The definition of "canon"

[entendre_entendre]

This term gets thrown around a lot in any game with a large enough background. For us Hammer-Heads, GW has many sources for the background of their universes: the rulebooks, the Black Library, Codexes, WD, etc. this leads to a massive amount of information, and inevitably, internal conflict within the fluff. this in turn (pun unintended) leads to fans arguing over what the "official canon" is.

Some think only the rulebooks and codexes are canon, while others think everything is, even when it contradicts itself. (hell, there are some pretty barbed arguments online about this if you know where to look)

What's your definition of the term "canon" when it comes to GW? Is it only "directly" from GW (i.e. RB & Codexes), or is it the all encompassing universe of the BL, WD, RB, Codexes, and other sources? Or is it in between?

How mutable is the term "canon" to you?

Discuss, and feed my curiosity :p

[Dark_Templar]

Just about anything that doesn't come form an anonymous poster on a thread.

Seriously though, I like to think of BL books as canon, along with Codex fluff, BRB, WD etc. The only issue is how much planning GW actually put into making sure this all fits together.

[Lerra]

I see the 40k canon a lot like the legend of King Arthur. Certain things are widely accepted, other details are flatly contradictory, and the story changes over time. In the end, it's entertainment and not history, so the details blur. There isn't a single source of canon for the Arthur legends (although some sources are more respected than others). Anything written about Camelot is all part of the myth, and the myth evolves over time.

[Melissia]

Goes like this:

The most up to date codex.
\/
Previous codices.
\/
Supplement rulebooks (dark heresy etc)
\/
Quality black library material
\/
Fan-fiction
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
\/
Most Black Library crap.

[Nabterayl]

I think of "canon" as anything published by a Games Workshop entity: codices, Black Library publications, White Dwarf, Imperial Armour books, rules systems, etc. I try to make sense of the canon historiographically.

I don't assume that any single statement in any of those sources as necessarily having speaking fact. Instead I treat like I'd treat any other historical source - for instance, before I call anything a 40K "fact," I ask what the author's intent seems to be, how much he appears to know about his subject, whether there are any seemingly contradictory sources, whether those are actual or merely apparent contradictions, etc. Having collected and evaluated all the evidence I can, I try to craft an account that makes sense of it all. But the resulting narrative is not "canon." The "canon" is simply the raw mishmash of sources.

As an example of how I might evaluate the quality of a source, Warwick Kinrade's intent is usually pretty clearly to relate a factual account, as free of bias as possible. Most codices, at least these days, are clearly written with a bias in mind. Kinrade also makes an obvious effort to parallel historical military scenarios, which codex writers don't (and it's not even clear that they could if they wanted to). As a result, all other things being equal, I consider Kinrade a more reliable source than most codices.

Orbital bombardment is a good example of apparent vs. actual contradiction. Some sources (e.g., several Black Library novels) speak of orbital bombardment like some sort of super-weapon. Other sources (e.g., the Epic rules, the Apocalypse rules, and to a lesser extent the BFG rules) speak of it like just another form of artillery. This seems like a contradiction, but it doesn't need to be. The unanimous testimony of the rulesets is that specific orbital strikes of known duration and from known classes and numbers of ships are not beyond the range of land-based artillery in intensity. The Black Library sources rarely, if ever, explain what they mean when they refer to "orbital bombardment." What's the timeframe of the bombardment? What classes of ship were involved, and in what numbers? Without knowing these things (and we rarely do, thanks to the conventions of tie-in writing), we can't say there's a contradiction between the rules and the novels. Otherwise, for all we know, we could be comparing a week's worth of attack runs by a squadron of Novas to a day's bombardment by a trio of Basilisks, which is hardly a fair comparison.

[jeffersonian000]

I don't believe that canon applies to 40k, as 40k is future mythos that continues to generate retro-active and revisionist histories within its own background fluff, not to mention the fact that GW considers all sources to be correct even and especially if those sources contradict.

