FW Veracity

[Forward Assist]

Or CHOOM.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

This topic seems to be designed to be inflammatory

I concur. No one can read the Forgeworld books, the CodexesTM, the Realms of Chaos, and, yes, even the "hallowed" Index Astartes and see all of the "ifs", "buts", "we don't knows", "reports suggest", etc and believe they are written with an all-knowing point of view.

The FW Black Books in particular explicitly take the stance of being historical records pieced together from personal logs and after action reports.

And now we have a "conflict" in which we have already 200 year old, fragmented, historical record that is based off of other historical records saying one thing, and then the hearsay of a Primarch which could be based on any number of things, saying another.

But suddenly the historical record is absolutely false in all instances because of "he said, she said" in one instance?

That's where this post becomes inflammatory. Because it isn't taking time to consider how the entirety of the background has been presented. It also fails to take into account that person being quoted has and probably still is, swearing up and down that Crysus Mortug died on Istvaan III even though he has a personal log dated fifty years after the Heresy.

So what the background is intentionally written to be in conflict with itself? It was always been that way. And it gives us more room to maneuver than imaginable. So welcome to the grand world of Warhammer.

 

Are you not getting sick and tired of being told the books you're dropping huge chunks of cash on, and the models you're spending hours and hours converting, are pointless?

[Remus Ventanus.]

 

 

This topic seems to be designed to be inflammatory

I concur. No one can read the Forgeworld books, the CodexesTM, the Realms of Chaos, and, yes, even the "hallowed" Index Astartes and see all of the "ifs", "buts", "we don't knows", "reports suggest", etc and believe they are written with an all-knowing point of view.

The FW Black Books in particular explicitly take the stance of being historical records pieced together from personal logs and after action reports.

And now we have a "conflict" in which we have already 200 year old, fragmented, historical record that is based off of other historical records saying one thing, and then the hearsay of a Primarch which could be based on any number of things, saying another.

But suddenly the historical record is absolutely false in all instances because of "he said, she said" in one instance?

That's where this post becomes inflammatory. Because it isn't taking time to consider how the entirety of the background has been presented. It also fails to take into account that person being quoted has and probably still is, swearing up and down that Crysus Mortug died on Istvaan III even though he has a personal log dated fifty years after the Heresy.

So what the background is intentionally written to be in conflict with itself? It was always been that way. And it gives us more room to maneuver than imaginable. So welcome to the grand world of Warhammer.

Are you not getting sick and tired of being told the books you're dropping huge chunks of cash on, and the models you're spending hours and hours converting, are pointless?

how is it pointless? Can't we just enjoy painting our models, playing the game and reading the books?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

This topic seems to be designed to be inflammatory

I concur. No one can read the Forgeworld books, the CodexesTM, the Realms of Chaos, and, yes, even the "hallowed" Index Astartes and see all of the "ifs", "buts", "we don't knows", "reports suggest", etc and believe they are written with an all-knowing point of view.

The FW Black Books in particular explicitly take the stance of being historical records pieced together from personal logs and after action reports.

And now we have a "conflict" in which we have already 200 year old, fragmented, historical record that is based off of other historical records saying one thing, and then the hearsay of a Primarch which could be based on any number of things, saying another.

But suddenly the historical record is absolutely false in all instances because of "he said, she said" in one instance?

That's where this post becomes inflammatory. Because it isn't taking time to consider how the entirety of the background has been presented. It also fails to take into account that person being quoted has and probably still is, swearing up and down that Crysus Mortug died on Istvaan III even though he has a personal log dated fifty years after the Heresy.

So what the background is intentionally written to be in conflict with itself? It was always been that way. And it gives us more room to maneuver than imaginable. So welcome to the grand world of Warhammer.

Are you not getting sick and tired of being told the books you're dropping huge chunks of cash on, and the models you're spending hours and hours converting, are pointless?

how is it pointless? Can't we just enjoy painting our models, playing the game and reading the books?

Like if someone made the aforementioned Crysos Morturg blackshield army.

[Slips]

And we're back.

 

Keep it friendly and on-topic.

[Soldier of Dorn]

I first saw this topic yesterday, and was going to respond to it then, it a white hot flurry of emotion, but I thought it would be better if I took a day or two to think about it.

