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.

everything by CS Goto = not canon

the it goes
GW-FW-BL

DH is somewhere around GW and FW and BL

Manchu wrote:

Alpharius wrote:the video games represent some alternative reality version of 40K - one that is close, but still 'wrong'.

I think this is spot on. As for Dark Millennium, I doubt it will have much affect on the Grimdark canon. Like DoW, it will most likely just be the source of many eventual 1d4chan entries. The effect of Ultramarines--both game and movie--will depend greatly on how good they are . . . which I have no great hopes for. I can see reedy-voiced John Hurt as a techpriest or Dark Eldar in a pinch. But a Space Marine? Nah. Also, the Marine Terence Stamp plays looks like an 80 year old regular human. Not good.

And the reason that I added number five to my list is that internet stuff does get the occasional nod from officialdom.

I think you are being way too optimistic about Dark Millenium: It will not be canon and it probably won't reflect the 40k universe all-too-well.

MMOs have to change things for balance and gameplay purposes... AoR (a very underrated MMO) did so with Fantasy (Chaos Marauders, White Lions having pets, the entire Engineer class with its sentry guns... Order vs Destruction, Kislev being part of the Empire: Need I go on?).

I think that even if it's an awesome game, us "fluffy" players will have to deny DM's existence in the fluff.

Fiend wrote:And I mean what do you personally consider canon. Not what is, or what should be, but what sources do you count as official material. How do you personally handle inconsistencies?

This may depend on how you define canon. For me, I consider canon as the background material that I cannot alter when devising my own fluff.

For my sources of canon, I accept GW, FW, BL and DH (though I haven't read them) products, in their entirety. If there are inconsistencies, I don't consider one source above the other and chock it up to historical inaccuracies with the most likely history being the one that coincides with other material. This way old sources can still be considered canon, in so far as they agree with other sources. I used to count video games as canon, but have now realized (with the advent of the mmo and multiple endings), that they are equivalent of creating your own fluff. The video game novels fill the canon slot.

I've pondered using the simple rule of 'whatever has a GW logo,' but I don't know how far that'd extend.

How about you guys? And play nice.

Priority
1. 2nd edition codexes and basic book
2. current basic book
3. current codexes.
4. older codexes that do not conflict with above.
5. BL

Why put the current BGB over the current codices? I'd say codices are more believable because more detailed. BGB is more thematic in content.

I should be clear. I mean the current basic book, unless there has been a codex after that. I was specifically thinking of the necrons in that regard. The basic book is later and makes them both less uber unstoppable muahaha and more worn by the innumerable ages with malfunctioining tomb worlds etc.

Good point. I agree that last in time wins as between BGB and codices. Especially good example--maybe there will be less "this faction destroys all others and the universe" style writing in 5th?

I notice many of you have a source hierarchy, with a list similar to how I'd rank them. Does anyone else consider the main sources of canon equally like I do and work out inconsistencies on strength of the claim?

If I did rank the canon material, I'd probably go:
1. GW - BGB, then codicies, then supplements, then other
2. FW - c'mon, their books are masterful material
3. BL - all the authors are equal
4. DH - because I haven't read them and don't know how much the player can affect the fluff. Although I'll probably put this higher.

I don't consider any fan made stuff canon at all although I haven't read much. Maybe I can incorporate it into my own fluff if I like it enough, but never canon for me.

The more I've pondered it the lower video games get for me. They're like a sandbox of potential futures, but none of them canon.

EDIT - Simpler answer

There is no 'canon'. GW do not 'retcon'.

If they wrote it, it may or may not have happened like that, from the observer's point of view. If things conflict, both may well have happened. It doesn't matter.

Nothing is ever invalidated. GW are not Marvel. And all this is a good thing.

The specific example of the Star Child is problematic. You're perfectly right to point out that GW saying it's Tzeentch having a bit of fun could be an Imperial lie. The more confusing part is that the Inquisition War trilogy by Ian Watson has just been republished in omnibus form. (Kanluwen seems to think that means nothing because it was not well-advertised. But shipping paperbacks to all corners of Europe and the US is just about the only advertisement most books get anyway.) To make matters even more confusing, Space Marine--also by Ian Watson, who considers Space Marine to be part of the Inquisition War and even had the main character appear in that trilogy--is now being offered on-demand by BL under the Heretical Press imprint (along with Goto's Warrior Brood and Warrior Coven), which is a clear signal that this book no longer reflects the background.

