Grey Knights origins

[Emperor's Furor]

 

 

 

Well,

 

They were founded out of Sharrowkyn, because he was so badass he actually retconned Lucius.

 

not only that but he also...

Shot a Primarch in the head and got away with it

 

 

Deal with it... *puts on shades*

 

On topic, their founding was more or less covered in their last dex, unfortunately that made them lose some of their appeal I think. The more and more fluff that gets fleshed out, the less mysterious and appealing a chapter becomes in my opinion

 

 

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/351/0/0/angel_exterminatus_bird_of_prey_by_vangarshriek-d6ybfh7.jpg

 

I posted that Sharrowkyn picture like 2 months ago.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/291503-damon-prytanis-beast-or-what/page-4?do=findComment&comment=3704321

[TrafficCustodes]

 

 

 

Unnamed- The Thousand Son from Rob Sander's short story. (I've forgotten the name.)

 

Is that the same Thousand Son that's meant to found the Blood Ravens, according to a different (and far more likely to be false imo) fanon conspiracy theory?

 

 

No it's a different story of which I can't remember the name of. Synopsis:

 

 

A few Imperial army troopers search an abandoned and damaged ship only to find a legionnaire in unadorned armour alongside thousands of psychic children. The legionnaire reveals himself to once have been of the XVth legion and declares he's taking the children to Titan.

 

 

That's all I remember about it. IIRC it was in a Gamesday anthology, I read spoilers for it on the forums a fair length of time ago now.

 

That's 'All That Remains' by James Swallow. It's a really good story. Like really really good.

 

But here's a description of unnamed Thousand Son guy:

 

"In his... hand he held a staff of polished, flawless silver... A war god looked back at us, scalp shorn of hair, tattoos of intricate nature adorning his cheeks and throat, scars like red trophies upon his flesh. His eyes - his true eyes - startled me with their jet depths... he raised his head and there I saw the twinned sigils branded into his flesh. On one side, a design like a scarab beetle. On the other, a circular star surrounded by a nimbus of rays. The grey armour did not hide his true nature from me. The legionary that stood before me was a warrior of the Thousand Sons..."

 

Someone with a better memory than me might be able to say if that description fits with any of the Thousand Sons we've seen so far. The 'scars' in his flesh, maybe that's a sign he, ah, spent some time with the White Scars?

 

 

how bad would it suck if it was just Mhotep though

 

 

Of course, we don't know if this warrior survived the Heresy and helped to Found the GKs...

but he claims to be acting under Malcador's orders and he's talking about taking a shipful of psychic boys to Titan so the founding must be fairly close.

 

[Conn Eremon]

I would argue that the revelation GRRM is referencing would likely be received incredibly poorly if he changed it in the last minute, where as the Grey Knights founders being different would only be poorly received by the handful of people invested in it on the single digit online forums that discuss 40/30K and be taken in stride by the mass of players who only read the BL books as a supplement to their codex.

Too true.

[Kol Saresk]

Tolerance is a moral form of decay.

Let's suppose Lorgar created the Grey Knights. If we take the fact that Lorgar is a Daemon Primarch, quietly doing his Great Game duties on Sicarus, with Abaddon coming by just before the launch of the 13 BC to have a chat.

Then how could he be at the extreme opposite side of the spectrum ?

Does it mean that the omniscient narrator is lying and that the Lorgar on Sicarus is a fake ? Or that Horus won the Heresy, because one of his clones created by Bile traveled to the past thanks to the Warp to kick the Emperor right where it hurts ? Or the Lost Legions + Alpharius = Star Child * Sharrowkyn ?

Ah, but who is the omniscent narrator? The answer is "the narrator chosen for that specific faction." For Chaos, it is always a cultist or some such individual.

For example, if you recall Periclitor, back in 3rd Edition the very strong belief was that he was a Night Lord. After all, his elites were Night Lords and there was an unrevealed vent card that listed him explicitly as a Night Lord.

But because of the "omniscent" cultist in the 3.5 Codex that described Periclitor using religious overtones, Forgeworld took that he was rather a Word Bearer even though the very event that saw him ascended was blackmail and causing a war over taxes.

