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.

Hi All!

Just a quick introduction... First time poster here, been playing 40k for almost 10 years (wow that's almost sad... or is it sad? Maybe a poll for another day. ) and play Tyranids and Dark Angels. I've been lurking in the background of Dakka for a while now, thought it time to reveal myself, and in doing so, bring more Bugs to the forums! NomNomNOM!

Anyway...

The question's in the subject title... Do you consider Black Library material official 40k fluff/cannon?

I was reading a thread here on Dakka about Space Wolves and how awesomely (or no so awesomely) Wolfy their codex has become, and I stumbled across this...

Black Library has been known to get names wrong, and you want to use it as canon? Seriously? Black Library isn't fluff. Fluff is presented in official sources: Codecies, Rule Books, White Dwarf. That's pretty much it.

This surprised me, and it wasn't the only comment stating such. Now IMO, the Black Library is an official source of 40k fluff... The GW logo is plastered all over them and the HH series of books seem to be a compilation of what all the legions and allies were up to (despite your opinion of the assorted authors and their writing styles, it looks like these are THE source of HH information ATM... and personally, I really liked them!)

So, what is your opinion? And specifically, if you voted No, can you give me a coherent explanation as to why? (I realise I'm on the net, so coherent often loses all meaning, but people can surprise you! )



P.S. I want a BL book portraying a successful Tyranid invasion on a planet/solar system/entire sector! I know it would have to be written from a person perspective, but the fragmented distress calls from physically and mentally broken Guardsmen would be a great read!


P.P.S. Scratch that, I want a Black Library Tyranid book from a Hormagaunts perspective...
Ch1: Nomnomnom...
Ch2: Nom nom NOM!
Ch3: Severed Synapse Connection Is there more to life then just food and eating said food?
Ch4: Synapse Connection Re-Established NOM NOM NOM!!
Ch5: NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM!!!
Ch6: The digestion pool and you!

Yes, but I do mention that the author of the Dawn of War books does not count, he should be burnt on a Stake

Hmmm... a story on a successful planet raid by Tyranids? Would be good to read about how the xeno dirtbags took Sotha, what with the Scythes Of The Emperor being my boys an' all that. Of course you realise that some of us escaped? I always welcome a fight with the 'Nids!
As to the OP? I'd say yes too, and I'd also agree with physcosamatic on The Author Who Shall Not Be Named. Terrible!

The problem with your question is that it's actually two seperate ones.

Fluff, to me, is the background stories and history. So the background stories published by BL are, can be considered fluff.

Canon, on the other hand, is cast iron fact. Which is not true of BL. The official stance on canon from BL is "Yes, no, maybe" seperately and all together.

Just because the GW logo is on the books does not make it canon.

You can tell I voted for the third option

Andrew

I believe the two enterties should strive for the same goal. No point releasing book after book with 40k all over it if it's contents do not relate to the 40k game and vice versa.
The books generally dipict a very different war to that of the game, lots more skirmish and smaller battles, and marines for one appear to be much stronger and harder to kill then the reallity of the game. But i do feel the basic story and time line of events should marry up between the game and the books. Otherwise the whole thing just becomes a confusing mess.

I voted yes. I see thee books as fluff and canon (as far as the two terms can be used in the wishy-washy 40k universe). I don't really see why someone would say otherwise, considering Black Library is a division of GW and creates products for the purpose of fluff. If fluff sometimes contradicts, then chalk it up to 40k hearsay or propaganda. If you don't like an author, tough luck. Sometimes codices are written weird, but they're still the rules.

That being said, the line does get fuzzy sometimes, so we have to ability to choose what we accept as canon in the universe. I personally like to get my hands on fluff of any kind and will accept things most people consider non-fluff, such as the video games (except the multiple endings).

Yes they are. There's no reason not to treat them as Cannon (except goto).

Fiend wrote:That being said, the line does get fuzzy sometimes, so we have to ability to choose what we accept as canon in the universe. I personally like to get my hands on fluff of any kind and will accept things most people consider non-fluff, such as the video games (except the multiple endings).

