Talk:Asterion Moloc

From 1d4chan

I'm keeping the summary of the fights inside the collapsed section since there's no point to moving it outside of it, especially when there's an abridged version already visible, and I'm also keeping mention of why Mephiston isn't included and that's because he's mentioned in the first summary, so we should at least have an explanation for why Moloc can kill him so easily despite Mephiston's very impressive statline. -- Triacom (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But wait, does the mathhammer stuff include the fact that he has Preferred Enemy (Space Marines)? - Biggus Berrus (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's why he does more damage than other characters who also hit on 4's and wound on 2's. -- Triacom (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Would someone mind explaining to me where Azrael is in the fights bit? --Taumanta (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I forgot about him and will have to add him later. If you're interested in the short version, Moloc stomps him too. -- Triacom (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Custodes theory isn't unfounded[edit]

For the anon who keeps removing the bit about him being a Custodes, it's clearly spelled out why people (it's certainly not my theory) were speculating that he might be a Custodes. To remove it purely because you disagree with it is dumber than just leaving it alone. -- Triacom (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Having a spear, being tall, and surviving grievous injury doesn't make him a Custodes. It's a bad theory with essentially no supporting evidence.

Having a much larger physique, having a much longer than normal lifespan, having great physical capabilities and surviving grievous injury, as well as rumoured Custodes equipment all lend credence to the theory. It not having concrete proof is also what makes it a theory, not a confirmed fact. -- Triacom (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Under this justification there could also be a paragraph for the Emperor's entry outlining the similarities between him and Tendercare Bear, leader of the Care Bears. You've also mistaken theory for hypothesis.
If you have reason enough to attempt to link those two then go ahead and try it. As for this theory, you clearly don't even know what 'theory' means, so let me link you one of the definitions:
"A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
That is exactly what has happened on the main page and your dislike is still not reason enough to remove it. -- Triacom (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Saw the edit war and :I'm looking over the section. I'm not seeing any reason to keep it. It's a 'theory' without a mystery to explain. Space Marines are big tough dudes, he doesn't have to have a crazy explanation as to why he's big and tough. The interesting part is the possible perpetual/phoenix-lord-style resurrection, and him being a Custodian or beta Primaris doesn't have anything to do with it. He's just a dude in Tartaros armor. Looks like it's just one dude's headcanon from 2016 that never got removed from the page because who's looking at the fucking Asterian Moloc fluff page in the first place. It doesn't have a place here. -- 96.91.102.228 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A really big dude in tartaros armour wielding rumoured Custodes equipment and who's survived what many other Chapter Masters have not, somebody coming up with an idea of how he does that isn't a theory without a mystery, by that logic the bit about his name possibly being passed along should also be removed because that's just as much of a theory. -- Triacom (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
He's not that big, and his only piece of equipment that is even remotely Custodes is his spear and it looks nothing like a Custodes pattern weapon. Him coming back from death or name being passed on is a question actually posed by the source material, so it's appropriate for the wiki. Him being a Custodian doesn't answer anything about that and raises significant questions. 96.91.102.228 19:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
He is pretty big, also saying that his spear doesn't look like a Custodes pattern weapon doesn't prove anything, especially when the lore says it was modified from a Custodes pattern weapon. -- Triacom (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Granted on the weapon, but it's not like Custodes weapons are only for Custodes. 96.91.102.228 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll begrudgingly have to admit this point, only somewhat. Thanks to the Deathwatch book fucking everything up there are apparently patterns of their weapons specifically for the Marines, although in those cases they aren't called modified Custodes weapons like Moloc's spear is. -- Triacom (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Guy who originally made the theory here. At the time it seemed more concrete and viable, but now a lot of shit has been thrown at it, mostly differences in crunch between him and actual Custodes. Probably should've edited it after their codex came out in 7th but I digress. Still, a lot of his fluff still supports it to an extent, so the theory should be shortened to sentence or two but not removed, in my opinion. --Hellsing612 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you base your theory on anything other than the fact that he's a large model? Any primary sources that peg him as a non-astartes? 96.91.102.228 20:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
