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.
Quite possibly true, but applying the average American rate of injury and violence to an alien race might be a little tenuous. For instance, I have trouble imagining a race as supposedly acrobatic and graceful as the eldar slipping in the shower or falling down the stairs
It is a definite consideration though, good point immortal =/= invulnerable.
Ynneadwraith wrote: Quite possibly true, but applying the average American rate of injury and violence to an alien race might be a little tenuous. For instance, I have trouble imagining a race as supposedly acrobatic and graceful as the eldar slipping in the shower or falling down the stairs
True, but then again these are peace time numbers. And we know that in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war. If my games are any indication, being drafted as a guardian is basically a death sentence....
Good points, and before I thought much into it I did think it was odd that a dying race would only provide its citizens with 5+ armour...
I think it was someone here on dakka that pointed it out (I think in a conversation about why eldar don't use camo on their vehicles). The eldar outlook is, truly, very little like ours. We're told that their myths and legends are interwoven with their very speech, and the way that they consistently refer back to their myths for guidance in present day decisions.
To an eldar mind, their myths and their current existence are one and the same. Inseparable.
For the eldar, warfare isn't experienced in the same way as us. For them, their struggles are the struggles of heroes in the distant past, replayed over and over again as the cycles repeat. They are forever re-living the mythic cycles of their past as they apply to the present day.
In the context of that, all the bright heraldry, fluttering banners, and the light and gracile armour make sense.
Someone says "Space Marines are a lie and have never existed in the 40K universe. The Primarchs, Emperor, and the whole Imperium are total lies and don't exist."
Do you accept this? If no, then you have just shown there is a canon for you to be able to definitively say that "No, this is not true." for anything at all in the 40K universe.
Not canon, fluff I can say 'that is highly unlikely to be true, given the body of evidence I can demonstrate'. However, if someone could put together a convincing case to show that, in fact, Space Marines might not exist then personally I'm not at liberty to tell them they're definitely wrong.
Ah but the "no canon" people take the stance of everything and nothing being true, so there is no such thing as evidence since you cannot prove the evidence to be true either. By that, then you cannot prove the existence of Space Marines, the Primarchs, the Emperor, or the Imperium.
Ynneadwraith wrote: Good points, and before I thought much into it I did think it was odd that a dying race would only provide its citizens with 5+ armour...
I think it was someone here on dakka that pointed it out (I think in a conversation about why eldar don't use camo on their vehicles). The eldar outlook is, truly, very little like ours. We're told that their myths and legends are interwoven with their very speech, and the way that they consistently refer back to their myths for guidance in present day decisions.
To an eldar mind, their myths and their current existence are one and the same. Inseparable.
That is not that alien of an outlook really. There are languages on Earth now (Chinese for example) that are filled with sayings that derive from historical events hundreds or even thousands of years ago. The sayings themselves cannot be fully appreciated without the historical context and knowledge, and a literal translation may seem nonsensical or flat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/27 08:21:26
Ah but the "no canon" people take the stance of everything and nothing being true, so there is no such thing as evidence since you cannot prove the evidence to be true either. By that, then you cannot prove the existence of Space Marines, the Primarchs, the Emperor, or the Imperium.
I agree that that's probably not their intention by saying that anything we come up with is as valid as that written by the GW writers. I expect that the intention of that is to add validity to 'your dudes' writing, which is a brilliant idea and improves one of the core aspects of 40k: that it's about 'your dudes'.
Of course you can't prove their existence. The only thing you can do is say 'look, if they don't exist then how does all this other stuff happen?' and then watch them try to reel off a list of increasingly tenuous reasons to justify their outlook. It's an exercise in likelihood. It is extremely unlikely that Space Marines don't exist, given what we know. It is more likely that Drazhar is Arhra, given what we know.
None of that devalues the work you do providing direct quotes though, but it allows us to reconcile 10,000yr old Eldrad and 1000-2000yr eldar lifespans.
Yes it's a patch over lazy writing, but in the absence of quality writing across the board it's as close a remedy as we've got
That is not that alien of an outlook really. There are languages on Earth now (Chinese for example) that are filled with sayings that derive from historical events hundreds or even thousands of years ago. The sayings themselves cannot be fully appreciated without the historical context and knowledge, and a literal translation may seem nonsensical or flat.
As I was writing that I was thinking that it's not actually that different. In english even, we have phrases and idioms that relate to significant events in our history which flummox people trying to learn our language.
However, the fact that it's brought up specifically in the eldar fluff implies that it weighs much greater in the eldar psyche.
I should say that I don't think it's outright stated in a codex that they truly believe they are within one of their mythic cycles, but it's a neat theory that enriches their background, that isn't contradicted by any other fluff so has a decent likelihood of being true.
