Have the 30k stories ruined the 40k stories?

[Captain Idaho]

Oh A D-B!

 

I'm gutted to hear you unequivocably say the Emperor is a man and everything is as black and white in that he is not a god. The nature of the Warp in 40K has always been dubious enough for the Emperor to be a man, but become a god due to his use of its power (long story short).

 

That always tied into fluff in 40K from stuff, like the liber Chaotica.

 

But now you are a man who has his fingers firmly in the GW IP pie, and that means if you say without doubt the Emperor is a man, then all that we know is now incorrect!

 

Ok that is a major exaggeration, but my question is thus; are former sources of the Emperor's power in the Warp, or the nature of worship creating a god in the warp, completely over ridden by this BL position or can we still speculate without being wholly incorrect?

 

:lol:

[Scribe]

Unless I am way off the mark here, being the Emperor in 30K, a Man, a Psyker, a combination of many Shaman Souls, these things are not in dispute, has no bearing on 40K.

 

In 40K however, after 10000 years of worship from the vast majority of the Human species? I see no reason to deny a God-Emperor Warp power at that point, however I would say it is shackled by the Emperor still being kept alive (a few cells I believe the story now goes) by the Golden Throne.

 

The Emperor not being a God in 30K, does not mean the God-Emperor of 40K does not have a presence in the Warp generated by the belief of Humanity.

 

EDIT: Look at the old fluff, Starchild, and now the Terminus Decree from Grey Knights codex, these things point to the potential of a God-Emperor Warp power being suppressed by the Emperor being kept alive.

[Xo'baloc the Thrice Cursed]

I love all black library fiction, but for some reason I now prefer the Horus Heresy stories. This is because the whole series is so interwoven and each novel contributes to this grand epoch of mankind, which set the stage for 40k, at least for the Imperium of Man and the Chaos Astartes. Every time I read a novel of the Horus Heresy, I fell like I've found another part of some big puzzle and all the novels are part of big narrative that is steadily moving forward, revealing more and more of the puzzle to me.

 

Plus, I love to find all those subtle-sometimes not so subtle- references to modern day earth.

 

Most stories set in the current 40k time period dont paint a big picture. They tend to focus on one particular Chapter, regiment, and the rare Craftworld and dont really interconnect like HH does.Don't get me wrong, some series, Like Gaunt's Ghosts, The Night Lords, The Tome of Fire, and the Ultramarines, are excellent and demonstrate what Wharhammer 40000 fiction should be. Even though they follow the single Chapter/Regiment rule, when I read them, i really feel like Im reading about a developing history through the eyes of the characters that live through it.NL gives me a good idea of what its like to live as a Traitor Astartes in the aftermath of the Horus Heresy, while GG has taken me through the Sabbat Worlds crusade.

 

That is what 40 k fiction should be like, but I recognize that each author has his own view on canon and and realize that loose canon is what 40k goes by. Because of that, I feel that its tough for authors to iconnect their books, not only because they have their own view of canon, but also because an author might not want that. They might want to craft their own tales. and I respect that.

[Anselmius]

Perhaps its just my own bias coming through in my interpretations of what we knew before hand (IA articles and such) but as ADB mentioned at the top of the page, very little has changed from previously established canon (noting that 40k canon is a fairly nebulous thing anyway) so I dont know, maybe its just me. Its an interesting topic, I think I will take it up with my gaming group and other boards as well. :]

Obviously my interpretation is not plainly obvious either since several of you seem to think non-god emperor was solid canon, so maybe my desire to interpret it in a certain way came through as well :P.

 

As for your point on ADB, he surely knows more than I on the canon and he surely is a greater authority by his position, but I cannot agree that this stuff is old even if I may have to except that 40k canon now establishes the imperium as a lie. If I find some extra time I'll get you some quotes that seem to hint at my position even. That is, I think there is not just an open-endedness here but even some that suggests the emperor's divinity in the mythos even if very convoluted and uncertain (as it should be, given I do not like this new black and white stuff on the emperor :D).

 

I also think, that the 40K God-Emperor, is a real thing, a growing Warp Entity/God that can be a source of good that we also see in the early HH novels as a seperate thing from the Emperor, but I'm not to big on most of the 40K novels really, only getting into Black Library for the HH and ADB's Night Lords work.

