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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

There are also some things that were written that were rejected by GW and changed the way they write things, like Xenology, a book that altered the way GW allows their writers to write things. I've heard that book referred to as 'un-canon', it is so discounted.

If that's true (I'm not sure I see any evidence for it being so), Liber Xenologis (and later editions of Xenology...) seems to stand in contrast to it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are certainly things that, over time, have become decidedly non-canon.

Pretty much anything from 1st Ed 40K is a no go. There's no half-Eldar Chief Librarian as part of the Ultramarines. There's no Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau. Squigs aren't part of the Tyranids anymore. Things like that.

There are also some things that were written that were rejected by GW and changed the way they write things, like Xenology, a book that altered the way GW allows their writers to write things. I've heard that book referred to as 'un-canon', it is so discounted.

You can’t reject everything from 1st edition that’s crazy, so much of first edition is the basis for now, yes there were crazier parts but the vast majority is still present now, marines and how they were made, ORKS and there culture, craft worlds and theirs, all from first edition. Ere we go and freebooterz are still as relevant now as they were then. As for the half eldar librarian and what not then why not if you want to? To me it’s still better than the horus heresy books and what they did to pious. Chose what you want from the whole canon, you cannot dictate to someone what is relevant and what isn’t

I think the point is nothing is canon just by virtue of being in 1st edition.
Plenty of stuff in 1st edition may still be canon, but that's because it's been reprinted in more recent publications as well.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If that's true (I'm not sure I see any evidence for it being so)...

I used to write things that had to get approved by GW before they went to print, so I kind of have some experience in this arena. You can continue to not believe me if you want, but that'll be on you.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Liber Xenologis (and later editions of Xenology...) seems to stand in contrast to it.

Liber Xenologis has about as much to do with Xeonology being un-canon as the Eisenhorn book 'Xenos'. They're unrelated except for including the word 'Xeno' in their titles. One has no bearing on the other.

Andykp wrote:
You can’t reject everything from 1st edition that’s crazy, so much of first edition is the basis for now, yes there were crazier parts but the vast majority is still present now, marines and how they were made, ORKS and there culture, craft worlds and theirs, all from first edition. Ere we go and freebooterz are still as relevant now as they were then. As for the half eldar librarian and what not then why not if you want to? To me it’s still better than the horus heresy books and what they did to pious. Chose what you want from the whole canon, you cannot dictate to someone what is relevant and what isn’t

When GW made 2nd Edition the fluff went through a great rationalisation in order to create a consistent universe. They decided to collate all the meandering and scattered sources of fluff throughout the books they had made thus far, and came up with a solid framework upon which to work. That meant that some things were removed from the fluff (the aforementioned half-Eldar Ultramarine Chief Librarian just being a good example of that).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Plenty of stuff in 1st edition may still be canon, but that's because it's been reprinted in more recent publications as well.

That's a very good way of putting it.

But all this is just you as individuals assign the term canon to certain texts and not others. It’s in no way binding or official. It’s just your opinions. What you want to do. If I played someone who said his fluff was that his librarian was half eldAr or his Spacemarine captain was the accountant of the ultramarines I would have no issue with that and your argument that “to you” this didn’t count as canon is just as valid or invalid as there’s that it is. Unless gamesworkshop starts dictating what is or isn’t official back ground any more it’s all just you likes vs someone else’s. Rules is one thing but background is very different. It’s not like a movie franchise or novel setting where there is a definite story that has been told. It’s a galaxy sized sandbox where there are little is any limits.

For example, I disliked the feral orks as a concept. It was not needed due to wild boyz existing. So to me they are not canon. But that is just me. I dislike perpetual sir most things from the heresy books. So not canon. Just one version of events. Sensei and starchild theory, canon. We all build our own story from the threads but ambiguity is built in and misinformation is built in.

