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.

Smudge you said “It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.“

This is contracting hiw the producers of these documents say they should be considered.

Andykp wrote:
Smudge you said “It makes far more sense to me that there are multiple fictional sources in the universe, but the way the Black Library books are written is proof to me that they are the True Events.“

This is contracting hiw the producers of these documents say they should be considered.

And to suggest that "there is no canon" as they've also said has been contradicted by themselves too.
So which is it? They maintain simultaneously that there both is no canon, but also IS a canon.

As far as I see it, the "no canon" stance by BL is a cop-out from admitting that sometimes they can make mistakes as a writing team.

All that the BL say is not to take anything you read as absolute. Question it all and don’t be surprised to hear it contradicted. In a way your headcanon is that what’s in the books is the truth.

I personally doubt it’s a cop out. I think it’s more how the setting has always been. It’s how it functions and is how it has always been portrayed. So it’s more like you should enjoy your head canon and me and crimson will keep on questioning what’s happening in the messed up confusing real canon that is full of contradictions and unanswered questions.

Having a 'headcanon' at all is the mistake.

Accept the books and things as the light entertainment they are and don't worry about the fact that details drift.

Find a way to build something fun instead, like a headcannon.

So, would BL publish a story where the Emperor, the primarchs and the space marines were actually all women, and them being men was just propaganda? No?

How about a story where orks are actually pink and the green 'skin' is just warpaint? No?

OK, would they publish a story where it turns out the Chaos Gods don't exist and it's all an elaborate trick by the old eldar gods wearing Halloween masks? No?

Or a story where space marines are aliens, not genetically enhanced humans? No again?

Or one where the Emperor is actually an ork with a very kunnin' disguise? No dice?

No to all of those? Well, then there is definitely a canon. Anyone at GW/BL who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or doesn't know what the word 'canon' means when applied to a fictional setting.

 Duskweaver wrote:
So, would BL publish a story where the Emperor, the primarchs and the space marines were actually all women, and them being men was just propaganda? No?

How about a story where orks are actually pink and the green 'skin' is just warpaint? No?

OK, would they publish a story where it turns out the Chaos Gods don't exist and it's all an elaborate trick by the old eldar gods wearing Halloween masks? No?

Or a story where space marines are aliens, not genetically enhanced humans? No again?

Or one where the Emperor is actually an ork with a very kunnin' disguise? No dice?

No to all of those? Well, then there is definitely a canon. Anyone at GW/BL who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or doesn't know what the word 'canon' means when applied to a fictional setting.

What they say is to not take anything as hard and definite fact. Consider the level of in universe understanding and the bias of perspective. Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too. If you want “canon” the codexses are the best place to look.

Also, it’s amazing to hear so many people tell the creators of one of the most successful war games settings that they are doing it wrong and don’t understand their own product!

Andykp wrote:
Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too.

Well, it obviously is just as Canon as other books published by GW.

 Crimson wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too.

Well, it obviously is just as Canon as other books published by GW.

Mind you most the depictions of the primarchs is very much pre teen drama now anyway. Daddy issues ahoy. What I want to see is the primarchs mum rock up and kick arse.

Andykp wrote:What they say is to not take anything as hard and definite fact.

Some things clearly are "hard and definite fact", though. Orks are green. Eldar have pointy ears. There are plenty of things that are presented as just some character's opinion. But not everything, by any means. Therefore, there is a canon. There are things that are objectively true within the setting and other things that are objectively not the case within the setting.

what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel

You think I'm a BL fanboy? Hahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Also, it’s amazing to hear so many people tell the creators of one of the most successful war games settings that they are doing it wrong and don’t understand their own product!

I'm not claiming the creators are "doing it wrong and don’t understand their own product". I am, however, suggesting that the quotes some people keep posting of GW/BL people saying there's no canon in 40K indicate that those people do not know what the word 'canon' means.

Most people here don't seem to know what canon means.

But that the continyity is loose and messy doesn't mean there aren't any facts about the setting at all. James Bond is always a British secret agent that is very particular about his martinis. But a lot of other details may vary between the different stories about him.

 Duskweaver wrote:
So, would BL publish a story where the Emperor, the primarchs and the space marines were actually all women, and them being men was just propaganda? No?

How about a story where orks are actually pink and the green 'skin' is just warpaint? No?

OK, would they publish a story where it turns out the Chaos Gods don't exist and it's all an elaborate trick by the old eldar gods wearing Halloween masks? No?

Or a story where space marines are aliens, not genetically enhanced humans? No again?

Or one where the Emperor is actually an ork with a very kunnin' disguise? No dice?

No to all of those? Well, then there is definitely a canon. Anyone at GW/BL who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or doesn't know what the word 'canon' means when applied to a fictional setting.

