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.

It's not valid because IT'S MADE UP! "Personal beliefs"? You are ridiculous.

Omegus wrote:It's not valid because IT'S MADE UP!

Prove me that that's made up.

See attached file. See your face. See your face getting owned by attached file.

There are no timeline charts in that book, and there are no mentions of any dates except the Emperor's birth in Anatolia 8000BC.

Yes. He also gives support to his Imperium through miracles and etc.


Lost and the Damned is pretty old lore. Do you have anything more recent, or is this still staying in the nebulous "we're not sure if this is canon anymore" area?

Old lore still beats completely random number made up by wiki contributors.

Omegus wrote:Old lore still beats completely random number made up by wiki contributors.

True, but not by much. Things get retconned all the time.

Well, according to multiple quotes from various figureheads and authors at GW and BL (Lynata I believe has assembled them into a thread on this forum), all 40K fluff is fluid and nothing is ever truly retconned, since authors are pretty free to interpret the material as they wish.

In this case, we have no other source from either GW or BL that gives a timeline for the awakening of the Chaos Gods. The most recent document published in the subject, the Liber Chaotica (2005), has a description of Khorne's birth as a period of madness, and mentions kings and princes, swords and horsemen, also hinting at a medieval setting. Although when we consider that document is meant for Warhammer Fantasy, it's probably less relevant to the topic at hand than Lost and the Damned.

"Not by much" indeed. And I'm surprised to see such a blase attitude about retcons coming from someone who rages daily about the demotion of the Ordos Major. Hey, the Sororitas are actually an entire army of well-trained dominatrix prostitutes that secretly worship Slaanesh. Sure, I just made that up and am contradicted by written material, but hey, things get retconned all the time.

Omegus wrote:(Lynata I believe has assembled them into a thread on this forum)

Knowing Lynata's convoluted and off-putting definition of canon, let's not rely too much on her statements

Omegus wrote:all 40K fluff is fluid and nothing is ever truly retconned, since authors are pretty free to interpret the material as they wish.

Which also applies to its readers, pretty much.

Omegus wrote:"Not by much" indeed. And I'm surprised to see such a blase attitude about retcons coming from someone who rages daily about the demotion of the Ordos Major.

Who's that?

Melissia wrote:

Omegus wrote:(Lynata I believe has assembled them into a thread on this forum)

Knowing Lynata's convoluted and off-putting definition of canon, let's not rely too much on her statements

While I don't agree with her (Lynata is a she?) stance on canon, the quotes in that thread come directly from the GW/BL folks.

Omegus wrote:all 40K fluff is fluid and nothing is ever truly retconned, since authors are pretty free to interpret the material as they wish.

Which also applies to its readers, pretty much.

But again, cherry-picking and interpreting from the written material is very different from spouting a complete fabrication as an unassailable fact.

Omegus wrote:"Not by much" indeed. And I'm surprised to see such a blase attitude about retcons coming from someone who rages daily about the demotion of the Ordos Major.

Who's that?

Omegus wrote:While I don't agree with her (Lynata is a she?) stance on canon, the quotes in that thread come directly from the GW/BL folks.

As far as I can tell. I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Omegus wrote:But again, cherry-picking and interpreting from the written material is very different from spouting a complete fabrication as an unassailable fact.

Yeah, I don't think Lexicanum is a good source for debates either. It's better to look at the sources it cites instead.

Omegus wrote:I seem to remember a not so recent thread where you were all and over the fact that the number of major orders have been reduced by more recent fluff. I don't recall the exact details.

They weren't reduced. I was commenting on the fact that the rulebook had a typographical error in it where it said there were only three major orders instead of six. The new WD book says six as well, so it obviously wasn't retconned-- rather, it was simply evidence that Matt Ward wasn't paying attention.

Omegus wrote:See attached file. See your face. See your face getting owned by attached file.

There are no timeline charts in that book, and there are no mentions of any dates except the Emperor's birth in Anatolia 8000BC.

you just proven my point right. It said "by the end of Middle ages all three became fully consciouness". And the middle ages end in 1500. Adn that is 500.M2.
Thank you for proving my post

Brother Coa wrote: And they were born in year 2500, when they became fully sentient, their presence started to form in the years 8000 BC to 1400 AD, but they became fully sentient after year 2500 ( then they were born.

Thank you for apparently not knowing what you yourself write.

I mistaken 2'nd millennium for year 2000, silly me
But I was right all along nevertheless.

Even if we dismiss the 2500 as a typo that meant 1500, you're still wrong, since you said they became fully sentient on/after that date (you contradicted yourself within the same sentence, well done, you really don't know what the hell you're writing).

And if we want to be really pedantic, the Middle Ages didn't end in the year 1500.

Omegus wrote:Even if we dismiss the 2500 as a typo that meant 1500, you're still wrong, since you said they became fully sentient on/after that date (you contradicted yourself within the same sentence, well done, you really don't know what the hell you're writing). The text you provide say that they became fully sentiend by the end of middle ages, there is no way that they can became fully later - because it's not end but that's already new age. You to seems to not know what you are telling.

And if we want to be really pedantic, the Middle Ages didn't end in the year 1500.

Well you can chose:

Guthenberg's invention of press - 1450.
Fall of Constantinople - 1453.
Discovery of America - 1492.

Every historian take one of those 3 as the end of middle ages ( and I didn't imagine this, this is waht I actually learn in school on History class ).
Still, 1500 is 1500.

Let's keep our disagreements a bit more polite and friendly, shall we? We're all here to enjoy discussing our hobby.

Stay friendly, folks. -Mannahnin

Please remember that the purpose of the forum is to have fun discusing our hobby. If you're not having fun, and you're geting annoyed and/or feel the desire to insult another person, or sarcastically question their comprehension of English, you should probably take a break, or have a cold beer, or otherwise relax and get some perspective and bear in mind that the point is relaxation and fun.

You know Mannahnin, you should make a special rule or new forum place for people asking claims, proofs, sources etc...

The issue to do with things like the Laxanicum and any Wiki is that unless a specific source is cited, there's nothing to say it isnt just pulled out of someones ass.

Ovion wrote:The issue to do with things like the Laxanicum and any Wiki is that unless a specific source is cited, there's nothing to say it isnt just pulled out of someones ass.

And even if a source is cited, most wiki editors work with paraphrasing instead of direct quotes to bring information from different sources into line - which may create a warped image depending on how the individual user editing the article has interpreted the available info. You'd be surprised how often it pays off actually checking a source mentioned in an article.
That, and then there's the question of canonicity, i.e. the right of a freelancing author working under license to simply rewrite background established by the studio. As far as I know, Lexicanum treats anything ever published anywhere as canon, which introduces a whole lot of contradictions that then invite speculation and, again, interpretation, which then gets picked up as fact by other readers.

So basically Lexicanum is like GW?

Melissia wrote:So basically Lexicanum is like GW?

This post is so fun of win

Melissia wrote:So basically Lexicanum is like GW?

Yep