Talk:Ollanius Pius

From 1d4chan

Okay, so, bit of a problem here: Ollanius never was the Guardsman who stood up to Horus on the Emprah's ship; in his first appearance (in Realm of Chaos, IIRC), he was just a guardsman who, at some point, stood up to Horus and got gimped, and was honoured by the Guard because of it. The guy from the Emperor's flagship, in his first appearance (in a White Dwarf? [citation needed], was an Imperial Fists Terminator; apparently, fans got the two confused, and then cried when the lore got "changed".

The problem is that, while I want to mention this somehow on the page, the entire thing is based around him being the guy from the flagship, and I don't want to just strikethrough half the page, nor do I want to add a footnote saying "btw most of this page is BADWRONG"; and I don't know how I should restructure the page. Any ideas? Soundifex (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You could just delete the wrong information. We have a history page so if someone wants to see what has changed they can. But you will be deleting alot of stuff I imagine, so be sure to put something in the summary of the edit. Also consider waiting a little bit for other people to give their input on what you should do.--99.160.164.162 10:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Problem is, most of the fandom's perception of Pius is that he IS the guy from the Emperor's flagship, so the page would have to say "Ollanius Pius is the guy who everyone thinks got killed by Horus at the end of the Heresy, but wasn't". And I'm... not really sure how to put that. Soundifex (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If horus didn't kill him then who did?--99.160.164.162 22:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hell if I know. Odds are that the Horus Heresy novels will end up resolving it in the stupidest possible way. --Newerfag (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I would keep this article about the fandom and /tg/'s perceptions of the character, with perhaps a section on the history of the fanon concept.--50.89.209.198 05:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know I'm really late here but Ollanius actually was in before the Terminator, he showed up in the Warhammer 40,000 Compendium (1989) which is earlier than Realms of Chaos: The Lost and the Damned. In the Compendium (on page 38) it says: "The central figure is an image of Ollanius Pius, the Guardsman who is supposed to have given his life by interposing his body between Horus and the Emperor during the assault on the Imperial Palace. He is now regarded as something of a saint by the Guard, and on occasions is even prayed to as an intercessionary figure." -- Triacom (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The only two things he actually said were, "I'm not supposed to be here today", just before being teleported, and "Ow, my balls", which were his last words just before Horus hit him with the second obliterating blast.

Removing the "How Ollanius can be a Terminator and a Guardsman" section[edit]

Before we go the path of constantly undoing a section that was written by someone who probably never looked up fluff about PA: humans in general cannot wear Space Marine armor, either the standard one or the Terminator armor. Its designed to fit the physique of an Astartes, which is, at the minimum, twice as tall and large as a normal human, and humans lack a black carapace implant so the armor could interface with the wearer. The armor inquisitors wear are specially designed by the AdMech for non-Astartes physiques, which do exist in the universe, but nowhere as bulky or flexible as Astartes Armor.

Plus, lets look at this realistically: Ollanius is an perpetual with no other kind of superhuman skills apart from immortality. Even if a large, big hole was in the middle of the suit; he would have needed to disassemble the armor plating, lift the two hundred pound corpse out and strip the dead marine's exoskeleton off and wear it (never mind how its physically impossible because he's too small for it), and then re-attach all of the armor plating back. In the middle of battle. Without one of the dead marine's fellow squad members outright putting a bolter shell through his skull for desecrating their fallen's corpse, an Admech priest turning him into a servitor for desecrating a suit of Terminator armor, or a CSM catching up to him and flaying him alive and wearing his skin as a cape.

Tactical Mehren (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It is up to everyone else if they want to remove it. My main thing was to do undo your change was because regular humans can wear termie armor, just is not common is all. That is what I thought you meant when you removed that entire sectionDragoon508 (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ease up, man. It was obviously meant as a joke.

