The Commandments of Lorgar

[Dammeron]

So according to you, the BL is no longer a source of canonical information because of disparity in writing styles of authors. . .okay, well, that removes FW from being canonical as well, as its writing staff isn't the same as who generates canon for GW nor do they use one individual author for their fluff, so the Sanctified don't actually exist in established canon. That erases the only distinct and unauthorized branch-off of the Word Bearers that has ever existed in the fluff, so now we're back to the original point: no one leaves the Word Bearers. Since GW has never bothered to display an actual Word Bearers offshoot from their own pens (with the Foresworn and the Sons of Damnation being authorized Hosts allowed to act autonomously by Lorgar himself), then there aren't any offshoots and never have been.

 

Not necessarily; if one chooses to take the BL fiction as canon, then that's their business; what I'm saying is that there intrinsic problems in doing so when attempting to establish absolute dogma concerning what is, ultimately, a mythology that is widely open to individual interpretation. Taking one author's work, that revolves around his or hers preconceptions of what the background implies, is ultimately always going to come down to personal bias, since there are clear and evident examples of differing representations within distinct series within BL fiction. What one chooses to take as canon and what one does not ultimately depends on one's biases and individual interpretations. As for Forgeworld and the Sanctified, absolutely fine; my position doesn't hinge on their existence; they were merely an example of how a schism or offshoot could occur within background that has been established within the gaming system.

 

With regards to the notion of the background of individual armies being illegitimate unless it is

...distinct and authorised...

, I'm sorry, but that's just absurd, and something of an imposition. The notion that one cannot utilise ideas and inspirations in one's own army background unless it has been specifically stated and mandated within some abstruse notion of authorised background ultimately neuters any imagination one might wish to apply to one's own work. The background is left with deliberate gaps to actively encourage players to do precisely this.

 

so now we're back to the original point: no one leaves the Word Bearers

 

This is not the original point; it is your particular basis of interpretation, because it is how you perceive the background and ethos of the Word Bearers. This is not wrong, as there is nothing to contradict it per se. Similarly, there is nothing within established background to support it either; no statement in Index Astartes, codicies or any background outside of BL fiction, which basically means that my interpretation is no less legitimate. What we have is a conflict of interpretation, based upon our preconceptions of what the background of the Word Bearers implies. There is absolutely nothing absolutely stating there are no schisms, offshoots or heretical sects of Word Bearers who have broken away from the primary legion; there is absolutely nothing stating that there are. All we have are somewhat vague allusions to ten thousand years of evolving fanaticism, meaning that the nature and activities of the Word Bearers during those ten thousand years are wide open to interpretation. For my money, it is truly absurd to think that a body the size of the Word Bearers, given the innate proclivities of its members towards revealed knowledge, would not have suffered all manner of schisms and fractures. Whether you agree or not is ultimately incidental, since it ultimately comes down to a matter of interpretation, without anything concrete or solid to point to beyond one's own biases.

 

 

Perspectives do differ, but neither Erebus nor Kor Phaeron have left the Word Bearers despite whatever misgivings or disagreements they may have with Lorgar, and they would have been in the best position to (especially Erebus). In fact, post-Aurelian, I doubt either would have even dared try. If the two most powerful members of the Word Bearers hat sanctioned, isn't evidence at all. The "My Dark Apostle didn't like Erebus so he took his Host and left" isn't going to fly in the face of a Legion so grounded in their Faith that any notion of recidivism or schismatic leanings is promptly eradicated by the Council of Sicarus. ve stuck it out with Lorgar since the beginning and remain subservient to him, then it stands to reason those two would not only serve as physical reminders that the will of Lorgar isn't to be disobeyed, but would also take whatever measures necessary to quash any and all who would even try. Profound disagreement =/= take my toys, change my paint and leave. Using the Sanctified as your one and only prop, a 10,000-year old one that wasn't supposed to have survived in the first place and certainly wasn'

 

