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.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:And yes, if the government made and enforced laws that violated the Bill of Rights, I would call this effective or constructive retraction.

But neither GW nor BL ever "made and enforced" anything that violated Marc Gascogne's post. Nothing was retracted.

Well, now you're mixing metaphors. You asked a question about the Bill of Rights; I answered a question about the Bill of Rights; now you're treating that answer as if it was about Black Library and Games Workshop.

Lynata wrote:When something disappears, it does not automatically mean it is no longer valid.

Think of it like eviction. According to technical procedures, you're supposed to get an eviction notice. But if your landlord hires some goons to throw you out of your apartment, you're no less evicted for not having gotten notice. Or put it a better way, if you landlord refuses to repair the property so that it is habitable forcing you to move out, you're no less evicted for not having gotten notice. GW does the same sort of thing. We've got an old book about the Necron that says one thing and a new book about the Necrons that says something totally contradictory. At no point did GW issue a statement retracting the old Necron fluff. But that fluff is no less superseded for lack of that statement. I think you'll find that GW will never issue a statement retracting C. S. Goto's work. As it stands, the "heretical tomes" label isn't even clearly explained -- and it's not applied to anything but the Inquisition War trilogy. EDIT: Sorry, only Space Marine.

Now we know that BL/GW don't like to take positions on what is and what isn't the case regarding their IP. Having employees posting on official boards kind of undermines that. And as Aaron Dembski-Bowden personally told you and I, he caught some flak over the post he wrote on his own blog about this. So let's not be willfully naive. Andy Hoare's comment was Andy Hoare's opinion and in no way represents an official position of GW or BL.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Canon cannot contain non-truth. The truth at issue is that it is true that someone believes or has promulgated a non-truth.

Which is precisely what Marc has described the published material as. It's not an objective glance at the setting, it is a flawed account. One of many interpretations.

All the fluff we have consists of texts about the setting rather than facts recounted from an omniscient perspective. I understand that. Similarly, we have Confederate soldiers' letters about the Civil War. The slant taken in those letters, however, does not undermine the existence of the Civil War. And when we find a Yankee's letters with conflicting observations, we do what we can to work out the most reasonable explanation of what actually happened. So with regard to the level of the "account" and the level of "what actually happened," canon only applies to the latter. That an account exists is a datum of canon: it is canonical that this account, some Imperial report or whatever, actually exists. It's existence is not flawed. It's contents are. The un-truths that it might contain are not canonical except inasmuch as they exist. Everything that is canonical "truly happened." Abaddon's opinion of the Emperor is not itself canon; the fact that he holds a certain opinion is.

Lynata wrote:I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on it, then.

I don't know if I can accept that it's a language thing. IIRC, your native language is German but I can see that you speak English more precisely than many of your co-posters who also fly Irish, British, American, or Commonwealth flags. (And I think I have been clear enough although I welcome questions requesting clarification.)

Actually, no, if your landlord has thugs come and remove you from your house, you're not evicted, you're the victim of a crime, and have legal rights to pursue. In some states, you could lawfully kill those people attempting to remove you from your house. If your landlord refuses to fix a leak that causes the house to become uninhabitable, you're not evicted, your landlord is in violation of tenant's laws and will be required by law to make the residence habitable again, or pay for your relocation expenses, plus whatever civil suit you wish to bring against him, as well as fines in accordance with local ordinances.

Let's not try to mix real-world hypotheticals here, because it only muddies the issue.

Using your examples of what Abaddon thinks works fine. We know Abaddon has an opinion on the Emperor, that is canon. Full stop.

What that opinion actually is must be determined by the individual reader as best fits their opinion of the setting, and they're not wrong for having that viewpoint, even if no other fan agrees with them. You can argue all sides of the topic and quote whatever book, page and verse you want, but that doesn't make one side more right than any other, it's just various interpretations of a point that has no true or correct answer. Some of these fanpinions will be more in line with the general "feel" of the setting than others, but that doesn't make them "more right" than someone else.

