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.

Backfire wrote:


Does SW have strict line between canon and non-canon? I mean, lots of "official" Star Wars fluff conflicts each other.

Those are two different questions.

A) Is it "canon" (officially endorsed)
B) Is it coherent, i.e. not internally contradicting

I am sure there is fictional material out there that meets A but fails B, as well as material that is not A, but perfectly meets B.

And 40K often has a similar problem. People are often biased to see the fluff they "like" as canon, and the fluff the "don't like" as non-canon, usually those that prefer BL/FW fluff over the studio fluff.

But that obviously may not be the case.

eXetus wrote:
I actually disagree. I think that the fluff has increased in both quantity and detail. The BA codex was pretty good and so was the SW codex.

This is where we are definitely going to have a difference of opinion, as I found those two books to be rather poor, the SW book in particular I felt was a truly stellar example of outright awful fluff.

What I DO think, however, is that Forgeworld is doing what GW (proper) was doing when they were releasing the Index Astartes articles, yet in even more depth, which is probably GW's intent. The fluff they've added for the Legions and the chapters in the Badab War is excellent.

I agree here, FW's fluff is great, but it's also generally of a much different tone, a lot more "realistic/documentary" than the rest of 40k's stuff.

I think that the fluff of 3rd edition was actually the weakest with 18 page codices. It wasn't really until the latter 4th edition and 5th edition that they started really expanding upon the setting again, removing a lot of the ambiguities.

The initial 3E books were fairly light on fluff, but it was great 2nd ed stuff mostly. Then they also had the Index Astartes books, the later 3E books were also great in terms of fluff, the Chaos book particularly.

Are we talking about fluff-wise or rules-wise, just to clarify? (With Forgeworld, anyhow. Not aware of the Black Library putting out any rules...) I was a little unclear from your initial question.

I don't like playing against Forgeworld stuff. I'll do it in a friendly game, mostly because I don't want to tell the other poor bastard that he can't play with the models he just wasted a month's salary on, but I don't want to see them in competitive play, and refuse to allow them in tournaments I run.

Fluff-wise, it's all just as valid. As valid as anything can be in 40k, of course, which is to say not at all. To my mind, if you write 40k related backstory or fiction, make a profit from it, and don't get sued by Games Workshop for your efforts, then your work is as canon as anyone else's.

Just my opinion, of course.

 Jimsolo wrote:


Fluff-wise, it's all just as valid. As valid as anything can be in 40k, of course, which is to say not at all. To my mind, if you write 40k related backstory or fiction, make a profit from it, and don't get sued by Games Workshop for your efforts, then your work is as canon as anyone else's.

This.

eXetus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't see why Forgeworld and Black Library wouldn't be canon.

To be fair, 40k's fluff of late, pretty much 5E onwards, has been on a steadily downward spiral, especially when it comes to Space Marines. And no, I don't just mean as another "I HATE MAT WARD THING", the fluff and feel just in general hasn't felt as interesting as it did in 2nd/3rd/4th.

I actually disagree. I think that the fluff has increased in both quantity and detail. The BA codex was pretty good and so was the SW codex. I have yet to look a thte DA codex. What I DO think, however, is that Forgeworld is doing what GW (proper) was doing when they were releasing the Index Astartes articles, yet in even more depth, which is probably GW's intent. The fluff they've added for the Legions and the chapters in the Badab War is excellent.

I think that the fluff of 3rd edition was actually the weakest with 18 page codices. It wasn't really until the latter 4th edition and 5th edition that they started really expanding upon the setting again, removing a lot of the ambiguities.

Yeah, I quite don't understand the nostalgy people have over 3rd edition codices. I mean, maybe there were some gems like Chaos 3.5, but most of the fluff in those thin codices was short in quantity and quality. For example, I can't read old Necron Codex without getting embarrassed for the writers. It's so terrible. Sure some of the newer books have silliness too, but at least they show some effort.

It also has a lot to do with the visuals, the art, style, and feel of the books has changed a great deal. Marines have become progressively more "Glorious/Knightly" and less "Genetically Engineered, Psycho-lobotomized Super Soldier". Stuff looks less "techy" and more "medieval".

Also, there's something to be said in many cases for earlier editions "less is more" approach to certain fluff aspects

 Vaktathi wrote:
It also has a lot to do with the visuals, the art, style, and feel of the books has changed a great deal. Marines have become progressively more "Glorious/Knightly" and less "Genetically Engineered, Psycho-lobotomized Super Soldier". Stuff looks less "techy" and more "medieval".

Well, to some degree I agree with you here - I'm not big fan of the look of new Deathwing Knights, for example. Even though the models themselves are perfectly fine, it's just a styles clash with what I'm used to see. And I feel they don't really fit with DA, whom I have always viewed as a shooty chapter.

Backfire wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Frankly, I don't think there is a "hard" line between canon/non-canon as there is, for example, with Star Wars or things like that.

Some of the stricter Middle-Earth fans argue that The Hobbit and Silmarillion aren't Middle Earth canon. So interpretations vary...

The Silmarillion was the creation of the world, and the LOTR+The Hobbit are stories that take place there. Obviously they're all "canon" but if you were going to take that attitude, you'd say that Silmarillion was canon and LORT+The Hobbit were not.

/threadjack

Thing is, Tolkien never actually wrote Silmarillion, the book as published was gathered from various short stories, notes and partly just made up by Christopher and Guy Kay so it would make at least some sense. So many fans think it's not wholly canon.

I suppose there's a logic to that. But given the biblical writing style of the Silmarillion I always regarded it as sort of...seperate from The Lord of the Rings anyway. Other than accasional references in the LOTR there's virtually no overlap anyway.