Philverse
Due to 40K lacking any description of its ‘science’ (and quite rightly so) it can be quite difficult to understand how technology works and why characters in 40K act the way they do towards technology. In our modern technological age it often seems ridiculous the way some characters in 40K view and treat technology, where we see it as a mundane and basic (essential) tool. This can lead to the idea that those in the Imperium are backwards and lack intelligence: this I think should be viewed as a mistake as it limits creative thought as how such bizarre views of technology can come about. It is this creativity to make the image seem reasonable and therefore less likely to be dismissed off hand.
In posting on forums I have often argued that the imagine of 40K is not as outlandish are many suppose. In order to illustrate my concepts I present examples and hypotheses. It’s in the hot forge of forum debate that these concepts have been tested: the weak break and are discarded and the strong survive. Over time the strong concepts were systematically stuck together with crazy-glue thread by thread, and woven in such a way as to support each other in the great web. I have been doing this for so long that now many recognise these interconnecting concepts and consider them to be consistent, so consistent that other fans eventually christened the whole concept-web ‘Philverse’ (also Phil-verse).
Over time, and I’m not sure when, I stopped pointing out that my views on how 40K works was ‘Philverse’ because it was all Philverse! Even the official published material is, to me, a sub-set of Philverse.
Pseudo-science
Philverse primarily concerns itself with the hidden science of 40K, which I use as a base to understand in broad terms the principles of archo-tech design ethos, and to divine how artifacts created with Dark Age Technology work. This in turn affects how I see the motivations and actions of the characters within 40K (in my own head) so that they make sense and feel more three dimensional (to me).
The pseudo-science of Philverse is of my own devising, and though it’s assertions are only indirectly backed up by canon material, it is designed to fit in with the vast majority of the 40K background image (slips through the gaps of what is not said – i.e. science). Philverse reinforces the image 40K, and stops moderate sci-fi concepts from creeping in to my own personal brain-space.
I use Philverse as a basis when working up designs. It is much easier to design an object for artwork if you know how it works (in principle), what it needs to work, and how it is used. In many ways Philverse is also a concept prototyping system: the forum debate hones the concept until I can hammer it into the background with a mallet until flat and seamless. In doing this any design I create has a wealth of background and concept debate behind it, and this allows me to think outside the box and create designs starting with 40K Philverse and exploring higher ground, rather than designing from real world mundane stimulus and then shoehorning mediocrity into 40K.
Though the concepts can never become canon (as 40K science is never touched), the ‘footprints in the sand’ that my concepts leave on my artwork may well be. Much like the image humans imprint onto the warp with their emotions 
Any posts of mine that are based on ‘Philverse’ will be tagged as such. While they may not be at odds with the published background it should be understood that they are not canon in any way shape or form.
Philverse is unofficial fan fiction
Games Workshop ‘Canon’
This quote is taken from the Black Library forums FAQ
Is Black Library fiction canon background material?
The BL editors work with the GW studios to keep the fiction the way that it should (very hard might I add! - RK), though due to the sheer volume of detail involved there can be the odd discrepancy here and there. If you want to consider anything “canonical” then both BL fiction - be it novel, graphic novel, art or background book - and GW fiction - be it White Dwarf, Codex, Army book or rulebook - are such.Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about “canonical background” will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history …
My take: As I understand it, is that there is no strictly ‘canon’ background and it’s all down to interpretation. In addition the Black Library uses an extended or expanded version of the 40K background and the Wargame uses are restricted background. To really tidy up this concept;
Quote taken from the Old Black Library Forum thread: The question of “canon”?
Marc Gascoigne
I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.
But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.
It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.
Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.
To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW’s definition of canon? Perhaps we don’t have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I’m not telling you.
So that’s an unofficial answer on what ‘canon’ means to the Cruel Overlord of the Black Library, which is very much a part of Games Workshop. There is also this fun thread where I manage to chip in a few thoughts on the subject of canon in: Canon or not.
Games Workshop Disclaimer
40k, Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, Chaos, the Chaos device, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Cityfight, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Dawn of War, ‘Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, the Fire Warrior logo, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, GW, GWI, the GWI logo, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, the Khorne logo, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, the Nurgle logo, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, the Slaanesh logo, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, the Tzeentch logo, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2006, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.
Philip
0 Responses to “Disclaimers”