I really don't like the idea of silly thoughts being the exclusive source of the emperor's godhood, though I am quite fine with there being a warp entity created from people's misworship/worship of of the emperor (by canon there should be something in the warp unless somehow the real emperor absorbs it or something, which would be interesting?).

 

Its an interesting topic, I think I will take it up with my gaming group and other boards as well.

I'd love to see what they say about this pre-Last Church and TFH. Perhaps me and my Space-Marine-fan-boy friends are just a really small group. I do not think that is the case, but I could be wrong.

[Scribe]

Can you perhaps describe what you think the Emperor could be then if not a Warp Power? All the 'Gods' of the setting are Warp Powers, or Star Gods (C'tan) who are just uber organisms really who feed on stars and master the material realm, they dont really create anything, nor draw power from Worship like Warp Powers.

[Anselmius]

Can you perhaps describe what you think the Emperor could be then if not a Warp Power?

Again, I just want the emperor to be left mysterious so as to not absolutely validate nor invalidate the imperium's basic beliefs in the mythos, but hes something like an Old One (populators of 40k galaxy right?), maybe older, etc.

[Scribe]

I guess coming from a place of having read the Realm of Chaos origin for the Emperor, I just never saw there being any alternative. The Imperial Cult is a religion based on a lie, thats just all there ever was to me. :(

[A D-B]

Oh A D-B!

 

I'm gutted to hear you unequivocably say the Emperor is a man and everything is as black and white in that he is not a god. The nature of the Warp in 40K has always been dubious enough for the Emperor to be a man, but become a god due to his use of its power (long story short).

 

That always tied into fluff in 40K from stuff, like the liber Chaotica.

 

But now you are a man who has his fingers firmly in the GW IP pie, and that means if you say without doubt the Emperor is a man, then all that we know is now incorrect!

 

Ok that is a major exaggeration, but my question is thus; are former sources of the Emperor's power in the Warp, or the nature of worship creating a god in the warp, completely over ridden by this BL position or can we still speculate without being wholly incorrect?

 

:(

 

...mwuh?

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's very much still vague, with nothing much changed, especially down at the metaphysical level. The Imperium (back when the Emperor was walking around) never saw him as a god. That's not changed. He's (apparently... *spooky music*) never been the god that the Imperium believed in, which is why the Space Marines have always thought the Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial Creed were deluded.

 

Hell, I suspect there'll never be a solid answer. That, surely, is the point?

[Anselmius]

If I find some extra time I'll get you some quotes that seem to hint at my position even.

And here we go. Behold ex-fan-boy obsessiveness :

 

I.

4th Edition Rulebook, when discussing the Imperium, refers to the emperor as god-emperor, and his will as divine, and his servants as enacting his will as if it is fact in the mythos. This certainly is not proof that he is in the mythos (and can be interpreted in many different ways), but it lends evidence to it. A few of many examples:

"A million worlds and innumerable souls to command, ruled over by the God-Emperor of Mankind."

(

pg

92)

"..the only constant is the Immortal God-Emperor of Mankind."

(

pg

94)

"..Ministorum, a vast body of Adepts whose divinely appointed task .."

(

pg

95)

"..setting up shrines, cathedrals, and basilica to the Divine Master of Mankind wherever they go."

(

pg

95)

"..cults following these divinely inspired individuals soon formed."

(

pg

96)

"The greatest strength of the Imperium is its faith in the Emperor.."

(pg98)

If it is said that it is written like 'fact' since its meant to be from an imperial perspective, I would respond that there is no clear reason to think this any more than that the 'facts' in some of the newer HH books should be assumed to just be said as fact to further a traitor perspective, since they are from a traitor perspective .

 

II.

Early HH books hinted that maybe the Imperial Truth was really the lie, and the emperor was indeed a god:

"Who else, they argued, had the right to crush all other belief in gods, than the one true divinity himself..."

(From one of my favorites in the

HH

series:

The Flight of the Eisenstein

pg

213)

Furthermore, there were several miracles occurring for the believing community, and I think the whole book of the Flight of the Eisenstein gives some of the greatest support to my theory without pronouncing mine as canon (it still leaves it vague). Now certainly TFH is counter to this and sets of the basis of those beliefs on the beliefs of Lorgar which is apparently a lie. I'm just saying, it was not so clear before and seemed like a very open question and even one that favored the Imperium at times. The traitors were not necessarily right about the Imperium (even if they are still necessarily wrong about turning to the warp instead).

