Talk:Vaxi Atrocity

This page needs images. We should get a drawfag to work on this in the next drawthread :) --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Oh, and whoever can find the name of the Saint mentioned at the end has my eternal gratitude (he's mentioned in the first third of the book I believe, but I don't have it on hand right now). --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What opinions?

I think it might be too early to have an "opinions" section on the page inasmuch as the splatbook became available so recently that there hasn't been time for /tg/ as a whole to form an opinion- and even if that wasn't the case, the description hardly sounds like anyone's respecting due process, let alone doing anything that could be called Wardian bullshit. If anything, it sounds like it's just the Inquisition doing what it always does. I can only assume that it was depicted very differently in the actual book compared to how you described it here.

Okay! What about calling it Skub or something? Because in the book it is basically described as the Inquisition almost destroying an entire sector just because they were too proud and distrustful to actually talk to each other (and because they didn't respect due process and immediately just declared war without bothering for formal judgement or investigation by their peers). It's also kinda unbelievable that not a single Inquisitor in either side could realise what the problem was, or that they'd decide that plunging an entire already weak and rebellious sector into civil war was better than the usual assasination or intrigue that they use everywhere else (hell, shouldn't the radicals have stopped the conclave itself happening? Or just have discussed matters with their brains instead of suddenly deciding that this was the best day to resolve their petty quarrels, personal ennemities and even doctrinal oppositions). Its like the designers just decided that the Inquisition lost their own brains one day. I'm just trying to describe it in a slightly more positive way (as it did have some positive consequences in the end, it did involve a lot of bad luck, and it is hinted that both sides were being manipulated) I should maybe just put this into the article... Do you think it would suffice as an explanation of why there is a "controversy" header? --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. Skub is more applicable for things that are controversial in the real world, and a search on archive.moe give me a grand total of NOTHING when I tried to look to see if there were any threads on it- if it was as controversial as you say it is, I'd expect at least a little bit of discussion on it on /tg/ to happen. As far as I can see, it's the Inquisition being its typical paranoid infighting-filled self. If anything, it sounds more like you're trying to pass off your own opinion as somehow being representative of everyone else on /tg/. And in that case, I'd like to point out that they've done much stupider things in the past (case in point: Emil Darkhammer declaring Exterminatus on a planet just to keep a xenos relic out of Valeria's hands, which incidentally would have been used as the basis for a much better Gellar Field).--Newerfag (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? Ah well... I've been in 2 where it was discussed, I'll add in screencaps if I can manage to find it again (yes, I'm bad with archives). The word "controversy" might be a bit much - it has just sparked arguments when it was brought up (and I expect it will be again in the next threads about the Inquisition). But for your information, I personally agree with you - it's just that I've heard some loudmouther opposition when I argued that point (it was over the top (destroying a planet, yes. Destroying an entire sector? no.). They were being manipulated and they had none of the usual checks to that kind of stupidity in place. But anyway, we can both agree on the first half right? It's informative, and pretty unbiased. --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That it is. The first half can stay. And you have to remember, it wouldn't have been the first time that would have happened- just look at Kyras's whole plan in Retribution, which specifically relied on them doing that. To me it's not stupidity so much as the Inquisition's typical overzealousness. And honestly, I'd be more surprised if they weren't acting that way. --Newerfag (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• While I do admit that the content of the page is neutral now, I still fail to see its relevance. How is this any different from any other Ordo Hereticus-related purge? Even after the rewrite, the general impression being given is that that this was some freak one-off event, as opposed to the Inquisition's standard operating procedure in almost every suspected outbreak of heresy. Sure, it happened in the splatbook- but so did a lot of other things mentioned in that splatbook and others that don't deserve their own pages- despite being crucial to the backstory of the entirety of the first edition of Dark Heresy there isn't even a stub about truly significant events like the Angevin Crusade. Plus, the last few times I tried mentioning it on /tg/ over the last few months the most common reaction to it other than not knowing about it was (and I quote) "How is this different from how the Inquisition normally operates?" If you can't answer that, then this page has no reason to exist. --Newerfag (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The sheer scale of this event makes its importance. How often does the Inquistion destroy half a sector because of internal squabbles? Plus, it's a great showcase of how powerful the Inquisition actually is!And please don't tell me that this kind of devastating civil war is "perfectly normal": I'll admit that commandeering troops and scheming among each otheris normal, but not at that scale or at that devastation. The fluff itself from the book protrays it as something exceptional, spoken of only in hushed tones nowadays. I'll also probably create a page about the Angevin Crusade (adding it to my list of stuff to do when I get back to my home country in a few weeks. I await your criticism!) - and I disagree with the reaction you say you've been getting. To prove my point, i'll bring it up in the relevant thread now, see how people react. But even if everyone agrees with you, it's still the kind of even that should at least be mentioned on this site. --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)