WH40k comming millenium

[Cykeisme]

The Emperor was very, very clear about his secularity, which in fact led to the Word Bearers choosing allegiance with Horus.
There was no such confusion or dissent on the part of the loyalist Primarchs and their Astartes Legions.

I very distinctly recall text (from no earlier than 4th Ed) that states the Space Marine chapters recognize and have immeasurable respect for the Emperor as the greatest Man to have ever existed, but not as a god.


Also:
Is a belief in the divinity of an entity a prerequisite for its worship?

[Shadowtraveler]

I never said the Astartes were Emperor-botherers or that they were part of the normal Imperial Cult, just that they actually worship the Emperor as a god.

That's dandy.

I provided textual evidence that they don't.

But you did, unless I'm missing some very,very obvious, just that it takes the form of a warrior cult and that they have no ties to the Ecclesiarchy and are not beholden to them.

I very distinctly recall text (from no earlier than 4th Ed) that states the Space Marine chapters recognize and have immeasurable respect for the Emperor as the greatest Man to have ever existed, but not as a god.

It may be my fault, then. I'm going off what I see in the novels.

Also:
Is a belief in the divinity of an entity a prerequisite for its worship?

I'm pretty sure. Like I said earlier, though, it's more like Roman-style Emperor-worship than Judeo-Christian belief.

[Falkenhayn]

I'm pretty sure. Like I said earlier, though, it's more like Roman-style Emperor-worship than Judeo-Christian belief.

Cool.

And I argued it's like Buddhism. In the context of the Chapter's Warrior Cult, the Emperor can mean...anything or hold any significance. Whats most important are the moral/ethical teachings he perfectly exemplifies. Moreover, Emperor-Worship threatens the independence of the Astartes. And the Astartes have rebelled over precieved transgressions of their rights, namely independence, ie: the Badab War.

[Shadowtraveler]

I'm pretty sure. Like I said earlier, though, it's more like Roman-style Emperor-worship than Judeo-Christian belief.

Cool.

And I argued it's like Buddhism.

I must admit I find that interesting. How exactly?

Moreover, Emperor-Worship threatens the independence of the Astartes.

How so?

[Tanasinn]

I imagine that acknowledging the Emperor as a god would make the SPESS MEHRENS beholden to the priesthood, at least in theory.

[Connor MacLeod]

I tend to view it more as a form of ancestor worship than anything else, since they tend to revere not just the GEoM and t heir Primarch, but notable/oustanding members of their chapter as well. THey can have some fanatical/zealous members certainly, since it is still a cult, but its alot different from the mainstream Ecclesiarchy's view on things. But the Astartes are a valuable and key ally of the Imperium just as the AdMech are, and that means they must make allowances for what is clearly (from the Ministorum's view) as something bordering on heresy.

[Connor MacLeod]

3) Stop repeating the stupid "No guns on the underside of our ship? No problem! The enemy would never attack such a fucking obvious Achilles' heel!" design and mount gun turrets on the ventral surface. That "space is an ocean" meme is getting too damn tiring.

[/quote]

That's not something you need for all kinds of weapons y'know, only cecrtain kinds. Big heavy turrets like the dorsal mounted lances on some vessels (like the retribution) are clearly designed for long range firing, the lack of ventral armament in such a case is not going to be significant (at the ranges you're likely to use such guns distances will be too great for ships to try to manuver "under" a ship) and close up they're going to be too massive and unwieldy for much precision firing (Same for ISD HTLS really.)

So all you really would want are medium/light weapons for "close in" defense - stuff that can track and target more quickly, and (as noted) they already have those. And even then its not THAT significant a drawback, unless you get up very very close (Say, tens of kilometers or less?) which is possible and does sometimes happen in 40K (like extremely long range engagements or high velocity movement.) but are not really the norm.

And lastly, I'd like you to think in terms of tradeoffs. Yes, mounting guns on the bottom does cover a potential blind spot, but it also requires you to take internal volume away from the ship to fit in all the stuff those weapons needs, which means tradeoffs in some form or another.

[Shadowtraveler]

I tend to view it more as a form of ancestor worship than anything else, since they tend to revere not just the GEoM and t heir Primarch, but notable/oustanding members of their chapter as well. THey can have some fanatical/zealous members certainly, since it is still a cult, but its alot different from the mainstream Ecclesiarchy's view on things.

Never said it wasn't different. I'm just opposed to the idea that the Astartes will start to re-secularize things.

[Sidewinder]

That's not something you need for all kinds of weapons y'know, only cecrtain kinds. Big heavy turrets like the dorsal mounted lances on some vessels (like the retribution) are clearly designed for long range firing, the lack of ventral armament in such a case is not going to be significant (at the ranges you're likely to use such guns distances will be too great for ships to try to manuver "under" a ship) and close up they're going to be too massive and unwieldy for much precision firing (Same for ISD HTLS really.)

