Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLIII: "This Is A New LoW For Us All"

[Cheesegear]

I would like to know, just for the sake of argument, whether if somebody put e.g. a Santa-Claus themed Ork army on the table, whether that would also provoke an essay-length post trawling through 50 books of pulp sci-fi to establish whether Orks had a concept of Christmas.

Who gives a ****? Play the game.

Now, if you said;

This is my hoard of Boyz from 8th Ed. and I'm going to be using those rules and yes I know it's 9th Ed. now and yes I know 9th Ed. exists and everyone is playing that, but I'm gonna play with 8th Ed. rules because I'm just ignoring whatever I want. You can play with your 9th Ed. rules, but against me I get to use my 8th Ed. rules because I just don't like 9th Ed. rules. That's right. I'm refusing to acknowledge 9th Ed. exists, even if you do. And if you want to play 9th Ed., I'm going to say that you're ruining my fun and you are a bad person, because I want to play 8th Ed., not 9th Ed.

That's a big problem.

The second problem is;

Hey, would you like to read my three-page backstory about Christmas-themed Orks that breaks canon in multiple areas?

Not really. I'm not saying you can't write it. I'm just saying I wont read it...And if you make me read it, I'm going to have a lot of questions about the parts where you break canon that you probably wont be able to answer.

[LCP]

Those would definitely be problems, if anyone in the thread had expressed anything remotely like that. I'm not sure where you got the impression anyone did though. They seem more like... paranoid fantasies of being harassed by conveniently idiotic foils.

Warboss Sandy Klawz and the Lost Primarch Marina are equally 'non-canon'. No-one is going to Clockwork Orange you into sitting down and reading their fan-fiction in either case. So why is only one 'splitting the community'?

Even putting aside the idea of what kind of cartoon weirdo would 'make you read' their army's backstory...

And if you make me read it, I'm going to have a lot of questions about the parts where you break canon that you probably wont be able to answer.

There is only one question, and you already got the most complete answer possible.

And you're going to ignore all of it?

yes

[Cheesegear]

Those would definitely be problems, if anyone in the thread had expressed anything remotely like that.

I don't like current fluff.
I am ignoring current fluff.
Anyone who doesn't like my story [that ignores current fluff] must be a 'bad person' and I don't care what they have to say anyway.

Absolutely was said. To which I responded.

You then gave a gaming example, to which I responded:

I don't like current rules.
I'll just ignore current rules.
Anyone who does like current rules is harming my fun 'cause I can't play the game I want to play.

Seems a fair comparison.

[Eldan]

Hey, would you like to read my three-page backstory about Christmas-themed Orks that breaks canon in multiple areas?

Not really. I'm not saying you can't write it. I'm just saying I wont read it...And if you make me read it, I'm going to have a lot of questions about the parts where you break canon that you probably wont be able to answer.

I mean, that would be a problem for me. Not that I'm forcing you to read anything, but I usually have a ten minute chat with my opponent before the game (often while setting up) where we explain our armies (and their backstories), point out who our commanders are (and their backstories), and any cool and unusual models we have (and their backstories). Then we hash out where and why we are fighting. If my opponent says "I don't care, let's just play", it's probably not going to be a game I want to be in.

Edit: also using model rules from older editions is often completely fine in the club I usually go to, if they are halfway compatible. I.e. bringing your fifth edition codex to a sixth edition game, even if you got an update, because you didn't like that update. Or just saying "I'm playing named character X, but he didn't get rules in this edition, so I'm using his rules from last edition." Perfectly fine.

[LCP]

Anyone who doesn't like my story [that ignores current fluff] must be a 'bad person' and I don't care what they have to say anyway.

Absolutely was said. To which I responded.

Nobody on the last page called anyone a bad person. I'm pretty sure if you want to quote whatever it was that you interpreted as an attack you will be able to get the same user who posted it to confirm.

People expressed critical opinions of the fiction they wanted/were choosing to ignore. If you feel so tied to that fiction that you take a criticism of it as a criticism of you... that's your lookout. My favourite film is Jurassic Park, but I don't mind if other people don't like it.

