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.

Del unobvosously read threads like you do books. No one changed their opinion about what you said and you proved no one wrong. Certainly not me. Because I don’t claim to KNOW anything for sure. How do address the fact that the nooks you rely on for your arguments aren’t a diffinative version of events? The writers and publishers say you shouldn’t trust the things in them. So your quotes, whist interesting don’t prove anything other than that that is a version of what happened.

I don’t use nuisance and interpretation as a way of disguising that I am wrong. It’s just a part of reading and living in a world with other people.

If Horus was a god and the emperor was a god, it’s gett8ng very marvel like and not to my tastes. I prefer the theory that the emperor was a very very powerful psyker and that Horus was a very powerful vessel of chaos. Neither were gods.

U say the emperor was as powerful as the chaos gods, who can’t exist in the material universe. I say horus was godlike or a god after Molech. So you assume chaos gods gave him some powers. Horus killed the emperor. So a mortal with a portion of a chaos gods powers was more powerful than the emperor. How powerful must the chaos gods be then if they can use a puppet to kill the emperor?

I’m interested on your take on what happened during the siege of terra and how the emperor was killed becaus I don’t think BL have covered it yet.

Ps. I’m still a believer in the star child way of doing things. That business with tzeentch was a false flag to discredit the illuminati.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So no. The emperor is dead. A few cells is maybe all that’s left at best. Soul long gone. Dead.

Andykp wrote:
Del unobvosously read threads like you do books. No one changed their opinion about what you said and you proved no one wrong. Certainly not me. Because I don’t claim to KNOW anything for sure. How do address the fact that the nooks you rely on for your arguments aren’t a diffinative version of events? The writers and publishers say you shouldn’t trust the things in them. So your quotes, whist interesting don’t prove anything other than that that is a version of what happened.

I don’t use nuisance and interpretation as a way of disguising that I am wrong. It’s just a part of reading and living in a world with other people.

If Horus was a god and the emperor was a god, it’s gett8ng very marvel like and not to my tastes. I prefer the theory that the emperor was a very very powerful psyker and that Horus was a very powerful vessel of chaos. Neither were gods.

U say the emperor was as powerful as the chaos gods, who can’t exist in the material universe. I say horus was godlike or a god after Molech. So you assume chaos gods gave him some powers. Horus killed the emperor. So a mortal with a portion of a chaos gods powers was more powerful than the emperor. How powerful must the chaos gods be then if they can use a puppet to kill the emperor?

I’m interested on your take on what happened during the siege of terra and how the emperor was killed becaus I don’t think BL have covered it yet.

Ps. I’m still a believer in the star child way of doing things. That business with tzeentch was a false flag to discredit the illuminati.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So no. The emperor is dead. A few cells is maybe all that’s left at best. Soul long gone. Dead.

They all ended up saying that 'The Emperor got POWERS from Molech but we don't exactly what powers they were.' everyone ended up agreeing with that even though I said that after like 3 comments at the start of the thread, everyone can go and look at the thread so there is no point in lying.

You can't be proven wrong because you added nothing because you had not read the book, but even if I proved you wrong again after countless times you'd just say there are no things as facts. You do that so you can't be wrong because look:

"Yes. She wasn’t actually there stood beside him the whole time." "Is Horus a god? No." there, this is you making factual claims, (even though you never read the novel) as a lot of people hadn't as they contradicted me and ended up agreeing at the end. See you use the 'there are no facts' just to get out of being proven wrong. You assert facts all the time, when anyone proves you wrong you say 'nuance' or 'there are no facts'. I mean seriously dude.

You said Horus was not a god nor did you say he was godlike. He was either one of the two.

Andykp wrote:
Del unobvosously read threads like you do books. No one changed their opinion about what you said and you proved no one wrong. Certainly not me. Because I don’t claim to KNOW anything for sure. How do address the fact that the nooks you rely on for your arguments aren’t a diffinative version of events? The writers and publishers say you shouldn’t trust the things in them. So your quotes, whist interesting don’t prove anything other than that that is a version of what happened.

I don’t use nuisance and interpretation as a way of disguising that I am wrong. It’s just a part of reading and living in a world with other people.

If Horus was a god and the emperor was a god, it’s gett8ng very marvel like and not to my tastes. I prefer the theory that the emperor was a very very powerful psyker and that Horus was a very powerful vessel of chaos. Neither were gods.

U say the emperor was as powerful as the chaos gods, who can’t exist in the material universe. I say horus was godlike or a god after Molech. So you assume chaos gods gave him some powers. Horus killed the emperor. So a mortal with a portion of a chaos gods powers was more powerful than the emperor. How powerful must the chaos gods be then if they can use a puppet to kill the emperor?

I’m interested on your take on what happened during the siege of terra and how the emperor was killed becaus I don’t think BL have covered it yet.

Ps. I’m still a believer in the star child way of doing things. That business with tzeentch was a false flag to discredit the illuminati.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So no. The emperor is dead. A few cells is maybe all that’s left at best. Soul long gone. Dead.

