Board Thread:Warhammer 40k General Discussion/@comment-25618639-20141119150740/@comment-6078851-20150103160203

ok, once again zixis, that quote does not say emps is a perpetual, it simply says that vulkan is effectively immortal, much like emps.

you tried to use that quote before as proof of emps being a perpetual and i already pointed out, not too many posts ago, that it doesn't say that. you then said that the novel 'vulkan lives' says emps is a perpetual, and though i havn't read it i can accept that maybe it does actually say that he is, but when i ask for the context of said information you then use the same quote from vulkan's page. i know that not many people give much notice to things like grammar and syntax, but the grammer and syntax of the quote "vulkan had been revealed to be a perpetual, a being who is capable of continuous cellular regeneration and was therefore effectively immortal, much like emps" does not say 'vulkan is a perpetual like emps' but that 'vulkan is immortal, somewhat like emps.'

i'm not being obstructive, i've already said (twice now) that i'll accept his perpetualness if it says so in 'vulkan lives' and i'd love to know one way or the other, but the quote from vulkan's page does not say emps is a perpetual. can anyone give the context from 'vulkan lives'?