The best legion (please don't hurt me...) *Hides*

[Gorkimedes]

Can't find it either. He does demand that the communion help him after Guilliman messes up the "song".-383

[Hyaenidae]

I'll take y'alls word on it, I'm away from my copy right now. Must have been mistaken, my bad.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

Kor Phaeron:

Put Roboute Guilliman on the floor at Calth - Then got his heart torn out

 

Erebus:

Survived a death match with Khârn of the World Eaters. - By running for his life. Missing a hand. Turned Horus to the Chaos Gods. - Then had his face skinned off for getting mouthy.

 

Lorgar:

Smashes Titans and Stormbirds with the power of his mind. Punched out An'ggrath and didn't even have his legs broken first. Earned Angron's respect. - Murdered a portion of his Legion for being born on the wrong planet. Sends another portion on a suicide mission to Calth. Gets his ass kicked by a Contemptor Dreadnought, has to beg for help.

 

We may not have a spacefighter surfing First Captain or a Primarch who can headbutt his way out of the Warp like the Night Lords, but we do all right for ourselves. - ish.

actually murdering them for being born on the wrong planet is still speculation, remember? Caphen is proof that not all Terrans were killed meaning there was wiggle room for others and Massacre and Aurelian, I believe, points out that they had to recruit from many many worlds to achieve the numbers they did.

[BassWave]

White Scars, Templars, Iron Hands, Salamanders are all lucky they never got the thunder squirrel, canis or lukas.  You don't know hate until GW make you a laughing stock.

 

For the sake of not derailing this thread too much, I will humbly and honestly say you have NO idea what you are talking about and that there is a reason I don't play 40k anymore.

 

I have an honest question. Aside from charisma and the ability to wip up an angry, zealous mob, what are the Word Bearers good at in regards to waging war? Honestly I really question the Emperor's creation of Lorgar. If He didn't want to be worshipped as a god, why create a son who's best ability is to create a following of religious zealots in the name of the God Emperor? Makes me wonder if originally Lorgar was supposed to be really good at propaganda and take over the Imperial media to strengthen the Empire's morale. Instead he was raised on a planet that cultivated his mind from a religious standpoint, essentially screwing up the Big E's plans for him.

[Conn Eremon]

I would question the Emperor's creation of Lorgar too if that were the case.

 

Good thing it wasn't, thanks to the whole book series and old IAs making that abundantly clear.

[Wade Garrett]

Even if all the Word Bearers could do was whip up angry mobs of suicidal zealots (and it wasn't) that's still a more useful talent than the Blood Angel's abilities of looking pretty and slaughtering their own allies in a fit of vampiric insanity.

 

At least with the World Eaters somebody else put the crazy in their heads. Sanguinus and the IX were ticking time bombs right out of the gene lab.

 

And then we have the Dark Angels (They were the best at being knightly, until the Black Templars came along.) the Space Wolves (Best at making people who haven't seen the XII or the VIII at work or play think they're the scariest Legion), and the Luna Wolves (Best at something something tip of the spear, something kill the head something).

 

Or perhaps there's more to what makes a good Legion than:

 

"These are the White Scars. They are the best at riding bikes. These are the Thousand Sons. They are the best at wearing wizard hats. Etc, etc."

[Hyaenidae]

*raises hand*

 

I'm 0 for 2 today, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lorgar's original aspects were devotion, which was altered into zealotry by his upbringing on a religious world?

[Wade Garrett]

*raises hand*

 

I'm 0 for 2 today, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lorgar's original aspects were devotion, which was altered into zealotry by his upbringing on a religious world?

That takes us right back to the "Nature vs Nurture" thread, though. I'm wary of saying that Lorgar was genetically molded to be the most devoted Primarch given the existence of Rogal Dorn, Lion'El Johnson, and Fulgrim (IIRC his Legion was granted the right to wear the aquila and their name due to their unwavering loyalty).

[Zincite]

As I understand it, Rogal Dorn was stubbornness, Fulgrim was perfection and Lorgar was devotion. So Dorn is loyal to the Emperor because he's too stubborn to contemplate changing, Fulgrim is loyal because howdareyousuggestheisn'tabsolutelyperfectineveryway and Lorgar is loyal because he needs a deity to slobber over. The Lion doesn't seem particularly loyal to me, so I dunno 'bout him.