Marshal Rohr, whilst I do deeply respect and admire you for all the work you’ve done for this community (I’ve got What it means to be an Imperial Fist saved on my laptop as inspiration, and I reference it often), your first post is (in my opinion) needlessly aggressive. It’s not so much the message you were trying to convey, but the tone in which you phrased it. It may not seem that way to you, but the tone is very aggressive and sardonic, in particular the term “complete ” That’s the reason that people have been attacking you, and I can’t honestly say that I wholly disagree with them. It is formulated, perhaps not intentionally, as a highly inflammatory statement, as Bladewolf said.

I do think you have a fair point, though. For as long as they’ve been out the Forge World books have been considered the closest thing we will ever have to absolute certainty regarding the history of the Horus Heresy and the organization of the Legions, and to one who crafts such large amounts of background information as you, such a thing is an invaluable resource. Any shift in that paradigm would unsurprisingly prompt a strong outcry from those who rely upon these things for their writings. It therefore follows that you would respond to this in a manner not unlike how you did. So, it is understandable why you posted what you did.

However, I seem to have a markedly different stance on the matter as yourself, in that I do not, and have never, regarded every detail of the FW books as absolute truth. They may be more accurate than the Black Library, which I do not regard as canon (with a few exceptions on a case-by-case basis, most notably A D-B’s work), but somewhat accurate apocrypha is still apocrypha. That does not necessarily invalidate the truth of the work within, though. To use a real life parallel (unfortunately drawn from religion, so this may be against the rules of the B&C and get edited out), it would be if a Christian denied the authenticity of the works of Jesus purely on the basis that the Gospels differ regarding several parts of His life. For any believer, this would be a preposterous idea. The Christian Gospels may not agree on everything, but in the mind of a Christian this does not make them any less true. It does not make them, as you say, complete . It’s not where they disagree that’s important to a believer, but where they are affirmed. Each of the four Gospels are, of course, based on a single individual’s experiences and are based on absolute truth through the lens of subjective perception. The Horus Heresy books are implied to be the same, being, we suppose, the “Gospels” of whomever AK is. They are always based on absolute truth, but just like the Gospels, they have subjective elements to them. Remember that AK’s preface (in the first three books, at any rate) always ended with the words “I remember,” implying to us that the information contained therein are an individual’s experiences, and therefore, subjective. We therefore cannot possibly consider them to be wholly accurate.

Make no mistake, though. I love Forge World’s Horus Heresy books to bits, and constantly rely on the information they contain to formulate my armies’ backgrounds, but I acknowledge that the tidbits of information that we as fans latch on to may be entirely fictional (within the scope of another fictional universe, I mean) and that the information I create for my miniatures may be invalidated by any of the upcoming releases. But this is nothing new. In a galaxy as rife with retcons as the 30k and 40k universes, we as hobbyists must always be prepared for such things.

Besides, the whole debate is moot, in my regard, as it is a Black Library novel which is disagreeing with the Forge World books. Everyone here is already familiar with the disparities that so often crop up in the BL Heresy material, and I’m not sure I would put Laurie Goulding above merely messing with the fandom just because he is in a position to.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

 

Simply considering every single piece of canon to be written from an in-universe PoV resolves every single dispute, always, so who cares? With a galaxy so vast, with warp-bound travel and warp-bound interplanetarey phone calls disrupting time flow, there is no way two different sources will record and/or interpret the same information in exactly the same way. Discrepancies like this ARE a plus, since they allow different players, with different viewpoints and expectations, to create different stories out of the same original point of inspiration, stories that will suit each of them differently.

 

Having too rigid a cannon could (would?) severely limit player creativity. So why do some players give more than 0 [censored]?

Only it isn't. Take the Lion. Literally zero people knows he is alive. That is out of universe.

Well, while technically not human*, the Watchers are aware of his existence...

 

* Which once again raises the question why do the DAs tolerate the little blighters?

Exactly. The Watchers in the Dark are considered to actually be a part of the Dark Angels Chapter, even by the Dark Angels themselves. That makes their in-universe perspective part of the DA's in-universe. But ultimately, it is still an in-universe view.

 

 

 

This topic seems to be designed to be inflammatory

I concur. No one can read the Forgeworld books, the CodexesTM, the Realms of Chaos, and, yes, even the "hallowed" Index Astartes and see all of the "ifs", "buts", "we don't knows", "reports suggest", etc and believe they are written with an all-knowing point of view.

