Why would a Space Wolf fall?

[Quillen]

lol I am. I just had to get into Wolf Lord Mode.

 

I just got home from the gyme and we had some burnt offerings to our all father. Mouth is still dry. lol If I came on strong ooooops. Was all in role playing. Well the last part was.

 

 

 

Oh yeah and Goerge Washington rocked. They would have made him a king. He could have done anything he wanted. And so he left. Cause he knew what would happen.

 

I love most in order, My Pop. Worked hard with his hands for 50+ years. Went into the Marines and loved his country. Winston Churchill, he was someone whom worked his way up in the ranks and always followed his beliefs. Ronald Reagan cause he also followed his beliefs and helped others love the States and freedom again.

 

Speaking of Reagan, the USS Ronald Reagan was in Victoria Harbor for a few days for the internation review. I hope they and all the NATO forces and allied nations here this week had a blast and enjoyed all that Victoria and Vancouver island has to offer. God be with them all.

 

Now must go and sleep off my blissfulness.

[Gree]

Ah, well, if you are determined to read it that way then you will,

 

I'm not ''determined'' as you put it. That how it simply is to me.

 

but think about it logically.

 

I am.

 

There is nothing to support the chaos version either, therefore, it remains unsubstantiated.

 

Yes there is. A ship called the Wolf of Fenris was taken over by Huron in the same war and in the same place. Just because it is an abbriviated version does not mean every other detail of the Chaos account in invalidated.

 

Moreover, if you read through all the various editions of C:SW, you will see that the fluff is as open about defeats as victories. Most importantly, breaches of honour and treachery are particularly remembered.

 

Not exactly, reading the 2nd and 3rd editions are not exactly open about defeats. It's really only the 5th edition version.

 

So, with this in mind, surely such treachery would burn in the collective memory of the Fang and a Great Hunt or suchlike would have been dispatched to bring the oath-breakers to account.

 

The Wolf of Fenris was lost with all hands far away from the Fang. Who says the Wolves even knew what happened?

 

Oaths and loyalty are themes that run at the core of the fluff, yet there is nothing about it at all in the one codex in which it should be most recorded - C:SW. That would stand out as out of character to anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the Space Wolves.

 

Not really, it's rather easily explained in context. Everyone on the Wolf of Fenris was ethier dead or went tratior. considering that the Wolf of Fenris is now in the Maelstorm and the incident happened roughly twenty years ago by the in-universe timeline, there is no guarantee that the Wolves knew of the treachery. They might have known the ship was lost, but how would they have known of treachery?

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

I think that I preferred the off topic BT v SW slagging match...

 

edit, sorry, that was aimed at Quillen's post :woot:

[whitewolfmxc]

Oh Gree the famous pup hater strikes again , guess we all know where this is going.

[Gree]

Oh Gree the famous pup hater strikes again ,

 

Not really, I just wrote up a story featuring the Wolves alongside my Praetors, check it out in the Librarium. Fact is I quite like the Wolves and I enjoyed writing them.

 

, guess we all know where this is going.

 

I am fully allowed to express my opinion with what I see as the topic at hand.

[whitewolfmxc]

Oh Gree the famous pup hater strikes again ,

 

Not really, I just wrote up a story featuring the Wolves alongside my Praetors, check it out in the Librarium.

 

, guess we all know where this is going.

 

I am fully allowed to express my opinion with what I see as the topic at hand.

 

Cool ill read it later.

 

Yes you are very welcomed to express yourself on any topic , but starting topic discussions or posts that your very well know will turn into a "Mines better than yours" thread is not a good way to do it right.

 

Starting threads like these is a good example i think link , nothing personal. Just dont agree on how you lead topic discussions where you seem to like to argue everything everyone says

 

anyway as like everyone , this is only my personal opinion , off now and good day to you .

[Gree]

Yes you are very welcomed to express yourself on any topic , but starting topic discussions or posts that your very well know will turn into a "Mines better than yours" thread is not a good way to do it right.

 

Actually no, I had no intention of turning that into a ''mines better than yours'' at all. Indeed it was actually intended to be research for my story.

 

 

Starting threads like these is a good example i think , nothing personal. Just dont agree on how you lead topic discussions "http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=203609&st=0&p=2427392entry2427392"]link[/url]

 

Did you read the thread at all? I was supporting the Wolves as warriors as courage and honor.