Again, this is all a matter of personal interpretation and proclivity; you believe that the authority and power structures established by the Word Bearers over ten thousand years would be sufficient to contain any notion of schism or to prevent heretical offshoots from escaping. I do not, particularly over the course of ten thousand years, and especially considering that many of the Hosts of the Word Bearers are at large, rather than operating directly on or around Sicarius. The 40K universe is so vast, it deliberately allows for any number of interpretations of background, even in those instances where something is specifically stated as being the nature of this or that army, of this or that individual; there will always, always be exceptions that prove the rule. What if a Grand Host got lost during Warp transit, finding themselves consumed by a Nurgle-created plague similar to the Destroyer, which warped and twisted their perceptions to the worship of Nurgle? What if Tzeentch is manipulating the visions of a particular Dark Apostle to bring him to a particular appointed destiny, inspiring him to break away from the primary legion and providing the sorcerous means of doing so? What if, what if, what if...? This is the nature and point of the 40K universe; it is to inspire and exercise imagination; not to impose dogmatic restriction. In this instance, the point goes doubly, since there is nothing, absolutely nothing, detailing the Word Bearer's history following their flight to Sicarius; all we know is that it is a cathedral-like daemon world where Lorgar's faith is imposed. That is all. Any statement concerning how the Word Bearers operate or organise themselves at this point is always going to be a matter of individual interpretation. Mine and yours differ; neither is wrong; they simply conflict.

 

You like real world analogies,

 

I think they're pertinent, as they are to all fiction, since fiction is universally informed by physical reality. You said earlier that you don't find them pertinent. Are they or aren't they?

 

it's pretty obvious that Crusade-era Christianity isn't what the Word was designed around

 

Is it? Why? Having studied the history of Abrahamic faith in the West quite deeply, I can find many, many, many aesthetic, philosophical and organisational parallels between the Word Bearers and crusade-era Christianity, not to mention any number of other religious movements, structures and organisations. It's fairly clear that they were not wholly inspired by any one, distinct article; rather they represent a collective exaggeration of all the most extreme movements that litter history, borrowing bits and pieces from many diverse sources.

[totgeboren]

While I agree that it seems almost silly that the WB would remain 100% unified after 10,000 years, being split between the Eye of Terror and the Maelstrom. However, I personally feel that the w40k setting becomes a bit more interesting if one of the nine legions that turned did not fracture, that it has as a defining trait that it has remained one unified organisation, something only possible under the circumstances because of their unique geenseed.

 

But sure, throughout the ages a few Dark Apostles must have failed in carrying out the orders of the Council of Sicarus, and made the decision to not return. However, they would need to get the rest of the host in on not returning, which would be an incredibly difficult task, seeing as how the responsibility of the host seems to lie almost entirely on the Dark Apostle. The First Acolyte might be corrupted by a daemon, taking out the Dark Apostle and slowly leading the Host down the path of worshipping only the Patron of the daemon. Things like that.

 

But saying that the WB are just as fractured as anyone else (or in the same league) is I think doing a disservice to the 40k setting. Variation is the spice of life, and I think it's a bit boring if what separates especially the five unmarked legions is only the name and paintjob.

 

If someone wants red marines with metal trim worshipping only Khorne, there is nothing stopping them. But saying they are Word Bearers (that is, part of the Word Bearer Legion) is imo turning the WB into the BL. Everyone is free to make up their own warbands as they wish, but the boundaries set up by the background makes the setting more interesting, not less. Why isn't people complaining about not being able to field World Eater Noise Marines? Because it's cool that an entire legion fell to Khorne, and Khorne alone.

I think the same goes for the Word Bearers. It's cool that one of the legions have retained their particular branch of chaos worship, and not fallen over to any of the Gods. Saying they also fall to specific Gods remove their appeal, as we already have especially the BL and the Red Corsairs, all generic warbands and the NL to a lesser extent that fills that slot in the background. It takes away their special quirk and replaces it with... nothing really.

 

I think say Khorne-dedicated WB should be on par with Khorne-dedicated SW. The background contain support for both (the Sanctified and Skyrars Dark Wolves), but this should not tempt anyone to say that the Space Wolves follow Khorne, or that the Word Bearers can dedicate themselves to any of the Gods as they like. Doing something like this makes that group a new faction, and an enemy to the parent legion/chapter at that.

[A D-B]

But saying that the WB are just as fractured as anyone else (or in the same league) is I think doing a disservice to the 40k setting.

 

No one has said that. In fact, they've made pains to say the exact opposite. They've retained more togetherness (as of 3 editions ago, and a novel series) than any other Legion. But it's doing a disservice to the scale of the setting to suggest that they operate on such a small-scale that there's no one leaving, ever, or that it's purely because they've failed and choose not to return.

