Brutus_Apex wrote:

I'm not reading a whole thread to look at your evidence, you need to post your evidence here, I'm not sifting through a whole thread for it.

Again no evidence, you are just stating your opinion as fact. I stated my argument as my opinion, but if you say this is 'definitive proof' you have to actually have proof. None of what you said is even convincing as an opinion rather than proof. Abaddon could be acting like he has free will, doesn't mean he has free will. Even if the God offered him daemonhood (still need to show evidence of that) it could be an empty gesture, they could know that he wouldn't take it, or they could be manipulating his actions so he doesn't take it but makes him think that he refused.

Same with 'never allowing himself to be a pawn' yeah he can still think that or act in that way and still be a pawn, not evidence at all.

Haven't been able to claim. You still need to give a source that he has been offered daemonhood.

Abaddon is determined not to be a slave, but that means nothing. To prove your argument definitively, you need to have a source in the lore which says 'the gods cannot control Abaddon and is independent of their will' or something to that effect. Just giving opinions isn't fact.

Ok, this is going to be my last post on this thread since it is now frustrating the hell out of me and I am quickly losing my patience.

It would be wise in the future, that when you creating a post asking a question that you be open to other people’s anawers. Too bad you don’t have the time to simply read a few short excerpts from my actual proof that I posted in here like 3 times. I even cut out and quoted the major points that prove that your opinion of abaddon is 100% flawed and is in no way accurate to the character Gw is trying to represent.

The source I gave you is GW and yet somehow you are saying that this is not proof, and that your opinion (not GW I might add) is the actual correct interpretation of Abaddon. I fail to see how you could read that paragraph and with a straight face tell me I am wrong and I have no evidence. You don’t work for the Trump administration by any chance do you?

Sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes when you don’t want to see the truth of something is what children do, being stubborn over a game of toy solidiers is unnecessary. Please don’t post if you are unwilling to engage in proper discussion.

BrianDavion wrote:
this isn't some link to a sketchy website, it's a link to ADB's fething blog, you should be thanking him for that link as a great source of information aside from what you're actually asking him (I know I am BTW, thanks Brutus) seriously a link to a valid source (I think "excepts from the Black Library writers bible is a pretty good source yes?) is a pretty valid way to address things, better then a massive quote block TBH.

Incidentaly Slaves ot Darkness (the new HH novel) shows us Horus becoming a clear pawn of Chaos. It shows that EVERY Primarch even before the siege began had become little more then a pawn of the dark gods, a "slave to darkness" I highly reccomend people read that book

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Its not just about the time, I don't click on random links on the internet, nor should you if you care about the safety of your computer. It blows my mind when people throw up a link expecting people to just click on some random link. I have not read the source as I'm not an idiot so yes unless you actually write it here and give the proof rather than being lazy then no its not proof, because you haven't given me any evidence I can look at. All you said is that its from GW, I need more context than that, so I suggest you get off your lasy ass and actually post the evidence, all you have to do is copy and paste, is that too hard?

And even what you posted isn't proof that he isn't a pawn. 'he will never allow himself to be a pawn' yeah and Horus thought he was in control, but we know he wasn't. If GW say 'the chaos gods have no control over abaddon' then I'll happily concede, but Abaddon thinking that he will never allow himself to be a pawn is not evidence stated he isn't a pawn. I can intend to never allow myself to be a human, doesn't mean I'm ALF.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
this isn't some link to a sketchy website, it's a link to ADB's fething blog, you should be thanking him for that link as a great source of information aside from what you're actually asking him (I know I am BTW, thanks Brutus) seriously a link to a valid source (I think "excepts from the Black Library writers bible is a pretty good source yes?) is a pretty valid way to address things, better then a massive quote block TBH.

Incidentaly Slaves ot Darkness (the new HH novel) shows us Horus becoming a clear pawn of Chaos. It shows that EVERY Primarch even before the siege began had become little more then a pawn of the dark gods, a "slave to darkness" I highly reccomend people read that book

I don't care, I don't click on links regardless of what the URL says, I shouldn't be thanking him, not since he started being an ass.

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Its not just about the time, I don't click on random links on the internet, nor should you if you care about the safety of your computer. It blows my mind when people throw up a link expecting people to just click on some random link. I have not read the source as I'm not an idiot so yes unless you actually write it here and give the proof rather than being lazy then no its not proof, because you haven't given me any evidence I can look at. All you said is that its from GW, I need more context than that, so I suggest you get off your lasy ass and actually post the evidence, all you have to do is copy and paste, is that too hard?