What having no hard canon means is that those informations might change, changes that can be imposed by the community. If I paint my orks pink, they are pink and my ork army is just as valid as that of the GW studio. If I say my orks are pink because of the strange and unique radiation comming from a space anomaly then it's a fact. What I can't say is that ALL orks are pink because obviously some people painted their orks in different shades of green, black, white, etc. What having no hard canon means is that the fluff you create and the fluff they write in BL or codexes are just as valid. There is no mention in the fluff of the Space Marine Chapter of the Pearl Raven, but that's the name of my Space Marine Chapter. What that means is that BL fluff is nothing more than the headcanon of a studio of people based on the same premise. That Dan Abnett said something about the univers of 40K doesn't make it more real than what I say about my fluff. You can't tell me that my orks can't be pink and if they are pink, then you have to accept that some orks are pink because my army is part of the 40K univers. GW is very aware that their players are writting and producing fluff based on their IP and they want people to invest themselves in their IP like so. That's why they say there is no hard canon. Because they don't want to place their fluff in a position of authority compared to my fluff or yours. If I don't like the idea of Primarchs and prefer to see them just as particularly high ranking Space Marines, no bigger or better than those living 10 000 years later, I can explain so by saying all the Horus Heresy books are basically legends and Guilliman superior abilities comes from his unique equipment. If you like it, then maybe what's told by BL is completly true. Which one of us is correct? There is no way to tell with certitude. At least, that's how I understand their position on the 40K fluff.

 Crimson wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Going to be interesting what you BL fanboys who take it all as gospel do when the kids books start coming out. Is all that toned down Pre teen drama going to be canon too.

Well, it obviously is just as Canon as other books published by GW.

Pretty much.

Unless it severely deviates from the universe established, and isn't supported by future releases (aka, is this a retcon, or just incongruous to the 40k canon).

However, I think it's probably going to be canon, and I welcome that.

It is not 'probably' going to be canon, it will be canon. Its canonity has nothing to do with it contradicting other 40K lore or vice versa.

epronovost wrote:
What having no hard canon means is that those informations might change, changes that can be imposed by the community. If I paint my orks pink, they are pink and my ork army is just as valid as that of the GW studio. If I say my orks are pink because of the strange and unique radiation comming from a space anomaly then it's a fact. What I can't say is that ALL orks are pink because obviously some people painted their orks in different shades of green, black, white, etc. What having no hard canon means is that the fluff you create and the fluff they write in BL or codexes are just as valid. There is no mention in the fluff of the Space Marine Chapter of the Pearl Raven, but that's the name of my Space Marine Chapter.

True. You have taken aspects and realities of the 40k universe (radiation messing with skin colours, Space Marine chapters existing and having names like "Pearl Raven"), and used them to make a headcanon for yourself. Your things aren't canon, but they fit into the 40k universe. It's a fact that in your headcanon, that's a thing, and because you've used things from the main canon to validate it, it's more truthful to the canonical universe.

I disagree with you with BL's canonicity: BL stuff is more canon. I do agree in that being BL stuff doesn't necessarily make it more valid to you personally.

My custom Chapter, led by a homebrew character, draws from the established possibilities of the setting, but I don't pretend that it's universal canon they exist. They exist in my headcanon, but I've used canon elements to make my headcanon more like normal canon. However, just because it's still not "canon" doesn't mean it's less true to me.

What that means is that BL fluff is nothing more than the headcanon of a studio of people based on the same premise. That Dan Abnett said something about the univers of 40K doesn't make it more real than what I say about my fluff.

Except he is writing on behalf of the Black Library. The official body of 40k lore. His stuff, should it remain congruous to the 40k lore established (and isn't the setting up of a retcon), is official. It doesn't make it have more value than your headcanon, but it IS canon.

You can't tell me that my orks can't be pink and if they are pink, then you have to accept that some orks are pink because my army is part of the 40K univers. GW is very aware that their players are writting and producing fluff based on their IP and they want people to invest themselves in their IP like so. That's why they say there is no hard canon. Because they don't want to place their fluff in a position of authority compared to my fluff or yours.

But you cannot deny that there are truths of the setting.

You might find your headcanon more important to you than anything BL puts out. Which is fine. It doesn't mean yours is canon though.

Canon =/= the most valid.

If I don't like the idea of Primarchs and prefer to see them just as particularly high ranking Space Marines, no bigger or better than those living 10 000 years later, I can explain so by saying all the Horus Heresy books are basically legends and Guilliman superior abilities comes from his unique equipment. If you like it, then maybe what's told by BL is completly true. Which one of us is correct? There is no way to tell with certitude. At least, that's how I understand their position on the 40K fluff.

I understand your position, but I disagree with certain elements of it.