Someone says "Space Marines are a lie and have never existed in the 40K universe. The Primarchs, Emperor, and the whole Imperium are total lies and don't exist."
Do you accept this? If no, then you have just shown there is a canon for you to be able to definitively say that "No, this is not true." for anything at all in the 40K universe.
There are plenty of people in universe that doubt the existence of Space Marines. Who is to say they are the wrong ones?
Of course you can't prove their existence. The only thing you can do is say 'look, if they don't exist then how does all this other stuff happen?' and then watch them try to reel off a list of increasingly tenuous reasons to justify their outlook.
Propaganda. All those battles supposedly won by these Marines on faraway worlds either never happened or were won by Imperial Guard and then ascribed to nonexistent superhumans. Anyone who claims they saw one is either a liar, mentally unwell, or part of the propaganda conspiracy.
Not really that "tenuous". This is precisely the problem if one takes the stance of denying any such thing as fixed immutable facts in the 40K universe. Any nonsense becomes equally justifiable since there are no such things as evidence and no basis on which to judge tenuous or reliable if anything and everything is equally true and false simultaneously. At that point you don't have a setting, but just incoherent nonsense around which it is impossible to have any discussion since there would be no common ground that everyone could agree upon.
There is a difference between having a de facto imperfect canon with areas of conflicts and inconsistencies vs. taking the stance that there are no true facts knowable about anything in 40K.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/27 14:46:14
HH novels are first person, the characters thoughts and feelings from "inside his head" so are canon
Index Astartes are Historical and written after the fact, so are mutable, not quite as canon, if at all.
call it the chain of belief if you want, because otherwise If we go by your logic iracundas, then nothing, anywhere, in anything is true or "canon" as we were not there to witness it ourselves, and even if we had been.... id bet youd still say its false
Formosa wrote: First person ---> Second hand ----> Historical
HH novels are first person, the characters thoughts and feelings from "inside his head" so are canon
Index Astartes are Historical and written after the fact, so are mutable, not quite as canon, if at all.
call it the chain of belief if you want, because otherwise If we go by your logic iracundas, then nothing, anywhere, in anything is true or "canon" as we were not there to witness it ourselves, and even if we had been.... id bet youd still say its false
It is just how information is presented. Story being told in first person mode don't make it any more true. The Odyssey has long stretches of first person narrative while the Histories by Herodotus does not. It doesn't make the former more reliable account of ancient Greek history.
Personally I take studio fluff (codices, BRB) over BL fluff, as it tends to be less stupid and more consistent (with certain notable exceptions *glares at Mat Ward*.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sonic Keyboard wrote: In some hh bookI've read, it is stated that marines can live infinitely long without aging, if they dont get killed in battle.
Some people take that as a gospel and it has been debated several times, but I regard it is a mistake (it can even be an in-character mistake by the person saying it in the book, as at the time of HH marines had existed only a short period of time, so it is possible that their ageing was not properly understood.)
In the studio fluff marines definitely age. Ortan Cassius is considered old at nearing four hundrerd, it is stated that marines have lifespans of several times of a normal man. Furthermore, it has been said that Blood Angels and their successors have longer lifespans than other marines, and they can live over thousand years. Dante being oldest loyalist marine alive at 1100+ years. So based on this information, I'd say normal maximum lifespan of a non-BA marine is something like five or six hundred. The studio fluff is pretty consistent on this.
Now, in next post someone will tell us how in some BL book there was a ten thousand year old marine (who ripped apart an eldar titan with his bare hands, no doubt.) And sure, if one wan't to go with that, they can. But I personally stick with the studio fluff as it has been pretty consistent on the issue over several decades.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/11/27 18:16:56
Propaganda. All those battles supposedly won by these Marines on faraway worlds either never happened or were won by Imperial Guard and then ascribed to nonexistent superhumans. Anyone who claims they saw one is either a liar, mentally unwell, or part of the propaganda conspiracy.
Iracundus wrote: This is precisely the problem if one takes the stance of denying any such thing as fixed immutable facts in the 40K universe. Any nonsense becomes equally justifiable since there are no such things as evidence and no basis on which to judge tenuous or reliable if anything and everything is equally true and false simultaneously. At that point you don't have a setting, but just incoherent nonsense around which it is impossible to have any discussion since there would be no common ground that everyone could agree upon.
There is a difference between having a de facto imperfect canon with areas of conflicts and inconsistencies vs. taking the stance that there are no true facts knowable about anything in 40K.
I think, we're arguing a similar point here, actually. I'm not actually arguing that anything and everything is equally true or false simultaneously, but that there are differing levels of suspicion that should be applied to fluff. You don't need to have immutable facts for common consensus to decide something is true and enable a discussion around a coherent universe.
For instance, I'm perfectly happy to let people believe that there are no Space Marines, they're all propaganda. If that's what they want to believe then let them personally, I think that would detract from the setting so I most certainly won't agree with them, and nor would the majority of 40k players either. Thus, I can have a decent discussion with the majority of people about Space Mariney things on the (very likey) assumption that Space Marines do in fact exist.
There will always be people who take things to extremes with this sort of thing, but it's too valuable of a mechanism to abandon in favour of comic-book-like 'canon and non-canon'.
Formosa wrote: First person ---> Second hand ----> Historical
HH novels are first person, the characters thoughts and feelings from "inside his head" so are canon
Index Astartes are Historical and written after the fact, so are mutable, not quite as canon, if at all.
call it the chain of belief if you want, because otherwise If we go by your logic iracundas, then nothing, anywhere, in anything is true or "canon" as we were not there to witness it ourselves, and even if we had been.... id bet youd still say its false
It is just how information is presented. Story being told in first person mode don't make it any more true. The Odyssey has long stretches of first person narrative while the Histories by Herodotus does not. It doesn't make the former more reliable account of ancient Greek history.
Personally I take studio fluff (codices, BRB) over BL fluff, as it tends to be less stupid and more consistent (with certain notable exceptions *glares at Mat Ward*.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sonic Keyboard wrote: In some hh bookI've read, it is stated that marines can live infinitely long without aging, if they dont get killed in battle.
Some people take that as gospel and it has been debated several times, but I regard it is a mistake (it can even be an in-character mistake by the person saying it in the book, as at the time of HH marines had existed only a short period of time, so it is possible that their ageing was not properly understood.)
In the studio fluff marines definitely age. Ortan Cassius is considered old at nearing four hundrerd, it is stated that marines have lifespans of several times of a normal man. Furthermore, it has been said that Blood Angels and their successors have longer lifespans than other marines, and thy can live over thousand years. Dante being oldest loyalist marine alive at 1100+ years. So based on this information, I'd say normal maximum lifespan of a non-BA marine is something like five or six hundred. The studio fluff is pretty consistent on this.
Now, in next post someone will tell us how in some BL book there was a ten thousand year old marine (who ripped apart an eldar titan with his bare hands, no doubt.) And sure, if one wan't to go with that, they can. But I personally stick with the studio fluff as it has been pretty consistent on the issue over several decades.
See, I like this. It's smart thinking, and allows me to construct the setting of 40k exactly how it pleases me. It doesn't matter if that's different to a Marine-fanboy who fervently wants to believe that Marines are immortal. It's his setting too.
I can present my evidence, and say that it's unlikely that they actually are, but he doesn't have to believe me due to the quality of information, either could be true. It's just which one is more likely.
Formosa wrote: First person ---> Second hand ----> Historical
HH novels are first person, the characters thoughts and feelings from "inside his head" so are canon
Index Astartes are Historical and written after the fact, so are mutable, not quite as canon, if at all.
call it the chain of belief if you want, because otherwise If we go by your logic iracundas, then nothing, anywhere, in anything is true or "canon" as we were not there to witness it ourselves, and even if we had been.... id bet youd still say its false
You seem to be mistaking my point. I am arguing against the "no canon" people because the endpoint of their reasoning that everything is true and also false is the collapse into nonsense as nothing can then be believed as true and nothing can be dismissed as false or too extreme. Even first person accounts can be written off as the fictional or at best unreliable recall after the fact of what happened or what people were thinking. For the fictional 40K universe, that would mean nothing can be known as there can be no direct personal witnessing. Everything we know about the 40K universe comes from other accounts (either in or out of character).
Clearly GW have a de facto canon in operation with major facts set down even though details may not be fully fleshed out or fixed. GW clearly does not accept certain extreme premises such as the non-existence of Space Marines or the Imperium. Gascoigne's cop out excuse was just intellectual laziness to avoid having to think or make decisions about whether stories were true or good or bad. It is as ridiculous as if someone asked him in broad daylight whether the sun was shining. By his excuse reasoning his answer would be "Yes, no, maybe. Maybe all of the above at once." That is not being "deep" yet people seem to lap up that excuse as if BL and GW were being "oh so deep" with their refusal to admit whether anything at all were true or false.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/28 01:17:44
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Crimson wrote: Personally I take studio fluff (codices, BRB) over BL fluff, as it tends to be less stupid and more consistent (with certain notable exceptions *glares at Mat Ward*.)
You are similar to me (and indeed just about everybody else) in that we pick our stances based on preference rather than a specific metric. You lend a greater but unspecified weight to the studio lore compared to BL, except the studio lore you don't like.
You are not wrong in deciding to do this and picking your own preferred interpretion seems to me to be exactly what GW intended with 'there is no canon'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 01:46:56
immortal =/= invulnerable.
