Warhammer 40K's canon : Truth & Facts

For all your discussion of canon policies, evidentiary standards, and other meta-debate issues.

Discussion is to remain cordial at all times.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Warhammer 40K's canon : Truth & Facts

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:52 am

OK. There's a thread at SBC wherein a quotation from a top head of the publishing business branch was posted, and it sounded rather different than the usual talk about all is canon and malleable. The original material was presented at DakkaDakka.

Aside from IvanTih's claim about 40K's canon (IvanTih is the bloke who ran at 40K websites such as DakkaDakka to spam Connor calcs all over the board until everyone digests them).

The original message:



Lynata wrote: "Everything" cannot be canon, for that's like saying "yes" and "no" are both true - or that Tau have hooves (actual GW minis) as well as feet ("Xenology"). Where contradictions arise, one source is obviously either wrong or supersedes the other. George Mann - the Head of Publishing - has made it a little bit clearer than Marc Gascogne, who is "just" an author. The following is from the 2008 GW Annual Meeting, where he was confronted with this very question:

In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work.

This essentially mirrors what Gav Thorpe and Aaron Dembski-Bowden have mentioned on their blogs. The latter actually clearly stated he doesn't care what some other novel author writes if he thinks it's crap, as BL does give him the freedom to simply disregard it.
http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdar ... ose-canon/
Which is exactly what Gav wrote about GW sometimes adopting novel aspects they like, but not actually feeling in any way bound to do so.
http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/ ... the-fence/

I have to add that - for many years! - I too thought that Black Library stuff was as canon as GW books. It was not until I noticed more and more contradictions, some of whom even go against the very spirit of an army, popped up that I actually went to investigate this further, looking for insider statements such as the ones mentioned above. Now I can rest easy, knowing that certain BL slip-ups can be ignored, whilst I'll still take inspiration from things that sounds like they'd fit.
Depending on how you understand it, it may or may not make BL books apocrypha, but it undoubtedly puts rulebooks, codices, army books and similar materials above BL books.

The point of confusion hinges on the definition of canonical and how it was used there, and the fact that a segment of material was identified as the only canonical source.
Had the sentence stopped there, a lot of published books would actually be apocrypha, but it seems that Mann uses the term canon only to established a hierarchy of acceptable sources: books remain acceptable in establishing facts, but in case of any contradiction between a novel and a rulebook, the rulebook's facts supersede those of the novel.

Others will say that on the contrary, the books can't be canonical or even some form of canon as well if they're said not to be canon at all, no matter why they don't have that status.

But then, looking at GV and ADB's positions on such material, it becomes absolutely clear that BL books are only used for inspiration, and nothing of what they say shall be treated as fact.
Gav Thorpe wrote:On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books.
Certainly not canon.
Marc Gascoigne - Publisher @ The Black Library and Black Flame wrote:
Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.
That's more like the usual all is canon blurry line hamies were used to. But it is revealed that it was partly incomplete, say incorrect, and now clearly invalidated by George Mann's words, head of publishing. The trouble being that Mann's words are not directly provided by a verifiable source, but of hearsay nature, even if apparently the messenger is very reliable.


That, in fact, smells a lot like the issue regarding canon in Star Wars.


Perhaps Lynata's following words really put it down in a clear manner:
Lynata wrote: [Talking to IvanTih]

Also, the quote actually says far more than that. It also confirms what Aaron wrote in his blog about BL authors not having to care in the slightest what another BL author has written. An artistic freedom he does make use of when writing his novels.

This leaves us with the following chain of facts:
- BL novels cannot "create canon" as another author is perfectly free to write the exact opposite in the very next book
- when BL novels cannot create canon, all they can do is use canon from GW material
- so when said BL novel states something that is in conflict with said GW material ... where is it from? if it's not from GW, it obviously cannot be canon, q.e.d.

But I also recommend you give those two blogs a read. It's very interesting to read how this issue is explained by the people who actually work with this stuff on a professional basis.
That's the crux of it. It is not said that BL books can create any form of canon or subcanon. They're just not identified as canon when it comes to knowing which facts are correct, and Aaron and Thorpe really emphasize a lot on how there's absolutely no need to conform to any material present in BL books. That is the trademark of material that has no quality of canon whatsoever.

Changed title from "More on Warhammer 40,000's canon" to "Warhammer 40000's canon : Truth & Facts"
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:08 am

Unsurprisingly, the EUphiles... well, BLphiles at SBC really can't stomach it. However, considering the usual quality of their arguments in Warhammer debates, I'm not surprised of the mediocrity of their desperate position.