And even what you posted isn't proof that he isn't a pawn. 'he will never allow himself to be a pawn' yeah and Horus thought he was in control, but we know he wasn't. If GW say 'the chaos gods have no control over abaddon' then I'll happily concede, but Abaddon thinking that he will never allow himself to be a pawn is not evidence stated he isn't a pawn. I can intend to never allow myself to be a human, doesn't mean I'm ALF.

Quite apart from the overly paranoid approach to links (it's hardly a random link, given that it's from a verified, actual Dakka user with a genuine post history and clearly pertinent to the subject in hand, linking to a site that clearly comes up as a legitimate site if you search for it in Google), the text was also posted here too. What's the point in asking a question if, when an answer is provided that seems to come direct form the course itself, you just arbitrarily declare that answer invalid? Was the question even asked in good faith to begin with? Why should we bother trying to provide proof if only you can decide whether it's worthy or not? Doesn't seem worth the effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
this isn't some link to a sketchy website, it's a link to ADB's fething blog, you should be thanking him for that link as a great source of information aside from what you're actually asking him (I know I am BTW, thanks Brutus) seriously a link to a valid source (I think "excepts from the Black Library writers bible is a pretty good source yes?) is a pretty valid way to address things, better then a massive quote block TBH.

Incidentaly Slaves ot Darkness (the new HH novel) shows us Horus becoming a clear pawn of Chaos. It shows that EVERY Primarch even before the siege began had become little more then a pawn of the dark gods, a "slave to darkness" I highly reccomend people read that book

I don't care, I don't click on links regardless of what the URL says, I shouldn't be thanking him, not since he started being an ass.

Just out of interest, how do you use the internet if this is your policy regarding links?

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Its not just about the time, I don't click on random links on the internet, nor should you if you care about the safety of your computer. It blows my mind when people throw up a link expecting people to just click on some random link. I have not read the source as I'm not an idiot so yes unless you actually write it here and give the proof rather than being lazy then no its not proof, because you haven't given me any evidence I can look at. All you said is that its from GW, I need more context than that, so I suggest you get off your lasy ass and actually post the evidence, all you have to do is copy and paste, is that too hard?

And even what you posted isn't proof that he isn't a pawn. 'he will never allow himself to be a pawn' yeah and Horus thought he was in control, but we know he wasn't. If GW say 'the chaos gods have no control over abaddon' then I'll happily concede, but Abaddon thinking that he will never allow himself to be a pawn is not evidence stated he isn't a pawn. I can intend to never allow myself to be a human, doesn't mean I'm ALF.

Quite apart from the overly paranoid approach to links (it's hardly a random link, given that it's from a verified, actual Dakka user with a genuine post history and clearly pertinent to the subject in hand, linking to a site that clearly comes up as a legitimate site if you search for it in Google), the text was also posted here too. What's the point in asking a question if, when an answer is provided that seems to come direct form the course itself, you just arbitrarily declare that answer invalid? Was the question even asked in good faith to begin with? Why should we bother trying to provide proof if only you can decide whether it's worthy or not? Doesn't seem worth the effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
this isn't some link to a sketchy website, it's a link to ADB's fething blog, you should be thanking him for that link as a great source of information aside from what you're actually asking him (I know I am BTW, thanks Brutus) seriously a link to a valid source (I think "excepts from the Black Library writers bible is a pretty good source yes?) is a pretty valid way to address things, better then a massive quote block TBH.

Incidentaly Slaves ot Darkness (the new HH novel) shows us Horus becoming a clear pawn of Chaos. It shows that EVERY Primarch even before the siege began had become little more then a pawn of the dark gods, a "slave to darkness" I highly reccomend people read that book

I don't care, I don't click on links regardless of what the URL says, I shouldn't be thanking him, not since he started being an ass.

Just out of interest, how do you use the internet if this is your policy regarding links?

 Grimskul wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Its not just about the time, I don't click on random links on the internet, nor should you if you care about the safety of your computer. It blows my mind when people throw up a link expecting people to just click on some random link. I have not read the source as I'm not an idiot so yes unless you actually write it here and give the proof rather than being lazy then no its not proof, because you haven't given me any evidence I can look at. All you said is that its from GW, I need more context than that, so I suggest you get off your lasy ass and actually post the evidence, all you have to do is copy and paste, is that too hard?