To be fair to you too, the Custodes have all sorts of members for different areas of expertise, they aren't all the tall super-badass fighters that we play on the tabletop. It's also this diversity that helps them protect the Emperor's Throne from all sorts of threats instead of just the ones in a normal war. -- Triacom (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The beta Primaris part doesn't even make sense since we had no idea that the Primaris even existed until 8e, and the Marine codex confirms they were all made in early M32, long before the Minotaurs were founded. Besides, he isn't the only guy who survived several things that should've killed him in this setting by a long shot. Also, by the theory's logic the Blood Ravens must also be Custodes because of all the Custodes equipment they have. See the issue?--Newerfag (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The 'beta primaris' part does make sense as the Primaris were made from modifying the gene-seed in various ways as well as adding to it, which is also what happened to the Cursed Founding chapters. Also I'd like you to find me another Marine who's survived as much or more than Molec has, even Calgar's limbs getting removed aren't close as he received immediate attention and wasn't spaced during the encounter. As for your Blood Ravens bit, the Blood Ravens have explanations as to how they got them, the Minotaurs don't for their Chapter Master. -- Triacom (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Except the "Beta Primarises" are in effect the current ones- we have multiple fluff sources confirming Cawl was working on the same Marines on and off for 10,000 years, and did so entirely on his own independent from the normal Foundings. Even the most ambitious of the cogboys working on the Cursed Founding didn't think to add new organs to the geneseed, and they certainly didn't have the Sangprimum Portus or whatever it's called to help them with it.
As for the gear, have you forgotten the Captain-General of the Custodes is frequently one of the High Lords that the Minotaurs are heavily implied to directly serve? It's perfectly plausible that as part of their special gear he condescended to modify a Guardian Spear for Moloch to use. --Newerfag (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That's why it's a theory, also the Primaris Marines weren't finished by the time the Cursed Founding rolled around so it's quite easy to link the two since they both revolve around attempting to modify the Marines' gene-seed to make better versions of them. Even the most ambitious of the cogboys working on the Cursed Founding didn't think to add new organs to the geneseed Yeah they did, the Sons of Antaeus at the very least had new shit added to them. As for the gear, if we want to link them that way then I can also claim that it's perfectly reasonable that since they're working for the High Lords directly the Captain-General would put a Custodes in charge of the Chapter (especially since we know the Custodes left in disguise for various missions). -- Triacom (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Cawl alone knew about the Primaris, and he kept it a secret. If others knew about his Primaris plan, we sure as hell would've heard about it long before 8e happened; the Sons of Antaeus' resilience was never linked to any geneseed additions so it's just as likely that Chaos did it. Furthermore, the Custodes mindset has been repeatedly noted to be radically different from that of any Space Marine's to the point that they simply could not function as a Chapter Master. --Newerfag (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I never said others knew about them, I was implying that Cawl also worked on the Cursed Founding chapters which sounds straight up his alley. Also you should really read up on the Sons of Antaeus, what little lore there is on them partially links their durability to the additions they were given to their skeletal structure. Furthermore, the Custodes mindset has been repeatedly noted to be radically different from that of any Space Marine's to the point that they simply could not function as a Chapter Master. Now I could point out that Moloc and the Minotaurs work a lot differently than regular Chapters do and don't seem to be Codex Complaint, and I could bring up how Custodes don't have issues in orchestrating war on a grand scale with Marines at their behest, and I could point out that no piece of lore says they would be unfit to command a non-Codex compliant chapter thanks to their mindset, but I think you've helped me argue this point enough already. -- Triacom (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I know all about that, and it doesn't match the Custodes MO either. How many times have all the Ten Thousand ever left on a single action? Plus, what we know of the Sons of Antaeus's physiology is nothing but speculation (compare to the Black Dragons, where the exact mutations were isolated). As for your implication, I will point out we need more than wild guesses to back up your claims. If the lore doesn't even make an ambiguous statement, anything you can say about it is merely your guess. --Newerfag (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