Googling provides more reading.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:54 am

It seems there is some confusion about the importance of the "Heretic Tomes" label.
Why, simply put, it merely means that even some of the filler material can really be so off track that it doesn't fit with the vast bulk of materials provided by BL later on.

It is, however, confusing since hammies often claimed that all was canon and lies, which means there should be no such hierarchy within BL products. And it is confusing because according to Thorpe and Aaron's words, there should be no need to bother with such a label since authors can freely ignore each other and they don't treat BL material as a repository of facts, but just a layer of WH40K to pick some stuff from.

Fat Lucas strikes back! And GW knows about making money, hee hee. >:]

EDIT: the context of Thorpe's post on his weblog is rather important.
The bit that Lynata quoted has a completely different meaning out of said context.

See. The line he quoted is:
Lynata wrote:
As Gav Thorpe said in the blog I linked above:
"On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
But the entire paragraph is:
Gav Thorpe wrote:The same applies to transference from Black Library back into the gaming supplements. If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books. And beside, there simply isn’t enough room in those gaming books to include everything from the hundreds of novels – good, bad or indifferent as we each see them – so the decision must ultimately rest with the taste of individual readers and gamers.
At no point Gav says that BL authors have to respect anything that's written in the games material.
If anything, Gav repeats several times the old mantra of everything is canon and lies later on in his article, and pushes this concept quite far, to the point of having to wonder if he understands the concerns about canon, or its real concept as far as fans are concerned. Somehow, it seems that if in his mind, there's nothing such as canon, then there is none. Period. Even if his actions or the way other handle WH40K material reveal the existence of a pattern that highlights a form of canon.

Thorpe makes it a bit complicated, then, by saying that something goes back into the games worldview, implying that the games worldview is the origin. This clearly establishes an authority, a hierarchy. Yet in his paragraph, he ends by saying that "the decision must ultimately rest with the taste of individual readers and gamers."

It would seem, then, that if you're looking for a typical definition of what is canon and what is not, Thorpe is not the one to ask this.

We also see that the authority to go by when questions need to be asked is Games Workshop. It's centralized on GW:
Gav Thorpe wrote:It used to be the case that I had one foot on either side of the fence when it came to the Black Library. By day I was a games developer, evening and weekends saw me in my guise of swashbuckling author. One of the roles of the GW games developers is to liaise with Black Library, answering their questions and generally providing consultation. The BL editors are well-versed in the worlds of Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 so it was usually the case that inquiries directed to games dev would concern either very specific questions, or areas where the existing background was unclear or perhaps contradictory.
It's BL editors who contact GW staff to ask questions about what is going on in the background; not the other way round.
This could demonstrate that it is GW that establishes the facts of the background. Therefore we could only understand that, in truth, it is GW that establishes the real canon, and that largely mirrors what Mann apparently said at the convention.

The problem is that later on in his post, Gav returns to the usual blurry and evasive position. We know why this happens. It's all a big business and fans of the targeted niche could stop buying BL books in the same quantities as they do if said books were considered not reliable in any official way.

In fact, if we reconsider the quoted bit above, what we can understand is that GW is asked questions merely because they're the recipient of all facts about WH40K. They're like the databank. If you have a question, they'll answer. It doesn't mean that they're the ones who build the only valid facts, but they keep track of most of the background, unlike BL.
BL looks for passionate authors and relies on GW for accuracy in the background.

It also seems that there's a stronger will to keep an internal continuity within the Horus Heresy series.
Gav Thorpe wrote: Often folks ask if Black Library books are ‘canon’. With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. There are certainly established facts – the current Emperor is Karl-Franz, the Blood Angels have red armour, Commissar Yarrick defended Hades Hive during the Second Armageddon War. However, to suggest that anything else is non-canon is a disservice to the players and authors who participate in this world. To suggest that Black Library novels are somehow of lesser relevance to the background is to imply that every player who has created a unique Space Marine chapter or invented their own Elector Count is somehow wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.
There, he's being facetious, no? He's establishing some false dilemma. Who said that any creation by a fan is "somehow wrong?"
What it surely is, it's fan material. Non canon, non official.
That is some very awkward dodging.
Indeed, we get to the apex of this evasive stance with, after referring to all game devs, writers, readers and gamers combined, a conclusion that "none of those interpretations is wrong."
Kindly, we can only firmly disagree with that. Readers and gamers do not establish canon. Period. If they claim a thing, they may not be wrong, but their say has no authority whatsoever over the material that is officially produced by GW.