Taken from a codex point of view, everything written regarding background is written from the point of view of those in favor of that codex. Taken from the point of view of Black Library novels, each story is only a small part of an epic mythos which is being told to the audience from the point of view of the storyteller, which is different from the viewing of history as it unfolds that many westerners seem to believe is occurring.

As GW has posted, take everything with a grain of salt as its all propaganda in the end.

SJ

[Madjob]

Canon in 40k for me is a balancing act.

Some sources hold more weight than others for me, but it's difficult to categorize them as they're not always definitively so.

It gets easier the more 'sources' on a certain subject there are. From all of these possibly conflicting accounts you can sort out what you feel is the best rough interpretation of the 'canon', so long as you remember that it is still subject to that same balance.

[Steelbull]

Just for reference... canon (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon) by dictionary.com.

[Chumbalaya]

Canon is whatever supports my argument :P

The "history" in 40k isn't really history, it even tells you this right out. It's all shaded by bias, loss of information to time or bureaucracy, and it's always different every time. Everything we read has been through the Administratum countless times, altered every step of the way possibly, all to glorify the Emperor or to cover up some terrible secret.

I like the mystery, gives us a lot of options to make out armies, and makes discussing how deep the rabbit hole goes very amusing.

[Rapture]

Canon is whatever supports my argument :P

The "history" in 40k isn't really history, it even tells you this right out. It's all shaded by bias, loss of information to time or bureaucracy, and it's always different every time. Everything we read has been through the Administratum countless times, altered every step of the way possibly, all to glorify the Emperor or to cover up some terrible secret.

I like the mystery, gives us a lot of options to make out armies, and makes discussing how deep the rabbit hole goes very amusing.

That is the way I see it. Thinking of the history as overly processed propaganda makes crazy ideas, like space marines, easier to swallow.

[Morgrim]

If multiple, generally conflicting sources from beings that dislike each other agree, then it is probably true, at least in the broad strokes. The demon, eldar and dark eldar fluff all agrees on how Slaanesh was born, and I vaguely recall it coming up in some Imperial source... may have been the Liber Chaotica, I think it was one of the Black Library 'not a novel' books. Since these groups either cold shoulder or outright attack each other, it is probably true.

If both a loyalist and a chaos marine group have records of fighting each other in a particular battle in a particular place, it probably happened. All the bits about who won and who took a valient last stand should be treated with grave suspicion, unless again they actually agree (but that will be a 'x important person died here' agreement, one man's last stand to let the others regroup is another man's idiotic challenge while everyone else ran for their miserable lives').


Treat everything as propaganda, and assume that each race has a better idea of their own biology and culture than everyone else but will lie through their teeth about whatever battles they have been in and how effective their weapons are.

[Kahoolin]

For me pretty much everything published officially by GW or a subsidiary is canon. Within that field I don't rank them for accuracy. If you do, you just end up with people in fluff debates using "canonicity" as a test for the validity of the other person's argument, and that's a pretty subjective way to go. When it gets right down to it a claim like "recent codices trump old codices" for example is a claim that is resistant to argument - there are no reasons for it, it's an arbitrary belief, and you can't use reason to change someone's mind about it. They've simply chosen to believe that recent beats old, just like someone else could choose to think that original beats revised.

So for me anything with an official WH40k logo on it is canon. I would have to draw the line at fan fiction, otherwise anyone could just make up their own canon, and that's definitely not canon - canon is an authority, so by definition it has to be something someone official has told me.

This means though that for me every fluff debate ends with "my canon source says X, your canon source says Y, so the answer is who knows?" I know many people would find that an unsatisfactory result, but I'm a philosophy grad student so to me it's just fine :D

[BuFFo]

For me, there is no such thing a a real Canon for 40k.

The game is designed in a way that as the years go by in real life, the history and fluff of the story must be rewritten to keep the game interesting.

One decade, Space Wolves hate Psykers, next year their ranks are chalk filled with them. One year you are running around with Colonel Schaffer, and next yer he vanishes and all you have are nameless penal legionaries.