And there lies the main problem of the acceptance of BL in any form other than fluff. If you have a look at some of the "vs" threads on Dakka it all boils down to 'my truth is better than your truth'

BL should be viewed as a source of background information to provide colour to the universe of 40K. But it shouldn't be used as the original picture to be coloured in. As long as there is ambiguity in the writing of their novels then they can never be viewed as canon. Especially when they get the basics contradicting themselves so horribly wrong, for example in one book lasguns fire bullets, yet in another they fire a weak form of plasma, in yet another they fire what we would call a true laser. Now, they all kill something, so that basic, the fluff, meshes. But, the canon, for a want of a better word the truth, of how the same weapon does so, doesn't. For an example of a game based fiction I would suggest looking at the old Battletech novels, the battles seem to have been written with a set of rules infront of the author, and all the authors have taken the same approach. The canon of the genre doesn't change, the point of view does, but not the mechanics.

Does that make sense?

Andrew

Well Lasguns definately fire Lasers. Who said bullets and plasma?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes they are. There's no reason not to treat them as Cannon (except goto).

How can you say that BL is canon, but BL books by Goto aren't?

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes they are. There's no reason not to treat them as Cannon (except goto).

How can you say that BL is canon, but BL books by Goto aren't?

Andrew

The exception that proves the rule.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well Lasguns definately fire Lasers. Who said bullets and plasma?

The source of that snippet was given on another thread a couple of years ago. I believe the original source was an individual named Goto

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well Lasguns definately fire Lasers. Who said bullets and plasma?

The source of that snippet was given on another thread a couple of years ago. I believe the original source was an individual named Goto

Andrew

Well obviously those were multi-laser plasma bullets. Which of course is Cannon.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The exception that proves the rule.

But thats just it, it can't be. The statement is BL books are canon. For that statement to be true then all books must be canon. But if Gotos' books aren't to be canon then no BL book can be canon. They're all just fluff.

Andrew

Nope, we can make an exception and most people do when it comes to that guy.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Nope, we can make an exception and most people do when it comes to that guy.

But if an exception can be made for one then the same exemption can be made for them all. And this brings me back to my original point. All the books expand on the universe and are fluff. But none of them can truly be canon. And by canon I mean the hard fast rules that cannot be broken and altered.

For example using the lasguns, these are weapons used to kill xenos scum (and revolting civilians). Thats canon.
How they do it, lasers, bullets, plasma, fluffy bunnies, exploding hamsters, thats fluff.

But people mistake the fluff for canon and you get huge nerd fights over whos' truth is right.

Does that explain my point? Nobody is wrong, but then again nobody is right.

Cheers

Andrew

Nothing is canon.

I love background material. (I hate using the word fluff. To me, it implies that the background for the game is unimportant, trivial, window dressing.) I love the Black Library. Now, I love it as a whole, not every book in it. As a for instance, I think that someone needs to have a serious chat with Ben Counter about some of the cornerstones of writing. And for the love of God, buy the man a spellchecker! However, I like the background information for the game itself. It provides a very rich and varied landscape upon which a multitude of stories can be told.

I take great pride in knowing as much as I can about the 40k background. If there is a topic about which I know little, I try and research it to come up with an answer, which leads me to more sources of background. There's just so much to find out.

But as to the original question, yes. With a caveat. I treat the Black Library as official canon, until it contadicts established canon. There are a few instances of this occurring. Usually, (at least in my own mind) I tend to treat whatever I read first as being the truth, and in the event of a tie, I go with whatever was printed first. I also try to look at this: what's the source within the source? By that I mean, who is giving the information?

For instance, if one novel features a member of the Ordo Xenos stating that Planet X was wiped out by Hive Fleet Otyugh, and another book has a rogue trader stating that Planet X was wiped out by Orks, I am going to probably believe the Inquisitor. This consideration is especially important when dealing with two sources of fiction contradicting each other. (As opposed to a source of fiction contradicting a neutral facts resource, such as the hard rules in a Codex.)

Other questions I ask to resolve contradictory background materials are:

Who is the narrator speaking to? Does he or she have a reason to lie?
Who is giving the information? Are they a credible source?
Could the informant be mistaken?
Is there a possible way that both statements could be true?

Failing this, I find it best to ignore the contradictory information and move on. I have a good example in mind, but I need to research it more to get my facts correct.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nothing is canon.

