Fanon is for example making a new custom chapter that does not exist in the books. Making up new planets is fanon. New sub-groups, like let's say I make a new Ordo of the Inquisition up. A new Aspect Warrior Shrine for the Eldar. A Tau Sept that does not exist in lore, new weapons like let's say a shoulder-mounted missile launcher for Techmarines. Rhino-loadouts that do not exist in the lore, etc. Fanon is literally 'fanmade content'. My DWS is more like 66% accuracy because I make a LOOOOOT of stuff up, without going batshit crazy though. For example the Legion of the Damned I actually modified to not be the fire hawks or in fact that whatever happened to them, happened in the past just that records were lost. 33% is kind of like going crazy with it, like I did with my first RP here where I killed Ahriman off :X
True canon is considered anything that is only posted by Games Workshop and them only. Anything that is licensed from them by a third party or free lance artisan is not considered part of that true canon but can be considered acceptable canon as fallback base only if it is commissioned by Games Workshop. From there, anyone who uses a license from Games Workshop can create fan-canon which is something that is considered true in the eyes of Games Workshop under creative licensing freedom but if Games Workshop has already made a vote on the matter, they will trump anything else which is where a lot of the Adeptus Astartes and Imperial Guard conflicts in lore come into play. After that, fan lore is considered 100% non-canon in anything that is based off an official matter because it is neither licensed nor consented by Games Workshop. To this end, websites such as Lexicanum can be misleading as they tend to generalize information instead of reciting word for word what comes from official codices and we all know human misunderstanding is applicable when it comes to "personal views" over something. No one needs to look any further than reiterations of the Bible to understand how quickly something can be brought out of context from the original definition which is why in a debate thread we heavily emphasize exact quotations and page numbers with the edition as well. With that stated, almost everyone here excluding myself is at around the 50% commitment rating where they acknowledge anything that is generally accepted by the Community as being lore friendly on top of anything posted in codices, technical documents, and official Q&A statements. Especially when GMing, they are willing to make a compromise on anything that is within the reasonable realms of plausibility and will also negate things that tend to ignore logic. An example of this would be my take on the Leman Russ chassis as both a former veteran and weapon concept designer as the technical document from the 1980s is drastically inaccurate to a realistic replica in terms of both scale and execution. Most people would state the "but it's science fiction" phrase to ignore it but those who have real life experience will always call out bullshit when we see it. For instance if you look at some of the older examples when it comes to the more accurate and realistic roleplays held, things are broken down to the closest replica of what it should be based off real life examples. Games Workshop despite their best intentions is just a bunch of civilians and while they did consult some military historians, they didn't do a very good job at it because it's a fictional setting and they abused that part a bit too much.
Gotcha. In that case I plan to dip generously into fannon with my own chapter and star system but I don't plan on going crazy with it. I.e killing Abbadon with a twin-linked rolling pin. Which consideting his level of sucess with the crusades, would probably work Hmm...
Nicely put. In fact the whole post sums up 'what is canon' well. Any publically editable site is subject to being edited by the public.