In the IA articles, the "omniscent narrator" was actually various Imperial scribes and Inquisitors, many of whom were biased, influenced and learned by the Imperial history, which we know is more holey than swiss cheese.

And yet, many of the more stalwart veterans of the game and/or background still hold to it as the undeniable truth.

And to draw an example from that, let us look at Ultramar. As Legatus is fond of pointing out, it was written to say that the 8 worlds of Ultramar are and were the only 8 worlds of Ultramar to ever exist. Why? Because as far as that scribe is concerned, that is the truth. And so we are told that is the truth. And as far as the Imperium, and possibly even the Ultramarines themselves, it is the truth. Even though we as the true omniscent readers know better.

So, if the crackpot theory is true, it would imply that at one Lorgar defected to the Imperiu in a manner that was unknown to the Legion. In an attempt to hold power and keep the XVII Legion from defecting with him, Kor Phaeron and Erebus concocted the lie that "Lorgar entered seclusion and has not been seen since. Oh, and no one is allowed to enter. Period."

Ten thousan years later, Abaddon comes knocking. Finds out the truth. Knows that to reveal the truth would see the loss of every Word Bearer(and descended warbands) who swore to follow Lorgar. He can't have that. So to protect his power base and gain thousands of Traitor Marines to his banner for the 13th Black Crusade, he makes a deal with Erebus an Kor Phaeron to perpetuate the lie.

But, as far as the galaxy at large is concerned, Lorgar is not Janus. He is a daemon primarch who remains in isolation on Sicarus and rules his Legion through the Dark Council. Because that is the truth the universe knows.

Its a matter of perception. Watch the media sometime. Occasionally a word is added and another dropped and the truth is still said as the truth but in a matter that is now a lie. And jus two years down the road, and all people will care about believing will be the lie.

[GhostMalone]

^^^^^ summed up perfectly

[helterskelter]

My dear Kol are you saying the truth is a lie?

[Slips]

....Not gonna lie, I almost started writing down the Sith Code until I remembered that it starts with : Peace is a Lie, not The Truth Is a Lie >_>

[Conn Eremon]

This is 40k. "Peace is a lie" is just as appropriate as the "truth is a lie."

[Vesper]

Ten thousan years later, Abaddon comes knocking. Finds out the truth. Knows that to reveal the truth would see the loss of every Word Bearer(and descended warbands) who swore to follow Lorgar. He can't have that. So to protect his power base and gain thousands of Traitor Marines to his banner for the 13th Black Crusade, he makes a deal with Erebus an Kor Phaeron to perpetuate the lie.

I'd be tempted to think he would've blown the bubble, just so Word Bearers would join the Black Legion en masse.

 

Overall you are talking about in-universe narrators. The follower of Periclitor, for instance. But I'm talking about omniscient narrators, codex stuff that isn't in italic, or in boxes reserved to in-universe stuff.

Ultramar ? Periclitor ? Big fat retcons. It looks dirty, that's for sure. But there is no need to find in-universe reasons to justify those retcons. Those are just retcons that only got published because an author said "That'd be cool if Ultramar had 4476854489456448795156487758 worlds, 8 is darn boring". Nothing more, nothing less.

 

We could still fantasize about the fact that the Emperor is still wide awake and that we was playing bowling for the last 10k years, his little secret being kept by the Custodes, because "Hey, lies", but that's not satisfying to me. We've had enough reliable (sometimes to the point of actual omniscience) sources to take the state of the Emperor as a rock hard fact.

And that is also the case for Lorgar.

 

Yes, I know, it's difficult, but to grasp an universe, you have to take some elements as facts. A frame in which you can create. If you break the frame, you're stepping into alternate universe stuff and so on.

[Wade Garrett]

As regards to the GRRM John Snow thing....if it's the one I am thinking of, I shall purchase a copy of the book where Martin reveals it in hard back, then I shall travel to the homes and workplaces of everyone who ever tried to tell me that ASoF&I was "not conventional cliche fantasy" and bludgeon them over the head with said doorstopper.

 

As far as "Lorgar is Janus"...um, what? Magnus is the Traitor Primarch who has spent the whole Heresy doing nothing but whining about how Lorgar and Horus done him wrong and how he wishes only to run back to Daddy.