In fact, if he were right, the consequences of his position would be quite dramatic regarding any attempt at establishing a true background and then discussing about it.
See:
Gav Thorpe wrote: Whether a particular author’s take on the world matches up with an individual gamer’s or readers is another matter. The fact that each of us is allowed to take possession of that world and envisage it to our own ideal means that it is inevitable our vision will sometimes clash with the vision of others. Such conflict does not render either vision obsolete.
So essentially, if a reader/gamer invents his own story, it is just as valid as any story from GW or BL, Forgeworlds or even Fantasy Flight Games.
I'm sorry, but I think very few fans will accept that.
Even more, the BLphiles will certainly not accept that the random WH40K fan fiction has just as much value as any officially published work. And yet the conclusion is non skippable.
Gav Thorpe wrote: In this regard it 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.
Cherry picking enabled!
This confirms that there is no canon. It confirms that anyone can come up with any intricate fact as long as the global canvas is preserved.
Somehow, I cannot help giggling at the idea of those obtuse hammies at SBC going all witch burning on me (or other dissenters) for not accepting their and Connor's view on WH40K, all the while citing Thorpe, when this same fella is essentially pedling the same f*** everything, no canon mantra.

So as said before, Thorpe may either present a rather messy stance about canon because he rejects the principle of canon, or knows that there is a canon but does not debate and define anything final because of business practices and interests.

Yet, as Lynata put it, for fans, the concept of canon is actually very solid and simple, and also as important as it is risky. All that matters is knowing what is part of canon and what is not.
If one thing is sure, it is that Thorpe and Aaron clearly show materials can freely contradict each other as long as they fit with the global canvas.
Obviously, such a methodology precludes the creation of a reliable canon, for a set canonical sources cannot exist if they're allowed to contradict each other.
In the absolutes, a thing can't be both right and wrong on the exact same topic.
More than anything else, fans generally look for the absolute canon, the sacred texts that sit atop everything. It's easier to go that way, especially to zealously defend their favorite universe, instead of having no authority to turn to.
While a self consistent series such as HH could be seen as its own sub canon, its authority regarding any material published by GW appears to be null, as nothing forces GW to accept BL published material, while it clearly appears that BL is forced to be subordinated to GW.
This establishes a hierarchy, and since facts have to come from somewhere, and since globally, it's BL that asks GW about the background, if a form of canon existed, then GW's materials would clearly be superior, with BL books being a lower canon (I'm excluding Thorpe's extreme "all is right" vision that even puts fan fiction on the same level as any other official product).

The real game breaker here is the hearsay about Mann's clarification, which would clearly establish the existence of a form of canon, and BL books being clearly expelled out of it.




Just for the sake of it, some dates:

Gav Thorpe's post (linked above):
Published in: Uncategorized, on January 21, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Aaron Dembski-Bowden's post
Posted March 10, 2011 2:54 pm
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:02 pm, edited 5 times in total.

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by General Donner » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:11 pm

Fine find there, Oragahn. And thanks to the original poster, of course.

Also incidentally, "Eye of Terror" isn't a heretic tome like the Space Battles 40k crowd try to pass it off. "Space Marine" is, but "Eye of Terror" remains as much (or little) "canon" as any other BL book.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:41 am

Yes, I noticed that they claimed EoT to belong to the Heretic Tomes.
I think the Heretic Tomes label is another proof that there is not "all is canon" in the way material is dealt with. The HT are clearly books which don't only contradict on small details, but on whole large bits as well, which means they're well outside of the global and yet very flexible set of official stories, that is, what has more or less really happened.

It is claimed that the existence of the HT proves that the non-HT books are canon.
The question : is this Heretic Tomes label only an invention of Black Library or recognized or imposed by Games Workshop.
If it's internal to BL, it could have very little relevance at all. And in fact, if we keep going with what we know about how GW deals with BL products, the existence of the BL label should be completely irrelevant to GW, and only a topic relevant to BL.
It's very much like Star Wars and the EU, and Lucas and his expanded universe publishing group. Both Lucas and GW staff openly say that they're not bound to the works of those lower universes - funny how Thorpe even uses the term "worldview" for the vision channeled by the background material published by GW, in opposition to another worldview defined by BL materials.
But both try to follow the superior universes. There's a difference, though, in that while Lucas Publishing has its own canon policy and its Holocron and really tries to have all sources really work well together, BL's authors are not bound to any form of Bible as long as they follow the overall idea of what the universe should be.
It's the same mentality at the root of it. The "greater" authors don't want to be bound to the extra facts from lower sources, but they won't crush that profitable business either. It's just as sick on both sides. That's while you have very similar kneejerk reactions from both EUphiles and BLiphiles from both universes.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:03 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yes, I noticed that they claimed EoT to belong to the Heretic Tomes.
I think the Heretic Tomes label is another proof that there is not "all is canon" in the way material is dealt with. The HT are clearly books which don't only contradict on small details, but on whole large bits as well, which means they're well outside of the global and yet very flexible set of official stories, that is, what has more or less really happened.