 

III.

There is clear suggestion that canon on the emperor is supposed to be open form some of the most popular codexs (which could be interpreted in other ways):

"His origins are unrecorded

and

unknown

." (

pg

4 of the Black Templar Codex and

pg

6 of the current Space Marine Codex)

 

Conclusion

This is not to say the 'imperium is a lie; the emperor never was a character of divinity' is a blatantly false interpretation of the old stuff. I'm just saying this used to be more vague. I have a hard time seeing how people would think otherwise after reading the first few HH books (especially Flight of the Eisenstein). I suppose that being an Imperial fan boy, amongst other things, I might have thought the opposite was more likely in the mythos even if it was very vague (and my creativity in the hobby decided to take that approach too). So maybe from a more pessimistic lens, the 'imperial lie' seemed obvious too (one may expect such an interpretation from a user with a name like 'Scribe of Khorne' for instance ). I just hope the vagueness returns.

[Scribe]

Points 1 and 2 are in character I would argue, with point 1 only refinforcing that EVERYTHING became hysterically religious 10K years after his ascension to the Golden Throne, its a sales pitch. "No no, you are not a slave, you are a holy servant of the immortal God-Emperor of Humanity, now please continue with your duty of processing bits orders." and point 2 is the exact same logic that the Word Bearers used, "Only the truly divine would deny his own Divinity." but it didnt really stick for long.

 

Point 3 however is a good one, and strongly retcons (imo) the Realm of Chaos stance, which explicitly states he was born at a specific time, and place, on ancient Earth.

 

Perhaps my stance sits too strongly with taking the Realm of Chaos text as fact, which was one of the reasons it was liked as a source of Fluff, but the constant refutation of his divinity, and his (imo somewhat juvenile) arguments in The Last Church, plus support from Mechanicum, and TFH, and even the fact that (most?) 40K space marines dont see him as a God, lead me to sit firmly on the "Not a God in 30K, 10K years of Worship could have made one however" camp. :]

 

For what its worth, most of my gaming group seems to be on the thinking he was a God side, but they admit they didnt read the old RoC fluff, or keep up with the HH storyline.

 

And yes, I can fully admit that my own life experiences bleed into my interpretation of the background and what the Emperor's Utopia would look like as described in TLC. :]

[Captain Idaho]

...mwuh?

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's very much still vague, with nothing much changed, especially down at the metaphysical level. The Imperium (back when the Emperor was walking around) never saw him as a god. That's not changed. He's (apparently... *spooky music*) never been the god that the Imperium believed in, which is why the Space Marines have always thought the Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial Creed were deluded.

 

Hell, I suspect there'll never be a solid answer. That, surely, is the point?

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

I read the part about the Emperor never being the god the Imperium believed him to be as a black and white "he's never a god" statement, but what I should have done is realise that doesn't mean he isn't a different sort of god, at least 10,000 years later (god in the 40K sense of being a warp power).

 

And you are correct, the mystery is the point. We wouldn't have much of a discussion board otherwise eh!

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[A D-B]

...mwuh?

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's very much still vague, with nothing much changed, especially down at the metaphysical level. The Imperium (back when the Emperor was walking around) never saw him as a god. That's not changed. He's (apparently... *spooky music*) never been the god that the Imperium believed in, which is why the Space Marines have always thought the Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial Creed were deluded.

 

Hell, I suspect there'll never be a solid answer. That, surely, is the point?

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

I read the part about the Emperor never being the god the Imperium believed him to be as a black and white "he's never a god" statement, but what I should have done is realise that doesn't mean he isn't a different sort of god, at least 10,000 years later (god in the 40K sense of being a warp power).

 

And you are correct, the mystery is the point. We wouldn't have much of a discussion board otherwise eh!

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Yeah, it was my bad I was jetlagged from 10 days in New York, and firing on about half a thruster.

 

Jesus, I hope it's never fully answered, myself. I like vague.

[Aegnor]

I thought it was supposed to be narratives from a neutral perspective describing the traitors (thus not tainted by traitor bias)?

 

Where on Earth did you draw that conclusion from? The entire point to this series is to tell it from the Traitors' POVs, since 40K fluff has been predominantly Imperial bias since forever and the only word we've ever had to go on about how the Heresy went down was from the Imperials. That there are Loyalist or even "neutral" POVs at all in this is basically them throwing bread into the duck pond to keep feathers from being ruffled, all while the bottom of the pond is being dredged up for all the water-rotten corpses that have been hiding beneath the waters for years.

