Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Canon

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Black Industries/Fantasy Flight Games

Is the material from Dark Heresy (BI/FFG) considered canon? --Akaoz 10:40, 23 December 2008 (CET)

Yes. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 11:25, 23 December 2008 (CET)

What is not canon

I was just wondering what was once considered "canon" and what is now not. Given the rather confusing nature of Warhammer 40,000 canon, I think a clarification of what older stuff is no longer considered canon would help.

Thank you in advance.Imperator007 03:01, 17 September 2008 (CEST)

Black Library

My understanding as told to me by a close friend and devoted fan of Warhammer is that Black Library is not official, what is published in the novels in not always what happened in the fictional universe.--LordMilitant 21:03, 26 October 2008 (CET)

It doesn't really matter what friends tell us. Only stuff from official sources matters. And regarding the "canonicity" of BL these statements are somewhat conflicting as of late. For the time being BL stuff here is regarded as canon unless contradicted or retconned in a newer publication. Which of course happens all the time as GW does not know the meaning of the word "consistency" (not even within one publication). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 22:42, 26 October 2008 (CET)


What about non-canonized images, such as fan concept art? Is that reviewed on a case-by-case basis, or is it just generally no? (Inclusion being "Here's a fan's concept of a member of the Lost and the Damned..." for example) --Rye 04:37, 6 January 2009 (CET)

As I understand it, any non-canon works of fiction, be it literature AND images, must be restricted to your user-pages.--Vindicta 06:14, 6 January 2009 (CET)

Lexicanum permitted material

Firstly, this list is needlessly drawn out. A single sentence like "fiction published by Games Workshop, their subsidiaries and licensees" would cover several points at once. Secondly, with articles about media that provide official background (such as codices, Imperial Armour books etc), such a list doesn't fit that well under 'canon'. The term itself refers to fiction. Permitted material should be covered in a separate article. --Digganob 17:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Has been added to Canon because it's linked from the main page, so everyone is supposed to see it. About the fact is a long list I agree, but it's better to have clarity than endless discussions. --Talad 02:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The length of the list doesn't make things clearer. Some points are redundant and can easily be summarised while others aren't even covered. At the very least "Battlefleet Gothic" should be changed into "Specialist Games" in order to include Epic, Inquisitor and Necromunda. --Digganob 10:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that this list is too long and complicated to be the main reference for "canon" I think we could use it as a kind of FAQ. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 15:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the 2010 Compendium?

I have a question. The 2010 Compendium for BFG was written by the High Admiralty, which is a panel of GW-approved fans appointed to continue on the game of BFG since GW washed their hands of the game. The document is also classed by Adepticon as 'current rules'. So even though the compendium wasn't written by GW directly, do these facts not mean it is technically an official source of canon?

Official images of GW painted miniatures

May I clarify what the policy on 'Official images of GW painted miniatures' is exactly? Would a miniature that has been painted/converted by a private individual but the picture has been published in an official GW publication count, eg Golden Daemon winners in WD? What about those published on the websites' new #PaintingWarhammer and #PaintingForgeWorld sections? Phunting (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2016 (MST)