The emperor is not only not dead, he spoke to Bobby G in some of the more recent fluff. The years have made him a bit more of an ass but I don't see any evidence in any story that the Emperor died

Realm of chaos slaves to darkness spells it out very concisely that he is dead. We only have bobby gs word for that conversation.

And Del Boy I’m not going over it all again with u. U only assumed what I have and haven’t read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But....I’m not saying he is definitely dead but he could well be. Is to me, he is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’m open to other theories but they need to be good.

Andykp wrote:
Realm of chaos slaves to darkness spells it out very concisely that he is dead. We only have bobby gs word for that conversation.

And Del Boy I’m not going over it all again with u. U only assumed what I have and haven’t read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But....I’m not saying he is definitely dead but he could well be. Is to me, he is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’m open to other theories but they need to be good.

Well I don't know how you could get the lore so wrong if you did read the book.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Realm of chaos slaves to darkness spells it out very concisely that he is dead. We only have bobby gs word for that conversation.

And Del Boy I’m not going over it all again with u. U only assumed what I have and haven’t read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But....I’m not saying he is definitely dead but he could well be. Is to me, he is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’m open to other theories but they need to be good.

Well I don't know how you could get the lore so wrong if you did read the book.

My humble apologies I meant lost and the damned. Though both are excellent books.

This is how I figured it. It’s not as simple as dead dead but it’s as good as. It’s only gotten worse over the last 10000 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That’s where I stand on the emperor. I don’t follow all 1st edition fluff but heresey wise I like it.

I know where you stand del . I’m less keen on that. Neither of us is right or wrong because it’s a setting for a game that has been evolving and changing for 30 years. U pick the bits you like and leave those that you don’t. I’m not saying that that section of the book is fact. I’m saying it’s my preferred version of events.

Andykp wrote:
This is how I figured it. It’s not as simple as dead dead but it’s as good as. It’s only gotten worse over the last 10000 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That’s where I stand on the emperor. I don’t follow all 1st edition fluff but heresey wise I like it.

I know where you stand del . I’m less keen on that. Neither of us is right or wrong because it’s a setting for a game that has been evolving and changing for 30 years. U pick the bits you like and leave those that you don’t. I’m not saying that that section of the book is fact. I’m saying it’s my preferred version of events.

"I know where you stand del . I’m less keen on that. Neither of us is right or wrong because it’s a setting for a game that has been evolving and changing for 30 years" yeah until the lore changes if its a factual claim its FACT. Leman Russ is the Emperos executioner that is a FACT.

I don't pick the bits I like, I conform my beliefs to the lore, not the other way around like you do. I mean to believe that there are no facts even when you claim things as facts boggles my mind. I can find quotes of you asserting FACTS all over these threads, the only time you say there are no facts is when you are proven wrong.

Andykp wrote:
This is how I figured it. It’s not as simple as dead dead but it’s as good as. It’s only gotten worse over the last 10000 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That’s where I stand on the emperor. I don’t follow all 1st edition fluff but heresey wise I like it.

I know where you stand del . I’m less keen on that. Neither of us is right or wrong because it’s a setting for a game that has been evolving and changing for 30 years. U pick the bits you like and leave those that you don’t. I’m not saying that that section of the book is fact. I’m saying it’s my preferred version of events.

He is physically dead, but he is alive psychically. Guy Haley's Dark Imperium shows he is alive.

Onething123456 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
This is how I figured it. It’s not as simple as dead dead but it’s as good as. It’s only gotten worse over the last 10000 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That’s where I stand on the emperor. I don’t follow all 1st edition fluff but heresey wise I like it.

I know where you stand del . I’m less keen on that. Neither of us is right or wrong because it’s a setting for a game that has been evolving and changing for 30 years. U pick the bits you like and leave those that you don’t. I’m not saying that that section of the book is fact. I’m saying it’s my preferred version of events.

He is physically dead, but he is alive psychically. Guy Haley's Dark Imperium shows he is alive.

Some cells in his corpse are still alive.

Andykp wrote:Delvarious, we are back here again. My argument is, and it is backed up everyone at black library and the authors and gamesworkshop, there is no lore! U use quotes to try and justify and argument that goes against the stated intent of the people who wrote those very quotes you rely on so heavily. That’s a logical fallacy. You’re argument is shot down by the very people you are using to make it. That’s why I get annoyed at your quotes, not because they “prove” me wrong but because they are irrelevant. They are one possibility. Not the only one. Even Onething sees that, I think.

What I do is consider many possibilities and like my favourites. My favourites aren’t the lore to me. They are the ones I like best. All,others are possible too.

I’ll end with this simple explanation so uncan get it. THERE IS NO LORE! It’s all made up and ambiguous.

If so, what are you even doing on a background forum when there's no concrete facts.