[whitewolfmxc]

Yes you are very welcomed to express yourself on any topic , but starting topic discussions or posts that your very well know will turn into a "Mines better than yours" thread is not a good way to do it right.

 

Actually no, I had no intention of turning that into a ''mines better than yours'' at all. Indeed it was actually intended to be research for my story.

 

 

Starting threads like these is a good example i think , nothing personal. Just dont agree on how you lead topic discussions "http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=203609&st=0&p=2427392entry2427392"]link[/url]

 

Did you read the thread at all? I was supporting the Wolves as warriors as courage and honor.

 

Yes i did , but that was aimming at "whos better than who" statement and not the wolf statement

[Gree]

Yes you are very welcomed to express yourself on any topic , but starting topic discussions or posts that your very well know will turn into a "Mines better than yours" thread is not a good way to do it right.

 

Actually no, I had no intention of turning that into a ''mines better than yours'' at all. Indeed it was actually intended to be research for my story.

 

 

Starting threads like these is a good example i think , nothing personal. Just dont agree on how you lead topic discussions "http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=203609&st=0&p=2427392entry2427392"]link[/url]

 

Did you read the thread at all? I was supporting the Wolves as warriors as courage and honor.

 

Yes i did , but that was aimming at "whos better than who" statement and not the wolf statement

 

Again, no, you seem to be going off on this strange assumption. I have nothing against the Wolves and the thread was intended for research purposes, as my story can attest.

[whitewolfmxc]

Fine lol stop being so ultramarine uptight lol

[Decoy]

Let's quit the axe-clashin', whelps. Whether there was malice intended or not, it's the Fang, and we tend to roll with such things regardless.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Yes there is. A ship called the Wolf of Fenris was taken over by Huron in the same war and in the same place. Just because it is an abbriviated version does not mean every other detail of the Chaos account in invalidated.

 

However, the crucial point under discussion, that Space Wolves turned on their pack mates, remains in doubt.

 

Not exactly, reading the 2nd and 3rd editions are not exactly open about defeats. It's really only the 5th edition version.

 

Fair point, although it is very strong in the books - such as the response to Ragnar 'losing Russ's spear'. But there is the odd reference such as in C:SW 2nd: the deception of Magnus, p.43; and, the death of Ranulf, p.67.

 

The Wolf of Fenris was lost with all hands far away from the Fang. Who says the Wolves even knew what happened?

 

Bang on the head of the nail - only renegades in league with chaos survived and they can hardly be taken as a safe source on this issue. If true, however, they would have sought to exploit this to undermine trust in the Chapter. :woot:

 

Not really, it's rather easily explained in context. Everyone on the Wolf of Fenris was ethier dead or went tratior. considering that the Wolf of Fenris is now in the Maelstorm and the incident happened roughly twenty years ago by the in-universe timeline, there is no guarantee that the Wolves knew of the treachery. They might have known the ship was lost, but how would they have known of treachery?

 

Because, as mentioned above, it would have been used against the Space Wolves in just the manner as you are now doing.

 

By promoting this view you actually prove that it cannot be true as, if it were, the Space Wolves would have been forced, by their pride and honour, to respond. The Red Corsairs have not exploited the existence of renegade Space Wolves and the Space Wolves have not responded to the existence of oath-breakers.

 

It's just an unsubstantiated slur on the Chapter purely based on evidence that can only have come from followers of chaos.

[Gree]

However, the crucial point under discussion, that Space Wolves turned on their pack mates, remains in doubt.

 

Again, no not really. We saw only three sentences of the story and every part of it matched up tpo the Chaos version. Including the commander's name and method of death.

 

Fair point, although it is very strong in the books - such as the response to Ragnar 'losing Russ's spear'. But there is the odd reference such as in C:SW 2nd: the deception of Magnus, p.43; and, the death of Ranulf, p.67.

 

Except both were also spun as victories. Magnus was driven off and his vengance was denied by Bjorn. Ranulf was honored by the orks.

 

Also, if you are going to use Black Library sources I will point out the references in Skull Harvest and Chapter's Due about renegade Wolves under Huron's employ.

 

Bang on the head of the nail - only renegades in league with chaos survived and they can hardly be taken as a safe source on this issue. If true, however, they would have sought to exploit this to undermine trust in the Chapter. :woot:

 

Doubtful, as I said before the account is from a neutral third person perspective. Not a first hand account of the storming.

 

I was talking about what the Wolves know, not what this omnipresent narrator knew.

