Reverend mort said:

Which is exactly my point. Everything in 40k is lore and legend, not entirely 100% true facts. GW has made no secret of this over the years, many of their big name employees have said as much. Hell, that's even stated in-game ("Everything you have been told is a lie" is quoted in the pre-face of many of the books, codices, etc) that everything is a mixture of truth, legend, lies, propaganda, etc.

40k had always been written from the point of view of people within the setting itself, so all of this should come to no surprise.

As for it "torpedoing" anything, I entirely disagree. It means we can have legitimate discussions about the setting, using all the official 40k sources (anything licensed by GW), without having a dick-waving contest about who's sources are "more canon" than the other's.

This, to me, can only be a good thing, and means you can make 40k as best suits you. I, personally, can't think of a better situation for such a large setting that, by nature of now having an RP game attached to it, requires flexibility.

Kharn continues on taking people's heads for The Blood God.

MILLANDSON said:

So I guess we should all look to you then to define what is relevant and "good" fluff or not?

The problem with discussing these matters with you is that when someone uses thought out arguments, like Millandson, that goes against your own, you turn to  hyperbole. If you want a serious discussion, and to be taken seriously, you should stop doing that.

I suspect you enjoy arguing for arguings sake, but I hope we can continue this discussion without it turning into the atrocity the "delay thread" turned into.

It isn't hyperbole. All of these things exist in 40k somewhere, and if we are to agree they're all equally valid, then their mutually exclusive nature becomes an issue. At some point, you will have to either prioritize one source above another, or introduce personal theory in an attempt to reconcile what is sometimes completely opposed statements.

And while I do admit the Imperium example is a ridiculous extreme, it does highlight the issue of attempting to have any argument about anything were every aspect has a stated basis "Is of utterly unverifiable and possibly untrue". You can provide no facts, references or argument for anything, because it can be handwaved away by a mere "I don't believe that part really happened like that". That makes it rather hard to have any sort of discussion or debate, since either requires reaching common ground to argue from.

Also, sure, he had a thought out argument. I presented a counter argument. The fact that I used exagerations to highlight my point doesn't make it any less applicable.

Also, I find it a bit offensive that you're trying to pressure me into not voicing my opinion on a discussion forum merely because you find it disruptive. So yeah, I think the idea that we should incorporate every aspect of every book, regardless how contradictory they are, somewhat silly, all while writing them all off as unreliable and of unverifiable validity. I will say as much.

So I guess we should all look to you then to define what is relevant and "good" fluff or not?

I suppose I could offer an response to the effect of "how 'bout we instead prioritize fluff according to how well it adheres to the established laws and tropes of the setting, and work to establish a communal baseline to work from?" but I kinda prefer your suggestion. It would go a lot quicker! Also, since I can't help it (sorry!) what was that you said about turning to hyperbole?

I suspect you enjoy arguing for arguings sake, but I hope we can continue this discussion without it turning into the atrocity the "delay thread" turned into.

First of all... yes. We're arguing on the internet. Expecting anyone to change their minds on anything on the internet is, to me, hopelessly naive. Of course I'm doing this because it amuses me! Otherwise, why waste time doing it? Not counting doing it during work hours to kill time, obviously!

Secondly, sure! Let's pick back up from were I so horribly derailed this thread, shall we?

Abaddon is one in a billion. Unfortunately, in 40k, there's quite a few billions. Replacing him will not be easy, but there's far too many powerful, power hungry leaders with a vested interest in leading a crusade for him not to be. It will take time, it will shed enough blood to make Khorne say enough and it will be MESSY, but, in the end, there are several zdequate replacement.

Are they as good as Abaddon is right now? Probably not. May they perhaps grow under adversity and rise to the challenge? Possibly. If they don't, will they perform as well as Abaddon does right now? Maybe not.

Will they perform well enough to keep their Crusade(s) going into the Imperium and keep the Traitor Legions and Chaos Warbands a credible threat to the Imperium? I'd say so. And if not, well, they're on the side of Chaos. Do you really think ANY of the Chaos gods have the humility to accept that they no longer threaten the empire of the upstart (Reincarnated Shaman/Space Baby/Buddha Jesus) human who sought to kill them? HELL NO! If their current followers won't perform well enough, they'll either bless and mutate them until they do or find someone who will.

you say: It isn't hyperbole.