Sorry, but this is a blatantly untrue assumption that "there is no lore". There is lore. There are facts. There is data. The thing that matters is the validity of that data in comparison to other pieces of data, calculated by the age of it, the reinforcement of said data, and the subjective quality of it.

You say "everyone" at the Black Library/authors/Games Workshop say there is no lore - that's not true. Some people have claimed that, but not everyone. Some authors may believe that there's no lore, no concrete canon, but it's not totally true.
Are there grey areas where interpretation and conjecture are applicable. Yes. Are there concrete HARD fact that must be true? Yes. Therefore, there IS lore, there is canon, but not all data is necessarily canon.

People can use whatever quotes they can pick from the text. That's actual empirical hypothesis work there. If you can find the text to prove your point, that point is real, and canon. If you want to dispel that, then dispel it empirically, with counterarguments drawn from the text, or attacking the validity of that text in the first place - you know, like in an intelligent debate.

You can have your favourite fragments of lore. But just because they're your favourites doesn't make them more valuable to anyone except yourself unless you actually put in work to prove why your fragments mean anything. If you want to believe what you want, go right ahead. But that doesn't make it right for anyone but yourself. In the meantime, other people can share and collaborate and debate the lore that is presented intelligently, with use of reasoning, evidence gathering, and hypotheses, and define a "True Canon".

40k has a true canon. If you don't care about "True Canon", good for you. More power to you. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
If you really fully believe 40k has no lore or canon at all, any assumption or idea presented can be slapped away with a simple "nope". And that's kind of a poor attitude to have in a Background Forum.

Delvarus Centurion wrote:Some cells in his corpse are still alive.

There's enough cells in his body alive that he can consciously and coherently communicate. By our standards of "alive" in regards to euthanasia, he's alive.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Andykp wrote:Delvarious, we are back here again. My argument is, and it is backed up everyone at black library and the authors and gamesworkshop, there is no lore! U use quotes to try and justify and argument that goes against the stated intent of the people who wrote those very quotes you rely on so heavily. That’s a logical fallacy. You’re argument is shot down by the very people you are using to make it. That’s why I get annoyed at your quotes, not because they “prove” me wrong but because they are irrelevant. They are one possibility. Not the only one. Even Onething sees that, I think.

What I do is consider many possibilities and like my favourites. My favourites aren’t the lore to me. They are the ones I like best. All,others are possible too.

I’ll end with this simple explanation so uncan get it. THERE IS NO LORE! It’s all made up and ambiguous.

If so, what are you even doing on a background forum when there's no concrete facts.

Sorry, but this is a blatantly untrue assumption that "there is no lore". There is lore. There are facts. There is data. The thing that matters is the validity of that data in comparison to other pieces of data, calculated by the age of it, the reinforcement of said data, and the subjective quality of it.

You say "everyone" at the Black Library/authors/Games Workshop say there is no lore - that's not true. Some people have claimed that, but not everyone. Some authors may believe that there's no lore, no concrete canon, but it's not totally true.
Are there grey areas where interpretation and conjecture are applicable. Yes. Are there concrete HARD fact that must be true? Yes. Therefore, there IS lore, there is canon, but not all data is necessarily canon.

People can use whatever quotes they can pick from the text. That's actual empirical hypothesis work there. If you can find the text to prove your point, that point is real, and canon. If you want to dispel that, then dispel it empirically, with counterarguments drawn from the text, or attacking the validity of that text in the first place - you know, like in an intelligent debate.

You can have your favourite fragments of lore. But just because they're your favourites doesn't make them more valuable to anyone except yourself unless you actually put in work to prove why your fragments mean anything. If you want to believe what you want, go right ahead. But that doesn't make it right for anyone but yourself. In the meantime, other people can share and collaborate and debate the lore that is presented intelligently, with use of reasoning, evidence gathering, and hypotheses, and define a "True Canon".

40k has a true canon. If you don't care about "True Canon", good for you. More power to you. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
If you really fully believe 40k has no lore or canon at all, any assumption or idea presented can be slapped away with a simple "nope". And that's kind of a poor attitude to have in a Background Forum.

Delvarus Centurion wrote:Some cells in his corpse are still alive.

There's enough cells in his body alive that he can consciously and coherently communicate. By our standards of "alive" in regards to euthanasia, he's alive.

I agree, he's obviously alive, otherwise he wouldn't be tied to the golden throne/materium.

Of course The Emperor is alive. As stated above, having a few cells alive is enough for His soul to “anchor” to so as far as He is concerned He is alive.

We also have the existing lore that states the obvious that psykers are soulbound to Him. If He was dead that would be impossible.

We also have the new lore where Guilliman speaks to him and He isn’t “so nice” anymore.

Anyway. Why has it taken 6 pages to talk about The Emperor forcing a Legion to kneel? It’s lore. It’s canon. It happened. He’s the greatest Human psyker ever.

Mellow wrote:Anyway. Why has it taken 6 pages to talk about The Emperor forcing a Legion to kneel? It’s lore. It’s canon. It happened. He’s the greatest Human psyker ever.