I maintain there is a canon, there is a True universe. However, it is limited to what GW/BL put out. If you wish to expand that, by taking inspiration from the canon or going completely off the beaten track, then that's headcanon. However, just because it's headcanon should not, and in my opinion, does not make it have any less value.

I support canon for the sake of discussion of a shared and consistent universe, purely because with headcanon, the value is intrinsic to the bearer of the headcanon.
Or, think of it as the difference between fact and opinion. Fact is concrete (until it is disproven, or in this case, retconned), and is used in more empirical discussions. This particular thread is, from what I gather, one of those discussions.

Headcanon is opinion, and while I encourage sharing of opinions, they hold no weight in an empirical discussion because they have no proof. Therefore, they are of potentially infinite value to yourself, but hold no weight beyond that. That doesn't mean they're useless, and you shouldn't have a headcanon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
It is not 'probably' going to be canon, it will be canon. Its canonity has nothing to do with it contradicting other 40K lore or vice versa.

Again, I disagree. There is a single True Canon, with contradictions to it either being in-universe beliefs or errors, or out-of-universe writing deviations. But we've gone over that already, and I think we've peaked on it.

@sgt_smudge

Actually, if you look at the biblical canon for example (the grand dad of all canon so to speak). Yes, the most popular version/vision is what was defined as canon. A canon is simply a set of beliefs or idea commonly held about something or considered true by a majority. A canon has no factual value. A ''true canon'' only exist if it's possible to prove a story. Since 40K is a fiction, there can be no facts, only commonly accepted idea that forms a canon and GW doesn't enforce any form of canon on people for obvious reasons and they don't value their fluff over that of their customers. Now, we can discuss the virtues, characteristics and consequences of certain pieces of fluff, but we can hardly make turth claim unless it's self referential. Thus, has GW described Corax as a man is a factual statement with evidence. Is Corax a man is open to people declaring that Corax is acutally a man or a woman. The canon answer would be the most commonly agreed answer, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't agree with the majority are ''wrong'' to consider Corax a woman. At best you can critique the logic behind that choice.

epronovost wrote:
@sgt_smudge

Actually, if you look at the biblical canon for example (the grand dad of all canon so to speak). Yes, the most popular version/vision is what was defined as canon. A canon is simply a set of beliefs or idea commonly held about something or considered true by a majority. A canon has no factual value. A ''true canon'' only exist if it's possible to prove a story. Since 40K is a fiction, there can be no facts, only commonly accepted idea that forms a canon and GW doesn't enforce any form of canon on people for obvious reasons and they don't value their fluff over that of their customers. Now, we can discuss the virtues, characteristics and consequences of certain pieces of fluff, but we can hardly make turth claim unless it's self referential. Thus, has GW described Corax as a man is a factual statement with evidence. Is Corax a man is open to people declaring that Corax is acutally a man or a woman. The canon answer would be the most commonly agreed answer, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't agree with the majority are ''wrong'' to consider Corax a woman. At best you can critique the logic behind that choice.

I think the bible is a bad analogy for this argument as it does contain some things that are historical fact.

A better analogy is Star Wars. There is a 'canon' which consists of all the official Lucasfilm/Disney releases. These contain errors, contradictions and continuity problems but they remain Canon. There are Star Wars licensed releases which are not Canon (I. E the Lego Star Wars stories), and there is fan fiction which is not Canon despite how plausible it is.
The star wars Canon is everything officially released as Canon.

The 40k Canon is everything officially released by GW/BL.

epronovost wrote:
@sgt_smudge

Actually, if you look at the biblical canon for example (the grand dad of all canon so to speak). Yes, the most popular version/vision is what was defined as canon. A canon is simply a set of beliefs or idea commonly held about something or considered true by a majority. A canon has no factual value. A ''true canon'' only exist if it's possible to prove a story.

But the Bible is set in the real world, and thus, real things happened.

Due to the nature of causality, there is only one True Outcome in the real world.

Let's take the assassination of MLK. There could be countless theories on how he died, if he even did at all, but fundamentally, there is only one True way he died (or didn't).

Furthermore, I think the term "canon" has evolved beyond it's root. It now seems, in fiction, to mean true in that fictional universe. Therefore, I don't think the biblical definition is appropriate here, seeing as it's not really a "fictional" application, and more of a series of accounts from real people.
I'll also reiterate for clarity: something like an Inquisitor's report of an event, whilst the report is canon in that it exists within the 40k universe, the things the report tells us are not. They might be, but they might not be congruent to the True event it tries to report.

Since 40K is a fiction, there can be no facts, only commonly accepted idea that forms a canon and GW doesn't enforce any form of canon on people for obvious reasons and they don't value their fluff over that of their customers.

