Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So after thoroughly derailing this thread here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/395575.page we thought we'd spin this off into another topic. Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote an excellent article here http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/ which I took to mean everything by GW, FW and BL is canon and in a way not canon. That the age and quality of the work is what he uses to determine its validity rather than it's company origin.

Lynata argues that this is proof that Black Library is not canon, just studio material is, but I don't want to put words in his mouth so I'll let him explain further.

What's eveyone elses opinion on what ADB's opinion is? To avoid derailing this one: it's what is ADB saying about canon not what do you think?

I'm not even that sure anymore if even studio material can be considered canon, but it certainly is a good guideline on what the people at GW think and how they are going to develop the setting, so personally I still treat it as such.

Aaron's quote can, in my opinion, only be interpreted in two ways: Either studio material is canon, but nothing else is - or nothing is canon and it's all about individual interpretation, which would logically include BL material.
Of note is also a comment Andy Hoare made in that very blog post. Scroll down a bit or just hit Ctrl+F and enter "Andy Hoare".

I've included that blogspot and my analysis of it in another thread here, together with quotes and links to other BL and FFG writers as well as current and former GW employees.

My point is, a stance like "nothing and everything is canon" is a logical fallacy. That's like saying "this glass of water is full and empty" or "the temparature in this room is hot and cold". It can only be either or.
Canon in literature is a set of rules for a given setting, and rules have to be adhered to, if not enforced. When Black Library writers are allowed to ignore each other - which ADB does himself mention in that blog - their writings obviously could not be considered canon.

Or: When BL authors are allowed to ignore each other's interpretation, then so are you, the reader.

Looking forward to hear more opinions about it, though!

Lynata wrote:I'm not even that sure anymore if even studio material can be considered canon, but it certainly is a good guideline on what the people at GW think and how they are going to develop the setting, so personally I still treat it as such.

Well that may bring an abrupt end to this thread. That's all I'm saying Lynata. GW and BL are equal, there's no tiers. ADB points out of course the Studio shaped the direction of the background at first becasue they were first. But there's a lot of old studio stuff that's crap, just like there's a lot of old BL that's crap. Now the studio even takes a bit of its creative direction from BL sometimes, recognizing that guys like ADB and Abnett are great sources of ideas and fiction.
All AND nothing! I'm with ADB when he says this is a strength of the background not a weakness.

It's loose canon. Up to individual interpretations. I really don't see how anyone can argue he was saying otherwise.

"Your focus determines your reality" indeed.

On another note, dude is kind of strange. I was taken aback by his general weirdness when I read that.

Cannon is that people believe is cannon. If we want to think about it. You could write anything you want in a codex or in a novel, but until people accept it as cannon. It's just words.

Cannon is meant to represent the shared universe of 40k. That universe is not just shared by GW&BL. Most of it actually belongs to the fans. Where do you hear most of your information about 40k? You get a little from the rule books, a little more from other published sources, but I think that you get most of your information from other fans.

Cannon is just what gets accepted by the fans as cannon. Doesn't matter the source. If the fans accept it as cannon. It's cannon.

There is only 1 important thing about 40k:

To have canon is nice, to have cannons is nicer.



No amount of interviews and blogs can provide what an official statement could. But, imo we have to accept 40k as entertainment and Gw isn't as serious as some fans want them to be ( be it rules, be it fluff ).

So order of canonity ( if its existance is needed ) in 1hadhq county:

- rulebook actual edition, codices and expansions released alongside.
- aged codices, subcompany rulesets and fluff ( FW ), other variants of the 40k verse like epic, BFG, etc
- subcompany fluff in tiers of quality , BL ( ie who keeps his stuff close to BRB and codices and isn't missing the theme like certain parts of the design team we know and "love" ). Series created to expand on the fluff like HH get more weight than things written because an author convinced his boss of his ideas worth printing.
- outdated material and those who can't for the life of them get their stuff believable.