It is claimed that the existence of the HT proves that the non-HT books are canon.
The question : is this Heretic Tomes label only an invention of Black Library or recognized or imposed by Games Workshop.
If it's internal to BL, it could have very little relevance at all. And in fact, if we keep going with what we know about how GW deals with BL products, the existence of the BL label should be completely irrelevant to GW, and only a topic relevant to BL.
It's very much like Star Wars and the EU, and Lucas and his expanded universe publishing group. Both Lucas and GW staff openly say that they're not bound to the works of those lower universes - funny how Thorpe even uses the term "worldview" for the vision channeled by the background material published by GW, in opposition to another worldview defined by BL materials.
The "Heretic Tome" label seems to be like the "Infinities" label in Star Wars.
But both try to follow the superior universes. There's a difference, though, in that while Lucas Publishing has its own canon policy and its Holocron and really tries to have all sources really work well together, BL's authors are not bound to any form of Bible as long as they follow the overall idea of what the universe should be.
It's the same mentality at the root of it. The "greater" authors don't want to be bound to the extra facts from lower sources, but they won't crush that profitable business either. It's just as sick on both sides. That's while you have very similar kneejerk reactions from both EUphiles and BLiphiles from both universes.
I don't think there's any appreciable difference, for the purposes of the VS debate - in both cases, the "EUphiles" or "BLiphiles" aren't actually even paying attention to the whole of the EU, or the whole of the BL. They're just cherry-picking selected sources, and most of the other derivative works don't support what they're claiming at all.

The reason why they insist on holding the whole EU or BL as correct isn't because they actually believe in all the stuff the EU/BL is saying; it's because functionally, doing so gives them a wider range of sources to cherry-pick from. Thus, if they hold to a position like that, they can support over-inflated figures much more easily.

You can engage them with any consistent canon policy. I think that my debate with Thanatos illustrated that fairly well. I had absolutely no idea what Thanatos would consider canon, so I prepared evidence of every conceivable sort - evidence from fiction, evidence from game mechanics, and evidence from fluff - to support the same position.

On the whole, it's much like engaging with a Saxtonite about the EU. They're all in favor of calling the EU's "C" level practically incontrovertibly "true" about Star Wars when they're dealing with the ICS, constructing very elaborate explanations to reconcile the myriad contradictions, but when confronted with low-energy cases in the EU, they suddenly transform into movie purists and claim that the movies themselves contradict any low yields.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:30 pm

Interesting thing, from a dialectical point of view.

In the recent Tau vs Trek thread at SBC, this thread got linked to.

SpacePenguin, trying to settle things once and for all but obviously not even reading the own material he provides, thought that he'd finally close the topic of canon by providing two links:
SpacePenguin wrote: 40k Canon debate again *sigh*.

Here is some facts that talk about canon found on 40k hobby sites which while means nothing here on spacebattles. Still I'm sure it will help you guys:
Seaward wrote: There isn't ambiguity in the statements; there's not a lot of room for interpretation. They're simply not telling you what you want to hear.
Gav Thorpe wrote: Often folks ask if Black Library books are ‘canon’. With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy.
This quote can be found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum...30/402241.page

The below 2 can be found at here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showth...=319182&page=4
Dead.Blue.Clown wrote: Let's just dismiss that ol' rumour right now. It's not true. The design studio, Black Library and Forge World are all canon. However, it's based on the fact that the 40K IP isn't concerned with "canon" in the way a lot of fans assume, since they're basing their perceptions on guesses, rumours, and occasionally a few old misquotes taken out of context.

http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grim...i-loose-canon/
This guy^, from what I can tell on warseer, is ADB(a Black Library writer)
baphomael wrote: Quite right. Rather than having an established basis of 'canon truth', like some settings, 40k counts *all* material produced as, in some ways, part of the universe.