 

Oh, but Magnus was in Battle of the Fang? Pish-posh. Show me the proof that was ACTUALLY Magnus, and not a particularly deluded Tzeenchtian Daemon Prince so lost in its own convoluted schemes it convinced itself it was Magnus.

 

The latter would also explain how "Magnus" got his behind kicked by a single Company of Wolves.

[Conn Eremon]

But I'm talking about omniscient narrators, codex stuff that isn't in italic, or in boxes reserved to in-universe stuff.

That's the thing. There are none. Every single narrator, whether it seems to be or not, is an in-universe narrator operating on potentially false or biased facts. 

 

And I think this is what trips people up. They read the Codices or the Black Library books, and they see styles of writing that are not from the perspectives of anyone. When the omniscient narrator says Brother Hadrian smashes into Chaos Cultist Fuulesh Gy, one would assume that this is the actual fact of what happened. Not that it was a perspective, or a certain accounting of the situation. This is real, we are being shown as it is happening. Or in Codices, where everything is being laid out as "these are the facts." 

 

But the standard tagline applies to everything. Everything is true, nothing is true. It's all in-universe narration and could possibly suffer from all kinds of issues because of that. That isn't only talking about some things, the things that are most obviously in-universe narration. It's talking about every single thing to come out of this IP. All of it. It doesn't click well, because it's opposite of how things work in nearly every other IP, and it's kind of counter-intuitive. But that doesn't change the fact that it simply is.

 

Now, how you like to approach it is entirely up to you. You can give it that kind of hard truth, if you want. You can place the fluff in a hierarchy of lore to help you determine which is true and which isn't. That's fine, and if that's how you want to enjoy the hobby, go for it. But it is not more valid than any other view or approach to this hobby.

 

For myself, I just think of all the ways in which the omniscient narrator could be an in-universe writer. Ever read fictional history books? Books on real crime (that somehow end up in the non-fiction section)? These are all fictitious, based off of real events or people. They are written with omniscient narrators, but the events and characters within them could vary wildly from the actual truth. Which is itself a fluid beast, as no two people experience the same thing the same way. And that's what the omniscient narrator is like in the 40k IP. That Black Templars book recently released that has everyone in an uproar? An in-universe fictional history book, written by an author who uses the omniscient narrator to tell his tale, but is clearly influenced by the Ecclessiarchy and a poor understanding of the actual Black Templars Chapter. Or not, maybe it's the hard, cold truth. All depends on whether or not I like it when I get around to reading it, if I ever do.

 

But that kind of logic can apply to every single thing produced by Games Workshop, or those licensed or approved by them. And it fits with the tagline that it is all true and all false. So that's how I like to think of it. Maybe it works for you, or someone else, maybe not. That's just my approach to the 40k lore, and it's just as valid as the approach that says Codices over Imperial Armour over Black Library. Personally, I think that approach is a load of :cuss that needs to die in a tire fire, but it is a valid one.

[Vesper]

The latter would also explain how "Magnus" got his behind kicked by a single Company of Wolves.

I thought we had reached the consensus best illustrated by this simple equation :  SW = SM+1.

 

That's the thing. There are none. Every single narrator, whether it seems to be or not, is an in-universe narrator operating on potentially false or biased facts.

I'm sorry, as long as there are no marks showing it's an in-universe character that is speaking, it's not an in-universe character.

[Wade Garrett]

No, no, no.

 

The Alpha Legion are Space Marines +1.

 

The Space Wolves are "just" the most terrifying Legion who were handpicked by the Emperor to be his Executioners.

[Conn Eremon]

 

 

The latter would also explain how "Magnus" got his behind kicked by a single Company of Wolves.

I thought we had reached the consensus best illustrated by this simple equation : SW = SM+1.

That's the thing. There are none. Every single narrator, whether it seems to be or not, is an in-universe narrator operating on potentially false or biased facts.

I'm sorry, as long as there are no marks showing it's an in-universe character that is speaking, it's not an in-universe character.

If that is your interpretation, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their own headcanon.

[Vesper]

No, no, no.

 

The Alpha Legion are Space Marines +1.

 

The Space Wolves are "just" the most terrifying Legion who were handpicked by the Emperor to be his Executioners.

