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.

mwnciboo wrote:Oh My God, can we drop this now. Index Astartes is superceeded. I have watched this develop and we are getting no where with either party.

I don't even care who is right or wrong any more.

Fortunately we are arguing using the 5th Edition Codices.

I am asking im2randomghgh a simple question. If the Imperium can create hundreds of thousands of new Astartes from scratch in a mere seven years then why is the Emperor running around with Legions that are only ten thousand men on average? Why were the Legions so small that they had to divide into less than five chapters if hundreds of thousands of Astartes can be created in a mere seven years?

Gree wrote:So going by your lack of reply to my main point should I assume you concede the argument about the number of Second Founding Chapters?

I responded to the other part in the other thread.

And one that did not answer me at all.

Gree wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:Oh My God, can we drop this now. Index Astartes is superceeded. I have watched this develop and we are getting no where with either party.

I don't even care who is right or wrong any more.

Fortunately we are arguing using the 5th Edition Codices.

I am asking im2randomghgh a simple question. If the Imperium can create hundreds of thousands of new Astartes from scratch in a mere seven years then why is the Emperor running around with Legions that are only ten thousand men on average?

Because he isn't running around with Legions that are as small as you think. The Word Bearers are explicitly stated to be 100,000 strong, the Ultramarines are even larger. The smallest of them all was the Thousand Sons, they numbered 10,000 organized into 9 Fellowships. Essentially, your figure of 10,000 on average is either pulled out of thin air or outdated by more recent information. Considering there were thousands, maynbe tens of thousands of Crusade Fleets during the Great Crusade, each with an Astartes complement, I have no reason to doubt that the Legions were much larger than you think.

Why were the Legions so small that they had to divide into less than five chapters if hundreds of thousands of Astartes can be created in a mere seven years?

If you follow the principle that the most recent fluff overrides older fluff, then the Ultramarines could well have numbered up to 250,000 before the Heresy, as per Collected Visions. Since they incurred relatively little losses during the fighting, they retained this huge number of Astartes and actually recruited more to bolster the other depleted Legions due to their extremely large and efficient base in Ultramar. The Grey Knights codex has the number of Chapters formed during the Second Founding at 400, if these numbers are at all accurate, even under the assumption that each new Chapter contained 1000 Astartes to begin with, there really shouldn't be anything to argue about.

iproxtaco wrote:
Because he isn't running around with Legions that are as small as you think. The Word Bearers are explicitly stated to be 100,000 strong, the Ultramarines are even larger. The smallest of them all was the Thousand Sons, they numbered 10,000 organized into 9 Fellowships. Essentially, your figure of 10,000 on average is either pulled out of thin air or outdated by more recent information. Considering there were thousands, maynbe tens of thousands of Crusade Fleets during the Great Crusade, each with an Astartes complement, I have no reason to doubt that the Legions were much larger than you think.

That is however Black Library. im2randomghgh does not consider Black Library to be canon, he only considers the Codices to be canon and only the Codices published in the 5th edition. Thus I am approaching an argument on his logic. He has made a claim that the codices never contradict themselves. I have pointed out otherwise.

iproxtaco wrote:
If you follow the principle that the most recent fluff overrides older fluff, then the Ultramarines could well have numbered up to 250,000 before the Heresy, as per Collected Visions. Since they incurred relatively little losses during the fighting, they retained this huge number of Astartes and actually recruited more to bolster the other depleted Legions due to their extremely large and efficient base in Ultramar. The Grey Knights codex has the number of Chapters formed during the Second Founding at 400, if these numbers are at all accurate, even under the assumption that each new Chapter contained 1000 Astartes to begin with, there really shouldn't be anything to argue about.

Once again, Black Library is not being used in the discussion between im2randomghgh and me as by his own logic it contridicts the Codices.

Don't care. This is my response to the question, not im2randomhgh's, and I don't like the word canon in any discussion about 4ok.

iproxtaco wrote:Don't care. This is my response to the question, not im2randomhgh's, and I don't like the word canon in any discussion about 4ok.

Then your response is irrelevant as the discussion between me and him is taking place in the canon of the codices. If you don’t like im2randomhgh's opinion then go complain to him.

Has everyone been converted to my way of thinking? We can stop after that, haha.
This is the argument using maths:
x+x=2x
not
x+x=x

CpatTom wrote:Has everyone been converted to my way of thinking? We can stop after that, haha.
This is the argument using maths:
x+x=2x
not
x+x=x

Not sure how this is relevant. Me and im2randomhgh are both playing my the same rules in this dicussion. I am simply using his own logic to conduct a counterargument using Codex sources.