 

Their own individual quirks result in loyalty. They weren't necessarily created to be loyal.

 

Fulgrim got the Aquila because he does everything the best. Even his loyalty is shinier than other people's loyalty.

[Kol Saresk]

Well, the thought put forward in The First Heretic by Ingethel(sp?) is that Lorgar's gig is devotion. But how much of that is Colchis/hypno-indoctrination and how much is actually Lorgar?

[Zincite]

Each of the Primarchs were given an aspect of the Emperor to personify. Lorgar's aspect was the love of small mammals with soft fur and large eyes, an inherent human trait even the Emperor had traces of. Thankfully, Kor Phaeron spotted this early on and carefully submerged it within the depths of Lorgar's psyche.

 

However, traces remained. When the Emperor noticed these residual oddities and chagrined Lorgar for spending years at a time building immense, ornate animal sanctuaries on conquered worlds, the Primarch's soul was broken and he turned to Chaos. The histories of this event have been subtly manipulated through the millennia.

[Kol Saresk]

Each of the Primarchs were given an aspect of the Emperor to personify. Lorgar's aspect was the love of small mammals with soft fur and large eyes, an inherent human trait even the Emperor had traces of. Thankfully, Kor Phaeron spotted this early on and carefully submerged it within the depths of Lorgar's psyche.

 

However, traces remained. When the Emperor noticed these residual oddities and chagrined Lorgar for spending years at a time building immense, ornate animal sanctuaries on conquered worlds, the Primarch's soul was broken and he turned to Chaos. The histories of this event have been subtly manipulated through the millennia.

Even in Lorgar's Hello Kitty Diary.

[Legatus]

"More than one capsule was breached whilst it drifted through Warpspace - the forces of the Warp leaked in, wreaking havoc to the developing genetic material inside the capsule. Undoubtly damage was done, although the nature of that damage would not become apparent until the Horus Heresy."

- 5th Edition Codex Space Marines, p. 12

 

"The gene-seed of the Word Bearers was originally thought to be pure, but events subsequent to the Horus Heresy revealed the weakness inherent in their genetic make-up. The Space Marines of the Word Bearers have a marked tendency towards dogged, unquestioning belief and stubbornness that verges on insanity."

- Index Astartes Word Bearers

[Kol Saresk]

Yep, because we can trust the in-universe, biased historians of the Imperium to know what they're talking about. :D

[Legatus]

Yep, because those passages are intended to inform us about the factions and about their status.

 

Whereas the Black Library novels are simply meant to spin a well flowing tale with juicy bits of subjective and biased opinions thrown in. Things like "the Ultramarines absorbed the missing legions", "Space Marines are functionally immortal" or "the Emperor made each Primarch for an individual purpose, and gave each of them a single aspect of himself".

[Marshal Rohr]

So what are the Forge World books?

[Kol Saresk]

Yep. We choose GW's fluff over BL's because the IA articles are biased. You heard it here folks. ;)

[Legatus]

 

We choose GW's fluff over BL's because the IA articles are biased.

 

Huh?

[Kol Saresk]

Unless it is written by an omniscient narrator, a source is biased. Each Codex is written specifically for each faction and is biased towards the faction. The IA articles are written from the perspective of an Imperial historian who is 1.)biased towards the Imperium, 2.)looking back 10,000 years and 3.)is using history records that are more propaganda than fact. The Codices and IA articles are therefore no less biased than a novel written from the perspective of a Word Bearer who is giving a firsthand account.

[Legatus]

I repeat, and I cannot stress this enough: GW sources are usually written expressly with the intent to inform about a given faction. They are intended to give players (or potential players) information about the faction they are investing their money in. The Index Astartes articles were not just published in the White Dwarf magazine, but also sold separately in distinct volumes. People were not paying money to get those Index Astartes volumes because they enjoyed the narrative and the stories. They payed money because they wanted to get the information sources for the factions they were interested in. If GW then turned around and went "by the way, that stuff is not actually true", then that would essentially be fraud. People pay for information about their faction, but what they are given is then said to be incorrect.

