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.

This is a bit of a silly question, but here goes.

What is considered "canon" when discussing 40k? I understand that there are multiple different sources of fluff, from the Black Library books, Rulebooks, Codexes, WDs, etc, but are any of them considered more official than the others? Does Fantasy Flight Games stuff count? What about the Dawn of War series? I know someone wrote a book based on them (C.S. Goto?)

Part of the fun in 40K is making the background your own, but does codex > rulebook when it comes to fluff if there is a conflict just like with rules? Or does it just become discussion fodder for Dakka? Are the different BL books supposed to offer in universe explanations and therefore not strictly canon or what? The last BRB I read was for 3rd ED (I recently got back into the game buying DV) and I remember it reading more from a Imperium perspective than omniscient narrator, are the BRBs open for interpretation as well or canon?

Edited to add a poll! Open for suggestions changing it, or feel free to start a new one asking about canon hierarchies, I'm off for the night.

Everything. There is no such thing as canon in 40K. Actually, it's all canon... that is to say, nothing written in any source can be taken as "canon" over any other, as all of it is nothing but a collection of myths, rumors, stories, and hearsay.

Even the rulebooks are written from an in-universe perspective, unless what you're reading is a chart for game-mechanics or something that is obviously for the table-top game itself, rather than the fluff behind the game.

First of all, C.S.Goto can die in a hole.

And this is a common question, id suggest searching for threads on this sort of thing, as Im anticipating a bit of complaining directed at you. Just a heads up mate.

Anyway, a lot of different sources, and even different bits of fluff from the same source can contradict each other. A lot of the BL books contradict each other, due to all the different authors for example.

In my head, it just represents how chaotic the 40k universe is. Its so big and there is so much going on, that there are bound to be conflicting perspectives on single events, and what happened where and with who.

I guess generally GW (i.e. codices and rulebooks) is the top source, then the BL, and then other sources I dont know start to fall in.

Everything... yet nothing!

 Psienesis wrote:
Everything. There is no such thing as canon in 40K. Actually, it's all canon... that is to say, nothing written in any source can be taken as "canon" over any other, as all of it is nothing but a collection of myths, rumors, stories, and hearsay.

Even the rulebooks are written from an in-universe perspective, unless what you're reading is a chart for game-mechanics or something that is obviously for the table-top game itself, rather than the fluff behind the game.

You summed it up a lot better than me mate

I'm gonna be subjective and say BL book will never trump codex/index fluff in my eyes..Thanks to the wisdom of some great posters here on dakka who refuse to go into debates when some biased author trumps his version over established fluff...


OP - do a poll, please....

 HerbaciousT wrote:
And this is a common question, id suggest searching for threads on this sort of thing, as Im anticipating a bit of complaining directed at you. Just a heads up mate.

I used the search function and skimmed the first few pages, nothing really jumped out. Sorry!

 HerbaciousT wrote:
I guess generally GW (i.e. codices and rulebooks) is the top source, then the BL, and then other sources I dont know start to fall in.

This was part of my question as well, is there a canon hierarchy (which there shouldn't be, since, well canon) or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Everything. There is no such thing as canon in 40K. Actually, it's all canon... that is to say, nothing written in any source can be taken as "canon" over any other, as all of it is nothing but a collection of myths, rumors, stories, and hearsay.

Even the rulebooks are written from an in-universe perspective, unless what you're reading is a chart for game-mechanics or something that is obviously for the table-top game itself, rather than the fluff behind the game.

This too is what I was lead to believe, just wanted to double check! Thanks for the quick response!

Not officially, no. Some people stick by Codex over Novel, others have their own "canon constructs", but these are all just personal choices and opinions, one no more correct, or incorrect, than any other.

 DarthMarko wrote:
I'm gonna be subjective and say BL book will never trump codex/index fluff in my eyes..Thanks to the wisdom of some great posters here on dakka who refuse to go into debates when some biased author trumps his version over established fluff...


OP - do a poll, please....

What would you like in the poll? I will whip it up then I am hitting the sack.

 Psienesis wrote:
Not officially, no. Some people stick by Codex over Novel, others have their own "canon constructs", but these are all just personal choices and opinions, one no more correct, or incorrect, than any other.

And some people abuse that and use which ever version suits them best for their faction


Automatically Appended Next Post:

4TheG8erGood wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
I'm gonna be subjective and say BL book will never trump codex/index fluff in my eyes..Thanks to the wisdom of some great posters here on dakka who refuse to go into debates when some biased author trumps his version over established fluff...


OP - do a poll, please....

