Editing Canon (section)

== Games Workshop and Canon ==
[[Games Workshop]]'s official stance is that all of the fluff is told by an '''Unreliable Narrator''' and comes from a compromised position where all the facts may not be known, or deliberately concealed, so is therefore true and false at the same time. This is so they can sell you multiple stories and products without having to wade through 25 years worth of bullshit, self-contradictions, and inconsistencies. This frustrates and annoys fa/tg/uys, who pull a fit every time their comic book collection gets even slightly out of order. However, it's pretty common practice in most large franchises. This stance actually allows individuals to have their own ''personal canon'' and are able to pick and choose canon as they see fit.

This particular stance by GW is detailed by [[Gav Thorpe]], who has been both a games developer and an author: 

''"[...] is the job of authors and games developers to illuminate and inspire, not to dictate. Perhaps you disagree with the portrayal of a certain faction, or a facet of their society doesn’t make sense in your version of the world. You may not like the answers presented, but in asking the question you can come up with a solution that matches your vision. As long as certain central themes and principles remain, you can pick and choose which parts you like and dislike."''

Because GW don't have a ''"canon vs legends"'' distinction the same way that [[Star Wars]] does, or even a descending scale of canonicity where some sources trump others; This creates a multitude of discrepancies where sources disagree with each other over sometimes very big issues. Some readers prefer to consider newer sources as more reliable that automatically trump old ones, though this can cause much yoyoing when different up-to-date sources repeat the same conflicting information and giving the appearance that the authors can't maintain a consistent story. Other readers prefer to consider "core" sources such as rulebooks and codexes most reliable, forgetting that many of the [[Phil Kelly|BL authors]] [[John French|are]] [[Andy Chambers|(or]] [[Graham McNeill|were)]] [[Andy Hoare|games]] [[Gav Thorpe|designers]] who wrote those same rulebooks and codexes. It's also important to remember that [[Black Library]] and [[Forge World]] are actually divisions within GW so should be considered equally "official". Arguments ''could'' be made for licensed works such as vidya games and RPGs being made out-of-house being less canon than GW published materials, but even then, fluff-guru and lead designer [[Alan Bligh]] ''(Emprah rest his soul)'' did much of the writing for [[Dark Heresy]] and [[Rogue Trader (RPG)]] which are now being obliquely referenced in newer rulebooks and codexes, so again, much of it falls back to what readers decide for themselves. But of course, people don't see it that way and would rather be '''dictated to''', instead wanting their galaxy-sweeping, massively-scaled space opera to be detailed right down to how many pubic hairs [[Roboute Guilliman]] has. [[Warhammer]] and [[Warhammer 40,000]] have continuity and consistency to an extent, but nothing can be truly described as canon, as the powers that be never set anything in stone <u>(and likely never will)</u>.

In the words of Marc Gascoigne (overall manager of Black Library prior to 2008):

''"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 nuclear 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."''

On the other hand, some authors have truly taken the piss with this policy, such as Captain [[C.S.Goto|C.S. MULTI-LAZOR]]. However, even Games "everything is canon but not everything is true" Workshop have standards, and draw the line at his work, with one of their spokespeople saying it could've benefited from an editor's red pen.