Why would a Space Wolf fall?

[Rain]

I love the logic some of you all are using, the accounts aren't canon because they aren't rewritten in multiple sources? Seriously? Well, thunderwolves were never mentioned before this last codex, so I guess due to a "lack of corroboration" those don't exist either. Oh and it's blatantly obvious that the story is told from a third person omniscient standpoint as whenever anything is written from the standpoint of an in-universe character it is made abundantly clear. Just admit it guys, it's canon and your chapter is not the awesome always loyal Mary Sue Space Vikings you want them to be.

 

As for how it happened, I really think that the long term corruption thing is the most likely. I really don't see a Blood Claw accidentally shooting a fellow Wolf really causing other Blood Claws to begin gunning down their brothers. If anything that sounds even more absurd than Chaos mind control or whatever else, yeah friendly fire happens but the fact that a bunch of astartes that had nothing to do with the original accidental shot would begin killing their comrades at the drop of a hat is hard to swallow. More likely these were disaffected and bitter individuals that at some point communed with the chaos powers (perhaps mistaking them for nature spirits or something) and were over the course of decades turned against their oaths and brothers, having probably been granted subtle gifts and protection along the way. Then, when the Corsairs show up, the Dark Gods call in their debts and collect.

[howlett]

This man has it right, Wolves can fall like any other. It is the fact that so few have fallen that makes us stong not the few who have that makes us weak.

[molsonbeagle]

Russ help me, I have to agree with Rain. quite frankly the gods of chaos are sneaky sneaky bastards and don't see time in a line, they see it as a pool and just pick a point...which is to say this treasonous act was most likely fabricated for centuries, the wolves poor poor pawns in a huge game played by the damn chaos. It pains me to say it, but i think it's somewhat obvious. Even some marines can be corrupted....even wolves :)

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

I love the logic some of you all are using, the accounts aren't canon because they aren't rewritten in multiple sources? Seriously? Well, thunderwolves were never mentioned before this last codex, so I guess due to a "lack of corroboration" those don't exist either. Oh and it's blatantly obvious that the story is told from a third person omniscient standpoint as whenever anything is written from the standpoint of an in-universe character it is made abundantly clear. Just admit it guys, it's canon and your chapter is not the awesome always loyal Mary Sue Space Vikings you want them to be.

 

As for how it happened, I really think that the long term corruption thing is the most likely. I really don't see a Blood Claw accidentally shooting a fellow Wolf really causing other Blood Claws to begin gunning down their brothers. If anything that sounds even more absurd than Chaos mind control or whatever else, yeah friendly fire happens but the fact that a bunch of astartes that had nothing to do with the original accidental shot would begin killing their comrades at the drop of a hat is hard to swallow. More likely these were disaffected and bitter individuals that at some point communed with the chaos powers (perhaps mistaking them for nature spirits or something) and were over the course of decades turned against their oaths and brothers, having probably been granted subtle gifts and protection along the way. Then, when the Corsairs show up, the Dark Gods call in their debts and collect.

 

TWC aren't fluff, they are a new unit that forms part of the latest army list and I'm sure that you are aware of the difference.

 

There are two omniscient accounts of the capture of the Wolf of Fenris and the one in C:SW does not support the story of oath-breakers given in C:CSM - why would that be?

 

This latter has been raised (at least twice) already and no adequate response given to explain it.

 

Of course, even given the resistance to chaos given by the Canis Helix, it may be possible that a Space Wolf could fall, but reasonable doubt exists in this case.

[Gree]

There are two omniscient accounts of the capture of the Wolf of Fenris and the one in C:SW does not support the story of oath-breakers given in C:CSM - why would that be?

 

It has.

 

This latter has been raised (at least twice) already and no adequate response given to explain it.

 

I believe I already have offered the explanation of Huron's mind-reading abilities and the fact that the Wolf Priest was not present near the affected Astartes.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

There are two omniscient accounts of the capture of the Wolf of Fenris and the one in C:SW does not support the story of oath-breakers given in C:CSM - why would that be?

 

It has.

 

This latter has been raised (at least twice) already and no adequate response given to explain it.

 

I believe I already have offered the explanation of Huron's mind-reading abilities and the fact that the Wolf Priest was not present near the affected Astartes.

 

Hi Gree,

 

Your answers seem to consistently avoid the crucial issue of why the two omnisciently written accounts aren't the same.

 

After all, the fact that the account in C:CSM was from a third party narrator was the basis of your whole argument and the presence or not of a Wolf Priest, or blue-on-blue incidents are irrelevant to that.