Because apparently lore and canon don't exist, and everything in 40k background can be dispelled with a "nah lol".

Haha, that is rediculous. What would be the point of having any books at all if everything written in the novels could just be “not true” and “didn’t happen”.

Well what happens when they change the lore. The things i like from the background aren’t my inventions. They came from gamesworkshops books and literature just as your lots did. They were created by the creators of the universe the game is set in. All the time these things change. Space wolves used to have long fangs implanted to look wolfy, now it’s a mutation and they can turn into full wolves, pius used to be a normal guy, now he’s immortal super guy, the primarchs were originally tainted by chaos when chaos stole them as foetus’s. And all were tempted by them, entire races we know now we’re completely different. The lore, as you insist on calling it, changes with each new book and release. It’s in constant flux. You all talk about facts like they are real events. They are made up, by dozens and dozens of different people over the decades the game has been about.

I can find fluff facts about back flipping terminators, spacemarines being nothing more than galaxy cops, about a flannel that will eat your face when you use it. A terror squirrel! It’s all still out there and as relevant as the latest blacklibrary book about the primarchs. A lot of it contradicts other versions. Are some official GW books about their game wrong and others right? Black library them selves say they don’t produce canon but versions of events in the setting.

I come on the background section of the forum because I love the background. All of it. I’m a narrative player and it’s the fluff that kept me playing the game for 30years, even after 3rd came out and ruined ORKS. I read lots of interesting theories and ideas on here. And comment on some. Others I don’t. Today I read a thread about the eldar timeline. I didn’t comment but enjoyed reading people’s thoughts on an aspect of the story. But here I get told I’m enjoying the background wrong and only one version of it is official.

So yes the emperors dead, or he’s alive, or he’s a spirit baby in the warp! He even could be an old one! The discussion her was how did he make the world bearers kneel. And there were some interesting ideas, but you people only care about your “lore”. But I will still come to this forum to learn from others and discuss with others but you will not convince my that the HH books are anymore official than the realm of chaos books, decades of codexs, short stories, white dwarf articles or the rogue trader rule books. The made up planet my games are set on has squats, loyalist beastmen and chaos trolls on it. And there people believe the emperor is the star child and that Han shot first.

He made them kneel because He’s the strongest Human psyker and He can do things like that. It really doesn’t need any further explanation.

Also lore changes over time. It’s generally considered to all be correct and accurate unless something newer comes along and directly replaces it. There’s nothing wrong with it being updated over the years.

Mellow wrote:
He made them kneel because He’s the strongest Human psyker and He can do things like that. It really doesn’t need any further explanation.

Also lore changes over time. It’s generally considered to all be correct and accurate unless something newer comes along and directly replaces it. There’s nothing wrong with it being updated over the years.

But it’s fun to speculate. Maybe he wasn’t so great? Maybe there’s more to it. Because if he was so powerful how did he get his ass whooped so badly? That was the point of the discussion I think. I wasn’t the OP. The OP likes discussing the emperor. A lot.

It’s not a rule that newer lore has to replace old lore. It’s not stated on any of the material, it is for game rules but you can even pick and choose Those if you have a friendly like minded group. I like my emperor dead and marines 7’ tall and my primarchs not much taller. Who are you to tell me I’m wrong? As I said in my games squats are still around and my ORKS ride pigs on occasions. It’s all in the lore!

Andykp wrote:
Well what happens when they change the lore.

Then the relevancy of both it, and previous lore, is called into question in accordance to my aforementioned points.

Generally speaking (generally, that is), the more modern something is, the more relevant it is.

The things i like from the background aren’t my inventions. They came from gamesworkshops books and literature just as your lots did. They were created by the creators of the universe the game is set in. All the time these things change. Space wolves used to have long fangs implanted to look wolfy, now it’s a mutation and they can turn into full wolves, pius used to be a normal guy, now he’s immortal super guy, the primarchs were originally tainted by chaos when chaos stole them as foetus’s. And all were tempted by them, entire races we know now we’re completely different. The lore, as you insist on calling it, changes with each new book and release. It’s in constant flux. You all talk about facts like they are real events. They are made up, by dozens and dozens of different people over the decades the game has been about.

Yeah, it is in flux. However, it's the POINT of these background discussions to determine the validity of the changes, the new data, the old, and how we can determine a collective canon for it.

I know it's not real. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a canon. I know the canon can change. It doesn't mean that there isn't a canon at a certain point in time (our time, not in the 41st millennium - OR IS IT REALLY SET IN M41 because yanno, it's all fake!!!)
The above in brackets is why the argument that "it's fake, there's no real things" is stupid - because you can refute any single point about 40k background purely by pointing out the obvious, that things can change, that nothing is set in stone, that it's all imaginary. But that's incredibly counterproductive, most of all in a BACKGROUND forum. The whole point of a background forum is to discuss the background as we know it, to establish common consensus and canon, not destroy the suspension of disbelief necessary for fiction.