 

Black Library books on the other hand do not have the purpose to inform about a faction, they have the purpose to entertain and tell an engrossing story. Authros can take creative license, and can make up conspiracy theories to their hearts content. As long as people ar entertained and enjoy the writing or the characters or the flow of the story, all is good. People should not feel ripped off if the Blood Angel Books or Night Lord Books (LotN in particular) or the Ultramarine books are not true to the "GW canon", as long as they enjoyed the read. It is not fraud if the story the author tells is not necessarily in line with the lore. And the same goes for the Horus Heresy books, btw.

 

In one investors meeting, then head of BL (something or other) George Man (?) was quoted saying that "only studio material is binding reference for authors, while Black Library novels are only meant to tell entertaining stories". (Paraphrased) And that is the obvious way to go. The GW material is creating the game world for players. The BL material is meant to entertain. You cannot tell a player who just payed 300 bucks for a Dark Angels force that his own Codex source book got it wrong, and that the Dark Angels are actually traitors because that's what some novel insinuates. The sourcebook for his faction that GW sold him is correct. It has to be, or, again, selling that book to him would be fraudulent.

 

There are of course parts in GW descriptions where GW is intentionally ambiguous or vague. But such passages are clearly noted as such, with stated caveats and qualifiers. "The inquisition has doubts that this is the case...", "some believe that the reason is that...", "no one knows where they came from..".

 

 

Edit: I know that GW/BL's position on "canonicity" or what is "binding reference" has changed since then. Which is unfortunate, since the notion of GW material having the purpose to inform and BL material having the purpose to entertain has of course not changed.

[Kol Saresk]

And I repeat, the informing is done by an in-universe, biased narrator. I fail to see the conflict you are seeing from the two statements going together.

[Legatus]

 

The Codices and IA articles are therefore no less biased than a novel written from the perspective of a Word Bearer who is giving a firsthand account.

 

The Codices and IA articles are intended to give us accurate information. The novel is intended to be entertaining. That is why Codices and IA articles are more valid as a source.

 

And this

 

 

We choose GW's fluff over BL's because the IA articles are biased.

 

still makes no sense.

[Marshal Rohr]

But what are the Forge World books supposed to be then!?!?

[Kol Saresk]

But what are the Forge World books supposed to be then!?!?

Well, since the obviously not nonexistent "Canonicity Pyramid" of 40k places Forgeworld beneath Black Library due to its obviously not imagined "unofficial" status, I'm guessing either "nonexistent" or "worthless".

 

And Legatus, I still fail to see the conflict. Each Codex is written from its army's perspective. That is the very definition of bias. The IA articles are written from the perspective of an Imperial historian. Again, bias. Both the "canonical"(if such a word actually exists in 40K) sourcebooks and the novels, are biased. Therefore, the "information" presented in the sourcebooks is just as biased as the entertainment provided in the novel. Ergo, an Imperial historian looking back at what little historical records he has, most of which are Imperial propaganda, will say "The gene-seed of the Word Bearers was originally thought to be pure, but events subsequent to the Horus Heresy revealed the weakness inherent in their genetic make-up. The Space Marines of the Word Bearers have a marked tendency towards dogged, unquestioning belief and stubbornness that verges on insanity." while the actual Word Bearer will wonder if that is true or not. Both sources are biased and are working from bits and pieces of information, not a whole picture. Ergo, the question of "Nature vs Nurture" is still unanswered as the only places that can give us an answer, only give opinions and propaganda. It'd be like asking William Tecumseh Sherman if he set fire to Columbia. Of course he's going to say no and of course historians are going to agree with him. Meanwhile the survivors are going to say the Union soldiers did it and we'll never know the truth of it.

[BassWave]

@Marshal2crusaders- FW is true canon, anything released from GW main from 5th edition to now is fan fiction. That's my thought process anyway :p

 

I do not mean to offend any word bearers. I ask because i'm rather ignorant in their lore. I only know them as daemon worshipping tratitors. I'll check out their entry in massacre when I get a chance.