Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To whom this really does concern.

KINDLY PAY ATTENTION:

1. There is no fundamental absolute to the 40k lore/canon/background, it is not given the same careful scrutiny that star trek fluff gets, it has been written over 20+ years to get people to buy toy soldiers. Arguing anything else is cretinous.

2. The lore/canon/background of the fiction has shifted direction and in some cases completely changed direction on many occasions.

3. There are several sources of lore/canon/background, ranging from a highly variable and numerous group of freelance authors over many years, to semi-indy companies like fantasy flight, to the GW company it's self, with it's constantly mutation artistic direction.

4. This is lore/canon/background from a company that removes major races and introduces major races according to sales of real world miniatures. It does not place the sanctity of it's fictional histories as paramount and never will. Get used to it.

5. You can certainly hypothesise and rationale about how things fit in this fictional universe, others can too, you do not hold authority over their interpretation, you simply have a different one. Using reference is entirely appropriate as supporting your thoughts and views, they remain just that, not law.

6. Get out in the fresh air more, expand your horizons and stop shouting others down, you only just got here and you're already preaching like the font of all 40k knowledge and it's getting on my tits... Continue your lambasts from the pulpit and we, the community at large, will commence retaliation.

Thank you.

No, Thank you. Someone had to say it.

(Upon reflection, I can see this can be read two ways. I was thanking you in agreement.)

This will end well.

pretre wrote:This will end well.

QFT

Well... it had to be said by someone i suppose... probably could have been done a tad more subtly

You do have to wonder who this was aimed at.

Nothing wrong with a little inconsistency, and inconsistency is not inconsistent with truth. Take the Ten Commandments, for example. One commandment is that you shalt not lie. Another is that you shall honour thy mother and father. But if your mom asks if she looks fat in those jeans, you're going to break one of them, and maybe both. Nonetheless, they are the Ten Commandments and canonical.

Well, it does indeed contain some VERY good points.

And we all need a splash of cold water every now and then, right?

And GW themselves have basically said, 'Yeah, all the stuff is right, more or less."

In many cases they've left it gray, either on purpose or out of laziness, who knows?

Does anyone else in the Background forum ever get tired of Argumentum Ad Fireball? It's a background forum; you know, a forum for discussing background. If your response to any question or attempt to flesh out the background as if it was a real world is "Meh, who knows", then maybe discussing the background just isn't your cup of tea.

It's a big Galaxy. But that's just my opinion.

I've warned him before to reduce his coffee intake, but he won't listen.

in other news, this may want to be moved to some other forum, background isn't for err... non-fluff disscussions

Discussing how to discuss the background is Background Forum material.

Nurglitch wrote:Nothing wrong with a little inconsistency, and inconsistency is not inconsistent with truth. Take the Ten Commandments, for example. One commandment is that you shalt not lie. Another is that you shall honour thy mother and father. But if your mom asks if she looks fat in those jeans, you're going to break one of them, and maybe both. Nonetheless, they are the Ten Commandments and canonical.

No offense but some may say by lying to protect someones feelings you dishonour them because you lie to them.

purplefood wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Nothing wrong with a little inconsistency, and inconsistency is not inconsistent with truth. Take the Ten Commandments, for example. One commandment is that you shalt not lie. Another is that you shall honour thy mother and father. But if your mom asks if she looks fat in those jeans, you're going to break one of them, and maybe both. Nonetheless, they are the Ten Commandments and canonical.

No offense but some may say by lying to protect someones feelings you dishonour them because you lie to them.

I believe this is an inconsistency he was implying.

I agree completely with the OP. I shake my head of an evening reading some of the background debates on the go. I'm interested in it from a narrative (ideas for my army) point of view but that's about it. The hypothetical arguements/discussions really take the biscuit and I draw the line there and stop reading.

I'm an Eldar player and the background for them is pretty slim. Probably a good thing as GW would probably make an arse of it. Oh, wait......

Fiend is correct. No offense...

Point 6 to me simply reads, "I've been here longer, my opinion is more righter, and here's an insult for good measure."