Rather, they seem to be taking an approach that views all the background stuff as some kind of historical nugget of information. Often, these are corroborative, and help fashion a consensus. Likewise, just as in history, there will be sources that are contradictory. We, as the readers, judge and interpret what is accurate, apocryphal, what are lies, whispers and propaganda. And even then, as with history, there will be conflicting interpretations of the same essential event or fact (indeed, I remember chuckling at the booklet I read containing the correspondence of two historians furiously arguing with each other, via letter, as to whether his club foot lay on the left or the right side of his body... strangely interesting reading, leaving me questioning what is more tragic - that obsessive pedantry of the two correspondents over something as trivial as the exact placement of Byron's club foot.... or that I actually read their correspondence... having said that, I think we all, as a community of wargamers, are guilty of the same level of obsessive pedantry over trivial things, otherwise we wouldn't have posts such as this )

Likewise, there are also parallels to theological inquiry - akin to the theological debates about what biblical stories are considered 'canon', 'apocrypha' or outright heresy (its not for nought the 30k fluff gives a nod to the Council of Nicaea). Likewise, even within established 'canon' there are rampant theological debates between academics, with more letters after their name than I knew were in the alphabet, about what aspects of religious texts are considered metaphorical model, symbolic, allegorical, literal etc etc. Indeed, there are debates over the authorship of certain parts of gospels (in much the same way as arguments amongst historians, linguists and literary experts, have debated whether some of Shakespeare's works are plagiarised (or, likewise, whether that accusation has stemmed from Shakespeare having changed his name, making the writing style similar to another) or else wrongly attributed.

And, in that sense, I rather like it that way.
Never mind that in the first link, leading to a thread on DakkaDakka, there's no such consensus as claimed by SP. He should have read Lynata's posts better, notably the one giving a link to one of Mann's statements.

I understand some subtlety may pass above some people's heads, but it's no reason to allow their lack of understanding to pass as an excuse, or worse, as a proper argument, on what it really considered canon by the acts of Games Workshop.
That, and the fact that the extrapolations of some hammies don't rate any better than my own conclusions.

Now, for the sake of completism, I'll post the complete quotations from the other websites in additional posts below.
Note that I already addressed the "GrimDark II: Loose canon" article in former posts.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:33 pm

So, first, the part which Mann's statement about canon was taken from.
It was a report from, as stated by Lynata, someone who "was a regular Dakkanaut with his own shop, who doesn't seem to have any interest on this particular subject itself and as such should possess a neutral opinion."

The text is found here, by Precinctomega, the 19-09-2008, at 10:20.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Games Workshop Group Plc Annual General Meeting 2008


I don’t know what motivated the change in format for this year’s AGM. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that someone may have pointed out to the Chairman that the dry, tedious business that was the usual format was glaringly at odds with the company’s prevailing culture.

Whatever the reason, it was a delightful surprise to get an invitation to attend a beefed-up AGM at which it was promised that investors would enjoy not only the standard fare of voting on matters only vaguely understood but also a round of presentations and workshops to explain recent and developing projects and how they were coming together to sustain the company in the long term.

That there would also be a chance to have a chin-wag with developers, managers and executives as well as the proverbial “free lunch” was a tantalizing bonus.

I won’t dwell on the AGM itself, partly because I wasn’t listening and partly because even if I had been listening I wouldn’t have understood was I was listening to. However, I was most intrigued by the explanation of Tom Kirby (Chairman) that only the votes of the attending members counted and that each attending member had one vote, regardless of the number of shares held. The proxy votes were announced but only to ensure that they conformed with the attending vote.

This did seem to suggest that a determined bloc of private, small investors (like myself) could theoretically remove half of the Board of Directors from post. This seems unlikely to me, so I’m open to correction, but it did seem that that was what Tom was suggesting. Not that I recommend trying it.

The meat of the event was in the presentations that followed, and I’ll summarize these:

Global Stock Management

Anyone working in the UK’s hobby centres will probably already be aware of this. The introduction of an automated stock management system in Games Workshop was well overdue. Essentially, it means that the shop tills track the throughput of stock, identifying those areas that are selling strongly or weakly and adjusting the regular deliveries to ensure that stock levels in stores remain high. This is a major change to the old system in which individual managers were responsible for ordering stock after doing a weekly, manual count of held stock.

Stock availability under the new system has risen from 92% to 98%.

However, what this also means is that the hobby centres are going to reduce the “held lines” – i.e. the breadth of product held in the stores is going to come down, focussing on the fast-moving stuff.