If it's a codex/campaign book/BRB associated with the latest edition of a game then that's canon, that's how GW operates. If the current books contain stories from older edition codex/campaign book/BRB then those stories are canon.
For example the 13th Black Crusade. GW had it as an ongoing end-of-days conflict, then did a worldwide campaign that didn't give them the result they wanted so it was removed from canon the next edition of the game and went back to unending conflict. Then Gathering Storm brought in new canon that showed the definitive end to the 13th Black Crusade and the beginning of the Dark Imperium setting.
My IRL example of canon-conflict was when the Blood Raven Librarian was released as part of the Deathwatch: Overkill box and a GW staffer said that was the Ravens now a canon chapter as they had been featured in mainline GW product despite the many Dawn of War games up to that point indicating they existed. But because Dawn of War was not produced in house by GW it wasn't considered canon and they very cleverly side-step the whole issue of "multiple video game endings" by having the conflicts of those games a closely guarded chapter secret, which was printed in the Index Astartes in White Dwarf.

Andykp wrote:
But all this is just you as individuals assign the term canon to certain texts and not others. It’s in no way binding or official. It’s just your opinions. What you want to do. If I played someone who said his fluff was that his librarian was half eldAr or his Spacemarine captain was the accountant of the ultramarines I would have no issue with that and your argument that “to you” this didn’t count as canon is just as valid or invalid as there’s that it is. Unless gamesworkshop starts dictating what is or isn’t official back ground any more it’s all just you likes vs someone else’s. Rules is one thing but background is very different. It’s not like a movie franchise or novel setting where there is a definite story that has been told. It’s a galaxy sized sandbox where there are little is any limits.

For example, I disliked the feral orks as a concept. It was not needed due to wild boyz existing. So to me they are not canon. But that is just me. I dislike perpetual sir most things from the heresy books. So not canon. Just one version of events. Sensei and starchild theory, canon. We all build our own story from the threads but ambiguity is built in and misinformation is built in.

You're confusing canon with "head canon".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
But all this is just you as individuals assign the term canon to certain texts and not others. It’s in no way binding or official. It’s just your opinions. What you want to do. If I played someone who said his fluff was that his librarian was half eldAr or his Spacemarine captain was the accountant of the ultramarines I would have no issue with that and your argument that “to you” this didn’t count as canon is just as valid or invalid as there’s that it is. Unless gamesworkshop starts dictating what is or isn’t official back ground any more it’s all just you likes vs someone else’s. Rules is one thing but background is very different. It’s not like a movie franchise or novel setting where there is a definite story that has been told. It’s a galaxy sized sandbox where there are little is any limits.

For example, I disliked the feral orks as a concept. It was not needed due to wild boyz existing. So to me they are not canon. But that is just me. I dislike perpetual sir most things from the heresy books. So not canon. Just one version of events. Sensei and starchild theory, canon. We all build our own story from the threads but ambiguity is built in and misinformation is built in.

You're confusing canon with "head canon".

No I’ve even posted the definition of the word canon. You’re confusing your use of the word and it’s actual meaning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
If it's a codex/campaign book/BRB associated with the latest edition of a game then that's canon, that's how GW operates. If the current books contain stories from older edition codex/campaign book/BRB then those stories are canon.
For example the 13th Black Crusade. GW had it as an ongoing end-of-days conflict, then did a worldwide campaign that didn't give them the result they wanted so it was removed from canon the next edition of the game and went back to unending conflict. Then Gathering Storm brought in new canon that showed the definitive end to the 13th Black Crusade and the beginning of the Dark Imperium setting.
My IRL example of canon-conflict was when the Blood Raven Librarian was released as part of the Deathwatch: Overkill box and a GW staffer said that was the Ravens now a canon chapter as they had been featured in mainline GW product despite the many Dawn of War games up to that point indicating they existed. But because Dawn of War was not produced in house by GW it wasn't considered canon and they very cleverly side-step the whole issue of "multiple video game endings" by having the conflicts of those games a closely guarded chapter secret, which was printed in the Index Astartes in White Dwarf.

All this is your interpretation of what is canon, not GW. It’s fine but it’s not official or the sanctioned view.

Related - Interview with Rick Priestley where he says he doesn't read BL books as they're not his canon.

beast_gts wrote:
Related - Interview with Rick Priestley where he says he doesn't read BL books as they're not his canon.

