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.

No I didn’t. To me a misquote is changing what was said. I have never accused you of misquoting the books you quote. For all I care they are exact quotes copied and pasted out of the ebooks. I said you misinterpret quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Like above with the whole reporting farce.

Andykp wrote:
No I didn’t. To me a misquote is changing what was said. I have never accused you of misquoting the books you quote. For all I care they are exact quotes copied and pasted out of the ebooks. I said you misinterpret quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Like above with the whole reporting farce.

This is what you said "My annoyance at del for using quotes is that he has a storied history of using quotes to make conclusions that couldn’t be made from the quotes he used. " quote me doing that. That is miss quoting. Also you say I change what was said find a quote where I did that and not one where I edit just to add things, I mean actually changing my argument. Show screen shots of me deleting comments, I don't even think you can delete comments on this site.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No I didn’t. To me a misquote is changing what was said. I have never accused you of misquoting the books you quote. For all I care they are exact quotes copied and pasted out of the ebooks. I said you misinterpret quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Like above with the whole reporting farce.

This is what you said "My annoyance at del for using quotes is that he has a storied history of using quotes to make conclusions that couldn’t be made from the quotes he used. " quote me doing that.

And I said look at any of your fluff threads. Circles now mate.

Sgt smudge. We have different views on things and that’s great. I and many other people have tried to show that to del but it is very hard work. Hence my frustration.

Fluff wise, your way is fine for you but it sounds a dull way of doing things to me. So I will keep doing it my way and so will my mates. U can call it headcanon or whatever but I keep calling it fluff. It’s all fluff and it’s all equal to me. Long live the star child!

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No I didn’t. To me a misquote is changing what was said. I have never accused you of misquoting the books you quote. For all I care they are exact quotes copied and pasted out of the ebooks. I said you misinterpret quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Like above with the whole reporting farce.

This is what you said "My annoyance at del for using quotes is that he has a storied history of using quotes to make conclusions that couldn’t be made from the quotes he used. " quote me doing that.

And I said look at any of your fluff threads. Circles now mate.

Sgt smudge. We have different views on things and that’s great. I and many other people have tried to show that to del but it is very hard work. Hence my frustration.

Fluff wise, your way is fine for you but it sounds a dull way of doing things to me. So I will keep doing it my way and so will my mates. U can call it headcanon or whatever but I keep calling it fluff. It’s all fluff and it’s all equal to me. Long live the star child!

Yup, you are lying, thanks for showing everyone. Frustration, yeah proving you wrong big whoop, how bout you lying and making up nonsense about me that implies faults in my character. I may insult people in heated arguments but I never hold insults thrown my way personally, I just get passionate but at least I'm honest. After an argument I treat those people with civility until we get into another heated argument where we throw insults at each other.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No I didn’t. To me a misquote is changing what was said. I have never accused you of misquoting the books you quote. For all I care they are exact quotes copied and pasted out of the ebooks. I said you misinterpret quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Like above with the whole reporting farce.

This is what you said "My annoyance at del for using quotes is that he has a storied history of using quotes to make conclusions that couldn’t be made from the quotes he used. " quote me doing that. That is miss quoting. Also you say I change what was said find a quote where I did that and not one where I edit just to add things, I mean actually changing my argument. Show screen shots of me deleting comments, I don't even think you can delete comments on this site.

I don’t think you can either. Sorry if I made you think I thought you had. I did say I had read a post and what I meant by edited was as I read it and responded you had edited your post to say more. Just happened again now. So I responded again to the new comments you made. I have seen the mods remove your posts and comments and mentioned that to. As for the quotes, anyone who has discussed fluff with you in here can see what you do with them. I’ll say no more about it.

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No I didn’t. To me a misquote is changing what was said. I have never accused you of misquoting the books you quote. For all I care they are exact quotes copied and pasted out of the ebooks. I said you misinterpret quotes and draw erroneous conclusions from them. Like above with the whole reporting farce.

This is what you said "My annoyance at del for using quotes is that he has a storied history of using quotes to make conclusions that couldn’t be made from the quotes he used. " quote me doing that. That is miss quoting. Also you say I change what was said find a quote where I did that and not one where I edit just to add things, I mean actually changing my argument. Show screen shots of me deleting comments, I don't even think you can delete comments on this site.