 

Vehemently disagree with you there Khestra. We certainly are getting to see more of the traitor's POV, but revealing 'the hidden truth behind the lies and in the process revealing all the fluff that's gone before as wrong' (to paraphrase) is definitely not the point of the series IMO, and I can't imagine it's what GW, BL, or the authors themselves' intent for the series-as-a-whole.

 

Personally I think what's happened so far in the series has recast some of the villians in a more understandable and occasionally more sympathetic light, but not changed at all really who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. This has always been a gritty setting where even the good guys are a pretty nasty bunch, and if this aspect coming through in the HH series has come as a surprise to anyone, I guess it's good that they're reading enough fluff now to understand that's the universe they're playing in. There haven't been any revelations in this to date that are really "omg, that changes my views on EVERYTHING". There has been a lot of colouring in and elaboration of what was already there, but it changes nothing in the biggest picture, it's simply great to know and very entertaining to read.

[Lord_Caerolion]

There haven't been any revelations in this to date that are really "omg, that changes my views on EVERYTHING". There has been a lot of colouring in and elaboration of what was already there, but it changes nothing in the biggest picture, it's simply great to know and very entertaining to read.

 

*cough*Legion!*cough*

[ninja6fett]

1. The true answer to where the loyalty of the Lion lies.

2. The fact that Fulgrim is a full-on Daemon, not Fulgrim any more.

 

That's two things off the top of my head.

[Gaz Taylor]

Jesus, I hope it's never fully answered, myself. I like vague.

 

I never understand why people want it answered. Part of the fun of 40K is the whole vagueness of certain things.

[Aegnor]

I didn't say, or at least didn't mean to say, that nothing new has been introduced. Just nothing that changes the basics of what happened, or who is a villain.

 

1) Legion. Probably the most valid counter-example. But still, we got a lot more insights, but ultimately the true motives of this most mysterious of Legions during the Heresy remain... Mysterious! It's revealed they were offered a choice between two options, but is open to speculation as to which they chose, or whether they went for a third, altogether different option. (but still awesome).

2) The Lion has always been a loyalist. The only suggestion that he wavered came from a Fallen Angel trying to undermine a loyalist's faith. Nothing new here. (but still awesome).

3) ok, Fulgrim being possessed rather than elevated to daemon-princedom is new, but pretty immaterial to the story of how he fell. He'd already made his decision re sides and set his legion on their path to damnation. Again, interesting extra information that changes nothing, in the big picture, about the course of the Heresy, simply fleshes it out further. (but still awesome).

[Theis]

Skimming the thread while I kill time on a conference call for work, on a Saturday, and have a couple of thoughts. Take them for what they're worth (ie, just one opinion among many);

 

Isn't the bad Primarch Night Haunter? He was mass murdering before he knew of the Emperor and didn't stop, destroying his homeworld twice, pretty much. I know he was a bit sad about it all, but even so.

 

This touches on one of my biggest discomforts.

 

If the Night Haunter actually is the narratively straightforward monster of his IA article (and his Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness roots), I suspect people will be annoyed. He's one of the ones a lot of fans tend to discuss as being betrayed himself, or absolutely justified in his turning against the Imperium. You can spin it both ways at once, but ultimately we're dealing with a pretty monstrous guy, at the head of an absolutely corrupt, lawless Legion. But people prefer the "betrayed noble criminals" and "he was definitely schizophrenic" deal, often implying it's deeper and/or better, and in a lot of ways, that's become perceived canon.

 

There's a lot of tread in the story, don't get me wrong. And the notion of a primarch that loathes his own Legion (even as he wields them as a necessary lesson of human nature) is a beautiful one. But a lot of people want the tragic monster. They want the "good" bad guy. And I'm not convinced that's what Night Haunter really was. On one hand, it's cool. On the other hand, we have a lot of canon in the past setting him up a different way. Which to stick to? Both? Neither? One or the other?

 

So I look upon his story with a little dread, and say things like "I'm, um, for my first HH novel, I'll, uh, write about the Word Bearers finding the Eye of Terror instead."

 

Dunno if you should have any dread surrounding this. Sure, lots of folks will enjoy the 'good bad guy,' however, I'd say that the evidence supporting the popularity of your vision for the Night Lords makes for a strong counter argument. Can't imagine being in your shoes on this though. Dread is a perfectly understandable reaction.