What would you like in the poll? I will whip it up then I am hitting the sack.

Well you know...How do you rank your fluff source, or something like that...Or which fluff source you use when contradictions hit you:-)

 DarthMarko wrote:
Well you know...How do you rank your fluff source, or something like that...Or which fluff source you use when contradictions hit you:-)

Tried to capture that in a poll, peace out!

4TheG8erGood wrote:

 DarthMarko wrote:
Well you know...How do you rank your fluff source, or something like that...Or which fluff source you use when contradictions hit you:-)

Tried to capture that in a poll, peace out!

Huzzah

Edit: First choice is really deep dude :-)

The 40k I enjoy is the right one for me. Same for you. And him. And her. But not that guy in the corner, because he's a freak.

So, I'm gonna leave my usual set of quotes here:

"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

... bottom line, 40k is what you make of it. The gamers and the readers are supposed to take possession of the setting and shape it as befits their individual preferences and purposes. It took me quite a while to "get this", for like many I came to the franchise believing that everything was supposed to fit together - an "urban myth" that even now is still propagated by some because that's what they were told from other fans ..

I'm a bit confused, though. Isn't the option "everything yet nothing" essentially the same as "things you agree with, nothing more"?

[edit] Oh, I forgot, I should write a bit about how I deal with the subject myself ...

Me, I'm staying as close to the GW studio fluff as possible, meaning the contents of codices, the rulebooks, magazines such as White Dwarf or Citadel Journal (RIP) and the stuff hosted on the various websites (free PDFs and short articles). Aside from me "growing up" with the tone and style of the studio's own writing, I also believe that this approach keeps me more compatible to the majority of future products from this origin than if I were to embrace one of the outsourced outlets of fluff instead, simply because all the GW stuff is written by the same circle of people (aside from the occasional change in personnel that occurs over the years), compared to the ideas and interpretations of the many, many different individual writers that work on novels etc. Many cooks, broth, etc. Even now, after over two decades, you still find references and even straight copied passages of text from the earliest days of the franchise in the newest rulebook. That is a consistency unparalleled by any other source of fluff, and I'm all for consistency.

Last but not least, even with the "laissez-faire" approach that GW has taken on the setting, it seems that people - including other authors - tend to look to GW for orientation first. This can be witnessed on outsourced material quickly picking up on, for example, the "Newcrons", rather than ignoring this pseudo-retcon. This exchange of ideas actually works both ways, but GW seems notably less likely to adopt something from BL (etc.) than the other way around. And don't count on seeing the contents of one BL novel referenced in another, except perhaps when they're part of a series .. and even then you'll have conflicts.
When it comes to GW sources, I'm also going with "newer source overrides older source" in case of any contradictions that cannot be worked around.

That doesn't mean that I do not incorporate anything that has not been printed elsewhere into my own personal interpretation of the 41st millennium, however. There are a number of aspects from various novels and games that I have adopted into my perspective as well, all depending on how cool I subjectively thought they were, as well as (perhaps even more important) how well they fit in or can be made to fit in. In this, I do not incorporate the entire product but just the things I liked.

The cherrypicking from non-GW sources is something I rarely discuss here, however, simply because that is even more personal and subjective than my preference for GW fluff, which I also regard as a sort of "common ground" between us. So, whenever I'm posting about fluff, consider it to be referring to GW material. Any exceptions to this will be specially marked by me, and usually take the form of suggestions of something to potentially draw inspiration from if the reader likes what he or she sees.

For me, just about everything. If there's a contradiction, then I'll typically go with whichever's newest or most detailed. Which is often Black Library/The Horus Heresy series.

Rulebook + Codexes + Black Library + FFG + DOW, etc + Everything...yet nothing!

Everything is considered canon except things that were replaced by newer versions. But there are also part of the fluff that you can form your own opinion of that is also considered canon.

 Lynata wrote:
So, I'm gonna leave my usual set of quotes here:

"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

... bottom line, 40k is what you make of it. The gamers and the readers are supposed to take possession of the setting and shape it as befits their individual preferences and purposes. It took me quite a while to "get this", for like many I came to the franchise believing that everything was supposed to fit together - an "urban myth" that even now is still propagated by some because that's what they were told from other fans ..

I'm a bit confused, though. Isn't the option "everything yet nothing" essentially the same as "things you agree with, nothing more"?

What bugs me is when people are stopping to use their brain and starting to hit you with the quotes from authors (fe: "Corax said that only Horus and perhaps Sanguinius could take doen Angron",even after authors told us that all P are simillar ), which kills the creative thinking...And don't forget OTHER RACES ARE WUSSES book policy...At least they are not in their own codexes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Captain Alexander wrote:


Everything is considered canon except things that were replaced by newer versions. But there are also part of the fluff that you can form your own opinion of that is also considered canon.