Manchu wrote:The specific example of the Star Child is problematic. You're perfectly right to point out that GW saying it's Tzeentch having a bit of fun could be an Imperial lie. The more confusing part is that the Inquisition War trilogy by Ian Watson has just been republished in omnibus form. (Kanluwen seems to think that means nothing because it was not well-advertised. But shipping paperbacks to all corners of Europe and the US is just about the only advertisement most books get anyway.) To make matters even more confusing, Space Marine--also by Ian Watson, who considers Space Marine to be part of the Inquisition War and even had the main character appear in that trilogy--is now being offered on-demand by BL under the Heretical Press imprint (along with Goto's Warrior Brood and Warrior Coven), which is a clear signal that this book no longer reflects the background.

Uh, actually the reason I think it means nothing is because of statements made before they published it. That "The Inquisition War" is not to be considered current canon, but is meant to be a readily accessible example of how canon used to be. They went out of their way to leave the book untouched, simply because if they were to go through and alter everything to match current canon...the book would lose a lot of its flavor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since they don't have information up for "The Inquisition War"(which is actually "Out of Stock" and has been for almost three months now), here's the information they have up for "Space Marine".

Black Library wrote:Believe us when we tell you that Space Marine is quite unlike any other Warhammer 40,000 novel you’ve ever read.

First published in 1993 – though completed some years earlier – at a time when the background to the Warhammer 40,000 universe was still in a state of flux and not yet fully coalesced, the book follows three young Imperial Fist recruits from their formative years in the underhive gangs of Necromunda through to fighting as part of the First Company within the bowels (literally!) of a Tyranid bioship.

Not only will you find squats in this novel –Tzeentch-worshiping squats at that – but also Space Marines controlling Titans, Space Marines with lasguns, the Pain Glove and more than a small amount of toilet humour. Oh, and a Zoat. How could we forget the Zoat?

Although the temptation was great to rewrite significant portions of this book to make it conform to current background, as a curiosity piece, an historical snapshot of the Warhammer 40,000 universe circa the early 1990s, this book is invaluable. It also serves as a shining example of what can happen when a respected genre author at the height of his powers is let loose on an established shared universe.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Warhammer-40000/Space-Marines/Space-Marine.html Read it for yourself, if you want.

We've had this conversation before. To my knowledge, BL never gave the Inquisition War the same kind of gloss that Space Marine currently has. Further, OOP does not mean non-canonical. I agree that Inquisition War is from another era but am still confused as to why BL republished it so widely instead of making it on demand.

Yeah and remember ready that stuff. I want ed to buy it just to see what old fluff was like. (I started ready BL only a couple years ago.) I would consider it lower canon though, as even BL treats it that way.

Also, what is this 'Heretical Press' imprint?

Heretical Press is a label GW is sticking on print-on-demand books that are definitely not part of current canon. So you see there is some kind if canon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, it "Heretic Tomes" and Goto's books are not labeled that way.

Manchu wrote:We've had this conversation before. To my knowledge, BL never gave the Inquisition War the same kind of gloss that Space Marine currently has. Further, OOP does not mean non-canonical. I agree that Inquisition War is from another era but am still confused as to why BL republished it so widely instead of making it on demand.

Then your knowledge is wrong, because they did. In the same newsletter where they announced "Space Marine" returning, they gave "The Inquisition War" that same kind of description, and explicitly mentioned Draco's Squat companion.
And yes, OOP may not mean "non-canonical"...except when it does. Codex: Space Marines 3rd edition? No longer canon, OOP.


Anyways:
Why would they make it on demand?
It was published in an omnibus form as of 2004, shelved for a few years and then brought back. It's been in pretty much continuous printing runs since its original release. It's something where if they moved it to "On Demand" they'd have been spending more money having copies printed to keep up with the demand, whereas if they just keep it in standard printing runs it works out just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That came out more hostile than I meant it to.

Anyways:
It's also important to remember that the Black Library site was overhauled not too long ago, and information was lost. There's a large amount of stuff that has no information for it(but should).

No worries, Kanluwen. IMO, Soul Hunter is the only thing that begins to approach how awesome the Inq War is. Pity it's full of things GW would prefer left unknown.

