Jump to content
This Topic

Grand Catalog of the Legiones Astartes during the GC v3.0

Indefragable

By Indefragable
in + AGE OF DARKNESS +

 Share

Recommended Posts

Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 Below please find a catalog of what we know about each Legion's forte, size, fleet, and original Terran genetic sources. 

 

With the release of FW's Black Book 9: Crusade, we now have the last piece of the puzzle (The Dark Angels) and so I present the notes I've been taking as I've read each of the Black Books. 

 

The purpose of this listing is to put everything in one place (something I made on my own just to wrap my own head around) in order to compare, contrast, and to better understand where each was in terms of size and scope at the height and end of the Great Crusade. Further--especially for a nerd like me--it is intriguing to try to suss out some of the original intentions for each, with details such as where their original Terran candidates were recruited from. More data and categories may be added down the road, but this is the start. 

 

All data is taken from ForgeWorld Black Books, what I consider the Primary Sources for this comparison. 

 

This is also intended to be a living list and so I ask the community for input and help filling in gaps, especially in places where it says DATA MISSING (see notes at the end of this post for glossary).

 

Hope you enjoy and/or find this useful. 

 

 

The Legiones Astartes

Hidden Content

 

I

The Dark Angels

  Reveal hidden contents
 

 

 

II

[DATA MISSING]

 

 

III

The Emperor’s Children

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

IV

Iron Warriors

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

V

White Scars

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

VI

Space Wolves

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

VII

Imperial Fists

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

VIII

Night Lords

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

IX

Blood Angels

  Reveal hidden contents
 

 

 

X

Iron Hands

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XI

[DATA MISSING]

 

 

XII

World Eaters

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XIII

Ultramarines

  Reveal hidden contents
 

 

 

XIV

Death Guard

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XV

Thousand Sons

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XVI

The Sons of Horus

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XVII

Word Bearers

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XVIII

Salamanders

  Reveal hidden contents
 

 

 

XIX

Raven Guard

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

XX

Alpha Legion

  Reveal hidden contents
 
 
Notes on formatting:
  • OP = Original Poster, aka me. So when I put "OP's Notes" those are my own comments and markup
  • Author = in-setting author(s) of the Black Books. Important to distinguish from OP since these bits are official source material and often deliberately used to make something speculative or to tell us something without actually telling us something
  • DATA NEEDED = unknown to the OP, asking for help filling in
  • DATA MISSING = information deliberately redacted in-universe to evoke mystery and speculation on the part of the readers
  • All #'s for Legion size and fleet are as listed in the Black Books, so the fact that they do not match-up apples-to-apples may be deliberate. For example, some mention size only at a particular moment in time (i.e. Istvaan III) while others list their average size over the course of the GC, and so forth. I have done my best to include what hard #'s are to be found, regardless of what point in the timeline those #'s are mentioned to at least attempt as close to a 1:1 comparison as possible
 
Reference: 
  • Gothic Terminology for Allegiance classification
  • Trefoil Legions
  • Fun speculation on how pre-unification Terra locations map to current day locations
  • Select Primarch information (COMING SOON)
  • Legion Homeworld information (COMING SOON)
  • Analysis of Legion Exemplary Battles (IN PROGRESS with v3.0, Assistance requested)
  • Legion Fiefdoms (POSSIBLY COMING)
  • Allied Titan Legions (POSSIBLY COMING, Assistance requested)

Exploration of military terminologies as it relates to Legion Specializations

Hidden Content

 

OP Note: Not every term listed with the Legions above is covered here; these are select terms believed worth further delving into. Many others are considered self-explanatory or--to be frank--too boring to elaborate on here. Deeper dives into those not listed below upon request. 

 

Anti-Material

  • Iron Hands

A term that was probably picked due to sounding cool. There are not really “anti material” military operations because, by its destructive nature, almost all warfare could be considered “anti material.” That being said, I believe the intent by FW here is to focus on a specific slice of the pie, and in this case my belief is that what they are aiming for is most likely along the lines of “Hard Target Interdiction” (HTI) : 

“Hard Target Interdiction is defined as the interdiction or strike on a hardened target (vehicles, communication system, radar system, etc.) by means of a precision large caliber long-range weapons fire.” (see citation below). 

Extrapolated and put into context of the Legiones Astartes, I believe the intent here is to show a force capable and adept of taking out hardened enemies from a distance. The last word is the operative one there since it distinguishes the force from others, such as the World Eaters, who specialize in “forlorn hope” assaults, or the Iron Warriors whose mastery of siege warfare encompasses a spectrum of tactics and equipment with the end effect being greater than their sum. In essence, this means a specialization in Big Guns (that never tire). 