Truth is, Magnus has been lucky to survive. I think it would've been more right to have a SW write the name of his favorite band on the heart of the Daemon Primarch.

 

If that is your interpretation, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their own headcanon.

It's literature. There are rules. And GW can't magically make omniscient narrators unreliable. It's just an excuse to cover conflicting views and takes on stuff already established. It would make much more sense if everything was told by in-universe characters. Then, all could be true or false. But as it is now, it's not the case.

[Wade Garrett]

Really Vesper?

 

REALLY?

 

I mean, I know we're discussing outlandish theories like Fulgrim being the Primarch of the Exorcists, but a literate Space Wolf? That's just absurd.

[Conn Eremon]

Vesper: There are popularly assumed conceptions, but they can do whatever they please with their own IP.

[Vesper]

I'd like to emphasize that there are simple rules about what an omniscient narrator is, and what his relation to the reader is.

 

I get what GW is doing. They are ok if there are as many alternate universes as there are readers. That means everything written is more or less junk you can keep or leave as you wish, and that there is no way to say "that is 40k" or "40k is about X" because there no such thing as 40k. Just a collection of authors who write about what they like, and it happens to have some kind of relation with stuff from other authors.

 

It's something that I can understand, and I respect that choice.

 

Yet, I still firmly think that it's lazy to throw consistency out of the window for taste issues. I haven't read the last BT book, but if its says : "the Black Templars are a chapter of around 1000 marines, codex adherant and all. They also operate from their famous homeworld of Screwconsistency Prime" just because the author didn't like all that was already written on the BT, then it's wrong (at least to me). Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can freely substitute your own version without caring. I don't like when it rains, but I still go to work, you know, I bite the bullet and deal with it. In case of the BT we have here, the author should deal with what makes them what they are. Sure, he can have a different take, that is cool (and often adds depth and wealth) but there is a limit. It's not anything goes.

 

Look at the HH series. Authors have to deal with the works of others. They all have to agree on tons of stuff like the numbers of marines per Legion and that sort of things. Yet, what you are saying is that if tomorrow another author would retcon the Heresy by having the Legions made of Space Marinettes and Horus winning, that would be fine because "all is true and all is false". That's pure fallacy to me.

[Conn Eremon]

I'd like to emphasize that there are simple rules about what an omniscient narrator is, and what his relation to the reader is.

Even if there were rules (and there aren't), they wouldn't apply to something that wasn't there to begin.

 

Yet, I still firmly think that it's lazy to throw consistency out of the window for taste issues. I haven't read the last BT book, but if its says : "the Black Templars are a chapter of around 1000 marines, codex adherant and all. They also operate from their famous homeworld of Screwconsistency Prime" just because the author didn't like all that was already written on the BT, then it's wrong (at least to me). Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can freely substitute your own version without caring. I don't like when it rains, but I still go to work, you know, I bite the bullet and deal with it. In case of the BT we have here, the author should deal with what makes them what they are. Sure, he can have a different take, that is cool (and often adds depth and wealth) but there is a limit. It's not anything goes.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say on the BT book. The author didn't do anything wrong. What the author did was write a book that thoroughly toed the line as set by the latest Codex. And this upset those people who were invested in the prior incarnations of the Black Templars, a version that is completely contradicted by their current rendition as perpetuated by this book. At least in part. Far as I'm concerned, the Black Templars have always worshiped the God-Emperor, but that is neither here nor there.

 

Now the comment I made was that those fans have the right, under the lack of hard 40k canon, to disregard the book in their consideration of Black Templar lore, if they so choose. To call that lazy is . . . Well, plain wrong. Not only does it require extra effort to do, which kind of negates that claim right there, but saying that adds a negative connotation that is frankly insulting. There are people who have invested a lot of time and money into this hobby. Do you honestly believe that one of their only ways out of a situation that invalidates that time and money in a way that allows them to continue to enjoy their hobby as they did before is lazy?

 

Look at the HH series. Authors have to deal with the works of others. They all have to agree on tons of stuff like the numbers of marines per Legion and that sort of things. Yet, what you are saying is that if tomorrow another author would retcon the Heresy by having the Legions made of Space Marinettes and Horus winning, that would be fine because "all is true and all is false". That's pure fallacy to me.