And earlier you said: I can casually claim Space Marines, Eldars, the Chaos Gods and the IMPERIUM all don't exist, and certainly not in a form remotely similar to the one we "know". You can not refute me, because every source that mentions it is quite possibly a lie, a myth or a distortion, by your own admission.

Can you seriously claim that what you say here isn't hyperbole?

And I never told you to stop posting. I'm sorry if you get that from my post, but I fail to see how anyone can even remotely construe that from what I said.  It's my belief that if you can't make your point without resorting to hyperbole, then maybe you shouldn't. You're free to do so, but it wont help you make your case.

I do agree with you however, that this thread doesn't need anymore derailing. I'm not gonna change your opinion on Abaddon, and you're not gonna change mine, so I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

Can you seriously claim that what you say here isn't hyperbole?

Yes. I can. It's Reductio Ad Absurdum. Pointing out the absurdity or implausibility of an argument or proposition by taking it to it's logical conclusion, where it's flaws become more apparent. Like, in my case, pointing out that claiming all sources to be unverifiable and possibly untrue means one can claim every core tenant of the setting is untrue, thus invalidating all arguments on grounds of uncertainty, since no other source remains.

And I never told you to stop posting. I'm sorry if you get that from my post, but I fail to see how anyone can even remotely construe that from what I said.  It's my belief that if you can't make your point without resorting to hyperbole, then maybe you shouldn't. You're free to do so, but it wont help you make your case.

I'm sorry, but what's the logic here? Why is hyperbole not acceptable? It's an aspect of everyday speech. It's exclusion strikes me as entirely arbitrary.

Also, I can make my point entirely without hyperbole. To paraphrase:

Several contradictory claims exist in 40k, and if we are to agree they're all equally valid, their mutually exclusive nature becomes an issue. At some point, you will have to either prioritize one source above another, or introduce personal theory in an attempt to reconcile what is sometimes completely opposed statements. One is against your stated goal, the other creates a bad precedent that creates a long series of issues and personal judgements, which you also seem to be against.

There. Not even the slightest hint of exaggeration.

However, if any use of hyperbole invalidates my statement and warrants me to simply not attempt to make my point, then as I pointed out you too used hyperbole so maybe we should both be utterly quiet?

Here be Trolls, Beware.

Warning, ad hominem attacks nearby, proceed with caution!

Let us not forget that 40k has been evolving over the years, and fluff was being written and re-written by many people throughout its course. It would be nigh impossible to  avoid contradictions and plot holes.

This, however, is a huge advantage for GMs. It allows them to use whatever elemets of canon are suitable to support their own story.

In my opinion, the only truly detestable part of the 40k fluff is Space Marine fanservice. Stories like the godlike chapter master Draigo (GK), who single-handedly slew several grater daemons etc, or a handful of loyalists killing over 9k cretinous Word Bearers in Battle for the Abyss, wreck the 40k mood more effectively than a million plotholes. Heroic/ epic sci-fi can't be grimdark.

somnium said:

This. This, so much. And don't forget Archivist "The Emperor visited a Sororitas Living Saint and thus was I born" Mephiston.

somnium said:

Well in Chaos books, the Chaos warriors are very dangerous killing machines, each being thousands of years of knowledge and practice. On TT they are the best troops for that, each CSM as 2 CC, bolter, Grenades Offence and Defencive, etc.

In the Space marines books, any initiate and blood claw can take out [CENSURED] Loads of CSM...

Canon for 40k is a howitzer with a 20 pds charge inserted but up. It goes boom in your face! The amount of RetConned items makes even Marvel look like amateurs for the amount of RetCon they are doing over time. I mean why destroy the C'tan? Why most SM lords are much more dangerous now, they even have a cheese Wolf Lord that can remove it form game...

What would happen if they removed Abaddon? I know, the story may actually go forward for once instead of rewritting it self all the time... Just think if they invested all that thinking power in going forward? What if, you know, we actually had new material instead of reashed old material where a tiny piece of retconned fluff...

 wow... this got interesting. 

So basically what i'm seeing is:

Abaddon Can't Die

TROLL

the black legion collapses in infighting

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

someone new takes over

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

*defense of 40k canon*

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

The story actually moves forward.

I like this very last idea. Look out abaddon, there's a sorcerer in the vortex looking for your head.

The children will rejoice when he dies cos honestly..he is kinda incompetent imho. No total victory/wheres the conquest of terra!!!

Gillam Harrow said:

It is a mostly useless thread, and you didn't really help it by necro'ing it.