Hard Target Interdiction (White Paper) by Michael Haugen: https://usarmorment.com/pdf/DA%202005.03MH.pdf 

 

Asymmetric Warfare:  

  • Emperor's Children ("Asymmetrical Assault") 
  • Salamanders

David vs Goliath. When the perceived power between two combatants is lopsided. There are multiple sub-categories for this, but for the purposes of the Legion Astartes specializations one has to wonder if it refers to a Legion being the David or the Goliath. Given the two Legions listed (III and XVIII), I would have to think they are good at being the “Davids” in the analogy. Opens up a whole spectrum of questions, to be tackled at a different time. 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare 

 

 

Attrition Warfare

  • Iron Warriors
  • Blood Angels (Pre-Sanguinius)
  • Death Guard

Warfare designed to wear the enemy down through sustained casualties and destruction. “Stacking bodies” in some circles. Arguably the oldest and simplest form of warfare where each side aims to have more bodies or bullets than the other side does and use that brute advantage to achieve victory. The key to winning battles of attrition reside in logistics (having more stuff and getting it to where it is needed faster and more reliably) and psychological resolve. 

 

Combined Arms

  • Dark Angels*
  • Emperor’s Children

Using multiple types of forces together, often under a single commander. Most “big” modern military operations fall into this category, but like other items in this list, nuances are key. At the risk of using another US-centric example, I would position it thusly. The US Air Force has planes that fight in the sky, the US Army has tanks and infantry that fight on the ground, and the US Navy has ships that fight on (and under) the sea. The US Marine Corps combines all of these elements together (most often) under a single commander. That single commander is thus able to direct “organic” assets of all types together to achieve a single mission. In a business context, this would be the difference between having dedicated Finance, HR, Sales, Customer Service, IT etc… departments that each focus on their given field vs having essentially customer facing teams that do Sales and Service and then Admin staff that juggle between Finance, IT, and other support functions as needed. There are pros and cons to both models, though effectiveness, especially at scale, is hotly debated. 

Non-Combined Arms warfare: “your planes need to support my infantry riding in Bob’s trucks”

Combined Arms warfare: “my infantry, planes, and trucks all report to me directly”

 

Decapitation

  • Blood Angels ("Macro-scale Decapitation Strikes")
  • Sons of Horus ("Strategic Decapitation Strikes")

Decapitation operations are fairly straightforward: go for the enemy’s head(quarters). Cut off the head and the body withers, as the expression goes. The “Macro-scale” part here is interesting because it suggests that rather than sending a lone assassin or assassination team, a full-scale military operation is used to achieve the same effect. Essentially “assassinating” the capital of a world, not just its governor. 

 

 

Decimation

  • Iron Warriors ("Planetary Decimation")
  • Night Lords
  • Ultramarines ("Targeted Decimation")
  • Alpha Legion ("Interplanetary Pursuit and Decimation Campaigns")

Another one that can stray into….uncomfortable….historical territory. However, in short, my belief is that FW’s intention was to signify military operations that are selective in nature. I.e. minimizing collateral damage or civilian casualties, or preserving resources for future use in some way. It gets awkward because decimation has had two divergent definitions over the years: 1. reducing something by one-tenth, aka the Roman practice of killing 1/10 soldiers to collectively punish the unit 2. large-scale destruction of an area or group, especially in regards to flora and fauna; i.e. the decimation of a rainforest from logging or farming.  While this could go either way, my gut says that FW is implying the first definition, so a sort of selective warfare meant to achieve an enemy’s surrender more than his annihilation. 

 

 

Discursive

  • Emperor's Children

Another one with a cool sounding name that is hard to actually pin down real world equivalents. Here’s my take: Planning multiple objectives; missions in depth. Not just “take that hill then await orders,” but rather “take that hill, provide fire support, then cross the river, take the port, burn to the ground, sweep the cornfields, then take townhall. If resistance is light, proceed instead to xyz to support abc.” 

 

 

Excoriation

  • Space Wolves ("Punitive and Excoriation Campaigns")

Another fun one where actual definitions get a bit weird. To excoriate means one of the following:

1. to  “censure or criticize severely.” 

2. to damage or remove part of the surface of the skin

The first definition is clear, given FW/BL’s love of the term “censure” to mean “beating the snot out of.” But other terms are already used as classifications, such as Punitive, Subjugation, Police Actions, etc… So my interpretation of this actually extrapolates the second definition. But rather than used to mean “skinning” like the Night Lords would do, I take this to mean symbolic strikes that remove a layer of the opponent, but otherwise leave them intact. I get the mental image of (Space Wolves) boarding orbital defenses or the outer walls of a citadel, planting melta bombs, and destroying them, then leaving. The implicit message is clear: “this was your one warning. There will not be another.” 

 

 

Gnostic Purgation

  • Word Bearers

….so this one I am not going to provide any links to, since it is a bit tricky. Because it strays into real-world history, religions, and religious history…yea nothing controversial with any of that. To keep it as simple and pertinent as possible, the dictionary definition of “gnostic” is relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. Since it’s never a good sign when one definition requires another definition to explain it, “esoteric” refers to knowledge that is highly specialized or likely to only be understood or known by a small group of people. “The esoteric nature of medical billing codes.”  Where it gets awkward is the Gnosticism (capitalized) is an actual historical religions with much controversy surrounding it and others’ actions towards it. It would be highly awkward for FW to specifically refer to that historical group. Rather, I would like to think that FW is using it as a stylized way of saying information that the Imperium finds dangerous or directly counter to its own designs. 

