Alpha Legion

[Larkyn]

Legatus, did you even read Legion? If not, go read it, if so, I stand by the fact that Alpharius Omegon is still alive.

[Yogi]

I liked alpha legion before "legion" more. When they just cared about strength/challenge and wanted to show their superiority to their older brothers.

[Azarias]

The way I figure it, Legion was simply another step in Alpha Legion brainwashing a la that one once-loyalist chapter whose name escapes me. Look how many switched to supporting the Alpha Legion after reading it!

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I liked alpha legion before "legion" more. When they just cared about strength/challenge and wanted to show their superiority to their older brothers.

 

Inasmuch as I've been a fan of the Alphas since I got into the game -- they were my first army with the old 3.5 'dex -- that part of the fluff ironically did not sit well with me. It didn't make sense to me that the reason the Alphas turned was what amounts to a Napolean Complex. The newer HH-derived fluff makes a lot more sense. Even if one discounts the visions shown by the Cabal, there's still the knowledge that a rebellion was beginning and considering their tactical proclivities, it only makes sense that the Alphas are going to go "under cover" within the Traitor forces to keep an eye on things from the inside.

[Excessus]

wow, more Al activity than I knew on these boards!

 

Hi aegis, hehe

[Nemisor]

wow, more Al activity than I knew on these boards!

 

Hi aegis, hehe

 

 

Hydra Dominatus!!! ;)

[Legatus]

Legatus, did you even read Legion?

No, I did not read Legion. I know of the massive retcons it brought about, though. But as I said, when the Index Astartes for the Alpha Legion had been written, there were no two Primarchs and Alpharius did not have legionnaires pose as him. When the author of the Index Astartes Alpha Legion wrote "ALpharius was killed", then he meant that Alpharius was killed. That doesn't mean that GW/BL cannot at some point retcon the Index Astartes article (major parts of it are invalid now anyways, such as Guilliman proposing his "Codex" to Alpharius. The new fluff states that Guilliman had only started to write it during the Heresy.) But for now the Index Astartes article is not directly disputed by a HH novel, AFAIK.

So for now the only chance for Alpharius to be still alive is if that entire battle account is a fraud. If that account is legit and the battle happened, then Alpharius is dead. Unless he is retconned back to life.

[Blood Angel Scout]

There is another story in H and B 10 involving an inquisitior's persuit of Alpha Legion, would say more other than there is a potential insight to one their method's of infiltrating but unsure how to do spoilers

[Cleanse And Purify]

Legatus, did you even read Legion?

No, I did not read Legion. I know of the massive retcons it brought about, though. But as I said, when the Index Astartes for the Alpha Legion had been written, there were no two Primarchs and Alpharius did not have legionnaires pose as him. When the author of the Index Astartes Alpha Legion wrote "ALpharius was killed", then he meant that Alpharius was killed. That doesn't mean that GW/BL cannot at some point retcon the Index Astartes article (major parts of it are invalid now anyways, such as Guilliman proposing his "Codex" to Alpharius. The new fluff states that Guilliman had only started to write it during the Heresy.) But for now the Index Astartes article is not directly disputed by a HH novel, AFAIK.

So for now the only chance for Alpharius to be still alive is if that entire battle account is a fraud. If that account is legit and the battle happened, then Alpharius is dead. Unless he is retconned back to life.

 

It is heavily implied within the Index article itself that the account was a fraud. I believe the information from Legion just makes that implication all the more likely, or if not wholly a fraud than at least partially so due to the whole Alpharius and Omegon deal, as well as certain Astartes posing as Alpharius.

[Larkyn]

No, I did not read Legion.

 

Congratulations. You waltz into this thread, about the Alpha Legion, without having read the quintessential Alpha Legion book, spout heresy at us (Alpharius is dead), then back-up your statements with info from an out-dated IA article. I now pronounce you Trollpharius. :lol:

Granted, that article isn't completely retconned, it fact, it's proven to be moderately accurate (the first batch of Alpha Legion doods were exceptionally tall, ala Sheed Ranko).

