So, we actually know WHEN the two Legions were hunted down?

[Athrawes]

I know there is a distinction between when Alpharius was found and took command, but we have a specific date from Laurie Goulding (the editor at at Black Library) on when the Lost Primarchs were definitely not around. If this is the date that black library is going by (and Laurie really does know the heresy well) then that's what I'm going by.

 

- The loss of the II and XI legions and their associated Primarchs

This occurred sometime after 981.M30 since all twenty of the primarchs are known to have met one another, and Alpharius was the last to be found.

 source The First Expedition

 

Edit: in that same thread, Laurie says that the inconsistancies of the mention of the two lost Primarchs in The First Heretic are planned to be retconned.

[Lucien Eilam]

The topic title is a pretty gigantic leap.

I don't think it has anything to do with the Lost Legions. The Night of the Wolf established where they'd fought Space Marines before. A couple of dirty, off the record jobs for Malcador that nobody else wanted might explain why the Wolves consider themselves executioners, which hasn't really been justified yet.

I know there is a distinction between when Alpharius was found and took command, but we have a specific date from Laurie Goulding (the editor at at Black Library) on when the Lost Primarchs were definitely not around. If this is the date that black library is going by (and Laurie really does know the heresy well) then that's what I'm going by.

The post where he said he was going by that date was before he picked up on the found/taking command distinction. It's a few posts down from the "authoritative" list of dates, so it's not necessarily definitive after all.

[helterskelter]

sorry to swing a smidge off topic but Nostramo destroyed before ullanor? i did read that right? I'm a touch confused as theres a fair amount of time between then and Isstvan

[Athrawes]

@Lucien Eliam: Could you post a quote? I'm looking at the thread and I don't see where he says the found/taking command distinction discredits the date for the lost legions he and Alan Bligh are working from.

 

The only thing I see is where he agrees that there is a distinction and says "leave that with me."

 

Edit: I get that either Alpharius was found 981.M30 (because it is entirely possible that he was) or he was found before it. In one scenario, being found and taking command become practically the same thing, in the other they are very distinct. 

 

That and considering willingness to say that the mention of the Lost in TFH is an error, could mean that the Lost Legions could become "lost" anytime from before Monarchia to some time after 981.M30.

[Kol Saresk]

I know there is a distinction between when Alpharius was found and took command, but we have a specific date from Laurie Goulding (the editor at at Black Library) on when the Lost Primarchs were definitely not around. If this is the date that black library is going by (and Laurie really does know the heresy well) then that's what I'm going by.

 

- The loss of the II and XI legions and their associated Primarchs

This occurred sometime after 981.M30 since all twenty of the primarchs are known to have met one another, and Alpharius was the last to be found.

source The First Expedition

 

Edit: in that same thread, Laurie says that the inconsistancies of the mention of the two lost Primarchs in The First Heretic are planned to be retconned.

And later on in the very same thread, it gets pointed out that Alpharius had two "finding" dates(pre-Extermination of course) and then he posted "Oh yeah, your right." It's on the very first page. :D

 

EDIT: http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_First_Expedition/index.php?showtopic=924&view=findpost&p=22088061

 

Ahhh... you've just reminded me of something.

 

Alpharius was shown around a bit, after he was discovered but before being put in charge of the XX Legion. Therefore, we can assume that the "few decades" date thrown about in 'Legion' refers to how long he's been in charge, not when he was found.

 

Interesting. Leave that with me.

 

(Of course, we're assuming that Alpharius didn't meet some of this brothers BEFORE his official discovery...)

 

[Lucien Eilam]

@Lucien Eliam: Could you post a quote? I'm looking at the thread and I don't see where he says the found/taking command distinction discredits the date for the lost legions he and Alan Bligh are working from.

 

It's implicit in the fact he hadn't considered it when he said 981.M41 was the earliest it could have happened. When he said that, it was based on the assumption that 981.M41 was the date Alpharius was found. Later he realises that isn't necessarily true. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - until somebody writes something about when Alpharius was found and when he took command of the Alpha Legion, there's no way of knowing.

 

Oh, and on page 2 he also says outright that those redacted Space Wolves events have nothing to do with the Lost Legions.

[Athrawes]

@Kol_Saresk: Everything you posted I already acknowledged, But he isn't explicitly affirming that you were right, he agreed that there was a distinction. Which on it's own, doesn't contradict the date he provided. 