 

 

Harrowing

  • Sons of Horus

The definition of this is something that is acutely distressing or painful. Though I don’t know of any actual military usage of the term, I believe its a stylized attempt by FW to refer to harassment tactics*, mostly commonly “harassing fire.” Essentially pot shots meant to keep the enemy from sleeping or keep his head down so that he can’t actually see what’s going on. It is meant to be more annoying and disruptive to an enemy’s psyche and day-to-day operations than to be actually destructive to his forces. 

Interesting historical note: “Washing Machine Charlie” or “Bedcheck Charlie” was a term used by Allied forces in the Pacific for Japanese fighter planes (typically operating alone, at night) that would strafe with machines guns before flying off; often little actual damage was done to prepared positions, yet the noise and need to react in some way would slow down or even stop operations at the target area for some time. 

Further analysis provided by @Sandlemad: 

"Harrowing: I think the harassment point is good but I'd tie this to stuff like William the Conqueror's Harrowing of the North ('harrying' seems about as common a use). Basically we're talking chevauchée, "a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest".

Destroy the support network behind the enemy's military by targeting civilians and infrastructure before eventually, if necessary, bringing the weakened foe to battle. It's brutal, there's an aspect of targeting morale and discrediting the enemy's leadership or administration, it spreads terror and chaos, and it lines up with the Alpha Legion's MO. It's not fantastic if you want much of a useful territory left as a prize, which is why it was so reprehensible to Dorn and Guilliman."

 

*not to be confused with workplace harassment

 

 

High Intensity

  • Iron Hands ("Armoured and High Intensity Warfare")
  • Salamanders

Low Intensity warfare (or irregular warfare) is often marked by skirmishes, assassination attempts, and lightly equipped combatants. Its opposite, High Intensity warfare is what some would just call “war.” Full-sized armies and the industrial capability of nations fully deployed to defeat the enemy. It is somewhat of an awkward term to define, especially in the real world for this reason. However, I would posit that FW’s intention in using this term is to show conflicts where it is not just the numbers of forces involved, but the proportions of each side that is committed to the conflict. Factors such as logistics, supply, and rehabilitation become exponentially more important, arguably more so than the results on the front lines. In (US) military terms this would be called “up tempo” operations: the pace of battle is fast and for an extended period of time. If attrition warfare is a marathon, and shock attack is a 100m sprint, then High Intensity warfare is worst of both worlds where combatants are expected to go “all out” for as long as possible until one side gives. In athletic terms, this would be a “to exhaustion” exercise, where the motion does not stop until the participant simply ceases to be able to physically continue. Given the Legion specializing in this form of conflict, is it any wonder that their motto became “the flesh is weak?” 

 

In Extremis

  • Imperial Fists

Latin translation is “in the farthest reaches” or “at the point of death.” 

The US DoD defines it as: “A situation of such exceptional urgency that immediate action must be taken to minimize imminent loss of life or catastrophic degradation of the political or military situation.”

In the US military lens, it has most often been used in a Special Operations context, primarily with the addendum “Hostage Rescue In Extremis;” basically counter-terror operations on airplanes (hijackings) and going deep into enemy territory to spring prisoners (see example below). The second use is CIF (Commanders-In extremis-Force) which is basically a quick reaction force designed to respond to particularly dire circumstances (embassy takeovers, etc…) in theater of operation. 

So in the context of the Legion involved (Imperial Fists) this is stated as being “Defensive and Fortification Operations In Extremis.” Given the real-world context, and the Legion’s other specialities, I interpret this as being independent companies or chapters who are able to rapidly deploy to far off places and secure and hold them for extended periods of time. This could be plugging in gaps in a line, securing a flank that is unexpectedly unprotected, or creating a staging point far behind enemy lines. 

TL;DR: it’s Imperial Fists being Imperial Fists. 

 

Rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Pool Hagen Thisted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and_Poul_Hagen_Thisted

 

Interdiction

  • Ultramarines ("Planetary Interdiction")
  • Salamanders ("Planetary Interdiction")
  • Raven Guard ("Strategic Interdiction Operations")

Interdiction is intercepting, disrupting, preventing something going from A to B. Easiest to conceptualize as a blockade, but interdiction is much broader than that. Interdiction can at once be raiding or piracy if you will, but it can also be 

Maritime interdiction in the modern sense most often refers to anti-piracy operations or ship inspections. Air interdiction usually refers to air strikes behind enemy lines meant to disrupt supply lines or destroy enemy forces not currently engaged in fighting. In contrast to strategic bombing which is traditionally large bomber aircraft taking out vital facilities en masse, air interdiction is done by small fighter craft against more tactical assets. 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdiction 

 

 

Linebreaker

  • Iron Hands
  • World Eaters

Could be considered an alternative term for “shock attack” (see above), but I believe FW’s attempt to differentiate is deliberate. In this case, I believe they are referring to a focus on achieving strategic breakthroughs. Essentially driving a wedge into the enemy’s lines in a decisive manner. It differs from shock attack in that a breakthrough is meant to hold the ground it takes, to form a permanent gap in the enemy lines that others can exploit and thus new lines of battle are drawn. Shock attack, in contrast, is above moving “through” the enemy ad infinitum.

