Switch Theme:

About the Iron Cage  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





Karol wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Inconsistencies in the fluff are the rule, not the exception. For starters, GW has little interest in 100% accurate, gospel truth about the history of the 40k universe. Especially events from the early days, which by year 40k would be myths more than histories anyway.


That sounds like a convinient excuse for not wanting to fact check their stuff or have lore proof readers for their books. Practicaly the same way as they write their rules. The rules guys can always say, that they didn't think people would play the game that way, and the book writers can always say that everything is only half truths. Kind of a hard to build a believable living world, if everything can be a lie. Practicaly everything can be true then, even fan fiction.


Karol, the idea of the unreliable narrator is hardly unique to warhammer 40k. it's an old litiary device, it's not lazy, as noted the original Iron Cage story had both sides written by the same fething person. the idea behind it is to make you question things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/28 22:37:32


Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Karol wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Inconsistencies in the fluff are the rule, not the exception. For starters, GW has little interest in 100% accurate, gospel truth about the history of the 40k universe. Especially events from the early days, which by year 40k would be myths more than histories anyway.


That sounds like a convinient excuse for not wanting to fact check their stuff or have lore proof readers for their books. Practicaly the same way as they write their rules. The rules guys can always say, that they didn't think people would play the game that way, and the book writers can always say that everything is only half truths. Kind of a hard to build a believable living world, if everything can be a lie. Practicaly everything can be true then, even fan fiction.


Sure it is convenient. That doesn't make it bad. And it's not like everything in 40k lore is shrouded in confusion. Generally speaking, more third person descritpions, such as the process of becoming a space marine, are more reliable than "in universe" stories about battles or events.

Karol wrote:I don't know what your dudes suppose to mean. But to me reading a book, and then reading another that says everything was different, and then another one that say everything was different yet, sound hell confusing.

clear cut stuff is much better. I mean what is the function of lore, if there is no core canon? why waste pages in a codex or rule book on it, when you could invent your own and it would be just as real.



Do yourself a favor, and don't watch Twin Peaks.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
God-like Imperator Titan Commander





Halifax

To be fair, people tend to like consistency in their fiction because it's an escape from the inconsistent and confusing real world.
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





Nurglitch wrote:
To be fair, people tend to like consistency in their fiction because it's an escape from the inconsistent and confusing real world.


that and among geeks at leat poeople love to remember the settings lore, and regurgitate it on command to prove how "big a fan they are"

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




All cults or religions work like that. Memorising the message gives you a higher status in the group. Kind of a hard to do that, when the "holy" texts are just opinion. Too much wiggle room.


the idea behind it is to make you question things.

question what? I understand we don't know what vulkan is doing right now. Maybe he is dead, maybe he is swiming through the warp, maybe he went all gardner on some back water planet.

I even get someone writing that one group thinks this, and another this something else, about the same thing. If, there is also explanation how something was for real. Otherwise, we get something like star wars, where new stuff makes no sense within the same star wars universe.


That doesn't make it bad. And it's not like everything in 40k lore is shrouded in confusion.

Well with stuff, like Cawl and primaris, what is true and not bad. If GW can just change the lore, if they want to. This again works like the new star war movies. If basic things work different in two different books, and there is no third book or narrator that tells the truth. Then for me it is bad, and lazy. It is good for writers, because they can do anything with lore, as long as the company doesn't tell them no.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 18:52:06


 
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





except the iron cage isn't basic things working differant. it's a matter of two different interpretions of a battle fought 10 thousand years ago. differant sides have differant interpretations of history all the time. Dunkirk is an excellent example, The British Claim it was a victory of sorts for them, because despite the sisution they managed to pull back the British army in pretty good shape from france etc. Meawhile the germans obviously saw it as a victory for them, they'd pushed the British expeditionary force into the sea.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

It's over a decade too late to complain about this. Since at least 5th edition the Iron Cage battle has been retconned from a total route of the Fists with Guilliman saving them at the last minute, to the IW having the advantage but underestimating the Fist's resolve.

You don't have to like it of course, but it's just weird to me that people are acting like this is new fluff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/29 19:19:18


 
   
Made in us
God-like Imperator Titan Commander





Halifax

BrianDavion wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
To be fair, people tend to like consistency in their fiction because it's an escape from the inconsistent and confusing real world.


that and among geeks at leat poeople love to remember the settings lore, and regurgitate it on command to prove how "big a fan they are"


Wouldn't be geeks if the conversation wasn't mostly reciting the lore.
   