All is lies!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jimsolo wrote:I love background material. (I hate using the word fluff. To me, it implies that the background for the game is unimportant, trivial, window dressing.) I love the Black Library. Now, I love it as a whole, not every book in it. As a for instance, I think that someone needs to have a serious chat with Ben Counter about some of the cornerstones of writing. And for the love of God, buy the man a spellchecker! However, I like the background information for the game itself. It provides a very rich and varied landscape upon which a multitude of stories can be told.

I take great pride in knowing as much as I can about the 40k background. If there is a topic about which I know little, I try and research it to come up with an answer, which leads me to more sources of background. There's just so much to find out.

But as to the original question, yes. With a caveat. I treat the Black Library as official canon, until it contadicts established canon. There are a few instances of this occurring. Usually, (at least in my own mind) I tend to treat whatever I read first as being the truth, and in the event of a tie, I go with whatever was printed first. I also try to look at this: what's the source within the source? By that I mean, who is giving the information?

For instance, if one novel features a member of the Ordo Xenos stating that Planet X was wiped out by Hive Fleet Otyugh, and another book has a rogue trader stating that Planet X was wiped out by Orks, I am going to probably believe the Inquisitor. This consideration is especially important when dealing with two sources of fiction contradicting each other. (As opposed to a source of fiction contradicting a neutral facts resource, such as the hard rules in a Codex.)

Other questions I ask to resolve contradictory background materials are:

Who is the narrator speaking to? Does he or she have a reason to lie?
Who is giving the information? Are they a credible source?
Could the informant be mistaken?
Is there a possible way that both statements could be true?

Failing this, I find it best to ignore the contradictory information and move on. I have a good example in mind, but I need to research it more to get my facts correct.

I think you have the right idea.
Btw i was going to start a topic asking "Fluff? What is the origin of this term?" but I guess I'll just ask here.

I treat information in Black Library books, White Dwarf, Imperial Armor and other 'secondary' sources as canon unless that information is contradicted by something in a Codex.

It's also worth noting that some of the books published by Games Workshop are presented as in-setting writing (Ciaphas Cain, The Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer, etc.) and thus they should not be taken as accurate even if we do assume they are canon.

AndrewC wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The exception that proves the rule.

But thats just it, it can't be. The statement is BL books are canon. For that statement to be true then all books must be canon. But if Gotos' books aren't to be canon then no BL book can be canon. They're all just fluff.

Andrew

Have you read Goto's stuff?
Its terrific spank. I cant read more than a few pages before I give up and staple the book shut. I dont think he really know much about the universe he is writing about.

We CAN and WILL use Goto as an exception for BL fluff being canon.

Obviously...

It is cannon, but of a lesser sort. As far as I understand, fluff sources are ranked.

BRB > Codex > Black Library >> Other stuff such as fanfic.

If any contradict one another, you look towards the rank to see which takes precedent. So if the BRB says that Space Wolves partake in Wolf Shagging, yet the SW codex denies this, then the 'correct' fluff is that Space Wolves do much wolfshagging. If two sources of fluff on the same level contradict one another then that's just a sign of crappy management on GW's part.

Overmind wrote:
P.P.S. Scratch that, I want a Black Library Tyranid book from a Hormagaunts perspective...
Ch1: Nomnomnom...
Ch2: Nom nom NOM!
Ch3: Severed Synapse Connection Is there more to life then just food and eating said food?
Ch4: Synapse Connection Re-Established NOM NOM NOM!!
Ch5: NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM!!!
Ch6: The digestion pool and you!

This has potential.

@AndrewC

Thanks! That's exactly the coherent response I was hoping for.

Fluff, to me, is the background stories and history. So the background stories published by BL are, can be considered fluff.

Canon, on the other hand, is cast iron fact. Which is not true of BL. The official stance on canon from BL is "Yes, no, maybe" seperately and all together.

If the words fluff and cannon can be separated, then I agree I posed two questions to you, but I have seen the word used interchangeably on many occasions and the distinction between them becomes very blurred... (and my post title does nothing to clear things up! )

(OT: Actually, reminds me of a similar situation for the word Theory in Science... People, please! If there is a Theory (Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's general theory of relativity) it doesn't mean that there is no evidence for it, or it's an hypothesis (although it once was... everyhing starts as an hypothesis)! The evidence can be debated, and the theory revised in the face of other evidence but... ... (Nevermind... before I rant too long I'll stop there...))