I don’t think you can either. Sorry if I made you think I thought you had. I did say I had read a post and what I meant by edited was as I read it and responded you had edited your post to say more. Just happened again now. So I responded again to the new comments you made. I have seen the mods remove your posts and comments and mentioned that to. As for the quotes, anyone who has discussed fluff with you in here can see what you do with them. I’ll say no more about it.

Yeah and like I have asked you, no one else can quote me misquoting and they can all see this comment, I've asked tonnes of times for people to give me evidence of doing that. But I'll let bygones be bygones.

Lying. Grow up mate. Here you go again, making conclusions form stuff that are way off the mark and missing the point entirely. feel free to pm me if you want to continue with this. It’s off topic and not productive.

Andykp wrote:
Lying. Grow up mate. Here you go again, making conclusions form stuff that are way off the mark and missing the point entirely. feel free to pm me if you want to continue with this. It’s off topic and not productive.

A lie is a lie nothing immature about it. If you don't want to be seen as such find the quote. I'll say no more about it, but you shouldn't do that.

I haven’t lied. Pm me if you want to discuss it.

I’m definitely in agreement with Sgt_Smudge.

Canon is whatever is printed and in the case of conflicts it’s whatever is more recently printed.

Otherwise the original HH story written decades ago could never be updated or expanded upon.

Personal head canon is also fine but you can’t use it to dispute printed canon.

Mellow wrote:
I’m definitely in agreement with Sgt_Smudge.

Canon is whatever is printed and in the case of conflicts it’s whatever is more recently printed.

Otherwise the original HH story written decades ago could never be updated or expanded upon.

Personal head canon is also fine but you can’t use it to dispute printed canon.

That’s fine but the when the author of the “printed canon” says it isn’t definitive, it’s biased or unreliable the canon is questionable. Which has been the basis of my discussions with del. just because one character says it happened x way doesn’t mean it did. Regardless of other sources. Unless a source states that this is the definitive version of events then that version should be questioned.

Also head canon to me is something invented by the person using it. Like the emperor being an old one. I find that interesting but the fluff I like was written by GW. So “old canon” would be the term you guys would use. I will use fluff to describe all of it.

Andykp wrote:

Mellow wrote:
I’m definitely in agreement with Sgt_Smudge.

Canon is whatever is printed and in the case of conflicts it’s whatever is more recently printed.

Otherwise the original HH story written decades ago could never be updated or expanded upon.

Personal head canon is also fine but you can’t use it to dispute printed canon.

That’s fine but the when the author of the “printed canon” says it isn’t definitive, it’s biased or unreliable the canon is questionable. Which has been the basis of my discussions with del. just because one character says it happened x way doesn’t mean it did. Regardless of other sources. Unless a source states that this is the definitive version of events then that version should be questioned.

Also head canon to me is something invented by the person using it. Like the emperor being an old one. I find that interesting but the fluff I like was written by GW. So “old canon” would be the term you guys would use. I will use fluff to describe all of it.

I think saying there's no lore is taking things a bit far, but I think the thing with 40k compared to some other established settings is it doesn't seem to have one "official" set of background for the setting. Star Wars, for example, has quite a highly curated background, with Lucasfilm or Disney declaring certain parts of it to be non-canon or official at different times. LotR has similar encyclopaedic background information available. The entire setting for Babylon 5 has a literal background bible, written before anything else was created.

40k doesn't have that, which makes the background a sometimes confusing mix of contradictions or, at the very least, fluid interpretations of events. There are some things we can say for sure though. Horus and the Emperor definitely fought each other in the Battle for Terra. Horus was completely obliterated and the Emperor almost killed. It seems pretty clear something of the Emperor survived as he maintains the Astronomicon,, though now with the help of millions of sacrificial psykers, and he appears to have spoken to Guilliman too. Other things are more difficult to determine, but become clearer as more books are written. GW also seems to be in the process of overwriting some of their previous fluff in places, just to make things even more confusing.

Every piece of 40k media with GW's stamp of approval is equaly valid, but none of it is necessarily true.

