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.

Do you or do you not consider BL and FW materials as valid/canon as GW's own materials? Why or why not?

Personally, its yes; BL and FW are GW-affiliated, so their publications are just as valid (flame storm incoming...maybe ).

Yes they are. Its a lot more obvious now with FW doing the Heresy books, and with BL having other novels for major events (the Macharian crusade, and Yarrick's adventure for IG).

Yes, they are. FW definitely is, and despite reading some conflicting fluff in BL it is also considered canon by GW. Usually, if it's not canon, it will specifically say it more often than not

So even if it is conflicting it is still a canon?
Not in my book...sorry

Of course they are. Everything that gets released for 40K counts (in one way or another). Mistakes have been made along the way, but that's true of everything, so to put it as simply as possible: If GW didn't want it to exist, it would not exist.

 DarthMarko wrote:
So even if it is conflicting it is still a canon?
Not in my book...sorry

FW stuff USUALLY never conflicts, but some of the BL stuff does (and that's the most questionable). It's usually between "This 3 year old book about the Heresy, and this 2 month old book about the Heresy by completely different authors". Every universe has conflicting canon in books, that's what makes being a fluff nerd fun hahaha

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If GW didn't want it to exist, it would not exist.

THIS. Its not like GW doesn't have oversight over their affiliates.

 washout77 wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
So even if it is conflicting it is still a canon?
Not in my book...sorry

FW stuff USUALLY never conflicts, but some of the BL stuff does (and that's the most questionable). It's usually between "This 3 year old book about the Heresy, and this 2 month old book about the Heresy by completely different authors". Every universe has conflicting canon in books, that's what makes being a fluff nerd fun hahaha

Actually - FW is cool, but BL isn't better than any fanfiction IMHO...and I tend to read it that way...

 DarthMarko wrote:

 washout77 wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
So even if it is conflicting it is still a canon?
Not in my book...sorry

FW stuff USUALLY never conflicts, but some of the BL stuff does (and that's the most questionable). It's usually between "This 3 year old book about the Heresy, and this 2 month old book about the Heresy by completely different authors". Every universe has conflicting canon in books, that's what makes being a fluff nerd fun hahaha

Actually - FW is cool, but BL isn't better than any fanfiction IMHO...and I tend to read it that way...

We'll have to agree to disagree on the part about BL being no better than fanfiction

But if you look at BL - I' mean authors use their versions of the story, they often trample and conflict existing fluff, use protagonists as super heroes...
So what's the difference my friend ? Stamp from GW ?

 DarthMarko wrote:
But if you look at BL - I' mean authors use their versions of the story, they often trample and conflict existing fluff, use protagonists as super heroes...
So what's the difference my friend ? Stamp from GW ?

Actually, yes (I am serious).

I go on a tier system for the cannon:
If its from the main rulebook or a codex(newer version if conflict) it trumps the FW and BL material.

Here's the way I look at it. 40k is a setting for the table top game. It's not supposed to go further, it is supposed to represent a certain time in history where mankind is on the brink of total destruction. To me, that means what is in the codex and core rule book are the real fluff. If any of the other books published by GW contradict that and are not made for the table top game then to me they are not canon. So basically in my eyes Black Library stuff isn't canon at all.

But GW's stance on it is that everything they publish is canon while at the same time not canon.

@Valerian -> Sorry, dumb me (I'm programming right now, so my mind is all 010101010)....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Here's the way I look at it. 40k is a setting for the table top game. It's not supposed to go further, it is supposed to represent a certain time in history where mankind is on the brink of total destruction. To me, that means what is in the codex and core rule book are the real fluff. If any of the other books published by GW contradict that and are not made for the table top game then to me they are not canon. So basically in my eyes Black Library stuff isn't canon at all.

But GW's stance on it is that everything they publish is canon while at the same time not canon.

Yeah even Abnett said - use codex as canon first, we are just writing stories....
So basically, dakka 40k background discussions are 90% about something which isn't canon (or is)...LOL

 DarthMarko wrote:
@Valerian -> Sorry, dumb me (I'm programming right now, so my mind is all 010101010)....

Huh?

I'm not following you :-)
So you're ok with BL as canon ? Or not ?

 DarthMarko wrote:
I'm not following you :-)
So you're ok with BL as canon ? Or not ?

I use my head: if the story is believable, then yes. If its not, then no. But usually it is, so yes.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
I'm not following you :-)
So you're ok with BL as canon ? Or not ?

I use my head: if the story believable, then yes. If its not, then no. But usually it is, so yes.

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.

It just kinda gradually fades from Studio to GW-as-a-whole to GW-licensed to whatever..

But yeah, Dan Abnett at the very least is on the record saying he doesn't see his stuff as "canon", but rather as his own "interpretation" of the setting.