I really want to revert that last edit...[edit]

...But if it's what people prefer, I'll leave it be. It's not quite straight-up vandalism I don't feel bad about removing. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoever did it fucked up the formatting, for categories and such. He could have left the changes without blanking most of the page Saladofstones (talk)

I am going to be reverting that last edit because it's a bad edit on many accounts. First of all, there was no 'legend' of Ollanius maybe existing, he did exist, and the only debate you could have is whether or not he stood in front of Horus (yes, even back when he was first added to the setting). Even then the idea that it wasn't him but a terminator is still a retcon since that terminator appeared out of nowhere, and replaced him. Secondly, they removed information for no real reason when it could have easily altered what was there to explain it better, and thirdly they removed the fan bits for absolutely no reason. -- Triacom (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: why the hostility to setting the record straight? Is the real life myth that has built up around Pius that much of a sacred cow?--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what is true, its not really good to just blank everything, especially since true or not, there is a sizable fan myth and, if nothing else, someone reading this would want to know what the guy was like throughout the history of 40k, not as of the latest revision. Its fine to set the record straight, but don't keep blanking everything. Saladofstones (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have both sections - keep the current page as the "truth" since it seems well researched, and add the original stuff back in below that as "fan perception" or something similar. Remembering that GW's stance is that all stories are canon and true, for a given value of "true" --Mindwarp (talk)

After all, the fan perception we had previously is essentially what the IG believe in universe, so it's at least as relevant to this page as any "truth" written in GW supplements. --Mindwarp (talk)

