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.

Having played 40k for over 20 years, I've seen new fluff come (Necrons, Sisters), old fluff go (Squats), and fluff change (Necrons again). What with all the retconning and story changes, there isn't much that is considered canon.

So my question is this: Has GW actually come out and said that the Horus Heresy books are official 40k canon?

Canon in 40k is an urban myth. It took me years to realise this, just because so many fans have adopted this stance without critically scrutinising its origin.

"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
-- Gav Thorpe

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
-- Andy Hoare

"There is no canon. There's a variety of sources, many of which conflict, but every single one is a lens through which we can see the 40K setting."
-- Aaron Dembski-Bowden

Two of these three people also wrote on the Horus Heresy novels. If you like them, go ahead and adopt them for your personal interpretation of the 41st millennium. Just do not expect references or preserved continuity outside these books (I still have to see "Sisters of Silence" being mentioned in a single GW book, for example). Not saying it cannot happen, mind you. GW has adopted a number of things from Black Library novels in the past. Just don't expect it.

That's much more helpful than a straight up "yes" or "no." Thanks.

You're quite welcome. Ever since my "epiphany", I'm pushing out these quotes like I am on a crusade.

I should add that I vaguely recall someone mentioning one of the head-honchos from GW supposedly describing the Horus Heresy novel series as "the definite account" (or some such wording) of what happened, buuut I never saw the original source for that statement, and I have become rather careful regarding hearsay on anything 40k.

Basically what lynata said is an EXCELLENT summarisation of canon within 40K.

Although some seem to use that as an excuse to try and debunk anything written or criticise "what if" type threads...
I think it should be mentioned that for most 40K players, the HH novels seem to be considered Canon.

For me, canon is whatever's newest and/or most in-depth (also least contradictory). As little else covers the 30k era or is as new or fleshed out as the HH series, I treat it as canon.

If there was "no canon" in 40k we'd have the Emperor walking around in M41, religious tolerance in the Imperium, peaceful philosophical Orks, talking Tyranids, and so on. No, there is a loose canon and setting established by GW but each author treats this setting differently.

The general jist of the Horus Heresy does have a canon to it. Horus was the Warmaster and most beloved of the Emperor's sons. He turned against the Emperor and took the traitor Primarchs with him. He was killed in the Battle of Terra after killing Sanguinius and mauling the Emperor. The BL 40k books have gone to a level of detail to the Heresy that defies over-arching standard GW canon though.

I think that Lynata hit it on the head with one small addendum. There are fixed things that had to happen. I.E the betrayal of Horus, the felling of the Emperor, rise of the imperial cult, the splitting of the legions, and stuff like that. But as to the how and whys of it is where Lynata's theory comes in.

 Lynata wrote:


"There is no canon. There's a variety of sources, many of which conflict, but every single one is a lens through which we can see the 40K setting."
-- Aaron Dembski-Bowden

I like that quote, sums up the conflicts and POV of the different codexs rather well

 Lynata wrote:
Canon in 40k is an urban myth. It took me years to realise this, just because so many fans have adopted this stance without critically scrutinising its origin.

"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
-- Gav Thorpe

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
-- Andy Hoare

"There is no canon. There's a variety of sources, many of which conflict, but every single one is a lens through which we can see the 40K setting."
-- Aaron Dembski-Bowden

Two of these three people also wrote on the Horus Heresy novels. If you like them, go ahead and adopt them for your personal interpretation of the 41st millennium. Just do not expect references or preserved continuity outside these books (I still have to see "Sisters of Silence" being mentioned in a single GW book, for example). Not saying it cannot happen, mind you. GW has adopted a number of things from Black Library novels in the past. Just don't expect it.

PRECISELY. I've been trying to tell this to people who insist that they should do random crap like making Stormtroopers WS4 because it's 'fluffy' for YEARS.