Excuse me my English is not very good, are you saying that in reality the novels are not canon and that you would like to know where I knew the novels are canon?
No, I think it's not on Lord Caerilion - or anyone else - to refute it, it's on you to substantiate this in the first instance.
As far as I know, novels are canon, even if they are old it does not change the fact that the information they contain is
If memory serves, Laurie Goulding's posted online to this effect, and several other staff and fans have quotes around the place, testifying to - say - Alan Merrett's(?) stance on the matter.
But in publication, nothing to my knowledge in BL or GW's 40k repertoire substantiates this.
Do you have a reference for this view, Whitelion?
If I was wrong to understand your post have patience, could you explain me more simply?
From how you tell me then the Black Library is not canon? Since when have they decided this? I have always known that both the novels and the Codex that the Rulebooks were all canon material ...
If so, then what is the point in reading the novels?
Happily forgiven, your English seems very good. Similarly, apologies if I have made it difficult to read!
I am saying that, as best I know: canon is not defined. It isn't used (even colloquially) by the GW
Questions about canon at live events tend to provoke sighs, eye-rolling and exasperation.
Everything that's published is everything that's published. It isn't divided into canon and non-canon.
At best, one might say that Roleplaying Game material can be disregarded as it won't be "in house" material published by GW
, but that's a different argument.
Thinking about canon is itself fanon, because GW
doesn't operate an unambiguous and useful sense of canon. Not even within its own material.
The lore is inherently incoherent.
Unless: have you actually read anything that says what GW
Canon is? And is that source itself canonical? If not, the measure of canon is itself fanon.
Edited by Xisor, 26 October 2019 - 08:48 AM.