But this is not "the latest revision" though. This has always been the case. Until Abnett made him definitely exist, Pius' existence was always unconfirmed ("the Guardsman who is supposed to have given his life"), even when the fluff account was in a place where it was feasible. What you people want would be like what Soundifex said above: just a page that's all strikethroughs. And if replacing misinformation-and this is not up in the air, what you demand stay has never been written down in any 40k materials-with facts is "blanking", then the wiki is a lost cause.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not true at all, he was the guardsman who was supposed to have given his life, meaning he was a guardsmen who existed, and who might or might not have given his life. That's it plain and simple. Saying he is and always was a myth until Abnett is just flat out wrong, and more than enough reason to revert the page even if it wasn't edited badly. -- Triacom (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you even know what "is supposed to have" means?--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course I do, do you? The 'supposed' happens after his introduction, making his existence clear, and his actions unclear. -- Triacom (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The 'supposed' happens in his introduction. He is introduced as having supposedly been a person who took a bullet for the Emprah. It never even confirms he exists, just that Guardsmen believe he existed.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The 'supposed' happens after it established he existed, by introducing him first before saying what he might or might not have done, they established he existed. If I said you were the user who supposedly tried to set the record straight does that mean I'm saying you never existed? -- Triacom (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
You're being willfully obtuse. Look at the image again. What seems more likely, given the mountain of context (such as the nature setting and how much of the Heresy is myth and legend): that the writers intended for him to have definitely existed, or that the writers intended for his realness to be ambiguous?--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm being willfully obtuse? You're the one who's asking what the writers could have intended (the weakest of arguments) and ignoring obvious information, so I'll spell it out for you. "The central figure is an image of Ollanius Pius..." Now we've established he is a person who existed, "the Guardsman..." now we've established what he was, "who is supposed..." now we've established that he might or might not have done something, "to have given his life by interposing his body between Horus and the Emperor during the assault on the Imperial Palace." And now we've said what he might or might not have done. Here's how it would have been written if it actually is as you say: "The central figure is an image of the supposed Ollanius Pius, the Guardsman said to have given his life by interposing his body between Horus and the Emperor during the assault on the Imperial Palace." If you want to establish whether or not somebody existed or not, you have to do it before you introduce them, and even if it wasn't what the writers intended to do, it is what they did. -- Triacom (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I was saying you're being obtuse because the only alternative is that your reading comprehension is garbage.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
If you cannot explain yourself then why bother writing this? I've broken down the sentence to the point that a child could understand it, if I have done something wrong it should be easy for you to point out where the mistake(s) is. -- Triacom (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Even if we pretend Pius was stated as definitely existing in the very first mention of him, you yourself admit it's left ambiguous as to whether he did any of the things he's said in-universe to have done. That Guardsmen believe Pius took a bullet for the Emperor was never retconned away, and retconning Pius' sacrifice away when Horus killing the Terminator was written up would have required his sacrifice to have been something he definitely did.--172.7.144.204 01:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it's ambiguous, which is why I made it clear that it's ambiguous, unlike you who's trying to say it never happened and that he never existed rather than it's ambiguous. Also the terminator was never in the original story so adding him makes it a retcon regardless. -- Triacom (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you left in all the shit wanking about how great Pius the ordinary mortal man is, i.e. damn near the entirety of the article. And it was ambiguous (hence, the Terminator was not a retcon; you can't replace something that might have never happened and leave the results the same, only add a detail where there was none before), then it never could have happened, then it definitely happened.--172.7.144.204 02:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I left in the fan stuff, as well as /tg/'s popular opinion while setting the record straight. The terminator is a retcon because now he's in a story he wasn't in before, and Pius is no longer in that same story so it is a retcon. Almost the entire article was left untouched because it didn't need to be touched, as opposed to what you're doing which is still claim he didn't exist. -- Triacom (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I also like how you claim the only way to explain falsehoods is to explain the truth, however I did explain the truth just above, and you ignored it while not explaining the truth yourself, and adding contradictory statements, first claiming that Pius never existed in the setting, then claiming he did, then claiming he doesn't exist while existing at the same time, so you're a hypocrite on top of being self-righteous. -- Triacom (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you this thick? First version of the story, in the bunker: he might have existed, hence legend. Second telling of the first version of the story: a Terminator was the one who intervened on the Emperor's behalf, meaning Pius couldn't have done it, even assuming he existed. Second version of the story, on the Vengeful Spirit: still a Terminator. Second telling of the second version of the story: the Terminator's been retconned into a Custode. Third (and to date current) version of the story, still on the Vengeful Spirit: the Custode's been retconned into Ollanius Persson the Pious, whose actions inspire the legend of Ollanius Pius. I have been nothing but consistent about this: Pius was originally written as someone who might have existed, then his nonexistence was confirmed (but people in the setting still believe he existed), then he was retconned into existing. Get some Goddamn reading comprehension.--172.7.144.204 04:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
And yet you're forgetting the 1989 version, where Horus assaulted the palace and confronted the Emperor with Pius in between them, which is strange because you uploaded an image of it. Also would you mind stating exactly where that image of the terminators came from as well as the year? As I said before though, I'm going to continue undoing your changes until you stop making a terrible edit. Writefaggotry, /tg/'s popular opinion, and actual facts are not something that should be removed from a page, and contradictory arguments are not something that should be left on there. -- Triacom (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
While trying to find that image (still no luck) I did learn that the original story didn't have Pius in it (the original one being in the slaves to darkness book which came out one year before the compendium where he was introduced), then he was added, then he was removed, much like how the Terminators weren't in it, then they were to varying degrees. Either way as far as I can tell he was still in it before the terminator. -- Triacom (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I was also fairly sure that there was a version where Horus personally led the final push into the Imperial Palace once. Turns out that was just a combination of hearsay and me misreading things. Thanks for checking if I was wrong about something here. Maybe my word choice in my posts here has been part of the problem here too. Point is, Pius' first mention wasn't as a historical figure. It was as a folkloric figure Guardsmen believe existed. Like Prester John.--172.7.144.204 06:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so sure why you're against him existing but being a fraud, which is what he'd be at most if he didn't stand in front of the Emperor. When I asked you to explain how I was misreading that passage I broke down, I wasn't being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious as to why you think I'm reading it wrong. In any case I'm glad you took to the discussion page first rather than edit the main page and then put an argument forward. Also the final battle between Horus and the Emperor is odd because in three (four if we're counting another compilation) separate books it takes place in three separate locations (first it's Horus' bunker in Slaves to Darkness, then it's the Imperial Palace in the Compendium (then the bunker AGAIN in the other compilation), and then the Vengeful Spirit in the Lost and the Damned) and all of the books were released not too far apart either. -- Triacom (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you somehow surprised that 40K lore is inconsistent?