If Girlyman did indeed kill "Alpharius", it's possible that Omegon is still alive, or maybe Rowboat killed Omegon, which would make Alpharius still alive, or maybe he killed Ranko, which means that Alpharius Omegon is still alive, or maybe he killed another Son of Alpharius (for the record, the Marine from the Vraks trilogy is a first generation Alpha).

 

In other words, since it's Alpha Legion, we'll likely never know.

 

Hydra Dominatus!

[Nemisor]

while i wont get as miffed as some at you Legatus for not reading legion (even though that is a form of abnett heresy in itself :wacko: ) i would definitly recomend reading legion. you may know about the main good bits in it but if you read it you might pick up a few more bits you didnt know.

 

if nothing else i'd recomend it as a really good read.

[Legatus]

Congratulations. You waltz into this thread, about the Alpha Legion, without having read the quintessential Alpha Legion book, spout heresy at us (Alpharius is dead), then back-up your statements with info from an out-dated IA article.

While I have not read "Legion", I have read the Index Astartes Alpha Legion quite thoroughly, and I only responded to correct another poster on some of its details. (Guilliman being the only source claiming that he had killed Alpharius, Guilliman not presenting physical evidence for some unknown reason.) All the shenanigans in "Legion" do not really adress the events described in the Index Astartes article, especially not if, as I have pointed out a few times, the Index Astartes author meant what he wrote at that time. When he wrote "Alpharius was killed in a duel with Guilliman", then he did so to establish the background that Alpharius was killed in a duel with Guilliman. It is possible that the account in question is false, but I see far too many people gladly accepting that the battle occurred as described, but that it had not really been Alpharius who was killed in that duel. Only, the account does not really leave any doubt that it was, and the concept of multiple Alpharius imposters did not exist at that time.

 

The next Horus Heresy novels could retcon Alpharius back to life. But then they could just as well retcon Guilliman back to life too.

[Trevak Dal]

The way I figure it, Legion was simply another step in Alpha Legion brainwashing a la that one once-loyalist chapter whose name escapes me. Look how many switched to supporting the Alpha Legion after reading it!

 

Yeah, it could be AL propaganda looking to draw in recruits...

[Yogi]

I liked alpha legion before "legion" more. When they just cared about strength/challenge and wanted to show their superiority to their older brothers.

 

Inasmuch as I've been a fan of the Alphas since I got into the game -- they were my first army with the old 3.5 'dex -- that part of the fluff ironically did not sit well with me. It didn't make sense to me that the reason the Alphas turned was what amounts to a Napolean Complex. The newer HH-derived fluff makes a lot more sense. Even if one discounts the visions shown by the Cabal, there's still the knowledge that a rebellion was beginning and considering their tactical proclivities, it only makes sense that the Alphas are going to go "under cover" within the Traitor forces to keep an eye on things from the inside.

 

 

I guess I have a napolean complex :o . To me that was a proper selfish reason to turn. It made them arrogant and I like that in a character.

 

The thing with the cabal that I dislike is if you thought the alphas were correct for heeding their prophecy, then you should acknowledge that the chaos gods have won. (very rarely do I see this posted especially by a loyalist player) I'm all for chaos, but the chaos gods haven't won to me. They got to survive the Emperor got to survive.. that's a stalemate. Which says the Alpha Legion is stupid for turning, or you can choose the "its misdirection by Alpharius", the even lamer grasping at straws answer. So they went from selfish to stupid and or mysterious....

 

IMO 2nd ed Alpha Legion is the best Alpha Legion. Less Spartacus, just as planned memes. More awesome scumbags.

[darth_giles]

While I have not read "Legion", I have read the Index Astartes Alpha Legion quite thoroughly, and I only responded to correct another poster on some of its details. (Guilliman being the only source claiming that he had killed Alpharius, Guilliman not presenting physical evidence for some unknown reason.) All the shenanigans in "Legion" do not really adress the events described in the Index Astartes article, especially not if, as I have pointed out a few times, the Index Astartes author meant what he wrote at that time. When he wrote "Alpharius was killed in a duel with Guilliman", then he did so to establish the background that Alpharius was killed in a duel with Guilliman. It is possible that the account in question is false, but I see far too many people gladly accepting that the battle occurred as described, but that it had not really been Alpharius who was killed in that duel. Only, the account does not really leave any doubt that it was, and the concept of multiple Alpharius imposters did not exist at that time.