Made in us
Furious Raptor




New Orleans

On the note of being able to write a good losing battle, “Storm of Iron” was a great book for that. If you had to guess the truth I’d say it would be along those lines with a lot of back and forth until the end where it gets one sided.

It’s should hardly surprise anyone if GW keeps walking back space marine defeats though. Ask the necron players how they feel about Damnos or Tyranid players about the Swarmlord rematch with Calgar.

Iron within, Iron without 
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
On the note of being able to write a good losing battle, “Storm of Iron” was a great book for that. If you had to guess the truth I’d say it would be along those lines with a lot of back and forth until the end where it gets one sided.

It’s should hardly surprise anyone if GW keeps walking back space marine defeats though. Ask the necron players how they feel about Damnos or Tyranid players about the Swarmlord rematch with Calgar.


rematches aren't exactly walk backs.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in gb
Aspirant Tech-Adept




UK

BrianDavion wrote:
except the iron cage isn't basic things working differant. it's a matter of two different interpretions of a battle fought 10 thousand years ago. differant sides have differant interpretations of history all the time. Dunkirk is an excellent example, The British Claim it was a victory of sorts for them, because despite the sisution they managed to pull back the British army in pretty good shape from france etc. Meawhile the germans obviously saw it as a victory for them, they'd pushed the British expeditionary force into the sea.


Just a note on Dunkirk, we never saw it as a victory, even at the time. It was spun into a victory for the morale of the British people at the time. Probably a lot like how the glorious Imperial Fists were able to beat Perturabo at his own game, despite all of the IW advantages.

Imperial Soup
2200pts/1750 painted
2800pts/1200 painted
2200pts/650 painted
217pts/151 painted 
   
Made in de
Gangly Grot Rebel




Nickin' 'ur stuff

phillv85 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
except the iron cage isn't basic things working differant. it's a matter of two different interpretions of a battle fought 10 thousand years ago. differant sides have differant interpretations of history all the time. Dunkirk is an excellent example, The British Claim it was a victory of sorts for them, because despite the sisution they managed to pull back the British army in pretty good shape from france etc. Meawhile the germans obviously saw it as a victory for them, they'd pushed the British expeditionary force into the sea.


Just a note on Dunkirk, we never saw it as a victory, even at the time. It was spun into a victory for the morale of the British people at the time. Probably a lot like how the glorious Imperial Fists were able to beat Perturabo at his own game, despite all of the IW advantages.


In a similar way Dan Abnett talks about the differences in the Horus Heresy books about Prospero, that history is seen differently depending who you'll ask and who won.

http://voxcastpodcast.com/voxcast-episode-9-dan-abnett

at 0:55 he starts talking about the relativity of a story.

Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:
Latter 40k has moved to more of an omniscient, third person narrative, which I personally think is a shame because the unreliable narrators inherent in the fluff through about 4th edition were a big part of the charm.

That is a personal opinion I happen to disagree with strongly. Events can be open to interpretation sure, which is fine. What isn't fine is sources differing on the facts of what actually happened. How can you build a coherent story/setting off of ambiguities like that? It is a foolish attempt to placate all sides of the story through offering "multiple viewpoints", but just ends up undermining the coherency of the narrative IMO.

Reading 3 different books that all give wildly differing accounts of the same events is BS and shouldn't be able to be excused by claiming "unreliable narrator" IMO.

Karol wrote:
That sounds like a convinient excuse for not wanting to fact check their stuff or have lore proof readers for their books. Practicaly the same way as they write their rules. The rules guys can always say, that they didn't think people would play the game that way, and the book writers can always say that everything is only half truths. Kind of a hard to build a believable living world, if everything can be a lie. Practicaly everything can be true then, even fan fiction.

Holy crap. This x1000.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 16:00:01


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




w1zard wrote:
What isn't fine is sources differing on the facts of what actually happened.


You're gonna have a real hard time with...

checks notes

the real world then my dude. Eyewitness accounts, historical manuscripts, oral traditions et al. are rampant with incomplete, conflicting and downright contradictory information. Humans are by definition fallible. What they record is by definition equally fallible.
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





w1zard wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Latter 40k has moved to more of an omniscient, third person narrative, which I personally think is a shame because the unreliable narrators inherent in the fluff through about 4th edition were a big part of the charm.