 

Maybe I have missed a point in your argument somewhere as I cannot find you providing any satisfactory reason why the two accounts do not agree on the particular point of there being Space Wolves who turned renegade mid battle.

 

Are you now suggesting that the narrator was under the influence of Huron's psychic influence or that we the readers are :D

 

If you cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the question of the narrator then I can't see how you can prove your point.

 

Just writing 'it has' doesn't make it so...

[Gree]

Your answers seem to consistently avoid the crucial issue of why the two omnisciently written accounts aren't the same.

 

Not really, I have already given multiple answers. It's not my fault if you don't choose to accept them at all.

 

the fact that the account in C:CSM was from a third party narrator was the basis of your whole argument

 

Correct. which is supported by the wording in the article itself.

 

and the presence or not of a Wolf Priest, or blue-on-blue incidents are irrelevant to that.

 

Not really, Decoy and I talked it over. I was just pointing out a reason why the Marines turned.

 

Maybe I have missed a point in your argument somewhere as I cannot find you providing any satisfactory reason why the two accounts do not agree on the particular point of there being Space Wolves who turned renegade mid battle.

 

Your loss then. There were no contridictions whatsoever on the account. I can find nothing in both accounts that contidict each other. It's one thing to compare a fleshed out account and then compare it to a much smaller blurb with less space for ramifications.

 

There is no disagreement at all.

 

Are you now suggesting that the narrator was under the influence of Huron's psychic influence or that we the readers are :D

 

Not really, you seem to repeatedly miss the point I am making.

 

If you cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the question of the narrator then I can't see how you can prove your point.

 

I do, you choose to not accept it. I have repeatedly stated my positon and backed it up several times by using points from the original account.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

No, I've read through that exchange and, as I understand it, the basis for your argument was:

 

There was no real difference between the accounts apart form bits that were left out in C:SW for reasons of brevity.

 

Unfortunately, one of these bits left out is critical to your argument and putting that omission down to 'brevity' or 'space' doesn't wash in a debate.

 

Decoy raised the point of a 'middle ground' between the two narrated accounts - I do not see your addressing that, but just say that 'they match up fine'.

 

Unfortunately they don't 'match up fine' on the most important point in your argument and sticking your fingers in your ears and going, 'la la la, can't hear you' isn't going to change that. Again, this just doesn't work in a debate - you have to prove you point.

 

Unless, you have anything to prove your point then this has run its course for me.

[Gree]

There was no real difference between the accounts apart form bits that were left out in C:SW for reasons of brevity.

 

Correct, that's true.

 

Unfortunately, one of these bits left out is critical to your argument and putting that omission down to 'brevity' or 'space' doesn't wash in a debate.

 

No, not really, that's you choosing to simply not accept what I say.

 

Decoy raised the point of a 'middle ground' between the two narrated accounts - I do not see your addressing that, but just say that 'they match up fine'.

 

I actually already stated my reasons to him and them discussed him when he brought up another subject.

 

Unfortunately they don't 'match up fine' on the most important point in your argument and sticking your fingers in your ears and going, 'la la la, can't hear you' isn't going to change that. Again, this just doesn't work in a debate - you have to prove you point.

 

Personal attacks? Seriously?

 

I have already proved my point several times, if anything it's you who is going ''la la la''.

 

Unless, you have anything to prove your point then this has run its course for me.

 

Good for you. :(

[Decoy]

Gree, I kind of have to agree with Durfast here. You've really not offered any proof, just your opinions thus far. Having the Wolf and Chaos dex in front of me, reading both in regards to the Wolf of Fenris, I can say that there are a few discrepancies. Your counterargument to that, however, has essentially been "No there's not." Moreover, your casual dismissal of a fairly valid (if crudely conceived) counterpoint (that a point must be proven in a debate) as an ad-hominim attack doesn't quite shine you in the greatest of lights regarding any critical thinking.

 

So far, you're the only one to supply a semi-coherent argument, and it'd be a shame to let it devolve from this point.

[Gree]

Gree, I kind of have to agree with Durfast here. You've really not offered any proof, just your opinions thus far

 

Like the entire third person use in the Wolf Of Fenris story and collaberations from Skull Harvest and Chapter's Due?

 

Having the Wolf and Chaos dex in front of me, reading both in regards to the Wolf of Fenris, I can say that there are a few discrepancies.

 

Like what? I have found none.

 

Your counterargument to that, however, has essentially been "No there's not."

 

Correct, when I see proof I will be inclined to change my mind. So far I have found no contridiction.

 

Moreover, your casual dismissal of a fairly valid (if crudely conceived) counterpoint (that a point must be proven in a debate) as an ad-hominim attack doesn't quite shine you in the greatest of lights regarding any critical thinking.