How many times have all the Ten Thousand ever left on a single action? Well if we're going by the 8th ed Codex, apparently it's a lot. Plus, what we know of the Sons of Antaeus's physiology is nothing but speculation Unless we read what they outright tell us about the Sons' physiology, which I'd recommend you do. Finally the lore does make ambiguous statements and I've already gone over those several times. -- Triacom (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Ortan Cassius got pulped hard enough that the amount of bionics bits he needed makes him T6 on the tabletop. Besides, a marine's mucranoid is specifically there to minimize the effects of vacuum exposure, and terminator armor is also a sealed environment. --97.125.195.180 06:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Great, now name 6 other times that similar events happened to Cassius and we'll have somebody who's gone through as much if not more than Moloc. Also a Marine's armour/mucranoid isn't exactly a sealed environment/made to help when he's been cut open by a warscythe. -- Triacom (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you name a Custodes who's had the same number of brushes with death explicitly mentioned in the fluff, if you believe that's such a strong indicator of Moloc being more than an ordinary marine? --97.125.195.180 06:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Now that's a fair point, the Custodes having a higher constitution and (partially) thanks to that not having as many times they've been almost killed is a good way of pointing out that Moloc shares a little more with them than he does Marines. It's almost like that's mentioned in the theory that was on the page OH WAIT. -- Triacom (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If we're really splitting hairs, this isn't even a hypothesis since those can be tested- it's more of a conjecture based solely on wild speculation. And now that I think of it, even Moloch's considerable size says nothing about any supposed Custodes heritage on his part- I distinctly recall that in Steve Parker's Deathwatch stories Omni was said to have been so muscular in build that his Captain told him to just stop training (he had become so bulky that his power armor had to be refitted at least three different times). If an otherwise ordinary sergeant can get that big, then it's unsurprising that a Chapter Master could also have that kind of bulk. Regarding all of his supposed deaths, I assume it's little more than Forge World giving him massive amounts of plot armor to make him seem badass.--Newerfag (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Like I said before, dude has confused theory for hypothesis.
See above, you don't seem to know what the definition of theory is, and Newerfag also pointing out that this isn't a hypothesis doesn't help your claim that it's a hypothesis (which it isn't). -- Triacom (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
To Newerfag, it's not a hypothesis, it's a theory. The only one claiming it's a hypothesis is the anon who doesn't know what theory means. For the muscle mass and needing to fit the armour around it, that didn't significantly change his height. As for his supposed deaths, now you're just speculating about the writers while ignoring the lore. -- Triacom (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
'Fraid you're deeply confused, boy. I didn't claim it was either. Neither did Newerfag. How many separate people each with different valid reasons as to why you're wrong, including the original author, would it take before you might consider letting this go? Please, give us a number, an endpoint to your madness, instead of what might as well be copypaste of the same thoroughly discredited thing in response without reading any objections. Sorry you love this baseless idea, your love isn't enough to include it.
If you aren't claiming it's a hypothesis then why do yo keep saying I'm confusing the definition of theory with another word that doesn't even apply to the discussion? As for letting this go, just give proof, that's all I'm asking, don't give an editwar just because you didn't like something, give me actual proof it should be removed. -- Triacom (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The previous anon's lack of maturity in renaming the title aside, the "evidence" for your so-called theory simply does not hold up against the lore itself. Have it be part of your headcanon or whatever, but even cursory investigation proves it to be utterly false and the vast majority of people here do not believe it to be worth our time to host.--Newerfag (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The evidence isn't wholly supported by the lore, which is why it's a theory and not a confirmed fact. If we couldn't include theories as parts of pages then I can guarantee that the Space Sharks page would be a hell of a lot shorter. Also if you can prove it false with a cursory investigation, then why haven't you done that yet? Not to mention the 'vast majority' of people seemed fine with it on here before an anon got a stick up their ass about it. -- Triacom (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no point. I can already tell you would reject any argument I can put forward out of hand, and none of your own claims have direct backing in the lore. Until I see someone in-universe suggesting a link between Moloc and the Custodes/Primaris, there is no reason for me or anyone else to believe a word of your theory. Furthermore, I should clarify that the 'vast majority' likely didn't care anyway, and they seem to have had no objection to its absence. In any event I suggest you pick your battles better next time. --Newerfag (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Newerfag, you've yet to put out a solid argument, most of the stuff you've said has been in favour of what I'm arguing. Also if you aren't seeing Custodes equipment as a link, then I really don't know what you will see as a link. You claim I'd reject any argument you post, but what happens when I post something in favour of it? "Regarding all of his supposed deaths, I assume it's little more than Forge World giving him massive amounts of plot armor to make him seem badass." Well look at that, you immediately rejected it in a way that doesn't even bother to consider what the lore might imply. Saying that I'd reject anything you put forward is extremely hypocritical. -- Triacom (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Woah, rude.

