Inquisition Methods

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah cool.

 

I've got the old Marine Dex somewhere, never caught the story was in there.

 

Still, the new fluff of the later GK Dex should, update, it. ;)

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

EDIT: Don't know what happened, but the board ate my entire post leaving only the sections I quoted from Reclusiarch Darius. So, let me try again without the quotes since apparently that's what messed things up. I'll be more brief this time since I don't feel like re-writing the long post I did.

Basically, I don't disagree at all that the GK would be gunning for my inquisitor just as much as he'd be gunning for them. I think it would be kept quiet though. Certainly, I never suggested that Lord Inquisitor Soulis would even admit the GK exist much less make his vendetta against them public. And I reiterate that he wouldn't condemn the chapter at large, but would want to deal with the survivors of the incident in question.

Also, about the Excommunicate Traitoris thing, again, I don't disagree. And, in fact, in my fluff Soulis HAS been declared Excommunicate Traitoris -- a great irony for one who fancies himself a Puritan, even a Monodominant although he's mellowing a bit. This condemnation actually happened before the Bloodtide thing because he didn't feel like getting purged when a rival Inquisitor declared Exterminatus on a certain planet but I digress. However things aren't cut-and-dry. It seems to me that in the vast, bloated bureaucracy of the Imperium, a lot of people would be totally ignorant of the decree, see the Rosette, and act as if he's a member of the Ordo Hereticus in good standing. Others (particularly allies in the inquisition) might view the decree as invalid/illegitimate/non-binding and would still offer quiet assistance. And again, I don't think in the actual game world the GK are omnipotent. They High Lords of Terra may be inclined to declare their enemies Excommunicate Traitoris officially, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't still be lots of back room politics and even a bit of a wink in my inquisitor's direction telling him not to worry about it. As such, he's still able to operate much as he did before as a Coteaz sort of character in the Sorgrece System, but it gives me easy story lines for whenever I face off against other loyalists.

I think I can still use my GK with him since, if they're willing to slaughter sisters of battle to secure a win, surely they are willing to overlook an inquisitor's peccadilloes for a battle or two. I haven't used my GK since Codex:Daemonhunters days and back then Soulis was 100% in good standing, but now that the GK are not as much of a flavour of the month anymore I am more inclined to use the models I have on occasion.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Still, the new fluff of the later GK Dex should, update, it.

I think the story assumes you already know what the Bloodtide is. But yeah, if they made a novella that would be good. They did one for Draigo's fight with Mortarion.

Basically, I don't disagree at all that the GK would be gunning for my inquisitor just as much as he'd be gunning for them. I think it would be kept quiet though. Certainly, I never suggested that Lord Inquisitor Soulis would even admit the GK exist much less make his vendetta against them public. And I reiterate that he wouldn't condemn the chapter at large, but would want to deal with the survivors of the incident in question.

Firstly, how would he know the members of the strikeforce? Secondly, how would he then know where they're deployed?

Condemning battle-brothers of the Grey Knights is condemnation of the Chapter itself, by definition. So no, he can't just accuse the strikeforce members without also calling into question the loyalty of the Chapter.

Quietly is likely, if such a thing were going on. But remember, any Inquisitor taking on the Knights is guranteed to lose. He's fighting a force of Astartes, who know where he his, when he's coming for them, and can outmatch any force he chooses to either defend himself or prosecute them with. Even other Astartes won't tango with Knights, they're another level entirely in terms of power.

Also, about the Excommunicate Traitoris thing, again, I don't disagree. And, in fact, in my fluff Soulis HAS been declared Excommunicate Traitoris -- a great irony for one who fancies himself a Puritan, even a Monodominant although he's mellowing a bit. This condemnation actually happened before the Bloodtide thing because he didn't feel like getting purged when a rival Inquisitor declared Exterminatus on a certain planet but I digress. However things aren't cut-and-dry. It seems to me that in the vast, bloated bureaucracy of the Imperium, a lot of people would be totally ignorant of the decree, see the Rosette, and act as if he's a member of the Ordo Hereticus in good standing. Others (particularly allies in the inquisition) might view the decree as valid/legitimate/binding and would still offer quiet assistance.

It's possible, and Ben Counter already covered this previously in his first Knight book. However, the opinions of the Imperium largely don't matter in this contest. There is literally no other military force in the Imperium that can match the Knights. So its unlikely anyone else wants to send their forces to certain death and failure, regardless of their opinions about blood sacrifice.