And even what you posted isn't proof that he isn't a pawn. 'he will never allow himself to be a pawn' yeah and Horus thought he was in control, but we know he wasn't. If GW say 'the chaos gods have no control over abaddon' then I'll happily concede, but Abaddon thinking that he will never allow himself to be a pawn is not evidence stated he isn't a pawn. I can intend to never allow myself to be a human, doesn't mean I'm ALF.

Quite apart from the overly paranoid approach to links (it's hardly a random link, given that it's from a verified, actual Dakka user with a genuine post history and clearly pertinent to the subject in hand, linking to a site that clearly comes up as a legitimate site if you search for it in Google), the text was also posted here too. What's the point in asking a question if, when an answer is provided that seems to come direct form the course itself, you just arbitrarily declare that answer invalid? Was the question even asked in good faith to begin with? Why should we bother trying to provide proof if only you can decide whether it's worthy or not? Doesn't seem worth the effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
this isn't some link to a sketchy website, it's a link to ADB's fething blog, you should be thanking him for that link as a great source of information aside from what you're actually asking him (I know I am BTW, thanks Brutus) seriously a link to a valid source (I think "excepts from the Black Library writers bible is a pretty good source yes?) is a pretty valid way to address things, better then a massive quote block TBH.

Incidentaly Slaves ot Darkness (the new HH novel) shows us Horus becoming a clear pawn of Chaos. It shows that EVERY Primarch even before the siege began had become little more then a pawn of the dark gods, a "slave to darkness" I highly reccomend people read that book

I don't care, I don't click on links regardless of what the URL says, I shouldn't be thanking him, not since he started being an ass.

Just out of interest, how do you use the internet if this is your policy regarding links?

He only clicks on the most reputable and edifying sites of course, like Pronhub and Xvideo

Slipspace wrote:
That's odd, I clicked on the link and my computer didn't explode. Still 100% virus free, in fact. What's more, it actually revealed interesting information pertinent to the discussion we were having that directly answered the question posed in the OP.

Still doesn't explain why you refuse to accept the information as valid, BTW.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
That's odd, I clicked on the link and my computer didn't explode. Still 100% virus free, in fact. What's more, it actually revealed interesting information pertinent to the discussion we were having that directly answered the question posed in the OP.

Still doesn't explain why you refuse to accept the information as valid, BTW.

I don't not except it as not being valid, jesus christ. THE SOURCE IS VALID, BUT HIS ARGUMENT ISN'T. Abaddon saying he is determined not to be a pawn, is not evidence or proof stating that he is not a pawn. That is not evidence, that is only evidence suggesting that Abaddon is DETERMINED not to be a pawn, ergo its not evidence showing he isn't a pawn ppffttt.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This entry is directly from GW headquarters. From the office of the loremaster:

So, here. These aren’t my words – they’re from The Archive to End All Archives. The crowning jewel of said archive, as it happens. It aligns with the general consensus on Abaddon, but how it was phrased just resonated with me like nothing else quite had before.

<snip>

This is definitive proof that Abaddon is not, nor will ever be a slave to Chaos.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Cheers to anyone who found the link regarding Abaddon as enlightening as I had the first time I read it.

I think Abaddon is a much more nuanced character than people give him credit for, and by extension tend to joke about what a failure he is.

He is absolutely, one of the most interesting characters in the 40K universe.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Cheers to anyone who found the link regarding Abaddon as enlightening as I had the first time I read it.

I think Abaddon is a much more nuanced character than people give him credit for, and by extension tend to joke about what a failure he is.

He is absolutely, one of the most interesting characters in the 40K universe.

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
That's odd, I clicked on the link and my computer didn't explode. Still 100% virus free, in fact. What's more, it actually revealed interesting information pertinent to the discussion we were having that directly answered the question posed in the OP.

Still doesn't explain why you refuse to accept the information as valid, BTW.

I don't not except it as not being valid, jesus christ. THE SOURCE IS VALID, BUT HIS ARGUMENT ISN'T. Abaddon saying he is determined not to be a pawn, is not evidence or proof stating that he is not a pawn. That is not evidence, that is only evidence suggesting that Abaddon is DETERMINED not to be a pawn, ergo its not evidence showing he isn't a pawn ppffttt.

