Alpha Legion

[Cleanse And Purify]

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.

 

I'm glad you admit that you've never read Legion and yet feel free to say why it's wrong. Also, Abnett didn't ignore the Wolves' background for Prospero Burns. Have you not read that one either?

 

I'm also not certain how you know the author's intent regarding the Alpha Legion IA, unless you are yourself the author or know him personally.

 

Also, to the fella who made some faux-witty comment about BL mangling the fluff: do whatever you feel is necessary. I'm not quite sure how the authors themselves will react to you ignoring their repeated attempts to mangle YOUR beloved background. I suspect they will all get bored and write some Fantasy novels if that is the case. :)

[Coot83]

I'm glad you admit that you've never read Legion and yet feel free to say why it's wrong.

 

I find that to be the funniest part of this thread so far...sad to say I havn't read legion yet but I will after Blood Reaver.

 

Coot

[Nemisor]

When Dan Abnett wrote "Legion", he pretty much ignored the background of the Alpha Legion

 

see the way i have read it looks like he got some of the new ideas from the IA article. there is a part in it where it refers to how the alpha legion marines are "tall and powerfull like alpharius" and also look like him. which is probibly where he got the idea for the lookalikes.

[Legatus]

I'm glad you admit that you've never read Legion and yet feel free to say why it's wrong.

Well, my apologies. I had no idear that "Legion" specifically adresses the events of the Battle on Eskrador. ;)

 

 

Also, Abnett didn't ignore the Wolves' background for Prospero Burns.

SW Codex background: The Space Wolves are famous "people's heroes" all over the Imperium, they stick up for the little man, and Logan Grimnar is one of the most famous generals of the Imperium, able to raise the spirit of nearby Space Wolves or allies of any type alike.

 

PB Background: The Space Wolves are the wost there are, honest soldiers would not wish them upon their worst enemies and dread having to fight alongside them. They are so violent and unhinged, it is a wonder why the Emperor even allows the Space Wolves to exist.

 

That's not polar opposite at all...

 

 

I'm also not certain how you know the author's intent regarding the Alpha Legion IA

Why, that's because I read the Index Astartes article. I guess the author could have Alpharius killed at the beginning of the battle just based on a whim, or to make Guilliman look cool. Or, maybe that was to serve a certain narrative purpose, which had been foreshadowed earlier (Alpharius training his Alpha Legion to fight without a centralised command hierarchy) and was then acted out during the rest of the battle (the Alpha Legion fighting expertly without a centralised command heirarchy). Call it a hunch.

[Clewz]

I just knew this thread was going to descend into this old argument

 

Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things but I'm pretty sure when I read the IA articles that the Alpha Legion one actually casts doubt on the death of Alpharius.

[Menkeroth]

Forget this, brothers. It was only a suggestion, but even if the Ultramarines doubt the battle on Eskrador was... So Alpharius is still alive, it's no doubt, i'm sure. Or perhaps Omegon, it doesn't matter.

[darth_giles]

SW Codex background: The Space Wolves are famous "people's heroes" all over the Imperium, they stick up for the little man, and Logan Grimnar is one of the most famous generals of the Imperium, able to raise the spirit of nearby Space Wolves or allies of any type alike.

 

PB Background: The Space Wolves are the wost there are, honest soldiers would not wish them upon their worst enemies and dread having to fight alongside them. They are so violent and unhinged, it is a wonder why the Emperor even allows the Space Wolves to exist.

Ok, I admit its been a while since I read the SW codex, but I do remember the Thousand Sons IA describing how they fell upon Prospero. There were two accounts, the 'more believable' of the two being that the Space Wolves fell on Prospero completely by surprise and slaughtered everybody. Leman Russ is also described as being in a frothing rage because Magnus dared use sorcery to communicate with the Emperor to warn him about the impending heresy.

 

Methinks the "peoples' hero" aspect is something that came later, possibly under Grimnar.

[Cleanse And Purify]

I'm glad you admit that you've never read Legion and yet feel free to say why it's wrong.

Well, my apologies. I had no idear that "Legion" specifically adresses the events of the Battle on Eskrador. :D

 

 

 

 

Oddly enough, I had no idea you were so full of <_< either. You stated that Legion alters the background of the Alpha Legion. You stated that you have never read it as well. You also state it has no bearing on our understanding of Eskander. How you would know what part of the background it changes (if it indeed changes anything) and if it does or does not relate to Eskander when you have never read a single page of the book makes me suspect you are in fact full of <_<.

 

Also, Abnett didn't ignore the Wolves' background for Prospero Burns.

SW Codex background: The Space Wolves are famous "people's heroes" all over the Imperium, they stick up for the little man, and Logan Grimnar is one of the most famous generals of the Imperium, able to raise the spirit of nearby Space Wolves or allies of any type alike.

 

PB Background: The Space Wolves are the wost there are, honest soldiers would not wish them upon their worst enemies and dread having to fight alongside them. They are so violent and unhinged, it is a wonder why the Emperor even allows the Space Wolves to exist.

 

That's not polar opposite at all...

 

Know what's funny about the Horus Heresy? It is 10,000 years before the current timeline. 10,000 years before the codex. 10,000 years before Logan Grimnar. Time enough for roles to change. Time enough for an institution such as the Wolves of Fenris to change. The Wolves in Prospero Burns aren't unrecognizable. They are clearly Space Wolves. However, they are clearly Space Wolves in the Heresy, not Space Wolves in 40k.