 

 

Maneuver warfare:

  • Emperor's Children

Often considered the “alternative” to Attrition Warfare. Sometimes positioned thus: Attrition Warfare seeks out enemy strongholds and destroys them head on, removing the biggest threats first. Maneuver Warfare avoids enemy strongholds, focusing on weak points and vulnerable “soft” areas first, intending to starve out the enemy and preserve one’s own strength above all else. A historical example would be the Chinese civil war of the 1950’s, where the Nationalist Kuomingtang Government had the advantage in equipment and tech and controlled the cities and industrial areas. The Communists under Mao Zedong had the advantage in numbers and controlled the farms and countryside. What developed was a conflict where the Communists couldn’t hope to breach the cities head-on, but the Nationalists could not leave the cities to attack the Communists because Mao’s forces would simply run away and then attack vulnerable rear areas or harass the Nationalist forces as they plodded along. In essence, the very strengths of the Nationalist forces (large, heavily equipped and armed, overlapping armies) proved to also be its weaknesses due to the way Mao was able to flow around them like water, thus ultimately winning that conflict. 

Destroying the enemy’s ability to fight = Attrition Warfare.

Destroying the enemy’s will to fight = Maneuver Warfare. 

 

 

Punitive

  • Space Wolves
  • Night Lords

ˆChildren who don’t listen have to be spanked.”

-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping before the 1978 invasion of Vietnam by China. 

Simply put, military operations designed to punish an opponent. While one could cynically ask “isn’t all war punishment?” to the receiver, where Punitive operations differ from other forms of warfare is mainly in the goal. Rather than not take and hold territory or other political gains, a punitive operation is design to hurt the opponent in some way shape or form, most often through the destruction or removal of select materials, facilities or equipment. The easiest example for me to wrap my head around is the Pancho Villa Expedition of 1916 in Mexico. Pancho Villa was a bandit-cum-rebel-leader who launched raids over the border into the United States. The US grew tired of both Villa’s actions and the Mexican government’s inability or unwillingness to prevent Villa from continuing in his ways. They thus launched a military expedition into Mexico to put a stop to Villa’s antics. What is to be emphasized is that the US forces were not there to annex territory or damage Mexican infrastructure in any way, but rather to carry out the specific limited goal of stopping Villa and his followers (….and of course, anyone who got in their way….)

 

 

Pursuit Operations:

  • Space Wolves
  • Alpha Legion ("Interplanetary Pursuit and Decimation Campaigns")

This link talks about it better than I ever could. 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/ch7.htm 

 

 

Reconnaissance in Force:

  • Raven Guard

Scouting with tanks. Essentially sending scouting parties that are large enough and equipped enough to either engage the enemy on his own terms or deliberately provoke the enemy into attacking…thus revealing the enemy’s position and/or capabilities. So it doesn’t actually have to be tanks, but the point is that rather than a couple lightly armed dudes who rely on stealth to gather intelligence and then bug out when things get hairy, these guys stay and fight and even up the ante to see what the enemy’s got. 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance#Reconnaissance-in-force 

 

 

Search and Destroy

  • Space Wolves

Walking around lookin’ fer a fight. Patrolling an area with the intention of either discovering enemies to be eliminated, or goading them into attacking so that they can be destroyed. It is operations designed to kill the enemy above all else, seeking him out wherever he may be and not stopping until he is dead. Real world results of this strategy vary. 

 

 

Shock Assault: 

  • White Scars
  • Space Wolves
  • Blood Angels ("Shock Assault Campaigns")
  • World Eaters
  • Sons of Horus

This one might seem obvious, but its nuance makes it intriguing. In essence, a “Shock Attack” or the use of “Shock Troops”  is an attempt to overwhelm the enemy through sheer speed, aggression, and psychological effect so that the effect of the attack is ultimately greater than the logistics of the attack itself. 

It’s opposite would be Attrition Warfare, which is like a boxing match where the participants are meant to take as many blows as they dish out and whoever is left standing wins. Shock (Assault) in contrast is more like Liam Neeson throat chopping bad guys in Taken: the idea is to utterly neutralize the enemy as quickly and decisively as possible with the least resources needed. While the concept has been in use since time immortal, the term “shock” really came about in World War 1 where—in stark contrast to the static and sweeping nature of trench warfare—small groups of highly trained and motivated troops would maneuver to maximize the element of surprise in order to cut through enemy defenses and keep going. That last part is key, since taking and holding ground was not the goal so much as the disruption to enemy formations and the ability to penetrate deep into enemy lines…the depth of the penetration was often more useful for crushing enemy morale then any actual ground taken or men or material neutralized. 

It is similar to the German doctrine of Blitzkrieg, but that is more of a high-level national strategy while this is a bit more on the battlefield or tactical level. 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_troops 

 

 

Zone Mortalis

  • Salamanders

An in-setting term (seriously, you haven’t heard of it yet? Do you even 40k bro?) referring to “in extremis” terrain or battlefields, most often referring to shipboard assaults or other highly confined environments that raise the lethality of engagements to exponential levels.