 

 

 

 Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - until somebody writes something about when Alpharius was found and when he took command of the Alpha Legion, there's no way of knowing.

 

 

This is good point, the date he provides is a bookend to the latest possible time the Legion's were lost. So, there is a likely period from sometime before Monarchia to slightly after 981.M30. when the Legions could have been lost. Any time in that period could be valid.

[Kol Saresk]

@Kol_Saresk: Everything you posted I already acknowledged, But he isn't explicitly affirming that you were right, he agreed that there was a distinction. Which on it's own, doesn't contradict the date he provided.

 

 

 

 

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - until somebody writes something about when Alpharius was found and when he took command of the Alpha Legion, there's no way of knowing.

 

This is good point, the date he provides is a bookend to the latest possible time the Legion's were lost. So, there is a likely period from sometime before Monarchia to slightly after 981.M30. when the Legions could have been lost. Any time in that period could be valid.

If there is no significance to it then there is no point in acknowledging it since it does nothing to change the previous statements, if what you are saying is true. The fact that he says 1.)he hadn't considered it previously and 2.)he will consider it now infers that it will have an impact contrary to previous statements.

 

It's saying "Previous statements may no longer be true." And since in between those postings and when he decided to no longer be active in The First Expedition, he never once contradicted my statements on the First Expedition that The First Heretic will no longer be retconned, I feel rather confident they are not being retconned. As anyone who ever frequented TFE even a little bit should know Laurie Goulding had no problem whatsoever using Illuminarum to smack down false information/speculation.

 

But then again we can just always wait for the hardcover book to come out and then just leave everything else as speculation, but twenty years is quite a long window to speculate in.

[Lucien Eilam]

The fact that he says 1.)he hadn't considered it previously and 2.)he will consider it now infers that it will have an impact contrary to previous statements.

 

It only infers that it might have an impact not that it will. They could have considered it and decided that Alpharius took command very quickly after being discovered, so it makes no difference. Or they might not have made any decision at all for now, just made an editorial note to bring it up if anyone ever writes anything where it would be important, and until that day it could go either way. There's no basis to draw any firm conclusion.

[Kol Saresk]

 

The fact that he says 1.)he hadn't considered it previously and 2.)he will consider it now infers that it will have an impact contrary to previous statements.

It only infers that it might have an impact not that it will. They could have considered it and decided that Alpharius took command very quickly after being discovered, so it makes no difference. Or they might not have made any decision at all for now, just made an editorial note to bring it up if anyone ever writes anything where it would be important, and until that day it could go either way. There's no basis to draw any firm conclusion.

Fair enough. Although considering the short time span of the Alpha Legion's confirmed operation window prior to the Primarch taking command, it'd be weird that the Emperor spent all that time making the Legion exactly what it was going to be while it would make a ton of sense if the Legion was commande by the Emperor but then organized to how Alpharius wante organized while the Primarch himself then spent the years gathering as much intel and establishing his information and trade networks and weapons caches before taking command of his fully armed, up to spec and operational Legion. Of course speculation hinges on 1.)what we've seen of Alpharius so far and 2.)the fact that it was a "brand new Legion" an was still supposed to spend time with the Emperor and 3.)it was practically made for Alpharius.

 

So perhaps a decent middle ground would be to say that "The First Heretic might be retconned, but is no longer confirmed as will be retconned."?

[Perrin]

What's the story behind LG deciding not to be active on TFE anymore? Haven't been over there in ages.

Does anyone know when TFH is coming out in hardcover? I think that's really the only way we are going to know. Even with that knowledge it doesn't change things massively. The date of Alpharius/Omegon being found is the biggest piece of the puzzle.

I know it's always been just a background mystery, and it was never supposed to be this big or explained in any further way, but does anyone think BL had mocked up some small details on this? It would probably be a waste to create two entirely new and distinct Legions and Primarchs, so maybe just the date, what happened and why? Just so there is a basis to work on when throwing in these slight hints and winks.

Although we could all be imagining these hints and winks

[A D-B]

As far as I remember, we (as in: Alan, the authors, BL, Forge World, etc.) had to work out the dates just so we knew when things had happened, so we wouldn't contradict anything going forward in the future. With so much being added to the timeline - and Forge World's books discussing events pre-Heresy - it was necessary to have a skeleton timeline (and a damn good idea, too. We'd been asking for one for a long, long time.)