Star Wars retconned most of it's EU stuff, if not all. Does that mean Star Wars has no canon? Good luck arguing that one.

TL;DR Yes, I know 40k is in flux. What people refer to when finding a "true canon" is analysing what we know about 40k up to that moment, taking a holistic view of all 40k sources, reviewing the validity of said sources, and establishing a basis for what is, and is not, true in the universe as presented by data. If new data comes, then that may change what "true canon" was.

Five years ago, Cawl didn't exist. That doesn't mean Cawl doesn't exist now. It means that in the understanding of canon 5 years ago, he did not exist. However now, we have no reason not to believe that Cawl is a real, tangible figure in the universe of Warhammer 40k.

I can find fluff facts about back flipping terminators, spacemarines being nothing more than galaxy cops, about a flannel that will eat your face when you use it. A terror squirrel! It’s all still out there and as relevant as the latest blacklibrary book about the primarchs. A lot of it contradicts other versions. Are some official GW books about their game wrong and others right? Black library them selves say they don’t produce canon but versions of events in the setting.

You can find all of that. But you're critically wrong that it's as relevant as the latest Black Library book.

As I said, not all data is created equally. A great many factors come into play - how well does it relate to previously known data? How consistent is it? How recent is it? What is the context behind this data? How does it fit to the widely held consensus of 40k canon? These are but some of the criteria, which you seem to forget. Not all lore is created equally.

You can still have "versions of events in the setting", but that doesn't make it untrue. Opinions, thoughts, 1st person internal monologues are all facts held in the setting. Two Word Bearers, for example, in one book, mention about the Ultramarines absorbing the 2nd/11th Legions into their own. Despite Word of God saying that it is just the characters making up theories (which I agree with, I believe the Ultramarines didn't absorb the 2nd/11th Legions), it doesn't change the fact that those Word Bearers had those beliefs. Whether they were right is not important - we know for a FACT that they believed it, and therefore, we can infer some facts.

Versions of events spawn canon. What people do is look into the collected versions of events and opinions and views presented, pick out the most consistent and valid ones, and call that canon.

I come on the background section of the forum because I love the background. All of it. I’m a narrative player and it’s the fluff that kept me playing the game for 30years, even after 3rd came out and ruined ORKS. I read lots of interesting theories and ideas on here. And comment on some. Others I don’t. Today I read a thread about the eldar timeline. I didn’t comment but enjoyed reading people’s thoughts on an aspect of the story. But here I get told I’m enjoying the background wrong and only one version of it is official.

I've not said you're enjoying it wrong. What you are doing is neglecting to acknowledge that 40k does have some concrete facts (as of now) that are referred to as canon. You can choose, without consequence, not to believe the same, but that is your headcanon. That doesn't mean your headcanon is any less valid to you. It just means you have a different view to more widely accepted views.

But shooting someone down for using quotes and actual sources to rationalise a viewpoint is quite ignorant. If you disagree, that's cool, you don't need to make judgement. If you want to make judgement and criticise that hypothesis, prove it in the same manner - rationally.
Again, this is all my opinion on how things should be done (orderly and rationally), and I have no authority, but if you're discussing background, I'd expect you back up your opinions with actual background.

So yes the emperors dead, or he’s alive, or he’s a spirit baby in the warp! He even could be an old one! The discussion her was how did he make the world bearers kneel. And there were some interesting ideas, but you people only care about your “lore”. But I will still come to this forum to learn from others and discuss with others but you will not convince my that the HH books are anymore official than the realm of chaos books, decades of codexs, short stories, white dwarf articles or the rogue trader rule books. The made up planet my games are set on has squats, loyalist beastmen and chaos trolls on it. And there people believe the emperor is the star child and that Han shot first.

You can believe what you want to. That doesn't change the fact that there is a canon. If you don't care what it is, why should you care that it exists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Mellow wrote:
He made them kneel because He’s the strongest Human psyker and He can do things like that. It really doesn’t need any further explanation.

Also lore changes over time. It’s generally considered to all be correct and accurate unless something newer comes along and directly replaces it. There’s nothing wrong with it being updated over the years.

But it’s fun to speculate. Maybe he wasn’t so great? Maybe there’s more to it. Because if he was so powerful how did he get his ass whooped so badly? That was the point of the discussion I think. I wasn’t the OP. The OP likes discussing the emperor. A lot.

It’s not a rule that newer lore has to replace old lore. It’s not stated on any of the material, it is for game rules but you can even pick and choose Those if you have a friendly like minded group. I like my emperor dead and marines 7’ tall and my primarchs not much taller. Who are you to tell me I’m wrong? As I said in my games squats are still around and my ORKS ride pigs on occasions. It’s all in the lore!

It's not a rule. It's certainly an important part of relevancy though.

You like your Emperor dead? Cool. You enjoy your headcanon. Meanwhile, please don't berate people who attempt to rationalise a consistent, cohesive canon for multiple people to agree with. You have your headcanon. Other people can enjoy "official" canon. Why does that affect you?