One year Squats exist, the next they don't. One year Chaos Marines and non-generic Demons go hand in hand as a force, next year they will not battle together.

Basically, in a game where 'Canon' changes so often, and can be mutable to players at the whim of a pen tip, there really is no Canon.

Now, that being said, if I were to pick something as Canon, it would have to be only what fiction you read in the books required to play the game, which is only the MRB and the Codexes. Supplements, like Apoc and PS, also count as Canon. For me, Novels, Video games and anything not in a rule book has no business being in the Canon.

[Just_Me]

All of the following:


40k rules, supplements, and codices

Battlefleet Gothic rules and supplements

Forge World books

Inquisitor rules and supplements

Necromunda rules and supplements

Dark Hersey rules and supplements

Black Library source books (e.g. Xenology and The Inquisition)

Black Library novels (if they are good quality, so anything by Abnett and a handful of other stuff :p).


Basically anything that profits GW when (if) I buy it :D, though some of the bad BL stuff is subject to summary dismissal if I just can't deal with its awfulness (so, lots of it actually). Similarly anything from outside sources, even licensed ones (like Sabertooth's Horus Hersey CCG and the upcoming 40k MMOG), is subject to dismissal. Are GW the gods on high who can do no wrong? No, but it is their product, their universe, so they get to define it.

[Cryl]

All of the following:


40k rules, supplements, and codices

Battlefleet Gothic rules and supplements

Forge World books

Inquisitor rules and supplements

Necromunda rules and supplements

Dark Hersey rules and supplements

Black Library source books (e.g. Xenology and The Inquisition)

Black Library novels (if they are good quality, so anything by Abnett and a handful of other stuff :p).


Basically anything that profits GW when (if) I buy it :D, though some of the bad BL stuff is subject to summary dismissal if I just can't deal with its awfulness (so, lots of it actually). Similarly anything from outside sources, even licensed ones (like Sabertooth's Horus Hersey CCG and the upcoming 40k MMOG), is subject to dismissal. Are GW the gods on high who can do no wrong? No, but it is their product, their universe, so they get to define it.

Pretty much my thoughts on it as well. There are some BL novels that clearly contradict other sources so they can be discounted. The Rulebook and the current codexes have to have precedence in my mind. On the subject of DH rulebooks anyone who is interested in the background of the 40k universe should get these they're a really good source of stuff with the kind of detail that you won't have seen since the RT edition!

[Just_Me]

On the subject of DH rulebooks anyone who is interested in the background of the 40k universe should get these they're a really good source of stuff with the kind of detail that you won't have seen since the RT edition!

Especially for the my personal favorites the oft overlooked Ordos Xenos. Great detail on the complexities of the 40k universe from an in depth "boots on the ground" perspective, everything from the political power structure of sector governance to Imperial society's most common recreational drugs.

[miteyheroes]

I treat pretty much everything published by GW or under licence as being canon.

I resolve inconsistencies by:
-Assuming Rogue Trader-era stuff was earlier in the timeline. Hence Imperial Jetbikes, Squats, etc all existed once, even if they don't now.
OR
-Remembering the universe is a BIG place.

Let's take Titan Legions as an example. In Titanicus, the Legio Invicta has more than 49 titans in it. In Adeptus Titanicus, we were told Legions have around 16 titans each. In Dark Creed, the Chaos Legio Vulturus has a demi-legion of 12 titans. Oh dear.

So I guess either:
-16 Titans-per-Legion was how things were done in the Great Crusade, things are different now.
OR
-Legio Invicta is unusually large. In a huge universe, some variation is to be expected.

[Old_Paladin]

I do believe there is canon in 40K.
Do I think it is maliable, and has and will change over time? Of course, all canon does.
Not to introduce a taboo topic; but look at religion. Do religions have canon? Is that canon the same as it was 200 years ago (or in some cases even a decade ago)?
Nothing stays the same forever; especially when they are trying to advance the timeline.
Saying that squats or Eldrad were alive one year and not the next (and trying to say that that makes canon wishy-washy), is the same as saying Elvis was alive one year and not the next and that's non-sense; it would only violate canon if either was brought back with little to no explanation on how it happens.