You then gave a gaming example, to which I responded:

I don't like current rules.
I'll just ignore current rules.
Anyone who does like current rules is harming my fun 'cause I can't play the game I want to play.

Seems a fair comparison.

It's a mad comparison. You know it's mad, please don't waste mine or others' time pretending you don't.

[Eldan]

It's not that mad a comparison. We do that all the time. We even allow variatn equipment and light homebrew. (I.e. I have a Skaven assassin model with two pistols, because the model is awesome, then that model is going to have two pistols even if that's not allowed in the rules, and we're going to agree on a point value we both think is fair.)

[LCP]

But you agree on your variations. You don't turn up with the expectation of unilaterally playing by different rules.

[Eldan]

Oh, yeah, sure. Hence the pre-game discussion. And the shop owner or any mutually agreeable resident neckbeard from the painting table for arbitration, if necessary.

[Cheesegear]

But you agree on your variations. You don't turn up with the expectation of unilaterally playing by different rules.

Can we talk about Alpharius?
He's dead. Dorn killed him. There's nothing to talk about.
No in my variation it was another trick by Alpharius and he's still alive.
I'm pretty sure that undercuts the drama, and kind of renders the scene meaningless if Dorn didn't actually do anything. That's dumb.
No but I want Alpharius alive, so he is. Alpha Legion are my favourite.
But that's not what happened.
I said. Alpharius is my favourite.
Okay, well I can't help you with your weird fanfic.
Why are you ruining this for me!?
You know Omegon? Is that who you're talking about? He's still around. And I guess he's Alpharius, right?
No, that was a stupid idea. I don't like that idea. There's only one Alpharius, and always was.
Okay. You don't want to talk about Alpharius. You want to talk about your made-up version that actually doesn't exist. I can't help you.
You have ruined my fun and I'm gonna tell everyone you're a big poopy head who likes poop.

That's basically a conversation that's happened. Now replace [Alpharius doing something he didn't do], with anything you want.

[Easy e]

Can we talk about Alpharius?
He's dead. Dorn killed him. There's nothing to talk about.
No in my variation it was another trick by Alpharius and he's still alive.
I'm pretty sure that undercuts the drama, and kind of renders the scene meaningless if Dorn didn't actually do anything. That's dumb.
No but I want Alpharius alive, so he is. Alpha Legion are my favourite.
But that's not what happened.
I said. Alpharius is my favourite.
Okay, well I can't help you with your weird fanfic.
Why are you ruining this for me!?
You know Omegon? Is that who you're talking about? He's still around. And I guess he's Alpharius, right?
No, that was a stupid idea. I don't like that idea. There's only one Alpharius, and always was.
Okay. You don't want to talk about Alpharius. You want to talk about your made-up version that actually doesn't exist. I can't help you.
You have ruined my fun and I'm gonna tell everyone you're a big poopy head who likes poop.

That's basically a conversation that's happened. Now replace [Alpharius doing something he didn't do], with anything you want.

Well, you forgot where NONE of this exists so ultimately, does not matter in the slightest.

[Lord Torath]

I think Cheesegear's position (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is:

You want to play with an army that completely violates canon? As long as we use the same rules, Great! Let's play!

You want to talk about your non-canon army's background? Well, it doesn't fit with canon, but you do you. But don't expect me to try to help you fit it into existing canon.


I (Lord Torath) personally prefer to stick with my 2E Canon. Where Leman Russ both mutters about his life's breath being nearly spent, and also charges off into obscurity to Fight Chaos!

[Artanis]

So everything Cheesegear said about the missing Primarchs is 'true', in so far as that is what has been written in the books. It's also 'false', because its reported by people who don't know what happened, or only saw part of it from their own limited perspective.

How's that quote go? "Everything is canon, not everything is correct", or something along those lines

[Lord Raziere]

How's that quote go? "Everything is canon, not everything is correct", or something along those lines

Everything is canon, not everything is true, yes.