 

And again, no one is saying that the Word Bearers should still be considered Word Bearers if they do something as radical as worshipping Khorne and Khorne alone. The only example we have are the Sanctified, and they're listed as being former Word Bearers, still affiliated with the Legion, but not Word Bearers anymore.

 

That said, I'm sure some Lords or individual groups do indeed choose a patron god as their favoured one among the pantheon, but to remain Word Bearers, that's surely a rare thing. And perhaps not even permanent.

 

Variation is the spice of life, and I think it's a bit boring if what separates especially the five unmarked legions is only the name and paintjob.

 

That's a pretty sad slice of reasoning. The Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Ultramarines and Minotaurs all use the same rules. Are they just different because of their names and paintjobs? What about the Lamenters and the Flesh Tearers? Are they the same because they can take the same units?

 

I hate that argument. If a player needs special rules to feel the soul of an army, the problem is with the player, not the army.

 

The Undivided Legions are as different from each other as can be imagined. A little overlap in the vaguest terms means nothing.

[totgeboren]

No one has said that. In fact, they've made pains to say the exact opposite. They've retained more togetherness (as of 3 editions ago, and a novel series) than any other Legion. But it's doing a disservice to the scale of the setting to suggest that they operate on such a small-scale that there's no one leaving, ever, or that it's purely because they've failed and choose not to return.

 

And again, no one is saying that the Word Bearers should still be considered Word Bearers if they do something as radical as worshipping Khorne and Khorne alone. The only example we have are the Sanctified, and they're listed as being former Word Bearers, still affiliated with the Legion, but not Word Bearers anymore.

 

That said, I'm sure some Lords or individual groups do indeed choose a patron god as their favoured one among the pantheon, but to remain Word Bearers, that's surely a rare thing. And perhaps not even permanent.

 

And I agree that it would seem highly absurd that there is not a single Word Bearer in the entire 40k setting that has left the family, so to say.

 

Variation is the spice of life, and I think it's a bit boring if what separates especially the five unmarked legions is only the name and paintjob.

 

That's a pretty sad slice of reasoning. The Iron Hands, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Ultramarines and Minotaurs all use the same rules. Are they just different because of their names and paintjobs? What about the Lamenters and the Flesh Tearers? Are they the same because they can take the same units?

 

I hate that argument. If a player needs special rules to feel the soul of an army, the problem is with the player, not the army.

 

The Undivided Legions are as different from each other as can be imagined. A little overlap in the vaguest terms means nothing.

 

I never mentioned rules. I was talking pure background, and background-wise, those loyalists you mentioned all have their traits and perks, also their respective codices does an ok job of portraying all of them (except maybe the Iron Hands). All I was saying is that I personally find it interesting that one legion, the WB, are maybe the most fanatical of all chaos worshippers, yet at the same time do not go down the road of any single god.

I think it is a bit boring background-wise if both the BL and WB are 'undivided' in the same way. I prefer when the BL are undivided in that they field Cult troops of all the Gods, being undivided as a legion, but not at an individual level, or even at a warband level.

The WB instead take the undivided aspect much further, having it be a doctrine of faith that every legionary should strive for a sort of perfect balance in chaos. That appeals to me, that the BL are into chaos in a more pragmatic way, whilst the WB instead seek some higher theological purpose.

 

But I must admit I would find it less than thrilling if Ultramarines could field Death Company on Thunderwolves. Sometimes legion-specific rules, where some legions are excluded from a few niche things, can be a good thing for the game and the setting. But I'm not saying I want 3.5 back, just that background-wise, having specific doctrines that separate the legions, and which will have an effect on the composition of a themed warband can be good thing. White Scars like bikes and avoid slow stuff. Imperial Fists like heavy guns, things like that. Of course you can have a White Scar Thunderfire Cannon, but it's not something that could be considered a 'themed' unit for the chapter.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

This is not the original point; it is your particular basis of interpretation, because it is how you perceive the background and ethos of the Word Bearers. This is not wrong, as there is nothing to contradict it per se. Similarly, there is nothing within established background to support it either; no statement in Index Astartes, codicies or any background outside of BL fiction, which basically means that my interpretation is no less legitimate. What we have is a conflict of interpretation, based upon our preconceptions of what the background of the Word Bearers implies. There is absolutely nothing absolutely stating there are no schisms, offshoots or heretical sects of Word Bearers who have broken away from the primary legion; there is absolutely nothing stating that there are. All we have are somewhat vague allusions to ten thousand years of evolving fanaticism, meaning that the nature and activities of the Word Bearers during those ten thousand years are wide open to interpretation. For my money, it is truly absurd to think that a body the size of the Word Bearers, given the innate proclivities of its members towards revealed knowledge, would not have suffered all manner of schisms and fractures. Whether you agree or not is ultimately incidental, since it ultimately comes down to a matter of interpretation, without anything concrete or solid to point to beyond one's own biases.