 

Not really, I don't appreciate having a personal snipe directed against me, from whomever it may be. If I see an veiled barb directed against me I will call it out.

 

Not to mention I could easily accuse Durfast of those same things.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Sorry Gree, I did not intend for you take my post as personal attack.

 

My apologies for causing you offence.

[Gree]

Sorry Gree, I did not intend for you take my post as personal attack.

 

My apologies for causing you offence.

 

I see, I misinterpreted it then. My apologies.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

I understand that it is easy for the wheels to fall off on internet discussions and will try to be clearer.

 

The reason I feel that you have to offer a better explanation than brevity for the lack of a sentence on renegade Space Wolves is because it is possible to present alternate theories.

 

Perhaps, if Phil Kelly didn't agree with the version in C:CSM he considered, at least, three options.

 

1. Leave the whole story out of C:SM - thereby leaving the C:CSM version uncontested.

 

2. Rewrite it - and have to fight his corner with the other writers.

 

3. Include a short account that leaves out the bit he didn't like - thus leaving room for just this sort debate and meaning that the part of the C:CSM version in which Space Wolves turned renegade is now subject to doubt.

 

We all know that GW adapt the fluff as they go along and 40K has always included grey areas and contradictions. So this last option would avoid friction amongst the GW staff and remain within the bounds of the law of 'if, could and maybe' that dominates the fluff.

 

I hope that you can now appreciate why I feel that the lack of the passage concerning Space Wolves turning renegade in the C:SW version is enough to cause doubt in one's mind. To overcome this, therefore, one needs to present compelling reasons that brevity is the only reason why the accounts do not both mention this point.

 

Now clearly, without a post from Phil himself, this is almost impossible to do so I can appreciate that this would cause frustration.

 

I do look forward to reading the Red Corsair books, but, as we know, they can only inform the debate as they are not 'canon'.

[Gree]

The reason I feel that you have to offer a better explanation than brevity for the lack of a sentence on renegade Space Wolves is because it is possible to present alternate theories.

 

Perhaps, if Phil Kelly didn't agree with the version in C:CSM he considered, at least, three options.

 

1. Leave the whole story out of C:SM - thereby leaving the C:CSM version uncontested.

 

2. Rewrite it - and have to fight his corner with the other writers.

 

3. Include a short account that leaves out the bit he didn't like - thus leaving room for just this sort debate and meaning that the part of the C:CSM version in which Space Wolves turned renegade is now subject to doubt.

 

Or maybe he simply just ran out of room for his page limit?

 

thus leaving room for just this sort debate and meaning that the part of the C:CSM version in which Space Wolves turned renegade is now subject to doubt.

 

How is that subject to doubt? should we doubt there was a Wolf Priest aboard the Wolf Of Fenris or that the Red Corsairs opened up with their dreadclaws? Or that Huron wanted ships. There is nothing in the passageway at all that implies that it did not happen.

 

I hope that you can now appreciate why I feel that the lack of the passage concerning Space Wolves turning renegade in the C:SW version is enough to cause doubt in one's mind.

 

Not really, personally I find that almost grasping for straws. But if you want to believe that go ahead.

 

I do look forward to reading the Red Corsair books, but, as we know, they can only inform the debate as they are not 'canon'.

 

They are not Red Corsairs books. Skull Harvest was a Honsou short story and Chapter's Due was an Ultramarine novel featuring Honsou as the antagonist.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Or maybe he simply just ran out of room for his page limit?

 

your 'maybe' (my bold) is enough to clinch it for me.

 

How is that subject to doubt?

 

As I mentioned earlier, oaths are central to the SW fluff. That Phil choose to leave out oath-breaking, ie. something totally against the SW code of conduct, due to word count is not a certainty - doubt exists.

 

They are not Red Corsairs books. Skull Harvest was a Honsou short story and Chapter's Due was an Ultramarine novel featuring Honsou as the antagonist.

 

Thanks for the steer.

 

I'm sorry if you think that I'm almost clutching at straws, I can see that you are convinced by your position and are frustrated that I do not accept what are, for you, facts.

[Gree]

Or maybe he simply just ran out of room for his page limit?

 

your 'maybe' (my bold) is enough to clinch it for me.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

As I mentioned earlier, oaths are central to the SW fluff. That Phil choose to leave out oath-breaking, ie. something totally against the SW code of conduct, due to word count is not a certainty - doubt exists.

 

All Space Marine chapters take their oaths seriously. The Wolves are no anything more special in that regard.

 

I'm sorry if you think that I'm almost clutching at straws, I can see that you are convinced by your position and are frustrated that I do not accept what are, for you, facts.

