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.

Seaward wrote:

Lynata wrote:And he drew a firm line between Black Library novels and "the world promulgated by army books and codexes", stating that the studio adopts stuff they like and simply disregards the rest.

No, he didn't, at least not in the way you're making it sound. He definitely did not say, "one is canon and the other isn't." GW's only canon policy is that they don't have a canon policy.

Exactly.

@Lynata. Oh, Andy Hoare was talking about BL alright but I know you've got that firmly ingrained in your brain already. What we're trying to get in there is that he's talking about everything else too.

I simply don't understand whats so difficult about 40k canon. Its very simple to me; GW doesn't give a crap about canon cause the 40k setting was created simply as a background for what truly matters in their greedy eyes which are mini's to sell and make a profit, thats all. Canon for the individual hobbyist is whatever they want and this is okay. But when it comes to analysis of a setting or a versus debate between 40k and Star trek, we need a canon that is agreed upon. But we run into a problem of there being no official canon and that what is canon and not canon is subjective to the individuals so the simplest solution is to simply take everything as canon and take the inconsistencies as either outliers or come up with rationalizations for them etc. Problem solved.

Sounds good to me.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Sounds good to me.

This is how we 40ker's on Spacebattles.com handle all the inconsistencies and canon problems. We take all the material and build a consensus from what is commonly found in the majority of the sources and common sense like for example; Terminators are tough but they are slow and not agile and can't back flip but C.S Goto says they can. Well, all other sources say otherwise so Goto fluff about back flipping terminators is discarded or treated as an outlier and not true to the setting. Problem solved.

We use this to create a somewhat coherent 40k setting that we use to the fullest to bash trekkies and warsies with .

Seaward wrote:He definitely did not say, "one is canon and the other isn't."

Correct - he did say, however, that there is a world which they portray via their own studio material, to which they adopt or reject ideas from BL. This sounds very much like drawing a line between the two sources, and needless to say, GW will stick to itself when writing its books. It may even be unintentional, but this is how they manage to create a modicum of consistency.

I'm also trying to bring this in line with what George Mann said, though. In essence, I've attempted to find the middle ground between a number of ambiguous and sometimes contradictory statements.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:the simplest solution is to simply take everything as canon and take the inconsistencies as either outliers or come up with rationalizations for them etc. Problem solved.

*blinks* Wouldn't the simplest solution be to stick to the source material, given that it delivers a far more uniform approach? We already know licensed material is by no means required to create or uphold consistency, which - in my opinion - pretty much disqualifies it as a source for debates. For getting to know the background, a Black Library novel is in the end nothing more than licensed quality fan-fiction with some quality control. They can't "add" to the setting as they are inherently not supposed to.

I realize that our stances are, in the end, just two different ways to deal with the same issue, but I've found that licensed material contains a lot of inconsistencies that go by unnoticed, as studio background on the more obscure subjects is often contained in sources few people have ever read (like issues of the White Dwarf or BFG magazines, but also other GW game books such as Inquisitor and Necromunda or older codices and rulebooks that contain stuff which was never retconned yet also never mentioned again). In short, I think that licensed material comes with a threat to give a lot of people a very, very wrong impression of the setting - at least compared to what the guys at GW once wrote - just because some novel is far newer and/or more popular than what an actual GW background designer wrote.

Perhaps this is why I've become so sceptical of BL/FW/FFG - I'm seeing too many people readily adopting ideas introduced there, even where they clearly run contrary to GW stuff, including the very idea behind an army/faction/item. At the same time, I like consistency and common ground, so I feel compelled to cling to a minimum of "official wording" on certain topics. So much for my motivation, anyways.

I saw in an interview that codexs, the rulebook, FFG, BL, and forgeworld stuff, are all canon and not canon at the same time...

It wouldn't be much fun to write you're own book if you basically had to be babysat by a matt ward.......

also...what up with Goto and the back flipping terminators????

As a rule I just say take it all as canon and deal with it on a case by case basis. Considering that old fluff will get periodically resurrected in some form or another, you can generally count on it all counting in some way or another. There's enough ambiguity, variation, and general wiggle room that you can usually explain something away without bending over backwards too much. Worrying about what is and isn't canon for me has always been a headache and it always tends to come down to personal preference anyhow.

Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:the simplest solution is to simply take everything as canon and take the inconsistencies as either outliers or come up with rationalizations for them etc. Problem solved.