About the only "hard canon" you can say relates specifically to tabletop game data presented in the codices for a given edition. A bolter has ABC stats in 5E. In 6E, a bolter has XYZ stats. That's it.

To reference back to your Civil War letters example... while we can try to puzzle out what actually happened based on conflicting reports and accounts, we will never know for sure, until such time as we have the ability to travel back in time and witness it for ourselves. At best, we will be able to posit a "best guess".

Psienesis wrote:If your landlord refuses to fix a leak that causes the house to become uninhabitable, you're not evicted, your landlord is in violation of tenant's laws and will be required by law to make the residence habitable again, or pay for your relocation expenses, plus whatever civil suit you wish to bring against him, as well as fines in accordance with local ordinances.

"Actually ..." LOL. Again, there is a distinction between eviction and constructive eviction that you are glossing over. The actual legal term for finding yourself in that situation is "constructive eviction."

Psinesis wrote:You can argue all sides of the topic and quote whatever book, page and verse you want, but that doesn't make one side more right than any other, it's just various interpretations of a point that has no true or correct answer.

All fine and good but not the point of this exchange. As I said, I do believe that 40k has no canon. To borrow a phrase from you: full stop. What I am arguing with Lynata about is whether there can be any difference between something being canonical and something being true.

Manchu wrote:Think of it like eviction. According to technical procedures, you're supposed to get an eviction notice. But if your landlord hires some goons to throw you out of your apartment, you're no less evicted for not having gotten notice. Or put it a better way, if you landlord refuses to repair the property so that it is habitable forcing you to move out, you're no less evicted for not having gotten notice.

Technically speaking, that's still not an eviction. And you could actually go to court and have a good chance of winning the case.

Manchu wrote:GW does the same sort of thing. We've got an old book about the Necron that says one thing and a new book about the Necrons that says something totally contradictory. At no point did GW issue a statement retracting the old Necron fluff. But that fluff is no less superseded for lack of that statement.

Not necessarily. 40k is what we as individuals make of it. Nobody actually has any right to say "you're doing it wrong" to someone still sticking to the old Necron fluff. Just like some people were still carrying their Squat armies. And just like some people like FFG's Deathwatch more than GW's. It is superseded only for the purpose of the "snapshot" of a setting that GW publishes within a single edition; the "now", the "current status". Ideally that one should be internally consistent, at least.

So, yeah, GW didn't retract the old Necron fluff. They did not have to, either. According to them, I'd say "it's just another interpretation, one of many".

Manchu wrote:And as Aaron Dembski-Bowden personally told you and I, he caught some flak over the post he wrote on his own blog about this.

Really? I did not read that - I read that he was asking them if it'd be okay to write this. And apparently it was, else he'd have surely taken it offline again, or even retracted it.

Manchu wrote:Andy Hoare's comment was Andy Hoare's opinion and in no way represents an official position of GW or BL.

It also represents, however, an individual who has apparently no problem enforcing this very opinion on all he is working on. And when we have half a dozen people who have been writing for GW/BL/FFG basically confirm each other's "opinion", why should I assume GW would have a different position just because they do not publicly endorse it?

Manchu wrote:That an account exists is a datum of canon: it is canonical that this account, some Imperial report or whatever, actually exists. It's existence is not flawed. It's contents are.

Well, if you want to see it like that, I suppose that is correct. It's not whar 99% of the people around here are talking about when they discuss "canon", though.

And - thanks for the compliment.

Lynata wrote:Technically speaking, that's still not an eviction. And you could actually go to court and have a good chance of winning the case.

See above. (Also, I don't just play a lawyer on the internet; I'm also one IRL.)

Lynata wrote:Ideally that one should be internally consistent, at least.

And that "current" one is the one we are generally discussing here on the boards so ...

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:And as Aaron Dembski-Bowden personally told you and I, he caught some flak over the post he wrote on his own blog about this.

Really? I did not read that - I read that he was asking them if it'd be okay to write this. And apparently it was, else he'd have surely taken it offline again, or even retracted it.