The FW Black Books in particular explicitly take the stance of being historical records pieced together from personal logs and after action reports.

And now we have a "conflict" in which we have already 200 year old, fragmented, historical record that is based off of other historical records saying one thing, and then the hearsay of a Primarch which could be based on any number of things, saying another.

But suddenly the historical record is absolutely false in all instances because of "he said, she said" in one instance?

That's where this post becomes inflammatory. Because it isn't taking time to consider how the entirety of the background has been presented. It also fails to take into account that person being quoted has and probably still is, swearing up and down that Crysus Mortug died on Istvaan III even though he has a personal log dated fifty years after the Heresy.

So what the background is intentionally written to be in conflict with itself? It was always been that way. And it gives us more room to maneuver than imaginable. So welcome to the grand world of Warhammer.

Are you not getting sick and tired of being told the books you're dropping huge chunks of cash on, and the models you're spending hours and hours converting, are pointless?

Is that what I'm being told though? Or is it just how you're overreacting to this sudden revelation over something that has been a fact of the background ever since Rogue Trader?

 

This isn't a case of "both are fake". It isn't even a case of "BL vs FW" as some are trying to make it. It is literally a single in-universe point of view based on fragmentary historical records, that have already possibly even been censored to some degree by Imperial authorities, competing against an in-universe point of view coming from a Primarch who has had intermittent contact with the Imperium at best.

 

So, in my completely and totally honest opinion; big, fat, whoopideedoodah. This does nothing to somehow magically invalidate anything and everything. It doesn't even invalidate Forgeworld's statement that Mortarion assumed immediate command.

 

And anyway, what is "immediate" in the context? After all, most of the other Primarchs had to spend years being "indoctrinated" into the Imperium before they were given command of their Legions. Angron spent months in isolation before he even thought of associating with his Legion and even then, we have no idea how long he spent learning about his Legion and teachig them his ways before he actually took command, or if he just took command and did the cultural exchange on the fly.

 

So really, as long as it's say three years or less, it can still be "immediate" while allowing time for the "penitent stage" the Khan believes happened.

 

And why do I reach that conclusion? Because that's what I do. When I see a conflict, I try to see where the middle ground is. I try not to be petulant enough to say "Well BL isn't canon anyways, so who cares about it" or "Well everything is worthless now so might as well give up and go home".

 

GW's CodexesTM are each factions' view of history in an extremely generalized sense. That's why the Crimson Slaughter know about the Unforgiven and the Fallen, but the Ultramarines don't. It's also why only the Iron Warriors know what really happened on Medrengard with their little civil war.

 

The FW books, both Heresy and 40K, are historical documents that are pieced together from personal logs, detailed accounts, etc. All of the wonderful things that go into recording history. And since it is all following the Heresy, chances are it has already begun to undergo the censoring the Imperium will eventually become famous for.

 

The BL novels, novellas, eshorts, audios and anthologies are first person accounts. Think "Diary of Anne Frank". They are limited only to what the characters do and do not perceive.

 

Where the "flexible canon", as I believe A D-B once called it, comes in, is that you, the individual, can choose how it all meshes together. Or doesn't.

 

In reality, there have been very few retcons. The biggest one to date is that a certain Ultramarines Chapter is no longer Third Founding and no longer has a half-eldar chief librarian.

 

And as for the conflicts, they are ultimately irrelevant. They create more opportunities than they close off.

 

And as for Laurie Goulding, from what I hear he is a great guy in person and sometimes seems to know his stuff. In person. Going by his internet presence, I'd almost argue that he is a troll and that I could drive a Death Star through the gaps in his background knowledge.

 

Sorry, but I don't care if you're in charge of making sure everything jives and you're an editor and an author. But if everything from Betrayal to Retribution says Mortug made it off Istvaan III, then either he's the Dread Pirate Roberts or you need to start explaining why you're so convinced he's dead.

[Fire Golem]

I don't agree that this makes the books pointless. If you enjoy reading them, and they inspire you, thats their point; whether they're 'canon' or not, surely?

[Scribe]

There is value in canon. If NOTHING is fact the setting falls apart.

 

That said this is minor until Laurie starts writing the FW books.