 

The next Horus Heresy novels could retcon Alpharius back to life. But then they could just as well retcon Guilliman back to life too.

And that was a big oops on my part, because its been years since I read that particular IA and I could've sworn that Guilliman was the only source on Alpharius' death. Oops.

[Something Wycked]

Yogi, that was exactly my problem with it. While reading background info on the Alphas, I was like "This stuff is cool!" ... And then I thought about it for a bit, coming to the same conclusions you did, with one more added on top: wouldn't it have been better, more noble, to go down swinging for the right reasons instead of folding for the wrong reasons? It can be argued that hindsight is 20/20 but that belief of mine isn't limited to 40k lore :o

 

I don't know, maybe I'm just an incorruptible loyalist (even though if I ever get into Fantasy I will play Warriors of Chaos :jaw: )

[DuskRaider]

The thing with the cabal that I dislike is if you thought the alphas were correct for heeding their prophecy, then you should acknowledge that the chaos gods have won. (very rarely do I see this posted especially by a loyalist player) I'm all for chaos, but the chaos gods haven't won to me. They got to survive the Emperor got to survive.. that's a stalemate.

 

I wouldn't call it a stalemate at all. The Chaos Gods reduced what could be their greatest enemy into a mummified corpse on a giant life support machine, they completely halted all progress of his vast Empire, and now they're actually succeeding in tearing it down (13th Black Crusade).

 

As far as Gulliman killing Alpharius... well... even the Ultramarines are suspect of the story themselves, which doesn't say much for it's credibility. That and the fact that the author of the tale is also found to be an agent of the Alpha Legion. Faking his own death is a perfect alibi, it gives him the freedom to roam where he wishes. I always thought it would be an interesting twist to find out that Alpharius is indeed one of the High Lords of Terra.

[Cleanse And Purify]

Congratulations. You waltz into this thread, about the Alpha Legion, without having read the quintessential Alpha Legion book, spout heresy at us (Alpharius is dead), then back-up your statements with info from an out-dated IA article.

While I have not read "Legion", I have read the Index Astartes Alpha Legion quite thoroughly, and I only responded to correct another poster on some of its details. (Guilliman being the only source claiming that he had killed Alpharius, Guilliman not presenting physical evidence for some unknown reason.) All the shenanigans in "Legion" do not really adress the events described in the Index Astartes article, especially not if, as I have pointed out a few times, the Index Astartes author meant what he wrote at that time. When he wrote "Alpharius was killed in a duel with Guilliman", then he did so to establish the background that Alpharius was killed in a duel with Guilliman. It is possible that the account in question is false, but I see far too many people gladly accepting that the battle occurred as described, but that it had not really been Alpharius who was killed in that duel. Only, the account does not really leave any doubt that it was, and the concept of multiple Alpharius imposters did not exist at that time.

 

The next Horus Heresy novels could retcon Alpharius back to life. But then they could just as well retcon Guilliman back to life too.

 

Except the knowledge in Legion directly impacts the way one must perceive the Index Astartes article. In the article itself, the battle's very existence is called into question. With the knowledge gleaned from Legion, one can posit that even had the battle occurred, Alpharius did not die. Your assertion that since what we know now was not known at the time of the Index Astartes article seems stupid. Why can't the two ideas be integrated? It was never sure that Alpharius was killed, now it is even less so.

[Alkana]

IIRC, it's mentioned that the AL played dress up as Alpharius in their IA. I don't have it available at the moment, so I could be mistaken.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

IIRC, it's mentioned that the AL played dress up as Alpharius in their IA. I don't have it available at the moment, so I could be mistaken.