That is a personal opinion I happen to disagree with strongly. Events can be open to interpretation sure, which is fine. What isn't fine is sources differing on the facts of what actually happened. How can you build a coherent story/setting off of ambiguities like that? It is a foolish attempt to placate all sides of the story through offering "multiple viewpoints", but just ends up undermining the coherency of the narrative IMO.

Reading 3 different books that all give wildly differing accounts of the same events is BS and shouldn't be able to be excused by claiming "unreliable narrator" IMO.


you're obviously not a history student, if you where you'd realize that in real life this happens all the time.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Kildare, Ireland

 Duskweaver wrote:

Uhhh, no. Pete Haines wrote both versions of the Iron Cage incident at the same time back in 2001, and they were first published a mere 3 months apart in WD 256 (for the IW version where Perturabo wins daemonhood and Dorn has to be ignominiously rescued by Guilliman) and 259 (for the IF version where Perturabo fails to finish off the Fists and Dorn succeeds in cleansing his legion of doubt). Pete deliberately wrote them as the biased and self-justifying interpretations of the same event from two opposing points of view. This way of writing fluff was very much 'how it was done' in 3rd edition, a very deliberate contrast to the third-person-omniscient style of 2nd edition background material.


This bears repeating.
In 3rd ed slim chaos codex Kharn the Betrayer entry, there was a sidebar that was supposed to be an Imperial file on Kharn- it said 'cross reference BA Black Rage'. This was intended to portray an Inquisitor or some functionary drawing parallel between the guys in red power armour who run screaming into the enemy and tear them apart ferociously while frothing at the mouth. Its an in universe opinion and is not authoritatively stating that the Blood Angels are corrupted by Khorne.

The communications delay, knowledge hoarding, redaction and suppression in 40k means that no-one is 100% sure of what happened whenever. You might say 'let's trust the guys who were there, rather than the guys who got their version 3rd hand from a corrupt regime', but the guys who were there have been marinating in cosmic, sentient, evil madness for 10,000 years.

This is meant to be liberating- as you can have an Ironwarrior who was a sergeant who led men to victory in the Iron cage- claiming a ton of trophies. Meanwhile you can have an IF dreadnought who remembers the story told to him by his siege captain who drove the Iron warriors off the planet and captured several rare artillery pieces/maguffins which now are part of the Phalanx defence systems/trophyroom.
   
Made in it
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




True that it was written from multiple pow, and in time it changed from a total IF debacle to a sort of a draw.

Still, I see how they are now trying to make 40k "safe".
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sterling191 wrote:
You're gonna have a real hard time with...

checks notes

the real world then my dude. Eyewitness accounts, historical manuscripts, oral traditions et al. are rampant with incomplete, conflicting and downright contradictory information. Humans are by definition fallible. What they record is by definition equally fallible.

This isn't the real world, this is 40k. I go to escapism to get away from that kind of ambiguity. Most novels are written in the form of omniscient narrator, not in the form of eyewitness account with the accompanying warning of bias.

Not even knowing the truth of what REALLY happened during a specific event in the lore is not intriguing to me, it's annoying.

BrianDavion wrote:
you're obviously not a history student, if you where you'd realize that in real life this happens all the time.

Again, this isn't a history class, it is a fictional universe made for entertainment. Having almost every event be "ambiguous" doesn't make it interesting or give it depth, it makes it a poorly written setting... Especially since that "ambiguousness" often isn't a conscious choice, but rather a way to avoid having to have a structured canon.

Even historians IRL try to eliminate conflicting accounts that they believe to be unlikely and try to come up with the truth of what actually happened.

A collection of loosely related short stories and conflicting accounts does not a setting make.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/11/02 02:20:53


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

w1zard wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
You're gonna have a real hard time with...

checks notes

the real world then my dude. Eyewitness accounts, historical manuscripts, oral traditions et al. are rampant with incomplete, conflicting and downright contradictory information. Humans are by definition fallible. What they record is by definition equally fallible.

This isn't the real world, this is 40k. I go to escapism to get away from that kind of ambiguity. Most novels are written in the form of omniscient narrator, not in the form of eyewitness account with the accompanying warning of bias.

Not even knowing the truth of what REALLY happened during a specific event in the lore is not intriguing to me, it's annoying.
Novels, yes, but we haven't seen the Iron Cage depicted in a novel yet.

I'm inclined to believe whatever is shown to us in a novel as truthful (obviously bearing context in mind - so something someone *claims* in a novel isn't necessarily true, but when we see someone *doing* something, that is true). However, the battle reports and accounts of things that we see in the Codexes and stuff? They're not exactly comprehensive.