 

I don't remember if editorial are going to change the references in The First Heretic but I'm fine with it if they do. It's only a couple of lines, and whatever makes the timeline smoother is all right with me. 

 

I wouldn't hold your breath on the rest, mind you. Remember how much leeway Forge World has in giving possibilities without needing to give answers. It's one of the coolest things in those books - exemplified in the Alpha Legion write-up, where so many of the events/notes it lists have that "this isn't actually true / this never happened / teehee!" addendum.

[Kol Saresk]

What's the story behind LG deciding not to be active on TFE anymore? Haven't been over there in ages.

http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_First_Expedition/index.php?showtopic=1349

 

A D-B, normally I'd be "What a waste" but I'd get over it, the same way I got over Star Trek Enterprise and the eighteen million retcons that show did, but when there is such resistance to just making a scene better represent an author's intent that was delivered so poorly that(according to the Editor in charge of making sure everything is consistent) the official explanation has to be repeated at numerous events and Q&As, but there is a willingness to kill a couple lines that, in my and others' opinions, helps that specific scene make sense, there is a very large "Umm, what the flip?" factor. Especially since its all done in a so far, "official but not officially printed" statement of "all the Primarchs were supposed to have met each other."

 

I guess I'm just one of those who are of the opinion "Make the official explanations match what has already been printed; not change what has been printed to match a statement".

[frostclaw222]

I just reread Deliverance Lost. The Emperor's first meeting with Corvus pretty heavily implies that The Two are already lost to him. 

 

Now, I'll readily admit that there are implications elsewhere in the series that all 20 at least knew of each other and possibly met (Unremembered and the number of chairs at the table), but I get the distinct impression that The Lost Two were lost before the Emperor recovered Corax. 

 

But this brings me to the other problem (and, as usual, it's the Alpha Legion): Who knew about Omegon? Just Alpharius and then later his legion? Just Alpharius and the Emperor (and possibly Malcador)? The Emperor seems to imply that he'd been able to 'look in from afar' on some of his sons before reuniting with them, but some of them seemed to surprise him. Could Alpharius's late location be attributed to his ability to actively evade the Emperor's remote viewing? If that were the case, then, if I were Alpharius, and this uber-psyker guy shows up with a battlefleet in his pocket and says "Hey, I'm your pops, and, well, you had nineteen brothers, but two got twitchy and had to be put down," the last thing I'd do as Alpharius is tip my hand about Omegon. And that goes double to the primarchs, as some of them had to have had a hand in taking the Lost Two down. 

 

See where I'm going?

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

What I really like about the timeline is the timelapse from the Night Lord going full psycho on their own homeworld to them being sent to confront Horus. Order issued, if I recall correctly, by the Emperor, but stamped by Dorn.

 

Good going there, Fisty McFist.

[Perrin]

I just reread Deliverance Lost. The Emperor's first meeting with Corvus pretty heavily implies that The Two are already lost to him. 

 

Now, I'll readily admit that there are implications elsewhere in the series that all 20 at least knew of each other and possibly met (Unremembered and the number of chairs at the table), but I get the distinct impression that The Lost Two were lost before the Emperor recovered Corax. 

 

But this brings me to the other problem (and, as usual, it's the Alpha Legion): Who knew about Omegon? Just Alpharius and then later his legion? Just Alpharius and the Emperor (and possibly Malcador)? The Emperor seems to imply that he'd been able to 'look in from afar' on some of his sons before reuniting with them, but some of them seemed to surprise him. Could Alpharius's late location be attributed to his ability to actively evade the Emperor's remote viewing? If that were the case, then, if I were Alpharius, and this uber-psyker guy shows up with a battlefleet in his pocket and says "Hey, I'm your pops, and, well, you had nineteen brothers, but two got twitchy and had to be put down," the last thing I'd do as Alpharius is tip my hand about Omegon. And that goes double to the primarchs, as some of them had to have had a hand in taking the Lost Two down. 

 

See where I'm going?

 

But BL (namely Laurie Goulding) have already said that that conversation relates to the unfound two, one of the Missing and Alpharius. It's the official party line.

[Lucien Eilam]

According to Laurie Goulding, the passage in Deliverance Lost isn't referring to the Lost Primarchs, it's about two Primarchs yet to be recovered, meaning that although Corax is the 19th Primarch, he was the 18th to be recovered. I think literally nobody in the world interpreted it that way, but apparently that's what they're going to run with.

Alpharius taking command of the Alpha Legion could be a complete red herring. One account in Extermination hints at one of the twins never being scattered in the first place, being raised in secrecy by the Emperor, and commanding the Alpha Legion as some kind of deliberately understrength black ops unit - hence Alpharius Omegon is the first and the last, the XX Legion is "Alpha" because it was actually the first, and they were developing their unique modus operandi since before any of the Primarchs was officially found.

If that's the case, it could be that Alpharius did meet the Lost Primarchs, at basically any point on the timeline. 981.M41 is the date of Omegon taking command of the Alpha Legion after being found, and arguably he doesn't need to have ever met them to fulfil the "all the Primarchs met" requirement. The key date becomes the 19th Primarch to be found, but we don't have any indication of who or when that was.

(This account is a lie. )

So perhaps a decent middle ground would be to say that "The First Heretic might be retconned, but is no longer confirmed as will be retconned."?

Right, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything.

[Memento Of Prospero]

This is where the series is starting to get pulled in a gravity well from which it won't ber able to get out of.  The authors have played on the community's eagerness to learn more bout the missing Primarchs, with tons of conjecture and implied states. Nothing good can come of this, as it creates a greater demand for more information.

 

We have passed the point where no longer talking about it will make sense, and at the same time revealing what happen will kill the myth. No explaination will satisfy anyone because of all the :cuss footing around the subject. It is really putting me off.

[Lucien Eilam]

You can hardly blame the authors. The grand total of everything written about the missing Primarchs would barely fill a single page of a novel. They can't pretend nothing happened before the Heresy, but literally anything they write set before it spirals off into a 20 page thread of speculation and conjecture, even if it's completely unrelated to the Lost Legions.

 

And plenty of people enjoy the mystery.

[A D-B]

This is where the series is starting to get pulled in a gravity well from which it won't ber able to get out of. The authors have played on the community's eagerness to learn more bout the missing Primarchs, with tons of conjecture and implied states. Nothing good can come of this, as it creates a greater demand for more information.

We have passed the point where no longer talking about it will make sense, and at the same time revealing what happen will kill the myth. No explaination will satisfy anyone because of all the footing around the subject. It is really putting me off.

It's a tricky spot. Say you're writing about a Legion that's on the edge of absolute censure, and being wiped from Imperial record. Like, say, the Word Bearers. The primarchs involved are going to... what? Not allude to the fact it's happened twice before? Maybe, sure. It'd be weird, but that's 40K for you.

But as mentions go, that's a fairly incongruous one compared to "The Space Wolves killed the Lost Legions..." when it's famous fact that the Lost Legions have no fate, no lore, and the license would never, ever reveal what happened to them.

You say we passed the point where going silent about it won't make sense, but we began at that point. Every single character was there at the time, and several of them have come close to their Legions suffering similar vanishing-from-the-records-ness. We started at the point where it was madness not to mention it at all. It was a case of lose-lose.

And bear in mind I'm the one who enjoys Lost Legion mentions the least, by far, if track records are anything to go by. It's when "factual" mentions of how and when the Lost Legions vanished that things started getting crackly. The First Heretic often gets mentioned because of the three lines of chat by plainly ignorant characters that we already know isn't 40K lore, but in the scale of things it's not even close to the biggest transgressor. It didn't exactly bring much new to the table, but it did consolidate a lot of previous rumours: the empty statue plinths were already mentioned in The Dark King / The Lightning Tower; the primarch pods marked II and XI were already mentioned in an earlier novel; the Lost Legions are famously mentioned as being deleted from Imperial record, and that's what Lorgar fears will happen to the Word Bearers, and so on. Compare that with all the mentions of the "Wolves being unleashed" throughout the series (which I fixed a little with Betrayer).

As has been mentioned by various BL people at seminars and events, there was an absolute, ironclad mandate after The First Heretic for no author to mention the Lost Legions again, at all, in any capacity. But count up the allusions to the Lost Legions in novels that came after it. As far as I know, I've made zero since then. For better or worse (perhaps worse, given how popular the mentions are) that's not exactly a track record shared by all.