For the less-popular lines, there will be an in-store web terminal, where customers can order products direct to the store from the distribution centre in Nottingham (or the local distribution centre in Memphis or Sydney or wherever) and then pay for the ordered products at the shop’s till. Of course, this will mean coming back to collect your product later, which is mildly inconvenient but which doesn’t noticeably affect sales revenue.

In some follow-up questions I discovered that the in-store terminals are not rolling out in direct parallel with the GSMS. Some stores already have terminals linked to the existing website. More stores will get new terminals once the new website goes live (already live in the US, goes live in 2 weeks in the UK).

In addition, the reliability of the new stocking system is such that, should a product from the “held lines” be out of stock when you go in to get it, you will receive free mail order of that item to your home.

Distribution

The presentation from the Distribution team was less about improvements in the distribution system that it was about improvements in the distribution team. This was nice but I have to say that my bulls***-o-metre was swinging into the red on several occasions throughout the presentation.

Not, I hasten to add, because the meat of what was being said was bad, per se, but because the presenter was talking with the voice of the new convert. As an HR professional, I see this all the time (even went through it myself). A person with no experience of training management or personnel development, usually someone with a manufacturing background, is sent off on a course full of cynical low expectations and dismissals. But at some point the light bulb goes off in his (or her, but it’s usually a bloke) head and he realizes that it just might work and from that point on becomes a sort of sponge for everything they chuck at him.

All this stuff is then regurgitated when he gets back.

So – Development guys – don’t get me wrong. The management of the team and the processes being used for developing the team and distribution processes is great. The Key Performance Indicators show a consistent improvement and highly-effective operation.

But, please, stop calling it the “Team Journey”. Stop talking about “Critical Business Improvement Tools” and “Business Development Tools”. And give your whole “team building exercise” programme a second look, because it’s hopelessly out of date.

Products

Now, I know this is what the online community’s really interested in, but we didn’t get shown sneak previews of anything you haven’t already seen. Yes, the drop-pod’s cool. Yes, Codex: Space Marines is brilliant. We also got hands-on with the new army bags (fabulous) and modular plastic gaming tables (stupendous) but I that should all be old-hat to you lot by now.

The important thing was what I heard from the representatives.

Max Bottrill, head of the Design Studio, made the following points:

1. The aim of Games Workshop Group Plc overall was to continue to provide support to the Games Wokshop hobby from now until the Age of Ending. The business decisions made at every level are driven by that prime directive: sustain the hobby.

2. “People want plastic” but GW doesn’t foresee a time when they will no longer make metal models. Plastic is popular with the vast majority of customers and we can expect to see the range of plastics continue to expand, but metal models will always have their place.

3. Regardless of the movies, GW intends to continue supporting and expanding its Lord of the Rings range which has proved very successful in attracting new players. Especially, apparently, more girls. Go figure.

4. The object of the development process in the Studio is to ensure that new rules “never” invalidate models or armies and that new core rulebooks “try hard” not to invalidate old codexes and army books. There are, Max, admitted, exceptions but these are either accidental or, in their opinion, trivial.

5. In response to a question about the customer demographic (i.e. is GW chasing the pocket-money market at the expense of the veterans?), Max insisted that the hobby centres give a distorted view of the hobby population. Younger enthusiasts tend to “hang around” in the stores more, whereas veterans either dash in and dash out or do most of their purchasing via the website.

George Mann, Head of Black Library, had the following points to make:

1. The Black Library imprint of BL Publishing (no mention was made of Solaris) is principally there to “recruit” and “retain” customers of the hobby. For those already involved in the models and games, it allowed them to continue to immerse themselves in the background and imagery when not actually at the gaming table or painting station, sustaining their interest (and, by inference, desire to buy more stuff). For those not yet involved in the hobby, the books offer a new access route to the hobby by engaging people’s imagination up front.

2. In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to “tell good stories”. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40k worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that is HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work.

3. In terms of forthcoming products, George said that more audio books were a definite plan. He also said that a Calpurnia Omnibus was definitely being seriously discussed although nothing had physically been done to produce it yet and that no sensible release date could be suggested.

Tony Cottrell, Head of Forgeworld, didn’t have a lot to say that wouldn’t have been familiar to hobbyists, but it was nice to see the new Minotaur tank up close and the forthcoming Forgeworld “Advanced Modelling” book. No, I didn’t take pictures. Do I sound like a desperate fan-boi to you?

Global Web Business

Paul Lyons, head of GW’s Global Web Team, introduced us to the new website, its background and objectives.