And again, I don't think in the actual game world the GK are omnipotent. They High Lords of Terra may be inclined to declare their enemies Excommunicate Traitoris officially, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't still be lots of back room politics and even a bit of a wink in my inquisitor's direction telling him not to worry about it. As such, he's still able to operate much as he did before as a Coteaz sort of character in the Sorgrece System, but it gives me easy story lines for whenever I face off against other loyalists.

Extending this heresy (because that's what it technically is) to include other Inquisitors or high-ranking Imperial figures just further exacerbates the problem you have. The Knights, when (not if) they discover this web of like-minded people pooling resources against them, would declare a purge and begin systematically wiping them out. It's not about omnipotency, it's about them possessing Prognosticators and Librarians who can divine the future. Plus the formidable abilities of the Knights themselves. Even if you somehow caught them by surprise, they're almost impossible to match in combat. Added to the fact that even taking on a small portion of the Chapter would invoke the wrath of all battle-brothers...

I think I can still use my GK with him since, if they're willing to slaughter sisters of battle to secure a win, surely they are willing to overlook an inquisitor's peccadilloes for a battle or two. I haven't used my GK since Codex:Daemonhunters days and back then Soulis was 100% in good standing, but now that the GK are not as much of a flavour of the month anymore I am more inclined to use the models I have on occasion.

I very much doubt the Knights would answer the summons of someone actively working against them. Either he hides his distaste very well, or he never directly interacts with them. Either way, overt action is out of the question. Which goes back to what I keep saying. Its fine if you're Inquisitor has a dislike of Knights. But in terms of taking meaningful action based on his feelings towards them, it's a dead end (literally).

[Gentlemanloser]

I think the story assumes you already know what the Bloodtide is. But yeah, if they made a novella that would be good. They did one for Draigo's fight with Mortarion.

 

/nerdrage

 

Put your gorram helmet on....

 

 

I very much doubt the Knights would answer the summons of someone actively working against them. Either he hides his distaste very well, or he never directly interacts with them. Either way, overt action is out of the question.

 

If the Inquisitor in question had knowlegde about a Dameonic incursion, or the secret true name / rite to banish a big bad, wouldn't the pragmatic GK work with him anyway?  They might not like him, but he's a tool to stop the Daemonic.

[Eddie Orlock]

 

Gentleman loser sees the act as "a pointless act of barbarism and savagry, dedicated to oppose the Chaos God of barbarism and savagry.  And was wholey unnessecary." I could see a puritan inquisitor buying into this, since certain strains of puritan would be so rabidly opposed to anything that smacks of sorcery that this blood magic would, in their view, be heresy. It would be tantamount (in the eyes of some) to agreeing to that bargain with Khorne you mentioned, RD, rather than suffer defeat and the Inquisitor could opine that they should have accepted defeat rather than debase themselves thus. Just because we gamers know that the Grey Knights are incorruptible, doesn't mean that individual inquisitors couldn't (quietly) think to themselves that perhaps the GK have gone too far and are at risk of falling to chaos. As such, when given an opportunity to get rid of the surviving knights from that incident, might take it as a precaution (not hunting the Grey Knights at large).

Except if an Inquisitor did execute Grey Knights, he'd be declared Excommunicate Traitoris and hunted down by the rest of the Chapter. Which goes back to what I said earlier. Yeah sure, an Inquisitor can think nasty thoughts about the Knights all he likes, but he cannot DO anything about it. 

I'm going to dispute the power structure of the Imperium suggested here. On paper any just bearer of the rosette has the perogative to excommunicate anything short of the Emperor. They regularly excommunicate each other. In practice, of course, it's a matter of convincing enough people with enough power to implement his perogatives.

 

So, if an Inquisitor can round up a strike force willing to do it, she's well within her rights to excommunicate a Grey Knight or two, or even an errant brotherhood, by the same writ of authority that allows her to order exterminatus. The trick, of course, lies in rounding up said strike force and evading the probable consequences of her actions. Essentially, it would require a prosecutorial burden of proof strong enough to overcome the Knights general pious political reputation and lasting enough to shelter her from the inevitable call for vengeance, cause of course, if she dies, her case will probably die with her. Alternatively, with enough subterfuge, she might be able to assasinate, or otherwise arrange for the destruction of, the offending knights and evade their braying for blood by mearly evading discovery, they can't kill her if they don't know to look for her. The Imperium's a big place to hide in, and the Grey Knights should be preocupied with their appointed job, not chasing around after petty vengeance.

 

Chasing after petty vengeance, afterall, is the job of the Inquisition. :P

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

No way mate, no way...

 

I've read that story many times.  It's nonsensical, and downright misogynistic.  The GK slaughter Innocent and Pure Sisters of Battle.  Allies to them, that have proved to be utterly immune to the Bloodtide.

 

Something isn't misogynistic just because something bad happens to a woman therein. The Sisters were killed by Bloodletters because Bloodletters gonna let blood and by the Knights because they were "pure" and "innocent" as a result of their permanent state of grace. Neither side killed them because they were women.

 

There's nothing even remotely misogynistic in that 'story'.

[jeffersonian000]

 

 

No way mate, no way...

 

I've read that story many times. It's nonsensical, and downright misogynistic. The GK slaughter Innocent and Pure Sisters of Battle. Allies to them, that have proved to be utterly immune to the Bloodtide.

Something isn't misogynistic just because something bad happens to a woman therein. The Sisters were killed by Bloodletters because Bloodletters gonna let blood and by the Knights because they were "pure" and "innocent" as a result of their permanent state of grace. Neither side killed them because they were women.

 

There's nothing even remotely misogynistic in that 'story'.

If you think killing women for no reason is not misogyny, then you have no real concept what misogyny means. Hatred towards women. Marginalizing the contributions of women. Patronizing women. Using women as a sex trope, or a hepless-needs-rescuing trope, or the trope that is in play here in the GK fluff: dead girlfriend in the refrigerator.

 

Females in fiction tend to be helpless, in need of rescue, sex objects, killable dependents that are used to weaken the mainly male heroes of the story. In the case of the Bloodtide fluff, the "heroes" are supposed to be the GK, but what actually read are the heroic Sisters getting murdered by their supposed rescuers, who are supposed to white knights fighting back the literal dark tide. The wiki article linked above tells us flame would have sufficed to stop this incursion, not the slaughter of a female icon of heroism. That is misogyny.

 

I don't blame the characters, nor do I blame the author. I blame the editor for allowing that useless piece of garbage to see print.

 

SJ

[Quozzo]

They weren't killed because they were women, they were killed because the Grey Knights needed some pure blood for extra protection. The nearest source just happened to be the Sisters. None of the examples you gave were characteristics none the Grey Knights portrayed, or the author. If the Exorcists were in their place would it be, err, the opposite.

[jeffersonian000]

They weren't killed because they were women, they were killed because the Grey Knights needed some pure blood for extra protection. The nearest source just happened to be the Sisters. None of the examples you gave were characteristics none the Grey Knights portrayed, or the author. If the Exorcists were in their place would it be, err, the opposite.

You miss the point. They were killed FOR NO REASON. The fact that they were women turns that NO REASON into MISOGYNY. Its a piece of fiction that did not require the death of females protagonists, yet those female protagonists were killed FOR NO REASON.

 

Here's the story:

Grey Knights arrive, seeing Sisters holding back the Tide with flame.

GK: "Looks like we got here in time!"

Sister: "Don't you mean you 'just got here, barely in time'? We got this. If you want to help rather than just get in the way, add some flame over there." <points to a spot that could use some promethium>

GK: "Ummm, yes ... ummm, sure, we'll jump right in there. Just need your Sisters to do one thing for us real quick, it'll make this go much faster."

Sister: <rolls eyes> "And what would that be, 'Brother'?"

GK: "Die." <all of the GKs open fire>

GK: "Okay, boys, that should enough blood to stun the daemon for a bit. Grab a flamer and let's finish this!" <kicks the Sisters shattered body out of his way as he picks up her flamer and baths the daemonic Bloodtide in promethium>

 

Yeah, that's how that bit of fluff reads to me. You can say its no big deal, just showing the lengths to which GKs will go to win. Yet I read a blurb stating GKs kill Sister for no reason, in a fail attempt to show the lengths of sadistic stupidity GW will allow to creep into their franchise. Again, there was no reason to write the blurb that way, and to do so does not show GK as "anti-heroes", it shows how out of touch a male dominated GW is with any form of a female audience.

 

SJ

[DinoDoc]

How can this not read as even a little misogynistic? The GK killed a group of women to stop the power of the Bloodtide. The only thing worse would be if we found out that the ritual only worked because it was the proper time of the month.

[Gentlemanloser]

/chortle

 

While wildly off topic, I'm reminded of a limerick about a Vampire my Granddad told me.

 

Not sure if I should post it though.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

Probably best not to post the limerick.