The mod post above notwithstanding, you do realise the text that's been quoted (and linked to) isn't Abaddon's opinion of himself, right? It's the accepted BL/GW view of him. Him not being a pawn is how he is written and how is character is intended to be by the people who created him. It's as close to fact as we're ever likely to get from a GW background point of view. I'm sure you'll have some tortured and convoluted reason why you're still right in spite of all evidence to the contrary though.

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah, I've been wanting to do black legion for awhile now myself, once Abbaddon gets his new mini I'll proably take the plunge

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
That's odd, I clicked on the link and my computer didn't explode. Still 100% virus free, in fact. What's more, it actually revealed interesting information pertinent to the discussion we were having that directly answered the question posed in the OP.

Still doesn't explain why you refuse to accept the information as valid, BTW.

I don't not except it as not being valid, jesus christ. THE SOURCE IS VALID, BUT HIS ARGUMENT ISN'T. Abaddon saying he is determined not to be a pawn, is not evidence or proof stating that he is not a pawn. That is not evidence, that is only evidence suggesting that Abaddon is DETERMINED not to be a pawn, ergo its not evidence showing he isn't a pawn ppffttt.

The mod post above notwithstanding, you do realise the text that's been quoted (and linked to) isn't Abaddon's opinion of himself, right? It's the accepted BL/GW view of him. Him not being a pawn is how he is written and how is character is intended to be by the people who created him. It's as close to fact as we're ever likely to get from a GW background point of view. I'm sure you'll have some tortured and convoluted reason why you're still right in spite of all evidence to the contrary though.

Exactly, so it isn't evidence that he is definitively a pawn which is what he was claiming and posted that as 'definitive proof' which is exactly what he said.

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
That's odd, I clicked on the link and my computer didn't explode. Still 100% virus free, in fact. What's more, it actually revealed interesting information pertinent to the discussion we were having that directly answered the question posed in the OP.

Still doesn't explain why you refuse to accept the information as valid, BTW.

I don't not except it as not being valid, jesus christ. THE SOURCE IS VALID, BUT HIS ARGUMENT ISN'T. Abaddon saying he is determined not to be a pawn, is not evidence or proof stating that he is not a pawn. That is not evidence, that is only evidence suggesting that Abaddon is DETERMINED not to be a pawn, ergo its not evidence showing he isn't a pawn ppffttt.

The mod post above notwithstanding, you do realise the text that's been quoted (and linked to) isn't Abaddon's opinion of himself, right? It's the accepted BL/GW view of him. Him not being a pawn is how he is written and how is character is intended to be by the people who created him. It's as close to fact as we're ever likely to get from a GW background point of view. I'm sure you'll have some tortured and convoluted reason why you're still right in spite of all evidence to the contrary though.

Exactly, so it isn't evidence that he is definitively a pawn which is what he was claiming and posted that as 'definitive proof' which is exactly what he said.

What? Of course it's not definitively stating he is a pawn, as that's the opposite of what it says. You were the one arguing he was a pawn, not the other way around. You're welcome to blindly ignore everything that's been posted but it's a completely dishonest way to approach a discussion if you're not even going to read the evidence presented to you that directly answers your question. Or is your need to be proven correct so great you can't just accept what's been shown as pretty unequivocal?

Voss wrote:

That certainly makes him sound more interesting, but they definitely need to show that off more often. The failure thing comes from him constantly being turned back- too often they didn't make it apparent enough he was actually succeeding in his aims.

 ikeulhu wrote:

Voss wrote:

That certainly makes him sound more interesting, but they definitely need to show that off more often. The failure thing comes from him constantly being turned back- too often they didn't make it apparent enough he was actually succeeding in his aims.

The Black Legion series of books (currently The Talon of Horus and Black Legion) does an excellent job of displaying what a great character Abaddon can be. It really shows how much more he can be then just "Failbaddon"

It was almost enough to make me want to start a Black Legion army!

 ikeulhu wrote:
Yeah, it has become my favorite Chaos focused series, and I am really looking forward to the next one.

pm713 wrote:
Does anything ever mention how long it is for Abbadon between Crusades? They'd be much more impressive if they were every three years or something rather than taking forever.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I love the mix of characters as well, even a dark eldar in there.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I love the mix of characters as well, even a dark eldar in there.

Agreed, Khayon and his entourage quickly became favorite characters of mine as well.