 

Till then, Laurie who?

[GhostMalone]

Look before :cuss gets heated I've got to say that I understand where the op is coming from but the biggest issue like the psycho addressed is that people respond in a white flare of anger at everything lately.

 

I know I personally have gotten fed up with people attacking each other from one point of a comment rather than reading every post from said individuals (myself included) and that there is becoming an obvious trend that some frater when we post get targeted due to misinterpreting the intended form of the response.

 

This is why we have the ability to PM and report to the mods. Rather than crusading through threads let us just try to stop the god damn character assassinations on the forum.

 

Now in regards to the OP unfortunately we don't have control over the lore and fluff that is considered cannon or hearsay or contested. I know im still annoyed at some bits of lore that if I mention I'll get shot for by half the frater here. So I choose to ignore it or put it in my personal thread.

 

Now I always understand where fraters such as the OP are coming from but the reality is we need to cool down and re read posts and if still in doubt ask the OP to extend on his reasoning. No one is wrong no one is right we all see things differently those of you out there with actual adult ADHD will testify our thought processing is not the same as most ordinary people (as an example) and can cause miscommunication.

 

That's the last I have to say I just hope people can start to return the B&C back to pre ETL IV condition as a community in division will never win ETL V and those bastards in the chaos forum will win again

[Kol Saresk]

There is value in canon. If NOTHING is fact the setting falls apart.

 

That said this is minor until Laurie starts writing the FW books.

 

Till then, Laurie who?

Well that's kind of the thing, everything is fact. The problem is that it is all fact based on personal bias, fragmentary records and historical dogma. Which "fact" is the most factual? That's what is up to the player/reader/fluffbunny to decide.

 

Personally, I float for the middle ground. I try to see how all of the facts can be true, and then strive for the path that makes the most sense out of everything. So far my only attempt to do so that has failed is that garbage short story "Artefacts" by Nick Kyme.

[Scribe]

When I say facts I mean things like 'the chaos god's exist' or 'the golden throne exists' if we do not accept basic truths in the setting, it ceases to be a shared setting

[Marshal Rohr]

The problem is that there is a world of difference between saying, 'Alexis Polux was in command of the Retribution Fleet at Phall and you can read about it in Shadows of Treachery and Extermination but some parts may be untold or misremembered', and 'Extermination may never have happened'. What is the motivation to play with the Iron Hands under Autek Mor if he doesn't exist? How is that remotely fair to the people that drop tons of money on their army, only to be told 'well Mor didn't really exist'. I don't understand why saying that we are owed a little bit of foundational knowledge is making me 'just trying to be angry about something'.

 

 

I already got burned once with the Templars, it doesn't make me inflammatory or aggressive to be genuinely worried it will happen again.

[A D-B]

I genuinely don't understand this. Literally nothing - literally nothing - has changed. 

[b1soul]

Extermination may never have happened

How has that ever been hinted?

[Atia]

I genuinely don't understand this. Literally nothing - literally nothing - has changed. 

I honestly think the main problems here are:

 

Laurie is implying the FW books are not 100% canon. (In fact, he is implying "everything" may be false ...)

Laurie is implying his novels (-> since he edited them, you know what i mean) are "more canon" or more accurate than FW books.

 

People love the high quality stuff from FW. FW's books are pretty much written as "compendium of stuff collected from the battlefields of the heresy". There are actually just two cases where I was thinking the text wasn't really accurate - first, when the books are talking about stuff like why a Primarch felt to chaos - honestly, thats nothing the writers of the books should be fully aware off, from an in universe point of view. The second case was the Alpha Legion - also something AK can't be sure, but that's even said in the text.

 

This was the answer of a lore inconcistency withing the series, which may be an oversight by either the writer or Laurie. Instead of "oh, yeah, that may be indeed an error (and be honest, we had them. Some of them got fixed with a re-print, an example for this would be Battle for the Abyss - other need a whole short story to fix it ...) we got something like "ah, the writer is AK, if you figure out who he is, you may recognise that the whole FW books series may not be correct lol. I hear warseer explode again." - that wasn't smart imho.

[A D-B]

 

I genuinely don't understand this. Literally nothing - literally nothing - has changed. 

I honestly think the main problems here are:

 

Laurie is implying the FW books are not 100% canon. (In fact, he is implying "everything" may be false ...)