 

Your basis for this stems from trying to apply a real-world view on what isn't a real-world scenario. Schism and fractures require reasons to occur, and the Word Bearers lack the means for such reasons to infringe except on a basis so rare it's apparently only happened twice in 10,000 years (see: the Brotherhood) that required entire Hosts to be purged, and those Hosts weren't heretical, just ambitious beyond their scope and put their own glory before that of the Word. We have more evidence of what happens when people try, and that holds more weight than allusions or a desperate clawing at cobwebs for a rationale that, frankly, doesn't appear to be there.

 

 

Again, this is all a matter of personal interpretation and proclivity; you believe that the authority and power structures established by the Word Bearers over ten thousand years would be sufficient to contain any notion of schism or to prevent heretical offshoots from escaping. I do not, particularly over the course of ten thousand years, and especially considering that many of the Hosts of the Word Bearers are at large, rather than operating directly on or around Sicarius. The 40K universe is so vast, it deliberately allows for any number of interpretations of background, even in those instances where something is specifically stated as being the nature of this or that army, of this or that individual; there will always, always be exceptions that prove the rule. What if a Grand Host got lost during Warp transit, finding themselves consumed by a Nurgle-created plague similar to the Destroyer, which warped and twisted their perceptions to the worship of Nurgle? What if Tzeentch is manipulating the visions of a particular Dark Apostle to bring him to a particular appointed destiny, inspiring him to break away from the primary legion and providing the sorcerous means of doing so? What if, what if, what if...? This is the nature and point of the 40K universe; it is to inspire and exercise imagination; not to impose dogmatic restriction. In this instance, the point goes doubly, since there is nothing, absolutely nothing, detailing the Word Bearer's history following their flight to Sicarius; all we know is that it is a cathedral-like daemon world where Lorgar's faith is imposed. That is all. Any statement concerning how the Word Bearers operate or organise themselves at this point is always going to be a matter of individual interpretation. Mine and yours differ; neither is wrong; they simply conflict.

 

Again, you miss the commonality in all those cases: Lorgar. There's a reason every Word Bearer has a copy of the Book of Lorgar. They aren't steered as dramatically by the vagaries of the Warp more than they are by their Primarch's writings. . .which are still ongoing. No Dark Apostle is going to take the word of a Warp denizen over Book of Lorgar Volume 34 Section 5 Subsection XVII. They'd tell that daemon to flutter off and stick to the script: it's in their nature.

 

Is it? Why? Having studied the history of Abrahamic faith in the West quite deeply, I can find many, many, many aesthetic, philosophical and organisational parallels between the Word Bearers and crusade-era Christianity, not to mention any number of other religious movements, structures and organisations. It's fairly clear that they were not wholly inspired by any one, distinct article; rather they represent a collective exaggeration of all the most extreme movements that litter history, borrowing bits and pieces from many diverse sources.

 

Christianity suffered under no clear leader (multiple Popes, for example), several glaring omissions of their holy book done through political censoring (the Apocryphal texts), mistranslations throughout multiple languages and editions (Hebrew/Greek/Latin/etc. don't all fit together harmoniously), and an unwillingness (or were powerless) to completely eradicate its schismatics (Albigensians, Protestants, Anglicans, etc.), for centuries, and continues to do so. Islam has no mistranslations, their holy book has never been altered, nothing has ever been omitted, and they don't allow for heretical movements to coexist with their Faith, especially if that movement has come from their Faith. It's the most extreme example in real-world analogies (and admittedly not a perfect fit either, since Muhammad is very dead), and jibes better than any sect of Christianity from any era when applied to what we do know about the Word Bearers. Like I said above: schisms require reasons, and when the head of your Church and author of your Holy Book is still alive and still writing and any mistake in the lettering in that book is punishable by death, you don't GET schisms, omissions, mistranslations, or differing points of view as reasons to want to break away. It's all spelled out in blood-and-skin for anyone to read, and you have an organization of extremely proficient spiritual leaders to help grasp the deeper intricacies if you even have a question that comes up, and they're running off the exact same Book (no discriminatory texts a'la the Torah/Talmud here). There's no motive to break away except via the deus ex of "a daemon told me to", and that doesn't hold up if you've got scripture that tells you what your Path is and you're not going to throw it out on the word of a creature whose nature you already know is built on pure selfishness. Where things don't fit from the real world is that of the major faiths of today, no one's got their original writer still making material, so there's a chance for misinterpretations and running off willy-nilly because "an angel told me so". The Word Bearers don't suffer from that problem: there isn't room in their Faith for any Word but one, there's only one source putting that Word to dried-out human skin consistently, and no ground fertile enough to support a different view, as several self-possessed Dark Apostles have discovered to their demise.