Trying to disprove something that is logically based on moderation by throwing an example of extreme hyperbole at it doesn't really do anything.

 

And it's kind of pointless. This is Games Workshop's stance. That's the end all, be all of it.

[Vesper]

Even if there were rules (and there aren't), they wouldn't apply to something that wasn't there to begin.

There are. An omniscient narrator is a thing. He knows eveything about basically everything. He sees all, knows the characters and their feelings, etc. The ones we get in 40k sources such as codices, rulebooks and all aren't characters, so they speak the truth. That is as simple as that.

 

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say on the BT book. The author didn't do anything wrong. What the author did was write a book that thoroughly toed the line as set by the latest Codex. And this upset those people who were invested in the prior incarnations of the Black Templars, a version that is completely contradicted by their current rendition as perpetuated by this book. At least in part. Far as I'm concerned, the Black Templars have always worshiped the God-Emperor, but that is neither here nor there.

Oh indeed. When I said "authors" I was also talking about those who write the codices (and I have absolutly nothing against any author or any person at all).

 

Now the comment I made was that those fans have the right, under the lack of hard 40k canon, to disregard the book in their consideration of Black Templar lore, if they so choose. To call that lazy is . . . Well, plain wrong. Not only does it require extra effort to do, which kind of negates that claim right there, but saying that adds a negative connotation that is frankly insulting. There are people who have invested a lot of time and money into this hobby. Do you honestly believe that one of their only ways out of a situation that invalidates that time and money in a way that allows them to continue to enjoy their hobby as they did before is lazy?

It not what I've been saying (and if it is, then it's not by design). People fall victims to the lack of consistency, and that is the reason I don't like the "all is true all is false" thing. Because it's, to me, a lazy way from GW to justify the lack of consistency instead of trying to actually make things consistent.

Once again, I'm absolutly fine with non reliable characters saying what they think according to stuff. And I'm absolutly fine too with authors having different takes on basically everything as long as it's not utterly breaking what was there before.

 

Trying to disprove something that is logically based on moderation by throwing an example of extreme hyperbole at it doesn't really do anything.

We've already seen extreme things being published. Well, not as extreme as what I wrote, but I did it that way for the dramatic effect.

 

 

And it's kind of pointless. This is Games Workshop's stance. That's the end all, be all of it.

As I said "It's something that I can understand, and I respect that choice". It doesn't mean I have to like it, though.

[Conn Eremon]

You are right that you don't have to like it. I'm not trying to make you, or anyone else, like it. But the attitude from those that don't that those who do are somehow the ones in the wrong is tiresome. Now, I think I know you well enough to believe that you don't intend that, but it is honestly how it comes across.

 

As for omniscient narrators, I flat out disagree. GW writers are far from being the only ones to utilize seemingly omniscient narrators to convey potentially faulty information. There is no rule that says if a narrator appears to be omniscient, then they must be and always are omniscient. There is only a common assumption.

[Vesper]

You are right that you don't have to like it. I'm not trying to make you, or anyone else, like it. But the attitude from those that don't that those who do are somehow the ones in the wrong is tiresome. Now, I think I know you well enough to believe that you don't intend that, but it is honestly how it comes across.

Well, let's say I'm tired of reading through threads like the one about the Iron Hands supplement or the last BT book. I mean, I was genuinely sad for the Iron Hands players after reading their reactions.

 

 

As for omniscient narrators, I flat out disagree. GW writers are far from being the only ones to utilize seemingly omniscient narrators to convey potentially faulty information. There is no rule that says if a narrator appears to be omniscient, then they must be and always are omniscient. There is only a common assumption.

You infere they might not be omniscient when there are no proof they aren't, nothing points at them being in-universe.

 

I'm tired, so I'll get some sleep.

[Kol Saresk]

Vesper, just one question. If there is a true omniscient narrator in 40K, then why are there so many players/background readers(some of whom belong to the Chaos faction I might add) who genuinely believe the first twelve Black Crusades are failures because the only thing saying they aren't is a single Chaos Codex while everything else that would not be a normal in-universe narrator portrays them as failures? That when Abaddon launched the First Black Crusade, yes it saw Abaddon claim Drach'nyen, but the Traitors were pushed back, even though there has never been a recorded battle where the Crusade was actually broken. Rather it just "faded". But according to everything currently printed but the 6th Edition Chaos Codex, it was a failure.