Can live with a universe of multiple realities and POV. Just the cornerstones must be set.

Here's the important bits about the topic:

Interestingly, as creators in this setting, we’re under no strict obligation to reference one another, and cooperation is usually self-driven. (The exception to this is the Horus Heresy series, which is extremely well-organised, and all of us are in constant communication.) Sure, editorial prefers it when stuff ties in together, but it’s not a mandate. Everyone views the setting differently, after all...

...So, is there a consensus?

Negatory.

There really isn’t.

On one hand, that’s a bit of an emotional kick to the balls. I mean, everything you do will be seen as incorrect by Some Internet Guy, and they have as much right to enjoy 40K stuff as me, you, or anyone else. I don’t sit at my desk, rubbing my hands together, delighting in the fact that I might’ve annoyed Fan #3,974,910 because I said Commander Dude Guyman zigs instead of zags. I sympathise with that irritation. I felt it myself for long enough, and its bitter taste is familiar to me as all the photos of Lily Cole I have on my hard drive...

...Within the possibility of endless interpretation lies the potential for freedom. What matters is respecting the source material, contributing to it, and sticking to the theme. And that ties right back into my first column, because no matter who’s writing the details, 40K has some unalterable themes, etched in the stoniest of stone. They’re the key. They’re what matter most.

Get the atmosphere right, and you’re halfway there.

Basically... if it "feels" like 40K, if it's "grimdark" in the proper ways, and if it works for you, then it's as "canonical" as it's going to get in this IP. We have a few Codex statements to follow, that's part of the "stoniest of stones" he mentioned, and everything else is open to interpretation, opinion and cool factor.

So, BL is as canon as FW as FFG as a GW Codex as a Relic video game. Many people will put it into a sort of pyramid (not a bad idea, and one which I follow myself), but that does not make that person right and another who doesn't follow that model wrong.

Treat it all as conflicting news reports. Whatever sounds most "right" to you is generally considered canon for you. However, stuff that hasn't been mentioned in 20 years like the Illuminati is safely assumed to no longer be canon.

That's a brilliantly written article...

Essentially, though, it's saying exactly the same thing (just in a slightly more verbose way) as was said on the Black Library forums years ago... It's all canon, but that doesn't mean it's all accurate.

Any story relies on personal interpretation, personal viewpoint, and on the 'memory' of the person telling it. Stories can be skewed, used as propaganda, misrepresented, misremembered...

So GW explain away the inconsistencies as just different version of the truth. Which is the 'correct' version is down to your own interpretation.

When you think about it, it's not really any different to walking into a library's History section... Theoretically, it's all 'canon'... but not all of it is accurate.

Void__Dragon wrote:It's loose canon. Up to individual interpretations. I really don't see how anyone can argue he was saying otherwise.

"Your focus determines your reality" indeed.

On another note, dude is kind of strange. I was taken aback by his general weirdness when I read that.

Warhammer 40k is Nietzsche read in the style of Red Dwarf.

He's not strange, he's English.

Everything is canon, and nothing is. In other words, take from the fluff what you want to use to play the game, and leave anything that doesn't fit how you see the 40k world working.

Why do people care about 'cannon'? It's fluff not 'cannon'. It's not real.

It's "canon" not "cannon".

Phototoxin wrote:Why do people care about 'cannon'? It's fluff not 'cannon'. It's not real.

MY ASPERGER'S SAYS I MUST CATEGORISE EVERYTHING AND NEATLY DIVIDE INTO CANON AND NOT-CANON SHADES OF GREY DO NOT EXIST.

Everything by GW, FW, and BL is canon. It's treated as such by the larger fan community pretty much and it really doesn't contradict each other.

If we consider only GW rules and codices as canon, we would get a really non-detailed and boring universe consisting only of war and battles (even if it is only war in the grim dark future, there are still many other things in it). There is more information about the 40k in BL books and the roleplaying game. For example, Eisenhorn series contain descriptions of everyday life in Imperium which needn't to be included in 40k rulebooks as rulebooks are and should be really only about war. So other sources besides fan ficton may be considered as canon unless they contradict codices like multilaser marines do.

ADB is basically saying that the entire 40K Universe is up to one's individual interpretation. I disagree with him that GW fluff is not Canon. If I had a "Canon Pyramid" I would say that GW Fluff is Canon, and BL and FW is 3rd party writings and therefore not part of the universe and would therefore be the parts that are up to interpretation.

ADB mentions George Lucas and the Star Wars universe in his Canon Pyramid and, much like GW, George Lucas has actually stated that his universe is the "real universe" and the rest is made up by fans and authors and therefore would be up to individual interpretation. There is only one case of George using a 3rd party story in "his universe" and that was the whole Darth Plagus story in the 3rd movie (I read this in a Star Wars trivia book, no I'm not a Star Wars nerd I just love movies).

Anyway, where I was going with the above paragraph is that I disagree with ADB that GW canon is not "true canon" because it is much like George Lucas's "canon" which as I said above is really the only true canon one can believe. Afterall the Universe is GW's universe, not only in truth, but in copyright as well. If the 40K universe were so loosely canoned and so loosely based than really it would be anyones universe and there wouldn't be a need for a copyright in the first place, and we all know how nasty GW can be about their copyrighting...just look at poor Turn Signals on a Landraider. The reason I mentioned the whole Darth Plagus story is because what Lucas did there was similar to what GW did with Gaunt and Gotrek and Felix. Just like it was the rare example of Lucas using 3rd party material, those were examples of GW using 3rd party material. Now, I could go into a whole other section of how that would then make the 3rd party material canon but I think I've talked enough.

So thats my 2 cents on ADB I'm interested to hear what the rest of you have to say.

You know why I don't consider BL books canon? C.S. Goto and James Swallow. You know why I willfully ignore canon material in codexes and studio productions? Matt Ward, he should only be allowed to write background material for Monopoly.

I am of the opinion that ADB's thoughts are irrelevant. He is a writer, and nothing more, he is not really a GW employee, he is simply licensed to produce IP relating to their product. He has no right, authority, ability, etc. to declare GW policy and to designate canon.

I'm tired and snarky and shouldn't post in this thread, but dear lord the level of importance some people put on the loose collection of fiction that GW set their games in really makes me smile sometimes.

Da Boss wrote:I'm tired and snarky and shouldn't post in this thread, but dear lord the level of importance some people put on the loose collection of fiction that GW set their games in really makes me smile sometimes.

Joo wanna fight about it holmes?
Between 40k and the Jersey Shore I'm not sure who has a more ridiculous cast of characters, but don't mess with my fictional gaming universe man!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well that may bring an abrupt end to this thread. That's all I'm saying Lynata. GW and BL are equal, there's no tiers.

Mhm. That is one interpretation, and one I do have to consider - though there's still the difference that I would regard that as a possibility, where I would think the irrelevance of licensed material is fact. What I find far more important than this difference, however, is the way with which the latter gets treated by the majority of people on forums like this one. Our small discussion started, after all, by you stating that "BL novels are canon". This imposes a non-existing rule onto other readers, in this particular case referring to the language of the Vostroyan people. People, especially those that are new to the hobby, will "grow up" believing that kind of stuff to be solid rules when they are not, resulting in so many confusion when they get confronted with conflicting material suddenly throwing their perception of the setting into question. It's almost like culture shock. Just look at the discussion concerning Space Marine height, for example. People come to the forums asking about something, and they get novel stuff as replies as if they would be some kind of fact, treated like the One Truth. This is a very big problem I see with the issue of 40k canon. It confuses people and evokes false ideas about consistency and conformity, enforcing things that are, if at all, mere interpretation and suggestion.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:Everything is canon, and nothing is. In other words, take from the fluff what you want to use to play the game, and leave anything that doesn't fit how you see the 40k world working.