They're framed as being just legends, myths, reports, stories, rumors, memories, fairytales, historical documents or whatever, all fallible and biased - something that's meant to be background material, to provide context for players own characters.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Every piece of 40k media with GW's stamp of approval is equaly valid, but none of it is necessarily true.

They're framed as being just legends, myths, reports, stories, rumors, memories, fairytales, historical documents or whatever, all fallible and biased - something that's meant to be background material, to provide context for players own characters.

This is exactly how I see and Gw sells it. Just better out than by me.

Slipspace I was with you to a point but I thought the sons of horus made off with horuss body and made clone etc. At least they did in the past. He was pretty messed up but a charred husk was left. ?

Andykp wrote:Sgt smudge. We have different views on things and that’s great. I and many other people have tried to show that to del but it is very hard work. Hence my frustration.

In which case, my apologies. I've had similar interactions.

Fluff wise, your way is fine for you but it sounds a dull way of doing things to me. So I will keep doing it my way and so will my mates. U can call it headcanon or whatever but I keep calling it fluff. It’s all fluff and it’s all equal to me. Long live the star child!

You're more than welcome to do what you've always done - that's absolutely fine to have different views. However, for people who want to rationalise 40k lore in codifying a canon, that's cool too. Neither one prohibits the other. Difference is good!

Andykp wrote:That’s fine but the when the author of the “printed canon” says it isn’t definitive, it’s biased or unreliable the canon is questionable. Which has been the basis of my discussions with del. just because one character says it happened x way doesn’t mean it did. Regardless of other sources. Unless a source states that this is the definitive version of events then that version should be questioned.

Agreed, personal recollections of this aren't always truth in universe. The example of the two Word Bearers theorising that the Ultramarines absorbed the 2nd and 11th Legions was a big one, and dispelled by Word of God. However, this isn't too far removed from real life - if you subscribe to the solipsistic viewpoint, very little can be proven as certain aside from our perception of things by our self. In this way, we create our own "canon" by what we collectively deem to be real, which isn't far from how I advocate establishing 40k's canon.

While beliefs and viewpoints and opinions stated by a character aren't always facts, if a character does an action, in the typical prose style of the Black Library (3rd person limited), that action is true. So if Guilliman, from his own point of view, says something, that thing was definitely said.
Of course, the actual validity of the source saying he said it could be called into question (if it was written by CS Goto, for example) but if the source is canonical, so is that action.

Again, the most important part of establishing canon is ensuring the validity of the sources themselves.

Also head canon to me is something invented by the person using it. Like the emperor being an old one. I find that interesting but the fluff I like was written by GW. So “old canon” would be the term you guys would use. I will use fluff to describe all of it.

It is all fluff, but some fluff is more relevant than others. Whichever you prefer is up to you though, and down to personal discretion. This is where the difference between headcanon and canon comes in.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:Every piece of 40k media with GW's stamp of approval is equaly valid, but none of it is necessarily true.

They're framed as being just legends, myths, reports, stories, rumors, memories, fairytales, historical documents or whatever, all fallible and biased - something that's meant to be background material, to provide context for players own characters.

Often, but not always. With a lot of the Horus Heresy things, characters have their internal monologues and the narrative is recalled immediately as it happens (3rd person limited). In cases like these, there is no way that such things are not true. Whilst it may not be truth that the Emperor was going to let Horus and his Legions fade into obscurity (although other evidence now points that to be likely), Horus believed it to be so, and his belief is a true thing.

A great deal of things are unreliable and drawn from a potentially biased source, but many things are not, and are certainties.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Every piece of 40k media with GW's stamp of approval is equaly valid, but none of it is necessarily true.

They're framed as being just legends, myths, reports, stories, rumors, memories, fairytales, historical documents or whatever, all fallible and biased - something that's meant to be background material, to provide context for players own characters.

This is exactly how I see and Gw sells it. Just better out than by me.

Slipspace I was with you to a point but I thought the sons of horus made off with horuss body and made clone etc. At least they did in the past. He was pretty messed up but a charred husk was left. ?

His soul was obliterated, his body was still present - I believe.