Most are garbage, especially if they cover an area of the story already told, original stuff like eisenhorn and cain are good enough but most others are very meh or down right awful.

That's what I've been told by people who work for GW and sell its products. Whenever we discussed background in-store the final ruling was "if it isn't current it's not part of the canon". There are sections of White Dwarf written by the design team that is fully dedicated to saying what the universe is and what is currently canon.
Plus, your opinion on BL publication has absolutely no bearing on whether they are considered canon or not.


He's the creator so yeah credit, where credit is due(Thanks for starting the hobby that's taking 60% of my monthly income Rick) but not part of the current writing team or owner of the brand so anything he thinks should or shouldn't be canon, is a moot point.

Andykp wrote:
No I’ve even posted the definition of the word canon. You’re confusing your use of the word and it’s actual meaning.

You said:

"I [dislike]... feral orks as a concept... So to me they are not canon."

That's head canon.

You not liking something doesn't make it not canon. The 40k canon is decided by the people making the game. Not us.

Not that there's anything pathological about the notion of canon applied to marketing fluff about toy soldiers.

I guess the question that always occurs to me in these discussions is: Do you consider what GW says the canon is or isn't to be important? Would it change how you paint, collect or play?

Does it bother you if they change what was canon to make a new canon you dislike?

For the most part, I would say GW doesn't make huge changes to "historical" events unless those events consist of "there was a big fight the end". Like the Horus Heresy and Macharian Crusade were very empty but now we have loads of lore to discuss after the huge boom in content the Heresy got and the William King novels for Macharius. Even stuff around some major characters, like where Calgar supposedly holds a city gate for 10 days by himself but it turns out a chunk of 1st Company marines died alongside him, which I believe was a recent addition?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No I’ve even posted the definition of the word canon. You’re confusing your use of the word and it’s actual meaning.

You said:

"I [dislike]... feral orks as a concept... So to me they are not canon."

That's head canon.

You not liking something doesn't make it not canon. The 40k canon is decided by the people making the game. Not us.

My pint is you use your definition of canon to explain the background with way you like so in that respect it’s all head canon. Canon is a word with a meaning, all the books GW produce and have produced are canon unless they say otherwise. And they don’t say otherwise, so we are all picking and choosing all the bits we do and don’t like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

All this is your interpretation of what is canon, not GW. It’s fine but it’s not official or the sanctioned view.

That's what I've been told by people who work for GW and sell its products. Whenever we discussed background in-store the final ruling was "if it isn't current it's not part of the canon". There are sections of White Dwarf written by the design team that is fully dedicated to saying what the universe is and what is currently canon.
Plus, your opinion on BL publication has absolutely no bearing on whether they are considered canon or not.

Staffers in shops are not and never have been good sources of what’s actually going on in GW.

All books can only be judged to be canon if they are deemed important. GW leaves it up to us to decide what is or isn’t important on purpose. So my opinion is all that matters for what is canon to me or not, but it has no bearing on what you consider canon at all. Only your opinion does that. Unless GW produce a list of canon texts that’s how it will always be.

Spoiler:

beast_gts wrote:
Related - Interview with Rick Priestley where he says he doesn't read BL books as they're not his canon.

He's the creator so yeah credit, where credit is due(Thanks for starting the hobby that's taking 60% of my monthly income Rick) but not part of the current writing team or owner of the brand so anything he thinks should or shouldn't be canon, is a moot point.

It’s not moot. It’s a valid opinion from someone who invented the background we are talking about.

Priestly's opinion about canon is moot because he left GW in 2009. He isn't involved in game development with the setting so it doesn't matter what he says should be canon or not. Technically his opinion means as much as yours or mine because he isn't making the business decisions that drive the background of the game.
I can say all I want that Ahriman was loyal to the Emperor because Rogue Trader says so and I don't consider new material canon. That doesn't matter because GW has Ahriman firmly in the "I'm a huge traitor that hates the Imperium" camp.