Link: https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Zone_Mortalis 

 

 

Credits:

Thanks to the following for the assistance in filling in gaps:

  • @Sandlemad
  • @StrangerOrders
  • @Beren

Version:

Hidden Content
  • 3.0: added "Exemplary Battles/Analysis" for I and XVI Legions (20 Jan 2021)
  • 2.2: added further info to Harrowing, added "Combined Arms" and "In Extremis" under "Exploration" section
  • 2.1: added which Legions fall into which category under the "Exploration of military terminology as it relates to Legion Specializations" section
  • 2.0: added "Exploration of military terminology as it relates to Legion Specializations"
  • 1.1: added notes to several Legion entries based on input from the above
  • 1.0: launch 

 

EDIT: Formatting 

 

Edited by Indefragable
Sandlemad Veteran

Sandlemad

Posted
Posted

Looks good! A few notes on gaps to be filled below.

 
I legion - recruitment was from the Francish plains, islands of Albia, Anatolic steppes, frozen Skandia, “a dozen other cultures”. 
 
Also for 'observed strategic tendencies', I'd note that FW previously stated that they were "Combined arms and multi-spectra warfare, Exterminatus and purgation campaigns, extended independent void operations". Obviously for Crusade they replaced this with the text you used, to emphasise the jack-of-all-trades nature of the first but to be honest I think the earlier desctiption still fits as well? It lines up perfectly with how their war-practices are described in Crusade and might be worth including alongside the current description.
 
IV legion - recruitment was from "gun-tribes, blood grieves and Tek-enclaves" of the Auro Plateau of Sek-Amrak and surrounding areas (these were early recruits, if not the very first)
 
X legion - you mentioned the Thorakata auxiliaries for the IVth and the Therion cohorts for the XIXth, would it be worth adding the Chainveil here? Imperial army troops inducted into the X legion auxilia.
 
XIII legion - recruitment was from across Terra, from the cultures that resisted the most including "the sub-equatorial maglev clans of Panpocro, the war families of the Saragon Enclave, the proud Midafrik Hive Oligarchy, and [...] the anthropophagic tribes of the Caucasus Wastes"
 
XVI legion - recruitment was initially "the hunter clans of the Jutigran Bowl and the Samsatian sub-plate slums"
StrangerOrders Battle-Brother

StrangerOrders

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ravenguard Original Intake: Xeric Tribes. 

 

Ultramarines: Their 'Warborn' nickname is a result of being drawn from the most intransigent peoples of Terra, implied to have been a final measure by the Emp to prevent their rising again. Particular note is the Saragon Enclaves, Panpocro Mag-Lev Clans, Caucasus Waste Tribes and Midafrik Oligarchies. 

 

Sons of Horus: 130-170k by Istvaan 3, 70-110k after that. 100+ Capital Ships and approx three times that number in Escorts and Cruisers. They supposedly originate from the Samsatian Sub-Plate Slums and the hunter-clans of the Jutigran Bowl.

 

Salamanders: No notes on their pool, Their fleet is just noted to not be large.

 

Dark Angels: Teetering on 'better than everyone else' their fleet is noted to outsize even the Fists by a considerable margin with a Gloriana or equivalent vessel forming the core of most battle groups (these rarely numbering more than thousand Astartes, so there were alot of these).

 

Deathguard: Conflicting claims with the DAngels over who has the most forbidden DAoT arsenals and ancient or unique warships.

 

Thousand Sons: Worth adding that they might have mounted psychic weapons on them according to AK.

Edited by StrangerOrders
Beren Honoured Frater

Beren

Posted
Posted

The Night Lords fleet at the battle of Sheol IX consisted of 200 capital ships and three times that of escorts, while the Dark Angels fleet at the battle was 300 capital ships and twice that of smaller ships.

Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 9/22/2020 at 8:03 PM, Sandlemad said:

 

Hidden Content

Looks good! A few notes on gaps to be filled below.

 
I legion - recruitment was from the Francish plains, islands of Albia, Anatolic steppes, frozen Skandia, “a dozen other cultures”. 
 
Also for 'observed strategic tendencies', I'd note that FW previously stated that they were "Combined arms and multi-spectra warfare, Exterminatus and purgation campaigns, extended independent void operations". Obviously for Crusade they replaced this with the text you used, to emphasise the jack-of-all-trades nature of the first but to be honest I think the earlier desctiption still fits as well? It lines up perfectly with how their war-practices are described in Crusade and might be worth including alongside the current description.
 
IV legion - recruitment was from "gun-tribes, blood grieves and Tek-enclaves" of the Auro Plateau of Sek-Amrak and surrounding areas (these were early recruits, if not the very first)
 
X legion - you mentioned the Thorakata auxiliaries for the IVth and the Therion cohorts for the XIXth, would it be worth adding the Chainveil here? Imperial army troops inducted into the X legion auxilia.
 
XIII legion - recruitment was from across Terra, from the cultures that resisted the most including "the sub-equatorial maglev clans of Panpocro, the war families of the Saragon Enclave, the proud Midafrik Hive Oligarchy, and [...] the anthropophagic tribes of the Caucasus Wastes"
 
XVI legion - recruitment was initially "the hunter clans of the Jutigran Bowl and the Samsatian sub-plate slums"

 

Appreciate the assist. I think I just forgot to jot down the Ultramarine origins since I definitely remember reading that. 