 

I'll buy into the idea that the Imperium has been dressing up Necrons in power armor to bolster their Chapter numbers before I'd believe for an instant that an unsanctioned Host has left the Word Bearers post-Terra and wasn't eradicated outright. I prefer the idea behind the solid Legion unified by an unwavering devotion to their Primarch, to whom they're gene-bound and utterly trusting, and to their Faith, apostolic and universal, because it fits them better than the open-endedness of the Emperor's Children or World Eaters (or Black Legion for that matter) where any breeze in the air can send someone off on their own. I think it does a disservice to the Word Bearers to lump them into the same category of organization as every other Legion. Super-fanatics shouldn't have that kind of freedom, it makes them not-super-fanatics, which in turn makes them caricatures of what they were intended to be. That, to me, is patently criminal, and makes for weak fluff. Does this view make me a stodgy fluff-Nazi? Yes, and I'm fine with that. I think if more people had been, we wouldn't have to have these kinds of conversations because the outline would be clear and not subject to whimsy, allusions, or opinions.

[Hyaenidae]

Lorgar may very well be alive, but he is no longer leading his Legion. According to Dark Creed, Lorgar locked himself up within a Temple to "meditate", forbidding anyone from disturbing him. The Legion is being led by Lorgar only in name nowadays; Kor and Erebus now lead, and fractures have already begun in the couple thousand years Lorgar has been physically absent. Like Islam, though the Word Bearer's holy book has not been altered, it is open to interpretation, and such interpretation can lead to abuse by those who wish to use it for their own gain. Both the Black Cardinal and the First Chaplain are involved in a power struggle to this day, which is not suprising... they were the true architects of the Heresy, and were the ones to twist Lorgar (and Horus, for that matter) unto a Darker path. You think such ambition can just be put away, tucked into a drawer? No. Instead, they will (and already have) twist interpretations of an unaltered holy book to their own ends.... and other will as well. In the Hell of the Eye, religion is faith, faith is power, power is corruption. Without Lorgar to whip people in line back on the One True Path, the Legion will continue to devolve, especially with a pair of power hungry faithfuls who once led Primarchs by the nose at the helm.

 

'Fluff-Nazi' it up, man. I ain't going to begrudge your opinion, but I don't feel you're in the right here.

[TheDarkApostle]

Regarding the Sanctified.

 

"Of all the God Daemons of Chaos, it is Khorne that has the greatest sway over the Traitor Legionnaires' hearts. This is not surprising. Khorne is the bloody god of warriors, and the Astartes are the ultimate warriors. Fully an entire Legion, that is named the Eaters of Worlds, has devoted itself to Khorne's worship, and indeed every other Legion has its members who have foresworn their original loyalties to sink into his bloody veneration."

 

- Book of Khorne, Berserkers section.

 

Next, from what I've gathered on the Sanctified (mostly from places like lexicanum and 40kwikia since I don't own the Siege for Vraks books or saw the original articles on the GW site) the original leader of the band died in what, M32 something?

 

There we have a first differentiation from the main Word Bearers, the original leader is dead since long, and from what I've been able to gather, it would be fair to assume leadership has shifted at least a couple of more times after that.

 

Furthermore we have the information that they will bolster their numbers with anyone from any gene-legacy as long as their are devoted enough.