Again, this is old fluff mixing with new fluff here. In general, and with good reason, more recent discoveries in 40k lore are considered more valid, and often force adaptations, revisions, or straight up retcons onto the old fluff. Until we get a more accurate or relevant explanation of what went down on the Vengeful Spirit, we must assume that Horus' body wasn't destroyed, but his soul was.

The thing with the books is they all incorporate the unreliable narrator, and internal monologues are still just that persons opinions so are very biased and experienced based. I think if GW answered all the questions it’ll ruin the setting. The mysteries are the best bits. The dark angels have become very dull know their so called secrets.

Andykp wrote:
The thing with the books is they all incorporate the unreliable narrator, and internal monologues are still just that persons opinions so are very biased and experienced based. I think if GW answered all the questions it’ll ruin the setting. The mysteries are the best bits. The dark angels have become very dull know their so called secrets.

Oh, absolutely, but when events of one book (say, the destruction of the Pharos) is mentioned in another, and reinforced, that makes it more likely to have actually happened.

While internal monologues are still just opinions, they're undeniably factual for that character. I'm not saying that the opinion itself is factual, but I'm saying it's fact that the opinion is held. Essentially, in a discussion about what Horus believed about XYZ, if there's something he says in an internal monologue about XYZ, that is true according to Horus.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The thing with the books is they all incorporate the unreliable narrator, and internal monologues are still just that persons opinions so are very biased and experienced based. I think if GW answered all the questions it’ll ruin the setting. The mysteries are the best bits. The dark angels have become very dull know their so called secrets.

Oh, absolutely, but when events of one book (say, the destruction of the Pharos) is mentioned in another, and reinforced, that makes it more likely to have actually happened.

While internal monologues are still just opinions, they're undeniably factual for that character. I'm not saying that the opinion itself is factual, but I'm saying it's fact that the opinion is held. Essentially, in a discussion about what Horus believed about XYZ, if there's something he says in an internal monologue about XYZ, that is true according to Horus.

Sounds about right to me.

Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

That thread was hard work.

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

combined with the fact that even the writer of that passage said "for god's sake don't take it as holy writ it's 'proably not true"

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

combined with the fact that even the writer of that passage said "for god's sake don't take it as holy writ it's 'proably not true"

Yup, though I think it would give Ultramarines some serious flavour if that was true. Doubt GW would ever allow it though.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

combined with the fact that even the writer of that passage said "for god's sake don't take it as holy writ it's 'proably not true"

Yup, though I think it would give Ultramarines some serious flavour if that was true. Doubt GW would ever allow it though.

Problem is that it's inconsistant with data we've seen on Gulliman, we know that he didn't want Cawl making Primaris Marines from traitor geneseed, we ALSO know that the highlords following the Heresy forbid the use of it, beliving it was somehow tainted, thus suggests to me Gulliman viewed it as such, it would be a bit odd for him to hold that view if his legion ahd absorbed the genesons of failed legions

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

combined with the fact that even the writer of that passage said "for god's sake don't take it as holy writ it's 'proably not true"

Yup, though I think it would give Ultramarines some serious flavour if that was true. Doubt GW would ever allow it though.

Problem is that it's inconsistant with data we've seen on Gulliman, we know that he didn't want Cawl making Primaris Marines from traitor geneseed, we ALSO know that the highlords following the Heresy forbid the use of it, beliving it was somehow tainted, thus suggests to me Gulliman viewed it as such, it would be a bit odd for him to hold that view if his legion ahd absorbed the genesons of failed legions

Not true, we know nothing about the lost marines, in fact its most likely has nothing to do with taint as the Astartes had no idea of chaos before the Heresy only the Primarchs had some idea and Astartes that had experiences in warp transit. If their Primarcs just wanted to sicced from the Imperium I doubt Guilliman would be against receiving their Astartes. especially loyal marines that went against their Primarchs the only inconsistency is that his marines would share memories of their old life but no marine was even able to talk about the lost, so that would add credence to the possibility, you could imagine the Imperium making everyone silent about the matter but Astartes that actually fought them, who knows could be possible. Guillaman is a pragmatist and he has a massive empire in Ultramar, I don't think he'd be against it if they weren't tainted.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

combined with the fact that even the writer of that passage said "for god's sake don't take it as holy writ it's 'proably not true"

Yup, though I think it would give Ultramarines some serious flavour if that was true. Doubt GW would ever allow it though.