--Newerfag (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I've been playing since 3rd edition and read as many of the books as I could so I've seen a lot of the changes to the story, and honestly it's all a part of the "everything is canon, not everything is true" thing they have with 40k, so all the Horus and Emperor final battles happened, but we just don't know which one is the real final battle or what happened in it and for all we know the fight aboard the vengeful spirit might just be mis-remembering how something happened from 10,000 years ago. Who knows maybe the whole Horus Heresy was just to cover up that the Emperor tripped, fell down some stairs pretty badly and accidentally landed on Horus. -- Triacom (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Then on that note, I have undone each and every edit that has occurred over the last few days and advising everyone involved in this that 40K canon is whatever the fuck you personally want it to be as long as it isn't absolutely pants on head retarded. IF you want to rhapsodize about Pius, fine. If you insist his role was taken by a generic terminator and the final battle between Emps and Horus was nowhere near the Vengeful Spirit, fine. Just keep your mouths shut about it and stop trying to enforce your version of "objective truth" when objective truth in the canon never existed in the first place and never will.--Newerfag (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I know you're trying to help Newerfag, but in this case you're really not. Things were finally starting to settle down and the anonymous user was actually taking to the discussion page first before undoing an edit and now you're just kicking shit up again. Your interference is just too late. -- Triacom (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like nobody's objected to it, and it's better than what was there and its half-assed attempts at trying to please everyone. Again, I find even the idea of "correcting" anything related to 40k lore as completely absurd and doomed to fail by dint of the massive number of inconsistencies within it. So it's best that the article stop trying so hard to reconcile mutually exclusive sources and just take it as another piece of fluff whose veracity is ultimately irrelevant. That's what most if not all the other lore articles here do, after all. (The passive-aggressive filenames for the images the other guy added don't help- it makes him look like he cares more about winning his argument than be does about contributing to the wiki.)--Newerfag (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Nobody? I just objected to it, the reason I changed the page wasn't to show the 'correct' version of what happened, it was to explain the variations of the story and I'm going to have to undo your change eventually since I will be adding the different variations back in sooner or later when I'm sure you won't undo it back and start this editwar all over again. What I changed it to doesn't try to combine mutually exclusive lore, it just acknowledges the changes, unfortunately what you moved it back to DOES try to combine mutually exclusive fluff which I'd hope that we can both agree isn't a good idea since even in the questionable canon of 40k it's completely off base and not in any way remotely accurate. I do agree that the file names don't help but there's nothing wrong with the images themselves, and I'm disappointed you might be continuing an editwar right after it stopped. -- Triacom (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Also when you change it to just one story like that, regardless of why you did it, it makes you look like you are trying to correct it, reconcile mutually exclusive lore and it looks like you're forcing your own 'objective truth' straight into the article, aka you just did everything you said somebody shouldn't do. -- Triacom (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair points, I've reverted the revert myself. Do what you wish, but at least change the unacceptable usernames. --Newerfag (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with finals. What did I miss? You guys still pissing and moaning about how Pius was totally a regular human because /tg/ wouldn't lie to you?--172.7.144.204 23:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, we came to an agreement that the various depictions of him should all be included, rather than only having one and removing the others. We also agreed that 40k has no objective truth in it at all, so the most accurate you can get is to have all the depictions and let the viewer make up their own mind. -- Triacom (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Funny how the idea 40k has no truth only matters to this site when truth would go after a sacred cow.--172.7.144.204 14:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually it comes up a fair bit, this isn't the first time this point had to be argued, and you're not the first person who tried to remove older information like this. -- Triacom (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
"Old information" would require any of the writers who came before Abnett to have said "Pius definitely existed and did everything Guardsmen think he did". It's all in black and white, at the very top of this talk page. I've done further research into the chronology of the fluff lately, and the Terminators storming Horus' bunker with the Emperor predates the legend of Pius.--172.7.144.204 04:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Old information would require him to be mentioned in any of the previous books, which is what happened (ie the information isn't new). Also I never tried to hide the fact that the terminators happened first, in fact it says on the main page that he was added in after the terminators. -- Triacom (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Guys, all of this might be true, but have you even stopped to think how the fug a guardsman got on the Vengeful Spirit? The only ones who teleported with the Big E and the primarchs were terminators. -The Awkward Man, 11:47, 2nd of June 2016
    • And Custodes.
      • Yes, obviously, and my point still stands. If there is nobody who can either prove or disapprove that Ollanius Pius actually took a bullet for Big E during his rumble with Horus, then we can find compromise in that the guardsmen themselves, in W40K believe in this. It makes sense that they would, it also makes the fluff more believable and alive. I doesn't matter what WE think. What matters is that the guard in the fluff believe in this story, ergo this is what should be said in this article. - The Awkward Man, 2nd of june 2016, 19:09
          • But we can prove he didn't, until Abnett decided to make him definitely real. In the prototypical version where the final battle was in a bunker, he might have been there, but even if the Emperor had brought baseline human soldiers from their defensive positions in the Palace to certain death on the Vengeful Spirit, he was never there in any pre-Abnett accounts of what happened in Horus' throne room. It was always either at least one Imperial Fists Terminator or a Custode in the version on the Vengeful Spirit. tl;dr If you're gonna Guardwank, at least Guardwank over things that were canon at any point.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you cannot prove he didn't, what you can prove is that he hasn't done it in the current continuity. 40k's canon gets changed a lot, if something happened before, and then it didn't, that doesn't mean it never happened, it just means it hasn't happened in the current continuity and what happened in previous canon(s) should still be included. -- Triacom (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he did do it in the current continuity. But he was a Perpetual named Ollanius Persson, not the normal human the HFY crowd whacks off to.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh so he DID do it now? Well that kind of goes against all of your previous arguments of him not existing. If you wanted to make it clear that he was a perpetual, then that's what you should have done. -- Triacom (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I never denied Abnett had him doing it. Just that he definitely did it (or existed) before Abnett.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There weren't any guardsman, afaik, since they didn't exist yet. The original legend is basically whatever actually happened being misinterpreted over at least a thousand years. Just reading lexicanum, Abnett's version apparently is just a vision or something. This is as much as about the fandom as it is the actual fluff, so I don't have an issue with the article going over the really common and popular fan interpretation and then saying what the fluff actually says. This isn't the only time when the fandom massively reinterprets what is actually said being said, so I don't feel comfortable blanking it. Saladofstones (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "blanking" anything. I think the (factually inaccurate) fan perception's been given its fair share of airtime in my revisions.--172.7.144.204 14:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that we have reached a stalemate, where both sides have valid points[edit]