40k being fiction means it would use the definition of canon that I mentioned above - aka, that it can have one.

GW do enforce a canon. They might claim with one interview that they don't have a canon, but I disagree. There is a clear canon, both explicitly and implicitly established. Implicitly, the fact that the universe describes things the same, the fact that core concepts remain, the fact that names rarely change for important character, etc etc implies a defined canon.

Explicitly, we have Gav Thorpe (I think), who outlines for the BL writing contest that BL do turn round to people and say "that's not how a Space Marines would talk" or "that's not how the Warp works" - which would be impossible to say if they didn't have a canon.

Now, we can discuss the virtues, characteristics and consequences of certain pieces of fluff, but we can hardly make turth claim unless it's self referential. Thus, has GW described Corax as a man is a factual statement with evidence. Is Corax a man is open to people declaring that Corax is acutally a man or a woman. The canon answer would be the most commonly agreed answer, but that doesn't mean that the people who don't agree with the majority are ''wrong'' to consider Corax a woman. At best you can critique the logic behind that choice.

They're not wrong to consider Corax a woman. They're just not canon. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that.

It's not wrong, but it is headcanon, because it deviates from canon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RobS wrote:
The 40k Canon is everything officially released by GW/BL.

Mostly agree, but I hesitate to say *everything*.

Where things conflict, one would consider the validity of the book, if it's part of a retconning, the source of the information (is it an in-universe source, or something which is delivered via omniscient narrator?) and other aspects to ascertain if it is canon.

Or, to put it another way: "Canon is material BL/GW officially release, but not everything BL/GW officially release is canon."

No, you're simply wrong. You're just misusing words. Canon doesn't mean 'true', RobS' definition is spot on. Your insistence to sort canonical things into 'true' and 'not-true' piles is just your headcanon and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual canon.

 Crimson wrote:
No, you're simply wrong. You're just misusing words. Canon doesn't mean 'true',

Show me the definition of canon, in a fictional sense, please. Here's what I have.

"In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in the fictional universe of that story..." "...The term "canon" nowadays refers to all works of fiction within a franchise's fictional universe which are considered "to have actually happened" within the fictional universe they belong to."

In that regard, where am I wrong?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/canon

That’s the definition. Non of them really apply here.

This bit possibly.

1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
‘the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity’
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
‘the biblical canon’
More example sentences

Or

2.1 The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
‘the Shakespeare canon’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.2 The list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
‘Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry’

Andykp wrote:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/canon

That’s the definition. Non of them really apply here.

This bit possibly.

1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
‘the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity’
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
‘the biblical canon’
More example sentences

Or

2.1 The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
‘the Shakespeare canon’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2.2 The list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
‘Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry’

Which is why I'm referring to the version of canon which applies to fiction, the one first used with Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of canon (Entry 1 of 3)
1a : a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council
b : a provision of canon law
2 [ Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model ] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3 [ Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard ]
a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b : the authentic works of a writer
the Chaucer canon
c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
the canon of great literature
4a : an accepted principle or rule
b : a criterion or standard of judgment
the canons of good taste
c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
according to newspaper canon … a big story calls for a lot of copy
— A. J. Liebling

Oxford Dictionary wrote:canon2
NOUN
1A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
‘the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity’

1.1 A Church decree or law.
‘a set of ecclesiastical canons’
mass noun ‘legislation which enables the Church of England General Synod to provide by canon for women to be ordained’

2A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.
‘the biblical canon’
2.1 The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
‘the Shakespeare canon’
2.2 The list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
‘Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry’

This is how it used with Star Trek and Star Trek too, although in those cases it is obviously the creations of the company, rather than one author*. Canon implies authenticity and officialness, Even your somewhat misleading definition included term 'officially accepted'. If GW would make statements about which books to include and which to ignore when considering the continuity of the setting (like CBS/Paramount did with the animated Star Trek and Lucasfilm/Disney with the Star Wars books) it would carry some weight. But instead their statements do the exact opposite. It is 'rumours, legends, may be true, maybe not." They explicitly refuse to take stance on validness of any material.

*(And canon of both of those properties, while far more carefully curated than 40K ever has been, still contain numerous contradictions.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Which is why I'm referring to the version of canon which applies to fiction, the one first used with Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes canon is the Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle. Later additions by other authors are not canon. And yes, there are some* contradictions withing that canon, and the readers have come up with some creative explanations for those contradictions, but the fact remains that the said contradictions are canon and the fan explanations are 'headcanon.'

* (Super mild and trivial contradictions, mainly related to chronology. It is after all work of one very well organised person, set in (then) contemporary world and dealing with quite self contained situations.)

Smudge you had better tell the Oxford English Dictionary it missed a definition as well as tell GW they are doing their job wrong too.