But I still consider BL material cannon (in your (and now my...) sense of the word) if only for the fact that BL books are written (by authours, but they all have close links to GW and the 40K universe) and distributed by GW. I'm not trying to force an issue... Maybe deep down, I just wish GW would show some sense in managing the background material of their huge IP!

(as a side note, this is how I see the HH series shaping up... A way to compile all (or at least most...) of the background refering to one of the most important events in the 40K universe. Resulting in an easy reference for any HH background. Although most are writting from a legions perspective, complicating the matter )

@Jimsolo
+1

You posted my opinion on the matter more eloquently then I could have! Take everything you read, hear, see, with a liberal pinch of salt, and everything will taste a hell-of-a-lot better! (just don't eat everything you read, hear or see though... leads to some awkward situations... and a very full stomach... and a police record...)

Other questions I ask to resolve contradictory background materials are:

Who is the narrator speaking to? Does he or she have a reason to lie?
Who is giving the information? Are they a credible source?
Could the informant be mistaken?
Is there a possible way that both statements could be true?

All great questions to keep in mind when reading a novel! (or anything for that matter!)

@ KamikazeCanuck

Btw i was going to start a topic asking "Fluff? What is the origin of this term?" but I guess I'll just ask here.

Good question. I would also like to know who coined the term "fluff", one that I usually reserve for the stuff that magically gathers in my belly-button, to refer to the background of a tabletop wargame! Maybe they were trying to think of a "harder" word to describe the background of blood and death, and decided to go with a more ironic word?

I would like to believe that BL "fluff" is canon until proven otherwise by a more reliable source. If the Rulebook says that Uriel Ventris "like, totally went down on the Nightbringer" and the BL book says he didn't, I'd be inclined to listen to the rulebook. But even inside the book, depending on viewpoint, I might not believe it as well. If the narrator of a 3rd person novel says the Dark Eldar ride around ponies on the third blood moon of a leap year, sure. But if a character inside the book said they did that, I wouldn't believe it.

(I hope I made sense)

Haddi wrote:I would like to believe that BL "fluff" is canon until proven otherwise by a more reliable source. If the Rulebook says that Uriel Ventris "like, totally went down on the Nightbringer" and the BL book says he didn't, I'd be inclined to listen to the rulebook. But even inside the book, depending on viewpoint, I might not believe it as well. If the narrator of a 3rd person novel says the Dark Eldar ride around ponies on the third blood moon of a leap year, sure. But if a character inside the book said they did that, I wouldn't believe it.

(I hope I made sense)

Yeah I get what you mean...

The Narrator in a book is also a character of the authour, and as such, should convey that characters perspective (as long as he/she is a good writer)... Whether you should trust that characters perspective is another thing entirely!

BTW... I totally heard that rumour about Uriel! Ewww! What a slut!

Edit: Spelling Checking FTW

The 'official' line is that Black Library material is canon... but that doesn't mean that it's 'correct'.


GW feel that the 40K universe is a big, confusing place. The stories told by the Black Library may be factual. They may tell of what might have happened. And they may tell only one version of the truth.


So it's all canon... but within that setting, it may not all be true.

insaniak wrote:The 'official' line is that Black Library material is canon... but that doesn't mean that it's 'correct'.


GW feel that the 40K universe is a big, confusing place. The stories told by the Black Library may be factual. They may tell of what might have happened. And they may tell only one version of the truth.


So it's all canon... but within that setting, it may not all be true.

This is generally my take on it. I mean GW want you to use their rules as well but have stated on numerous occasions to play the game of 40k ,whfb etc as you want to. By the same reasoning an individual can read anything written by GW BL FW or whoever as 'offical' or not.

insaniak wrote:The 'official' line is that Black Library material is canon... but that doesn't mean that it's 'correct'.


GW feel that the 40K universe is a big, confusing place. The stories told by the Black Library may be factual. They may tell of what might have happened. And they may tell only one version of the truth.


So it's all canon... but within that setting, it may not all be true.

Sounds about right. I was going to say sometimes it is, sometimes it might not be.

"Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

The Warhammer universe isn't supposed to be consistent, logical, or even have a clearly defined cannon. Every new edition changes, removes, alters, and warps whatever facts it likes.

Better Question: Why does it matter?