Soranin: Created page with "Original title for the thread: '''AC French comics canon''' --------------------------------- The Wikia Editor on 02/08/2017: :The user Spanish assassin has recently removed information from the Egyptian Rite article related to the French comics. He cited a statement made by Aymar in 2016 in which he stated that Vol 1–6 were not considered canon. :However, although the events in modern day were indeed considered non-canon, the events set i..."

2026-06-17T14:06:39Z

Created page with "Original title for the thread: '''AC French comics canon''' --------------------------------- The Wikia Editor on 02/08/2017: :The user Spanish assassin has recently removed information from the Egyptian Rite article related to the French comics. He cited a statement made by Aymar in 2016 in which he stated that Vol 1–6 were not considered canon. :However, although the events in modern day were indeed considered non-canon, the events set i..."

Páàjì titun

Original title for the thread: '''AC French comics canon'''

---------------------------------

[[User: The Wikia Editor|The Wikia Editor]] on 02/08/2017:
:The user Spanish assassin has recently removed information from the Egyptian Rite article related to the French comics. He cited a statement made by Aymar in 2016 in which he stated that Vol 1–6 were not considered canon.

:However, although the events in modern day were indeed considered non-canon, the events set in the past were, in fact, considered canon. I personally find Aymar's statement to be too vague to come to the conclusion that none of it is considered canon anymore, especially since the question was whether the comics were considered canon in general.

:{{c|Edited by [[User: Sol Pacificus|Sol Pacificus]]}}

[[User: Sol Pacificus|Sol Pacificus]] on 02/08/2017:
:I agree with you. Unfortunately, as much as I respect Aymar's word (especially after he agreed to our requests about Discovery's canonical status), Ubisoft simply has not proven to be consistent enough about these things. Take for instance, the issue surrounding whether there are two Precursor boxes or one where Aymar gave his clear answer, which makes the most sense and is corroborated by the War Letters, but is quite clearly contradicted by the words of Richard Farrese, lead writer of Rogue, and The Essential Guide. I am curious about the confirmation that the regressions in the comics are considered canon though, even though I remember it was always pretty definitive. 

:{{c|Edited by [[User: Sol Pacificus|Sol Pacificus]]}}

[[User: Francesco75|Francesco75]] on 02/08/2017
:In the first edition of the AC Encyclopedia, there is a entry about Aquilus, so technically, the past part is cannon. It's just retcon because they abandonned this storyline. 

:{{c|Edited by [[User: Francesco75|Francesco75]]}}

[[User: The Wikia Editor|The Wikia Editor]] on 02/08/2017:
:<div class="quote">Sol Pacificus wrote:
::I agree with you. Unfortunately, as much as I respect Aymar's word (especially after he agreed to our requests about Discovery's canonical status), Ubisoft simply has not proven to be consistent enough about these things. Take for instance, the issue surrounding whether there are two Precursor boxes or one where Aymar gave his clear answer, which makes the most sense and is corroborated by the War Letters, but is quite clearly contradicted by the words of Richard Farrese, lead writer of Rogue, and The Essential Guide. I am curious about the confirmation that the regressions in the comics are considered canon though, even though I remember it was always pretty definitive. </div>
:I've been unable to locate Ubisoft's original statement regarding the canonicity of the regressions. Which is to be expected, given that it was probably made around the time Brotherhood came out. For the most part, the historical events of the French comics have been ignored, aside from Aquilus being mentioned as Desmond's ancestor in the Universe video and the Encyclopedia. The events of the French comics were also referenced in Rogue, including a nod to the comics' non-canon modern day storyline. 

:{{c|Edited by [[User: The Wikia Editor|The Wikia Editor]]}}

[[User: Sol Pacificus|Sol Pacificus]] on 02/08/2017:
:<div class="quote"> The Wikia Editor wrote: 
::<div class="quote">Sol Pacificus wrote:
:::I agree with you. Unfortunately, as much as I respect Aymar's word (especially after he agreed to our requests about Discovery's canonical status), Ubisoft simply has not proven to be consistent enough about these things. Take for instance, the issue surrounding whether there are two Precursor boxes or one where Aymar gave his clear answer, which makes the most sense and is corroborated by the War Letters, but is quite clearly contradicted by the words of Richard Farrese, lead writer of Rogue, and The Essential Guide. I am curious about the confirmation that the regressions in the comics are considered canon though, even though I remember it was always pretty definitive. </div>
:::I've been unable to locate Ubisoft's original statement regarding the canonicity of the regressions. Which is to be expected, given that it was probably made around the time Brotherhood came out. For the most part, the historical events of the French comics have been ignored, aside from Aquilus being mentioned as Desmond's ancestor in the Universe video and the Encyclopedia. The events of the French comics were also referenced in Rogue, including a nod to the comics' non-canon modern day storyline. </div>
:I think that the Encyclopedia is a pretty authoritative source given it's one of only two true reference books that have been released alongside The Essential Guide. The Rogue reference is also pretty substantial. Both I would say solidly supports the canonicity of the historical sections of the comics. 

:{{c|Edited by [[User: Sol Pacificus|Sol Pacificus]]}}

[[Category:Assassin's Creed Wiki general archives]]

Assassin's Creed Wiki:General Archives/On the First Cycle's canonicity - Revision history