Sisters of Silence/ Silent Sisterhood

[Kaled100]

In regards to the "blank rating" I find that piece of rubbish added by BL authors to be incredibily annoying (as far as I'm aware it isn't in any of the "canon" sources), especially in regards to Abnett's interpitation in which the "blanks" hardly seem to do anything (except make psykers extremely uncomfortable) and can apparently be "worn out" in the presence of a powerful psyker

It's in or implied in a few canon sources - Abnett's Ravenor and Eisenhorn novels and The Inquisition encyclopedia to name a few. That some untouchables are more untouchable than others is pretty clear from the GW canon, the fact that their effects in the extremely limited arena of the 40k game is more to do with keeping things balanced and simple than to reflect the actual background.

 

(yes because suddenly someone who is supposedly without a soul can sudden get one... BAH!)

Actually I don't think of it as an actual lack of a 'soul' but that untouchables have a different type of 'soul'. If it was a lack of soul, then the Animus Speculum would not be able to focus it as a weapon - it'd be like trying to project a beam of darkness. That being the case, I don't see why it might not be possible to turn an 'anti-soul' into a regular 'soul'. After all, we know that it is possible to create artifical untouchables and to augment and dampen both psychic and untouchable abilities.

[Tauren]

There are currently only 2 "soulless" models in game... the culexus and the pariahs. And to be honest the pariah model doesn't even have a anti-psyker rule. Technically they are "soulless" because your soul is reflected in the warp. Blanks have no "reflection" and thus leave a blank space in the warp. The difference is how big of a blank space they cause, because technically all psychic abilities are based off a warp reflection, when they interact with an area of "blank" warp they fizzle out. That's the idea behind a blank.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

There are currently only 2 "soulless" models in game... the culexus and the pariahs. And to be honest the pariah model doesn't even have a anti-psyker rule.

 

What kind of pariahs are you referring to? Necron Pariahs have the "Psychic Abomination" special rule just like the Culexus Assassin.

[Tauren]

There are currently only 2 "soulless" models in game... the culexus and the pariahs. And to be honest the pariah model doesn't even have a anti-psyker rule.

 

What kind of pariahs are you referring to? Necron Pariahs have the "Psychic Abomination" special rule just like the Culexus Assassin.

 

Ahhh do they? I did a quick look on the GW website and didn't see the special rule. In that case... you are correct.

[Heru]

In regards to the "blank rating" I find that piece of rubbish added by BL authors to be incredibily annoying (as far as I'm aware it isn't in any of the "canon" sources), especially in regards to Abnett's interpitation in which the "blanks" hardly seem to do anything (except make psykers extremely uncomfortable) and can apparently be "worn out" in the presence of a powerful psyker

It's in or implied in a few canon sources - Abnett's Ravenor and Eisenhorn novels and The Inquisition encyclopedia to name a few.

Abnett, Abnett, Abnett (considering the majority of that "encyclopedia" is based on his books).

 

And what I meant by canon is official publications like Codex Assassins 2nd and 3rd Edition, Codices WH, DH, and Necrons, Wh40k Rulebooks etc - noting the fact that one of GW's higher ups officially stated BL publications aren't considered canon.

 

 

Abnett's interpretation of "untouchables" will always be distasteful to me because of the general uselessness of it. He never portrays any "blunts" as he calls it (because even though they are rare as sin they have a "popular" nickname... blerg), actually stopping a psychic power despite the fact they are always around, in fact even going so far to have one become no longer a untouchable like it was an ability rather than a fact of their existence. It's just like one of those nightmares where you know you can move but you can't or your stuck in the dark with something horrible but the lights just won't turn on (despite the fact they should).

[Kaled100]

And what I meant by canon is official publications like Codex Assassins 2nd and 3rd Edition, Codices WH, DH, and Necrons, Wh40k Rulebooks etc - noting the fact that one of GW's higher ups officially stated BL publications aren't considered canon.

Since when? According to the Black Library site and everyone I've ever spoken to at GW, BL stuff is just as canonical as anything else published by GW but that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'true'.

 

That said, BL authors are not expected to read every other novel and adhere to the background written in them, they're just expected to conform to what is written in the codices (and whichever other bits the publishers tell them to). That doesn't make the novels any less canonical as far as we the reader is concerned.

 

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history...

 

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

 

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

 

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 that 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.

 

Is Black Library fiction canon background material?

