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.
Dominica is one name I absolutely recognize. She is a Saint. She is not a Living Saint.
There is a difference.
'Living Saints' displayed miracles and were recognized by the Imperial Creed during their lifetime. Dominica had a revelation from the Emperor, defused Vandire's rebellion, and was the founder and overall leader of the Adepta Sororitas for several centuries. If she wasn't a Living Saint nobody is.
The "Living" part is kinda important. Sainthood is awarded post-humously.
I mean, you DO know that Celestine keeps showing up even after her death, right?
Resurrection is a 'miracle'. Whether it's the only one that qualifies you as a Living Saint isn't stated. For that matter whether Dominica ever died and was resurrected isn't stated, I've seen sources claiming she continued to lead the Sororitas from the front for several centuries and yet none of her battles have ever had novels telling us whether she has or hasn't died and been resurrected.
That said 'Saint' in real-world Catholicism is always awarded posthumously, but from the fact that 'Living Saint' is a designation that exists in 40k I think it's a safe assumption that not all Imperial Saints are dead when canonized, as well as not necessarily staying that way once they are. And proof of miracles is pretty easy to come by in 40k given that they tend to be pretty flashy.
Dominicia and her fellow Saints from the Vandire era all died. I remember reading descriptions of how they died.
None of them ever came back like Celestine did. That's why Celestine is a "Living Saint" and not just a "Saint." Because they are not the same thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 20:23:12
Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."
However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".
By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."
However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".
By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?
Uh...
I actually own the Witch Hunters Codex. And I read and re-read all the lore in it.
It's not like I'm a newbie. I don't have to rely on Lexicanum for this.
Pouncey wrote: ...Dominicia and her fellow Saints from the Vandire era all died. I remember reading descriptions of how they died.
None of them ever came back like Celestine did. That's why Celestine is a "Living Saint" and not just a "Saint." Because they are not the same thing.
On further research I'm finding that the writers can't make up their minds on the difference between 'Saint' and 'Living Saint,' characters are described as either or both interchangeably. It appears we've reached an impasse since the disagreement on this point is whether 'Living Saint' means 'canonized during their lifetime as a result of miracles performed' or 'auto-resurrects like Celestine' and there's no evidence either way.
That said as a secondary point on the subject of death/resurrection the only other unambiguous case of death/resurrection and the phrase 'Living Saint' getting stuck together I can find is Saint Sabbat, who was dead for 6,100 years or so before being resurrected/reincarnated (her first death was before there were Sisters of Battle), so it's entirely possible that many Imperial Saints are Living Saints in potentia in a king-under-the-mountain scenario waiting to be sent back where the Imperium needs them.
That or you could take the cynical/anti-Imperial-divinity explanation that 'reincarnation of an ancient hero' is bogus and said 'resurrected saints' are just tools of the Ecclesiarchy dressed up with fancy archaeotech and Celestine is sticking around more than the rest seem to because there's a cloning facility or stable of Celestine lookalikes kept somewhere (and the randomness of the resurrection on the field depends in part on whether they can get another Sister to the armour and get it started up in time).
I'm not advocating any specific explanation here, just trying to point out that the phenomenon of 'Living Saints' is a vague and ill-defined one, and most of the possible explanations would support there being quite a lot more than the few we're told about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."
However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".
By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?
Given that they may be ghosts and not actually resurrected? Probably not, no more than Madrak's Ghost Knights from the 5e GK book were a unit of Living Saints.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 20:46:28
Pouncey wrote: ...Dominicia and her fellow Saints from the Vandire era all died. I remember reading descriptions of how they died.
None of them ever came back like Celestine did. That's why Celestine is a "Living Saint" and not just a "Saint." Because they are not the same thing.
On further research I'm finding that the writers can't make up their minds on the difference between 'Saint' and 'Living Saint,' characters are described as either or both interchangeably. It appears we've reached an impasse since the disagreement on this point is whether 'Living Saint' means 'canonized during their lifetime as a result of miracles performed' or 'auto-resurrects like Celestine' and there's no evidence either way.
That said as a secondary point on the subject of death/resurrection the only other unambiguous case of death/resurrection and the phrase 'Living Saint' getting stuck together I can find is Saint Sabbat, who was dead for 6,100 years or so before being resurrected/reincarnated (her first death was before there were Sisters of Battle), so it's entirely possible that many Imperial Saints are Living Saints in potentia in a king-under-the-mountain scenario waiting to be sent back where the Imperium needs them.