We should have a vote on how to proceed with the article. Maybe divide it into two summarized parts?

But the MUH PIUS! MUH HOLD THE LINE! crowd doesn't have any facts on their side. Before the Horus Heresy books, literally no 40k media had ever presented Pius as anything other than a folk legend that Guardsmen believe in. Every account of Horus and the Emperor's battle as it happened, not looking back ten thousand years later had either a Terminator or a Custode intervening. Has this wiki really been reduced to feels over reals?--172.7.144.204 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No, they don't, but what they write is authentic. This wiki is as much feels as reals, that's one of the things that make it so special. Plus, Pius is featured in Know No Fear, so i don't see why that is discarded.
There's a difference between opinions and misconceptions. The Pius meme is a misconception. And yes, he was featured, that's why that section is still in. But he's in a form completely at odds with the image Guardwankers have developed of him. And the fact remains that, until Abnett, he was never anything more than a legend who may or may not have really existed.--172.7.144.204 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The vast majority of 40k fluff, to me, falls under the same parameters. 40k thrives on things like how Pius went on, since it used to be a matter of "you can believe whatever the fuck you want faggot its all just as provable in the end." The absolute wankery over Pius is annoying, yes, but personally I like the idea that he's notable for just being a completely ordinary person who intervened, got utterly devestated by Horus in a needlessly cruel and viscious fashion, and this served as the impetus for the emperor to realize how far Horus had fallen. I grew up on 2nd-3rd edition 40k, and I remember Pius being a pretty brief footnote but one that was likely meant to be expanded. I think most of the counter-reaction was seeing everything was written being erased and then rewritten with something else, which caused a knee-jerk defensive push. Saladofstones (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Except that's not how it went. Every version of the final battle on the Vengeful Spirit given in the fluff, even the one that's inevitably gonna happen in the Horus Heresy books, is irreconcilable with the meme version of Pius' story. This was true even in second and third edition.--172.7.144.204 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Geez louise, man. You might have a point, but you've clearlLy got such a bug up your ass about it, and are being so insufferably smug too, that it's honestly turning me against you on principle. Also, sign your posts. Two dashes, four tildes. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake, I already explained why you don't have the facts on your side, and you even contradict yourself, claiming that he did it in the current continuity while still calling him a myth. Make up your mind already. -- Triacom (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've edited the page to include both arguments, which is something that should have been done in the beginning. -- Triacom (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, you gave lipservice to the facts then immediately went back to being willfully ignorant.--172.7.144.204 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Just look at the history of this user: 172.7.144.204. A history where an overwhelming part of his/her edits are deletions. I'd say you are hardly qualified to decide on this subject matter. You'd better start contributing before having the right to wipe whole articles. Get the fuck out. --The Awkward Man 21:07 3rd June 2016 (GMT+1).
        • That is true. My edits have mainly resulted in a net loss of characters. What does this have to do with the complete absence of sources that support the fandom's specific vision of Pius?--