 

I though, will really enjoy Curze displayed as a monster. It's part of what draws me toward the Night Lords and the World Eaters. These are not nice "people." Sure, there's redeeming qualities scattered throughout, but in the end, no one in the 40k (30k?) hierarchy is a sterling example of morality in action. Some are bound to trend toward more good than bad, but the opposite must be the case or we'd never have arrived at the heresy to begin with. Then again, they'd never have arrived at a vast empire if even the 'best' of them weren't willing to take questionable, pragmatic, actions from time to time. Even the most stalwart and pure of the primarchs has put entire species to the sword, declared exterminatus on worlds, what have you. Again, not very nice people.

 

In my view, again, just one among many, Curze, Angron, and others among the traitors are the ones that let their darker impulses make their decisions more often than the others. Spiteful savagery, incandescent rage, envy, pride, whatever the motivation, whatever the reason, these are the ones less in control of themselves than the others. I loved the insight into that which we got in Age of Darkness. Curze and the Lion served as an excellent contrast. The contrast in the nature of the two legions couldn't have been more clear. Sevatar speaks to the nature of the Night Lords quite well, I think.

 

Really, the heresy can be seen to simply devolve down to, some of the primarchs gave in to the darker aspects of their nature. Sure, they had help, but they let their emotions cloud their thinking. Whatever their justifications, they chose to sacrifice trillions of lives. The people that make those sorts of decisions are not 'good' come the final tally.

 

The other point I wanted to make is, I really don't get the debate over the Horus Heresy series having changed the underlying fluff of the universe. Let's take the divinity of the emperor / the imperium is a lie as an example. I think it's clear that the origins of all this are just as vague as they've ever been, we're just getting some more detailed history to help make it all even more vague. Did the big E get the help of the chaos gods and then break a deal with them? I think the only thing we know for sure is that the chaos gods want us to think that. We know the big E wanted religion expunged from the human thought process. Do we know his real motivation? Nope, we've just seen a couple of potential explanations. Defense against the chaos gods by robbing them of their faith / power, gaining all of that for himself, or some other explanation, or a combination of them all, who really knows?

 

I'm a historian by training, and though my career took me out of that field pretty quickly, I try to keep my hand in. What I see from all the canon, fluff, etc., is just a bunch of source material. Like all source material it's going to be contaminated by the view point of the observer, author, what have you. It's up to us to decipher 'fact' from it. What we know from the original fluff and now isn't really changing all that much. All we're getting now is some more detail, and a whole number of new points of view to filter out.

 

I think part of the problem that we may be experiencing locally is that we get to talk to a couple of the authors in this forum, ADB most notably. What we may be forgetting is that ADB in his novels is immersing himself in his characters' points of view. So what he says 'in character' may only be a partial glimpse of objective fact. What he says in these threads, on that subject, seems to be, and this is just my interpretation, exactly that. Anything said by a character should be filtered for the bedrock facts, anything beyond that is just a lens of perspective. Argel Tal, for example, is not an ubiased source. ADB might be, but if he is, he's constrained in what he can reveal. It's best to treat the two separately.

[Anselmius]

I. Theis

 

I really don't get the debate over the Horus Heresy series having changed the underlying fluff of the universe. Let's take the divinity of the emperor / the imperium is a lie as an example. I think it's clear that the origins of all this are just as vague as they've ever been

I really have to disagree here. The Last Church, and even more so, the First Heretic have been the first semi-canon fluff to turn the unknown question (i.e. is the Imperium a lie/was the Emperor divine?) into the Imperium is a lie, the emperor wasn't divine. I don't see how you can get less vague and more black and white than that.

 

 

II. Scribe of Khorne

 

For what its worth, most of my gaming group seems to be on the thinking he was a God side, but they admit they didnt read the old RoC fluff, or keep up with the HH storyline.

Ya that's my experience as well. I think the average 40k fan thinks this, so I am not sure why GW taking it in the other direction. Again, that's just my small experience with 40k fans.

 

point 2 is the exact same logic that the Word Bearers used, "Only the truly divine would deny his own Divinity." but it didnt really stick for long.

Of course :P, but it was because of the First Heretic that this gray becomes a black and white answer (i.e. their argument is false rather than possible but uncertain).