I suppose you make some good points about how dramatically the lore has changed over the years. In my reasoning, I've usually tried to exclude the bits that GW also seems to have overwritten/gotten rid of over the years, (essentially staying within the boundaries of 4th/5th ed rulebooks and codices, where everything seems to be largely consistent. 1st and 2nd edition "don't count" as it were) unless the topic at hand concerns such things.

Honestly, my biggest disagreement here is that this stance seems to invalidate a large part of the purpose for having a background discussion forum. What's the point if every "Hey guys, can I do X with my Y" is answered "Heck yeah homeboy!"? We may as well replace the whole forum with a closed sticky titled: "Fluff: Do whatever the feth you want!"

Its important to just recognize the inconsistencies between the different generations, and that RT/2nd Ed stuff is of course, better in every way

Frazzled wrote:...and that RT/2nd Ed stuff is of course ,not available to those starting in 5th ed

Fixed.




We could drop canon,

But we never drop our cannons!


Since any debate need a ground to stand on, Background should have more than quicksand ( "do whatever you want" ) to drown in.
Thus references are neccessary and published material of GW is worldwide available and identical, so were on the same page, IMO.
Still any post contains the opinion of the poster, but thats not different to other forii ( SP?) of dakka.
Shall we declare any idea "bestest idea ever" just to prevent a minority from preaching their views?

I'll keep on reading posts, accepting them as personal view on it, and maybe throw in ideas or confront the really crappy ideas.

I find it helps if I distinguish between the background as described in published works, and the background as I've developed it for my own amusement. Too many people try to pass off what they think the background is as what the background actually is. Lexicanum, of course, muddies the waters even further by doing to the background what wiki articles do to every item they purport to describe, make a lame garage-band cover of it.

Due to that OP, and based on what canonical fluff I have read, I can come to only one conclusion:

MeanGreenStompa is the Emperor.

Discuss.




(seriously though, +1 for posting this. I have to resist the urge to say it myself every time I wander in on a background argument based around 'facts' about toy soldiers and the magical world they live in)

Dastardly Dave wrote:

MeanGreenStompa is the Emperor.

Discuss.

No?

/discussion.






..wait.. didn't provide a source or "facts"...

I'll have to look it up at lexi:
* MGS *

-
-
-

No entry?

Seems he's either NOT the emprah or a really well disguised emperah.

warpcrafter wrote:Please, don't let this degenerate into another thread about why there are no female space marines.

Shhh... You'll summon her.

I love the hypocrisy this thread contains.

Also, I disagree.

Nurglitch wrote:Fiend is correct. No offense...

Ahhh damnit i forgot to re-read what you posted and made myself look like a complete fool, my bad.

Head from arse lol :-)

+1

Commander Endova wrote:Honestly, my biggest disagreement here is that this stance seems to invalidate a large part of the purpose for having a background discussion forum.

^I agree with this.

If people want to take 40k background seriously and have nerdy arguments about it, then they will. And a forum specifically dedicated to discussing 40k background is probably the most appropriate place to do that.

What the OP basically said is: "40k is not serious business, it's all bs made up to make money, get a life"

Well I say YOU!

If you only want to see people arguing about serious stuff then go join a climate change forum.

Otherwise: Read own topic title >>> Apply to self.

Gwar! wrote:I love the hypocrisy this thread contains.

Also, I disagree.

No doubt.

Me I really like the 40k background. I also like discussing it. Screw this thread.

Don't post offensive images please. Ta.
I don't bother with the rule forums but my desire to post in there with 'wah wah wah stop taking it so seriously' or 'it's down to interpretation. your getting on my tits' is fairly lacking.

As one wise man said about cricket: "Cricket isn't the most important thing in life. But it's efing close."

Six out of seven dwarves aren't happy, but they still don't tell snow white to feth off. Live and let live.

Nurglitch wrote:Does anyone else in the Background forum ever get tired of Argumentum Ad Fireball? It's a background forum; you know, a forum for discussing background. If your response to any question or attempt to flesh out the background as if it was a real world is "Meh, who knows", then maybe discussing the background just isn't your cup of tea.

I agree completely. If you don't like talking about background, nobody's forcing you to stay. Don't insist on sticking around and threading, and ruining it for everyone else.