There's a really cool one I've seen that ties the IH, IF and RG supplements together. It all describes the same battle, but from the perspective of each faction. Basically, there's an Imperial world under siege from Orks. The Imperial Fists get there first, and hold the line. Then the Iron Hands arrive, but only to claim a relic that has been powering the city's defence shields, and would rather just steal the relic than help the IF defend the city. The Imperial Fists are portrayed as illogical and suicidal in the IH book, and the IH are portrayed as cowardly and selfish in the IF book. They come to blows, but the relic overloads and self-destructs. They reluctantly put aside their differences as some Raven Guard arrive and together, they fight off the Orks.
However, we see that the Raven Guard were actually there first, and found out about the Iron Hands' relic. When the two Chapters came to blows over it, the Raven Guard destroyed the relic themselves, and forced the two to stop fighting, before revealing themselves.

While the actual facts of the story vary on who you listen to, the incident roughly turns out the same each way. Same with the Iron Cage - Imperial Fists caught in the Iron Cage, both take heavy heavy losses, Guilliman reinforces Dorn, Perturabo ascends to daemonhood.

BrianDavion wrote:
you're obviously not a history student, if you where you'd realize that in real life this happens all the time.

Again, this isn't a history class, it is a fictional universe made for entertainment. Having almost every event be "ambiguous" doesn't make it interesting or give it depth, it makes it a poorly written setting... Especially since that "ambiguousness" often isn't a conscious choice, but rather a way to avoid having to have a structured canon.
Alternatively, a great many people find the open-ended nature of 40k canon to be refreshing and something they like.

Even historians IRL try to eliminate conflicting accounts that they believe to be unlikely and try to come up with the truth of what actually happened.
Yes, they do. And we're doing the same here - taking the existing accounts of an event we haven't yet witnessed through the eyes of someone actually there (ie, through a novel), comparing them, and attempting to come to a conclusion. Sure, there might not be a definitive answer just yet, but we just need to wait for better evidence.

A collection of loosely related short stories and conflicting accounts does not a setting make.
Strange, that's how 40k started.

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Most novels are written in the form of omniscient narrator, not in the form of eyewitness account with the accompanying warning of bias.

Not even knowing the truth of what REALLY happened during a specific event in the lore is not intriguing to me, it's annoying.
Novels, yes, but we haven't seen the Iron Cage depicted in a novel yet.

Even the novels routinely contradict each other. See for example, the massive differences in Perturabo's depiction between novels like Angel Exterminatus and the crap John French writes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Alternatively, a great many people find the open-ended nature of 40k canon to be refreshing and something they like.

Some people receive sexual gratification from being hit in the genitals, there is no accounting for taste...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Even historians IRL try to eliminate conflicting accounts that they believe to be unlikely and try to come up with the truth of what actually happened.
Yes, they do. And we're doing the same here - taking the existing accounts of an event we haven't yet witnessed through the eyes of someone actually there (ie, through a novel), comparing them, and attempting to come to a conclusion. Sure, there might not be a definitive answer just yet, but we just need to wait for better evidence.

And what if that never comes? 40k lore is filled with ambiguity and plot holes that never receive attention and are never featured in novelizations.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A collection of loosely related short stories and conflicting accounts does not a setting make.
Strange, that's how 40k started.

True, but it was also a parody setting at that point that nobody took seriously. It should be trying to evolve past that. A setting that doesn't take itself seriously is a setting that remains niche at best. Some 40k fans may be ok with that, but I am not and I want to see 40k become more mainstream.

The tighter a setting is in terms of canon, the better IMO. Now this doesn't mean that events aren't up to a certain amount of interpretation... but the events themselves and their sequencing should not be in question IMO.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/03 03:35:53


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
I don't know what your dudes suppose to mean. But to me reading a book, and then reading another that says everything was different, and then another one that say everything was different yet, sound hell confusing.

clear cut stuff is much better. I mean what is the function of lore, if there is no core canon? why waste pages in a codex or rule book on it, when you could invent your own and it would be just as real.



GW Lore is concept art, not a blue-print. Especially when we're talking about a time of legend, where everyone who would have been there has been dead for millennia.

And by having two different versions of the same story, you actually learn more about the two factions involved than you would from just looking at the casualty counts in order to pick a winner.
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





keep in mind part of 40k is that the heresy was so long ago it is shrouded in myth,and legend with half truths at best being the order of the day

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




w1zard wrote:

This isn't the real world, this is 40k. I go to escapism to get away from that kind of ambiguity. Most novels are written in the form of omniscient narrator, not in the form of eyewitness account with the accompanying warning of bias.