This is something I find confusing in such statements as the blog from ADB. Whilst I could agree on the second sentence I quoted from you, all of this boils down to "nothing is canon".

Is it that people have a different idea of what canon actually is? I've come to understand that literature canon defines a solid set of rules how things in a given setting work, how they look like, what kind of events have happened and such. Rules in a way that everyone working with this setting has to respect the material considered canon and make his own writings "fit around" it without contradicting the established information. When you can "pick and choose" what you want, it is not canon, but just a repository of suggestions.
It can only be either or. There is no such thing as "everything and nothing is canon", that's an oxymoron and just beating around the bush.

Or is my understanding of the term "canon" completely wrong?

In essence, does the term "canon" refer to "established truth" or "officially suggested, non-binding interpretation"? If it is the latter, it would be a very misleading choice of word.

Harriticus wrote:Everything by GW, FW, and BL is canon. It's treated as such by the larger fan community pretty much and it really doesn't contradict each other.

Oh yes. Yes it does. Massively, at times.

Farseer Petriel wrote:If we consider only GW rules and codices as canon, we would get a really non-detailed and boring universe consisting only of war and battles (even if it is only war in the grim dark future, there are still many other things in it). There is more information about the 40k in BL books and the roleplaying game. For example, Eisenhorn series contain descriptions of everyday life in Imperium which needn't to be included in 40k rulebooks as rulebooks are and should be really only about war. So other sources besides fan ficton may be considered as canon unless they contradict codices like multilaser marines do.

I fully understand the motif behind trying to expand the setting; we'd all love to hear more details about how things work. But at the end of the day, what are they worth, if the very next author is perfectly free to disregard them? We may as well come up with our own fan ideas, they'd be just as valid. Perhaps this is what GW intended all along. But if that is so, I would find it important that licensed material would not be held in higher esteem by the community, for there's some seriously messed up stuff in some of those books. As ADB himself remarks in his blogpost, one might add.

Canon and contradiction do not fit together. I'd rather have a consistent setting with few information than continuous debates about some author's silly idea.

To clarify: I am adopting some stuff from licensed products myself where they do not contradict GW, and it is my current belief that this is pretty much "taking the best of both worlds" (consistency of the studio material, good ideas from novel and rpg writers). Yet I am fully aware that Games Workshop themselves may contradict this any day, and I would never claim these interpretations to be "canon" or have any relevance for other people. They are just one interpretation amongst many others. Licensed fan-fic, as another poster put it. Its canonicity is similar to that of one's made-up Marine Chapter, for example. Both have a right to exist in your own little world, but they do not have to mean anything for other players.

chaos0xomega wrote:I am of the opinion that ADB's thoughts are irrelevant.

Well, perhaps not irrelevant. He can not make up any rules and policies - but he obviously knows what GW lets him do, so his blog gives an interesting insight into the artistic freedom BL authors are allowed to take. And Andy Hoare who commented on it did, at least for quite a few years, work at GW.

Sanguinis wrote:ADB mentions George Lucas and the Star Wars universe in his Canon Pyramid and, much like GW, George Lucas has actually stated that his universe is the "real universe" and the rest is made up by fans and authors and therefore would be up to individual interpretation. There is only one case of George using a 3rd party story in "his universe" and that was the whole Darth Plagus story in the 3rd movie (I read this in a Star Wars trivia book, no I'm not a Star Wars nerd I just love movies).

Hmm. I pretty much agree with your assessment that GW material should be regarded as more important, as they are both the creators and the managers of the setting, determining its future evolution.