Great tip on the previous "Strategic Tendencies" notes for the Dark Angels

 

  On 9/22/2020 at 8:09 PM, StrangerOrders said:

 

Hidden Content

Ravenguard Original Intake: Xeric Tribes. 

 

Ultramarines: Their 'Warborn' nickname is a result of being drawn from the most intransigent peoples of Terra, implied to have been a final measure by the Emp to prevent their rising again. Particular note is the Saragon Enclaves, Panpocro Mag-Lev Clans, Caucasus Waste Tribes and Midafrik Oligarchies. 

 

Sons of Horus: 130-170k by Istvaan 3, 70-110k after that. 100+ Capital Ships and approx three times that number in Escorts and Cruisers. They supposedly originate from the Samsatian Sub-Plate Slums and the hunter-clans of the Jutigran Bowl.

 

Salamanders: No notes on their pool, Their fleet is just noted to not be large.

 

Dark Angels: Teetering on 'better than everyone else' their fleet is noted to outsize even the Fists by a considerable margin with a Gloriana or equivalent vessel forming the core of most battle groups (these rarely numbering more than thousand Astartes, so there were alot of these).

 

Deathguard: Conflicting claims with the DAngels over who has the most forbidden DAoT arsenals and ancient or unique warships.

 

Thousand Sons: Worth adding that they might have mounted psychic weapons on them according to AK.

 

Where did you get the #'s for the Sons of Horus? I'm curious since I combined Book 1: Massacre for those details and remember coming up short and being frustrated about it. 

 

  On 9/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Beren said:

The Night Lords fleet at the battle of Sheol IX consisted of 200 capital ships and three times that of escorts, while the Dark Angels fleet at the battle was 300 capital ships and twice that of smaller ships.

 

Good call. I must have glazed over that part in the Thramas Campaign section of Book 9: Crusade. 

StrangerOrders Battle-Brother

StrangerOrders

Posted
Posted
  On 9/23/2020 at 1:21 AM, Indefragable said:

 

  On 9/22/2020 at 8:03 PM, Sandlemad said:

 

Hidden Content

Looks good! A few notes on gaps to be filled below.

 
I legion - recruitment was from the Francish plains, islands of Albia, Anatolic steppes, frozen Skandia, “a dozen other cultures”. 
 
Also for 'observed strategic tendencies', I'd note that FW previously stated that they were "Combined arms and multi-spectra warfare, Exterminatus and purgation campaigns, extended independent void operations". Obviously for Crusade they replaced this with the text you used, to emphasise the jack-of-all-trades nature of the first but to be honest I think the earlier desctiption still fits as well? It lines up perfectly with how their war-practices are described in Crusade and might be worth including alongside the current description.
 
IV legion - recruitment was from "gun-tribes, blood grieves and Tek-enclaves" of the Auro Plateau of Sek-Amrak and surrounding areas (these were early recruits, if not the very first)
 
X legion - you mentioned the Thorakata auxiliaries for the IVth and the Therion cohorts for the XIXth, would it be worth adding the Chainveil here? Imperial army troops inducted into the X legion auxilia.
 
XIII legion - recruitment was from across Terra, from the cultures that resisted the most including "the sub-equatorial maglev clans of Panpocro, the war families of the Saragon Enclave, the proud Midafrik Hive Oligarchy, and [...] the anthropophagic tribes of the Caucasus Wastes"
 
XVI legion - recruitment was initially "the hunter clans of the Jutigran Bowl and the Samsatian sub-plate slums"

 

Appreciate the assist. I think I just forgot to jot down the Ultramarine origins since I definitely remember reading that. 

Great tip on the previous "Strategic Tendencies" notes for the Dark Angels

 

  On 9/22/2020 at 8:09 PM, StrangerOrders said:

 

Hidden Content

Ravenguard Original Intake: Xeric Tribes. 

 

Ultramarines: Their 'Warborn' nickname is a result of being drawn from the most intransigent peoples of Terra, implied to have been a final measure by the Emp to prevent their rising again. Particular note is the Saragon Enclaves, Panpocro Mag-Lev Clans, Caucasus Waste Tribes and Midafrik Oligarchies. 

 

Sons of Horus: 130-170k by Istvaan 3, 70-110k after that. 100+ Capital Ships and approx three times that number in Escorts and Cruisers. They supposedly originate from the Samsatian Sub-Plate Slums and the hunter-clans of the Jutigran Bowl.

 

Salamanders: No notes on their pool, Their fleet is just noted to not be large.

 

Dark Angels: Teetering on 'better than everyone else' their fleet is noted to outsize even the Fists by a considerable margin with a Gloriana or equivalent vessel forming the core of most battle groups (these rarely numbering more than thousand Astartes, so there were alot of these).

 

Deathguard: Conflicting claims with the DAngels over who has the most forbidden DAoT arsenals and ancient or unique warships.

 

Thousand Sons: Worth adding that they might have mounted psychic weapons on them according to AK.