*blinks* Wouldn't the simplest solution be to stick to the source material, given that it delivers a far more uniform approach? We already know licensed material is by no means required to create or uphold consistency, which - in my opinion - pretty much disqualifies it as a source for debates. For getting to know the background, a Black Library novel is in the end nothing more than licensed quality fan-fiction with some quality control. They can't "add" to the setting as they are inherently not supposed to.

I realize that our stances are, in the end, just two different ways to deal with the same issue, but I've found that licensed material contains a lot of inconsistencies that go by unnoticed, as studio background on the more obscure subjects is often contained in sources few people have ever read (like issues of the White Dwarf or BFG magazines, but also other GW game books such as Inquisitor and Necromunda or older codices and rulebooks that contain stuff which was never retconned yet also never mentioned again). In short, I think that licensed material comes with a threat to give a lot of people a very, very wrong impression of the setting - at least compared to what the guys at GW once wrote - just because some novel is far newer and/or more popular than what an actual GW background designer wrote.

Perhaps this is why I've become so sceptical of BL/FW/FFG - I'm seeing too many people readily adopting ideas introduced there, even where they clearly run contrary to GW stuff, including the very idea behind an army/faction/item. At the same time, I like consistency and common ground, so I feel compelled to cling to a minimum of "official wording" on certain topics. So much for my motivation, anyways.

No, I get the feeling that you simply want only the Codex to exist and feth everything else which unfortunately for you, there are people who don't play the game but love the background and codex background is useless for them. Tough luck.

feth change, right. The background has to stay the same. Change is bad, its not like a fresh background is good. Stale background is not boring

bombboy1252 wrote:
also...what up with Goto and the back flipping terminators????

He is the Matt Ward of BL fluff but he doesn't reach Matt Ward's level.

Lynata wrote:Correct - he did say, however, that there is a world which they portray via their own studio material, to which they adopt or reject ideas from BL. This sounds very much like drawing a line between the two sources, and needless to say, GW will stick to itself when writing its books. It may even be unintentional, but this is how they manage to create a modicum of consistency.

Consistency? So Space Marines are still drugged-up convicts, eh? GW changes its fluff all the time, which is what makes this desperate search for canon of yours so hilarious to begin with. BL has said it isn't beholden to using GW ideas and GW has said it isn't beholden to using BL ideas. That's not exactly earth-shaking, because - wait for it - GW doesn't have a canon policy.

I'm also trying to bring this in line with what George Mann said, though. In essence, I've attempted to find the middle ground between a number of ambiguous and sometimes contradictory statements.

That's some forum dude doing a recap of what a bunch of other people said. With respect, I'd like to stick to sourced quotations, rather than somebody who went to a shareholders' meeting in 2008 and says, "X said Y about Z."

*blinks* Wouldn't the simplest solution be to stick to the source material, given that it delivers a far more uniform approach? We already know licensed material is by no means required to create or uphold consistency, which - in my opinion - pretty much disqualifies it as a source for debates. For getting to know the background, a Black Library novel is in the end nothing more than licensed quality fan-fiction with some quality control. They can't "add" to the setting as they are inherently not supposed to.

The Horus Heresy series sort of blows that whole little theory out of the water, I'm afraid. They're doing a far more massive addition to the background of 40K than anybody has in quite a while with that novel line. And they're doing it far better than crap like Kaldor Draigo and the Blood Angels and Necrons exchanging Valentine's cards. You can continue to call the studio material consistent if you want to, but while we're on the topic of licensed fan fiction, that's essentially what a lot of it reads like. Is it canon? Yes. But no more and no less than anything else, according to any public statement ever made on the subject.

I figure it's time I posted to clear up some misconceptions.

On the topic of fluff, what I siad is that fluff is basically not cannon, the only thing we know is what is in codexes and the rulebook. I'm saying that what isn't in the codexes/ rulebook, isn't true, I'm saying you can't really use it as a basis for an arguement. Or even better, because "non-standard" fluff is so inconsistant, it's better to rely on the standard GW literature (codex/ rulebook) to clean up inconsistancies.

NOTE: This is not directed at a particular thread, and I'm not being condescending. There are so many discrepencies of the sort. If you think I'm condescending, take your feelings of inferiority somewhere else.

