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.

 Omegus wrote:
Ugh, why does every conversation devolve into a discussion of what GW considers canon or not? Seriously, Dakka needs to just put in big bold letters at the top of the background forum section that there is no canon. Sure, Lynata would have absolutely nothing to post anymore, but that's a small price to pay for my sanity.

Or you could just, you know, stop reading the forums.

The topic of what is and is not "canon" in this setting is actually very important, because it's something that a lot of fans don't seem to really "get". They read something in a book, whether that's a Codex, a WD article, a BL novel, whatever, and they take that as the "gospel truth" about a given subject. Then, sometimes weeks, sometimes years, later, another book/article/codex/whatever comes a long and says something different about that, and people get bent out of shape and have a hissy-rage over something that is not really worth having such a reaction over.

And then, of course, there's the arguments that arise over which version of events is "true" (as if fiction can be said to be "true") get down to, basically, people arguing an internet opinion (as opposed to a professional opinion, wherein those arguing have some stake in the matter and an educated view on the subject), which gets no one anywhere.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Omegus wrote:
Ugh, why does every conversation devolve into a discussion of what GW considers canon or not? Seriously, Dakka needs to just put in big bold letters at the top of the background forum section that there is no canon. Sure, Lynata would have absolutely nothing to post anymore, but that's a small price to pay for my sanity.

Or you could just, you know, stop reading the forums.

The topic of what is and is not "canon" in this setting is actually very important, because it's something that a lot of fans don't seem to really "get". They read something in a book, whether that's a Codex, a WD article, a BL novel, whatever, and they take that as the "gospel truth" about a given subject. Then, sometimes weeks, sometimes years, later, another book/article/codex/whatever comes a long and says something different about that, and people get bent out of shape and have a hissy-rage over something that is not really worth having such a reaction over.

And then, of course, there's the arguments that arise over which version of events is "true" (as if fiction can be said to be "true") get down to, basically, people arguing an internet opinion (as opposed to a professional opinion, wherein those arguing have some stake in the matter and an educated view on the subject), which gets no one anywhere.

What you say is true. However some fluff is rewritten and changed, for example the C'tan are no longer whole while they were in the previous codex.

 Psienesis wrote:

Or you could just, you know, stop reading the forums.

Or they could just, you know, make a sticky that reads "THERE IS NO CANON, STFU" and cut the impotent nerd rage by at least 50%.

They could, sure, but do you think anyone would actually read it, and, further, understand what it means?

In another forum I post on, they have, at the top of the page, a shoutbox for users to chat with one another in. It is advertised, at the top of it, in big, yellow letters, that it is *not* a search box... and, yet, at least once a week, someone is posting a search string in the Shoutbox.

 Psienesis wrote:
They could, sure, but do you think anyone would actually read it, and, further, understand what it means?

In another forum I post on, they have, at the top of the page, a shoutbox for users to chat with one another in. It is advertised, at the top of it, in big, yellow letters, that it is *not* a search box... and, yet, at least once a week, someone is posting a search string in the Shoutbox.

You can never entirely account for absent-mindedness and stupidity, no matter how many big signs you have, but they do help.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
They could, sure, but do you think anyone would actually read it, and, further, understand what it means?

In another forum I post on, they have, at the top of the page, a shoutbox for users to chat with one another in. It is advertised, at the top of it, in big, yellow letters, that it is *not* a search box... and, yet, at least once a week, someone is posting a search string in the Shoutbox.

You can never entirely account for absent-mindedness and stupidity, no matter how many big signs you have, but they do help.

Sometimes - I'm actually stunned when reading how many single minded people are in the hobby....

There are guys even "here" who really think BL books override the codex and the older fluff....

Codex's often override older fluff.

I'm not sure if "override" would be the right word. Now, personally I am treating it that way, and I'm sure a lot of other people are doing likewise, yet by GW's position one could argue that since there is no truth on such a level of detail, a new Codex need not necessarily be "truer" than an old one that offers conflicting information.

That being said, I think GurneyMan was referring specifically to Black Library novels, which are written by individual freelancing authors rather than the core GW team - hence they may feature different and even conflicting ideas. The more people you have writing stuff, the greater is your risk of deviation, especially when there is little in terms of "canon enforcement". From how the authors themselves have described it, as long as you stick to the most basic aspects (the God-Emperor is a husk, Blood Angels wear red armour, etc), you're good to go. Essentially, the style and atmosphere are more important than the minutiae.

Some of those "freelancing authors" have actually been part of codex development teams though. Graham McNeill is probably the most prolific BL author to have worked on codices, but guys like Andy Chambers also count.

To be honest, there are contradictions in the core fluff alone, sometimes within single editions (One I recall off-hand is that in the Ork codex, the Dark Angel Belial was captain of the first company when he fought Ghaz, but in the DA codex he was captain of the eighth), that the issue can't just be said to be between studio and non-studio fluff.

The studio team has a consensus, though - and it may (or sometimes obviously is) not be identical to the opinion and ideas of a single author/designer ... or the consensus of a different team such as the bunch of people writing the HH novels.

You are quite correct about conflicts existing between studio sources as well, though. They are just arguably less numerous, as you have less different people working on the material. The more writers you allow to work on something, the higher the risk of deviation, be it intentional (personal preferences, lack of consensus) or unintentional (simple mistakes, flawed memory, lack of research).