EDIT: I should probably just say again after that rambling jazz, I wish we'd nailed the dates beforehand. Everything'd be fine then.

[Memento Of Prospero]

This is where the series is starting to get pulled in a gravity well from which it won't ber able to get out of. The authors have played on the community's eagerness to learn more bout the missing Primarchs, with tons of conjecture and implied states. Nothing good can come of this, as it creates a greater demand for more information.

We have passed the point where no longer talking about it will make sense, and at the same time revealing what happen will kill the myth. No explaination will satisfy anyone because of all the footing around the subject. It is really putting me off.

It's a tricky spot. Say you're writing about a Legion that's on the edge of absolute censure, and being wiped from Imperial record. Like, say, the Word Bearers. The primarchs involved are going to... what? Not allude to the fact it's happened twice before? Maybe, sure. It'd be weird, but that's 40K for you.

But as mentions go, that's a fairly incongruous one compared to "The Space Wolves killed the Lost Legions..." when it's famous fact that the Lost Legions have no fate, no lore, and the license would never, ever reveal what happened to them.

You say we passed the point where going silent about it won't make sense, but we began at that point. Every single character was there at the time, and several of them have come close to their Legions suffering similar vanishing-from-the-records-ness. We started at the point where it was madness not to mention it at all. It was a case of lose-lose.

And bear in mind I'm the one who enjoys Lost Legion mentions the least, by far, if track records are anything to go by. It's when "factual" mentions of how and when the Lost Legions vanished that things started getting crackly. The First Heretic often gets mentioned because of the three lines of chat by plainly ignorant characters that we already know isn't 40K lore, but in the scale of things it's not even close to the biggest transgressor. It didn't exactly bring much new to the table, but it did consolidate a lot of previous rumours: the empty statue plinths were already mentioned in The Dark King / The Lightning Tower; the primarch pods marked II and XI were already mentioned in an earlier novel; the Lost Legions are famously mentioned as being deleted from Imperial record, and that's what Lorgar fears will happen to the Word Bearers, and so on. Compare that with all the mentions of the "Wolves being unleashed" throughout the series (which I fixed a little with Betrayer).

As has been mentioned by various BL people at seminars and events, there was an absolute, ironclad mandate after The First Heretic for no author to mention the Lost Legions again, at all, in any capacity. But count up the allusions to the Lost Legions in novels that came after it. As far as I know, I've made zero since then. For better or worse (perhaps worse, given how popular the mentions are) that's not exactly a track record shared by all.

EDIT: I should probably just say again after that rambling jazz, I wish we'd nailed the dates beforehand. Everything'd be fine then.

I appreciate the reply ADB, you always collect your thoughts in an amazing way and give us insight on the thought process behind the works at BL. I also understand that it's not your call and that my complaint is a loaded gun/question/pandora's box/portable blackhole in a bag of holding type thing.

English not being my native tongue, I should have expanded more as well. The problem with establishing timelines, giving out facts and adding snippets here and there about something that is a subject of censure (both in fiction and reality I take it!) only generates more questions. You (not personally directed) are creating something real and tangible when you start doing that. I don't mind statements like that allude to failure (Sanguinus fears he his legion will become and empty plint due to the black rage in Fear to Tread ). That doesn't give us any clues, because it's just the fear of an outcome without implying the same cause. It maintains the mystery. It's the misleading stuff that I really dislike.

It's one thing to try and complete a puzzle without parts, one wonders and it never goes further than that. It's however quite maddening to try and complete the same puzzle with half the parts. Because at that point you know you've got the groundwork for something.

Here's another problem that came of this. Now that it is factual that all the sons have met each other at least once, how can they not have been there for any of the others upon discovery? There are 18 primarchs that are part of the heresy, and we now know how many of them were found. Several of them were found if the presence of others. So none of them were ever found while either of the fallen were with the Emperor at the time? So the questions go on. Since they effectively were never there, it's like catching a liar trying to patch up a story after the facts. It never works out in the end.

It will lead to more ret cons. Angry gamers don't like ret cons ;) Thanks again for puting up with this!

[A D-B]

This is where the series is starting to get pulled in a gravity well from which it won't ber able to get out of. The authors have played on the community's eagerness to learn more bout the missing Primarchs, with tons of conjecture and implied states. Nothing good can come of this, as it creates a greater demand for more information.