The BL editors work with the GW studios to keep the fiction the way that it should (very hard might I add! - RK), though due to the sheer volume of detail involved there can be the odd discrepancy here and there. If you want to consider anything "canonical" then both BL fiction - be it novel, graphic novel, art or background book - and GW fiction - be it White Dwarf, Codex, Army book or rulebook - are such.

 

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history ...

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Since when? According to the Black Library site and everyone I've ever spoken to at GW, BL stuff is just as canonical as anything else published by GW but that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'true'.

 

That said, BL authors are not expected to read every other novel and adhere to the background written in them, they're just expected to conform to what is written in the codices (and whichever other bits the publishers tell them to). That doesn't make the novels any less canonical as far as we the reader is concerned.

 

Some BL authors don't even adhere to the codicies. The author is a large part of whether it can be considered canon. Abnett is particularly good at following established fluff, and so his work could be considered more reliable. Others are not so good (or don't make the effort), and aren't so reliable.

[Kaled100]

I don't know about not considering them canon, if it's published by GW (or one of their partners or subsiduries) then it's canon. I actually really like the 'official' answer I posted, that everything is canon but not necessarily true, that some things are myths, legends, half-truths and lies.

 

It makes it a far more interesting universe (IMHO) if we have to sift through the evidence and make a judgement about what we believe to be the truth, in a similar way to a historian trying to determine the truth about events by examining documents, eye-witness accounts etc. The 'truth' about even recent events is practically impossible to determine as almost everything is skewed in some way by the mindset of the preson who recorded it and that seems to be the best way to treat the 40k canon too.

 

Although the writers are generally expected to follow what is written in the codices, that does not mean the codex version is necessarily more 'true' - it is simply the story that studio decided to tell at that time and may still be deliberately full of half-truths and lies.

 

I find it funny how so many people rate Abnett as following the fluff most closely, whereas if you look on many of the forums that deal with Inquisitor he is derided for all the inaccuracies in the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies. The great thing about Eisenhorn especially, is the first-person narrative means it's easy to ignore Abnett's errors as they can simply be ascribed to the the fact that although Eisenhorn may think or believe something, that doesn't mean he is right.

[Heru]

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=146596

[Kaled100]

I wondered if someone would bring that up - Robey (PrecinctOmega) was talking to George Mann as an author attempting to get BL to commission him to write a novel after his success in the Planetkill competition. He and I discussed it, and he said that George's statement was to the canonicity of the material as regards the writers, not the readers. As I think I mentioned before, a writer must attempt to stick to the 'facts' given in the rulebooks, codexes etc, but isn't expected to have read all of the Black Library novels and to not contradict them in any way. However, once something is publsihed by GW as far as us readers are concerned the new story is just as canonical as anything else (and hence like everything else may be truth, lies, myths etc).

 

What's in the codexes and rulebooks may still be half-truth or lies but as long as writers all stick pretty much to it then the universe is kept somewhat consistent. This means that the studio is firmly in control of the evolution of the universe - they control the core of things and that anything that is 'retconned' is done at their instigation rather than on the whim of some BL writer - which is basically the way most people had assumed it to be anyway.

[Heru]

I wondered if someone would bring that up - Robey (PrecinctOmega) was talking to George Mann as an author attempting to get BL to commission him to write a novel after his success in the Planetkill competition. He and I discussed it, and he said that George's statement was to the canonicity of the material as regards the writers, not the readers. As I think I mentioned before, a writer must attempt to stick to the 'facts' given in the rulebooks, codexes etc, but isn't expected to have read all of the Black Library novels and to not contradict them in any way. However, once something is publsihed by GW as far as us readers are concerned the new story is just as canonical as anything else (and hence like everything else may be truth, lies, myths etc).

 

What's in the codexes and rulebooks may still be half-truth or lies but as long as writers all stick pretty much to it then the universe is kept somewhat consistent. This means that the studio is firmly in control of the evolution of the universe - they control the core of things and that anything that is 'retconned' is done at their instigation rather than on the whim of some BL writer - which is basically the way most people had assumed it to be anyway.

Fine Dan Abnett's portrayal of Untouchables is all lies then. :D

 

To be honest I don't really have a problem with Dan's work (I do have all the Eisenhorn, Ravenor and the Inquisition enclopedia afterall), it's just that little thorn that really bugs me (sure there are other bits that bug me, but they don't bug me as much).