 

You are the mistaken, Alkana, much as it pains me to admit it. Those kind of Spartacus moments were introduced in Legion, not the IA. The closest thing to that in the IA is that Alpharius would up and ninja-vanish during operations to see how his troops would perform in his absense and without his leadership.

 

And while I respect you, Legatus, I do think your recalcitrance in this is a little bothersome. C&P made an excellent point about integrated the two ideas together (which is what I did in my mind a long time ago; and I never believed the story about Eskrador anyway, since it is so heavily implied that Inquisitor Kravin is himself an agent of the Hydra).

[Legatus]

I am not advocating that the account of the Battle on Eskrador is accurate. Quite the opposite, I think it has many flaws, and I would personally prefer if it was a fraud. What I am insisting in is that if the account is taken as accurate, then the specific issue of Alpharius' death is not in question at all. The "Alpharius" in the account is unstoppable by the Ultramarines untill Guilliman steps forward, Guilliman had met Alpharius before, and after the encounter the Ultramarines took the time to retrieve and then cremate the body of Alpharius. The Ultramarines had also caught Alpharius by surprise, and he had not expected them to strike at his position so early. Everything regarding that encounter and the duel is pretty air tight and very specific. Plus, as I have pointed out a few times, it was meant to establish exactly the events it described as background, and was not meant as a sneaky ploy by the Alpha Legion. That whole encounter was meant to demonstrate the Alpha Legion's ability to function in independent cells and not be reliant on a standard military hierarchy, which had been their schtick in the Index Astartes article. The Ultramarines took out their HQ, but that did not diminish their fighting effectiveness.

The reason why I am pointing this out is because I have seen people gladly accepting the battle as accurate, but then assume that the duel did not happen as described in that account. I am insisting that if the account is taken to be factual, then there cannot really be any doubt about the duel between Guilliman and Alpharius in particular. Because of the way it is described and because of the authors intent and the entire point of that event.

 

When Dan Abnett wrote "Legion", he pretty much ignored the background of the Alpha Legion (he has done pretty much the same with the Space Wolves in "Prospero Burns", which makes me a bit affraid of his work on "Know no Fear"), and made up his own background for them. Their theme and schtick is now completely different, not to mention their entire reason for turning traitor. However, when the author of the Alpha Legion Index Astartes wrote about Alpharius being killed, he had him killed for a specific purpose, and it was fully his intention to write about the death of Alpharius. That account was supposed to describe the fighting style of the Alpha Legion, and Alpharius' death was a part of that. The Index Astartes even made a point earlier when it described the Alpha Legion's combat doctrines that Alpharius would often disappear and leave his Legion alone, just to see how they would cope without direct command. The event of him being killed was supposed to be the ultimate testament to that doctrine. Guilliaman thought that by killing Alpharius he could quickly overwhelm the Alpha Legion, but it turned out that their capabilities were not diminished by that at all.

 

The Alpha Legion of the Index Astartes article basically had two "hydra" themes: The first was thet the Alpha Legion would usually employ multiple means of attack at the same time, using sabotage, artillery, teleport attacks, assault squads, armoured assaults, etc. all at the same time. The second was that the Alpha Legion had a "cell" structure and no centralised command, so tzhe enemy taking out what they assumed to be the HQ would not result in a reduced fighting capability of the Alpha Legion forces.

"Legion" changed that. Now their theme instead is being masters of secret intelligence. They know everything and are themselves completely unknowable. Eight foot, power armoured, grenade launcher and chainsaw armed secret intelligence masters.

[A D-B]

When Dan Abnett wrote "Legion", he pretty much ignored the background of the Alpha Legion (he has done pretty much the same with the Space Wolves in "Prospero Burns", which makes me a bit affraid of his work on "Know no Fear"), and made up his own background for them. Their theme and schtick is now completely different, not to mention their entire reason for turning traitor.

 

I wouldn't worry quite so much, dude. I know from getting the forum soundbites it'll seem like a massive divergence from lore, but there are plenty of places where it specifically matches the IA article.