Once again, if you get shot with an AK-47, and then an MP-5, your really aren't going to be thinking about the difference in damage, now are you? It's all technicalities in the end. If you get shot be a weapon meant to kill, in practice it's the same. You can't accuratley figure in velocity/ body armor as you can't isolate the variables, there's to many.

Mustela wrote:I figure it's time I posted to clear up some misconceptions.

On the topic of fluff, what I siad is that fluff is basically not cannon, the only thing we know is what is in codexes and the rulebook. I'm saying that what isn't in the codexes/ rulebook, isn't true, I'm saying you can't really use it as a basis for an arguement. Or even better, because "non-standard" fluff is so inconsistant, it's better to rely on the standard GW literature (codex/ rulebook) to clean up inconsistancies.

NOTE: This is not directed at a particular thread, and I'm not being condescending. There are so many discrepencies of the sort. If you think I'm condescending, take your feelings of inferiority somewhere else.

Once again, if you get shot with an AK-47, and then an MP-5, your really aren't going to be thinking about the difference in damage, now are you? It's all technicalities in the end. If you get shot be a weapon meant to kill, in practice it's the same. You can't accuratley figure in velocity/ body armor as you can't isolate the variables, there's to many.

But the codexes are also inconsistent seeing as they keep changing the fluff every so often and if we throw out all fluff and just have codex stuff. You crap on a lot of 40kers who don't care about the TT, they love the fluff and the universe not the game itself.

As for what you're saying about AK-47 and what not. We can figure out stuff like that, its just hard to do and as long as you have some variables. Does any one even read the links I posted? There was a 40k anaylysis that use codex, Imperial armor and novel fluff to find out variables and figures.

Which is strange, because most Codices don't exactly portray the facts a lot of the time. Most of them contain a huge amount of propaganda, character fluff, and myths believed by the faction. If anything, they're LESS accurate that Black Library, which essentially gives an account of what exactly happened more or less. They have some propaganda, yes, but it's more perspective that causes issues. To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure the whole 'artistic license' business is a non-point. The majority of Black Library authors will look to what the studio produces before tweaking things, and even then, there's little inconsistency from what I've read.
Someone on Dakka once posted something that really stuck in my mind. If the fluff is a huge pie, the Codices, Rulebook etc. give a very broad but very shallow piece of the pie. Black Library and the like, are small, deep pieces of the pie. The metaphor was made to separate the Codices and Black Library. I thought "that's great", but also thought, why make the distinction? Why not have the whole pie? Pie is delicious! And this pie is made out of 40k for Christ's sake!

Corporal_Reznov wrote:No, I get the feeling that you simply want only the Codex to exist and feth everything else which unfortunately for you, there are people who don't play the game but love the background and codex background is useless for them. Tough luck.

What does that have to do with anything? Personally, I want a consistent background - I don't care where it comes from, but the licensed material simply does evidently and intentionally not deliver in that regard. If I'd be only about the game I wouldn't make such an effort to get my hands on outdated codices and rulebooks or age-old issues of White Dwarf just because they have some piece of SoB fluff in them, or read the Inquisitor, BFG and Necromunda RPG books. Hell, I wouldn't even bother posting in this sub-forum. It is because of my love for the background that I've started discarding licensed material as a source since about a year ago, since I got fed up with some mercenary writers producing contradictions because they didn't bother to to their research or simply thought their interpretation, based on their individual personal preferences, was better than what GW came up with.

Yes, I dislike change. I much prefer if the setting is expanded upon in ways that don't burst the established frameworks. I don't like the background of 40k because I enjoy the TT, I like both the TT and 40k because I like the background. Why should I be happy about changes that make it look different than what I "grew up with"?

Corporal_Reznov wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:also...what up with Goto and the back flipping terminators????

He is the Matt Ward of BL fluff but he doesn't reach Matt Ward's level.

I think both are covering different areas. One is big on power-creep and Mary-Sues, the other messes with established background details. In fairness, however, Goto fully intends to "challenge accepted authorities" and "play with the conventions" (quotes from his website, btw), not because he simply doesn't know better. Guy gets too much flak, really, which is a shame since he actually seems like a good person. This is only made worse by the willingness of people to believe anything without a minimum of double-checking - for example, while his Tactical Marines did wield Multilasers, he never let them stick one on top of a Carnifex. You'd be surprised, however, how many people do believe the latter just because someone somewhere posted it as a joke. Goes to show how the fandom works, and is a great example how many other conventions ("Marines are all 9+ feet big", "BA got their Codex shortly after the WD one", "everything 40k is canon") must have become more or less established depending on which sub-community of the fandom you're looking at.