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.

You seem to think that you’re way of interpreting “canon” or lore is the only way and the right way but it’s a way you have decided to do it. It’s not a way the creators of the information have said it should be done p, it’s just what you like to do. It’s therefore no more relevant than my way. We all have lines that the fluff cannot cross without becoming silly or too much. And we all have things we dislike that we choose to play down or ignore until GW get round to improving the story with something better.

The difference between this setting and that say of Star Wars is that Star Wars is a film, it’s a story presented with a set structure and path. 40k is a game. With a great big sandbox of a galaxy to play in. And the stories are always ambiguous and open ended to let the game be played how you like and to move the story around. The books and things that accompany the game are there to add flavour to the game, the game is first. The story second. So the story changes. U can’t change the stalwarts story because it’s the whole product. All bull that went along with it like books and comics can change but the films will always be the same. Canon.

40k isn’t the same. It changes when they need to sell more models or make a new race. It changes when they need to get rid of a race, a good firend of mine was a squat player and lore of canon didn’t help his miniature collection and beloved army of “his dudes” that he had nurtured for years. Now the way you describe the lore you would shelve your now non existent army and start again. Really?

So you enjoy deciding what is canon and I will enjoy looking for interesting theories and plots that can be construed from all the information available. Neither of us is right or wrong. But when I see someone telling someone they are wrong and throwing insults around because they got a different interpretation out of a book I will say something. As I will when I hear an interesting idea or take on the background. My version is canon, not head canon but black and white GW official canon just like yours.

Andykp wrote:
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.

You seem to think that you’re way of interpreting “canon” or lore is the only way and the right way but it’s a way you have decided to do it. It’s not a way the creators of the information have said it should be done p, it’s just what you like to do. It’s therefore no more relevant than my way. We all have lines that the fluff cannot cross without becoming silly or too much. And we all have things we dislike that we choose to play down or ignore until GW get round to improving the story with something better.

The difference between this setting and that say of Star Wars is that Star Wars is a film, it’s a story presented with a set structure and path. 40k is a game. With a great big sandbox of a galaxy to play in. And the stories are always ambiguous and open ended to let the game be played how you like and to move the story around. The books and things that accompany the game are there to add flavour to the game, the game is first. The story second. So the story changes. U can’t change the stalwarts story because it’s the whole product. All bull that went along with it like books and comics can change but the films will always be the same. Canon.

40k isn’t the same. It changes when they need to sell more models or make a new race. It changes when they need to get rid of a race, a good firend of mine was a squat player and lore of canon didn’t help his miniature collection and beloved army of “his dudes” that he had nurtured for years. Now the way you describe the lore you would shelve your now non existent army and start again. Really?

So you enjoy deciding what is canon and I will enjoy looking for interesting theories and plots that can be construed from all the information available. Neither of us is right or wrong. But when I see someone telling someone they are wrong and throwing insults around because they got a different interpretation out of a book I will say something. As I will when I hear an interesting idea or take on the background. My version is canon, not head canon but black and white GW official canon just like yours.

Again, show me one quote of me doing this "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. " otherwise admit that you are lying. You like other people are using the old 'dev miss-quotes' because I can't refute his points, out of all the people that have said that not a single one has provided proof and you won't be able to. The amount of times I've proven you wrong and all you say is 'you're missing the nuance' or 'the philosophy' and now this new one 'lore or facts do not exist'

So what if the lore changes. Thats like saying the present changes so lets ignore all human history. When it changes you adjust, you don't ignore the whole lore because you are upset with the changes.

There are whole threads of it. Almost any of the background threads you have started. Just read one you did about big balls. I did the exact thing. Molech! That’s another. Anyway, we are miles off topic and it’s just bitching about different perspectives on fluff. I said my bit in that, I’m sure we will all see each other on various other threads. I think this one is done.

Andykp wrote:
There are whole threads of it. Almost any of the background threads you have started. Just read one you did about big balls. I did the exact thing. Molech! That’s another. Anyway, we are miles off topic and it’s just bitching about different perspectives on fluff. I said my bit in that, I’m sure we will all see each other on various other threads. I think this one is done.

Then it should be easy to find, on you go I have plenty of time. Off topic, no I stopped replying to you and you kept at it. So go find a quote otherwise admit you are a liar. You already have admited, this one is done, yeah its done because you can't quote me doing that.

Andykp wrote:
There are whole threads of it. Almost any of the background threads you have started. Just read one you did about big balls. I did the exact thing. Molech! That’s another. Anyway, we are miles off topic and it’s just bitching about different perspectives on fluff. I said my bit in that, I’m sure we will all see each other on various other threads. I think this one is done.