 

Because, as mentioned above, it would have been used against the Space Wolves in just the manner as you are now doing.

 

No, not really.

 

By promoting this view you actually prove that it cannot be true as, if it were, the Space Wolves would have been forced, by their pride and honour, to respond.

 

Again, no not really, the Wolves don't have the benefit of a omnipresent third person view as we do.

 

The Red Corsairs have not exploited the existence of renegade Space Wolves

 

Why would they? They are pirates a half galaxy away from Fenris. Huron is more focused on raiding and plunder than an outright war with the Wolves. He had far better things to do than shove the the traitor Wolves at Grimnar.

 

and the Space Wolves have not responded to the existence of oath-breakers.

 

Hard to do so since we have an omnipresent view and the Wolves don't. And even if they did it's hardly practical to go after them. The Red Corsairs are located half a galaxy away, and the Wolves have planets of their own to protect and more important threats.

 

All Chapters would go after their renegades if given the chance, but they have duties and people to protect as well. Not to mention locating a single ship in something as large as the Maelstorm would be extremely dfficult to say the least.

 

 

 

 

It's just an unsubstantiated slur on the Chapter purely based on evidence that can only have come from followers of chaos.

 

Not really when it comes from a third person omnipresent narrator. You seem to confuse the knowledge of what the Wolves would have with what we have.

[Decoy]

Gree, what makes you think we have a third-person omniscient when it comes to the crew of the Wolf?

 

The material is written in a Chaos codex, and there have been multiple (Gods know, there's a lot of them) contradictions in how various acts or events have turned out, based on the differentials between Codices. I wouldn't call the Chaos account any more "Omniscient" than the Wolf account in this regard.

 

In either case, using the fall of the Wolf as an example for Wolves falling to Chaos is a poor example to choose; Going renegade does not automatically mean "Going to Chaos", per se. Sure, the rules of the Chaos book dictate that, but fluffwise, a Renegade chapter is no more inherently Chaos-worshipping than an alternative detachment of Tau or Kroot (or pretty much any "non-standard" army, for that matter.)

 

Personally, I see that the Wolf crew turning to Renegade status as far more likely than "OMG CHAOS LULZ!", as stated by the other folk earlier in the topic.

 

EDIT: Edited for clarity.

[Gree]

Gree, what makes you think we have a third-person omniscient when it comes to the crew of the Wolf?

 

Simple, it's in GW's usual dry style. There is no bombastic boasts by a Chaos Marine, nor any statement of opinions a a survivor. In all it's quite dry and factual. So I see no reason to believe it would be anything other than a third-person omnipresent account.

 

Compare the Wolf of Fenris story to the Chaos story on Pg. 45 and pg.49

 

The material is written in a Chaos codex, and there have been multiple (Gods know, there's a lot of them) contradictions in how various acts or events have turned out, based on the differentials between Codices. I wouldn't call the Chaos account any more "Omniscient" than the Wolf account in this regard.

 

I actually viewed the statement in the Wolf Codex as omniscient too. It's just that the full account would have been cut for brevity. Look at Svengar the Red. It details events after the Fang lost contact with them. In universe, based on both the Chaos and Wolf codices, I would say the Wolves don't know about their renegades.

 

In either case, using the fall of the Wolf as an example for Wolves falling to Chaos is a poor example to choose; Going renegade does not automatically mean "Going to Chaos", per se. Sure, the rules of the Chaos book dictate that, but fluffwise, a Renegade chapter is no more inherently Chaos-worshipping than an alternative detachment of Tau or Kroot (or pretty much any "non-standard" army, for that matter.)

 

Oh, I know, I was just questioning why people thought there was any discrepencies.

 

Personally, I see that the Wolf crew turning to Renegade status as far more likely than "OMG CHAOS LULZ!" as stated by the other folk earlier in the topic.

 

I would point out that Huron was not exactly your standard Chaos Lord. He described as being extremely charismatic and convincing.

[Decoy]

Simple, it's in GW's usual dry style. There is no bombastic boasts by a Chaos Marine, nor any statement of opinions a a survivor. In all it's quite dry and factual.

Granted, it's in a fairly dry, direct style (had to whip out my Chaos dex to take a look) but a lack of style does not prove omniscience. Simply put, we don't know the nature of the origin of the reading in question. It could be a straight, factual account (possible) but it could also be a fairly neutral action report by a renegade sergeant or some such (in my mind, equally possible, as Renegades are essentially Marines, minus Emperor-worship.)