We have passed the point where no longer talking about it will make sense, and at the same time revealing what happen will kill the myth. No explaination will satisfy anyone because of all the footing around the subject. It is really putting me off.

It's a tricky spot. Say you're writing about a Legion that's on the edge of absolute censure, and being wiped from Imperial record. Like, say, the Word Bearers. The primarchs involved are going to... what? Not allude to the fact it's happened twice before? Maybe, sure. It'd be weird, but that's 40K for you.

But as mentions go, that's a fairly incongruous one compared to "The Space Wolves killed the Lost Legions..." when it's famous fact that the Lost Legions have no fate, no lore, and the license would never, ever reveal what happened to them.

You say we passed the point where going silent about it won't make sense, but we began at that point. Every single character was there at the time, and several of them have come close to their Legions suffering similar vanishing-from-the-records-ness. We started at the point where it was madness not to mention it at all. It was a case of lose-lose.

And bear in mind I'm the one who enjoys Lost Legion mentions the least, by far, if track records are anything to go by. It's when "factual" mentions of how and when the Lost Legions vanished that things started getting crackly. The First Heretic often gets mentioned because of the three lines of chat by plainly ignorant characters that we already know isn't 40K lore, but in the scale of things it's not even close to the biggest transgressor. It didn't exactly bring much new to the table, but it did consolidate a lot of previous rumours: the empty statue plinths were already mentioned in The Dark King / The Lightning Tower; the primarch pods marked II and XI were already mentioned in an earlier novel; the Lost Legions are famously mentioned as being deleted from Imperial record, and that's what Lorgar fears will happen to the Word Bearers, and so on. Compare that with all the mentions of the "Wolves being unleashed" throughout the series (which I fixed a little with Betrayer).

As has been mentioned by various BL people at seminars and events, there was an absolute, ironclad mandate after The First Heretic for no author to mention the Lost Legions again, at all, in any capacity. But count up the allusions to the Lost Legions in novels that came after it. As far as I know, I've made zero since then. For better or worse (perhaps worse, given how popular the mentions are) that's not exactly a track record shared by all.

EDIT: I should probably just say again after that rambling jazz, I wish we'd nailed the dates beforehand. Everything'd be fine then.

I appreciate the reply ADB, you always collect your thoughts in an amazing way and give us insight on the thought process behind the works at BL. I also understand that it's not your call and that my complaint is a loaded gun/question/pandora's box/portable blackhole in a bag of holding type thing.

English not being my native tongue, I should have expanded more as well. The problem with establishing timelines, giving out facts and adding snippets here and there about something that is a subject of censure (both in fiction and reality I take it!) only generates more questions. You (not personally directed) are creating something real and tangible when you start doing that. I don't mind statements like that allude to failure (Sanguinus fears he his legion will become and empty plint due to the black rage in Fear to Tread ). That doesn't give us any clues, because it's just the fear of an outcome without implying the same cause. It maintains the mystery. It's the misleading stuff that I really dislike.

It's one thing to try and complete a puzzle without parts, one wonders and it never goes further than that. It's however quite maddening to try and complete the same puzzle with half the parts. Because at that point you know you've got the groundwork for something.

Here's another problem that came of this. Now that it is factual that all the sons have met each other at least once, how can they not have been there for any of the others upon discovery? There are 18 primarchs that are part of the heresy, and we now know how many of them were found. Several of them were found if the presence of others. So none of them were ever found while either of the fallen were with the Emperor at the time? So the questions go on. Since they effectively were never there, it's like catching a liar trying to patch up a story after the facts. It never works out in the end.

It will lead to more ret cons. Angry gamers don't like ret cons Thanks again for puting up with this!

It's always horrifying when someone says "English isn't my native tongue" when their English is perfect.

J'aime beaucoup travail dans le jardin? Success...

But seriously, I didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with you. I sympathise - and more than that, I apologise. But on the plus side, I think it stands as testament to Laurie's editorial skill that there are so few irritating factors like this.

[Emperor's Furor]

I'm English and my English is horrible.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

English laughs in the face of other languages' consistency!

[Captain Juan Juarez]

I'm English and my English is horrible.

 

That's probably just the Brummie accent :P