 

Anyway we're getting a bit into the tall grass here. I didn't intend this thread to be a debate over whether the bloodtide story is good fluff or whether it's misogynistic. Rather this discussion is premised on the fact that it's canon and how characters in that world would react to knowledge of the incident.

 

We started with the proposition that it made "no sense" to Reclusiarch Darius that a Puritan would be upset over this and if anything would approve of the methods. I think we've all come to agree that at least some Puritan inquisitors would be outraged -- i.e. You don't need to be a radical to object to this.

 

Reclusiarch Darius makes a very good pointing his most recent post: I can see no way that an inquisitor could find out which brother knights were in on this incident. No GK could be compelled to say either through persuasion or manipulation or coercion. Even learning of the incident may be a bit of a stretch but I think a lord inquisitor could pull that much off.

[DinoDoc]

My preferred interpretation of events:

"So, that whole Khornate Knights thing..."
"Never happened."
"Awesome."

*fist bump*

 

[jeffersonian000]

My question is: why would any other than Grey Knights even know the Bloodtide incursion occurred at all? No survives, no witnesses, GKs don't talk.

 

SJ

[Eddie Orlock]

My question is: why would any other than Grey Knights even know the Bloodtide incursion occurred at all? No survives, no witnesses, GKs don't talk.

 

SJ

Divination? Forensic investigation? Inadvertent Surveillance? Inference on gaps in the records? I can only assume that some Inquisitors rely on more than just the testimony of those they might want to accuse.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

LMAO. Doing something bad to a woman doesn't, per se, make you a misogynist. It might make you a bit of a , but not a misogynist.

Doing something bad to a woman because she's a woman makes you a misogynist.

The Sisters were not killed because they were women. No animosity towards women was displayed. There was no misogyny.

If it's anything, it's religious persecution. They were killed because of their piety.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

 

If the Inquisitor in question had knowlegde about a Dameonic incursion, or the secret true name / rite to banish a big bad, wouldn't the pragmatic GK work with him anyway?  They might not like him, but he's a tool to stop the Daemonic.

Of course, but the instant he tries to sanction or interfere with the Chapter, they'd turn on him. The Grandmaster unit entry has a quote about this. Effectively, the Knights are willing to work with anyone (including xenos) to eradicate warp incursions, but they are equally willing to purge anything or anyone who stands against them. 

 

 

I'm going to dispute the power structure of the Imperium suggested here. On paper any just bearer of the rosette has the perogative to excommunicate anything short of the Emperor. They regularly excommunicate each other. In practice, of course, it's a matter of convincing enough people with enough power to implement his perogatives.

 

True, however this goes back to my previous posts about politics in the Imperium. An Inquisitor who stands against the Grey Knights is in a very dangerous place, even if he's not already excommunicated. 

 

So, if an Inquisitor can round up a strike force willing to do it, she's well within her rights to excommunicate a Grey Knight or two, or even an errant brotherhood, by the same writ of authority that allows her to order exterminatus. The trick, of course, lies in rounding up said strike force and evading the probable consequences of her actions. Essentially, it would require a prosecutorial burden of proof strong enough to overcome the Knights general pious political reputation and lasting enough to shelter her from the inevitable call for vengeance, cause of course, if she dies, her case will probably die with her. Alternatively, with enough subterfuge, she might be able to assasinate, or otherwise arrange for the destruction of, the offending knights and evade their braying for blood by mearly evading discovery, they can't kill her if they don't know to look for her. The Imperium's a big place to hide in, and the Grey Knights should be preocupied with their appointed job, not chasing around after petty vengeance.

The Chapter would view the murder of its battle-brothers as an act of war, and it would most certainly make it the highest priority to hunt down the Inquisitor in question. Remember, every Knight lost is a huge blow to the Imperium itself, as they are incredibly rare soldiers and require an enormous amount of resources to train and equip. I can guarantee the Ordo Malleus would stand with the Knights, they need them desperately and having a rogue Inquisitor murdering them is the gravest act of betrayal. 

 

So no, they're utterly doomed. Not only with the Inquisition itself turn on the traitor in question, but the entire Grey Knights Chapter will make it their sworn duty to hunt them down. When you factor in that no matter where the Inquisitor runs, the Knights will divine his location through sorcery. No matter what allies he chooses, the Knights will overcome them. 

 

As I've said earlier, the Knights can tolerate hate or dislike. It's when the Inquisitor acts that everything changes. 