Gree wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Don't care. This is my response to the question, not im2randomhgh's, and I don't like the word canon in any discussion about 4ok.

Then your response is irrelevant as the discussion between me and him is taking place in the canon of the codices. If you don’t like im2randomhgh's opinion then go complain to him.

My post is 'irrelevant'? Why, because Black Library contains more information that opposes your argument and you don't want to have to deal with it? I see. If you want your own little private discussion then take it to PM's, until then you can deal with this.

Oh, and considering you're a stickler for people not responding to your arguments it's interesting to see you avoiding this one.

I was referring to the Geneseed thing, but this thread has devolved into far to many arguments.

iproxtaco wrote:
My post is 'irrelevant'?

Because we are not talking about Black Library. My opponet in the debate will not recognize Black Library as canon thus it is useless to use it. Simple as that.

iproxtaco wrote:
Why, because Black Library contains more information that opposes your argument and you don't want to have to deal with it?

Actually Black Library is the one that contains information that opposes his argument, not mine. I’m trying to make a point using im2randomhgh's logic first before I start on my main argument. But to clarify, our current discussion solely takes place in the context of the Codices. My opponent does not take Black Library as canon because it contradicts the codices, thus it is useless to even bring it up in the first place against him.

iproxtaco wrote:
If you want your own little private discussion then take it to PM's, until then you can deal with this.

I tried to actually with a PM. Im2randomhgh basically told me to shut up when I asked him and told me he would contact the mods if I tried to respond after a certain point in the discussion.

iproxtaco wrote:
Oh, and considering you're a stickler for people not responding to your arguments it's interesting to see you avoiding this one.

An odd thing to say considering I’ve had multiple chances to stay silent and let the point slip by, but I keep on bringing it up when I don’t get a response.

Gree wrote:An odd thing to say considering I’ve had multiple chances to stay silent and let the point slip by, but I keep on bringing it up when I don’t get a response.

Which is an altogether different problem in itself.

It's a discussion on the fictional background of a game of toy soldiers. Is it that important that someone you'll probably never meet in real life doesn't want to acknowledge that you might be right?


The simple fact is that the fluff of 40K is fractured and often contradictory. That's completely deliberate on the part of the GW design studio. In most cases there simply is no single, correct, canon answer, because the canon is fluid and is as much made up of make-believe propaganda as of anything resembling solid data.

Within that framework, there is plenty of room for people to have completely different opinions on, say, just how many 2nd Founding Chapters there were without the world coming to a screeching and painful sudden demise.

insaniak wrote:
It's a discussion on the fictional background of a game of toy soldiers. Is it that important that someone you'll probably never meet in real life doesn't want to acknowledge that you might be right?

Considering this is a vital point I had in my earlier discussion and I probably will have to debate this person in the future, then yes. I do consider it important.

insaniak wrote:
The simple fact is that the fluff of 40K is fractured and often contradictory. That's completely deliberate on the part of the GW design studio. In most cases there simply is no single, correct, canon answer, because the canon is fluid and is as much made up of make-believe propaganda as of anything resembling solid data.

I told him that. He told me that the codices never contradict themselves and BL is not canon no matter what I say. When I pressed the point further he basically told me to shut up in our PM conversation and he threatened to call the mods. Odd thing to do when a person brings up a point you can't really counter.

Gree wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
My post is 'irrelevant'?

Because we are not talking about Black Library. My opponet in the debate will not recognize Black Library as canon thus it is useless to use it. Simple as that.

Yeah I know, I just don't care. This is my response to the question, not his. You two can have your little discussion if you want and not include Black Library, but I'm not im2randomhgh, I'm iproxtaco answering an open question.

iproxtaco wrote:
Why, because Black Library contains more information that opposes your argument and you don't want to have to deal with it?

Actually Black Library is the one that contains information that opposes his argument, not mine. I’m trying to make a point using im2randomhgh's logic first before I start on my main argument. But to clarify, our current discussion solely takes place in the context of the Codices. My opponent does not take Black Library as canon because it contradicts the codices, thus it is useless to even bring it up in the first place against him.

Then for my sake, please, clear up the argument, I have no idea what your point is in the discussion. Do you think the number of Chapters formed at the second founding was only 30, or is that what im2randomhgh thinks?

iproxtaco wrote:
If you want your own little private discussion then take it to PM's, until then you can deal with this.

I tried to actually with a PM. Im2randomhgh basically told me to shut up when I asked him and told me he would contact the mods if I tried to respond after a certain point in the discussion.