Laurie is implying his novels (-> since he edited them, you know what i mean) are "more canon" or more accurate than FW books.

 

I'm not seeing the second implication. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, as I really do want to grasp this. Especially after having seen most of y'all in canon threads where we've all discussed this a hundred times before, regarding how the setting works.

 

So help me out. A couple of people thought the FW books were the One True Source (which was never true, never mentioned as true anywhere, never suggested to be true, would go against every other rule of the setting, and was blatantly not true given that they lack loads of information and are written by an in-universe character who keeps mentioning holes in the archives he/she is drawing from).

 

And now they've realised years later that those books are exactly like every novel, codex, and article (and of course they are, why wouldn't they be, and where has it ever said they weren't?) and... suddenly everything is bad and it's impossible to make armies or understand where the line is drawn?

 

Literally nothing has changed. At all. These same people could make armies when they just had codexes. I'm not trying to be wilfully ignorant, here. I just... What's going on?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Extermination may never have happened

How has that ever been hinted?

The quote is in the OP

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

Frankly, I have no idea what's going on and how this is actually news.

 

LG said something that has always been pretty darn clear, and a staple of all warhammer related scribbling, and NOW it's somehow news?

 

I advise everybody freaking out to remember it's a game, and while passion is always respected, blind zealotry is not.

 

WLK

[Scribe]

It's a question ADB on the canonical level of the fw books. On our with BL is likely the best we will get but to suggest important parts or characters are false (like I alluded to) would reflect poorly on the setting as a shared entity.

[Atia]

 

 

I genuinely don't understand this. Literally nothing - literally nothing - has changed. 

I honestly think the main problems here are:

 

Laurie is implying the FW books are not 100% canon. (In fact, he is implying "everything" may be false ...)

Laurie is implying his novels (-> since he edited them, you know what i mean) are "more canon" or more accurate than FW books.

 

I'm not seeing the second implication. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, as I really do want to grasp this. Especially after having seen most of y'all in canon threads where we've all discussed this a hundred times before, regarding how the setting works.

 

So help me out. A couple of people thought the FW books were the One True Source (which was never true, never mentioned as true anywhere, never suggested to be true, would go against every other rule of the setting, and was blatantly not true given that they lack loads of information and are written by an in-universe character who keeps mentioning holes in the archives he/she is drawing from).

 

And now they've realised years later that those books are exactly like every novel, codex, and article (and of course they are, why wouldn't they be, and where has it ever said they weren't?) and... suddenly everything is bad and it's impossible to make armies or understand where the line is drawn?

 

Literally nothing has changed. At all. These same people could make armies when they just had codexes. I'm not trying to be wilfully ignorant, here. I just... What's going on?

 

 

No clue buddy, for me it's just how he wrote his comment - he should have said it smarter. 

 

I'm fully aware that the FW books aren't more accurate than the novels written from in universe PoV's. Yet the novels had errors in it. 

 

This was the question he got asked:

In the Forge World HH book 1, which describes the history of the Death Guard it states that Mortarian was given command of his legion immediately. I don't have the book to hand right now so I can't give a page quote. Now I know that this clashes with Chris Wraight's later novella which I also feel has some timeline issues surrounding the Primarch discovery list. However Chris's story does not say that Mortarion was not initially given command and then later temporarly removed for 'retraining' from the Emperor. Perhaps due to some extreme behaviour or other indescretion. This is how I like to square this little circle anyway and I think it would make an very interesting story.

 

 

and Lauries' answer:

That's the great thing about those Forge World books - once you realise who the mysterious "AK" is, everything contained in the background section is cast into doubt... And yes, that was deliberate from the start.

 

(Whoa, what was that? Did I just hear Warseer explode again?)

 

 

 

So, instead of adressing the issue (f.e., a simple "maybe AK didn't knew of this?"), he just said "If you realise who AK is, you will get he/she/it isn't an accurate narrator - or worse, his narrating may be deliberately false". 

[Scribe]

And the clearly intentional jab at a portion of the community but that's fine. :)

[A D-B]

It's a question ADB on the canonical level of the fw books. On our with BL is likely the best we will get but to suggest important parts or characters are false (like I alluded to) would reflect poorly on the setting as a shared entity.

