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.

So I was reading through a forum where people were stating how they saw 40k canon, basically picking and choosing what they believed to be truly part of the 40k universe. Some were minor things while others were rather major, like some people stated they did not believe Orks existed in 40k because they thought they didn't fit into the setting. I know that GW has said that the individual is free to interpret what is canon as they see fit but my question is how far did they intend that to be?

So the questions are as follows (I'll give examples also to give a better idea of what I mean):

1. Did GW only intend this for minor details involving canon?
- Example: If a player decided the old way the Black Templars view psychers, hating all of them ally and foe alike, is canon instead of the new info saying that they are ok with Imperial psychers just not others.

2. Or did GW intend for the player to have complete control and allow them to completely decide for themselves what is canon and what is not?
- Example: Some players decide that there are only three Chaos gods and say Slaanesh never existed because they think he should not have been created. So they choose to say that there are only three Chaos gods or get another to be a fourth god.

3. Also is there a quote by GW that states how they said it and how they meant this rule for canon to be?

GW did not intend anything. They have no canon policy at all, and don't care about the subject as long as you keep giving them money.

To GW, everything is canon. It's up to you to determine what is fact and what is propaganda.

GW's official stance is that everything and nothing is canon.

This means that authors are free to write what they want, and other authors are free to contradict them.

The only time it matters is when you get involved in fanboy arguments on who would win in a Faction "X" from WH40K vs Army "Y".

The problem is that one person can cite source "A" that proves their stance, while another can cite source "B" that disproves said stance, and both are correct.

GW does not have an official stance.

The 'official' statement is "everything is canon, but not everything is true." Beyond that, you can be reasonably certain that anything published within a codex or the core rules is canonical.

GW gave the ultimate cop out, as far as determining canon is concerned, by just saying that you should assume that everything your reading is from an in-universe book, and thus could be pure propaganda or a legit, 95% true story of badassery. Really, it's just a way of excusing a lot of the gakky writing we've had over the years (not that it's all bad, just a goodly portion of it).

Yep. This is why you have disagreements about various things-- like the argument over the intelligence or combat capability of Space Marine, or what have you.

GW attitude is all 'canon' as such is written with a very large degree of bias.

So basically you could argue many events aren't actually true or correctly portrayed.

You do have an issue with newer fluff in regards to units or names (especially with GW's rebranding attempts), but mostly it's a non-issue.

You need to agree what is canon with your opponent before the game. If you can't decide what is canon, roll a dice and the highest gets to pick canon...

Despite GW's cop-out statement, it is clear there is a de-facto unofficial canon of sorts in use by GW and BL, even if the boundaries of that are indistinct. For example, you will never see a bolter portrayed as shooting "laser bolts" as opposed to what are effectively gyrojets. If somehow someone did write that, they would be told they got it wrong rather than they gave a valid interpretation of what Space Marines fire from their guns.

You have no way of knowing that.

Any canonical conventions in 40k exist only because the author decided to agree with what other authors had written, and remember the fate of C.S. Goto.

And we have seen breaks from "canon" in the works of BL authors before without much fuss.

I point to Dan Abnett's wise-cracking, smoking-and-joking servitors in the Ravenor series as one example.

I point to Legion aswell, where the stoic Imperi-spess-ninjas are throwing giant stone heads for a laugh and wine.

 Melissia wrote:
To GW, everything is canon. It's up to you to determine what is fact and what is propaganda.

This isn't really true. While GW is liberal with canon, they do have it. If "nothing was canon" there'd be peaceful Orks, the emperor in m41, sanguinius as a high lord, and talking tyranids. But there aren't, because there is a loose canon that binds everything together in official publications

My friends and I always took a lot of what's on the Black Library (like the Horus Heresy novels) as, generally speaking, canon. We've also taken it with a grain of salt, meaning that for any vague or conflicted details, we general make a personal decision based on what we'd like to believe. So for an example, a big interest of mine is the missing Primarchs, and I've found that what I've chosen to believe about them as well as how much leeway I have there is in terms of believing what happened vastly differs from what other people believe. So to summarise, there's going to be a concrete area of canon and then a really, really grey area which comes down to interpretation and choice.

Then, of course, there's whatever literature that Games Workshop comes out with directly (Lore inside each Codex, each White Dwarf Issue, etc etc) which directly adds to what can be considered canon lore.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You have no way of knowing that.

Any canonical conventions in 40k exist only because the author decided to agree with what other authors had written, and remember the fate of C.S. Goto.

Just like the Inquisition.

Do you think that Codex: Inquisition was BLs shot at their (and GWs) own processes?

 Harriticus wrote:
because there is a loose canon that binds everything together in official publications

That loose canon was Mat Ward ...

 Psienesis wrote:
And we have seen breaks from "canon" in the works of BL authors before without much fuss.

I point to Dan Abnett's wise-cracking, smoking-and-joking servitors in the Ravenor series as one example.

Then there's reader auto-filters. I just assumed that was a different definition of servitor, since the standard organic robot style servitor also appears in the same books.

Reasonable extent of headcannon? Anything that doesn't break the universe.

For example, I believe that th BT retcon was the administratum pretending the BT are following the codex so as not to encourage other chapters to deviate.

 Selym wrote:
Reasonable extent of headcannon? Anything that doesn't break the universe.

For example, I believe that th BT retcon was the administratum pretending the BT are following the codex so as not to encourage other chapters to deviate.

This.

As far as forums and the like are concerned, anything that's been published that is supported by one or more other [official] publication is considered canon. Anything that contradicts other publications had better have some serious back-up.

As far as headcanon goes, anything that doesn't break the universe and/or boosts immersion.

Thanks for the variety of responses everyone, very interesting. Since most of the answer were mainly directed at my first and third question I gotta ask does anyone have any answers involving my second stated question?

Thanks in advance for any future answers involving that.

Aguth the Blooded wrote:
I gotta ask does anyone have any answers involving my second stated question?

The answer is, again, that GW does not care as long as you keep buying stuff. There is no policy on what is or isn't canon.

I know that the codices are written from the standpoint of imperial knowledge, not the race themselves. That way, when they want to amend the background (Necrons going from soulless bots to soul brothers, for example) the idea is that it is because the Imperium has learned more about them, not that they have changed canon.

Aguth the Blooded wrote:
Thanks for the variety of responses everyone, very interesting. Since most of the answer were mainly directed at my first and third question I gotta ask does anyone have any answers involving my second stated question?

Thanks in advance for any future answers involving that.

Sure they have no problem with you doing that. Forge the Narrative and all.

My whole take on the universe of 40k is that it is a series of stories and historical events as compiled by people in that universe. Given the trillions of people, the nature of governments, and the effects of the Chaos good, everything is open to debate and personal opinion