Sounds just like something he'd do, not argue his point anymore because he has literally nothing to back it with. Have a look at the threads about the Custodes, you'll see.

iproxtaco wrote:
Oh, and considering you're a stickler for people not responding to your arguments it's interesting to see you avoiding this one.

An odd thing to say considering I’ve had multiple chances to stay silent and let the point slip by, but I keep on bringing it up when I don’t get a response.

That's my point. You don't like people avoiding the argument, but it seems like you're trying or were trying to avoid contending MY argument.

Gree wrote:

insaniak wrote:
It's a discussion on the fictional background of a game of toy soldiers. Is it that important that someone you'll probably never meet in real life doesn't want to acknowledge that you might be right?

Considering this is a vital point I had in my earlier discussion and I probably will have to debate this person in the future, then yes. I do consider it important.

insaniak wrote:
The simple fact is that the fluff of 40K is fractured and often contradictory. That's completely deliberate on the part of the GW design studio. In most cases there simply is no single, correct, canon answer, because the canon is fluid and is as much made up of make-believe propaganda as of anything resembling solid data.

I told him that. He told me that the codices never contradict themselves and BL is not canon no matter what I say. When I pressed the point further he basically told me to shut up in our PM conversation and he threatened to call the mods. Odd thing to do when a person brings up a point you can't really counter.

At the point where our conversation took up more than 4 hours of my time, I began to hate the entire internet because of it.

Plus, every time I stated a fact you called it opinion because you had no answer AT ALL other than sweeping it under the rug. Oh and btw I clicked ignore, so no, we will not be debating in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sounds just like something he'd do, not argue his point anymore because he has literally nothing to back it with. Have a look at the threads about the Custodes, you'll see.

Well I am SORRY for not wanting to read through every single WD I own to look for the article on the duel with Vlador.

Sheesh.

Not wanting to argue with a guy who thinks 1 tac squad= IG regiment is why I told him to stfu

Gree wrote:... and I probably will have to debate this person in the future, ...

Why? What exactly is forcing you to debate the fictional science fantasy background of a game of toy soldiers with some guy on the internet, aside from a need to be right?



We're all here to talk about our little game of toy soldiers. But at the point where that discussion becomes something that you have to 'win' it's time to stop and regain some perspective.

People will not always agree with you. Sometimes, that will happen even when you 'know' that you are right. Generally because they also 'know' that they are right.

Trying to force them to agree with you? That way lies madness.

Or, you could have admitted it was all made up since not you or anyone else you could be bothered to post could find a source for the claim. Besides, it's not just that, your entire argument had no basis of fact and was extraordinarily biased and relied on reasoning found in the realm of insanity.

iproxtaco wrote:

Yeah I know, I just don't care.

If you don’t care then I simply don’t care about your point. Fair enough?

iproxtaco wrote:
This is my response to the question, not his. You two can have your little discussion if you want and not include Black Library, but I'm not im2randomhgh, I'm iproxtaco answering an open question.

That’s all nice and good, unfortunately I’m not talking about Black Library in the context so its pretty irrelevant to me.

iproxtaco wrote:
Then for my sake, please, clear up the argument, I have no idea what your point is in the discussion.

My point is, as I’ve repeatedly stated, is that the Codices contradict themselves.

iproxtaco wrote:
Do you think the number of Chapters formed at the second founding was only 30, or is that what im2randomhgh thinks?

It’s not the number of chapters but whether the codices contradict themselves or not. I was comparing differnent chapter numbers in each of the Codices.

iproxtaco wrote:
That's my point. You don't like people avoiding the argument, but it seems like you're trying or were trying to avoid contending MY argument.

It’s because I’m not arguing that point at all.

im2randomghgh wrote:

At the point where our conversation took up more than 4 hours of my time, I began to hate the entire internet because of it.

It was a private PM. You did not have to respond and nobody would know.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Plus, every time I stated a fact you called it opinion because you had no answer AT ALL other than sweeping it under the rug. Oh and btw I clicked ignore, so no, we will not be debating in the future.

No, I pointed out the Codices to contradict themselves while providing proof and you mysteriously stopped trying to argue at that moment.

So now I will take this as a concession.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Not wanting to argue with a guy who thinks 1 tac squad= IG regiment is why I told him to stfu

In order words he basically stuck his fingers in his ears and began to chant ‘’LALALALA’’ over and over again because he was presented with an uncomfortable truth.

insaniak wrote:Why? What exactly is forcing you to debate the fictional science fantasy background of a game of toy soldiers with some guy on the internet, aside from a need to be right?