Why do you exclude older versions? IMHO newer isn't better (like music)and I would be damned if I replace some of the fluff established eons ago...

Everything is suppose to be canon but the important thing is that its whatever you agree with

Doesn't that effectively mean the opposite, though? Canon, at least in the context of what we are referring to here, denotes a set of material that forms an established and universally accepted worldview, does it not?

Maybe should've posted ADB's sentence in its entirety ...

"It's all true and none of it's true" means, at its core: "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."

In any case, I thought that this exchange was rather entlightening.

In b4 the Lynata "there is no canon" thing we get. O wait....

Anyway, I consider everything with the seal of approval by GW to be part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe.

 Harriticus wrote:
In b4 the Lynata "there is no canon" thing we get. O wait....

Anyway, I consider everything with the seal of approval by GW to be part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe.

So you take Draigo crap seriously ? Sorry for using that example, but this is the first thing that comes to my mind...

There is so much to not take seriously in this setting.
Enjoy what you like, yet be prepared that there will always be conflicts somewhere with it.
Also note that the canon cannon does not truly exist here.

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
In b4 the Lynata "there is no canon" thing we get. O wait....

Anyway, I consider everything with the seal of approval by GW to be part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe.

So you take Draigo crap seriosly ? Sorry for using that example, but this is the first thing that comes to my mind...

I don't take it seriously, it's terrible fluff. But it's still fluff.

Heyyy, fun facet of profanity filters: if the forbidden word is in a URL, you can't link to the page! So here: http://bit.ly/B9ZPx

It's an excellent post about the concept of canon, and how Doctor Who is explicitly stated not to have one (and could not have one if it tried). I tend to apply a lot of the ideas here to how I think of 40k canon as well.

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
In b4 the Lynata "there is no canon" thing we get. O wait....

Anyway, I consider everything with the seal of approval by GW to be part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe.

So you take Draigo crap seriously ? Sorry for using that example, but this is the first thing that comes to my mind...

On the Draigo issue, if it bothers you so much, you might perhaps look at the new Chaos Codex. A "throw-away" line in the fluff speaks of a silver knight who went around the Warp until he was corrupted by Slaanesh.

Is that Draigo? In typical GW fashion the answer would be, "Could Be...Or Maybe not."

You see - GW (along with a bunch of other RPG companies) finally hit upon a formula that works for them.

If you can accept the fact that the goal of every company is to maximize profit, then you can see how this might work.

You don't like Draigo (and perhaps the Grey Knights too). But there's someone else who Really Really Really likes Draigo.

GW doesn't have to take a position on the matter really. It wants to sell to you.

It wants to sell to the Draigo-lover as well.

You both "pay the bills" so to speak and proceed to argue about it with each other while GW walks away, checks in hand.

I voted for "Rulebook + Codexes + Black Library + FFG + DOW, etc" cause it and "Everything... yet nothing" are the same.

Anyway I will put this to you, the 6th edition rulebook has this on the galaxy map:


As you can see, the galaxy map has the Calixis sector on it. Calixis sector was created by FFG. FFG features the Blood Ravens and Red Scorpion in their Deathwatch rpg. They will also feature the Tanith First and Only in their Only War rpg.

The Different FFG settings are all linked together. Blood Ravens are from the DOW games. Red Scorpions are from FW. Tanith first and only are from BL.

So ergo, All FFG material, FW, DOW and BL are canon.

The only thing I have an exception in not taking is the crap written by Goto. I will accept it, with reluctance! I believe in taking the video game fluff as was shown in the video games over the novels written by Goto for the video games.

Anyway, new fluff takes precedence and even retcons older fluff.

There is no canon; a not-so-clever design by GW because apparently 40K fans are a bunch of bawling babies who will stop buying 40K products if they're told that their female-bi-sexual-space-marine army wouldn't actually exist in the game's fictional background.

Most people take the bits that they like and ignore the stuff they dont

 Zakiriel wrote:

How much canon can the canon cannon cannon when the canon cannon can cannon canon?

 DarthMarko wrote:

Why do you exclude older versions? IMHO newer isn't better (like music)and I would be damned if I replace some of the fluff established eons ago...

Because newer version of the same stuff retcon older i return ( see Ferrus Manus, before missing and now dead, Necrons now and Necrons before ), of course you can always discard new fluff for older if you don't like it.