After all, isn't that the core of what every campaign designer ever has done? Getting stroppy because their interpretation doesn't match your own is just hamstringing future interesting interpretations of the existing canon.
Exactly, right, I'm all for that. What I was getting at was more at the level of wondering if the BP take on the issue was consistent with FS1 when you looked sufficiently well at it, precisely because this rigor was claimed by the BP team.
I'm all for taking things loosely and reinterpret **** as strangely as you possibly can. But then if you do so I don't like being bull****ted. I like that then people don't tell me it's perfectly consistent with canon and so on (well you can do this, but then I won't take you seriously any more).
Not saying that BP did this, Battuta justified their interpretation's consistency by positing two independent events taking place in the FS1 meta-game: the first being the briefings and debriefings who posited the general inter-subjective knowledge of the alliance about the Ancients (from the digging sites and so on) and the second as visions received by the Nagari sensitivity of Alpha 1 rendered as ominous speeches by the dead ancients. It's slightly convoluted but it *IS* consistent and very very interesting because it then drives all the plots within BPverse.