 

I actually viewed the statement in the Wolf Codex as omniscient too. It's just that the full account would have been cut for brevity. Look at Svengar the Red. It details events after the Fang lost contact with them. In universe, based on both the Chaos and Wolf codices, I would say the Wolves don't know about their renegades.

 

But if the statement in the Wolf dex were omniscient, and the statement in the Chaos dex was omniscient, then there is a clear discrepancy between fact and fiction, or at least there is a middle ground between the two of them.

 

Oh, I know, I was just questioning why people thought there was any discrepencies.

 

Because there very well could be, put simply. Is it likely? Probably not, but when defending the honor of one's army, people tend to look for or scrape the bottom of the barrel for any possible "out", so to speak.

 

I would point out that Huron was not exactly your standard Chaos Lord. He described as being extremely charismatic and convincing.

 

Granted. However, that doesn't mean that those who join him are -inherently- Chaos-based. Sure, he's a Chaos lord, and he's convincing and charismatic. Horus, too, was convincing and charismatic, and even when he was a Chaos power, he still "served" the Emperor and the Imperium. This just goes to show that while he may be convincing to those who join him, they might not be under Chaos influence, but instead simply following (as much as I hate to say it) an "Alpha"-style leader.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Again, no not really. We saw only three sentences of the story and every part of it matched up tpo the Chaos version. Including the commander's name and method of death.

 

But not the crucial point of the oath-breakers and that is the only thing in dispute between us I think.

 

Except both were also sun as victories. Magnus was drived off and is vengance was denied by Bjorn. Ranulf was honored by the orks.

 

Also, if you are going to use Black Library sources I will point out the references in Skull Harvest and Chapter's Due about renegade Wolves under Huron's employ.

 

Really, I must read those then as they be the missing link in this tale.

 

Doubtful, as I said before the account is from a neutral third person perspective. Not a first hand account of the storming.

 

I was talking about what the Wolves know, not what this omnipresent narrator knew.

 

I can see the obvious link between an 'omnipotent' narrator and 'canon' :woot: , but if we take a deliberative approach then data must have a source and, in this case, that source must have been a renegade. Otherwise, if we accept the existence of an omnipotent observer if must apply equally to all evidence - so why are the account in C:SW and C:CSW different? Your logic does not stand-up here perhaps.

 

Again, no not really, the Wolves don't have the benefit of a omnipresent third person view as we do.

 

Why would they? They are pirates a half galaxy away from Fenris. Huron is more focused on raiding and plunder than an outright war with the Wolves.

 

Not really when it comes from a third person omnipresent narrator. You seem to confuse the knowledge of what the Wolves would have with what we have.

 

That is because we are taking entirely different perspectives.

 

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that you view yourself as a third party looking in on a story with access to privileged information denied to the characters in that story.

 

I treat them as sources and, therefore, apply the critical method. There can be no omnipresent view, only observed events, the portrayal of which is influenced by the narrator. In this case, given that there were no loyalist survivors and that it is in C:CSW, that narrator must be a renegade.

 

Taking the first view, denies the ability to apply scientific scrutiny to the subject as it allows one to skip over the requirement to prove a point beyond reasonable doubt. It is all fine and good, but is a weak position as a basis for deductive reasoning or determining what is and what is not canon.

 

The second requires a more rigourous approach - with all the restrictions that brings. From my stand point, based on the data as I have it now (and not having read the two book you cite), there is reasonable doubt concerning members of the crew of the Wolf of Fenris breaking their oaths. It cannot, therefore, be canon.

 

I know that novels aren't treated as canon, but the background they provide might prove useful here.

[Gree]

Simple, it's in GW's usual dry style. There is no bombastic boasts by a Chaos Marine, nor any statement of opinions a a survivor. In all it's quite dry and factual.

Granted, it's in a fairly dry, direct style (had to whip out my Chaos dex to take a look) but a lack of style does not prove omniscience. Simply put, we don't know the nature of the origin of the reading in question. It could be a straight, factual account (possible) but it could also be a fairly neutral action report by a renegade sergeant or some such (in my mind, equally possible, as Renegades are essentially Marines, minus Emperor-worship.)

 

You don't get fairly neutral action reports very much in 40k. In any case there is no introduction or report from the sergeant and if it was so it also begs the question why the Sergeant would make up Space Wolves defecting to Huron?