Seaward wrote:Consistency? So Space Marines are still drugged-up convicts, eh? GW changes its fluff all the time, which is what makes this desperate search for canon of yours so hilarious to begin with.

Eh, the major changes from 1st to 2nd edition aren't exactly "all the time" - and contrary to popular belief, there's still a lot of stuff even from the Rogue Trader era that was either never changed (by studio material) and/or that was actually outright confirmed in later sources. And yes, every major franchise does retcons, regardless of if it has a canon policy or not. My point is that I can accept GW doing retcons from time to time, but not some license holder all the time ("many cooks" etc). I'm a stickler for common ground and consistency, so accepting studio material as "canon" is pretty much my happy medium - it grants me a framework that still seems to be generally accepted and thus can be talked about. If people around here ask for fluff, I give them what I found in codices and rulebooks, etc. You may deem it "hilarious", but a number of users seemed to appreciate it.

And, for the record, some of the more obscure stuff is really awesome. It should come to no surprise that the writers at GW are far better at capturing the spirit of one of the armies - given that they're the same ones who came up with it in the first place. Even though a number of old writers have left the studio by now, so this is something else I feel to be threatened. I'm not sure if their successors will be able to keep the essence intact, so to say. For the moment, a thankfully large amount of fluff is still lifted or paraphrased from older studio books, even when written by other people...

Seaward wrote:With respect, I'd like to stick to sourced quotations, rather than somebody who went to a shareholders' meeting in 2008 and says, "X said Y about Z."

Me too, but at least the original poster was a regular Dakkanaut with his own shop, who doesn't seem to have any interest on this particular subject itself and as such should possess a neutral opinion. I'd much rather prefer a blogpost or an official website statement or something like that myself - but such things seem to be painfully rare.
I would just as much prefer the sourced quotations to be less ambiguous, though. As I said, I can certainly see the possibility of there not being any canon at all, I'd just like to have something more solid until I'm adopting this stance myself. The available comments can be interpreted in two ways, and due to my own personal preferences it should not be surprising when I lean towards a particular one.

I've already gotten so far - either give me more time or dig up some more quotes yourself if you really want to help. Stating the same personal opinion again and again is something I can do myself, as demonstrated.

Seaward wrote:The Horus Heresy series sort of blows that whole little theory out of the water, I'm afraid.

And the Horus Heresy series is a new experiment, not the standard by far. Given how BL operates, it never will be.

Also:

Mustela wrote:On the topic of fluff, what I siad is that fluff is basically not cannon, the only thing we know is what is in codexes and the rulebook. I'm saying that what isn't in the codexes/ rulebook, isn't true, I'm saying you can't really use it as a basis for an arguement. Or even better, because "non-standard" fluff is so inconsistant, it's better to rely on the standard GW literature (codex/ rulebook) to clean up inconsistancies.

This. A thousand times this. I'm adopting stuff from licensed material myself, but with my current stance I'd never consider "forcing" it upon others.

I will give an example. The Nids were once stated to use warp travel before 5th edition by fluff from either the codexes or some other sources of that level. Thus the novels followed it but now with 5th edition the Nids no longer use warp travel which make the novels wrong for that. But its not BL's fault as GW keps changing the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:No, I get the feeling that you simply want only the Codex to exist and feth everything else which unfortunately for you, there are people who don't play the game but love the background and codex background is useless for them. Tough luck.

What does that have to do with anything? Personally, I want a consistent background - I don't care where it comes from, but the licensed material simply does evidently and intentionally not deliver in that regard. If I'd be only about the game I wouldn't make such an effort to get my hands on outdated codices and rulebooks or age-old issues of White Dwarf just because they have some piece of SoB fluff in them, or read the Inquisitor, BFG and Necromunda RPG books. Hell, I wouldn't even bother posting in this sub-forum. It is because of my love for the background that I've started discarding licensed material as a source since about a year ago, since I got fed up with some mercenary writers producing contradictions because they didn't bother to to their research or simply thought their interpretation, based on their individual personal preferences, was better than what GW came up with.