 Gert wrote:
Priestly's opinion about canon is moot because he left GW in 2009. He isn't involved in game development with the setting so it doesn't matter what he says should be canon or not. Technically his opinion means as much as yours or mine because he isn't making the business decisions that drive the background of the game.
I can say all I want that Ahriman was loyal to the Emperor because Rogue Trader says so and I don't consider new material canon. That doesn't matter because GW has Ahriman firmly in the "I'm a huge traitor that hates the Imperium" camp.

But he doesn’t have to in your games and your version of the story. That’s the beauty of the background. It’s just a framework to hang your narrative on. Nothing, and I mean, NOTHING has ever been released that invalidates any of the stuff priestly wrote. The word canon does not have a time limit attached to it, it doesn’t mean the most recent texts in a subject. It’s all texts that are of importance. We each decide what is important to us. Hence all is canon and nothing is. It’s basically you decide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I guess the question that always occurs to me in these discussions is: Do you consider what GW says the canon is or isn't to be important? Would it change how you paint, collect or play?

Does it bother you if they change what was canon to make a new canon you dislike?

Not me. I play my ORKS like rogue trader ORKS and their fluff is the same but I also have an all primaris marine force. Choose what you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
Not that there's anything pathological about the notion of canon applied to marketing fluff about toy soldiers.

What are you on about! Retconning pious is a Warcrime!!

Seriously though. The marketing works! We all got a lot of toy soldiers.

All I have to say about this topic is:

"Everything you have been told is a lie!"

Its all folklore, propaganda and speculation

Andykp wrote:
My pint is you use your definition of canon to explain the background with way you like so in that respect it’s all head canon. Canon is a word with a meaning, all the books GW produce and have produced are canon unless they say otherwise. And they don’t say otherwise, so we are all picking and choosing all the bits we do and don’t like.

You're taking "Everything is canon until they say otherwise" to an illogical conclusion, positing that because they haven't expressly said that, for example, the Ultramarines don't have a half-Eldar Chief Librarian in their ranks that they somehow still do.

That's not how it works.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
My pint is you use your definition of canon to explain the background with way you like so in that respect it’s all head canon. Canon is a word with a meaning, all the books GW produce and have produced are canon unless they say otherwise. And they don’t say otherwise, so we are all picking and choosing all the bits we do and don’t like.

You're taking "Everything is canon until they say otherwise" to an illogical conclusion, positing that because they haven't expressly said that, for example, the Ultramarines don't have a half-Eldar Chief Librarian in their ranks that they somehow still do.

That's not how it works.

No I’m using the definition of canon, so if GW wrote it then it is potential canon, it just needs to be important to someone for it to be. You saying it isn’t isn’t good enough to stop it being canon.

Canon is a word that exists and has a defined meaning, if you are using some other meaning it’d be good to let me know because it’s hard to debate something when you are making up meanings to words.

As for your librarian point, GW have not named all of the ultramarines librarians and given back ground for them, deliberately so. So that we as players can create our own narrative for our own games if we want to use ultramarines and their librarians. So if someone wants to say that one off theirs is a secret half eldar who are you to say they can’t? GW certainly haven’t said they can’t. If you don’t like it that’s fine, don’t engage with that narrative the player has created. That’s my whole point, the background or lore or fluff or whatever you want to call it is there to help us build our narratives, not restrain us. Hence it is very vague and contradictory and has huge holes in it where you can make your own stories.

Your narratives don't matter to what's canon. And it works both ways

You can pretend all you want about half-eldar librarians- it doesn't matter. If your concern is 'your own stories,' what's canon is never going to be relevant.

I think nothing is canon until it is.
Personaly, I'm on the; if it isn't in a codex or a rulebook its not really canon train.

Interestingly enough anyone know if there been any news about the new Liber Xenologis??

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/02/16/how-does-the-imperium-really-view-its-alien-foes-find-out-in-liber-xenologis/

I remember this article getting me excited. But cant fins any news about it since. Its not from Black Library and is a GW own publication. So will this be canon if things change? It is written from the perspective of a rogue trader.