I highly doubt for example that Arbites Judges actually spends centuries deliberating a trial and pouring over contradictory tomes of information to find a verdict when their descendants are now alive. No one has that kind of time. Not even even the dumbest person alive, because they'd be too impatient and have other things to do.

Far more more logical to assume that the Arbites Judges are jerks who simply put the case being considered into a section labeled "delayed punishment" then wait. Then they can just pull one of the files out from this section, check to see if the criminal has grown into a bunch of descendants then simply declare they're all sent to the Penal legions to increase imperial guard recruitment when needed. this isn't actually legal, but any arbites who thinks the Imperium operates on actual justice or any law and order beyond the barbarism of force is probably one of the naive ones who just got recruited.

[Renegade Paladin]

Speaking of novels, Humble Bundle has a 40k audiobook bundle going on right now. Don't forget to adjust the donation ratio if you care about the charity; GW is taking a much larger proportion of the default than normal. (They wanted only $1.25 of my $25 to go to the charity.)

[Renegade Paladin]

Fastest nerf hammer in Warhammer history?

[Blackhawk748]

Fastest nerf hammer in Warhammer history?

Probably. And probably because they were getting straight up banned at a ton of tournaments.

[Destro_Yersul]

The biggest problem I see with this nerf is that now there won't be any cheap ones on ebay afterwards because they did it too fast.

[Cheesegear]

Well, you forgot where NONE of this exists so ultimately, does not matter in the slightest.

I know it's in blue. But it's not wrong. It is, after all, a story about toy soldiers.

I think Cheesegear's position (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is:

You want to play with an army that completely violates canon? As long as we use the same rules, Great! Let's play!

You want to talk about your non-canon army's background? Well, it doesn't fit with canon, but you do you. But don't expect me to try to help you fit it into existing canon.

Both of those are true. But not actually my point:
LCP's hypothetical about showing up to the table to play a game with a "non-canon" conversions isn't actually relevant and created a different conversation, which nobody with a functioning brain would actually challenge.

My point is that talking about the fluff, whilst also not taking account - or refusing to, even - that certain fluff exists, that fluff has changed, that fluff has been expanded upon, is the same as showing up to a 9th Ed. game whilst under the impression that your 7th Ed. army is still good and doesn't need to change.

I know I haven't kept up with 9th Ed., and I skipped the entirety of 8th Ed...But I can still put Sammael in a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry, right? And it will win games?

Uhh...You haven't been paying attention...Like, literally at all, have you? You're about to be real sad/mad.

Let's talk about the Horus Heresy. P.S; I stopped reading at Mechanicum.

Oh...Oh okay. In 2022? Uhh...Where do we even start...

Everything is canon, not everything is true, yes.

Ffffff...Nothing is anything; Anything is Anything. Gav Thorpe said that saying that, is disrespectful.

I should actually find what he said and respond to it. It's really good.

[Lord Raziere]

Ffffff...Nothing is anything; Anything is Anything. Gav Thorpe said that saying that, is disrespectful.

I should actually find what he said and respond to it. It's really good.

Who the warp is Gav Thorpe? *looks him up*.....oh

nah, screw that guy, don't care what he says. not with his history of writing stuff. not as bad as some but I'm not giving him credit for jumping over low bars.

like unless this is a "snark at the stupid thing" we're doing together with mutual acknowledgement that he is being stupid instead of a rebuttal to me? not interested. because I'm not sure what your communicating here. cause if there is no common ground, we have nothing to say to each other in this particular conversation no hate or dislike of you, I just don't want to drag this out and cause unnecessary mental/social pain for both of us. cause you seem to be communicating "lets snark at stupid thing" I think but I might be wrong?

[Cheesegear]

cause if there is no common ground, we have nothing to say to each other in this particular conversation

Perfect. You've hit the nail on the head. You've proved my point.

When the community doesn't have anything in common because they can't even agree on text in a book, there is no community at all. Everyone is doing their own thing and nobody is a cohesive group. Something, something, real-world example.

See also; "Fracturing the community is a bad thing."