Just read your updated post and am confused. I am saying all the lore should be considered relevant. That’s been my point. What are you now saying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
There are whole threads of it. Almost any of the background threads you have started. Just read one you did about big balls. I did the exact thing. Molech! That’s another. Anyway, we are miles off topic and it’s just bitching about different perspectives on fluff. I said my bit in that, I’m sure we will all see each other on various other threads. I think this one is done.

Then it should be easy to find, on you go I have plenty of time.

Let me guess if I don’t you win?

Andykp wrote:

Andykp wrote:
There are whole threads of it. Almost any of the background threads you have started. Just read one you did about big balls. I did the exact thing. Molech! That’s another. Anyway, we are miles off topic and it’s just bitching about different perspectives on fluff. I said my bit in that, I’m sure we will all see each other on various other threads. I think this one is done.

Just read your updated post and am confused. I am saying all the lore should be considered relevant. That’s been my point. What are you now saying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
There are whole threads of it. Almost any of the background threads you have started. Just read one you did about big balls. I did the exact thing. Molech! That’s another. Anyway, we are miles off topic and it’s just bitching about different perspectives on fluff. I said my bit in that, I’m sure we will all see each other on various other threads. I think this one is done.

Then it should be easy to find, on you go I have plenty of time.

Let me guess if I don’t you win?

I don't win, you are lying and attacking my character by saying that, so I want you to prove it or admit you are lying.

Then just read your thread, the emperors deal with chaos. The first page alone will show you making assumptions and misitrperoreting text. I’ve seen in a number of threads you do this and then retaliating with insults. The removes text is there in your posts. One whole post you wrote to me was removed for being offensive before I even read it. And then you accused me of reporting you because I was upset you had proved me wrong. I never even saw it.

U did the same in the thread about balls with Brian. To be fair I have conceded that you have been wrong on the odd occasion but I stand my claims that you misinterpret quotes and are hostile to anyone who points this out to u. so have fun proving me wrong some more, I haven’t noticed when I did before but I am sure it was great for u.

Andykp wrote:
Then just read your thread, the emperors deal with chaos. The first page alone will show you making assumptions and misitrperoreting text. I’ve seen in a number of threads you do this and then retaliating with insults. The removes text is there in your posts. One whole post you wrote to me was removed for being offensive before I even read it. And then you accused me of reporting you because I was upset you had proved me wrong. I never even saw it.

U did the same in the thread about balls with Brian. To be fair I have conceded that you have been wrong on the odd occasion but I stand my claims that you misinterpret quotes and are hostile to anyone who points this out to u. so have fun proving me wrong some more, I haven’t noticed when I did before but I am sure it was great for u.

Quote me then. Show me a screen shot of me deleting the text. You can't. You did report me as the MOD wasn't in the thread, he had to be alerted. You have been replying straight away for half an hour don't pretend you don't have the time to look for the quote.

I didn’t even see the message. It’s was removed already before I saw so don’t know what offensive things unsaid to me for it to be removed. I also don’t know who reported you. I’m a big boy. I can handle someone being rude to me without running for help. Whatever you said I promise you in my 17years in the ambulance service I have heard worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Then just read your thread, the emperors deal with chaos. The first page alone will show you making assumptions and misitrperoreting text. I’ve seen in a number of threads you do this and then retaliating with insults. The removes text is there in your posts. One whole post you wrote to me was removed for being offensive before I even read it. And then you accused me of reporting you because I was upset you had proved me wrong. I never even saw it.

U did the same in the thread about balls with Brian. To be fair I have conceded that you have been wrong on the odd occasion but I stand my claims that you misinterpret quotes and are hostile to anyone who points this out to u. so have fun proving me wrong some more, I haven’t noticed when I did before but I am sure it was great for u.

Quote me then. Show me a screen shot of me deleting the text. You can't. You did report me as the MOD wasn't in the thread, he had to be alerted. You have been replying straight away for half an hour don't pretend you don't have the time to look for the quote.

Here’s a quote of you misinterpreting things. U got reported, so it must have been me. Couldn’t have been anyone else so I will state it as a absolute fact and say I win.

Andykp wrote:
I didn’t even see the message. It’s was removed already before I saw so don’t know what offensive things unsaid to me for it to be removed. I also don’t know who reported you. I’m a big boy. I can handle someone being rude to me without running for help. Whatever you said I promise you in my 17years in the ambulance service I have heard worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Then just read your thread, the emperors deal with chaos. The first page alone will show you making assumptions and misitrperoreting text. I’ve seen in a number of threads you do this and then retaliating with insults. The removes text is there in your posts. One whole post you wrote to me was removed for being offensive before I even read it. And then you accused me of reporting you because I was upset you had proved me wrong. I never even saw it.

U did the same in the thread about balls with Brian. To be fair I have conceded that you have been wrong on the odd occasion but I stand my claims that you misinterpret quotes and are hostile to anyone who points this out to u. so have fun proving me wrong some more, I haven’t noticed when I did before but I am sure it was great for u.