I include Black library, forge world and the licenced video games in the canon as well: mostly because it tends to either be included in the rest of the mainstream GW stuff (*cough* Blood Ravens, Gaunts Ghosts *cough, cough*); or it is simply so popular that it cannot be denied (and there is an aspect of popular belief that drives canon).

[jeffersonian000]

Canon is a religious term, meaning sacred texts, and is used more loosely in modern parlance to mean a standard for reference.

Going by that definition, everything GW currently publishes is "canon", and everything GW does not currently publish (i.e., old rulebooks, old codexes, out of print novels, and fan fiction) are not canon. However, GW has specifically stated that everything written background-wise about the 40k universe is correct yet a lie at the same time, which in its own way sets a standard.

SJ

[Xas]

If multiple, generally conflicting sources from beings that dislike each other agree, then it is probably true, at least in the broad strokes. The demon, eldar and dark eldar fluff all agrees on how Slaanesh was born, and I vaguely recall it coming up in some Imperial source... may have been the Liber Chaotica, I think it was one of the Black Library 'not a novel' books. Since these groups either cold shoulder or outright attack each other, it is probably true.

If both a loyalist and a chaos marine group have records of fighting each other in a particular battle in a particular place, it probably happened. All the bits about who won and who took a valient last stand should be treated with grave suspicion, unless again they actually agree (but that will be a 'x important person died here' agreement, one man's last stand to let the others regroup is another man's idiotic challenge while everyone else ran for their miserable lives').


Treat everything as propaganda, and assume that each race has a better idea of their own biology and culture than everyone else but will lie through their teeth about whatever battles they have been in and how effective their weapons are.

QFT

even our real life history shows us to not believe what the media tells us. GW takes every chance they get to emphasis that all their information is racial propagande of one sort or another (see how the army in question ALLWAYS wins and is superiour in their codex?)

what I do see as relatively secured info are the horus heresy novels (and if only because I'm devoted to chaos by hearth).

[AbeSapien]

I also consider fluff from stuff like the Badab War Campaign Rules from BOLS to be canonical. Anything that is widely spread so everyone knows about it, I consider canon.
More people probably read the Badab War campaign rules than any individual Black Library publication.

[Melissia]

Regardless of what cetain people think, however, I still hold the codices above and beyond anything for information on that faction's background and history. If anything contradicts the codex in regards to information about the faction, it is wrong unless it is a newer codex specifically for that faction-- IE, non-canon.

[Sangre]

Regardless of what cetain people think, however, I still hold the codices above and beyond anything for information on that faction's background and history. If anything contradicts the codex in regards to information about the faction, it is wrong unless it is a newer codex specifically for that faction-- IE, non-canon.

Good for you, dear.

I personally think that canon is anything published by GW (And it's worth remembering that the Black Library is a publishing house that is entirely a subsidiary of Games Workshop); plus the Fantasy Flight Games RPGs that have the GW Licence.

[Melissia]

Which is beside the point, as some "canon" are self contradictory. And therefor a hierarchy should be established.

[Sangre]

Nothing wrong with self-contradictory canon. The original canon, that is to say the biblical canon, is at points self-contradictory, and that doesn't stop millions of worshippers from their business.

[Melissia]

Nothing wrong with self-contradictory canon. The original canon, that is to say the biblical canon, is at points self-contradictory, and that doesn't stop millions of worshippers from their business.Which is somewhat irrelevant due to being an entirely different subject altogether, and a subject best not gotten into at that (as amusing as it might be to see how certain people react to the bible being referred to as fiction and compared to more contemporary fiction settings).