 

To assume that the Alpha Legion turned traitor purely because of the Cabal (as some people do) is essentially going through a book that hammers on and on about hidden agendas and accepting the final, painfully simple suggestion. There's nothing to counter the original reason for them turning in the IA article, and there's even less evidence to suggest Alpharius actually believed the Cabal. The book makes great pains all the way through to show that the Alpha Legion's very ideology runs counter to the Imperium's ultimate ideals, and that they believe the pursuit of a Utopian ideal is futile. They're loyal, but they're hardly as into the whole Imperium idea as the other Legions are. From the beginning and right the way through, it also shows that the Alpha Legion (and Alpharius) never accept anything at face value, and always deal with things for their own reasons, rather than for whatever the established deal is. I never came out of the novel thinking the Alpha Legion believed the Cabal for a second. I still think they turned for their own reasons (and that's pretty clear in the book as the most likely result) - reasons that weren't revealed yet, that early in the Heresy. Ultimately, I still think they turned for the reasons listed in the IA article.

[darth_giles]

So, here's the ultimate question- do we actually pay attention to the Black Library, or should we just ignore it and how it mangles fluff? I'm inclined to do the latter.

[A D-B]

So, here's the ultimate question- do we actually pay attention to the Black Library, or should we just ignore it and how it mangles fluff? I'm inclined to do the latter.

 

You're free to do whatever you like. We all are. Of course, that'd mean ignoring a significant portion of the setting's background, but it's by no means mandatory. Some people don't like novels. Some people don't like Imperial Armour books, either. Or they prefer older codices. It's all good. (I totally take Codex: Imperialis over anything else, I admit. And that's ancient.)

 

Of course, it'd make no sense at all to ignore it if "fluff-mangling" was an accusation solely aimed at the Black Library. Is it? Or have the last 2 or 3 years of codices been universally well-received without any criticism whatsoever? Or are they accused of fluff-mangling, too? It's also strange to ignore the Black Library about the HH when it's the only part of GW updating the Horus Heresy, and it's also pretty pointless when you consider that BL is about 40 or so writers all with different perspectives and outlooks, so ignoring all of them based on hyperbole makes no sense at all.

 

Joking aside, Legion actually kept very close to the Alpha Legion's established background. There were a few new revelations, and some people jump to their own assumptions as ironclad truths, which make up the majority of the forum soundbites, but hyperbole is ever a rich and fast-running river on Ye Olde Internete.

[darth_giles]

You're free to do whatever you like. We all are. Of course, that'd mean ignoring a significant portion of the setting's background, but it's by no means mandatory. Some people don't like novels. Some people don't like Imperial Armour books, either. Or they prefer older codices. It's all good. (I totally take Codex: Imperialis over anything else, I admit. And that's ancient.)

Would that be back in the days of 2nd Edition when the SoB had a couple of preachers who were their special characters, and rules for the wonky metal shrine?

 

Although I agree; I tend to hark back to the 3.0 Chaos Codex for my color schemes. The 3.5-era colors somehow feel too dark for my tastes.

 

Of course, it'd make no sense at all to ignore it if "fluff-mangling" was an accusation solely aimed at the Black Library. Is it? Or have the last 2 or 3 years of codices been universally well-received without any criticism whatsoever? Or are they accused of fluff-mangling, too? It's also strange to ignore the Black Library about the HH when it's the only part of GW updating the Horus Heresy, and it's also pretty pointless when you consider that BL is about 40 or so writers all with different perspectives and outlooks, so ignoring all of them based on hyperbole makes no sense at all.

 

Joking aside, Legion actually kept very close to the Alpha Legion's established background. There were a few new revelations, and some people jump to their own assumptions as ironclad truths, which make up the majority of the forum soundbites, but hyperbole is ever a rich and fast-running river on Ye Olde Internete.

True, the last few runs of codices have been... odd. The main charge of fluff mangling comes from 3rd Edition when some of the mistakes in their novels were really bad. But now, I guess their fluff is more believable since everyone's has been chopped up and run thru a sausage grinder. Shiny Blood Angels, Alpha Legion masters of secret intelligence, Night Lords Thousand Sons, and all that.