 

The 2nd Black Crusade was just five years of the forces of Chaos attacking every single defense around Cadia before again, being defeated without a major battle actually breaking the Crusade's back. But according to everything currently printed but the 6th Edition Chaos Codex, it was a failure.

 

The 4th Black Crusade according to Imperial records is a true failure as Abaddon held up Cadia with a sieging force while leading the Crusade to a single planet, which he then razed to the ground for no apparent reason before retreating back to the Eye, leaving most of his forces alone to face retaliation from the Imperium. That one was a decisive battle, and yet according to the 6th Edition Chaos Codex, it was but a stepping stone to prepare for the 13th Black Crusade.

 

The 7th Black Crusade, the forces of Chaos broke past Cadia and then "vanished". From here, a series of raids would occur over the breadth and width of the Imperium and again, there would be no decisive battle. And yet again, everything but the Chaos faction's source material points to it being a failure.

 

The 10th Black Crusade. This time he launched feints all over while leading a primary force that also consisted of many Iron Warriors against the Iron Hands. He would see the destruction of pretty much all their defenses but then just leave before the rest of the Chapter could arrive. And yet, "it was a failure".

 

The 12th Black Crusade. The Gothic War. Only the most recent in a long line of supposed failures. Abaddon builds the Planetkiller. Captures three Blackstone Fortresses. Leaves the war with two when he realizes he cannot capture a fourth. Leaves everyone else behind to cause as much damage as possible before they are killed. Even leaves the Planetkiller behind with one of his lieutenants. Yet again, a failed attack against the Imperium.

 

According to everything but a single, most recent edition of the CSM Codex, all of these were failures. According to what would normally be "omniscient narrators", we have two stories. Why do we have two stories? Because the narrators aren't omniscient. The Codices are history books, not the collected writings of someone who sees everything. That's why it is both true and true that the Black Crusades are failures. Because as far as everything written from the Imperial standpoint says, the omniscient narrator knows they are failures. But from the Chaos side? It knows what the true objectives are. It knows which ones were failures and which ones were simply "Abaddon achieved his goal and then left everyone to die in the glorious fires of battle". But how can both be true when both are written by what would normally be omniscient narrators? Is one of them lying? Is it a retcon? If it is a retcon then what do we go by? The most recent CSM Codex? Or the more recent Imperial Codices? Because both are current edition, but the Imperial faction's omniscient narrator is a more recent publishing. Not to mention it has more viewpoints.

 

See that's how it works. The codices stand like history books. They are written according to what would be perceived as the viewpoint of an omniscient narrator. The IA articles fall under the same category and are littered with phrases such as "The true accounts of this history are lost to the march of time". And yet, are treated as an omniscient narrator. Despite the fact that the very way it is written implies the narrator is not omniscient.

 

Look at the Iron Hands IA article. There's a section that can be summed up best as "We ain't got a clue what happened to Ferrus Manus at Istvaan V. Some say he died, some say he died and was resurrected. Some even say he continued to fight in the Heresy. But the Iron Hands just get PO'ed anytime someone asks what happened. Especially if you ask if they were resurrected. But at least they serve the God-Emperor." Doesn't sound too omniscient.

 

As Cormac said, you can choose to believe everything such as the Codices and IA articles are written by omniscient narrators. As you point out, the writing styles would normally be classed as such. But they aren't written like that. With small, almost insignificant statements such as "According to sources", or "much of the true history is lost". Even the Forgeworld Heresy books themselves are littered with statements such as "Imperial scholars speculate" or "in the aftermath, the Imperial Army saw this". It is written to not be the viewpoint of an omniscient narrator, but rather a history book.

 

But normal fiction doesn't have rules for a fictional history book. And so, the Codices, IA articles and Heresy books fall under what would normally be "the omniscient narrator". And that is where the idea of "canon", a concept utterly foreign to the 40K background where "Everything is a lie", begins to creep in.

[Hyaenidae]

Back on topic.

 

=][=

[GhostMalone]

Thinking on the grey knights and this ship of psychic children I must say I'm intrigued, is it in the seditions gate anthology?