That or you could take the cynical/anti-Imperial-divinity explanation that 'reincarnation of an ancient hero' is bogus and said 'resurrected saints' are just tools of the Ecclesiarchy dressed up with fancy archaeotech and Celestine is sticking around more than the rest seem to because there's a cloning facility or stable of Celestine lookalikes kept somewhere (and the randomness of the resurrection on the field depends in part on whether they can get another Sister to the armour and get it started up in time).
I'm not advocating any specific explanation here, just trying to point out that the phenomenon of 'Living Saints' is a vague and ill-defined one, and most of the possible explanations would support there being quite a lot more than the few we're told about.
The resurrection thing isn't technological. It's not because of her armor.
It's because she's a god damned divine manifestation of the Emperor's Wrath that shows up in dire circumstances at random.
And by "she" I mean "Celestine" because Celestine is the only Living Saint that the lore has gone into any detail about.
And her list of accolades extends far before her death.
She was a Repentia at one point. After a battle, her body was found amid over a hundred enemy corpses. So they figured she was dead.
She wasn't. And she was still pissed. Whatever they saw in her eyes, she was no longer a Repentia. She then went on to fight for the God-Emperor for years. Then she ACTUALLY died, and literally every one of the Ecclesiarchy's bells throughout the Imperium was tolled for her passing.
Then she KEPT. SHOWING. UP. She'd show up on a battlefield, almost at random, turn the tide, and VANISH.
OVER. AND OVER. AND OVER.
For THOUSANDS of years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lexicanum states, from the 3rd ed Witch Hunters Codex that:
"A Living Saint is a mighty and pious warrior of the Imperial Creed who displays miraculous abilities within his or her lifetime and is subsequently resurrected, supposedly by the Emperor himself."
However, it lists the following as Living Saints - "Lozepath, saint of the Salandraxis. Was killed by Kharn
Solar Macharius, the most famous saint of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Anais, powerful member of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Celestine, the most famous hero of the Sisters of Battle.
Saint Gerstahl, legendary soldier of the Imperial Guard.
Saint Sabbat, founder of the Sabbat Worlds".
By this regard, can the Legion of the Damned be regarded as Living Saints?
Given that they may be ghosts and not actually resurrected? Probably not, no more than Madrak's Ghost Knights from the 5e GK book were a unit of Living Saints.
You could just, like, buy Codices off of eBay and read stuff yourself if you want to.
Pouncey wrote: ...You could just, like, buy Codices off of eBay and read stuff yourself if you want to.
'Kay. I think we're done here. I own and have read the Codexes. You own and have read the Codexes. Concrete data is vague because most of it is based on 3e fluff back when the writers were comfortable leaving things open to interpretation, and the interpretation fight isn't going to accomplish anything beyond a long shouting match that ends with the mods locking the thread since we're already off topic.
Pouncey wrote: ...You could just, like, buy Codices off of eBay and read stuff yourself if you want to.
'Kay. I think we're done here. I own and have read the Codexes. You own and have read the Codexes. Concrete data is vague because most of it is based on 3e fluff back when the writers were comfortable leaving things open to interpretation, and the interpretation fight isn't going to accomplish anything beyond a long shouting match that ends with the mods locking the thread since we're already off topic.
Well, I mean, you're quoting Lexicanum instead of, like, the actual Codex.
Pouncey wrote: ...You could just, like, buy Codices off of eBay and read stuff yourself if you want to.
'Kay. I think we're done here. I own and have read the Codexes. You own and have read the Codexes. Concrete data is vague because most of it is based on 3e fluff back when the writers were comfortable leaving things open to interpretation, and the interpretation fight isn't going to accomplish anything beyond a long shouting match that ends with the mods locking the thread since we're already off topic.
Well, I mean, you're quoting Lexicanum instead of, like, the actual Codex.
I'm quoting nothing, because there is no absolute answer. The writers are inconsistent on what defines a Living Saint just within the 3e Codex, and even if they were it isn't consistent with your explanation (the 3e book gives a description of Celestine's final death, among other things, because Special Characters back then were historical figures and most weren't assumed to be active in the 'present'. Solar Macharius died exactly once and was never resurrected, the only source that even attempts to imply he was is that line Sgt_Smudge quoted. The existence of Saint Sabbat in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels puts a big hole in the idea that there's some prerequisite time limit between first death and first resurrection that qualifies one).