The website, he explained, had grown out of a complete re-think of how GW conducted its business online and aims to provide better service and more efficient transactions. The aim, he said, was to provide a service “as good as the best GW hobby centre” consistently.

Now, he admitted that you couldn’t get the same personal service on the website (Laurie Stewart, another shareholder and Vice-President of the Gaming Clubs Network, mentioned getting a cup of tea in his local GW; personally, I think I’m lucky if I get the time of day!), but with real-time inventory updates (linked to the GSMS, so that if the online store says something’s in stock then it’s actually, definitely, physically present in the distribution centre, fo’ sho’!), free shipping to local stores and a faster dispatch (88% same day), they’re aiming for quality.

However, he also explained that the website was intended to become a tool to encourage customers to go to their local hobby centre to get the personal service that GW considers its bread and butter. For example, you will be invited to enter your local store when you make an order. You will then be placed on a database so that, if your local store has an event or promotion, you’ll get a letter or email notifying you of the fact. Likewise, if a new store opens (more relevant for non-UK hobbyists) that’s closer than the one you indicated, you’ll get notification of its opening and new location.

The US website is, of course, up and running. The UK website will launch on 9 October 2008. Next up – although not with a definite date – will be Germany, France, Italy and Spain, whilst last in the queue will be Canada, Australia and the rest of Europe. But, unlike the current system, the local sites will all essentially be “tweaks” of a single website run out of Nottingham. So whilst language and price conversions will be managed by small local teams, the supporting code, design, layout and content will be managed centrally so that one page in the US is identical to the same page in Italy except for language and the currency used.

Hobby content on the website is now integrated with the store, unlike the current two-site system. Hobby content is being coordinated out of the White Dwarf office and should, again, be unified across the different countries so that everyone has the same material (expect in the local language) rather than having to go to the US site for one article and the UK site for another etc.

Development of the US Hobby

Despite being a Brit, I actually found this by far the most interesting and exciting aspect of the whole day. Ernie Blake, head of US operations, was there to explain the new, structured and (above all) American approach to GW operations in the US.

Apparently, three years ago, the turnover of managers in the US was 114%! The average manager lasted only three months before he was either sacked or resigned.

The new recruitment and promotion system is based on a 24 month process of learning and assessment that sees the average Red Shirt (his term, not mine) go through 4 tests and a final course to move from hobby specialist all the way to manager with incremental pay increases comfortably above minimum wage. At a recent recruiting assessment centre, they had 174 successful recruits out of 580 first-round attenders.

He also explained the new strategy for locating stores. In each targeted urban centre, they locate a store by identifying “a really great High School” and then put a “Standard” Hobby Centre in the nearest shopping precinct (rather than out-of-town mall). This allows them to target those middle class, affluent families that are more likely to be interested in the hobby. In each cluster of Standard Hobby Centres, there will then be two “Recruiter” Hobby Centres positioned in those big, sprawling out-of-town malls that Americans seem to love so much. These are there to attract the weekend and holiday trade but not (interesting, this) to take their money, although they’ll be able to do that, too. No, these Recruiter shops will be tiny little places whose primary role is to demonstrate the product and then to re-direct the customer to their local Standard Hobby Centre. Clever, eh?

Finally, each cluster of Standard shops and Recruiter shops will have one Bunker – a larger store with its own gaming room, painting stations, club and events. This is the flagship store that provides those without the means to indulge in the gaming aspect a place to meet and play.

Frankly, this is all so cool that I’m starting to wish I was a yank and that’s not something I ever thought I’d say.

The process is well-established (but far from finished) in Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Los Angeles and Seattle, and underway in Detroit, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Philadelphia. There are currently 54 stores in the US, but Ernie refused to be drawn on how many he thought there eventually would be. Nevertheless, the impression from the Directors was very much that the potential of the US market had barely been scratched.

I challenged Ernie of the question of market domination when he claimed that a PriceWaterhouseCooper market-analysis had ascribed Games Workshop 94% of market share in the wargaming hobby market. I was understandably sceptical. Now, I’ve not seen the report (I’d love to), but Ernie assured me that this market share incorporated not only traditional miniature games, but the new collectible miniature games, HeroClix, CCGs, historical games and RPGs. More interestingly, GW does not, apparently, wish to increase this market share. The belief is that the existence of this 6% competition serves as a “revenue-neutral” recruitment path for new players and customers of the GW hobby.