Problem is that it's inconsistant with data we've seen on Gulliman, we know that he didn't want Cawl making Primaris Marines from traitor geneseed, we ALSO know that the highlords following the Heresy forbid the use of it, beliving it was somehow tainted, thus suggests to me Gulliman viewed it as such, it would be a bit odd for him to hold that view if his legion ahd absorbed the genesons of failed legions

The point of this thread was to show the Emperor did force the Word Bearers to kneel with his power (that's what the book says, at least. Everything is told from unreliable narrators). There is no such thing as slave coding with Primarchs and Marines, and slave coding would not send the Word Bearers flying when the Eempror raised his voice (as I have quoted). I have seen 10 year olds with better debating skills than DarknessEternal. But feel free to go onto another topic here.

Onething123456 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

Anyone that knows the lore would never say the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions, the only piece of lore on that is, Dagatol just said the Ultramarines had a boost in numbers as a flippant remark, Torgal even said those are just rumours.

combined with the fact that even the writer of that passage said "for god's sake don't take it as holy writ it's 'proably not true"

Yup, though I think it would give Ultramarines some serious flavour if that was true. Doubt GW would ever allow it though.

Problem is that it's inconsistant with data we've seen on Gulliman, we know that he didn't want Cawl making Primaris Marines from traitor geneseed, we ALSO know that the highlords following the Heresy forbid the use of it, beliving it was somehow tainted, thus suggests to me Gulliman viewed it as such, it would be a bit odd for him to hold that view if his legion ahd absorbed the genesons of failed legions

The point of this thread was to show the Emperor did force the Word Bearers to kneel with his power (that's what the book says, at least. Everything is told from unreliable narrators). There is no such thing as slave coding with Primarchs and Marines, and slave coding would not send the Word Bearers flying when the Eempror raised his voice (as I have quoted). I have seen 10 year olds with better debating skills than DarknessEternal. But fee free to go onto another topic here.

The subject always changes on threads, they conclude themselves and then go back to the original subject. Buy the ticket take the rid.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
Every piece of 40k media with GW's stamp of approval is equaly valid, but none of it is necessarily true.

They're framed as being just legends, myths, reports, stories, rumors, memories, fairytales, historical documents or whatever, all fallible and biased - something that's meant to be background material, to provide context for players own characters.

That's the point of 40k. But the Perpetuals were written whether you want them to be or not. And Voltstagge on Reddit explained why he thinks Perpetual Oll Persson works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mellow wrote:
Some examples that make it easy for me to understand.

The Emperor made a Legion kneel with a single telepathic command. This is lore/canon

Some traitors think the Ultramarines absorbed the 2 missing Legions to swell their numbers. This is lore/canon that they think it but in universe opinion so not proven fact

There is a difference between in universe fact and characters having opinions. Much like the horrendous thread talking about Molech it is absolutely fact and lore that Horus and The Emperor went into the Realm of Chaos but it is opinion on what they did specifically. In broad terms both entered and came out with “more power” which is also fact/lore. Characters present have opinions on what happened or what they gained but without the main characters declaring it it’s all just gossip for forums to fight over.

The Emperor clearly made the Word Bearers kneel as I showed in the underlined parts of my quotes. Only a troll or Jokester would deny that.

Heh. Wait... Perpetual old person. What a knee slapper GW!

While I'm not a big perpetual fan, for the Horus Emperor battle to make sense with how both have been re-characterized something has to be tweaked. It's increasingly clear that Horus is having brief moments of doubts and that will play a bigger role than before. At the same time with how the Big E has been written, i'm not buying I want my favorite kid back. He's lately been shown to not give much of dam about any of them or people in general for that matter except the big picture.

I never really bought that the man who ordered billions to the slaughter would hold back after Horus murdered Sang, but lose it when Horus killed some random guardsmen. Additionally I don't recall guardsmen being able to survive IOM teleportation. I'm not sure how they are going to have it play out but the original story doesn't work even before the perpetual change.