40k is full of inconsistency, mystery, and vagueness because the characters in the setting don't actually know how any of it works. 'Daemonic possession' is indistinguishable to the characters from nanotechnology or artificial intelligence established by the Mechanicum lore to exist. The idea that 'Living Saint' is a specific measurable phenomenon that behaves consistently rather than a title slapped onto people who meet certain criteria completely discards the fact that you're basing your idea of how this phenomenon works on one individual who doesn't work anything like anyone else who has ever been called a Living Saint by any source.
Given the lack of consistency in what specific powers and properties 'Living Saints' have a generic profile with a menu of abilities fits trying to stick the lore concept on the table much better than saying 'just assume they all work like Celestine' and demoting anyone who doesn't (i.e. every other Living Saint named in the lore).
(Another possible explanation totally consistent with current lore: we could be confusing cause and effect here. Celestine could be a Perpetual, an extremely rare individual who is through freak mutation or some xenotech design functionally immortal and capable of regenerating from almost any injury (the phenomenon is described in the Heresy novels, the Emperor was one). She may have been made a Living Saint because the existence of Perpetuals is almost completely unknown in the 41st Milennium and 'The Emperor brought her back!' was the best explanation anyone had the first time she died.)
(The Lexicanum link on Perpetuals, in case your contempt for it as a source isn't strong enough to drive you to dig through half a dozen Heresy novels for oblique references instead: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Perpetual)
Pouncey wrote: ...You could just, like, buy Codices off of eBay and read stuff yourself if you want to.
'Kay. I think we're done here. I own and have read the Codexes. You own and have read the Codexes. Concrete data is vague because most of it is based on 3e fluff back when the writers were comfortable leaving things open to interpretation, and the interpretation fight isn't going to accomplish anything beyond a long shouting match that ends with the mods locking the thread since we're already off topic.
Well, I mean, you're quoting Lexicanum instead of, like, the actual Codex.
I'm quoting nothing, because there is no absolute answer. The writers are inconsistent on what defines a Living Saint just within the 3e Codex, and even if they were it isn't consistent with your explanation (the 3e book gives a description of Celestine's final death, among other things, because Special Characters back then were historical figures and most weren't assumed to be active in the 'present'. Solar Macharius died exactly once and was never resurrected, the only source that even attempts to imply he was is that line Sgt_Smudge quoted. The existence of Saint Sabbat in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels puts a big hole in the idea that there's some prerequisite time limit between first death and first resurrection that qualifies one).
40k is full of inconsistency, mystery, and vagueness because the characters in the setting don't actually know how any of it works. 'Daemonic possession' is indistinguishable to the characters from nanotechnology or artificial intelligence established by the Mechanicum lore to exist. The idea that 'Living Saint' is a specific measurable phenomenon that behaves consistently rather than a title slapped onto people who meet certain criteria completely discards the fact that you're basing your idea of how this phenomenon works on one individual who doesn't work anything like anyone else who has ever been called a Living Saint by any source.
Given the lack of consistency in what specific powers and properties 'Living Saints' have a generic profile with a menu of abilities fits trying to stick the lore concept on the table much better than saying 'just assume they all work like Celestine' and demoting anyone who doesn't (i.e. every other Living Saint named in the lore).
(Another possible explanation totally consistent with current lore: we could be confusing cause and effect here. Celestine could be a Perpetual, an extremely rare individual who is through freak mutation or some xenotech design functionally immortal and capable of regenerating from almost any injury (the phenomenon is described in the Heresy novels, the Emperor was one). She may have been made a Living Saint because the existence of Perpetuals is almost completely unknown in the 41st Milennium and 'The Emperor brought her back!' was the best explanation anyone had the first time she died.)
(The Lexicanum link on Perpetuals, in case your contempt for it as a source isn't strong enough to drive you to dig through half a dozen Heresy novels for oblique references instead: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Perpetual)
Uhh, the Sisters of Battle weren't around during the Horus Heresy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, uh, she has a sword.
That has a template ranged attack.
Without incorporating a flamethrower.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 22:55:19
If you buy the new model - good chance it will have the rules with it.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
The IA codex does not replace the Sister codex. You can still take your Celestine and Jump Canoness.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Pouncey wrote: ...Uhh, the Sisters of Battle weren't around during the Horus Heresy...