The Star Wars setting is still more orderly, though, in that the writings contained in licensed products are supposed to "fit in" to what Lucas had established as well as to what other licensed material has created before, in the hopes of creating a singular consistent setting with as few contradictions as possible. They even have an internal database and a guy trying to get any conflicts in line for this specific purpose. Sadly, this is what GW seems to be missing, and they do not seem willing to change it. As can be seen in the blog, authors of licensed products are free to contradict their peers, and at times even the studio material, which brings us to the "mess" we have now. For some of these freelance writers, like ADB and Andy Hoare and Gav Thorpe, this kind of freedom is a blessing. For others, like us geeky canon nuts, it is an eternal curse leading to much debate and argument on the forums.

What Lucas did was pretty much only reserving the right to contradict anything from the expanded universe. Though your comparison is correct in that this is how GW treats licensed material as well.
As Gav Thorpe said: "On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
This singular sentence does kind of hint at the GW books existing on another level.

Sanguinis wrote:If the 40K universe were so loosely canoned and so loosely based than really it would be anyones universe and there wouldn't be a need for a copyright in the first place, and we all know how nasty GW can be about their copyrighting...just look at poor Turn Signals on a Landraider.

Perhaps this is a result of bean-counting lawyers operating on a different level than the writers and designers who create the IP? I too still think (read: wish) that the real canon - the studio material - isn't as loose as ADB does write, but he does contradict it in his own novels, and apparently is allowed to do so. A stronger example would be stuff like the "multilaser marines" and similar things some people may regard as flawed interpretation. Maybe these books get printed because GW as a company is only interested in the profits these books make? Or is there a certain level of leeway they let their authors get away with? See also the interview with George Mann in this post.

Well as you know Lynata, my statement that BL is canon was actually a response to your statement that BL is flat out not canon. That would impose a similiar hypothetical "rule" on others. I found it quite ironic that you kept bandying about that ADB article as proof that BL is not canon when that is actually the opposite of what he is saying.
You may now believe that he is wrong and 40K follows a Star Wars type canon-pyramid but I just wanted to clear up that that is not what he was saying.

When you think about it, it's not really any different to walking into a library's History section... Theoretically, it's all 'canon'... but not all of it is accurate.


Great way to put it =o]


People seem to forget the setting itself. We are so used to seeing it from a 'god's eye point of view'. We are getting so spoiled with all the good fiction comming out that we are fighting about whats 'real' and whats 'not real'?

Choose what you like best about 40k's setting and fiction and take it from there. It's not supposed to be one long over reaching story, it's supposed to be a setting and the BL books, codeci's, etc etc are just a certian flavour. If you don't like orange pop you don't drink it, if you don't like C.S. Goto's multi laser using Space Marine you don't acknowledge its excistance.

If you are saying that because it's not in a Codex or doesn't have rules for it, it doesn't exist then what about all the Space Born chapters of marines who use corvus assault pods, just because I don't have those and don't have a space hulk model they don't exist in the 40k Universe?

If you are saying that because it's not in a Codex or doesn't have rules for it, it doesn't exist then what about all the Space Born chapters of marines who use corvus assault pods, just because I don't have those and don't have a space hulk model they don't exist in the 40k Universe?

This is in fact exactly what I am saying. Unless you are willing to play me at the wharf next to an abandoned bulk freighter, I refuse to acknowledge the presense of 40k scale space hulks.

The books are to me supplementary information, and entertaining. I always say that they are not canon, and yes I acknowledge that GW doesn't go out of it's way to establish what is and is not. But until it's included in studio material it might as well be fanfic. Pretty to look at, and an integral part of the fleshing out of the universe, but a useless canonical source.

"I love you, Son."

"I love you too Space Dad."

That was full of win. I like this guy, who is he?

Campbell1004 wrote:"I love you, Son."

"I love you too Space Dad."

That was full of win. I like this guy, who is he?

Only the best damn writter BL has ever had. =o] His blog is a rather awsome read, I believe it's a wordpress.

Campbell1004 wrote:"I love you, Son."

"I love you too Space Dad."

That was full of win. I like this guy, who is he?

Yeah, that made me lol.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well as you know Lynata, my statement that BL is canon was actually a response to your statement that BL is flat out not canon. That would impose a similiar hypothetical "rule" on others.

