PainRack wrote:My earlier statement was hyperbolic, by the time I found the relevant quotes, I couldn't edit my initial post.
Furthermore, I would suggest that sectors might not encompass hundreds of inhabitated systems based on the Calixian sector.
Well we know what 'hundreds of worlds' represents now, that's one thing. The question is, how big are these supposed 'sectors' in question? Ultramar is a sector for example, and noted in Know No Fear as having some 500 worlds, IIRC. sectors can range from a few dozen worlds (from the novel 13th Legion) to Ultramar, or possibly bigger. I'm pretty sure I recall some mention somehwere of Gothic sector being a thousand worlds. I'll have to go dig it up.
In any case, until we know how big an area a thousand worlds encompasses, it doesn't really help. More to the point, we don't even know the exact reasons WHY Armageddon is important - it could be any number of reasons (as I noted, its location close to Terra makes it important, and its value as a nexus of trade or commerce - which can allow its industry to spread to the scope indicated - can also be important. Hell there's a shit-ton of context here that has to be taken into consideration - why a thousand worlds are at risk, etc.
I should elaborate. I wasn't arguing that Armaggadeon was as vital as Cadia, rather, that Lonestar assumption that its just another forge world ignores the context of how vital Armaggadeon and such worlds are. Forge worlds have been depicted to be vital to the defence of their subsectors and supplying war material to the sector in general.
The entire point of discussion is not about the importance of Armageddon, but rather the degree and reason for that importance. You seem to have this idea that it is in fact as important as Cadia - you've basically argued its a lynchpin for large regions of space that they simply cannot do without, but we really haven't seen that.
In fact, the only thing that suggests Armageddon has long-reaching importance is the following, from Epic Armageddon:
The hive world of Armageddon, the principle world in the Armageddon sector, lies roughly 10,000 light years to the galactic north east of Terra. It is a vital node at the center of the Armageddon Sector's navigational channels and its thousands of weapons shops supply arms to Imperial Guard regiments several thousand light years away.
The fact that its industrial output can reach outwards to a significant fraction of a segmentum (or overlap into other segmentums) is not trivial. That's actually quite important. But it's not exactly saying that vast regions of space suddenly run into trouble
More to the point, you seem to be taking a singular piece of dialogue literally to the exclusion of all else. Vraks (for example) was deemed 'vital' to the Administratum as well, that doesn't mean EVERYONE in the Imperium thought so (indeed some argued writing off the world and increasing production across the segmentum to compensate.) In the case of Armageddon, you are in effect claiming that it is SO important, that its continued survival outweighs that of entire forge worlds and multiple other hives, and that without Armageddon vast regions of space will simply be able to defend themselves and (I guess?) fall apart. Unless you're changing your mind about thta bit - you're not being very clear at this point which is hyperbole and which isn't.
But the idea that Armageddon could POSSIBLY be more important than whole Forge Worlds is pretty ludicrous.
Armaggadeon may be another Hive world, buts I find it ludricious to simply ignore quotes from multiple fluff, such as the Third Armaggadeon war and etc about how important it was to secure Armaggadeon simply because its one of thousands.
Who is ignoring quotes? I'm not, and I doubt Lonestar is. What we are doing is diagreeing with your interpretation, and that's not the same thing as ignoring the quotes. With that sort of logic I can just as easily point out you're ignoring MY quotes, and at least as far as canon goes I can argue more recent material than you do (that is, if I were inclined to do something that foolish and if 40K actually had any sort of canon rules, which it doesn't.)
Errr....., so? Your quote was that if Armaggadeon output faltered, the Imperium would not pour in resources into Armaggadeon. Its not as clear cut as that since we know the Imperium did pour in resources into Armaggadeon into the past, twice.
I'm just wondering how that quote supposedly rebuts the material importance of Armaggadeon.
You claimed:
Beside, the world was considered important enough to be recolonised after the 1st Armaggadeon war.
Were you not in fact arguing that colonizing (or recolonizing - don't tell me you're going to start nitpicking definitions.) is somehow an indicator of the planet's importance, which is yet unproven (and what the quote was meant to indicate.) Hell we know they recolonized Tartarus from the Dawn of War game was also recolonised, as was Tranch,a minor hive world from the Dark Heresy RPG. What evidence do we have that actually indicates recolonization is an indication of importance?
I'm not the one saying it. Comissar Yarrick, the Imperium which comissioned the rebuilding of Armaggadeon defences, the scribe which narrated the fluff in the bridge scenarios for the 2nd Armaggadeon War said that Armaggadeon was vital to securing "hundreds of worlds" and the surrounding star systems space.
Yes you are saying it, because that is YOUR interpretation of the facts, which is the point of contention. Don't go confusing facts with evidence.
You never read my fanfic on a Mech Guard unit. 