Oh Lynata ... Fine, read it once more then:

Dead Blue Clown wrote:The reality was that I got in huge trouble for posting that (I'm almost always in trouble for one reason or another) because GW has little inclination to discuss it. The prevailing attitude is just to not mention it much at all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/443730.page#4418517

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:Andy Hoare's comment was Andy Hoare's opinion and in no way represents an official position of GW or BL.

It also represents, however, an individual who has apparently no problem enforcing this very opinion on all he is working on. And when we have half a dozen people who have been writing for GW/BL/FFG basically confirm each other's "opinion", why should I assume GW would have a different position just because they do not publicly endorse it?

Because they have no reason to commit themselves one way or the other. Very simple. They have every reason to have fans discussing canon while allowing themselves to conceive of there being no canon at all. Fans get invested in the product (which is the point of fluff) and GW gets to mess everything around whenever they want to usher out a new product or license.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:That an account exists is a datum of canon: it is canonical that this account, some Imperial report or whatever, actually exists. It's existence is not flawed. It's contents are.

Well, if you want to see it like that, I suppose that is correct. It's not whar 99% of the people around here are talking about when they discuss "canon", though.

Well, I know. But I am talking to you.

Manchu wrote:See above. (Also, I don't just play a lawyer on the internet; I'm also one IRL.)

Well, all I can say is that German law doesn't use a term like that. "Constructive eviction" sounds much too legal for a criminal act, imho.

Manchu wrote:And that "current" one is the one we are generally discussing here on the boards so ...

That is what one should assume, but more often than not it's not the case - rooted in the lack of canon leading people to treat novel X as "current", too.

For what it's worth, perhaps an "explanation" of sorts should be stickied somewhere, simply to have people discuss on a common ground. On the other hand, it would seem as if even the newest GW rulebook is not "more right" than any other source, as much as I personally treat GW material with higher priority. There really is no elegant solution to this issue, is there? :(
But it would help a lot if people were aware that nothing actually officially overrides anything, fluffwise. We seem to be getting along well enough otherwise, at least I try to.

Manchu wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/443730.page#4418517

Thanks, I honestly did not recall that. I may have mentioned this before, but I have a surprisingly bad memory - surprising because I seemingly have no issue remembering even the most minor details of some rare fluff account, yet keep forgetting a load of more pressing things.

Manchu wrote:Because they have no reason to commit themselves one way or the other. Very simple. They have every reason to have fans discussing canon while allowing themselves to conceive of there being no canon at all. Fans get invested in the product (which is the point of fluff) and GW gets to mess everything around whenever they want to usher out a new product or license.

Didn't I just say that myself?

Manchu wrote:Well, I know. But I am talking to you.

Me, I have merely adapted to the prevalent usage of this term. As I said, there are other definitions. I still believe that "everything and nothing is true" is slightly less slowed than "everything and nothing is canon", though - it's both contradictory, but truths and lies are at least completely separated from the issue of canonicity.

You know, I have recently been reading BattleTech material. I can tell you how much better they are in regard to all of this.

So my professional training is as a lawyer but my undergraduate training was as a historian. As such ...

With regard to GW, my conclusion is:

(1) We treat everything we have, no matter how old or recent, as a document.

(2) Our primary attitude toward each document is that it is true excepting the following considerations:

(2)(a) Out-of-universe context: as with the well known and self-admitted anti-canonical approach of C. S. Goto or the obvious turn away from the humor of Rogue Trader to the seriousness of Third Edition.

(2)(b) In-universe context: we look for the prejudice of the narrator, as with the Ork account of them never losing a battle.

(2)(c) Retconning: when newer sources flat-out contradict older ones.

(3) Whatever remains can be woven together into consistency.

Now ... is this to say that what we weave is the "official" canon? Absolutely not. No such thing exists. But as fans, this is the best we can do. If we don't at least attempt it, then we're not experiencing this franchise together. You've got your little ideas and I've got my little ideas and no meaningful conversation is possible.