129.210.115.115 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I edited the page to state what actually happened, you on the other hand are the one remaining willfully ignorant as I've already broken down everything for you and you've done nothing to prove your own arguments correct besides shout out that others are wrong. You're latest revision in particular makes claims in the summary that simply aren't true. -- Triacom (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What is your basis for saying the Pius described here was objectively real? Supposed. His deeds are supposition. He was a legend, then a myth, and now, thanks to Abnett, he's canon (but an immortal, not like it does him any good against what Horus is packing).--172.7.144.204 23:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well finally. And thank you. I expected to have a more reasonable conversation, instead of kids playing tennis with the word "wanker". -- The Awkward Man 3rd June 2016, 11:07 (GMT+1)
    • I for one page ought to be locked indefinitely, since I don't trust anyone not to act like retards about a fictional character who may or may not exist within the setting's own canon. His existence and involvement are whatever you want it to be, and fuck you if you can't accept other people's interpretations just because you subscribe to a washed-up comic book author's unique viewpoint. (Yes, I think Abnett is an overrated hack. Sue me.)--Newerfag (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User 172.7.144.204, please stop editing the page.[edit]

All you are doing is making it worse, you claim to be setting the record straight, however how you've been trying to do it is terrible, and many people have told you why. I've also explained why your interpretation isn't factually accurate as you claim it is (scroll up, it's that paragraph you chose to ignore). Even after I edited the page to actually set the record straight and make clear what he might or might not have done, you keep trying to change it back to your version, claiming that I kept the bit about him going to the vengeful spirit when that was something I not only erased, but that I made clear it was something he never did. If you were referring to the writefaggotry section about him going to the vengeful spirit, then that's too bad, deleting that section alone is reason enough to undo your edits because 1d4chan is mainly about /tg/ and it's interests, which is why you'll find a lot of writefaggotry on here since being a wiki for /tg/ without also recording the popular things their users have done as well as popular opinion on /tg/ would be nearly impossible, and would also remove what makes this wiki unique. -- Triacom (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • ...Goddamn it. And here I thought things had finally quieted down around here... --SpectralTime (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And here I thought we were making actual progress. That's it, I give up on them. Nothing will get through to them no matter how thoroughly you explain it, and I no longer care for what they have to say or do, they've proven they have nothing of any value to offer this wiki. Request that the page be protected or request that they be banned, doesn't matter to me, I really couldn't care any more about keeping them. -- Triacom (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Page is now protected from anonymous edits, presumably to give 172 a cool down period. On a side note, I'm only posting here because out of sheer coincedence, the protection on the page expires on the same day as the milk in my fridge. I'm going to accept that as an ill omen from the skeins of fate. On the day my milk goes sour, this page shall go sour. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? this guy?[edit]