Not even knowing the truth of what REALLY happened during a specific event in the lore is not intriguing to me, it's annoying


Thats fine, everyone has their own taste. You're going to be exceptionally unhappy with 40k lore.

w1zard wrote:

Even historians IRL try to eliminate conflicting accounts that they believe to be unlikely and try to come up with the truth of what actually happened.


They most certainly do not. Destroying sources is anathema to any legitimate historian, and generally employed by those who want to manipulate or rewrite history for their own ends.

Now if what you meant to say was "historians analyze accounts, manuscripts, sources and other records and note which ones seem to conflict with others, and/or have reason to be suspect", then thats a different conversation entirely. Unreliable sources, especially if its possible to identify *why* its an unreliable source, are highly informative when looking at a broader view of a particular event.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 13:30:31


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




w1zard wrote:
w1zard wrote:
Even historians IRL try to eliminate conflicting accounts that they believe to be unlikely and try to come up with the truth of what actually happened.
They most certainly do not. Destroying sources is anathema to any legitimate historian, and generally employed by those who want to manipulate or rewrite history for their own ends.

You are willfully misinterpreting me for the purpose of scoring brownie points. You know full well that I didn't mean literally destroying historical sources but, rather discounting sources from consideration that have a high likelihood of being biased.

Sterling191 wrote:
Thats fine, everyone has their own taste. You're going to be exceptionally unhappy with 40k lore.

Hopefully not for long. The tables are turning in this regard (especially with the HH novels) and I look forward to 40k transforming more into an actualized, mature, sci-fi setting instead of existing as a collection of loosely related, and conflicting short stories.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/04 15:28:57


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




w1zard wrote:

You are willfully misinterpreting me for the purpose of scoring brownie points. You know full well that I didn't mean literally destroying historical sources but, rather discounting sources from consideration that have a high likelihood of being biased.


I know no such thing. I have quite literally only your words to interpret, and they were abundantly clear. If you dont want to be misunderstood, choose them better.

I would also very much like to know who's handing out these mythical "brownie points" that you think I'm angling for.

w1zard wrote:

Hopefully not for long. The tables are turning in this regard (especially with the HH novels) and I look forward to 40k transforming more into an actualized, mature, sci-fi setting instead of existing as a collection of loosely related, and conflicting short stories.


You're going to be waiting, and bitching, for a very long time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 15:33:24


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Custodes Shield Captain





Where ever the Emperor needs his eyes

w1zard wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Most novels are written in the form of omniscient narrator, not in the form of eyewitness account with the accompanying warning of bias.

Not even knowing the truth of what REALLY happened during a specific event in the lore is not intriguing to me, it's annoying.
Novels, yes, but we haven't seen the Iron Cage depicted in a novel yet.

Even the novels routinely contradict each other. See for example, the massive differences in Perturabo's depiction between novels like Angel Exterminatus and the crap John French writes.



If the John French descriptions are the most numerous, and the ones used as influences most often by other authors, then that would make Angel Exterminatus the less reliable source.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 16:51:54


 
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Jolly bringer of death and suspensions






Cozy cockpit of an Imperial Knight

Hey folks, kindly stay on topic and don't go about insulting one another.

Be ash and cinder forevermore!

V - 11 | T - 3 | 敗 - 40

DakkaDakka | Where you thank the mods for baning you! 
   
Made in gb
Rookie Pilot





I think the better question is, why after seeing what angron and fulgrim become and what happened to horus would Prety plan something to become a daemon

4th company 3000pts
3rd Navy drop Command 3000pts air cavalry
117th tank company 5500pts
2000pts 
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





goundry wrote:
I think the better question is, why after seeing what angron and fulgrim become and what happened to horus would Prety plan something to become a daemon

It's possiable he DIDN'T plan it, that said, it's suggested after the events of Angel Exterminatus he developed an intreast in understanding controling and harnessing chaos. he may have belived he had found the way too.

I really hope the Iron Cage is depicted in a book (or three)

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




goundry wrote:
I think the better question is, why after seeing what angron and fulgrim become and what happened to horus would Prety plan something to become a daemon

He saw their mistakes and thought he could avoid them? I think a big part of Chaos is a lot of people think they're outsmarting it right up until it all goes wrong.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Background
Go to: