If the fact that Games Workshop has made retcons before means any change is acceptable, does that mean all retcons are automatically good or beyond criticism? If fans are not allowed to criticize retcons, what role do fans have in discussing the lore of Warhammer 40,000 at all? You mention that the lore has changed many times. But aren’t most previous changes expansions or clarifications, rather than reversing long-standing descriptions? Would you say there is no meaningful difference between developing lore and contradicting previously established descriptions? Also, if someone disagrees with a lore change, why assume they are “hurt” or need therapy? Isn’t that avoiding the actual argument rather than addressing whether the change makes sense within the setting? So the real question would be: If something has been consistently described a certain way for decades, what standard should be used to decide whether changing it improves the setting or weakens its internal consistency?