 

And yes, I can fully admit that my own life experiences bleed into my interpretation of the background and what the Emperor's Utopia would look like as described in TLC. :]

As do I.

[A D-B]

I. Theis

 

I really don't get the debate over the Horus Heresy series having changed the underlying fluff of the universe. Let's take the divinity of the emperor / the imperium is a lie as an example. I think it's clear that the origins of all this are just as vague as they've ever been

I really have to disagree here. The Last Church, and even more so, the First Heretic have been the first semi-canon fluff to turn the unknown question (i.e. is the Imperium a lie/was the Emperor divine?) into the Imperium is a lie, the emperor wasn't divine. I don't see how you can get less vague and more black and white than that.

 

They're not semi-canon. They're canon.

 

But I still don't see it. At no point in The First Heretic does it say "The Emperor is/is not a god." At no point does it objectively say that as a truth of the setting, either way.

 

I mean, there are characters that believe it, or don't believe it, or have various interpretations of it. But I just don't see anything in the series as stating it objectively one way or the other.

[Anselmius]

They're not semi-canon. They're canon.

Maybe. I guess I am just saying it with my mind on BL editor Marc Gascoigne's quotes on there being no solid canon in 40k.

 

But I still don't see it. At no point in The First Heretic does it say "The Emperor is/is not a god." At no point does it objectively say that as a truth of the setting, either way.

From this fan-boy's perspective, it is comforting to have the author state this (the best interpreter of a work) I must say :lol:. I think I might have misread some of your earlier comments.

 

Still, I think the most reasonable interpretation of that book is to say the Emperor is not divine and never intended to be perceived as such, but, as my nerd rage subsides, I suppose other interpretations are still possible now that I think about it.

[A D-B]

They're not semi-canon. They're canon.

Maybe. I guess I am just saying it with my mind on BL editor Marc Gascoigne's quotes on there being no solid canon in 40k.

 

Honestly, it's like you're trying to argue. It's not "maybe".

 

If there's no canon, you can't have semi-canon. So your description was wrong, yo.

 

Ultimately, things change. BL now is far, far from what it was 10 years ago, and even since Marc Gascoigne worked there. The state of GW itself has changed; Forge World and Black Library aren't second-tier canon anymore (if, indeed, they ever were - but it was a popular forum perspective).

 

This sums up GW's canon pretty well: http://www.boomtron.com/2011/03/grimdark-ii-loose-canon/

[Zincite]

Jesus, I hope it's never fully answered, myself. I like vague.

I never understand why people want it answered. Part of the fun of 40K is the whole vagueness of certain things.

I totally agree with this in every way possible, even more so if I could. At least I have the safety of knowing A D-B won't answer it, or even if he does he may help keep the vagueness.

 

Hope. It flies around my brain like a kingfisher upon the lake. Then it gets crushed by the spiked hammer of real life

[ninja6fett]

One of the best mysteries to me that's currently unsolved in the Horus Heresy books is that of Euphrati Keeler, who is the first saint and whose powers seem to be fueled by her devotion to the Emperor, but this predates the Emperor's ascension to the Golden Throne and is still firmly in the era of the Imperial Truth, albeit near the end of it. That and the almost spiritual experiences Garro went through during his escape to Terra.

 

I love the muddled nature of the Emperor's divinity and that there is no definite or true answer.

[Captain Idaho]

I really have to disagree here. The Last Church, and even more so, the First Heretic have been the first semi-canon fluff to turn the unknown question (i.e. is the Imperium a lie/was the Emperor divine?) into the Imperium is a lie, the emperor wasn't divine. I don't see how you can get less vague and more black and white than that.

 

With reference to The Last Church, the Emperor certainly explains what he wants everyone to believe (or not as the case may be) but does that mean he isn't a God?

 

The greatest problem with 40K fluff hoarders is they are so black and white. I used to be like that to be honest, but then I embraced the BL (actually got into it) and enjoyed the nuances of the background as opposed to the Codex version of everything.

 

After all, not every character is going to be completely honest, or reveal everything in a single conversation. Motives can be subtle or hidden.

 

Refering to the actual motive of the Emperor, it is postulated as a theory that the Emperor was outlawing religion to undermine the power of his potential rivals. We know the Chaos Gods claimed he was destroying them in his implementation of his plans (the liars that they are), which would certainly support the theory.

 

So he could be a God (in the 40K sense of the word), despite all the claims to the contrary.