"Cadian Blood" and "Soul Hunter/Throne of Lies" both surpass the "Inquisition War" by leaps and bounds.
Was the "Inquisition War" good?
Yes.
But it wasn't as great as some of the older players would have me believe. It really isn't that great, period, to me. It's like the Dragonlance books and the "new" Dragonlance books in my opinion.

Manchu wrote:Heretical Press is a label GW is sticking on print-on-demand books that are definitely not part of current canon. So you see there is some kind if canon.

I had no idea GW/BL did this. It seems they care more about canon than I thought. If they've already started down this road it seems that they could just say what is canon or not. But I can see why they wouldn't. I actually could appreciate a 'we have no stance on what is canon' stance. But this is fine too. It helps to differentiate what is just too old.

I really enjoyed Cadian Blood as well, and as it was the first Guard novel I had read, I was hoping they were all that good. It seems it may have been an exception though?

(I used to read Dragonlance too!)

Fiend wrote:(I used to read Dragonlance too!)

So did I, many years ago. And I can't see much of a comparison between that mediocre fare and the amazing originality of the Inquisition War books. It's true that they don't read like normal 40k books. There isn't much warfare. But keep in mind that "normal 40k books" pretty much means Dan Abnett these days. Abnett is good at what he does, no doubt, but Jaq Draco's world lays out the distinctly insidious, gothic-baroque tone of the GrimDark. Anyone can write an episode of a show, but coming up with the concept? As I've said before, it seems to me that the artistic side of 40k owes most to Ian Watson and John Blanche. Most of the rest has been much, much more generic. Even Aaron D-B has a ways to go. Having Night Lords weeping over a holoith of their Primarch? Ppfff! I'm just glad Curze didn't live to see the day.

Ian Watson and John Blanche were most responsible for the Rogue Trader/40k 2nd edition canon.

It has, thankfully, moved past that. Dan Abnett has pretty much built 40k's current canon from scratch.
Everything from the current incarnation of the Inquisition to the Imperial Guard has been modeled after his writings.

Oh inquisition wars. That was a crazy trilogy. Insane but fun.

Saying Abnett built current canon from scratch is exageration to the point of absurdity. More than anything, he has genericized 40k. Abnett is not a bad writer but he's not offering much in the way of a distinct vision. I am really hoping A D-B will grow as a writer beyond Abnett's influence. He shows signs of doing so but there is nothing really stellar about him so far, nothing on par with Ian Watson's vast creative scope.

Kanluwen wrote:Ian Watson and John Blanche were most responsible for the Rogue Trader/40k 2nd edition canon.

It has, thankfully, moved past that. Dan Abnett has pretty much built 40k's current canon from scratch.
Everything from the current incarnation of the Inquisition to the Imperial Guard has been modeled after his writings.

Thankfully not!
Seriously, Abnett can have his corner, where Commisars and Inquisitors are nice, the lives of imperial guardsmen are valued, a bunch
of Space Marines can take on thousands of Dark Eldar and powerswords slice trough baneblades like a Khornate Berserker trough a guardsman.

I personally prefer the much more grimdark fluff, where merciless oppression is commonplace, reason and logic are bordering on heresy and blind faith rules supreme.
Both depictions have their place, but to claim that Abnett has is solely responsible for the current fluff is a bit far. At most one can see his clear influence in FFG's
depiction of the Inquisition, but even when it comes to the Imperial guard his model is only one among many others ( Deathcorp of Krieg and the Valhallans for example ).

Also, Eisenhorn owes A LOT to Draco.

Codices, rulebook, forgeworld...everything else is questionable imo

KingDeath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Ian Watson and John Blanche were most responsible for the Rogue Trader/40k 2nd edition canon.

It has, thankfully, moved past that. Dan Abnett has pretty much built 40k's current canon from scratch.
Everything from the current incarnation of the Inquisition to the Imperial Guard has been modeled after his writings.

Thankfully not!
Seriously, Abnett can have his corner, where Commisars and Inquisitors are nice, the lives of imperial guardsmen are valued, a bunch
of Space Marines can take on thousands of Dark Eldar and powerswords slice trough baneblades like a Khornate Berserker trough a guardsman.

I personally prefer the much more grimdark fluff, where merciless oppression is commonplace, reason and logic are bordering on heresy and blind faith rules supreme.
Both depictions have their place, but to claim that Abnett has is solely responsible for the current fluff is a bit far. At most one can see his clear influence in FFG's
depiction of the Inquisition, but even when it comes to the Imperial guard his model is only one among many others ( Death Korp of Krieg and the Valhallans for example ).

This alone tells me you've not read anything of Abnett's past "The Founding" and "The Saint".

Seriously. Read "The Lost" cycle. Read "Ravenor" and "Eisenhorn". They're as grimdark as you can fething imagine.

As for the Death Korps of Krieg...they're a rarity. They really are. They're the only Guard Regiment, as of this moment, that has access to fast-cloning technology. There's a reason why the vast majorities of their troops have no names, just serial numbers.

Kanluwen wrote:

KingDeath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Ian Watson and John Blanche were most responsible for the Rogue Trader/40k 2nd edition canon.

It has, thankfully, moved past that. Dan Abnett has pretty much built 40k's current canon from scratch.
Everything from the current incarnation of the Inquisition to the Imperial Guard has been modeled after his writings.

Thankfully not!
Seriously, Abnett can have his corner, where Commisars and Inquisitors are nice, the lives of imperial guardsmen are valued, a bunch
of Space Marines can take on thousands of Dark Eldar and powerswords slice trough baneblades like a Khornate Berserker trough a guardsman.

I personally prefer the much more grimdark fluff, where merciless oppression is commonplace, reason and logic are bordering on heresy and blind faith rules supreme.
Both depictions have their place, but to claim that Abnett has is solely responsible for the current fluff is a bit far. At most one can see his clear influence in FFG's
depiction of the Inquisition, but even when it comes to the Imperial guard his model is only one among many others ( Death Korp of Krieg and the Valhallans for example ).

This alone tells me you've not read anything of Abnett's past "The Founding" and "The Saint".

Seriously. Read "The Lost" cycle. Read "Ravenor" and "Eisenhorn". They're as grimdark as you can fething imagine.

As for the Death Korps of Krieg...they're a rarity. They really are. They're the only Guard Regiment, as of this moment, that has access to fast-cloning technology. There's a reason why the vast majorities of their troops have no names, just serial numbers.

Well, you are wrong, i have read all of those books with the exception of Ravenor, which i found rather boring after a few pages.
This alone tells me that you are merely some Abnett fanboy who thinks that an author who, at best, writes fairly enjoyable pulp ( with the possible exception of Eisenhorn which was realy good ) and at worst borderline Mary/Marty Stu fiction is the best thing that happened to 40k.

So, defend Abnett as much as you wish, but still, his version of 40k remains in most parts much cleaner, much more "reasonable" than the mainstream 40k universe.

Have you read "Traitor General"? "His Last Command"? "Armour of Contempt"? "Only in Death"?

The fact that you think those are "fairly enjoyable pulp", but think that Ian Watson is some kind of credible author speaks volumes about you.

Hurr, they're in a Tyranid Ship Sphincter. That's GRIMDARK!!11!!!

The difference between Watson and Abnett is simple. Watson wrote a world. Abnett writes stories set in that world (and many of them are quite good). Without Abnett, we'd still have the GrimDark. Without Watson, we'd just have another generic dystopian scifi series.

Watson wrote pulp. That's what "Inquisition War" and "Space Marine" are. It wasn't until Abnett, King, and the second batch of authors that 40k went from being generic pulp crap to what 40k is now.

Ian Watson writes pulp?

Ahem.

Time to learn a bit about fantasy and scifi writing. First, Bill King and Abnett do not belong in the same category (although King isn't in the same category as Ian Watson, either). King was one of the very first writers of Warhammer fiction, publishing "Geheimnisnacht" in 1989's Ignorant Armies collection. It was Bryan Ansell who decided that novel-length fiction could be an important sales tool but insisted on getting "real authors" rather than the usual hacks. Among these real authors were Ian Watson and Kim Newman (a.k.a. "Jack Yeovil"). Watson was already a well known scifi writer--and that was when you had to be thoughtful and original and actually writing science fiction, rather than just writing stories which happen to involve laser guns or space ships. Watson had won the Prix Apollo by the time Dan Abnett turned ten.

Around the time Watson and Newman started writing for Ansell at GW, Abnett was working on 2000AD. It wasn't until the end of the decade that he published a novel. First and Only was indeed his first but hardly his only. The man is a serials writer, true to his origins in comics. (There's a reason why they ring him up when they need a new Torchwood novel.) As I have said, he's good at it. But if anyone is writing pulp . . .