 

If you think killing women for no reason is not misogyny, then you have no real concept what misogyny means. Hatred towards women. Marginalizing the contributions of women. Patronizing women. Using women as a sex trope, or a hepless-needs-rescuing trope, or the trope that is in play here in the GK fluff: dead girlfriend in the refrigerator.

Can we please keep gender politics out of 40k please? Also, GL you're completely wrong about this. Maybe the story doesn't float your boat, but it has nothing to do with misogyny. The Sisters were sacrificed by the Knights because they were the only chance at victory. Knights have zero interest in the gender of anyone, it's purged from them as part of the initiation process (before they even recieve their first gene-seed implants). 

 

Anyway we're getting a bit into the tall grass here. I didn't intend this thread to be a debate over whether the bloodtide story is good fluff or whether it's misogynistic. Rather this discussion is premised on the fact that it's canon and how characters in that world would react to knowledge of the incident.

GL has successfully derailed the thread into gender politics. I suggest we let it die now. I might lock it if need be. 

 

Reclusiarch Darius makes a very good pointing his most recent post: I can see no way that an inquisitor could find out which brother knights were in on this incident. No GK could be compelled to say either through persuasion or manipulation or coercion. Even learning of the incident may be a bit of a stretch but I think a lord inquisitor could pull that much off. 

Eh, I'd handwave that problem. I'd assume a senior Inquisitor would have access to Chapter records, or at least be able to request them nicely ;) . The Knights are a special case though, dunno how much they actually report to the Ordo Malleus (going back to what I said earlier, they don't trust anyone). 

 

Divination? Forensic investigation? Inadvertent Surveillance? Inference on gaps in the records? I can only assume that some Inquisitors rely on more than just the testimony of those they might want to accuse.

As I said, handwave it, 40k gets around awkward 'how could they know that' moments all the time. If you wanted to get detailed, as I said, claim it was in Chapter records they had access to. (shrug)

 

 

If it's anything, it's religious persecution. They were killed because of their piety. 

 

Wrong again. Religious persecution requires selection based on a criteria, same as misogyny. The Knights are not religious zealots, if anything they're pretty secular like all Marines (they revere the Emperor as the great man who united humanity, built them and the Imperium, and gave his life to save humanity from itself and the warp). 

 

The Sisters died because their blood was the key the victory. I dunno how many times I have to keep typing it, but I will. Also, if the Knights hadn't killed them, the daemons and Bloodtide would've anyway. So really, they were already dead, they simply had a choice of a clean death that also achieved victory (which incidentally is the thing that makes Sisters so effective, they're fanatics who will die for the Emperor), or getting murdered by daemons or consumed by a nano-machine collective. 

[jeffersonian000]

LMAO. Doing something bad to a woman doesn't, per se, make you a misogynist. It might make you a bit of a , but not a misogynist.

Doing something bad to a woman because she's a woman makes you a misogynist.

The Sisters were not killed because they were women. No animosity towards women was displayed. There was no misogyny.

If it's anything, it's religious persecution. They were killed because of their piety.

You don't get it, and I'm tired of explaining it. It is misogyny because the author wrote a trope requiring the death of women when there was no need to write in a requirement to kill women, especially women who were being heroic and succeeding. It is in fact misogynistic to defend the act as not being misogynistic, because you are stating that you are okay with the exploitation of women in literature by male dominate characters. It doesn't matter why the Sisters were sacrificed to move the story along, it matters that the Sisters had to be sacrificed, period. That is the point.

As to why I ask how an Inquisitor would even know the slaughter of Sisters occurred in the first place, there would be no record, no witnesses, no inquisitorial presence, and no reason for the Grey Knights to brag about their accomplishment in the next quarterly meeting of the Grand Poobahs of the Imperium of Man ("Imperium of Man" is a misogynistic phrase, is it implies women are subservient to men or excluded from governance within the Imperium). If there were records at all an Inquisitor could reference, it would be , "Van Horne incursion stopped on 876.M41 via exterminatus, no survives, end report."

The Grey Knights do not answer to the Inquisition, Grey Knights are the militant arm of the Inquisition. A Grand Master sits at the highest level within the Imperium, the mostly silent reminder that betrayal leads to death at the hands of a thousand of the greatest warriors humanity has ever known. No Inquisitor commands a Grey Knight, and no Inquisitor will ever hold a Grey Knight to task for a sanctioned action, because to do so invites the exterminatus of that Inquisitor.

So no, I don't really see an Inquisitor taking overt action against Grey Knights for a sanctified action the Inquisitor should have no knowledge of to begin with. And even seeing as the Inquisitor gained that knowledge, he or she would be in direct opposition to the entire Chamber Militant of the Inquisition. Any action taken would have to be covert by nature, as the wrath of a thousand Psychically charged Space Marines is not a sleeper one should awaken.

