Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-2112031-20170802103944/@comment-18014300-20170802210540

The Wikia Editor wrote: 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. 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. 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.