 

Which begets the question, how many actual members of Lorgars gene-legacy remains today? Given their method of recruiting I'd say it fair to assume not many at all. Meaning that the Sanctified is actually a warband made up of non-Word Bearers. Even if they might have been Word Bearers to begin with. Which may also explain why they've deviated from the original worship of the entire Chaos Pantheon.

 

Following this, I can sort of see why the Word Bearers don't bother hunting them down and purging them. There's no Word Bearers left to purge, just a band of misfits from various other Legions and warbands.

 

And regarding the Word Bearers on a whole, I present these little tidbits from the IA article, I've highlighted what might be interesting for the discussion at hand:

 

"The Space Marines of the Word Bearers have a marked tendency towards dogged, unquestioning belief and stubbornness that verges on insanity."

 

- Geneseed section.

 

'dogged', adjective, meaning: Stubbornly persevering; tenacious

 

'persevering', adverb, meaning: To persist in or remain constant to a purpose, idea, or task in the face of obstacles or discouragement.

 

"Rooted in the beliefs of Lorgar himself, the Word Bearers are the heralds of a terrible new age of religious servitude. Only united behind the teachings of a god and offering the obeisance that such a god requires can the masses of Humanity be saved from the perils of alien menace and internal schism. ... Each warriors of the Word Bearers is a missionary bringing the darkness of Chaos with them, preaching the one true faith to those that will hear it and exterminating those who will not."

 

- Beliefs section

 

"Alone among the Legions of Chaos, the Word Bearers maintain a facsimile of their former discipline and faith."

 

- Organisation section

 

'facsimile', noun, meaning: An exact copy or reproduction

 

The last tidbit is what really drew me into Word Bearers to begin with.

 

I have nothing more to add.

 

TDA

[TheDarkApostle]

Lorgar may very well be alive, but he is no longer leading his Legion. According to Dark Creed, Lorgar locked himself up within a Temple to "meditate", forbidding anyone from disturbing him. The Legion is being led by Lorgar only in name nowadays;

Which is why I really don't like the Word Bearer books by Reynolds.

 

"From the Daemon-world of Sicarus, Lorgar watches over his Legion, directing its myriad wars and engagements, orchestrating the vast corruption from within that the Imperium suffers at the hands of his innumerable cults and covens."

 

Since it's clearly in contradiction with the IA. :[

 

TDA

[Hyaenidae]

*shrug*

 

You have your views, I have mine. I personally don't see how any Legion could stay together entirely for ten-thousand years in Hell, though they should be commended how how well they have done so. Doesn't change Lorgar now being physically absent from the Legion since the IA's creation, nor the vicious power struggles between Kor and Erebus for the Legion since then, using that dogged, unquestioning faith as a weapon for their own agendas.

 

You turn your bolter upon your brothers too many times, and eventually cracks will form. Howls of "I know Lorgar's True Vision", "No, I do!" "No, you're both wrong!", followed by bolter fire.

 

Internal wars of Faith, each faction believing they are correct, led by firey orators, twisting thier followers with their views of the Word. Champions taking their interpretations elsewhere, unwilling to fire upon brothers, waiting for their Father to return to restore order.

 

To each their own, I guess.

 

EDIT:Hey, no fair editting while I'm typing, lol!!! Personally, I liked the books. And frankly, the IA's are starting to show their age. Those books slowly being retconned is the best for 40k, in my opinion.

[TheDarkApostle]

No edits besides adding a 's' to the -Legionnaire'- in the second sentence B)

 

TDA

[Kol Saresk]

I thought the impression of the Word Bearers books was that most of the Legion believed that Lorgar led the Legion by giving visions to his Apostles but only the initiated Apostles knew the truth? Which sort of ties into the GW catch-all phrase of "Everything you have been told is a lie. Here is the truth."

[Hyaenidae]

That would throw even more fuel into the fire for individual Word Bearers believing they know the True Word, and taking off / starting a fight. No vision can be trusted when you live in hell. There would be no freakin' way to tell if it was Lorgar, or Jim-Bob, redneck Chaos God of beers and Ford F-150's.

[Kol Saresk]

Which is probably why they rely so much on their Apostles having scriptures from the Word of Lorgar magically brand itself onto their flesh. I believe that was mentioned in the first novel that it was a recurring theme that the scriptures and the mark of Lorgar(I guess that is the whole demonhead symbol) magically pops up on the Apostles.

[Hyaenidae]

Good lord, that's even worse! One irate Word Bearer with a Sharpie marker, and the Legion shatters.

