From Lexicanum

In the light of the book Flight of the Eisenstein (Novel), shouldn't this article be rewritten? Or is the source mentioned in the article be considered official fluff? -- JoeneB, 13 June 2007, 14:27 (CEST).

You are right. The source while still respected is simply outdated. The new novels are official and are rebooting everything that is known about the Horus Heresy. Irulan 17:20, 13 June 2007 (CEST)

Er...SanchiTachi: There was a note in WD (Index Astartes) and, of course, the novel (as Irulan noted - it's official) - the Eisenstein story isn't outdated!--Genestealer 01:55, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

Unless the novel is written by a game developer or is stated as being official, it isn't official. Just because it is published by Black Library does not make it correct. Black Library has almost no standards to content. Look at the Inquisition War series. Only Rulebooks, including Codexes, count as official canon. While Eisenstein was based on official canon, that canon has been replaced and discarded. White Dwarf is the official magazine and contains official information, but also becomes outdated with each edition. The New Novels are doing whatever they can to make money, and many of them are writing things that are wrong or contradict a lot. Gav Thorpe made a huge note in the Rulebook for Inquisitor about the official origins of the Inquisition just to stop all the various writers from going on and on. Its a problem that wasn't stopped early and the developers are having a problem limiting those at the Black Library. SanchiTachi 03:15, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

If that is the case, perhaps the Lex official canon requirements and the reasons for BL publications material failing them ought to be stated somewhere; on the Black Library page, the main page etc. Reasoning and a source for statements about their material not being considered official by the GW Studio would be good, although we should probably avoid statements like 'they're just out to make money' and 'they have no standards' as they're potentially inflammatory. Also, the ruling that only novels written by games designers are to be considered official canon should be looked at, as, well, it's a bit silly. For example, this makes the 2nd book in a trilogy official but leaves parts 1 and 3 out in the cold.--Mob 11:14, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

Black Library may not always have the most cannonical info, but codexes and rulebooks cannont sustain the lex by themselves. Other wise it'd only be 15 pages, not how ever many we have now. GW has licensed BL, otherwise BL wouldn't be able to publish WH40K stuff, correct?Anything coming from BL ought to be able to come from GW because of this. Unless tags are added to every page not with 'codex' as a source, or someone sniffs the answer from GW itself, and not a generic one, but a real answer, then we are stuck. ---Psyco 11:44, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

I do agree. As far as I know, it's not even a question of GW licensing BL, BL are a full part of GW, their publishing wing. Their offices are in the Studio building and they have personnel crossover up to the head of GW intellectual property. I am in favour of BL material in the Lex, as I think we all are based on a previous discussion. I am merely questioning the actual Lex standpoint as, apparently, because the Eisenstein event is not currently mentioned in a rulebook it is to be considered not 'main-canon' and 'outdated' even though a novel detailing the events minutely came out a matter of months ago! This seems like picking and choosing on our behalf, rather than presenting GW background material in the most logical manner. I'm asking for guidelines to follow when editing articles using BL material, basically. Thanks.--Mob 12:51, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

The original concept of the Eisenstein was dropped in official works. It was later brought back by a novelist because it was a "cool idea". I felt that the way I organized it (i.e. putting the original information, then how it incarnated later), and then warning people with a dated material tag (I have information on the Star Child from 4th edition Thorian information, but the subject itself is still dated) just so that people don't think its introduced in the codexes or rulebooks as the Core Fluff. You just have to watch out with books. Look at the Soul Drinkers or other groups that have all sorts of crazy disconnect. Also, a group like the Blood Ravens were not official canon until White Dwarf created an Index Astartes article for them. SanchiTachi 17:08, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

The general rule is that all information should be included whether it is produced by BL or GW. The problem is presentation. To be honest, if there is a problem, make it obvious in the text. With the eisenstein then we should have a section for each variation (original, horus heresy books etc.) and present all the information in a factual and logical manner. Hope it helps --Jonru 16:37, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

I should point out that some of the Horus Heresy books follow some of the ideas from the Horus Heresy card game by Sabertooth, which adds some stuff. I expanded on one such section, Sisters of Silence, but I'm trying to think of how to phrase it as an "alternate" canon. Although, Sisters of Silence were introduced in White Dwarf (which means that the game designers were trying to make it more legitimate). The important thing to do is some how organize it so that people do not confuse which versions come from which. The Emperor of Mankind had that problem and it still included things dropped 15 years ago. I think I helped separate it out. SanchiTachi 17:08, 28 June 2007 (CEST)

One thing I think we are all forgetting is that I am sure some GW people have at least googled their own creation, and probably seen this site. They may even be looking at this very argument and sighing or something, thinking we are all idiots for trying to sort through this all. Maybe if we have a spokesperson who communicates with GW about this, perhaps they can help. I understand that this site is in no way licensed with GW, but maybe they would be interested in helping us. Even if they just give us the defination of the word 'canon' as it pertains to us would help us solve this. ---Psyco 04:02, 29 June 2007 (CEST)

I live near the GW American HQ and even worked for them for a short time. They really don't care one way or the other about plot consistency, but the only stuff that they admit to being accurate is whatever is included in the current Rulebooks and Codexes. Black Library is basically a separate entity under the same banner. The GW people are only concerned about the miniatures and making money of course. SanchiTachi 04:37, 29 June 2007 (CEST)

Hm...I was hoping that there was someone in GW that cares about their job... Appaently you did Sanchi... ---Psyco 04:41, 29 June 2007 (CEST)

Not really. I worked on the financial stuff. I never touched the gaming stuff. Thats done by the game designers. The Game Designers aren't the heads of Games Workshop. They don't run Games Workshop. They sometimes let game designers do things that don't cost a lot of money, like letting Gav Thorpe create Inquisitor, but more often then not they boot good game designers like Andy Chambers in order to make more money. As long as people buy the Black Library books, GW wont bother paying for the people required to check through the novels to create a "consistency" with the "canon" or to create definitive documents. Its left up in the air to "encourage fans", i.e. the fans create fan fluff with all the large gaps and are encouraged by the alterations of the novels to make their own claims. Thus, they sell more product without actually having to create it. Think of it this way: Take Tolkien's works. Remove any background on what the Urukhai were and add three conflicting backgrounds on Sauron. Then make new editions that contradict each other on Gandalf's divinity. Then allude that maybe the hobbots are evil cultists in a fringe book. Thats what you have.

Or you could look at the Star Wars novels, that go on and on about Star Wars but only really screw up that universe. (Well, George Lucas did it too, but it was his right at least). SanchiTachi 05:11, 29 June 2007 (CEST)

Surely it should be pointed out that whilst the Eisenstein novel may or may not be dubbed official it doesnt contradict other GW material as much as the previous Eisenstein stories which claim the Thousand Sons were present at the dropsite massacre