 

Not to mention the story repeatedly refers to Huron and ''his'' the whole story gives off a feel that someone is describing the Red Corsaris, but not actually their. Their is no ''we'' or ''our'' present.

 

But if the statement in the Wolf dex were omniscient, and the statement in the Chaos dex was omniscient, then there is a clear discrepancy between fact and fiction, or at least there is a middle ground between the two of them.

 

I don't really see how. If they are both mniscient then they match up fine then.

 

Because there very well could be, put simply. Is it likely? Probably not, but when defending the honor of one's army, people tend to look for or scrape the bottom of the barrel for any possible "out", so to speak.

 

I could understand that to an extent. But GW seems to actually be pushing this. I recall a White Dwarf staffer having renegade Wolves in his Red Corsairs army for a Tale of Four Gamers tourney, and at least two Black Library publications reference it.

 

Granted. However, that doesn't mean that those who join him are -inherently- Chaos-based. Sure, he's a Chaos lord, and he's convincing and charismatic. Horus, too, was convincing and charismatic, and even when he was a Chaos power, he still "served" the Emperor and the Imperium. This just goes to show that while he may be convincing to those who join him, they might not be under Chaos influence, but instead simply following (as much as I hate to say it) an "Alpha"-style leader.

 

Sure, that's my view on what happened on the Wolf of Fenris.

 

Or if you want to, Huron's familar is stated to be a mind-reader in Skull Harvest. He could have used that daemon to read the Wolves minds and find out which would be the ''weak link'' so to speak and appeal to their inner pride and vainity or exploit rivalries (Like Ragnar and Strybjorn early on)

 

But not the crucial point of the oath-breakers and that is the only thing in dispute between us I think.

 

Not really, I don't see how it proves it wrong at all.

 

I can see the obvious link between an 'omnipotent' narrator and 'canon' :woot: , but if we take a deliberative approach then data must have a source and, in this case, that source must have been a renegade.

 

Who says it had to be? We have had multiple events before in which we where treated to information in Codices of which the participants would not have possibly known about. Not to mention the whole Wolf of Fenris account never uses ''us'' or ''we'' and reads like Gav Thorpe describing it.

 

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that you view yourself as a third party looking in on a story with access to privileged information denied to the characters in that story.

 

Correct, given the context of the story itself. Given 40k's past publications, it's not unheard of.

 

Taking the first view, denies the ability to apply scientific scrutiny to the subject as it allows one to skip over the requirement to prove a point beyond reasonable doubt. It is all fine and good, but is a weak position as a basis for deductive reasoning or determining what is and what is not canon.

 

Not really, this is 40k, the background is changing often. Not to mention we have things described as points in which they are clearly the work of a omnipresent narrator. (For example the closing to Nightbringer)

 

The second requires a more rigourous approach - with all the restrictions that brings. From my stand point, based on the data as I have it now (and not having read the two book you cite), there is reasonable doubt concerning members of the crew of the Wolf of Fenris breaking their oaths. It cannot, therefore, be canon.

 

And you are entitled to that. I am entitled to however point out any flaws I see.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Agreed, and there are lots of contradictions and flaws in the 40K fluff.

 

I think that we can agree that it is designed that way just to give space for us to run with our own ideas.

[Decoy]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, but I want to bring attention to this.

 

Sure, that's my view on what happened on the Wolf of Fenris.

 

Or if you want to, Huron's familar is stated to be a mind-reader in Skull Harvest. He could have used that daemon to read the Wolves minds and find out which would be the ''weak link'' so to speak and appeal to their inner pride and vainity or exploit rivalries (Like Ragnar and Strybjorn early on)

 

What I'm thinking is that there was either a CATASTROPHIC failure to communicate on the part of the Wolves (Not entirely impossible) which led to disorder and panic. Try this on as a theory.

 

During the fight for the Wolf, SOMEONE in the squad squeezed off a shot(s) in an attempt to bring down the Chaos folk. The shot went wild (or ricocheted) and laid low one of his squadmates. The Wolf in question, likely shorter-in-the-fang than most, proceeded to register his error and lament the loss of his packmate, as well as fear the reprisal from his commanders. However, seeing as he had a few Wolves under his own command, they follow suit on his mistake, beginning to gun down their fellow Wolves until they are the only ones left.