The burden of proof was on you from the start, but if I must here are my main points which you previously ignored or rationalized away:

  • Even being a Custodes would explain nothing about his so-called deaths because they can die just like anyone else. Though I used an out-of-universe explanation earlier, I now note that if anything, it's much more likely to support him being a Perpetual or the name being merely a title.
  • Cawl has never been mentioned to have worked on the Primaris project with others, nor was he ever said to have worked on the Cursed Founding. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "beta Primaris" because all of them were taken from the same small list of subjects.
  • Moloc's size is not adequate evidence of a supposed Custodes lineage, nor is his equipment evidence. It just means he's big.

You rejected, rationalized, or ignored all of these points the last time I brought them up. Why should I expect you to acknowledge them this time? On top of that, we are using entirely different definitions of theory: you seem to use it as a synonym of "conjecture", while I and the anon are using it in the same way that relativity is a theory. We will likely remain at an impasse until we pick a definition and stick with it. --Newerfag (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it's a theory, theories (even/especially by definition) do not need to be proven, facts do. If you think it's a fact that the theory is wrong then you need to prove it. Now getting to the points:
  • If he's the same person then his deaths aren't deaths, just presumed deaths that he then managed to survive. Saying that 'Custodes can die just like everyone else' is dumb because we can say the same thing about really tough creatures like Greater Daemons and Primarchs. I doubt you'd put either of those on the same level as Marines, just as I'd argue that Custodes are not on the same level as Marines and it does help explain why he's survived so long. If you have a theory that he's a perpetual, that's perfectly fine unless you're going to keep claiming I need to prove my theory (which goes against even the concept of theories), in which case you'll need to prove yours.
  • Cawl has never been mentioned to have worked on the Primaris project with others That would be an excellent point if I ever claimed he was working with others on the project. As for the Cursed Founding, that's why it's a theory. Also I don't get how you're hung up on the 'beta Primaris' thing when the Cursed Founding chapters were made with the exact same idea and intentions as the Primaris Marines, few worked out, most didn't, and the idea behind their creation is still the same.
  • Moloc's size is not adequate evidence of a supposed Custodes lineage, nor is his equipment evidence. It just means he's big. His size, his equipment, his toughness, who he works for and his methods all share more in common with the Custodes than they do other Marines. There's more than just his height and gear, and furthermore if it was enough to completely link him to the Custodes then this wouldn't be a theory.
You rejected, rationalized, or ignored all of these points the last time I brought them up. Newerfag, you've done nothing but reject and ignore the points I bring up whereas I've rationalized all of yours because that's what you do when you're making a theory about something. If you want to disprove a theory outright, you cannot just say 'no that's not good enough' or just pretend there's some out-of-universe reason for it like you did earlier with Forgeworld's author's and Moloc's many 'deaths'. Furthermore you seem to be convinced that a person needs to prove a theory for some reason, when that goes against the most basic concept of what a theory is (if all theories had to be proven or be discarded, they would be called facts instead of theories). This is before we consider that there are many pages on this wiki that have theories based on far more circumstantial evidence than this, as I mentioned before the Space Sharks page is loaded with this sort of thing, as were many other pages like a lot of info circulating around the Primarchs.