[Kol Saresk]

It will be glorious Chaos! Muwahahahahaha! :D

[TheDarkApostle]

Which is probably why they rely so much on their Apostles having scriptures from the Word of Lorgar magically brand itself onto their flesh. I believe that was mentioned in the first novel that it was a recurring theme that the scriptures and the mark of Lorgar(I guess that is the whole demonhead symbol) magically pops up on the Apostles.

I believe only the mark of Lorgar would "magically" appear as a brand. The scriptures were all tattooed IIRC.

 

TDA

[Kol Saresk]

Oh. According to Jarulek, his scriptures were branded into his flesh as a "blessing". Guess I assumed on that one.

[TheDarkApostle]

I'm really sure I read in Dark Apostle that the scripture on Jarulek was tattooed on him tho :/

 

I think I lent my book to a friend a few years ago so I can't double check and my memory is starting to get really spiffy.

 

TDA

[Kol Saresk]

I glanced through my copy of Dark Apostle but I couldn't find anything definitive one way or the other in case of Jarulek, but I did find a spot where Jarulek asked Marduk if any holy scriptures had appeared on his flesh(page 170) and the passage of when Marduk received the Mark, he remembered how Jarulek had asked him about the scriptures appearing on his flesh.(page 224) I guess this is where I drew my conclusion.

 

The thing about the page numbers is that they are in the omnibus because my original copies of Dark Disciple and Dark Creed were caught in a bad, unexpected rainstorm while I was on my bike one day so I'm not entirely too sure how the translation from one to the other is in terms of location.

[Hyaenidae]

Looked it up; the tattoo was a prophecy of Jarulek's own, not Lorgar's. Which is kinda amusing, considering he got screwed by his own prophecy, lol. Anyhow, I digress...

 

Look, I love the Word Bearers. I really do. Their Legion has done more damage to the Imperium together than any other; I don't count Abbadon's Blackened son's, they are Legion by numbers alone. Their discipline and control is incredible, their ability to hold together while all other Legions broke apart admirable, as is their devotion to the cause, buuuuut..... Lorgar is a major factor in that structure. With his absence, the cracks have grown, and pieces of the Legion have fallen off for various reasons; using Khestra's example, even Islam (and it's untouched and unaltered teachings within the Qur'an) has had periods of bloody civil warfare amongst their faithful, and has fractured into multiple denominations, who have shed blood against each other in the name of an interpretation of a single passage.

 

Without Lorgar leading them, the Word Bearers will end up with rogue Champions and Apostles heading out for various reasons... maybe far, far less than other Legions, but it will happen.

[totgeboren]

I think the main schism between us readers is if we accept the IA article as fact about the 40k background or if we don't. Many of us started WB with that article, or it was the first detailed information that we read about the WB (before that I only had the 2ed Chaos codex as inspiration, though that was enough for me).

 

It seems both Anthony Reynolds and A D-B are less than thrilled with the rigid presentation of the WB that is given in the IA article, and from the point of view of a writer I can understand that.

It generally seems like the IP folks nowadays want to steer the WB into a less extreme direction than their earlier incarnation, and of course some will hate it and some will love it.

Things like; is Lorgar in charge now or is he not?

IA says yes, Reynolds says no. It has quite severe implications, because if their Primarch is alive and actively leading the legion, the chances of a WB turning his back on Lorgar in person is around 0%, considering the peculiarities of their geneseed as pointed out by A D-B in The First Heretic.

 

I don't hate it, but to put it like this, in the old fluff, no WB turned his back of the Legion (as an organisation), in the new fluff, it has happened. The new fluff gives us players more creative freedom, which is nice, but I think it does it at the expense of the 40k setting as a whole.

 

My view is 90% old fluff, 10% new fluff. For example, it's just silly that every single WB warband is lead by a Dark Apostle. But I also think that really, every WB Host should be lead by a Dark Apostle.

For me Marks are out, but then again count-as is in.