[LeSwordfish]

I'm just imagining going to my real group of friends in real life and saying "sorry folks, you guys think the second primarch is a deliberate gap to use for creativity and i think they have a more deliberate plan than that for him, our differences are irreconcilable, goodbye forever".

[Mystic Muse]

I'm just imagining going to my real group of friends in real life and saying "sorry folks, you guys think the second primarch is a deliberate gap to use for creativity and i think they have a more deliberate plan than that for him, our differences are irreconcilable, goodbye forever".

Or me no longer playing Star Wars Saga with my Saturday group because we like different Star Wars canon.

[LCP]

I really can't believe that anyone could fail to understand the difference between the need for consensus on rules and the need for consensus on fluff.

Coming up with fanfiction about the 40K universe, or deciding there are bits of it you don't like, is exactly on par with putting green stuff santa hats on your orks. It has absolutely zero impact on your being able to play the game. If you don't like someone else's take on the story, so what? It does you exactly as little harm as if you don't like their converted battlewagon full of Xmas presents. In your own words, Cheesegear, who the **** cares? Play the game.

It's just impossible to be factually wrong about a fictional world. You can be factually wrong about what an author wrote, but if you reduce all discussion of the shared fictional world you enjoy to that question, then what is the point of this 'community' you're supposedly binding together? Just to sit around in a circle answering 'true' or 'false' to questions about one publisher's back catalogue?

To me, this is a creative hobby first and foremost. If you just want to consume fiction, join a book club. Warhammer is about modelling and painting your own miniatures, and coming up with your own stories, and seeing other players' creativity does way more to draw me into a community than knowing that we've read the same books. The 'canon' will be the same the next time you look at it, but Alice's new conversion or Bob's new story is a reason to come back to the club. Unless any of your group have BL publishing contracts, then the interpretations they come up with will of course have at most 0 explicit support in the 'canon', and quite likely will find something in the ~30 year backlog of the setting that contradicts them (in exactly the same way that GW's own publications contradict themselves). Thankfully, I can hold two conflicting stories about a fictional world in my head without worrying that the 'real' characters will be upset, so I understand that that doesn't matter at all.

There is only one context in which the failure to understand any of this super basic stuff makes sense to me, and that's if the primary enjoyment you get from the hobby (or maybe just life in general) is in telling people that they're wrong.

[Wraith]

When the community doesn't have anything in common because they can't even agree on text in a book, there is no community at all. Everyone is doing their own thing and nobody is a cohesive group. Something, something, real-world example.

See also; "Fracturing the community is a bad thing."

At which point, I wonder, does 'fracturing the community' instead become 'there is more than one community'?

Because the issue seems to be more along the lines of, here are two different ways of approaching the subject; Some who think that what is written in the book matters and should be... 'respected'? As an entity or an inherent thing of value, in and of itself?

And some who think its just a momentary entertainment, as disposable and malleable as an old, dog-eared copy of White Dwarf. Hang onto it if you like, throw it in the bin when you're done consuming it.

Both are correct if that is how you prefer to consume the media. Threatening some kind of 'conflict' (philosophical, rather than physical, of course) between the two sounds less like an actual 'thing' and more like gatekeeping or an excuse for one group to Other another for... reasons? Probably related to making the perpetrators feel special about themselves rather than whether or not its healthy for 'the community'.

I really can't believe that anyone could fail to understand the difference between the need for consensus on rules and the need for consensus on fluff.

Yeah, I don't know how we got to this point. The difference between "canon and homebrew can coexist and you're not obliged to either" seems so far removed from "you can't play 8th edition rules in a 9th edition game without everyone agreeing to it" that I think we hit a quantum tangent somewhere.

'Rules' is the social contract that all must reach consensus in order to participate - even if its understood to be only temporarily in the case of an experimental/homebrew/'just for fun' army list. 'Story' happens in my head and there's not a damn thing any of you can do about it.

[LeSwordfish]

I mean to give a basic example, I write notable achievements and kills for each of my models down on a sticker under their bases. I'm especially proud of my Phalanx Sargeant who has now punched two enemy Praetors to death. Do the owners of those Praetors hold it as "canon" that they got walloped to death by a lowly sargeant? Of course not! That doesn't mean I can't.