 

But... nothing has changed. Nothing. Forge World's books (which are breathtakingly awesome) have never trumped novels, codexes, and everything else. Nothing trumps anything else, really. 

 

I'm pretty sure you've even been in conversations where we've all discussed how the setting works regarding canon. Nothing has changed today. Like, literally nothing. No source is, or has ever been, "the one true source". Anyone can prefer one source over another (heck, we all do!) but there's never once been anything official - anywhere - even implied that "out of 30 years of 40K lore, actually it's just these new black leatherbound books that are true."

 

I'm really not getting it. This is nothing new, at all. Nothing has changed. Why would a few peeps, who know full well how the setting's lore works and has worked for decades, now be stunned that it applies to the most recent books of the setting as well?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I genuinely don't understand this. Literally nothing - literally nothing - has changed.

I honestly think the main problems here are:

 

Laurie is implying the FW books are not 100% canon. (In fact, he is implying "everything" may be false ...)

Laurie is implying his novels (-> since he edited them, you know what i mean) are "more canon" or more accurate than FW books.

I'm not seeing the second implication.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, as I really do want to grasp this. Especially after having seen most of y'all in canon threads where we've all discussed this a hundred times before, regarding how the setting works.

 

So help me out. A couple of people thought the FW books were the One True Source (which was never true, never mentioned as true anywhere, never suggested to be true, would go against every other rule of the setting, and was blatantly not true given that they lack loads of information and are written by an in-universe character who keeps mentioning holes in the archives he/she is drawing from).

 

And now they've realised years later that those books are exactly like every novel, codex, and article (and of course they are, why wouldn't they be, and where has it ever said they weren't?) and... suddenly everything is bad and it's impossible to make armies or understand where the line is drawn?

 

Literally nothing has changed. At all. These same people could make armies when they just had codexes. I'm not trying to be wilfully ignorant, here. I just... What's going on?

No clue buddy, for me it's just how he wrote his comment - he should have said it smarter.

 

I'm fully aware that the FW books aren't more accurate than the novels written from in universe PoV's. Yet the novels had errors in it.

 

This was the question he got asked:

In the Forge World HH book 1, which describes the history of the Death Guard it states that Mortarian was given command of his legion immediately. I don't have the book to hand right now so I can't give a page quote. Now I know that this clashes with Chris Wraight's later novella which I also feel has some timeline issues surrounding the Primarch discovery list. However Chris's story does not say that Mortarion was not initially given command and then later temporarly removed for 'retraining' from the Emperor. Perhaps due to some extreme behaviour or other indescretion. This is how I like to square this little circle anyway and I think it would make an very interesting story.

 

and Lauries' answer:

That's the great thing about those Forge World books - once you realise who the mysterious "AK" is, everything contained in the background section is cast into doubt... And yes, that was deliberate from the start.

 

(Whoa, what was that? Did I just hear Warseer explode again?)

 

 

So, instead of adressing the issue (f.e., a simple "maybe AK didn't knew of this?"), he just said "If you realise who AK is, you will get he/she/it isn't an accurate narrator - or worse, his narrating may be deliberately false".

Atia nailed it. The idea that the FW books aren't loose canon, but intentional deception and it being out forward in such a flippant manner is disheartening.

[Olis]

There is value in canon. If NOTHING is fact the setting falls apart.

 

Try to think of it this way: All data/lore/background/fluff is, to certain degrees, a bit fluffy around the edges. I'll apologise in advance if my use of the same root word for two differing meanings causes confusion. When I say fluffy, I mean... wooly. Hazy. Concepts such as the Golden Throne, Space Marines, the Imperium itself... they are solid enough to be shared canon. But the details (which is where the devil lies) of each of these things, as they move outwards from the central concept toward finer and greater detail, get that little bit fluffier. A little bit more hazy.

 

This is where in-universe recountings and reports may fudge the story a bit. Source A says one thing while Source B says another. The greater concepts remain largely unchanged but the minor quibbles (minor by contrast) end up being declared as facts because of 'loose canon' and it's up to the reader to decide which version is more credible. Debate may occur, disagreement may occur but, overall, the framework for in-universe canon remains a shared experience to the vast majority. 

 

Incidentally, I find 'loose canon' a much better system than a tiered system like the Star Wars franchise adopted. It's much more flexible.