Fantasy Flight Publications Canon/Non Canon

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.

**Drahken_40k**

Since FFG are no longer affiliated with GW do their publications about the 40k universe no longer count as canon? For example there are some xenos mentioned in Deathwatch: The Achilus Assault that don't come up anywhere else in the background material

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I'm not sure it ever was fully Canon?

But then, 99% of the cool stuff in 40k is fan fiction of one kind or another, so I wouldn't worry about it.

**BrianDavion**

there's been cases of GW borrowing from the FFG stuff, nothing major but the odd bits and blobs. but they're largely leaving it alone.

**GodDamUser**

The guys that Originally did Dark Heresy also borrowed a fair bit from Dan Abnett's works

**jareddm**

There's no reason for any of it not to be canon, as each game line purposefully limits itself to one region of space. Even in mainline 40k the beliefs and standards of one sector have little impact on the rest of the Imperium.

Besides, the best supplements like Radicals Handbook and Disciples of the Dark Gods were written by Alan Bligh and John French, and I'd take material they wrote as canon even if they published it themselves

Plus, without the FFG lines, things like the Black Shields would've never existed.

**Drahken_40k**

That's good, cause I'm starting a conversion project based off some of the old FFG stuff and don't want to be told its non canon by GW people in my FLGS or WHW

**Iron_Captain**

40k has no canon. So don't worry about it.
This is afaik the only statement GW has ever made about its canon policy, when Marc Gascoigne (a senior GW writer, editor and developer) was asked about it:

I'll happily be your tree. But I'm not sure you'll hear much of a crash. I weary of this question, and I weary of typing it all in yet again, yet again.

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.

In other words, GW does not want its fans to be constrained by silly things like canon. Therefore everything ever officially published for 40k is canon, but canon does not necessarily mean true. Everything in 40k could be a lie, propaganda or just an inflated myth passed down through the generations. There are many contradictions in 40k fluff, but it is impossible to say which of the conflicting version of events is true, if any. That is what canon means to GW. As long as it doesn't deviate too much from established fluff, they don't care.

**Ynneadwraith**

Iron_Captain wrote:
40k has no canon. So don't worry about it.
This is afaik the only statement GW has ever made about its canon policy, when Marc Gascoigne (a senior GW writer, editor and developer) was asked about it:

I'll happily be your tree. But I'm not sure you'll hear much of a crash. I weary of this question, and I weary of typing it all in yet again, yet again.

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.

In other words, GW does not want its fans to be constrained by silly things like canon. Therefore everything ever officially published for 40k is canon, but canon does not necessarily mean true. Everything in 40k could be a lie, propaganda or just an inflated myth passed down through the generations. There are many contradictions in 40k fluff, but it is impossible to say which of the conflicting version of events is true, if any. That is what canon means to GW. As long as it doesn't deviate too much from established fluff, they don't care.

Thankyou! I've been looking for the direct quote regarding this for ages now.

40k has no 'canon'. The only function of 'canon' as far as I can tell is to cause arguments over which timeline comic-book heroes do what in. It's largely a waste of time.

It also supports my continual assertion that you're more than able to just blatantly disregard points in the fluff that don't fit your own interpretation of the 40k universe (it's Newcrons for me, among other things). Doesn't mean that your interpretation is the correct one, but there's nothing stopping you from claiming that Angron lifting a Titan is just propaganda and chinese whispers.

There's also the whole 'everything you come up with is as relevant as the stuff written in codices'.

It's one of the more genius ideas behind 40k. Engenders a real sense of involvement with the universe that nearly all other IPs lack (see the derision fanfiction has in other IPs).

**Nerak**

Iron_Captain Exalted.

As a side note there's alot of information that the FF games provide we simply don't have anywhere else. Except for maybe Necromunda it's probably the biggest source on what the non warring part of the Imperium is like. As an example the rouge trader theemed books has a ton of stuff concerning spaceships, trade and transportation we simply won't find anywhere else, even in the gothic books.

**Melissia**

As far as I'm concerned, it's more canon than most Black Library publications.

**Vector Strike**

I've seen people using this system to define what's 'more' canon. I somewhat agree with it and use it as well.

Faction Supplements > Faction Codex > Imperial Armour > BRB > Novels > non-GW/FW/BL stuff

**123ply**

Vector Strike wrote:
I've seen people using this system to define what's 'more' canon. I somewhat agree with it and use it as well.

Faction Supplements > Faction Codex > Imperial Armour > BRB > Novels > non-GW/FW/BL stuff

I agree with this, except I put supplements and codexes both as rank 1. What do supplements have that make them more canon than codexes?

**BrianDavion**

123ply wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:
I've seen people using this system to define what's 'more' canon. I somewhat agree with it and use it as well.

Faction Supplements > Faction Codex > Imperial Armour > BRB > Novels > non-GW/FW/BL stuff

I agree with this, except I put supplements and codexes both as rank 1. What do supplements have that make them more canon than codexes?

more detail specificly I suppose. they're also written after the codex and thus may represent a subtle change in design philophsy