[LCP]

Because the issue seems to be more along the lines of, here are two different ways of approaching the subject; Some who think that what is written in the book matters and should be... 'respected'? As an entity or an inherent thing of value, in and of itself?

And some who think its just a momentary entertainment, as disposable and malleable as an old, dog-eared copy of White Dwarf. Hang onto it if you like, throw it in the bin when you're done consuming it.

You're being overly charitable in both-sidesing it here. It's not about symbolic respect for books or anything like that. There is no sane, sensible argument behind saying "because these stories about a fictional world were written by people who received payslips from the same corporation*, they are inherently more true than those written by others". And 'more true' is the claim, not 'better written' - because everyone will acknowledge that there are some real stinkers that get published with the official branding on the cover.

Like I said right at the start, there is a case for 'we have to agree on the fictional facts' (within a defined scope) if you want to play an RPG together, or write a work of collaborative fiction. But to play a wargame? Or to hang out painting miniatures? Or just to chat about books you did or didn't enjoy? That's proper pants-on-your-head, pencils-up-your-nostrils stuff.

My personal take (which is not based on a whole ton of historical research, so take it with as much salt as required) is that 'canon' in this context is a concept that was invented purely to appease overly-literal fans. When someone starts asking questions about magic xylophones in your franchise you slap a 'non-canon' sticker on something and the noise stops. I know Star Wars at one point had an official designation for this; I think it's to GW's credit that they've always treated their fans with a bit more maturity and steered clear.

Both are correct if that is how you prefer to consume the media. Threatening some kind of 'conflict' (philosophical, rather than physical, of course) between the two sounds less like an actual 'thing' and more like gatekeeping or an excuse for one group to Other another for... reasons? Probably related to making the perpetrators feel special about themselves rather than whether or not its healthy for 'the community'.

Again, it doesn't go both ways. Pretty much by definition, people who don't care about following one 'official' storyline don't care what stories you prefer. The gatekeeping problem is strictly one-way from those who want to set themselves up as the 'canon' police (despite GW's own repeated statements that even they don't care).


*or different corporations who purchased each other, just as long as it's only One True Corporation at a time...

[Blackhawk748]

My personal take (which is not based on a whole ton of historical research, so take it with as much salt as required) is that 'canon' in this context is a concept that was invented purely to appease overly-literal fans. When someone starts asking questions about magic xylophones in your franchise you slap a 'non-canon' sticker on something and the noise stops. I know Star Wars at one point had an official designation for this; I think it's to GW's credit that they've always treated their fans with a bit more maturity and steered clear.

...ok, no. Canon is the baseline by which a fictional world operates. It is the facts, events, people and places that are confirmed to exist in it and are the baseline by which other pieces of fiction can be added to it. It wasn't "created to appease overly literal fans" the very act of being consistent with your story telling has created it because you are being consistent with World Building and the timeline.

If you don't have a consistent canon you just have a pile of random stories that don't intersect (or rarely do) and that nothing from one piece of fiction you made has any impact on another. No events matter, none of the people matter outside of their own stories. And that's fine, unless you want to right more than a handful of stories or have any sort of consistency between them. The entire reason Star Wars, 40k and Star Trek have lasted literal decades is because they have a solid Canonical Foundation to work upon. A new person can come in and be on the same page as the 60 year old that has been here since day 1, because everyone is working from the same bundle of facts. If you don't have that, then nothing in the overall world matters. It has no weight. It has no cost. It has no meaning.

So why would you waste your time investing in such a large setting if it has as much weight as a 1 of book someone else wrote?

Also Star Wars had Tiers of Canonicity and that was to smooth out the issues that arose from the weirder things that got published. Because there was a bunch of very dumb things that made no sense when added to the movies.

[LCP]

If you don't have a consistent canon you just have a pile of random stories that don't intersect (or rarely do) and that nothing from one piece of fiction you made has any impact on another. No events matter, none of the people matter outside of their own stories. And that's fine, unless you want to right more than a handful of stories or have any sort of consistency between them.