 

Where did you get the #'s for the Sons of Horus? I'm curious since I combined Book 1: Massacre for those details and remember coming up short and being frustrated about it. 

 

  On 9/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, Beren said:

The Night Lords fleet at the battle of Sheol IX consisted of 200 capital ships and three times that of escorts, while the Dark Angels fleet at the battle was 300 capital ships and twice that of smaller ships.

 

Good call. I must have glazed over that part in the Thramas Campaign section of Book 9: Crusade. 

 

Betrayal near the end of the SoH asset breakdown, although I would note that even AK is a bit iffy on those numbers. He even makes the point that aside from obvious obfuscation, Horus had basically destroyed the hierarchy of the Legion to such a point that only he could really make heads or tails of it.

 

I've made the point the Horus basically eroded the sixteenth into a barbarian horde before but boy is that section fun in watching that devolution eventually end with AK more or less going 'look man, I cant make heads or tails of this stuff either'.

 

Pg. 79 if you want confirmation. 

MegaVolt87 Veteran

MegaVolt87

Posted
Posted (edited)

Probably more work, BUT what about adding a known allies list with external non legion forces like knight houses + Titan legions, forgeworlds etc? Would help people out wanting allies from different factions in HH and 40k. 

 

EDIT- here I will help. According to my notes The Iron Warriors had ties/ good relations with Titan Legio Krytos, Knight House Caesarean, Knight House Kepsydra. I lost the references, my old laptop died I only have basic notes on my phone about them. 

Edited by MegaVolt87
Sandlemad Veteran

Sandlemad

Posted
Posted

Fiefs and territories would probably be easy enough, the black books have that right at the start of the respective legion sections. 

 

Allies would be cool, folks genuinely do come looking for e.g. knight houses or titan legions with a history of fighting alongside particular astartes legions. It can be a bit tricky to define how close you have to be before it counts as an ally though. Legio Audax fought alongside the Dark Angels and were honoured by the Lion but ended up being intimately associated with the World Eaters. The Cthonian Headhunter regiments of the solar auxilia were recruited from the Sons of Horus's stomping ground but don't seem to have been as intimately associated with the XVIth legion as the Thorakites were with the IVth.

Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Good points about fiefdoms and allies. I included allies for some, like the IV Legion, mainly because the in-setting author seemed to make an explicit point about mentioning them. Likewise for qualifications or special notes on fleets or force sizes, something the in-setting author ("AK") seems to go out of his or her way to point things out which is why I include that for some yet not others. 

 

More Items to add. 

Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Updated to V2.0, adding "Exploration of military terminologies as it relates to Legion Specializations." 

 

....that is where things get juicy and ripe for healthy discussion, if I might say so myself...

Sandlemad Veteran

Sandlemad

Posted
Posted

Nice one, interesting work. Well done making sense of "anti-material warfare" as well. In the context of the Iron Hands and Massacre's emphasis on their ability to take down mechanised or other technologically advanced foes, your explanation fits.

 

Gnostic purgation: I think your explanation is good. Given it's the Word Bearers, I would go further and say it's the targeted modification/destruction of an enemy ideology through military means. Sort of psychological warfare but beyond that, showing up a non-compliant world's belief systems as worthless. Like a pre-iterator way of acting. You could do this partially through oration and propaganda campaigns followed by destroying their cultural heritage/libraries/universities/sacred places/culturally significant leaders but also through a kind of symbolic warfare. From Massacre:

 

  Quote

 

Although their methods of war were often workmanlike in application, the Word Bearers always displayed a taste for the symbolic act. War was not just a process, it was a message, and so the Word Bearers would often include notes of the spectacular into their campaigns to make a point.

 

This was the remit of the Ashen Circle but they all had a knack for it. The esoteric knowledge culling thing is there as well, I think, Malevolence does mention the WB being one of the go-to legions for dealing with this sort of thing but I feel that deliberate iconoclasm or destruction of an enemy culture gets closer to the meaning. Yes, this does get touch on brutality of RL imperialism, the great crusade was a monstrous thing. Incidentally this sort of behaviour also prepped the WB wonderfully for the kinds symbolic/ritual warfare Erebus and chaos demanded of them, all that sacrifice and ruinstorm stuff, the bread and butter of the 40k CSM. 

 

Harrowing: I think the harassment point is good but I'd tie this to stuff like William the Conqueror's Harrowing of the North ('harrying' seems about as common a use). Basically we're talking chevauchée, "a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, as opposed to siege warfare or wars of conquest".

 

Destroy the support network behind the enemy's military by targeting civilians and infrastructure before eventually, if necessary, bringing the weakened foe to battle. It's brutal, there's an aspect of targeting morale and discrediting the enemy's leadership or administration, it spreads terror and chaos, and it lines up with the Alpha Legion's MO. It's not fantastic if you want much of a useful territory left as a prize, which is why it was so reprehensible to Dorn and Guilliman.

Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

  • Update 2.2: added further info to "Harrowing", added "Combined Arms" and "In Extremis" under "Exploration" section

 

Also a request: 

Under the Reference section you will see areas I hope to expand and add to down the line. If anyone would like to help with those, or provide info/details I can then sort into place, that would be appreciated (certainly in terms of speed to get it up there). Especially the allied Titan section since that is one that does not particularly hold personal interest to me. 