[Kol Saresk]

Why can't it be both though? Lorgar actually could be leading the Legion through visions. Technically, if every Word Bearer follows the Word of Lorgar, which was written by Lorgar, then they are still following Lorgar, if not literally in person. Or like I said, he could have gone the way of the rest of the daemon primarchs and now the Dark Council and Kor Phaeron lead the Legion in his name using his teachings. Just because the fluff is presenting it in a new light, doesn't mean that it has to actually change one hundred percent. Remember the part in the IA article where it said that each Host differed depending the Apostle that led it? Hard to be such a strict organization if it varies from group to group depending all on its leader. Of course one could argue that the variety would be limited to some degree. Then some else would point out Christianity an how it goes from those who don't care about the Bible to those only like certain parts to those who actually read and obey the whole thing to denominations like the Mormons and Catholics to the Antis(Isolationist congregations who are conservative to the extreme).

 

Basically, the fluff could go the way of the dodo bird. Or the old fluff could simply have its closet of skeletons opened. Like you said, some will hate it and some will like it. All I say is that a river flows along a strict path, but it will change from a smooth stream to raging rapids many times throughout that path. But when all is said and done, it will still be the river.

[TheDarkApostle]

In a meeting right now but this is more fun, the most I've read on the subject on sudden changes in the host has been mostly in correlation to how to deploy depending on the visions the apostle has been granted. Of course it all also depends on how the apostle in question interprents the signs, which would all depend on the experience of the apostle in doing such. Still they would have to learn the basics of reading the signs somewhere, personally i prefer to think that there are parts in the the book of lorgar which teaches how to interprent them.

 

Returning to sudden changes in organisation and more, I've read it more as changing who is in charge of what or what squad to use for what purpose and how to arm them. And not so much changing the overarching structure of the host. Obviously the apostle won't commit all his forces every single time if the signs tells him otherwise, like if the signs tells him there will be lots of armour then lots of lascannons will be deployed.

 

Of course even I can reasonably see that they wont be able to accuratly predict the comming engagement every single time which would spawn the conception of changing the structure for unfathomable reasons.

 

TDA

[Dammeron]

I'll be getting back to the specific points raised when I have more time (heading out to work now). What I will do here is point out why I have an issue with the position of: "Nope, no Word Bearers schisms, splinter warbands or apostasies" position:

 

What would advocates of that position do, say, if they met someone at a GW or gaming club who had an army that they'd obviously put alot of work into; interesting conversions, an adaptation of the standard Word Bearers colour scheme, who said something like: "Oh yeah, they're an offshoot of the Word Bearers. They don't serve Lorgar anymore; they were fighting on the daemon world of Ash'k'a'ghyk when it was sucked directly into the Warp. No one knows what happened to them there, but when they returned, they came with a New Creed, which the main body of the Word Bearers decried as heretical. Now they wander the galaxy spreading their own particular version of the faith, often attacking worlds where the other Word Bearers have set up strongholds, converting the masses to their own version of the truth..."

 

Would you say to that person: "No, you can't do that..." ?

 

Do you understand what an unbelievable imposition that is? How exclusivist it sounds? You are basically informing all and sundry that they cannot apply imagination and inspiration to the army they have spent time creating because it doesn't chime with your particular preconceptions of the background, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing concrete within that background to categorically reinforce your position (even if there were, there is nothing stopping players from exercising imagination to provide an exception that proves the rule).

 

Part of the joy of the 40K setting is, as a created thing, an imagined mythology, it is ripe for the application of personal storytelling. If someone spends time detailing a background that explains how a Word Bearers apostasy takes place, or how a particular band of Night Lords fell into some kind of fervent religious worship, or how a band of Iron Warriors turned their backs on cold machinery, turning instead to sorcery and superstition, it is their business; part of their hobby, and their is nothing any other hobbyist can or should say to stop them, or undermine their enjoyment thereof. Without such, there would currently be no such thing as the Black Library, or indeed, fiction of any kind save that proscribed in the codicies. There would be no variety of force, no fantastic conversions outside of a dogmatically proscribed remit.

 

As I said before, I don't think you're "wrong" for holding this position; it is your perception of the background and you are welcome to it. My problem derives from the entitled sense of exclusivity that it implies if taken to its logical extreme.

[Hyaenidae]

My problem derives from the entitled sense of exclusivity that it implies if taken to its logical extreme.

 

This, this is what drives me crazy. People who think they own a Legion or Chapter, and browbeat others into compliance when something doesn't jive with their "personal view" of the hobby. I can't stand that. At the very least, let the golden rule of 40k apply: 'If you don't have something constructive to say, then shut the hell up".

 

EDIT: Not directly aimed at anyone here, or even this board; just a general belief, mind you.