Yes, I dislike change. I much prefer if the setting is expanded upon in ways that don't burst the established frameworks. I don't like the background of 40k because I enjoy the TT, I like both the TT and 40k because I like the background. Why should I be happy about changes that make it look different than what I "grew up with"?

So your basically whining. What are these great inconsistencies that irritate you so that can't be handwaved away by rationalizations?

Codexes heave great crap upon 40k but because they are codexes they are accepted but if a novel has some inconsistencies here and there. Oh unleash the great fluff hounds of rage .

Corporal_Reznov wrote:So your basically whining. What are these great inconsistencies that irritate you so that can't be handwaved away by rationalizations?

If "criticism" equals "whining" for you, then yes, I am whining. Obviously the impact of such a topic greatly depends on the individual, big surprise there.

I think the contradictions currently bothering me the most are stuff like how the Sisters get shat upon in such a large amount of licensed material - and I'm not just talking about them getting killed all the time a la GW, I'm talking about violating the very spirit of the army like it happened in the Cain novels or Redemption Corps Or how suddenly people think even Inquisitors are wielding lesser, "civilian" plasma pistols because of FFG's RPG (which doesn't add up with GW's own Inquisitor RPG, but details, eh?). Or how Astartes get hyped to demigod status due to 50% of BL's 40k books using the Movie Marines approach. Yeah, in GW's world, Guardsmen can strangle them with nothing more than a string of roots. Deal with that.

GW <-> licensed material too often feels like two different worlds to me, and it gets irritating when people try to talk about it as if it were one.

Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:So your basically whining. What are these great inconsistencies that irritate you so that can't be handwaved away by rationalizations?

If "criticism" equals "whining" for you, then yes, I am whining. Obviously the impact of such a topic greatly depends on the individual, big surprise there.

It is whining cause you basically stated you dislike change so you hate the changes that are happening in 40k thats why you dislike fluff so much. I am speaking on this topic cause if I find a thread you have posted on, you keep repeating your opinion non-stop with a smug attitude and it annoys me.

I think the contradictions currently bothering me the most are stuff like how the Sisters get shat upon in such a large amount of licensed material - and I'm not just talking about them getting killed all the time a la GW,

The Sisters of Battle have been getting gak upon the most by Ward who writes for a Codex but lets ignore that, right? Its obviously the fault of the evil BL/FFG fluff.

I'm talking about violating the very spirit of the army like it happened in the Cain novels or Redemption Corps Or how suddenly people think even Inquisitors are wielding lesser, "civilian" plasma pistols because of FFG's RPG (which doesn't add up with GW's own Inquisitor RPG, but details, eh?).

Ever heard the term 'undercover'? The Inquisitor could be using civilian stuff to avoid attracting attention, personal preference etc. Also so called 'civilian' weapons in 40k is a pretty broad term seeing as civilians through the black market, criminals, illegal good stores or through manufacturing can get themselves armed with either military or near military hardware. This happens in our world so why not 40k.

Or how Astartes get hyped to demigod status due to 50% of BL's 40k books using the Movie Marines approach. Yeah, in GW's world, Guardsmen can strangle them with nothing more than a string of roots. Deal with that.

GW <-> licensed material too often feels like two different worlds to me, and it gets irritating when people try to talk about it as if it were one.

So your using game mechanics now? Do you seriously think a person who has been upgraded up the wazoo to be beaten by a normal average human without extenuating circumstances happening. I can see now what would make you happy. You want there to be no fluff just game mechanics.

iproxtaco wrote:Which is strange, because most Codices don't exactly portray the facts a lot of the time. Most of them contain a huge amount of propaganda, character fluff, and myths believed by the faction. If anything, they're LESS accurate that Black Library, which essentially gives an account of what exactly happened more or less. They have some propaganda, yes, but it's more perspective that causes issues. To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure the whole 'artistic license' business is a non-point. The majority of Black Library authors will look to what the studio produces before tweaking things, and even then, there's little inconsistency from what I've read.

Actually the codexes provide quite a bit of data from time to time in the fluff, it just depends on where you look. Case in point would be the 5th edition rulebook with the planet type listings and the data on hive worlds. THere's nothing ambiguous about that. And there are always the Imperial Armour stats It's actually not hard to find data to crunch numbers from, the problem is usually trying to find those numbers repeated.