You're making a common mistake (one I've admittedly made) in assuming space warships will always approach each other along the same plane, as wet warships must do. What if the warships are approaching through planes that would intersect one another, e.g., their flightpaths form an "L"? The ship whose dorsal or ventral surfaces are about to get shot up will need guns that can elevate like antiaircraft guns, some those guns must be big ones in case the enemy ship is of a comparable class, and unless the ship is maneuverable enough to perform 90 degree rolls VERY QUICKLY, this rules out the stupid "Let's make the spaceships look like galleons from the Age of Sail, with lots of cannons fixed to the sides that can barely traverse or elevate to hit targets towards the bow, stern, top or bottom!" design.

And lastly, I'd like you to think in terms of tradeoffs. Yes, mounting guns on the bottom does cover a potential blind spot, but it also requires you to take internal volume away from the ship to fit in all the stuff those weapons needs, which means tradeoffs in some form or another.

NOT mounting ventral guns will carry a tradeoff of its own, e.g., maneuvering thrusters to let the ship roll VERY QUICKLY to bring the side or dorsal guns towards a target.

[NecronLord]

You're making a common mistake (one I've admittedly made) in assuming space warships will always approach each other along the same plane, as wet warships must do. What if the warships are approaching through planes that would intersect one another, e.g., their flightpaths form an "L"? The ship whose dorsal or ventral surfaces are about to get shot up will need guns that can elevate like antiaircraft guns, some those guns must be big ones in case the enemy ship is of a comparable class, and unless the ship is maneuverable enough to perform 90 degree rolls VERY QUICKLY, this rules out the stupid "Let's make the spaceships look like galleons from the Age of Sail, with lots of cannons fixed to the sides that can barely traverse or elevate to hit targets towards the bow, stern, top or bottom!" design.

The distance at which (dark eldar and necron ships aside) a 40K ship can detect its foe far exceeds the distance at which it can fire. By which I mean you can typically see them for hours or days beforehand. So, turning to face them is most certainly possible.

[Falkenhayn]

I must admit I find that interesting. How exactly?

How you can be a Buddhist by following Buddha's teachings and not acknowledge deities of any kind.

How so?

Click back to the previous page. It isn't that hard.

I imagine that acknowledging the Emperor as a god would make the SPESS MEHRENS beholden to the priesthood, at least in theory.

I think I've argued this exact point in greater detail earlier in the thread. You and Shadowtraveler ought to read it.

[Shadowtraveler]

How you can be a Buddhist by following Buddha's teachings and not acknowledge deities of any kind.

While Buddha's teachings are at the core a philosophy, Buddhism itself gradually evolved into a religion over thousands of years.

Click back to the previous page. It isn't that hard.

All your quotes mention the Warrior Cults of the Space Marines and include words such as worship and prayer.

[Connor MacLeod]

You're making a common mistake (one I've admittedly made) in assuming space warships will always approach each other along the same plane, as wet warships must do. What if the warships are approaching through planes that would intersect one another, e.g., their flightpaths form an "L"? The ship whose dorsal or ventral surfaces are about to get shot up will need guns that can elevate like antiaircraft guns, some those guns must be big ones in case the enemy ship is of a comparable class, and unless the ship is maneuverable enough to perform 90 degree rolls VERY QUICKLY, this rules out the stupid "Let's make the spaceships look like galleons from the Age of Sail, with lots of cannons fixed to the sides that can barely traverse or elevate to hit targets towards the bow, stern, top or bottom!" design.

The fuck? I'm talking about ranges of thousands of kilometers or more at LEAST (you could do this at hundreds of kilometers.) Even if their velocities are putting them on converging courses as you describe, nothing prevents the ship from rotating or rolling to present its guns as they close. Unless we're talking about starships zipping around at incredibly high speeds (hundreds or thousands of kilometers a secnd, which isn't all that common in 40K I should note - if you've got evidence to the contrary present it) its not going to make THAT much of a difference, since the guy supposedly trying to reach the ship's "ventral" side is going to have to cover a much wider arc than the other ship at such incredible distancees.

NOT mounting ventral guns will carry a tradeoff of its own, e.g., maneuvering thrusters to let the ship roll VERY QUICKLY to bring the side or dorsal guns towards a target.

[Falkenhayn]

How you can be a Buddhist by following Buddha's teachings and not acknowledge deities of any kind.

While Buddha's teachings are at the core a philosophy, Buddhism itself gradually evolved into a religion over thousands of years.

Click back to the previous page. It isn't that hard.

All your quotes mention the Warrior Cults of the Space Marines and include words such as worship and prayer.