Not at all. It is up to everyone individually what kind of licensed material he or she may adopt into one's own perception of the setting - just like ADB does it himself! As I said, I too have assimilated some ideas from licensed material I thought compatible. The important difference is that I'm not trying to force anyone to stick to it, and that I point out where it is just one interpretation instead of studio material. And I think this should be done everywhere in order to avoid confusion.

Or, in short, I'm not imposing a hypothetical rule on anyone, I'm pointing out that something presented as a rule (some fact from some licensed source) is not. At least that's how I see it.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I found it quite ironic that you kept bandying about that ADB article as proof that BL is not canon when that is actually the opposite of what he is saying.

But that's just it, it is not the opposite, which is why I am using that blogpost as one of the sources for my analysis:
He points it out himself when he clearly states he ignores other novels on basis of his personal interpretation and preference. That is a perfect example for why BL material cannot constitute canon - else he would obviously not be allowed to do this, and simultaneously this means that the very next BL author doesn't have to adhere to what ADB wrote at all. When BL writers are perfectly free to ignore and contradict one another, what does that mean for you, the reader? How could it be considered "canon" when no-one has to respect it? It goes against the very meaning of the term.

Maybe GW material really is just as "fluid" and "non-canon" as BL (I wouldn't quite agree yet, but I do see the possibility) - but that would be another topic for another day. What I think is a problem for today is that so many people are willing to accept something as a definite fact overruling other fans' personal interpretation just because some freelance writer put it in a piece of licensed material. A lot of people are even treating that stuff as being able to override what GW themselves had established. It really is a mess, and it warps people's perception of the setting.

The end result is countless different "sub-groups" of fans who are absolutely convinced by their idea of the 40k 'verse because they read it in some novel ... when in fact it depends entirely on what novels by what author you have read. The books of C.S. Goto often get called out in such discussions, but consider how the setting of Wh40k has to look like for someone who knows it only from his novels? Or what about Mitchell and his dreadful depiction of the Sororitas?

I understand that ADB, too, still shies back from straight-out proclaiming that his novels aren't canon - in a way, that is only natural: he may feel a statement like that may "devalue" his own works, and the thought of "adding" to the 40k setting is surely very attractive. Yet that is what I meant with beating around the bush. Fortunately the entirety of the blogpost - and Andy Hoare's comment (which I also deem as quite important for this discussion!) - still give us a glimpse behind that curtain.
It's quite simply a case of "wanting to have one's cake and eating it too": The freedom to contradict other BL authors whilst establishing one's own writings as canon. But that's just not how it works. Either every BL author (including Goto and Mitchell) adds to the setting, or no-one does. And given the fact that BL authors are still free to contradict and ignore one another, it quite clearly seems to be the latter.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:You may now believe that he is wrong and 40K follows a Star Wars type canon-pyramid but I just wanted to clear up that that is not what he was saying.

Nah, that's not what I was saying. A SW-type hierarchy would still make the novels canon on some level, but as ADB himself has proven that is not the case. If the interview with George Mann (see linked thread above for details) was not falsified, it really boils down to "there is only GW and anything else doesn't matter" (at least in terms of establishing facts for the background). In that sense, the relationship between GW and BL/FW/FFG may better be compared to Star Trek - where anything on-screen is canon, and anything else isn't. Trek has lots of novels with lots of contradictions, too. But at least Trek fans are aware of that.

GW's fluff contradicts itself frequently so it really can't be canon either!

To me Mr. Dembski-Bowden seemed to be telling fans of 40k not to get angry at each other and beat our fists against our chests like gorillas arguing over what is real in a fantasy world.

Lynata wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well as you know Lynata, my statement that BL is canon was actually a response to your statement that BL is flat out not canon. That would impose a similiar hypothetical "rule" on others.