Also the novels aren't neccesarily immune from the "propoganda/myth" angle either. The difference between codexes is that they usually provide an "up top looking down" perspective.. they're from the point of view you would have of the faction or universe as a whole. Novels are more intimate - they provide you a glimpse at things from the in character perspective, which is more.. local. Both are important, given the way 40K is setup (what happens on one world, one sector, one segmentum may not be true in another, and what one character in a novel believes may not hold true for the Imperium at large, etc. and those in charge have a limited view of things down below.) EX: The authorities (EG like the high lords) can only set broad rules to go by, but they have to let those at the lower tiers (Sector, planetary, etc.) on the sharp end make the decisions and ensure things get carried out - and the way that they do so may not mesh with the way the higher ups (or bureacracts, or whatever.) envision.

And again as far as canon goes, I dislike to rely too heavily on it simply because canon is prone to change with time, and the sorts of things that are canon one day may not be the next. When you factor in old data and concepts that constantly resurface in modern times, authors who were/are codex writers and vice versa, the fact codex stuff creeps into novels and novel stuff creeps into codexes.. it all gets very muddy and confusing and complicated.

A good example: 5th Edition SM Codex and the whole "Scions of Guilliman" thing that kicks all the rest of the non Guilliman descended chapters, or the way they imply alternately more than half in some cases or more than 3/4 of the Space Marine Chapters are Ultramarines descneded... that's clearly hyperbole and its something that not only would other Chapters disagree with (how would the Black Templars or Space Wolves feel?) it probably isn't true, given we know in that same book they say an accurate estimate of the number of Chapters can't be had (so how do they know the ratios?)

Lynata wrote:
I would just as much prefer the sourced quotations to be less ambiguous, though. As I said, I can certainly see the possibility of there not being any canon at all, I'd just like to have something more solid until I'm adopting this stance myself. The available comments can be interpreted in two ways, and due to my own personal preferences it should not be surprising when I lean towards a particular one.

I've already gotten so far - either give me more time or dig up some more quotes yourself if you really want to help. Stating the same personal opinion again and again is something I can do myself, as demonstrated.

There isn't ambiguity in the statements; there's not a lot of room for interpretation. They're simply not telling you what you want to hear.

Gav Thorpe wrote:Often folks ask if Black Library books are ‘canon’. With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy.

Seaward wrote:

Lynata wrote:
I would just as much prefer the sourced quotations to be less ambiguous, though. As I said, I can certainly see the possibility of there not being any canon at all, I'd just like to have something more solid until I'm adopting this stance myself. The available comments can be interpreted in two ways, and due to my own personal preferences it should not be surprising when I lean towards a particular one.

I've already gotten so far - either give me more time or dig up some more quotes yourself if you really want to help. Stating the same personal opinion again and again is something I can do myself, as demonstrated.

There isn't ambiguity in the statements; there's not a lot of room for interpretation. They're simply not telling you what you want to hear.

Gav Thorpe wrote:Often folks ask if Black Library books are ‘canon’. With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy.

Pwned!! You win Seaward . I have already stated this^, as far as GW is concerned there is no canon. Its just that we create one so we can analyze, debate and other such activities. And the easiest way to do that is to simply take everything as canon and find out which is truth and not propaganda via analysis and consensus. Otherwise what is canon is up to the individual as personalized canon.

Lynata wrote:
I think the contradictions currently bothering me the most are stuff like how the Sisters get shat upon in such a large amount of licensed material - and I'm not just talking about them getting killed all the time a la GW, I'm talking about violating the very spirit of the army like it happened in the Cain novels or Redemption Corps Or how suddenly people think even Inquisitors are wielding lesser, "civilian" plasma pistols because of FFG's RPG (which doesn't add up with GW's own Inquisitor RPG, but details, eh?). Or how Astartes get hyped to demigod status due to 50% of BL's 40k books using the Movie Marines approach. Yeah, in GW's world, Guardsmen can strangle them with nothing more than a string of roots. Deal with that.

GW <-> licensed material too often feels like two different worlds to me, and it gets irritating when people try to talk about it as if it were one.

Y'know, GW's even more guilty of using the Movie Marine approach - and if you disagree, there's a gent named Kaldor Draigo who'd like to have a chat with you as he wages his one-man battle against the Warp, destroying all in his path, including Daemon Primarchs. Or Mr. Darnath Lysander, known for being tortured for a month in an Iron Warriors fortress before escaping, naked, using nothing more than his bare hands and dong to carve his way out of a Chaos warband's stronghold. Or Monsieur Calgar, Golden Gloves winner thanks to his boxing match with an Avatar.