Well, that's basically how it goes. Some people believe X about the setting, other people believe Y. Neither of these people are wrong. We can sit here and discuss our particular, personal beliefs on the subject all night and day, but at best we will reach a consensus on a shared belief and understanding, we're never going to prove someone "wrong", unless they're simply incorrectly quoting a printed source or something of that nature. If I want to have servitors in my 40K be a bit more like the Droids of Star Wars (brains-in-boxes, not fully artificial), I can do that. If I want Tech Priests who specialize in archaeo and xeno languages to be augmented into glittering gold humanoids with a command of six million forms of communication, I can do that. I'm not wrong for doing that, because there's no canon on what a Tech Priest looks like.

Wait a minute...a planet covered in chaos dudes with an entire magical air of chaos magic in the air, populated by alien things, a rogue humanity believing in another god, and all that.
They'd blow it up.

Psienesis wrote:I'm not wrong for doing that

No one cares whether you are "right or wrong" regarding your own personal imaginary world. But if you start telling me that C-3P0 is a tech priest, you're wasting my time.

htj wrote:

DeffDred wrote:Empire: Renaissance Germany
Bretonia: Grail Knights from English literature
Skaven: Rats, generally

Generally agree, but just wanted to call you out on those three. Not seeing the modern American thing in Skaven... especially since by location they're worldwide.

The stories of King Arthur were written in France by a Frenchman.

I see Skaven as modern America because of their back-stabbing, quasi-capitalist, all-for-one-and-one-is-me attitude.

Which isn't really that American...

DeffDred wrote:

htj wrote:

DeffDred wrote:Empire: Renaissance Germany
Bretonia: Grail Knights from English literature
Skaven: Rats, generally

Generally agree, but just wanted to call you out on those three. Not seeing the modern American thing in Skaven... especially since by location they're worldwide.

The stories of King Arthur were written in France by a Frenchman.

I see Skaven as modern America because of their back-stabbing, quasi-capitalist, all-for-one-and-one-is-me attitude.

That just makes them human, not specifically American.

It isn't a daemon world because it isn't ruled by Chaos. It'd be classified as a Feudal/War World, if it wasn't subject to Exterminatus, which would be likely.

The obvious question is: How precise does the classificaiton system have to be? Does it allow for overlap between multiple classifications per world (EG can you have a hive world that is also an industrial world, forge world, mining world, Fortress/Garrison world, etc.) or does everything have to conform to one particular class and not all else? Are ther variations on particular classifications (EG are there diffretn KINDS of Hive worlds, mining worlds, forge worlds, etc.)

The WHFB doesn't exist in the 40k continuity, but if it did it'd quite easily classify as a Feudal world. That being said, the significant Chaos and non-human presence on it would have probably led to a major Imperial crusade by now that would have either had the planet dominated by humans or a husk or dust.

Connor MacLeod wrote:The obvious question is: How precise does the classificaiton system have to be? Does it allow for overlap between multiple classifications per world (EG can you have a hive world that is also an industrial world, forge world, mining world, Fortress/Garrison world, etc.) or does everything have to conform to one particular class and not all else? Are ther variations on particular classifications (EG are there diffretn KINDS of Hive worlds, mining worlds, forge worlds, etc.)

Sorta. A Forge World is under the purview of the Adeptus Mechanicus. A Hive World is under the control of the Adeptus Terra. A Hive World may have massive Manufactorum facilities producing anything from power-cells to Titans. A Forge World is going to have massive population centers to house the legions of workers. All Hive Worlds are going to be industrial worlds to some extent, though things like "Industrial World", "Mining World", etc are getting rather granular, because the world was originally settled for some reason, whether that was natural resources or because it could support large amounts of humans, so a Hive World like Sepheris Secundis that meets its tithe by the export of millions of tons of ore is still a Mining World. There is overlap to some extent, though to what extent a world can combine these is... unclear, at best.

It would be clasified as Gone/Destroyed. Even the main human governments openly use magic, so the whole planet would be seen as lost.