Cool. Not sure what that has to do with Celestine being or not being a Perpetual. Bolters were around during the Heresy, the Sisters seem to have taken to them just fine. Spaceships were around during the Heresy, the Tau have managed to make use of them.
regarding GW not putting out rules for free, they've actually gotten better at that, all new minis have a stat block in their box, and they have put rules up for free on occasion. that said rules DO cost money to make, so if they put the rules in a book and charge for it, it's just to recoup those costs
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Pouncey wrote: ...Uhh, the Sisters of Battle weren't around during the Horus Heresy...
Cool. Not sure what that has to do with Celestine being or not being a Perpetual. Bolters were around during the Heresy, the Sisters seem to have taken to them just fine. Spaceships were around during the Heresy, the Tau have managed to make use of them.
Fair point.
Though Tau spaceships don't work like Imperial ones do.
Now point me at the flamethrower incorporated into the Joakero model.
Have you read the lore on Joakero that explains why they have such a wide variety of weapons?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: regarding GW not putting out rules for free, they've actually gotten better at that, all new minis have a stat block in their box, and they have put rules up for free on occasion. that said rules DO cost money to make, so if they put the rules in a book and charge for it, it's just to recoup those costs
So... like, what about the models I don't get new ones of?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 23:54:19
Now point me at the flamethrower incorporated into the Joakero model.
Have you read the lore on Joakero that explains why they have such a wide variety of weapons?
As long as you acknowledge that the precedent for heavy flamers that don't look like heavy flamers makes 'she has a sword that has a template attack without incorporating a flamethrower' pretty weak evidence that Celestine can only be explained by taking every exaggerated statement about her at face value I'm good.
Now point me at the flamethrower incorporated into the Joakero model.
Have you read the lore on Joakero that explains why they have such a wide variety of weapons?
As long as you acknowledge that the precedent for heavy flamers that don't look like heavy flamers makes 'she has a sword that has a template attack without incorporating a flamethrower' pretty weak evidence that Celestine can only be explained by taking every exaggerated statement about her at face value I'm good.
Well, the lore for how that attack works, is that Celestine channels the wrath of the Emperor and makes divine flames, from, like, nowhere.
It's not that there's no apparent flamethrower.
It's that there's no flamethrower at all, and it's just a fairly-ordinary power sword.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is how THQ depicted Living Saints:
That's DEFINITELY a god damned magic angel, NOT an ordinary human being.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/02 01:25:33
Yet again, conflicting sources. THQ also depicted sniper rifles that had a meaningful effect on morale, an Avatar with no ranged attack, airplanes that stopped dead whenever they felt like it, persistent invisibility on a lot of Eldar structures, and Dark Reapers firing a bunch of little white balls.
Also, seriously, take a look at the Joakero (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Grey-Knights-Jokaero-Weaponsmith) and tell me where you see anything on those rings indicating that they're anything other than plain, ordinary rings. Just because the Imperium doesn't understand their technology doesn't mean it operates by channeling the wrath of the Emperor.
AnomanderRake wrote: Yet again, conflicting sources. THQ also depicted sniper rifles that had a meaningful effect on morale, an Avatar with no ranged attack, airplanes that stopped dead whenever they felt like it, persistent invisibility on a lot of Eldar structures, and Dark Reapers firing a bunch of little white balls.
You know that those video games were created like 3-4 editions ago, right?
Also, seriously, take a look at the Joakero (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Grey-Knights-Jokaero-Weaponsmith) and tell me where you see anything on those rings indicating that they're anything other than plain, ordinary rings. Just because the Imperium doesn't understand their technology doesn't mean it operates by channeling the wrath of the Emperor.
No. Of course not.
Joakero tech is extremely highly advanced, allowing them to build a wide variety of powerful weapons into tiny technology. They don't literally have all of those weapons, they have similarly-powerful weapons built into their rings that use those weapon profiles for simplicity's sake. We know this because it's written into the lore.
Celestine can manifest the Emperor's wrath as divine flames that burn the crap out of enemies. We know this because it's written into the lore.
Are you telling me to take your personal headcanon over things written in a Codex?
My biggest issue with assuming that Celestine fires the "Emperor's Divine Wrath" is that, well, frankly... it's gak, then.
Okay Celestine. Keep the Emperor's Divine Wrath. I'll be over here with my Radiation Engines (Fleshbane, Rad-Phage, Torrent and AP3) and we will see who burns the most heretics.