 

Edit: to expand on the above a bit further, hopefully as the "Exploration of Military Terminology" section shows, my big picture goal is to not just list say planet names for fiefdoms, but eventually provide a bit more information in order to explore how or why those particular planets fit a Legion. It could be as boring as "they're next to the homeworld," but there are certainly some interesting stories nested throughout the Black Book narratives (Bodt for the XII and Saraph for the IX come to mind). 

 

Edited by Indefragable
Beren Honoured Frater

Beren

Posted
Posted (edited)

Legio Xestobiax had a small garrison on Prospero.

Legio Audax served heavily alongside the World Eaters.

Legio Mordaxis was associated with the Word Bearers,

Legios Praesagius and Oberon had links to the Ultramarines.

Mortis and Victorum II both were noted as tools of the Warmaster.

Legio Phasma was associated with the Night Lords via the 'Midnight Treaties'.

Legio Magna was noted to have campaigned alongside both the Sons of Horus and the Word Bearers.

 

Legio Victorum I and II fought alongside the Night Lords and Legio I (later and forcibly) and III alongside the Dark Angels during the Thramas crusade, but I don't think they had any association prior to that.

Edited by Beren
Sandlemad Veteran

Sandlemad

Posted
Posted

Legio Krytos were known for fighting in close concert with the Iron Warriors.

 

For knight houses:

 

House Aerthegn was intimately associated with the Sons of Horus, and owed personal allegiance to the primarch over the imperium as he was the one who discovered them.

House Lucaris was also personally loyal to Horus during the great crusade.

House Vyridion swore loyalty to Fulgrim and fought alongside the Emperor's Children for three generations of knights, though they began to doubt the rightness of Fulgrim's cause early in the heresy and were largely destroyed by their former allies.

House Vornherr pledged "to fight alongside the hosts of the Five Hundred Worlds of Ultramar unto death" and held Guilliman in higher regard than any other commander.

Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Poking through Book 8: Malevolence over lunch....it appears that no Titan Legios nor Knight Houses accompanied the BA to Signus nor the WS to Chondax. Can anyone confirm? I will have to re-read their entire write-how to see if that was the norm or an aberration.

 

Hidden Content

No wonder I’m not a big bot guy, considering those are my two favorite Legions...

Beren Honoured Frater

Beren

Posted
Posted (edited)

I certainly don't recall any. Chondax was meant to be a mobile mop up operation that would keep the White Scars tied down, and Signus was against an uncertain threat that Horus likewise didn't want to give the Angels too much of a chance against, so I'd say that it would have made sense for them not to be accompanied by such heavy duty assets. The Angels did have an allied Cybernetica cohort though.

Edited by Beren
Spagunk Honoured Frater

Spagunk

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 9/24/2020 at 9:22 PM, Beren said:

The Angels did have an allied Cybernetica cohort though.

 

To further this, The Blood Angels were accompanied on Signus by the Captia Aquillae from FW Anvillus which was from what I read was primarily a cybernetica cohort. So in the case of Signus, there weren't any deployed knights or titans or particularly large units.

 

This may be because those assets were all still in space as Anvillus were allied closely with BA and would have had titan/knight banner assets if the entire Legion deployed.

 

I wish there was more written about Forgeworld Anvillus, tbh.

Edited by Spagunk
Indefragable Honoured Frater

Indefragable

Posted
  • Author
Posted
  On 9/24/2020 at 9:09 PM, MegaVolt87 said:

AL should be under harrowing, its like their signature power move/ fatality at the end. I imagine its some crazy pitched battle stuff that somehow leaves no survivors?

I list only precisely what FW Black Books say, and they don’t say Harrowing for AL.

 

...though what is listed can be interpreted as a variation of it.

Sandlemad Veteran

Sandlemad

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 9/24/2020 at 6:39 PM, Beren said:

House Makabius was also largely co-opted by Mortarion and the Death Guard during and after the Coronid Depths campaign. I don't recall if they were associated before then.

 

Yeah, I hummed and hawed about the same. Their leadership were certainly schmoozing it up with Abaddon politically during the crusade but there's not much about them fighting together and none about fighting with the DG. I don't think it counts as association on the same level as e.g. Legio Mortis or House Aerthegn. And all it got them was Horus passing them over to Mortarion like a used TV...

 

  On 9/24/2020 at 11:53 PM, Indefragable said:

 

  On 9/24/2020 at 9:09 PM, MegaVolt87 said:

AL should be under harrowing, its like their signature power move/ fatality at the end. I imagine its some crazy pitched battle stuff that somehow leaves no survivors?

I list only precisely what FW Black Books say, and they don’t say Harrowing for AL.

 

...though what is listed can be interpreted as a variation of it.

 

It's weird how FW didn't list it at the start when it's all over their FW background only pages later, to the point of their chapters sometime being called 'Harrows' and the AL officer with operational command in a theatre being a Harrowmaster. It's in Praetorian of Dorn as well, where the AL repeatedly refer to their pre-Pluto disruption actions as a harrowing.

Edited by Sandlemad

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept