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.

Sorry if it's the wrong section but I've made a quick search and I could not find nothing about this.

Are Black Library books and novels considered canon or just suggestions ?

Yes.

They're a company owned by GW that produces a huge amount of GW-dedicated background often linked in GW products. It's kind of like saying the IA books aren't canon IMHO.
The BL authors also state it as canon too.

However, canon/lore/fluff and the interpretation and legality of it varies widely from person to person, so you inevitably will get people disagreeing with them being canon (whilst the vast majority agree they are).

Basically, GW have always advocated personal canon. Either you can take every single word as absolute canon, or you can pick and choose.

(This is what stopped my brain shutting down after Draigo.)

Canon, ha, GW laughs at such a term. Canon, contrary to popular belief, does not exist in 40k. It's up to each person to decide what they want as part of their perception of the fluff. It's a better system for discussion of the background than having a canon rating.

IMO the whole canon thing is dumb.

If you like it, it's good. done.

Wow.... 4 posts in a row all agreeing with each other...

The internet is a crazy place indeed

Canon is for Trekkies, it's totally irrelevant to 40k.

If you like the stuff, it's your canon. If not, it isn't. Simple as.

1.) Official statement is that BL is canon in the sense that someone in the 40k universe thinks it is true. Doesn't say it is really true though.
2.) Some BL authors (esp. CS Goto) went too far and wrote stuff hitting official fluff straight in the face without caring. Since then, BL editors seem to have a look that at least a minimum of consistency is guaranteed.
3.) With Mat Ward, even some fluff in Codices is barely constistent with the rest of the fluff (Chaos Grey Knights) or simply ridiculous (Draigo), so some people decided to even ignore some Codex fluff.

That said, fluff in the main rulebook seems best controlled, followed by Codices and other official rulebooks like Apocalypse and Imperial Armour. Consistency is less guaranteed in BL, 40k RPG and PC games (the latter often having multiple timelines). Be aware that fundamental changes in background happen (e.g. necron and Dark Eldar Codex, or everything before 2nd edition).

So basically you can't force anyone to accept everything, but rulebooks and Codices are the most trusted source for information.

From what I remember of the "official" GW response it was something like

These books (referring here to codices and BL books) are written from the perspective of a person or group and can be influenced by that person or group

Basically: "That's how I remember it happening and I wrote it down"

If you like it, it's cannon.

It really seems like nothing is sacred (which I like). Every story is a legend or a myth that is open to interpretation and every codex is propaganda.

Take what you like, do what you will.

There is no canon, there is only Zuul.

Basically, GW has no set-in-stone canon for their universe. You're free to use whatever sources you like, interpret codices, novels, short-stories and random internet postings however you like and add, take away, or modify the universe as it suits your tastes. You'll probably get into heated internet nerd-rage wars, but neither side of such battles is right, neither side is wrong, as both sides have the same claim to canonicity as the other.

Obviously, there are a few "basics" to the setting. The Imperium vs everyone else vs everyone else. The God-Emperor being a thing. The Heresy happening. The grimdark. Chaos being bad for one's health, probably. The Inquisition being scary.

Other than that? Go with it.

BL in fact seems to be anti-canon (when you contrast it with other universes like Star Wars or Trek). They laugh at your ideas of "absolute truth" and "canon authority." If I wasn't cynical I'd think they'd planned it that way even.

The closest you get to "canon" I suspect is "the more often something is repeated, the more true it probably is."

The only real consenses on if BL is cannon or not is that its "Loosely Cannon"

The books should be viewed as detailing real events, but through the viewpoint of the main characters as if they were remembering the events as they happened a long time ago. The Events may be distorted by time, memory, exageration, omission, propoganda and must be treated as such. Explicit contradictions should be viewed as the byproduct of confusion and/or one or both parties being wrong to some degree.

General descriptions of how things work/appear should be taken as correct except in the event of contradiction in which case the more "situationally detailed and experienced view" should be viewed as the proper one.

it is canon, but at the same time it isn't. It was mentioned somewhere that everything published could be taken as a "folk" tale. so yes it is canon, but doesn't mean it is true

GW probably doesn't really care.

There's absolutely no consensus on canon regarding GW, other than having to follow some obvious constants (Like the God Emperor and Chaos, etc.).

If you believe Aaron Dembski-Bowden, the setting works under "loose", or as someone said earlier, "personal" canon.

Void__Dragon wrote:GW probably doesn't really care.

There's absolutely no consensus on canon regarding GW, other than having to follow some obvious constants (Like the God Emperor and Chaos, etc.).

If you believe Aaron Dembski-Bowden, the setting works under "loose", or as someone said earlier, "personal" canon.

Gav Thorpe - current BL author and former GW studio designer - has said the same.

The word canon does not apply. GW does not use a canon rating, the Black Library books cannot be non-canon because that implies there are certain things that are. There is no such thing as canon within 40k, the studio stuff may be more consistent in the opinions of some, but they aren't official and the don\t override other sources as a result.

Either everything is canon, or nothing is canon.

To my knowledge, it is not canon (in a George-Lucas-style-vetting-of-canon-sense).

I vaguely remember an interview with Dan Abnett, where he described some quite vicious debates between "BL" and "GW" (as in the table-top game guys) about how much coherence was necessary between BL-books and game-supplements/game-fluff. It ended with the point that (at least from Dan Abnett's view), what works in a story or novel doesn't necessarly work in the game (or its supplments, like Codex-fluff) and vice versa. So they settled on giving BL authors "creative licence" to approach their own "interpretation" of the 40K universe.

I'll see if I can dig-up the interview somewhere. Though obviously Dan Abnett's personal opinion on the matter might not reflect the "offical stance".

There's a clear structure to it all, but the details are fluid (sometimes too fluid).

BL books, codex fluff, rulebook fluff, etc is all open to interpretation. Basically, it's all in-universe propaganda put out by shadow organizations whom people fear to disagree with. Half of it is exaggeration, and half of it is completely fabricated.

The only "canon" I see in 40k is the actual miniatures and game mechanics.

(Yes, this means I believe a Space Marine is about the same height as an average human, and getting shot with a boltgun is completely harmless 1/3 of the time.)

Grakmar wrote:
(Yes, this means I believe a Space Marine is about the same height as an average human, and getting shot with a boltgun is completely harmless 1/3 of the time.)

It also means that a sprinting Space Marine moves at about 1/3rd of the speed of a supersonic jet at full speed. A charging Ravenguard Assault Marine at 2/3 of that speed and potentially outruns the maximum distance of the Imperium's most advanced combat rifle in the time it takes one of his fellow Marines to fire but a single shot.

Zweischneid wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
(Yes, this means I believe a Space Marine is about the same height as an average human, and getting shot with a boltgun is completely harmless 1/3 of the time.)

It also means that a sprinting Space Marine moves at about 1/3rd of the speed of a supersonic jet at full speed. A charging Ravenguard Assault Marine at 2/3 of that speed and potentially outruns the maximum distance of the Imperium's most advanced combat rifle in the time it takes one of his fellow Marines to fire but a single shot.

Correct. Which means that the "Jets" in 40k are really slow. Like, Wright Brothers slow. And, weapons in 40k are incredibly short ranged.

Technology in 40k is really, really bad.

so basically,

some of the absurd things I am reading on the Horus Heresy books are considered true stories. I am shocked.

Really.

I have an open mind regarding many things, but some of these are too much. I understand that Marines and the 40k background is not so close as the miniature table top makes us belive, but sometime the writers gets carried too much.

I'm thinking that the Background of the '90s is really (REALLY) much better. At least I didn't had to think of the Primarchs as a bunch of imbeciles.

Thanks for the answers, they were interesting! I just hope that it won't degenerate.

P.s. = the problem regarding fluff and background (in my personal opinion) is only related to Space Marines, for Imperial Guards and normal people seems to work quite fine.

Truthfull, there is no "canon" in 40k or Fantasy given how frequently GW retcons their own background material with each new codex/army book/novel that is released.

KOS wrote:
I'm thinking that the Background of the '90s is really (REALLY) much better. At least I didn't had to think of the Primarchs as a bunch of imbeciles.

Really?

Seaward wrote:

Void__Dragon wrote:GW probably doesn't really care.

There's absolutely no consensus on canon regarding GW, other than having to follow some obvious constants (Like the God Emperor and Chaos, etc.).

If you believe Aaron Dembski-Bowden, the setting works under "loose", or as someone said earlier, "personal" canon.

Gav Thorpe - current BL author and former GW studio designer - has said the same.

Yes, but Thorpe is evil and doesn't count.

Zweischneid wrote:

KOS wrote:
I'm thinking that the Background of the '90s is really (REALLY) much better. At least I didn't had to think of the Primarchs as a bunch of imbeciles.

Really?

I couldn't get past "skin tight powered armor"

A digital hand flamer...