1,153
edits
Changes
From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
no edit summary
:40k "canon" is a loose and contradictory term. GW has given "example" armies that have been used on Lexicanum for years now. If it's fluff that's in an accepted GW-affiliated source it should be documented imo.--[[User:Harriticus|Harriticus]] 21:03, 7 December 2012 (CET)
:: Do you have any examples of other things which GW says is explicitly fictional or illustrative only that are documented on lexicanum? I'm just curious. I agree than "canon" is a loose term and "fluff" in "canon" should be documented. but this was not fluff. It was explicitly an illustrative example of how a chapter-creation system might be used, describing what "Andy" chooses when he's making his "fictional" chapter -- it does not describe the chapter as if it exists at all, but how a chapter creation system might be used. Anyway, I've made my case, I leave it to others with more clout than I to decide. :) Best, --[[User:Augustmanifesto|augustmanifesto]] 21:34, 7 December 2012 (CET)