I mean, I get why people love pius, especially guards fans...but Im not the one who see is presence shoehorn? even in the original version he just short of apear out of damn nowhere, so the whole "poor human who dares to do something" just look something GW put to give the guard something since the HH is pretty much an astartes conflict--Estegio (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Also funny thing - nobody even bothers to make some home-made rules for him, but his page is skub manifested: clusterduck of old retconed stuff, new stuff, tg's headcanon and lots of whining. One does not simply read this page and understand who the flak this guy is, because of this mess; and yet, in the end, he's just some brave grunt made to throw a bone to imperial army('s fans)

Dark Imperium and Pius[edit]

Well the story goes that the Emperor held back when fighting Horus due to his love for his favourite son, and it took Horus obliterating Pius to make him realize Horus was beyond saving. But Dark Imperium reveals that the Emperor never loved Horus, so there was no reason to hold back. So the question is did Pius do anything at all, or even exist?

Bad retcons are likely going to be ignored by future books so I doubt it's worth thinking about as they just make the universe's story as a whole worse and more nonsensical. -- Triacom (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The implication is that the anathame he's holding onto is probably going to do something important somewhere, which'll have the same general effect. My guess is that it'll somehow cause Horus' Chaos-granted powers to weaken enough for the Emperor to defeat him, but at this point who knows? They did say that we should expect the final confrontation to be very different from how it's been previously described...--Newerfag (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ollanius Pius was never good, people[edit]

Stop worshipping mary sues randomly popping out of space time. The trend of creating more of them is quite worrysome.

The reason people liked Pius had nothing to do with his perpetual-time traveling horseshit that the BL writers are bogging him down with. He's not the only character that gets fucked over by shitty writing either, see Farsight and Aun'Va for non-imperial examples. -- Triacom (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure you understand what a Mary Sue is if you think "guy who unloads a pea shooter at a demigod, gets mutilated for his brave and futile efforts" is a Mary Sue.
He's kind of a Mary Sue now, thanks to retconned 'perpetual who goes on time travel adventures and has little to no faults' bullshit. Why they wanted to do that is beyond me. -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Same reason they made him a Spess Marine or a Custodes. GW has a fetish for immortal demi-gods with no faults. --2001:8003:3800:800:31C8:CA3A:2763:15D2 02:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Space Marines and Custodes still have faults, and at least the Terminator made sense for why he was there, Ollanius was always a bit iffy because a guardsman on the vengeful spirit should last about as long as a fruit fly getting slapped by a hand. -- Triacom (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Ollanius Pius was not Catholic, he was Catheric[edit]

Alivia Sureka and Grammaticus remember that Ollanius never wanted to talk to them after what happened at Béziers. I wonder why no one paid attention here, confusing more or less conflicting parties.

Because he is clearly Catholic but said differently. He wears a cross around his neck.--Namefag (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we clear up Ollanius' game history?[edit]

Right now, the article is a bit confusing on where Ollanius actually comes from. I'm literally reading the original Realms of Chaos books right now, and this is what they say; can we rewrite the article to more clearly acknowledge Ollanius was named and added in a later edition?--QuietBrowser (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Slaves to Darkness: The Emperor teleports to Horus' "command bunker" with a force of Custodes Adepts soldiers and Imperial Fists to battle Horus. No mention is made of any specific soldier committing a heroic sacrifice. (Page 243)
  • The Lost and the Damned: As the Emperor confronts Horus aboard his flagship, Horus gets the upper hand by ripping off one of the Emperor's arms. A single space marine Terminator fights his way there and tries to intervene, charging at the Archheretic with stormbolter blazing only to be disintegrated by Horus' warp-gaze, which convinces the Emperor to finally unleash his killing attack on Horus. (Page 143)
He comes from the Warhammer 40,000: Compendium (page 38), not Slaves to Darkness or the Lost and the Damned. The compendium was released a year before the The Lost and the Damned, and a year after Slaves to Darkness, making him predate the terminator. Why GW chose to tell three separate versions of the fight where the battle happens in three separated places, and release them across three years will probably remain a mystery. -- Triacom (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sisters of Silence invisibility?[edit]

So I haven't read the story about Ollanius Piers, so how exactly does the Sister of Silence make herself invisible? -- Triacom (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)