[Aldramelech]

The Bible? Ohh you mean that book writen by a middle eastern cave hermit on acid.........:D

[Sangre]

Religious flamewar disclaimer: I make no claims that the bible is fiction. I merely point out that the term "canon" we use for fictional authority is derived from early Church leaders deciding which of the many biblical books of the time were authoritative religious scripture.

[Gotthammer]

And therefor a hierarchy should be established.

Given GW say they write stuff to be vague, contradictory and open to multiple interpretations I think any sort of hierarchy is missing the point.

[Melissia]

And I disagree very strongly with that point. There are still some basic facts, as laid out by the codices and rulebooks, about each faction, and about the galaxy as a whole.

[miteyheroes]

Surely the "basic facts" are the ones that aren't contradicted between different sources, though?

[Melissia]

Occasionally, yes, they are.

[Sangre]

I'm going to have to buy you a tinfoil hat.

[Melissia]

Too late, I already have one. It reflects the mind-controlling radiation rays that the xenos use to attempt to turn everyone into heretics. I also have a similar set of tinfoil body armor I use, in order to prevent mutation.

[Sangre]

What about the anti-militant serum?

[Herald of Nurgle]

What about the anti-militant serum?
Silly Sangre, they don't have boltguns in our time!

[Renegade]

Surely the "basic facts" are the ones that aren't contradicted between different sources, though?

For the majority of the time, I would agree, but this still leaves out the more ambiguous references that can cause many different points of view.

[mysterex]

If anything contradicts the codex in regards to information about the faction, it is wrong unless it is a newer codex specifically for that faction-- IE, non-canon.

I suspect you mean apocrypha.

And probably everything in Codex Daemons is a lie.

[BeakieHelmet]

Oh man, canon. I always, always get into arguments regarding canon when it comes to the Tau, due to Xenology conflicting with the codex and models and people treating rumors as fact.

I'll probably talk more about this when I get back home in January (visiting family for holidays) as I didn't bring my codexes with my but IIRC the tau took six thousand years to get to the tech level they are now and have been active for at least three thousand... And then people say "no, xenology says they've only been around for two thousand years" due to something in again IIRC xenology...

And don't get me started on the forehead gems. While I like some concepts Xenology introduced the Tau portion seems much more miss than hit.

[Gir]

Considering it is a GW IP, everything published by GW is canon. Period.

As for contradictions and a need for a hierarchy, the logical way, and therefore the way I go by, is physical time of release. Basically, if two things contradict each other, whichever was published most recently is canon.

But then that is common sense, and this is the internet.....

[Duke]

Considering it is a GW IP, everything published by GW is canon. Period.

As for contradictions and a need for a hierarchy, the logical way, and therefore the way I go by, is physical time of release. Basically, if two things contradict each other, whichever was published most recently is canon.

But then that is common sense, and this is the internet.....

Gir hit the nail on the head.

If GW publishes it then it is official canon (And guess what sometimes it doesn't agree with itself! A lot of canon outside GW does that too.) I would also agree that the newest sources are the most correct.

Duke

[Aldramelech]

Agreed.

[imperialsavant]

Canon in 40k for me is a balancing act.

Some sources hold more weight than others for me, but it's difficult to categorize them as they're not always definitively so.

It gets easier the more 'sources' on a certain subject there are. From all of these possibly conflicting accounts you can sort out what you feel is the best rough interpretation of the 'canon', so long as you remember that it is still subject to that same balance.

Dont forget that in all the "BIG" Rule books it states that so much of the Imperiums back history has been lost so its no great jump to have "revisions" of previous "Canon" & thus you can make up some fluff to cover your own unique Army etc. ;)

[imperialsavant]

I do believe there is canon in 40K.Snip******
Do I think it is maliable, and has and will change over time? Of course, all canon does.
Not to introduce a taboo topic; but look at religion. Do religions have canon? Is that canon the same as it was 200 years ago (or in some cases even a decade ago)?
Nothing stays the same forever SNIP*****.

:) Yes & a good example of this is how some Christian Saints have been eliminated. E.G. St Christopher who was very popular as the Patron Saint of Travellers.