Quote me then. Show me a screen shot of me deleting the text. You can't. You did report me as the MOD wasn't in the thread, he had to be alerted. You have been replying straight away for half an hour don't pretend you don't have the time to look for the quote.

Here’s a quote of you misinterpreting things. U got reported, so it must have been me. Couldn’t have been anyone else so I will state it as a absolute fact and say I win.

No you said I miss quote, don't try and worm out of this find an example of me 'missquoting or quoting things that have no relevance.

Andykp wrote:
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.

There's nothing wrong with that, but if the quotes don't match the conclusion, can you not prove that by way of analysis? If what you say about the quotes being incorrect is true, then it should be simple to prove that. Unless, that is what you're doing, in which case, my apologies.

You seem to think that you’re way of interpreting “canon” or lore is the only way and the right way but it’s a way you have decided to do it. It’s not a way the creators of the information have said it should be done p, it’s just what you like to do. It’s therefore no more relevant than my way. We all have lines that the fluff cannot cross without becoming silly or too much. And we all have things we dislike that we choose to play down or ignore until GW get round to improving the story with something better.

Not all of the creators of the information have said so. In fact, only a handful have said "there's no real canon". It's a minority viewpoint.

It's no more relevant to you than my way. However, the thing that makes canon, well, canon (and not headcanon) is that it is the widely accepted one, by way of the community establishing it by analysis of the existing lore and piecing it together as logically as possible.

Functionally, the only difference between canon and headcanon is that headcanon is less widely accepted by the fanbase. So why do you have such an aversion to it? I'm not saying that it's "wrong" to have a headcanon, nor is it "right" to follow canon if you don't believe it. I'm just saying that there IS a canon, and you purposefully don't want to engage with that. Which is fine.

The difference between this setting and that say of Star Wars is that Star Wars is a film, it’s a story presented with a set structure and path. 40k is a game. With a great big sandbox of a galaxy to play in. And the stories are always ambiguous and open ended to let the game be played how you like and to move the story around. The books and things that accompany the game are there to add flavour to the game, the game is first. The story second. So the story changes. U can’t change the stalwarts story because it’s the whole product. All bull that went along with it like books and comics can change but the films will always be the same. Canon.

But Star Wars ISN'T just the films. It's the TV shows, the approved and sanctioned comics, the stories that Disney declare to be canon. Disney are well within their power to call an entire film, or arc of films, non-canon.

Plus, you saying "the films will always be the same" is something that your own previous quote refuted. You stated that "there will always be people who believe... Han shot first". In the original, he did. That got changed. The canon is that he shot second. People who say he shot first are not using current canon. Hence my point.

40k isn’t the same. It changes when they need to sell more models or make a new race. It changes when they need to get rid of a race, a good firend of mine was a squat player and lore of canon didn’t help his miniature collection and beloved army of “his dudes” that he had nurtured for years. Now the way you describe the lore you would shelve your now non existent army and start again. Really?

Not at all.
40k has a canon. That can change. It doesn't change the fact that it's still the canon.

It's canon that the squats were wiped out (or mostly, at least. We're seeing more hints that some endure). But that still provides options. For one, they can play their Squats using the myriad of time travel opportunities that 40k provides (the Warp!) in current events. Secondly, nothing is stopping them from embracing a headcanon that the Squats survive. That's cool, you do you. But they cannot deny that the "official" canon is that they're dead. But if you don't care about what anyone else thinks, and you just want to have your Squats, headcanon it. Forge that narrative. Go you!

Why does the idea of an actual canon disturb you so?

So you enjoy deciding what is canon and I will enjoy looking for interesting theories and plots that can be construed from all the information available. Neither of us is right or wrong. But when I see someone telling someone they are wrong and throwing insults around because they got a different interpretation out of a book I will say something. As I will when I hear an interesting idea or take on the background. My version is canon, not head canon but black and white GW official canon just like yours.

There might not be a "right and wrong", but there is certainly a better argument for one thing existing than another - this is analysis, this is making an educated and rational discussion and theorising, supported by quotes and source material. That can, and often DOES, have a more supported hypothesis than another.

For example, two people arguing "Does Illyian Nastase exist?" Person 1 might point to Rogue Trader, as their only source. Person 2 might point to the lack of his mention ever again, the contextual lack of half-Eldar Space Marines in future publications, the fact that Tigurius is more consistently and frequently called out as the Chief Librarian of the Ultramarines, and the various other factors that oppose Nastase in future publications with near unanimity. Purely on quality, consistency, and relevance of all their data, it's wise to say that Person 2 has a better argument.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying what you want isn't canon. Which is fine - you enjoy your headcanon. But when people attempt to support and rationalise points, those people will have a better argument for that point being canon.

Pretending that your opinion, backed up by nothing or outdated sources, is just as valid as a laboriously constructed, sourced and reputable argument for something else is ignorant in the extreme. There is a canon. But you're not beholden to it. You don't like it? Great, enjoy your headcanon. Let other people discuss and argue analytically about the actual canon.

Why is that a problem?