 

Not really. I am not frustrated at all. Why would I be frustrated?

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

All Space Marine chapters take their oaths seriously. The Wolves are no anything more special in that regard.

 

This comment came as a real surprise - as someone who has spent so much time trawling through the fluff and writing their own material, you have previously shown a grasp of this sort of detail. The Space Wolves' approach to oaths (rather than oaths in themselves) is one of the fundamental differences between them and other chapters.

 

Notwithstanding the importance of oaths to all chapters, I'm sure that you appreciate that the Northern European Germanic tradition that underpins the Space Wolves and the role of oaths in that tradition is indicative of their difference in this regard.

 

I would suggest that this comment indicates why you have not accepted that the exclusion of the oath-breakers passage in the C:SW account of the capture of the Wolf of Fenris is a strong indicator for there being doubt.

[Gree]

All Space Marine chapters take their oaths seriously. The Wolves are no anything more special in that regard.

 

This comment came as a real surprise - as someone who has spent so much time trawling through the fluff and writing their own material, you have previously shown a grasp of this sort of detail. The Space Wolves' approach to oaths (rather than oaths in themselves) is one of the fundamental differences between them and other chapters.

 

Notwithstanding the importance of oaths to all chapters, I'm sure that you appreciate that the Northern European Germanic tradition that underpins the Space Wolves and the role of oaths in that tradition is indicative of their difference in this regard.

 

I would suggest that this comment indicates why you have not accepted that the exclusion of the oath-breakers passage in the C:SW account of the capture of the Wolf of Fenris is a strong indicator for there being doubt.

 

Not really, I've read All the Ragnar books, The Second, Third and Fifth Edition Codices, along with Battle of the Abyss and a Thousand Sons, as well as the Eye of Terror codex.

 

Point is Wolves have that theme but all Marine Chapters hate their renegades with a passion. Except I never saw the Space Wolves as being more passionate in any of the source material than the rest of the loyalists. In fact we have examples before of Wolves breaking their oaths and going off on their own before. I would note that the whole Lost Companies part in the 5th edition Codex is given no mention at all.

 

The whole oath aspect of the Wolves is not deeply explored at all in the codices, or at least the Fifth edition codex. Most of the oath reactions come from the Black Library publications (Grey Hunter and Wolfblade) than the codices.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

The whole oath aspect of the Wolves is not deeply explored at all in the codices, or at least the Fifth edition codex. Most of the oath reactions come from the Black Library publications (Grey Hunter and Wolfblade) than the codices.

 

As I said, although not canon, the latter can inform the debate and here they are most useful.

 

However, there's plenty there if you look for it. In fact the new codex leans on it even heavier than early ones, eg. Lone Wolves, p.29, Wolf Guard on p.30, Ulrik the Slayer on p.50, Sagas on p.64. I'm sure that you can find many more and remain very surprised, given your extensive research, that you reject their particular approach to oathtaking. Although to be fair, sagas can be compared to the pre-battle oaths taken by the Howling Griffins.

 

As an aside, the lost companies have recanted their oaths, not broken them and there is a difference between the two things (see inside cover of 3rd ed codex). Still, I'm sure you knew that already.

[Gree]

However, there's plenty there if you look for it. In fact the new codex leans on it even heavier than early ones, eg. Lone Wolves, p.29, Wolf Guard on p.30, Ulrik the Slayer on p.50, Sagas on p.64.

 

But not much given than I would expect, or any more than a usual Marine chapter. In fact Sagas are more of a rule thing than anything else.

 

As an aside, the lost companies have recanted their oaths, not broken them and there is a difference between the two things (see inside cover of 3rd ed codex). Still, I'm sure you knew that already.

 

Funny thing. The Wolf of Fenris story uses ''recant''.

 

They recanted their oaths to the Space Wolves, Leman Russ and the Emperor, and swore new pledges to loyalty to Huron.

 

So technically the Wolves never broke their oaths. They just recanted them and swore new ones.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Ah well, we will have to agree to disagree, but it does mean that you will never accept the reason why I (and perhaps others) have reservations about those parts of the action Phil chose to highlight. Moreover, if you do not want to empathise with what many consider to be a fundamental aspect of the chapter then you may encounter difficulties in accurately portraying its members.

 

There are different traditions when it comes to oaths, such as Jewish, Greco-Roman, Germanic and Christian. The latter two are linked through the Chivalric tradition, which includes elements of them both. The Ultramarines are heavily informed by the Greco-Roman tradition and the Howling Griffins by the Chivalric. If you do some traditional historical research (if you have not done so already) then I'm sure you will see the differences for yourself.