GW's officia stance is that everything published about the 40k universe is canon, but just because it's canon doesn't mean that its true. Most if not all material is published from an Imperial perspective, which means that its extremely prone to re-interpretation to better fit dogma, distorted into legend, or potentially even just an outright fabrication (ie, propaganda).

Well, there is C.S.Goto. So not all BL stuff can be considered canon. Because of him, control seems to be a bit better now.

RegalPhantom wrote:
GW's officia stance is that everything published about the 40k universe is canon, but just because it's canon doesn't mean that its true. Most if not all material is published from an Imperial perspective, which means that its extremely prone to re-interpretation to better fit dogma, distorted into legend, or potentially even just an outright fabrication (ie, propaganda).

This.

For the most part, FW is pretty linked to GW and is faithful to what should and shouldn't be canonnical in the 40k universe. Black Library writers have a bit more leeway and what they say is canon, but GW has explained people like CS Goto by saying that canon ≠ truth.

Initially, not so much, but as they've gone away from the initial Imperial Armor books, fixed a lot of rules and pay attention to what's going on in the 40k universe, I think they are completely intertwined. It's also obvious from the retconning that GW is doing on most of its fluff to bring it in line with the Horus Heresy novels.

Inconsistencies were always going to abound; multiple authors with an ambiguous subject that only has bits and pieces expounded upon tends to have that happen. Now they're trying to rein those in and are doing a pretty good job at it.

Having started with 3rd edition WFB and Rogue Trader, there is more that has been removed from the fluff than added for me (not counting BL that is). As the game background/feel kept getting toned down, it stayed the same for me. The "hints" of the deeper and nastier stuff were still there, so my brain just hooked right into them and filled in the blanks easily enough. Generally once you are playing a game, though, the fluff has little to no bearing anymore. It is then down to the rules and the dice and the fluff doesn't always matter to those things. So many times in the past as a unit was described in a certain way in the fluff in the codex, but the rules for the unit made them play completely differently than that.

Guess it all comes down to: Enjoy whatever fluff you like and want to consider canon, but once the dice start rolling it really doesn't matter how the units are supposed to work based on the fluff. At that point all that matters is the actual rules.

Skriker

 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.

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

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

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.

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.

 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.

Yes, the products sold under license by Black Library, Forgeworld and FFG are just as valid as GW material. And so is fan-fiction. Meaning, not much, and it's up to you:

"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
-- Gav Thorpe

"It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
-- Andy Hoare

"There is no canon. There's a variety of sources, many of which conflict, but every single one is a lens through which we can see the 40K setting."
-- Aaron Dembski-Bowden

"The back story presents questions, enigmas, problems, and conflicts. Gamers explore and solve these issues by playing games and developing armies. In short, the background provides the beginning, but the players provide the end. What is Cypher up to? Well, he's up to whatever you need him to be up to for your games and campaigns. What does the cult mechanicus have to do with the dragon? Whatever you want that relationship to be.
The background should be like Schrodinger's Cat - nothing is defined until the players look into the box by playing games and determining the outcome for themselves. Backgrounds should be full of possibilities to be exploited and expanded by players, not answers that limit the potential of the game and its setting."
- WD #302


For my own private interpretation of the setting, I use GW's material as a defining solid base, but occasionally cherrypick individual things from licensed products that I like / deem compatible.
Whenever I'm discussing fluff publicly here, I will always fall back to GW only, as I deem it to be the generally most consistent and unbiased source, as well as a "common ground" due to its origin status and the prevalence of the material, compared to individual non-studio products that have a smaller, more select circle of owners/readers and are usually tailored to a singular aspect of the setting.

So the question in the poll is a bit misleading - are we talking about (non-)canonicity/validity as defined by the owners of this franchise for 40k as an IP, or are we talking about our own interpretations of 40k as a setting, which are in turn validified by GW's stance on the subject? If the former, I'd have to tick "yes", for the latter, my vote would be "no". I value consistency too much to have it get ripped apart by countless freelance authors' own takes on 40k. I'd rather substitute my own - but, unlike with all too many licensed products - without contradicting the material released by GW.

RegalPhantom wrote:GW's officia stance is that everything published about the 40k universe is canon [...]

Correction:
GW's stance is that "everything is official". To my knowledge, GW has never publicly even touched the term "canon", as it is usually regarded as carrying a deeper connotation (referring to a single internally consistent setting rather than just a category of licensed products). I invite anyone to show me a source that says differently, however.

Here's one more comment from Marc Gascoigne:

"Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a "big question" doesn't matter. It's all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is "Yes and no" or perhaps "Sometimes". And for me, that's the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be "sometimes" or "it varies" or "depends".

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It's a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW's definition of canon? Perhaps we don't have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I'm not telling you."

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

Yep.
Lucasfilm even has a dedicated "consistency database" with a guy who keeps the EU in line and corrects contradictions, either by declaring something non-canon or (more often) finding a way to reconcile the sources. Unlike with 40k, there is a clear structure where there can be no debate about which interpretation has more "weight".

 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.