Fluff! BL books vs GW rules and codecies

[Bitrider]

I like a little realism in my pretend. It is just as simple as that statement.

When I read the Black Library books, I want to be able to use the information in the books as being just as valid as the information in the GW rule books and army specific codices (I think that is the plural of codex) and WFB army books. While there is certainly a modest (bhaha) amount of exaggeration and literary license used by the authors, is the 'fluff' in the books to be taken as canon, law, whatever for the Warhammer and 40k universe? Can we legitimately use the content of the BL books as a primary source in arguments in our make-believe? Just to be clear, I am discussing using the books for rules discussions but rather just general background and fluff.

(might be a bit of spoiler here)

In the books Incubus, the author talks about the Arhra the Phoenix Lord for the Incubi. I wonder if lore described by the author is usable in a discussion about the Eldar/Dark Eldar or can we only use what is written by GW specifically?

*tried to fix the spelling. I suck. Thanks Kyban.

[Kyban]

I was under the impression that BL was GW approved and counted as canon, even if it gets retconned every so often. Some of the BL fluff doesn't really seem to fit though. I prefer a more sciency view of the fluff though and it seems to vary depending on the author.

P.S. I think you put an extra 'i' in codices.

[Gotthammer]

BL is GW. Also Incubus was written by Andy Chambers, who worked as a designer for many, many years, so there's that level of overlap. As for using the books as arguments for rules - don't. It won't work in the system as it's too abstract.

[Bitrider]

BL is GW. Also Incubus was written by Andy Chambers, who worked as a designer for many, many years, so there's that level of overlap. As for using the books as arguments for rules - don't. It won't work in the system as it's too abstract.

Good point here. I was not looking to use the books for rules arguments but rather just when talking about background fluff discussions.

And yes understanding that BL and GW are one in the same, if an author of a BL book says the size of the universe is X big and the GW specific rule books say it is Y big, who do we use for our arguments about background and such?

[bfmusashi]

It really depends on the book. Deliverance Lost can't even get through its opening scene without destroying disbelief while the Cain books reflect the rules for various editions pretty well, though Cain has loaded dice. Then you run into the stuff like the Dawn of War books where there are sorcerers dedicated to Khorne and space marines running around with multilasers.
That said, I've wanted an Arhra model since the first Codex: Eldar came out, but I don't think the Dark Eldar would be okay with him burning with the dark fire of chaos all over their city.

[Lexington]

It's sorta complicated. There's an old quote from BL's top guy at the time explaining how "everything is canon and nothing is canon" in 40K, and that seems to hold to this day. It's their way of dealing with purposeful retcons, overlapping authors and the general impossibility of remembering every little detail contained within the hundreds of thousands of pages that the 40K universe has been built in over the past 25+ years.

For a more practical take, think of certain events having a higher "degree" of canon than others, as a BL author explained it once. Yes, the Horus Heresy happened, and large events like Armageddon are rather well set in stone, but things get squishier from there.

tl;dr - Don't get into arguments about 40K "canon." Your brain will melt. :p

[OrksOrksOrks]

The HH books are canon, but they're written long after the events, looking back and piecing toogether an account, who can say whats reliable after 10,000 years in the mess that was left of the Imperium after the Heresy

[bfmusashi]

The HH books are canon, but they're written long after the events, looking back and piecing toogether an account, who can say whats reliable after 10,000 years in the mess that was left of the Imperium after the Heresy
Are you saying the books that often include internal thoughts are being pieced together by a separate party after the fact?

[GordPotts]

Some of the books describe weapons like multilasers wiping out entire squads in a burst, it doesn't compare to the codex rule of three shots at S6 ap-. Add to that the shots are BS3 and maybe one heretic gets iced. The books describe things in an entertaining manner, without having to account for balance and point costs like a codex.

[Psychosplodge]

The rules are toned down, look at the average space marines campaign history in any book. Then compare to how easily they die in the game.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Are you saying the books that often include internal thoughts are being pieced together by a separate party after the fact?

Yes, they're fictional accounts of real things that happened by authors 10,000 years later ;)

[Psychosplodge]

Yes, they're fictional accounts of real things that happened by authors 10,000 years later ;)

Since when?

[Kawauso]

The rules are toned down, look at the average space marines campaign history in any book. Then compare to how easily they die in the game.

This. The rules are an abstraction to make the game actually fun to play.

I know people like to rag on GW about game balance, but they do understand that much.

If the rules were accurate reflections of the game's world then IG, Ork and Tyranid armies would be even bigger and SM armies would be like...one squad with a support vehicle. And it would be a fair fight.

[Mr Mystery]

One thing I learned at the HH Weekender? There was no master plan. There still isn't a master plan.

40k was described as a '5 minutes to midnight' setting, complete with it's own myths, legends, secrets and rumours. The HH wasn't really planned out in advance. It kicked off with a tiny tract of text in a random compendium book (1st Chapter approved). It then got expanded on when they released Adeptus Titanicus. They had all these plans for it, but could only afford a single sprue to be tooled. So someone said 'civil war?' and someone else said 'hey, what about that heresy thing, that sounds civil warish'. And the rest, is history!

Which makes Lexington's comment about canon all the more correct.

GW have given us a sandbox to play in. The background itself is quite clever, seeing as it wasn't thought out all that well! We know the main things that happened, but that's it. Who knows if Yarrick really was the hero everyone thinks? Is he even Yarrick, or just a PR stooge? Could be. Can be. Is, if you want it to be!