To end this let's look at the dictionary definition of theory, since we definitely seem to be using different definitions: "1. A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena." Now I think you're using this definition, but do you know what the second definition is? "2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Well look at that, turns out theories can be regarded as conjectural after all. You can look it up yourself if you want to however I have been using the definition for it the entire time. I don't know if you weren't aware of the second definition of it or just chose to ignore it, but if it's the first, now you know, and if it's the second, choosing to ignore it does not make my argument any less of a theory. -- Triacom (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not blame me for your own persistent lack of precision, or for your refusal to use the more accurate term conjecture (as this whole shitshow is unprovable, which is part of what a conjecture is while theories can be tested directly, even conjectural ones). As for the Space Sharks, they are irrelevant to this matter and I have little patience for your use of whataboutism. The point is, I still fail to see why your theory is so important that it ought to be enshrined here and I am losing patience with your belief that you seem to own this page.--Newerfag (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not blame me for your refusal to look up the definition, or even to read it seeing as I posted it shortly after this discussion started. "theories can be tested directly, even conjectural ones-" Bullshit, not all theories can be tested, as proven not only here but in the other theories posted on this site. Anytime you make a theory about fiction you're going to find it's impossible to test, because it's fiction. You're also getting really hung up on conjecture vs theory when theory is a synonym of conjecture (look it up, you're embarrassing yourself). As for Space Sharks, I'm using them and the other pages mentioned to give context to the theory being on this page since it doesn't make sense for a theory with more supporting evidence to be removed, as opposed to a theory with less supporting evidence. As for my 'belief' about owning this page, I have none, if I did I'd have continued to change the front page instead of coming to the talk page when it became clear the anon refused to listen to reason. -- Triacom (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Then remove those theories which you claim to be groundless, if their lack of proof is so important to you. I cannot do everything myself, as much as I would love to. And who's being more embarrassing here, me or the person maling the issue about semantics rather than the inadequacy of the evidence he presents? --Newerfag (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Their lack of proof isn't that important to me, that's why they stayed (I thought I made it clear I wasn't bothered by them, both here and on their own talk page). There's enough substantiating them that I and whoever wrote them felt they were worth adding and they certainly inspired discussion. The theory is even brought up in the Space Sharks own novel so why wouldn't it be worth including? As to who's more embarrassing here, that would be the person who can't spell (maling?) and the one who thought that the theory was mine, despite not only me saying that I didn't write it but Helsing claiming they were the ones who did (I'm guessing you removed that because you looked up this page and finally noticed). Lastly you can't go on about me talking about semantics when you were the one who not only started that argument but fucked them up too when you didn't know theory was a synonym of conjecture. At the very least I can say that I haven't dismissed any of your arguments with an out-of-universe hand-wave. -- Triacom (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
So I made one typo in one sentence this whole debate, big fucking whoop.
And I like how you're doing nothing but using ad hominems instead of actually addressing the issue if there is enough to justify the Custodes theory being here or not. Seeing as the Minotaurs have no novel series of their own or even anything suggesting Moloc's miraculous returns happened at all barring one vague blurb in an Imperial Armor (and indeed the theory hasn't even been mentioned on /tg/ even once, so it obviously hasn't inspired discussion outside this talk page), it can hardly be compared to the debate about the Carcharadons' gene-seed. As for out-of-universe hand waves, perhaps you didn't notice that very hand-wave has been on the page long before I repeated it? This is not about anybody trying to suppress discussion so much as people thinking that there is a limit to how outrageous a theory can be before it starts sounding ridiculous.--Newerfag (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hold up, I'm doing nothing but using ad hominems? Newerfag did you read what you wrote? All you did was insinuate that I was embarrassing myself before calling my argument inadequate and not doing anything to counter it. What could I respond to there? I wrote what I did to point out that you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of, as if I was the one who brought stuff like the semantics issue into this argument when that was all you. As for its justification, that much is subjective I'll admit, as is any opinions on its removal, Moloc's returns however are not since it's also mentioned in his description that he's loaded with cybernetics, gained from his many injuries and recoveries. I'm also fairly sure I have seen it on /tg/, though admittedly that thread doesn't seem to have been archived. I'll admit too that unlike the Carcaradons this theory wasn't in a novel that he's in, however as far as the hand-waving is concerned, there's a difference between putting it on the main page as part of the humour of the site, and using it to nullify a discussion on the talk page. One is tongue-in-cheek humour, the other was supposed to be a serious talk about a specific possibility. -- Triacom (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no experience editing wikis or how they're formatted, but I just wanted to ask if the fact that he has no established geneseed source (especially since writers --really-- love using that to develop characters) could have any impact on this arguement

It certainly could, I didn't think of that before. -- Triacom (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Their geneseed is "chimeric", that's been mentioned before. --Newerfag (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Their gene-seed is thought to be chimeric. Bit of a difference, also chimeric doesn't just mean it's mixed with other gene-seed, gene-seed that has had stuff added to it is also chimeric. -- Triacom (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Custodes don't have gene seed.