 

Standing firm on the deck of the bridge, these "traitor" wolves are faced with a choice. Continue fighting after their grievous mistake, or join Huron and live. If they were shorter in the tooth than their erstwhile comrades, I can see how they would join up with Huron in a heartbeat.

 

This does not stand firm for older members of a squad, however, as I cannot see Grey Hunters (or Long Fangs) making that particular mistake.

[Gree]

What I'm thinking is that there was either a CATASTROPHIC failure to communicate on the part of the Wolves (Not entirely impossible) which led to disorder and panic. Try this on as a theory.

 

During the fight for the Wolf, SOMEONE in the squad squeezed off a shot(s) in an attempt to bring down the Chaos folk. The shot went wild (or ricocheted) and laid low one of his squadmates. The Wolf in question, likely shorter-in-the-fang than most, proceeded to register his error and lament the loss of his packmate, as well as fear the reprisal from his commanders. However, seeing as he had a few Wolves under his own command, they follow suit on his mistake, beginning to gun down their fellow Wolves until they are the only ones left.

 

Standing firm on the deck of the bridge, these "traitor" wolves are faced with a choice. Continue fighting after their grievous mistake, or join Huron and live. If they were shorter in the tooth than their erstwhile comrades, I can see how they would join up with Huron in a heartbeat.

 

This does not stand firm for older members of a squad, however, as I cannot see Grey Hunters (or Long Fangs) making that particular mistake.

 

Possibly. We don't know if the Wolves on the ship were Blood Claws or not. If they were I can see Huron's own charisma and mind-reading skills able to convince them that he was a better choice, especially since they were so far away from the rest of the Great Company and Chapter. Especially considering the Wolf Priest was located away in the port section when this all happened. If he had been their it might have been different.

[Decoy]

Agreed, Gree. I'm willing to think that if they were Blood Claws (fairly likely, in my mind) they'd be headstrong enough to want to live instead of dying for any particular cause. If the Priest were there, they would not have turned, more than likely.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, but I want to bring attention to this.

 

Sure, that's my view on what happened on the Wolf of Fenris.

 

Or if you want to, Huron's familar is stated to be a mind-reader in Skull Harvest. He could have used that daemon to read the Wolves minds and find out which would be the ''weak link'' so to speak and appeal to their inner pride and vainity or exploit rivalries (Like Ragnar and Strybjorn early on)

 

What I'm thinking is that there was either a CATASTROPHIC failure to communicate on the part of the Wolves (Not entirely impossible) which led to disorder and panic. Try this on as a theory.

 

During the fight for the Wolf, SOMEONE in the squad squeezed off a shot(s) in an attempt to bring down the Chaos folk. The shot went wild (or ricocheted) and laid low one of his squadmates. The Wolf in question, likely shorter-in-the-fang than most, proceeded to register his error and lament the loss of his packmate, as well as fear the reprisal from his commanders. However, seeing as he had a few Wolves under his own command, they follow suit on his mistake, beginning to gun down their fellow Wolves until they are the only ones left.

 

Standing firm on the deck of the bridge, these "traitor" wolves are faced with a choice. Continue fighting after their grievous mistake, or join Huron and live. If they were shorter in the tooth than their erstwhile comrades, I can see how they would join up with Huron in a heartbeat.

 

This does not stand firm for older members of a squad, however, as I cannot see Grey Hunters (or Long Fangs) making that particular mistake.

Decoy you are a sneaky devious bastige..That is without a doubt the best explanation to date I have heard of why it could have happened. And with Huron being a charismatic individual,he might very well have been on hand to nudge the Blood Claw further along the path.

[Quillen]

Once again you miss the whole point.

 

Wolves would not accedentally shoot someone and say yeah and shoot more.

 

Wolves are loyal. It would take a ton of time for one to fall from grace.

 

The fluff is flawed. Anyone reading it says the same thing, no way. So obviously it's traitor prapagada to try and make the good guys look bad.

 

Basicly I think it's someone at GW who did not like Space Wolves so wrote some really bad fluff. I mean bad. And put it in a book cause they can.

 

I know Chaos players love the models for Space Wolves. They are beautiful. Still Turning to chaos is not a wolf thing.

 

That said asking Wolves why we would turn to chaos is obviously a troll move. You must be looking for a fight. So why not lock this thread with the same stuff over and over meaning nothing.

[Wispy]

I agree. The story reads like some dude was like, "Man, I hate Space Wolves. I'm going to write this story about them giving up and going to chaos because, honestly, ;) them."