 

On your specific point, the difference between breaking and recanting is laid out in the story. First they would have broken their oaths if they had killed their pack mates, then there would have been the requirement for them to formally recant their oaths before taking a new oath to Huron. That is all in line with the Germanic tradition.

[Gree]

Ah well, we will have to agree to disagree, but it does mean that you will never accept the reason why I (and perhaps others) have reservations about those parts of the action Phil chose to highlight.

 

I would rather say he did the opposite actually.

 

Moreover, if you do not want to empathise with what many consider to be a fundamental aspect of the chapter then you may encounter difficulties in accurately portraying its members.

 

Have you even read my story?

 

The Ultramarines are heavily informed by the Greco-Roman tradition and the Howling Griffins by the Chivalric.

 

Howling Griffons are more Germanic than anything else. It's like they pulled their oaths straight out of the WFB Dwarfs.

 

On your specific point, the difference between breaking and recanting is laid out in the story. First they would have broken their oaths if they had killed their pack mates,

 

Actually the story just says they attacked them, nothing about fatalities.

 

there would have been the requirement for them to formally recant their oaths before taking a new oath to Huron. That is all in line with the Germanic tradition.

 

I would say they did, given they were described as listing the people they were recanting.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

I would rather say he did the opposite actually.

 

Doesn't that just go to prove what I've been saying - I'm not sure where you were going there.

 

Have you even read my story?

 

Yes, Glee, I have read your story.

 

As an aside

 

'Einar, bondsman to Dragongaze' - the bond is an oath I suggest - at least it is in the germanic tradition that people have generally accepted underpins the SW.

 

 

Howling Griffons are more Germanic than anything else. It's like they pulled their oaths straight out of the WFB Dwarfs.

 

You are happy to link the Howling Griffins with (Germanic) Dwarves, but wont concede a similarity with the SWs and their sagas - interesting. As a point of clarification, nordic societies are regarded as part of the germanic tradition (less the Finns to an extent), but I'm sure you knew that.

 

Some background reading on chivalry might be in order before disagreeing with me so readily. You may think that I'm assuming much about your knowledge here, but anyone with a grounding in medieval history would know that chivalry was deeply influenced by the germanic tradition. Try D.Crouch, 'The Birth of Nobility' if you are interested, his chapter on the noble habitus can even been found on google books.

 

edit - to add link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rnf2w9I...p;q&f=false

 

Actually the story just says they attacked them, nothing about fatalities.

 

Fair one, but that would still be construed as breaking their oath would it not :D

 

there would have been the requirement for them to formally recant their oaths before taking a new oath to Huron. That is all in line with the Germanic tradition.

 

I would say they did, given they were described as listing the people they were recanting.

 

Exactly, I was merely using the conditional form as an indication of my scepticism. :D

 

1. They broke their oaths by firing on their comrades.

2. They formally recanted their oaths in order to take out a new one.

 

Hopefully my meaning is clearer now.

[Gree]

I would rather say he did the opposite actually.

 

Doesn't that just go to prove what I've been saying - I'm not sure where you were going there.

 

Then why did you say he highlighted it then?

 

'Einar, bondsman to Dragongaze' - the bond is an oath I suggest - at least it is in the germanic tradition that people have generally accepted underpins the SW.

 

I never said that they never used bonds or oaths. I just don't believe to any more extent than other chapters.

 

You are happy to link the Howling Griffins with (Germanic) Dwarves, but wont concede a similarity with the SWs and their sagas - interesting. As a point of clarification, nordic societies are regarded as part of the germanic tradition (less the Finns to an extent), but I'm sure you knew that.

 

I never said that SW were not Germanic, I simply don't believe they have as much as an emphasis as the Griffons or as the Dwarves.

 

Some background reading on chivalry might be in order before disagreeing with me so readily. You may think that I'm assuming much about your knowledge here, but anyone with a grounding in medieval history would know that chivalry was deeply influenced by the germanic tradition. Try D.Crouch, 'The Birth of Nobility' if you are interested, his chapter on the noble habitus can even been found on google books.

 

edit - to add link: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rnf2w9I...p;q&f=false

 

I have already studied the medieval period to know that much of the ''oaths'' and ''promises'' between Kings, popes, nobles, etc, etc, were a load of hogwash.

 

The Griffons swear oaths for just about every concievable reason. There is even a battle of them swearing oaths for preperations in an upcoming battle. By contrast there is very little of the constant oath swearing in the Ragnar books.

 

Fair one, but that would still be construed as breaking their oath would it not :)

 

Not really, I would not count it if their were no fatalities. Besides they only would have broke the oaths for attacking another battle brother, not for actually leaving the chapter of betraying that.