That's part of the other anon's point, Moloc has no gene-seed source, aka he might not even have one. -- Triacom (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The Minotaurs (and by extension Moloc) do have gene-seed, but the specifics of its makeup are known only to the High Lords. You're mistaking not having a known gene-seed source for not having gene-seed at all; if this is indeed evidence for him being a Custodes then that begs the question of why none of the other Minotaurs who also have no gene-seed source aren't just as superhuman. Additionally, if Forge World's HH books are any indication "chimeric" simply means that the gene-seed was derived from the lineage of more than one Primarch. As it is the only source that has even bothered to hint what the term means, no conclusions can be drawn about it being blended with anything else. --Newerfag (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
"The Minotaurs (and by extension Moloc)-" You assume. If he was a Custodes he wouldn't have any and I figure that's what the anon was getting at. As for the others not being as superhuman, because they're normal Marines. You did at least read the theory right? The idea behind it was that it was a Custodes secretly leading a Marine chapter, so why would the others be as superhuman as he was? "If Forge World's HH books are any indication "chimeric" simply means that the gene-seed was derived from the lineage of more than one Primarch." And if WD are any indication, gene-seed is considered chimeric if there's anything added to it. That's outdated info at this point though so I'll let that one go. -- Triacom (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That still begs the question: why? Why have a Custodes who is by definition distant from all non-Custodes and (if the Codex is any indication) mistrustful of Space Marines in general lead an entire Chapter, and do so without anyone at all catching onto his absurd charade which neither he nor the Custodes as a whole gains from? --Newerfag (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If there was a Chapter specifically meant to carry out the High Lords will and who was at a much greater risk of learning things they shouldn't have (seen in examples like when the Chapter worked alongside the Grey Knights) then who better could guarantee their loyalty than a Custodes leading them? Aside from being a good fighter and a smart tactician having one as their leader would virtually guarantee the Chapter remains on the straight and narrow so long as he's still in command. A Custodes too isn't as likely to have as much of an issue with killing off other Chapters (even/especially ones that haven't fully fallen) as many Marines seem to and in Moloc's description, it says he is paranoid, so he is mistrustful of Space Marines still. As for what he and the Custodes gain from this, he's got an army that makes it easier to wipe out many of the Imperium's enemies and a cover so that they don't have to use this army in secret. Having him take on these enemies as a Custodes would be quite difficult pre-M42 since I'm pretty sure the 7th edition Codex of the Custodes said that they otherwise had to operate in small groups and in absolute secrecy so that their cover wasn't blown (which would make it very hard for them to interfere in a lot of conflicts). -- Triacom (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The Custodes do not answer directly to the High Lords, and the Captain-General is not always one of the High Lords. Additionally, the 8th edition codex also said they frequently ignored the prohibition about operating outside the Imperial Palace and that such interference was never reported due to a lack of witnesses in most cases. In fact, I can see you specifically acknowledged as such to argue against one of my points regarding the divergence between the Minotaurs' MO and that of the Custodes.--Newerfag (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted what I meant, my point wasn't necessarily that they report to the High Lords, but that this would be something sanctioned by the Captain-General and as he's usually a member, their actions would have his approval. I'll admit I could have worded it better though. As for the 8th edition Codex, that works just fine when there's a lack of witnesses, but what if they need (or think they need) to intervene in a conflict where witnesses are unavoidable? The lack of witnesses are also why I mentioned that they used to operate in secret, since they couldn't exactly operate in the open without everyone becoming aware of what they were doing and what they were breaking. -- Triacom (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I can think of a half dozen marines who have survived a ton of shit that should have killed them (Angelos, Cortez, Huron, Calgar, and of course Cassius being the obvious examples), along with several examples of marines who are extraordinarily large and strong (such as Silas Alberec), or who have some special unique weapon they get to run around hitting people with (every marine special character ever), or who have a stateline that diverges from the norm. That is not adequate justification for guessing they must therefore be a Custodes, or for putting said unsubstantiated conjecture up on this page. Battlegrinder (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you think of a lot of Marines who survived that sort of stuff 7 times in their