As far as Draigo, he also may or may not - I can't recall - have been part of the Grey Knights contingent that slaughtered Sisters just to make bitchin' cocktails with their blood.

I get that you want a coordinated, logical canon, but Games Workshop doesn't. There's nothing to indicate that they do - anywhere. They take cool ideas and chuck them into codices, and abandon ideas they no longer find cool. They revamp and rewrite and rework countless concepts. The Blood Angels as Space Vampires, for example, is, comparatively, on its way out compared to earlier codices, while their new identity as Super Secret Snuggle Pals with the Necrons is, frankly, atrocious, and as great a violation of the "spirit of the army" as anything else you'd care to name. Are the Black Templars the most fanatically devoted servants of the Emperor? Their codex says so, yet we know this can't be the case, because the Grey Knights book makes it clear they're the only chapter never to have members fall to Chaos. Contradictions abound in GW fluff. It would be great if they had a higher standard of consistency, if everybody got together and agreed on everything before they threw their own personal fanwank into rulebooks, but pretending that happens doesn't make it so.

Anyone a Halo fan here? ask a Halo fan - especially if they've read novels - and they can tell you stories about "Canon" (Halo: Fall of REach and Halo: Reach come to mind...)

There's also the "Canon" in the Star Wars universe, which has changed quite a bit over the years (most recent iteration is the GTCSN thing, where everything is mostly Lucas-centric.. as if we can know the mind of George Lucas...)

I prefer to think of 40K canon as being "everything has a place. It might be a small out of the way place in some cases, but there is a place." Because its a big, messy, muddled and confusing universe.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:It is whining cause you basically stated you dislike change so you hate the changes that are happening in 40k thats why you dislike fluff so much. I am speaking on this topic cause if I find a thread you have posted on, you keep repeating your opinion non-stop with a smug attitude and it annoys me.

From my experience, the vast majority of people who are seriously argueing on this controversial topic has a smug attitude or is at least perceived as such - it comes with firmly believing in one's opinion/interpretation.

And stop trying to push me into a "fluff hater" corner just because I've got a different opinion on how proper fluff looks like, please.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:The Sisters of Battle have been getting gak upon the most by Ward who writes for a Codex but lets ignore that, right? Its obviously the fault of the evil BL/FFG fluff.

Either you don't know a lot about the Sisters' portrayal in studio material (few people do, it's simply not a popular faction) or you have not read the novels I mentioned.

Corporal_Reznov wrote:Ever heard the term 'undercover'?

Ever heard the term 'armory'? Astartes-grade stuff is flat out not available to them there, regardless of what they do. I'd wager no Inquisitor going undercover would don Terminator armour, too. In terms of equipment, FFG's RPG simply draws a firm line between normal humans and Marines that did not exist before, nay, was actually clearly contradicted in studio material, including GW's own take on such a game. In the same vein they make these "civilian" bolt weapons so widespread that even PDF troopers have them issued. I'm sorry, but to me that just doesn't mesh well with what I read before.

Corporal_Reznov wrote: So your using game mechanics now? Do you seriously think a person who has been upgraded up the wazoo to be beaten by a normal average human without extenuating circumstances happening. I can see now what would make you happy. You want there to be no fluff just game mechanics.

I'm referring to an incident that has happened in fluff, completely independent from any game mechanics. Read up on it in the Planetstrike Codex, the section on Glorious Battles... Now, I wouldn't call Straken a normal average human, but he is still a human.

Props for jumping to conclusions that fast, though!

I'll abandon thread, we won't be getting anywhere here either. I've made my position clear - any more would just be wasting the time of both of us.

[edit]

Seaward wrote:

Gav Thorpe wrote:Often folks ask if Black Library books are ‘canon’. With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy.

I'll revisit that blog post for context and think about this some. Thanks for singling this out, this may indeed be an important sentence.

Lynata wrote:

Corporal_Reznov wrote:It is whining cause you basically stated you dislike change so you hate the changes that are happening in 40k thats why you dislike fluff so much. I am speaking on this topic cause if I find a thread you have posted on, you keep repeating your opinion non-stop with a smug attitude and it annoys me.