Voss wrote:
Your narratives don't matter to what's canon. And it works both ways

You can pretend all you want about half-eldar librarians- it doesn't matter. If your concern is 'your own stories,' what's canon is never going to be relevant.

Please see the definition of the word canon. Then please explain why you get to choose what is canon or not for everyone else.

Andykp wrote:

Voss wrote:
Your narratives don't matter to what's canon. And it works both ways

You can pretend all you want about half-eldar librarians- it doesn't matter. If your concern is 'your own stories,' what's canon is never going to be relevant.

Please see the definition of the word canon. Then please explain why you get to choose what is canon or not for everyone else.

When I started this thread, I was asking whether people accept all of the 40k published material to be canon, do they pick and choose, do they go off and use the official material as more of a setting than a fixed story.

I am asking if people make up there own headcanon to fill in the gaps or to help make sense of contradictions in the official material, or do they just accept that in any fiction there will be inevitable inconsistencies and just accept that an move on.

What helps each of us to suspend our disbelief and better enjoy the settings and the stories we are told and that we tell in the game?

I wasn't making any judgements about what one person or another accepts an canon, more curious as to the lens that others view the 40k universe and lore through.

As for definitions of canon, depending on the dictionary, the definition will vary, but from wiktionary:

11.(fandom) Those sources, especially including literary works, which are considered part of the main continuity regarding a given fictional universe.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canon

And from Wikipedia:

In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The alternative terms mythology, timeline, universe and continuity are often used, with the first of these being used especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history), while the latter two typically refer to a single arc where all events are directly connected chronologically. Other times, the word can mean "to be acknowledged by the creator(s)".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

For 40K? Is it largely consistent, or does it stick out too much?

Example, that half-Eldar Librarian. It is in printed, GW created material, so in that sense, it very much is canon.

But, as the setting has developed, it seems incredibly unlikely such a being wouldn’t be hunted down and slain out of hand for being a filthy Xenos. I certainly can’t imagine them being converted in an Astartes as we know them today.

Also bear in mind that originally, Astartes weren’t the post-human horror we know today. They had some enhancements, yes - but were otherwise just highly trained.

For modern day fiction? Let’s say in Novel A, a well aimed lasgun headshots a fully armoured Traitor Legionnaire. But in Novel B the same thing happens, and the Traitor Legionnaire is entirely unphased, his power Armour merely being lightly dented as the sole evidence the shot ever hit home.

That’s quite easy, really. Different patterns of Lasguns are known to have different settings. In Novel A, we can reasonably explain it as one with multiple power settings. Ramp it up, and you get fewer but more powerful shots. In Novel B, it either has no settings (very basic models suffer from this), or simply shot selection (single, semi, full auto). We can also infer that not all Traitor Legionnaires maintain their armour equally, so that could play into it.

Angry Ron holding up a Warhound Titan’s foot from squashing him? (Or was it Lorgar doing it to spare Angry Ron? Can’t remember clearly, but I’m sure someone else could clarify). Well.....sure. That’s relatively easy to explain. Both were quite far down their dark path - Angry Ron in particular on the very cusp of Daemonhood, Lorgar really letting his psychic potential kick in. So whilst the novel doesn’t offer much explanation beyond “they did it and it worked”, doesn’t make it canon breaking when we consider what else was going on.

Aash wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Voss wrote:
Your narratives don't matter to what's canon. And it works both ways

You can pretend all you want about half-eldar librarians- it doesn't matter. If your concern is 'your own stories,' what's canon is never going to be relevant.

Please see the definition of the word canon. Then please explain why you get to choose what is canon or not for everyone else.

When I started this thread, I was asking whether people accept all of the 40k published material to be canon, do they pick and choose, do they go off and use the official material as more of a setting than a fixed story.

I am asking if people make up there own headcanon to fill in the gaps or to help make sense of contradictions in the official material, or do they just accept that in any fiction there will be inevitable inconsistencies and just accept that an move on.

What helps each of us to suspend our disbelief and better enjoy the settings and the stories we are told and that we tell in the game?