I know it is game mechanics and not fluff, but in my head they are a bit related and in my head The Emperor's Divine Wrath (tm) is better than a heavy flamer.
Unit1126PLL wrote: My biggest issue with assuming that Celestine fires the "Emperor's Divine Wrath" is that, well, frankly... it's gak, then.
Okay Celestine. Keep the Emperor's Divine Wrath. I'll be over here with my Radiation Engines (Fleshbane, Rad-Phage, Torrent and AP3) and we will see who burns the most heretics.
I know it is game mechanics and not fluff, but in my head they are a bit related and in my head The Emperor's Divine Wrath (tm) is better than a heavy flamer.
Not as related as you're trying to say it is though.
That's subjective.
My view is that the gameplay stats aren't real in the lore.
Is yours different?
My view is that gameplay stats reflect the lore to some degree, so weapons of vastly different capabilities on the tabletop are also vastly different in the lore (for example, I think it is reasonable to infer from tabletop stats alone that a Lasgun is less powerful in the lore than a battlecannon).
Unit1126PLL wrote: My view is that gameplay stats reflect the lore to some degree, so weapons of vastly different capabilities on the tabletop are also vastly different in the lore (for example, I think it is reasonable to infer from tabletop stats alone that a Lasgun is less powerful in the lore than a battlecannon).
Unit1126PLL wrote: My view is that gameplay stats reflect the lore to some degree, so weapons of vastly different capabilities on the tabletop are also vastly different in the lore (for example, I think it is reasonable to infer from tabletop stats alone that a Lasgun is less powerful in the lore than a battlecannon).
I consider it a more nuanced view than yours.
Then we shall disagree.
Good day.
I hope I left you with some understanding of why I think either 1) Celestine doesn't use the Emperor's Divine Wrath as a weapon or 2) The Emperor's Divine Wrath is crap and she would be better served with... well, a battlecannon, for starters. Radiation engine would be cool to keep with the burning theme. Or at least an Inferno Cannon for the torrent..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/02 05:51:28
Unit1126PLL wrote: My view is that gameplay stats reflect the lore to some degree, so weapons of vastly different capabilities on the tabletop are also vastly different in the lore (for example, I think it is reasonable to infer from tabletop stats alone that a Lasgun is less powerful in the lore than a battlecannon).
I consider it a more nuanced view than yours.
Then we shall disagree.
Good day.
I hope I left you with some understanding of why I think either 1) Celestine doesn't use the Emperor's Divine Wrath as a weapon or 2) The Emperor's Divine Wrath is crap and she would be better served with... well, a battlecannon, for starters. Radiation engine would be cool to keep with the burning theme. Or at least an Inferno Cannon for the torrent..
Some, yes.
But I do not believe I will ever be able to convince you, so I am opting to cease my efforts and allow you to believe what you will.
Unit1126PLL wrote: My view is that gameplay stats reflect the lore to some degree, so weapons of vastly different capabilities on the tabletop are also vastly different in the lore (for example, I think it is reasonable to infer from tabletop stats alone that a Lasgun is less powerful in the lore than a battlecannon).
I consider it a more nuanced view than yours.
Then we shall disagree.
Good day.
I hope I left you with some understanding of why I think either 1) Celestine doesn't use the Emperor's Divine Wrath as a weapon or 2) The Emperor's Divine Wrath is crap and she would be better served with... well, a battlecannon, for starters. Radiation engine would be cool to keep with the burning theme. Or at least an Inferno Cannon for the torrent..
Some, yes.
But I do not believe I will ever be able to convince you, so I am opting to cease my efforts and allow you to believe what you will.
That's fine and even admirable of you; I am glad you could gain some understanding of my position as well! I understand yours as simply having a more sharp divide between lore and tabletop than I have the privilege of possessing myself; since it is a subjective measure, I don't think either of us will ever have any meaningful purchase on the other and that's alright.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's fine and even admirable of you; I am glad you could gain some understanding of my position as well! I understand yours as simply having a more sharp divide between lore and tabletop than I have the privilege of possessing myself; since it is a subjective measure, I don't think either of us will ever have any meaningful purchase on the other and that's alright.
Thank you.
Though I should mention that I adopt a similar attitude toward some other beliefs. I don't think you'd find those references flattering though, so I will refrain from mentioning them, other than to let you know that there are unflattering comparisons I am choosing not to make.