Conclusion

So, that ends the first of what I hope will be my annual report from the AGM. Other than the fact that Tom Kirby was rude about my hair-style (at least I’ve still got mine, Tom!!) I came away with a very positive impression. Particular thanks go to George Mann for being refreshingly straight, to Paul Lyons for giving me Jervis Johnson’s email address and to Jim Butler for taking me through the new Space Marine codex. I should also say a big thank-you to the Warhammer World and Bugman’s staff for being their usual friendly, efficient and welcoming selves.

I live in hope that one day my shares might actually turn out to be a good investment.

Regards,

R.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by sonofccn » Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:47 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Note that I already addressed the "GrimDark II: Loose canon" article here.
Ah it appears to just link back to the Grimdark article unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Edit:Looking back up top you did mention the article previously I suppose that is what you meant and I just erronously assumed the link was to another forum you posted at.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:23 pm

sonofccn wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Note that I already addressed the "GrimDark II: Loose canon" article here.
Ah it appears to just link back to the Grimdark article unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Edit:Looking back up top you did mention the article previously I suppose that is what you meant and I just erronously assumed the link was to another forum you posted at.
Yeah the formulation was a bit confusing so it's fixed now.
There's not much to say about Aaron's post though, so I solely referred to it in a distant way.
That said, I shall probably copy his entire article here as well, for the sake of it. Or people could save it on their HDD. :)

His position strikes me as nothing more than that of an EU author trying to emphasize the reliability of his work, notably by reporting one of the vaguest statements ever made that a higher up deigned to give him so he could stop being annoying.
This is exactly what happened with Star Wars, when certain representatives of the branch responsible of the merchandising and books used to say that all was canonical, while some others like Sansweet and Lucas, obviously, clearly established a hierarchy.
A hierarchy could only exist with a canon system, and I have shown with Thorpe's own unwittingly revealing post that there is a canon system in place. However, it's found in a post that essentially also claims that all is right and fine, including fan made material.

There's some substantial hypocrisy from those referring to the statement that "all is canon", yet fail (or don't want) to notice the parts I pointed out, the ones which lead to absolutely comical consequences.

The alternate version is that there's no canon, which is incorrect as well. For one, there cannot be no canon if Heretical Tomes were created. By default, it does mean a form of canon has been created, although apparently internal to BL, by defining the existence of apocryphal material.
Basic logic here.
Then there's the obvious attempt at keeping the Horus Heresy very consistent, which can only happen with a internal home Bible of some sorts. So we can expect such a repository to exist, even if only internally to BL.

Then there are the reported words of George Mann, Head of Black Library.
The only problem is their indirect nature. But let's notice that Aaron's "quoting" of whoever he went to to inquire on canon is no more direct than Mann's reported words either. He just has the advantage of being an official writer, but objectively, it doesn't make his report better. In fact, with the potential of having an interest in defending his work or even having to pass BL material as canon from his point of view of a fan or simply someone really liking his own work, he could be far less objective than the bloke who went to the GWG annual general meeting in 08.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Lucky » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:16 am

Gav Thorpe wrote: In this regard it 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.
Is Gav Thorpe honestly saying that Fan Fiction is as canon for War Hammer 40,000 as what is officially written by/for the company?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:32 am

Lucky wrote:
Gav Thorpe wrote: In this regard it 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.
Is Gav Thorpe honestly saying that Fan Fiction is as canon for War Hammer 40,000 as what is officially written by/for the company?
Essentially, yes. He has not even attempted to say that official material was above fan fictions in the quotation I presented. His entire stance is some huge mess.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Lucky » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:32 am

Gav Thorpe wrote: In this regard it 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.
Lucky wrote: Is Gav Thorpe honestly saying that Fan Fiction is as canon for War Hammer 40,000 as what is officially written by/for the company?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Essentially, yes. He has not even attempted to say that official material was above fan fictions in the quotation I presented. His entire stance is some huge mess.
But what are these "certain central themes and principles" he talks about? I mean does it just have to be gram and dark?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:47 pm

Lucky wrote:But what are these "certain central themes and principles" he talks about? I mean does it just have to be gram and dark?
Respect the tone and overall guidelines. A faction, for one, could be summarized to a 100 words and the rest would be up to you I guess. As long as it's grim dark and looks like Warhammer 40000. I guess you could even make it less grim dark if you wanted so. See, it's also ridiculously vague.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: More on Warhammer 40,000's canon

Post by Khas » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:01 pm

As long as "A Crushed Empire", "Unified Races", and "Squad Broken" are non-canon, I'm fine.

Post Reply