and unpopular [[Continuity Snarl|Continuity Snarls]] which are widely considered to be ruining the depth, character, history, variability, and non-[[Mary Sue|Mary Sue]]-ness of the [[Fluff|Fluff]]. For a more unofficial explanation, see http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Matt_Ward

from Tabletop Games. The first bullet isn't exactly accurate - the events in which the Squats took part are still canon, as are their presence. It's just that their exact nature is kept quiet. For example, Yarrick was still captured by Ghazgkull on Golgotha, but now he was fighting alongside "abhumans" or "xenos", not "Squats". Ian Watson's novel Space Marine which features a Squat main character is still in print, albeit non-canon. The second bullet, apart from being a rant about Matthew Ward, is ill-formatted. Oh, and if you say "A new army book writer whos name will not be mentioned", don't go and mention their name - it's just cruft and makes you look like a fool.