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.

Hey guys!
I'm starting a swarm and wouldn't like to know how much cannon I could get in the White Dwarf magazines. Since I'd like a subscription that'd be perfect.
Else, do you know of some other place I coul get some up-to-date cannon about the lore?

Thanks in advance!

Pssst, canon.

Most of the backstory is in codices, novels, and audio dramas. There is very little in the White Dwarves, unless the White Dwarf is specifically focusing on one race.
One of the fun things about 40k is that there is no canon. You can pretty much pick and choose what's canon.

White Dwarf and canon? They can't even get their rules correct and how they play. You want to get something "official" for fluff?

Don't be looking at White Dwarf. They get a lot of things wrong, fluff, rules and what they even sell.

You can say Bells of Lost Souls is more accurate than White Dwarf. At least BoLS has that site now where you can get canon information now. Sorry forget the name. Lexicum?

 Verviedi wrote:
Pssst, canon.

Most of the backstory is in codices, novels, and audio dramas. There is very little in the White Dwarves, unless the White Dwarf is specifically focusing on one race.
One of the fun things about 40k is that there is no canon. You can pretty much pick and choose what's canon.

Correct on both counts. White Dwarf is not a significant source of lore, and GW's opinion on what is canon is that you can pick and choose what accounts you believe to be canon from among the published material, or simply invent your own fiction in the WH40k universe entirely if you prefer. The accounts of events over the past 30 years of WH40k lore have varied so wildly you could even choose to consider the Imperium to be tolerant of Xenos if you extrapolate that fact from the existence of a half-Eldar Chief Librarian of the Ultramarines from... 2nd edition, I think. They don't care about establishing anything as absolute canon.

Lexicanum is generally a good place to look as well.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page

I haven't looked at WD for a while, and I hope it's improving, but last I saw it was very little more than a catalogue to sell the new releases.

I also recall what is written or is it published in books is not canon only what is in a codex is canon.

Davor wrote:
I also recall what is written or is it published in books is not canon only what is in a codex is canon.

Correction, per GW themselves, nothing is really canon. This isn't Star Wars, nothing is official and there's no heirarchy of what's more correct. The concept of "headcanon" seems to be encouraged - you take what you like from what's been printed and you make it your own. Of course, people are going to be more likely to agree with your version of things if you can cite something like a recent codex rather than a 20 year old novel, but GW doesn't bother to officiate on things like that.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Davor wrote:
I also recall what is written or is it published in books is not canon only what is in a codex is canon.

Correction, per GW themselves, nothing is really canon. This isn't Star Wars, nothing is official and there's no heirarchy of what's more correct. The concept of "headcanon" seems to be encouraged - you take what you like from what's been printed and you make it your own. Of course, people are going to be more likely to agree with your version of things if you can cite something like a recent codex rather than a 20 year old novel, but GW doesn't bother to officiate on things like that.

Thank you for the correction. So for me, it's canon that Tyranids are not mindless automatons and they can be individualistic have metal weapons and Zoats are alive and well. Just like in Rouge Trader.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Correction, per GW themselves, nothing is really canon. This isn't Star Wars, nothing is official and there's no heirarchy of what's more correct. The concept of "headcanon" seems to be encouraged - you take what you like from what's been printed and you make it your own. Of course, people are going to be more likely to agree with your version of things if you can cite something like a recent codex rather than a 20 year old novel, but GW doesn't bother to officiate on things like that.

Which is why DA definitely never had any trace of heresy present in their chapter. I hear people keep mentioning "Fallen" but I'm pretty sure that's just someone else's headcanon.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Correction, per GW themselves, nothing is really canon. This isn't Star Wars, nothing is official and there's no heirarchy of what's more correct. The concept of "headcanon" seems to be encouraged - you take what you like from what's been printed and you make it your own. Of course, people are going to be more likely to agree with your version of things if you can cite something like a recent codex rather than a 20 year old novel, but GW doesn't bother to officiate on things like that.

Which is why DA definitely never had any trace of heresy present in their chapter. I hear people keep mentioning "Fallen" but I'm pretty sure that's just someone else's headcanon.

Doubtless hypocritical radical inquisitors seeing heresy where there isn't, once again. Probably Alpha Legion coverts, the lot of them!