Ideally, this would be the groundwork for a re-secularization of the IoM, but that would be a bold and decisive move towards the Emperor's true vision of the IoM. Moreover, the Astartes would be the vehicle for knocking superstition out of the IoM and at least making it feasible for a renewed spirit and effort in the mold of the GC.

This is the point I'm arguing in favor of. I count six qualifiers. My argument, in simplest terms, is that Space Marine theology is far less stringent than the Ministorum, and the Space Marines enjoy great independence and prestige. Moreover, they have the firepower and mandate to take on the huge bureaucratic organs than control the IoM. Therefore are the most likely secularizing force in the modern IoM, given that Astartes are being ceded more and more authority to govern territory by the Administratum. Again, further specifics are available on previous pages

Have I been unclear? Deviated from this point? Should I make every other word "Probably"? Or are you going to continue to imply that because Astartes have any kind of religion/spirituality (which I've made allowance for in my position), they cannot be a secularizing force? I haven't seen anything in your replies besides clumsy nitpicking and straw-men.

[Shadowtraveler]

Very well. My view is that the Imperium will not become re-secularized simply because the Astartes are more in control of mankind's affairs (and I wouldn't see this lasting normally, were it not for the whole Time of Ending thing going on). As a whole, they tend to be more spiritual and devout in their worship than most people, and in general (or at least among the Ultramarines and their sucessors) do not believe in the radical change in which you are proposing. I grant you that the beauracracy will lessen due to their influence, though.

[Stark]

The distance at which (dark eldar and necron ships aside) a 40K ship can detect its foe far exceeds the distance at which it can fire. By which I mean you can typically see them for hours or days beforehand. So, turning to face them is most certainly possible.

And spreading your guns out may enlarge the armoured volume or introduce masking for some turrets; if they can orient their ships appropriately, it's better to have them all able to bear on a single target rather than spread out for the ship that MIGHT attack from below but otherwise idle. As Connor says, at close range or against more agile targets this is an issue, but if you decide that focusing all primary weapons on one target is more important than universal coverage it isn't necessarily stupid. No matter what Sidewinder says.

[Cykeisme]

I tend to view it more as a form of ancestor worship than anything else, since they tend to revere not just the GEoM and their Primarch, but notable/oustanding members of their chapter as well.

I never thought of it this way before.. makes a damn lot of sense.
The way they venerate heroic warriors from the history of their chapter is simply a lesser form of the way they see their Primarch and, of course, ultimately the Emperor.

This is just me, but I personally find it very hard to find parallels between the traditional real-world concepts of "religion", and the kind of worship the people of 40k (including the Astartes, in the way discussed above) have.
They get to worship real and awesome people, rather than make-believe entities that never did shit (except imaginary shit).
In that sense, I almost envy Man in 40k fiction, despite the horrors they face.

[Serafina]

Well, you are somewhat right - but for a lot of people in the Empire, there is not difference between todays religious worship and their worshipping of the emperor. All they hear are fantastic tales about people they have never seen and will never see.

Its different on a lot of planets, but if you are on a backworld planet, there is not much difference. There is some nice description of common tribal beliefs in the first Space Wolf novel.
Essentially, they have a religion like many ancient tribal religions, just with other names.

And if you think worhshipping those real and awesome people, think about what fighting along them would be...

[Sidewinder]

Suppose you're the captain of a warship, and you find yourself against two warships of comparable class. The two enemy warships decide to attack you from two different vectors in an "L" shape, so they won't hit each other as one ship shoots you from Vector One and the other shoots you from Vector Two. Maneuver yourself so they can't do this? Wouldn't the sensor technology NecronLord described mean the enemy ships can maneuver to limit your own maneuverability and keep you in their crossfire, e.g., follow you from a distance so the ships form the points of a triangle, which means they can still shoot you from two different vectors?

What about planetary sieges, where your warship comes under fire from planetside artillery? Enemy reinforcements are likely to come from space, which means your ship will be attacked from two different directions unless you take the initiative and turn to meet the enemy ship, but won't this mean your guns will not be pointed at the planet to support the marines you sent to capture heavily defended installations?

[Connor MacLeod]

Suppose you're the captain of a warship, and you find yourself against two warships of comparable class. The two enemy warships decide to attack you from two different vectors in an "L" shape, so they won't hit each other as one ship shoots you from Vector One and the other shoots you from Vector Two. Maneuver yourself so they can't do this? Wouldn't the sensor technology NecronLord described mean the enemy ships can maneuver to limit your own maneuverability and keep you in their crossfire, e.g., follow you from a distance so the ships form the points of a triangle, which means they can still shoot you from two different vectors?