I wasn't making any judgements about what one person or another accepts an canon, more curious as to the lens that others view the 40k universe and lore through.

As for definitions of canon, depending on the dictionary, the definition will vary, but from wiktionary:

11.(fandom) Those sources, especially including literary works, which are considered part of the main continuity regarding a given fictional universe.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canon

And from Wikipedia:

In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The alternative terms mythology, timeline, universe and continuity are often used, with the first of these being used especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history), while the latter two typically refer to a single arc where all events are directly connected chronologically. Other times, the word can mean "to be acknowledged by the creator(s)".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

I went to the actual dictionary for my definition!

But I was trying to respond to you original question, I consider it all legitimate and useable and select the bits I like and don’t worry abutting the bits I don’t. I don’t so much ignore them but it’s more the characters in my narrative would be wholly unaware of them, the galaxy is a big place.

What seems to happen is that people tend to arbitrary limits on what is or isn’t official canon or back ground or lore or fluff or whatever you want to call, then get very defensive when someone challenges this. I’ve seen lots of discussions from people asking if such and such an idea is “allowed”, or are there any back ground examples of so and so... to me this is sad, there doesn’t need to have been an example of something and no one has to allow you to use a good idea. The thing GW goes so well with the back ground is move it forward and tell specific stories but still allow you the room to fill in your own parts and not alienate to many old sweats like me.

Sometimes they tell a specific story like Ichar IV or Armageddon and that very ,ugh becomes “Canon” but they also have very generic or contradictory stuff like the range of different hive fleets and mysterious chapters to inspire making your own things up. They emphasise that just because something is reported in such a away in a book doesn’t mean it definitely happened that way. Information in the setting is very abstract and misleading, the state uses misinformation, keeps secrets and massively misinterprets things and perspective plays a huge part as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad dok,

For the angron thing I put that down as exaggeration, building of a legend. Unlikely it ever really happened. Dramatic license if you will. The modern day novels and all the rest is taken too literally even though GW pushes the unreliable narrator bit it is too often ignored.

End of the day I’m saying we should all enjoy the background our way and enjoy the bits we do and leave the bits we don’t. There’s no need to be all “gatekeeper” about it. Half eldar marines, that’d take some explaining but I’d like to see someone try and certainly wouldn’t tell them they can’t do it. My home brew marines even have female marines, but all human ones!

Not really much more for to me say so I’m out. Laters.

Hiding behind a dictionary definition to defend your point like this is ridiculous. The definition you provided clearly does not precisely match the definition as it is used in this context, the definition provided by wikipedia on fictional canon is far more accurate for this discussion.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with head canon. I myself decide to ignore the entirety of new lore released since Gathering Storm, because I don't like it.
But there's an official canon. Although it may be vague and not clearly defined, some stuff (such as half eldar marines) is clearly not official canon anymore.

Well sure. The Space Marines of Rpgue Trader were T3, weren't they? They was just normal humans in powered armour for the most part. This is even backed up by the rules.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Hiding behind a dictionary definition to defend your point like this is ridiculous. The definition you provided clearly does not precisely match the definition as it is used in this context, the definition provided by wikipedia on fictional canon is far more accurate for this discussion.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with head canon. I myself decide to ignore the entirety of new lore released since Gathering Storm, because I don't like it.
But there's an official canon. Although it may be vague and not clearly defined, some stuff (such as half eldar marines) is clearly not official canon anymore.

How can you use the word “official”, the only people deciding what is or isn’t allowed are members of their community. The official line is that it’s all canon and non of it is. Any restrictions are just being placed by you. Nothing official here.

To say that using the actual definition of a word is ridiculous is it’s self ridiculous.

So if some one came to you with a pen army with fluff, and part of that was that one of the marines was half eldar, and they had a good story as to why and how but it had no impact in the game, no impact on the table top it’s just their background story, would you not allow that? Would tell them they can’t do that? GW aren’t about to write that story again but why can’t Bob, our imaginary gamer here?

Another definition for you, this one not from a ridiculous source like an actual dictionary, , it’s from one of those reliable Internet sources you approve of.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gatekeeping