So if somebody says I'm wrong I'm susposed to just nod and smile?

iproxtaco wrote:Or, you could have admitted it was all made up since not you or anyone else you could be bothered to post could find a source for the claim. Besides, it's not just that, your entire argument had no basis of fact and was extraordinarily biased and relied on reasoning found in the realm of insanity.

Are you responding to him or me?

Gree wrote:So if somebody says I'm wrong I'm susposed to just nod and smile?

If you have made your point, and the other person has refused to agree with you, what exactly do you expect to happen if you continue to state the same thing?

You can find a different way to make your point, to see if that makes a difference... but ultimately, if someone refuses to see your viewpoint, you reach a point where just restating your opinion over again serves no practical purpose.

Repetition doesn't make you any more or less 'right'. Someone disagreeing with you also doesn't make you any more or less 'right'.

insaniak wrote:

Gree wrote:So if somebody says I'm wrong I'm susposed to just nod and smile?

If you have made your point, and the other person has refused to agree with you, what exactly do you expect to happen if you continue to state the same thing?

You can find a different way to make your point, to see if that makes a difference... but ultimately, if someone refuses to see your viewpoint, you reach a point where just restating your opinion over again serves no practical purpose.

Repetition doesn't make you any more or less 'right'. Someone disagreeing with you also doesn't make you any more or less 'right'.

Except I did not get a solid answer out of my opponet. I got evasiveness from somebody who has sneered and insulted me more than once. I wanted to see if he actually had an answer or not.

Gree wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

Yeah I know, I just don't care.

If you don’t care then I simply don’t care about your point. Fair enough?

Snappy, but fair enough, I'm not forcing or asking you to care, just letting you know that I really don't care that you or random have a little rule in your own little private discussion.

iproxtaco wrote:
This is my response to the question, not his. You two can have your little discussion if you want and not include Black Library, but I'm not im2randomhgh, I'm iproxtaco answering an open question.

That’s all nice and good, unfortunately I’m not talking about Black Library in the context so its pretty irrelevant to me.

Fine.

iproxtaco wrote:
Then for my sake, please, clear up the argument, I have no idea what your point is in the discussion.

My point is, as I’ve repeatedly stated, is that the Codices contradict themselves.

I see. Well then there's really no opposition to that point. Some contradict each other, and some just contradict internally too.

iproxtaco wrote:
That's my point. You don't like people avoiding the argument, but it seems like you're trying or were trying to avoid contending MY argument.

It’s because I’m not arguing that point at all.

Which I know now, thanks.

iproxtaco wrote:Or, you could have admitted it was all made up since not you or anyone else you could be bothered to post could find a source for the claim. Besides, it's not just that, your entire argument had no basis of fact and was extraordinarily biased and relied on reasoning found in the realm of insanity.

Are you responding to him or me?

Him.

Gree wrote:
No, I pointed out the Codices to contradict themselves while providing proof and you mysteriously stopped trying to argue at that moment.

So now I will take this as a concession.

TL;DR, he is putting words in my mouth and talking about something else. I was talking about how a retcon works, since you obviously don't know.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Not wanting to argue with a guy who thinks 1 tac squad= IG regiment is why I told him to stfu

In order words he basically stuck his fingers in his ears and began to chant ‘’LALALALA’’ over and over again because he was presented with an uncomfortable truth.

It is not an uncomfortable truth, it is a fallacy. A guard regiment would have no trouble stomping a single tac squad. Are you aware of the sheer scale of their artillery? A single deathstrike missile could destroy said squad.

Do you all see why I decided not to waste my time? He cannot concede points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

People will not always agree with you. Sometimes, that will happen even when you 'know' that you are right. Generally because they also 'know' that they are right.

Trying to force them to agree with you? That way lies madness.

Well said!

I thought you were ignoring me?

im2randomghgh wrote:
TL;DR, he is putting words in my mouth and talking about something else. I was talking about how a retcon works, since you obviously don't know.

No, that is totally what the said. I can get quotes from the PM is anyone wishes.

im2randomghgh wrote:
It is not an uncomfortable truth, it is a fallacy. A guard regiment would have no trouble stomping a single tac squad. Are you aware of the sheer scale of their artillery? A single deathstrike missile could destroy said squad.

When did I claim a tac squad could destroy a regiment?

im2randomghgh wrote:
Do you all see why I decided not to waste my time? He cannot concede points.

Evidently you can’t either. I’m still waiting for your reply on my point about the Second Founding Chapter numbers.

Gree wrote:I’m still waiting for your reply on my point about the Second Founding Chapter numbers.

Then I would recommend starting a new thread specifically to discuss it. This one is way past done.