SJ

[Gentlemanloser]

Can we please keep gender politics out of 40k please? Also, GL you're

completely wrong about this. Maybe the story doesn't float your boat,

but it has nothing to do with misogyny. The Sisters were sacrificed by

the Knights because they were the only chance at victory. Knights have

zero interest in the gender of anyone, it's purged from them as part of

the initiation process (before they even recieve their first gene-seed

implants).

:'(

I mentioned it as a throw away, probably an expression of my distaste for the passage.

People are misinterpreting it (apart from jeff!) as being an 'in world' comment. It was never ment to be, nor never ment to derail the thread.

I loathe this piece of fluff. (Haven't got round to reading the older 5th Edition SM version yet though. But I will!)

GL has successfully derailed the thread into gender politics. I suggest we let it die now. I might lock it if need be.

Sorry again, was never my intention.

And again, especially *not* an in world argument.

(Edit: And it wasn't really Ward hate either. It was *story* hate, if that makes sense. Nothing personal about the author, or in world about the GKs. Just about the status of that bit of fiction)

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

LMAO. Doing something bad to a woman doesn't, per se, make you a misogynist. It might make you a bit of a , but not a misogynist.

Doing something bad to a woman because she's a woman makes you a misogynist.

The Sisters were not killed because they were women. No animosity towards women was displayed. There was no misogyny.

If it's anything, it's religious persecution. They were killed because of their piety.

You don't get it, and I'm tired of explaining it. It is misogyny because the author wrote a trope requiring the death of women when there was no need to write in a requirement to kill women, especially women who were being heroic and succeeding. It is in fact misogynistic to defend the act as not being misogynistic, because you are stating that you are okay with the exploitation of women in literature by male dominate characters. It doesn't matter why the Sisters were sacrificed to move the story along, it matters that the Sisters had to be sacrificed, period. That is the point.

Maybe they'll give you the counter arguments to the bull:cuss peddled by MacKinnon and Dworkin when you enter your second semester. You're going to need to establish that they were killed because they were women to establish misogyny. Actually, they were killed because they were devout, which is why if anything it is religious persecution, as they were killed for their faith, not their XX chromosomes. Your apparent definition is so wide that you have rendered the term effectively meaningless, just like MacKinnon, Dworkin and their acolytes have done.

Something is not per se misogynist just because it happens to a woman, just like bad things happening to a man don't per se support a charge of misandry, just like something bad happening to a minority or other ethnic grouping doesn't establish racism. The definitions of both require a hatred of or contempt towards the gender in question. In short, you have to do bad things to a woman because she's a woman to be successfully charged as a misogynist.

The phrase "Imperium of Man" is not misogynist. It is, arguably, sexist.

I'd like to see a link to your diatribes denouncing the fluff wherein males (or a mix of males and females) die pointless deaths, sacrificed for the greater good of the Imperium. Such misandry!

[DinoDoc]

Maybe they'll give you the counter arguments to the bull:cuss peddled by MacKinnon and Dworkin when you enter your second semester. You're going to need to establish that they were killed because they were women to establish misogyny.

How can this not read as even a little misogynistic? The GK killed a group of women to stop the power of the Bloodtide. The only thing worse would be if we found out that the ritual only worked because it was the proper time of the month.

The fact this discussion has essentially derailed the thread is evidence how poo the fluff surrounding it is, IMO.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I'm not arguing that it's good fluff. Subjective criteria is subjective. 

 

I'm arguing it's not misogynistic fluff. Misogynism is an objective standard.

[Grand Master Caloth]

*insert half of all IG engagements here* lol. Seriously, I've been trolling this thread, but Jeff, while I despise this but if fluff as well (it's the only one I hate worse than Draigo), I think you are trying to take offense where none is given.

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Bloodtide is in BL, I want to say one of the Salamander books? Mean flipping sucker, too

[DinoDoc]

*insert half of all IG engagements here* lol. Seriously, I've been trolling this thread, but Jeff, while I despise this but if fluff as well (it's the only one I hate worse than Draigo), I think you are trying to take offense where none is given.

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Bloodtide is in BL, I want to say one of the Salamander books? Mean flipping sucker, too

Space Marine Battles book. The Hunt for Voldorius. Passably entertaining read, IIRC.

[Grand Master Caloth]

I enjoyed it, considering I remembered it. Lol