That's exactly what I said in the paragraph above the one you quoted. This stuff matters if you're writing collaboratively (and already had a name in that context, which is 'keeping notes'). But the storytelling that's being described here as 'fracturing the community' is not a collaborative project, it's purely people exercising their own creativity in their own time. We're talking about someone who has no part in writing a story intervening to tell the storyteller that they've made a factual mistake about the fictional world they're describing.

The entire reason Star Wars, 40k and Star Trek have lasted literal decades

Gosh, decades? That must be the gold standard then. I mean, imagine if there were stories that got picked up and retold by different people centuries or millennia after they were first written, and each retelling and spin-off made editorial changes to the characters and the events that were often incompatible with other versions, but still people would recognise them as the same story and read them (or watch them or listen to them) anyway. I mean that would be mad, wouldn't it. Like imagine if someone did a version of Hamlet where he was a lion, everyone knows he's a Danish man.

There's a blurring of the lines here between intellectual property (which is there to protect the financial interests of the writer) and the desire for consistency (which is there purely to satisfy the reader). Wanting an 'official' stamp on your story is confusing the first for the second, and doesn't actually guarantee consistency in any meaningful way either. I'm sure this thread could play a fun game of identifying which BL books each user would say is most in need of ignoring.

[Wraith]

You're being overly charitable in both-sidesing it here.

I was trying not to make it sound like I was accusing Cheesegear of being one of "those guys" by responding to him with references to gatekeepers, etc. I truly don't believe he is, but this is the internet - more than once recently I've been accused of being heavy handed in my opinions, and given that we're talking about divisions in a fandom the last thing I wanted was for it to start looking like surreptitious insulting.

For the benefit of those in the cheap seats: Internet weirdos who piss and moan about other people 'not doing it right' are invited to enjoy their dark little corner all alone, where no one else has to visit while we're all having fun doing other stuff. They're not even to be considered, let alone negotiated with.

...ok, no. Canon is the baseline by which a fictional world operates. It is the facts, events, people and places that are confirmed to exist in it and are the baseline by which other pieces of fiction can be added to it. It wasn't "created to appease overly literal fans" the very act of being consistent with your story telling has created it because you are being consistent with World Building and the timeline.

This ties in to what I said about Cheesegear above.

He was right - canon is a list of things that were written, and arguing "no they didn't" is as easily dismissed as opening a book and pointing to it on a page.

But my point is, that only matters if we agree that we want it to.
Canon has no authority, except when a bunch of us internet weirdos are trying to one-up each other a collaborative group of acquaintances on a forum are recounting the most-commonly recognised narrative. What you choose to do with that narrative is entirely outside of everyone else' scope, and getting cross with each other about that holds about as much importance as whether or not you liking the colour of the shirt I'm wearing today does on whether or not I'm going to wear it anyway.

Which is zero, by the way. I don't care if no one else remembers 8-Bit Theatre from 2006, it makes me happy.

[Destro_Yersul]

...ok, no. Canon is the baseline by which a fictional world operates. It is the facts, events, people and places that are confirmed to exist in it and are the baseline by which other pieces of fiction can be added to it. It wasn't "created to appease overly literal fans" the very act of being consistent with your story telling has created it because you are being consistent with World Building and the timeline.

For personal interest, I went and checked, and while I was unable to verify this, apparently the first use of the term in this sort of context was in reference to Sherlock Holmes. It referred to the stories specifically written by Arthur Conan Doyle, while all other authors using the character are 'non-canon.' If true, this means that originally, it wasn't about things which are confirmed to exist at all, it was about who had written them (Which makes sense, given the history of the word itself, no more on that here.) Following that logic, Frank Herbert's Dune is canon, while everything Brian Herbert did is not. Which I am ok with, incidentally.

This would get a little muddled though when you run into things like Star Trek, which has had numerous writers through its history, or 40k, which is an ascended tabletop game with multiple creators. Star Trek was created by just one person - Gene Rodenberry - but plenty of Star Trek that has been made without his input is still considered canon.