First off, it depends on whether these are two vessels that are of comparable (or near comparable) size/firepower to the ship they're attacking, or smaller, not in the least that it depends on how a response will go (If you have two cruisers attacking a cruiser, that cruiser is probably fucked anyhow)

Secondly, why the fuck wouldn't the single ship manuver themselves against two enemies? How the hell did those two cruisers manage to sneak up on the single ship and flank the ship as you propose in the first place? If the enemy ships can detect their target at range, the oppsoite is true (unless we're talking vastly diff tech levels, ie Eldar or Necrons vs Imperium) and even there its not guaranteed when it comes to mere detection. and that ship can manuver to keep from being flanked, unless the enemy can somehow contrive it otherwise.

What about planetary sieges, where your warship comes under fire from planetside artillery? Enemy reinforcements are likely to come from space, which means your ship will be attacked from two different directions unless you take the initiative and turn to meet the enemy ship, but won't this mean your guns will not be pointed at the planet to support the marines you sent to capture heavily defended installations?

Reinforcecments are also likely to be detected minutes or even hours before they can arrive or engage, given the closest I've ever heard of ships emerging near a planet in 40k (unless they're mad) is tens of milliosn of km, and thats largely going to be missile/torpedo/fighter range. Most defense fleets will have ample warning of any invasion, and the possibility of reinforcecment will be, if possible, accounted for.

Of course, as I remember standard Imperial invasion doctrine is for preliminary bombardment of space defenses to suppress them if at all possible, since those space defenses make landing troops dangerous as well, even by drop pod. And even if it doesn't, the most they'd need to do is pull the ships out of orbit - low orbit works in most cases and high orbit would be the furthest they would have to go (far less than a few hundred thousand km away) Given what I already mentioned before about the distances any reinforcements have to cover, they would have ample time to do this.

[Connor MacLeod]

I never thought of it this way before.. makes a damn lot of sense.
The way they venerate heroic warriors from the history of their chapter is simply a lesser form of the way they see their Primarch and, of course, ultimately the Emperor.

This is just me, but I personally find it very hard to find parallels between the traditional real-world concepts of "religion", and the kind of worship the people of 40k (including the Astartes, in the way discussed above) have.
They get to worship real and awesome people, rather than make-believe entities that never did shit (except imaginary shit).
In that sense, I almost envy Man in 40k fiction, despite the horrors they face.

Worship and religion in 40K is one of those parodies we're so fond of (even if it gets eclipsed by Grimdark.) 40K religion is in amny respects very cynical, but I wouldn't say they worship "real people." Reemmber that there is a 10,000 year gap and a very large and scattered world. Many have never (or will never) see the Emperor, and the Primarchs are known mostly by legend. Hell, Space Marines are a rare enough sight as it is, and they are quasi-revered too arent they? That really doesn't differ from modern religions who supposeldy revere/worship "figures" (whether you believe them real or imagined) from hundreds or thousands of years ago. Its probably harder for you to find parallels because you're looking at it from a more objective view - we KNOW the Emperor exists, we know he's active, and powerful, and that supernatural events are real in 40K, and we know the Primarchs existed. To us they're not stories or legends or distant figures we've only heard about. Someone in 40K won't have that knowledge (Heretical as it is, they may view the Emperor as a mere figurehead or fiction, something engineered to simply sustain worship.)

The GEoM religion is probably a good bit of parody because despite bieng harmful to the Imperium its quite necessary - faith and belief in the Emperor is what helps sustain him and give him power to fight the other Gods as much as all those psykers they gather up to sacrifice to him. Just like the Chaos Gods, the Emperor requires faith and belief in him to sustain and grow powerful.

[Connor MacLeod]

Very well. My view is that the Imperium will not become re-secularized simply because the Astartes are more in control of mankind's affairs (and I wouldn't see this lasting normally, were it not for the whole Time of Ending thing going on). As a whole, they tend to be more spiritual and devout in their worship than most people, and in general (or at least among the Ultramarines and their sucessors) do not believe in the radical change in which you are proposing. I grant you that the beauracracy will lessen due to their influence, though.

i doubt the Astartes would Secularize anything. THey aren't (as I remember) fond of the Ministorum, because they remain independent (And despite the fact the Ministorum glorifies the Astarrtes as quasi-angelic beings) They would probably try supplanting the Ecclesiarchy with their own personal cults, which aren't any better. Rather worse, actually, since you have 1000+ Chapters, and some (many?) of them have different ideas and viewpoints and not all get along (Space Wolves and Dark Angels.) Things might be neat (in some wayS) if say, the Ultramarines took over, but the other Chapters probably wouldn't stand for it.

So really what you would end up having is about a thousand pocket empires loosely unified in some sort of confederation. Say what you will about the Imperial Cult, but it does do a good deal to maintain and instill a sense of unity and purpose in the Imperium.

If the AdMech weren't such total dicks, I'd almost say their religion would be the best to supplant the Imperial Cult (but tis not, ,because they dont always hold the good of humanity at heart - they're more concerned about their own welfare.)