career? Because I sure can't. Also I am aware of Silas' size, he's definitely an outlier in that aspect as Silas is even larger than a Custodes (although we at least know stuff about him). About the equipment, if you're going to boil down Custodes gear as 'some special unique weapon they get to run around hitting people with' then you're ignoring the discussion altogether. Lastly there's more than that, as mentioned above, there's also who he works for, what he does and how he does it. -- Triacom (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Cortez probably did. I say probably because neither one of us has any clue what Moloc has or hasn't survived aside from the one incident, just a vague blurb from IA that you are reading lots of things into that it doesn't say. And yes, Silas is an outlier, which demolishes the "super huge, therefore Custodes" thing you are making up, because you are making a categorical claim that his size makes it more likely that he's a Custodes. If other marines can reach similar or greater sizes (which they can), then you are wrong, outlier or not, because you are making a categorical claim that being a Custodes is the only possible reason. And yes, I'm mocking the absurd "but he has a Custodes weapon, therefor he must be one" thoery of yours. Since, as Newerfag pointed out, he's not exactly unique in doing so. I guess all watchmasters must be Custodes now too. As for "who he works for, what he does and how he does it", I suggest you actually, you know, explain what the hell that's supposed to mean, because given how shit the rest of your evidence has been I suspect this vague crap you're now bringing up will likewise be bunk. Battlegrinder (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally,
Cortez has 3 accounts of that, not quite 7. The 'vague blurb' is also enough since all I read into it was that he was 'critically injured' yet showed up later, regardless of whether this is the same person or somebody else calling themselves Moloc. If we're working under the idea that he's the same person then he was critically injured 7 times. "because you are making a categorical claim that his size makes it more likely that he's a Custodes." I don't think you know what categorical claims are. I'm using that in conjunction with everything else, I'm not claiming all Marines of unusual size are more likely to be Custodes in disguise. "I guess all watchmasters must be Custodes now too." No they're not, he's using a Custodes-pattern weapon whereas the Watch Masters are not since the Deathwatch codex retconned those spears into not being Custodes weapons anymore (thanks stupid retcons). I do think you're either misreading or trying to strawman my argument howeveing, since when we get down to it I'm arguing in favour of the theory not being removed. A page can have multiple theories on it to raise questions and make the reader wonder about what's actually going on with the subject matter, that's why so many pages here have so many theories on them. I could just as easily be arguing in favour of him not being a Custodes if all of you were arguing against him being a normal Marine and deleting sections on the page that mention this. "I suggest you actually, you know, explain what the hell that's supposed to mean." Covered earlier. It was already brought up that the Minotaurs work for the High Lords (which the Custodes Captain General is a part of) and I figured their tactics would be fairly obvious. -- Triacom (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I see plenty of theories mentioned there already (Perpetual, "Moloc" is a title rather than a person, assload of cybernetics, Nurgle being involved somewhere, and even the "plot armor" one I personally pointed out). If you think this will somehow lead to some kind of massive crackdown on baseless speculation, you are mistaken.--Newerfag (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see it leading to a crackdown on baseless speculation, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. What I want is to get people thinking and that's it. If you want to re-write the section to say something like "his seeming recoveries have many theories behind them" and then list the various ones around it like that and devote little more time to it, that's fine by me. What I'm absolutely against however is all mention of a particular theory being removed just because an anon didn't like it. Cut it down if you want, but until it's entirely disproven (which could easily happen if Forgeworld posted anything more on him) it at least deserves a slight mention. -- Triacom (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Tell you what Newerfag, how about you let me do the edit to bring the theory back to the main page, and in a way that I think you'll agree with. If you don't like that then you can remove it and we can continue this discussion, but I think I can change it in a way that we're both reasonably happy with it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