From my experience, the vast majority of people who are seriously argueing on this controversial topic has a smug attitude or is at least perceived as such - it comes with firmly believing in one's opinion/interpretation.

And stop trying to push me into a "fluff hater" corner just because I've got a different opinion on how proper fluff looks like, please.

I call you this cause I have the feeling that if you had your way. Everything BL and FFG have created would be thrown into the trash bin and you would enforce your way on everyone. The way GW is handling fluff is perfect as is. It allows people to believe what they want to believe, why change it?

Either you don't know a lot about the Sisters' portrayal in studio material (few people do, it's simply not a popular faction) or you have not read the novels I mentioned.

Have they been consistently killed every time and turned into blood coating? If not, then its not being gak upon otherwise give a quote.

Ever heard the term 'armory'? Astartes-grade stuff is flat out not available to them there, regardless of what they do. I'd wager no Inquisitor going undercover would don Terminator armour, too. In terms of equipment, FFG's RPG simply draws a firm line between normal humans and Marines that did not exist before, nay, was actually clearly contradicted in studio material, including GW's own take on such a game. In the same vein they make these "civilian" bolt weapons so widespread that even PDF troopers have them issued. I'm sorry, but to me that just doesn't mesh well with what I read before.

What? First you're talking about Inquisitors with 'civilian' weapons and now terminator suits. Make up your mind on what the hell you're talking about. Whats the problem with the FFG fluff about weapons when it comes to Astartes? Have you even seen Astartes weapons? They're huge compared to a normal human hand.

PDF troops can be well equipped if the one who funds them is willing to flip the bill. So where is the contradiction again?

I'm referring to an incident that has happened in fluff, completely independent from any game mechanics. Read up on it in the Planetstrike Codex, the section on Glorious Battles... Now, I wouldn't call Straken a normal average human, but he is still a human.

Props for jumping to conclusions that fast, though!

I'll abandon thread, we won't be getting anywhere here either. I've made my position clear - any more would just be wasting the time of both of us.

Give a source on what happened.BTW nice ignoring from you about how GW and how they are also waking marine harder than the other fluff sources. Its very classy(no, its fail ).

Connor MacLeod wrote:
There's also the "Canon" in the Star Wars universe, which has changed quite a bit over the years (most recent iteration is the GTCSN thing, where everything is mostly Lucas-centric.. as if we can know the mind of George Lucas...)

Tell me about it.

I was a rabid Star Wars fan, had all the books, memorised them and loved them.

Then Lucas happened, his quest form money caused him to allow terrible authors to write expanded universe novels.
He signed them all off as Canon and then threw them all (bad and extremely good) in the bin and shat all over my memories with his own origin story.

I wanted to kill him with my bare hands.

He made a load of money from me buying those books, after they killed Chewie with a moon I mugged him off.
I didn't even go and see the prequels at the cinema (after the horror that was my 00:01hrs viewing of the first one).


The absolute worst thing is Lucas going back to change things later.

Han Solo fired first damn it!

As GW themselves have said the Horus Heresy is the most tightly controlled project editorially that Warhammer has ever embarked on. So maybe only BL is cannon and nothing else is. If we're going to pick and choose our canon simply based on source and not using our brains, that's as good a reason as any.

Every source (FFG, Forge World, BL, etc.) can be argued to have their basis in the novels - inspired if you will. But by that same token, Forge World and BL Both have influenced the codexes in some way or another (or at least BL has - look at the Tanith First and Gaunt.) Forge World has influenced BL as well. FFG has been influenced by all of the above and is starting to influence BL as well (ship sizes mentioned in Rogue TRader are creeping into the novels.) Everything is intertwined closely, and I don't see how you can argue one source is canonical and another one isn't. Codexes might be more "canon" because they are the starting point, but that would be about it.

Besides I doubt you could come up with canon that would satisfy everyone. some people like Forge World better than BL, or FFG better than Forge World, or may not like any of it at al and only go with the Codexes. Given that it seems best to focus on the specific examples on a case by case basis. (EG the "scions of Gulliman thing could be dismissed - not only does it sound blatantly like propoganda, but one could argue that it treats the Ultramarines as violating the Codex Astartes by circumventing the Chapter size restrictions and resurrecting the old Legions.) But I would not toss out the entire codex because there are some geninuenly neat and interesting things in it. (Same is true of Forge World stuff, BL stuff, etc.)