Not at all. It is up to everyone individually what kind of licensed material he or she may adopt into one's own perception of the setting - just like ADB does it himself! As I said, I too have assimilated some ideas from licensed material I thought compatible. The important difference is that I'm not trying to force anyone to stick to it, and that I point out where it is just one interpretation instead of studio material. And I think this should be done everywhere in order to avoid confusion.

Or, in short, I'm not imposing a hypothetical rule on anyone, I'm pointing out that something presented as a rule (some fact from some licensed source) is not. At least that's how I see it.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I found it quite ironic that you kept bandying about that ADB article as proof that BL is not canon when that is actually the opposite of what he is saying.

But that's just it, it is not the opposite, which is why I am using that blogpost as one of the sources for my analysis:
He points it out himself when he clearly states he ignores other novels on basis of his personal interpretation and preference. That is a perfect example for why BL material cannot constitute canon - else he would obviously not be allowed to do this, and simultaneously this means that the very next BL author doesn't have to adhere to what ADB wrote at all. When BL writers are perfectly free to ignore and contradict one another, what does that mean for you, the reader? How could it be considered "canon" when no-one has to respect it? It goes against the very meaning of the term.

Maybe GW material really is just as "fluid" and "non-canon" as BL (I wouldn't quite agree yet, but I do see the possibility) - but that would be another topic for another day. What I think is a problem for today is that so many people are willing to accept something as a definite fact overruling other fans' personal interpretation just because some freelance writer put it in a piece of licensed material. A lot of people are even treating that stuff as being able to override what GW themselves had established. It really is a mess, and it warps people's perception of the setting.

The end result is countless different "sub-groups" of fans who are absolutely convinced by their idea of the 40k 'verse because they read it in some novel ... when in fact it depends entirely on what novels by what author you have read. The books of C.S. Goto often get called out in such discussions, but consider how the setting of Wh40k has to look like for someone who knows it only from his novels? Or what about Mitchell and his dreadful depiction of the Sororitas?

I understand that ADB, too, still shies back from straight-out proclaiming that his novels aren't canon - in a way, that is only natural: he may feel a statement like that may "devalue" his own works, and the thought of "adding" to the 40k setting is surely very attractive. Yet that is what I meant with beating around the bush. Fortunately the entirety of the blogpost - and Andy Hoare's comment (which I also deem as quite important for this discussion!) - still give us a glimpse behind that curtain.
It's quite simply a case of "wanting to have one's cake and eating it too": The freedom to contradict other BL authors whilst establishing one's own writings as canon. But that's just not how it works. Either every BL author (including Goto and Mitchell) adds to the setting, or no-one does. And given the fact that BL authors are still free to contradict and ignore one another, it quite clearly seems to be the latter.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:You may now believe that he is wrong and 40K follows a Star Wars type canon-pyramid but I just wanted to clear up that that is not what he was saying.

Nah, that's not what I was saying. A SW-type hierarchy would still make the novels canon on some level, but as ADB himself has proven that is not the case. If the interview with George Mann (see linked thread above for details) was not falsified, it really boils down to "there is only GW and anything else doesn't matter" (at least in terms of establishing facts for the background). In that sense, the relationship between GW and BL/FW/FFG may better be compared to Star Trek - where anything on-screen is canon, and anything else isn't. Trek has lots of novels with lots of contradictions, too. But at least Trek fans are aware of that.

The consensus is that ADB is saying BL is canon.

You've cherry picked one sentence out of a two sentence paragraph the other half of which is: I ignore bad studio material too.
He even gives an example which you've conveniently overlooked even though you obviously did read the comments. In the latest codex the lightning in the night lords armour is REAL lightning. ADB said no, that's stupid, going with paint.

Like Star Wars the Star Trek system of canon is given as an example of what 40K is not.
Star Wars: Tiered canon
Star Trek: All OR nothing
Warhammer 40K: All AND nothing.

When, ADB and Andy Hoare talk about some of the inconsistancies in the background you seem to think it about just BL. He's talking about the whole thing.