While I still do not understand how "he's a Custodes" can follow logically from "he survived being seemingly killed several times", I believe it would be simplest just to add it to the list of existing theories already mentioned. I have reformatted it accordingly. For the sake of consistency, if you wish to re-add your theory please make sure it follows the same format as the others.--Newerfag (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I have no problem with that. I am going to slightly alter it though to make it clear that the Custodes theory is one of the more outlandish explanations (as is him being a perpetual with cybernetics to repair injuries when perpetuals would not need them) however I find I have a hard time cutting down the original theory into something that wouldn't ruin the point-format the other theories have going for them. Would you be fine with me listing the theory on the talk page under its own section (recommending the user go there if they want to read the full theory on the point) or should we make that collapsible? If you can cut it down in a way that gets across why it was posted up in the first place without removing too much reasoning and want to do that instead, feel free. -- Triacom (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Post it here first, and I'll cut it down from there. I will also arrange them in order of most to least likely.--Newerfag (talk)
Well like I said, I'm having a hard time posting enough to explain the theory without having it go on too long so I think it would be better to have a mention then an explanation somewhere else like on here or in a collapsible section. Here's my take the more likely to less likely (more being first, less being last). -- Triacom (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I will also say that I think the Phoenix Lord, Perpetual and Custodes ideas are all equally outlandish so I was debating splitting the list into 'common' explanations and 'outlandish' explanations. -- Triacom (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This will do for now. That said, there is no need to split it up; merely sorting it will be all that is needed. --Newerfag (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I've added it to the list and added the theory to the talk page. If I've misunderstood what you meant with "This will do for now." Then please let me know (It sounded like you were fine with the modified list). -- Triacom (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The original Custodes theory.[edit]

It is also certainly possible that he is actually a Custodes. Considering he is at least a couple heads taller than most Chapter Masters and that he's survived so many grevious injuries that would kill most Marines or at least land them in a Dreadnought, he's obviously tougher than even most Chapter Masters. Gene-seed isn't even a factor since Custodes have their own and the Minotaurs come from a multitude of Chapters anyway. The most concrete evidence would be his halberd since it's known that Custodes weapons are coded to work only for the Custodes it's given to (though admittedly that didn't stop some certain Bloody Magpies). Also, since the Custodes operate on Terra and the Minotaurs are the High Lords' attack dogs, it would be reasonable and plausible for them to pull a Custodes from the ranks -who already has, more likely than not, centuries of combat experience- to lead them instead of another Space Marine. For reference, look at when the Custodes helped the Space Wolves annihilate the Thousand Sons during the Horus Heresy. If you need something to kill other Space Marines, why not grab someone who is basically a tougher, stronger Space Marine. For all we know, Moloc was there at the Burning of Prospero. Another theory is that Moloc is a prototype Primaris Marine, his statline does not sync up to that of Custodians (who have 5's for Strength and Toughness, while he has the normal Marine level 4), but he is larger than most marines, and has more wounds, just like a Primaris... also, the Deathwatch have access to Custodian Guardian spears, so it's not that unlikely the High Lords could rustle something up for their favourite attack dog.

His tabletop stats compared to those of actual Custodes, however, take away some of the credibility of this theory. He's noticeably weaker with -1 S and T, and his spear isn't that similar to a Custodes one, maybe it could be a paragon spear if we're being generous. If he actually is a former Custodes, either he's the biggest runt among their ranks or (more likely) GW didn't bother to more accurately represent his power.

Stats[edit]

I recently deleted Moloc's statline and 1v1 line-ups for what looks like 7th edition. Added 8th statline. This was just recently undone.

Anyway, wasn't trying be a jerk or anything, just didn't see why we were keeping around info that was so outdated. If there's a reason, I'll leave it alone, but otherwise it would be nice to trim outdated info.

Because there's no reason to delete it. Cutting out "outdated information" removes the commentary the page had for stuff in the past, and if we did that for every page then pages like this one would be so much worse for it. It would also mean that we'd need to remove pages like the Screamerstar and Fish of Fury, even though both of those were big parts of the game and talked about a lot online. -- Triacom (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Just add in a new subsection with his 8e statline. Some of us like playing with other rulesets.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
Also this, I still play 3rd edition because I prefer it to any other as an example. Also careful when you edit that you don't accidentally delete somebody else's reply. -- Triacom (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://1d4chan.org/index.php?title=Talk:Asterion_Moloc&oldid=642994"