 

I'm also not certain how you know the author's intent regarding the Alpha Legion IA

Why, that's because I read the Index Astartes article. I guess the author could have Alpharius killed at the beginning of the battle just based on a whim, or to make Guilliman look cool. Or, maybe that was to serve a certain narrative purpose, which had been foreshadowed earlier (Alpharius training his Alpha Legion to fight without a centralised command hierarchy) and was then acted out during the rest of the battle (the Alpha Legion fighting expertly without a centralised command heirarchy). Call it a hunch.

 

Or, the battle was a con, meant to spread misinformation about the Alpha Legion while simultaneously making Gulliman look like a chump. Call it a hunch, chief.

[Yogi]

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.

 

It seems like I am wrong all the time these days.. But I have a question. If the Cabal is NOT the reason for the AL realignment of loyalties, why does said realignment occur immediately after the vision. Is it just meant to be a coincidence? Also what purpose does it serve to then give us absolutely no hint as to why they switch sides? I never got the feeling we would get many books on the AL, I suspect it will be another 10 years before I find out why they did what they did, Or maybe never?. :P

[A D-B]

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.

 

It seems like I am wrong all the time these days.. But I have a question. If the Cabal is NOT the reason for the AL realignment of loyalties, why does said realignment occur immediately after the vision. Is it just meant to be a coincidence? Also what purpose does it serve to then give us absolutely no hint as to why they switch sides? I never got the feeling we would get many books on the AL, I suspect it will be another 10 years before I find out why they did what they did, Or maybe never?. :(

 

Well, at this point (or, indeed, at any point ever) I'm not sure there's any way to be right, so really, you're just wrong with the rest of us. As far as I understand it, the "point" of the Alpha Legion - as in, their principal theme - is that the mystery is what's interesting. The way to deal with them in fiction and any published material is point out a bajillion possibilities and have them all available to players and fans.

 

Legion is a subtle book, and its key points and nuances suffer hugely when debated in the sense of "This happened", like we often do on forums. It was written with the aim of - like most Alpha Legion things outside the DoW games - to imply and offer possibility more than it outright claimed anything was true. And it did it very well, but fans devour the Heresy novels very, very literally sometimes, often in the desire for more information over anything else.

 

Where this is concerned, I know what you mean, Yogi. It looks, on the surface, like Alpharius and co. turn because of the Cabal's vision. It's supposed to look like that. But when you add it with their attitudes throuought the book, and the way they've acted the whole time, and the fact we know from older lore than they turned for X instead of Y, and the fact that it's just the beginning of the Heresy... it's all about framing stuff in context, rather than just saying "Oh, that happened, that's the truth." It could be that they turned because they believed the Cabal's vision. It could be because of that, and Alpharius was wanting to defect from the Imperial ideal anyway, as had been suggested earlier. It could've been because of both of those reasons, as well as the original IA article one to be shown in time. It could've been all three of those reasons, plus stuff we've still not seen yet.

 

Ultimately, it'll come down to how it's presented, and largely in terms of which author is presenting it. Personally, I maintain that turning because they believed the Cabal is the weakest narrative reasoning, and the most unrealistic, especially when framed by how the Alpha Legion operates and acts all the way through the book. Alpharius has no reason to believe them, no reason to trust them, and spends the entire novel taking no outside information as being worthwhile at all. I don't see why he'd suddenly start then. Maybe he did? Maybe that's part of it? Maybe it tied directly in to his doubts about the Imperium's Uptopian ideal. That works, but it still seems flimsy, and the mystery is what matters - that's what should be preserved.

 

And it was preserved pretty well. There was even stuff added to it. It's just that it's easy to see things very literally, especially in a fandom often so starved of information.

 

tl;dr -- You're not wrong. We're all wrong. Or we're all right. I guess that's the point.

[Yogi]

*ADB drops the thoughthammer*

 

Well, hmm. I think, well I don't know what to think. I guess that's the point. My brain still grasps on to the fact that the betrayal occurs immediately after the vision, which to me says it had some influence.. Yes irritatingly mysterious. I think I will have to go reread Legion. I will stop viewing it so black and white.

 

Just how other people in this thread view Eskardor in black and white rather then grey.

[Excessus]

Well Yogi, after the reveal they had some info about the fact that Horus was going to start his rebellion. The attack on the regular forces might just have been a way of getting to be alone to ponder about what to do when that happened. And the leader of the regular troops was pretty keen on keeping tabs on the AL after all, and didn't trust them very much...(for example, in the beginning of the book he states something that he'd rather have an older more experienced legion help instead of AL)

[Yogi]

@excessus That seems like a rather drastic way to get some thinking time. Legion is the only book I have read where the Imperial Army had any clout, So not is it IMO not a big deal to abandon their campaign. I imagine the Alpha Legion are rather practiced at disappearing also.. But I admit its been a while since I read that book.

[Legatus]

Oddly enough, I had no idea you were so full of ;) either. You stated that Legion alters the background of the Alpha Legion. You stated that you have never read it as well. You also state it has no bearing on our understanding of Eskander. How you would know what part of the background it changes (if it indeed changes anything) and if it does or does not relate to Eskander when you have never read a single page of the book makes me suspect you are in fact full of :cuss.

Talk like that will only get this thread locked down, so you may want to refrain from that. Perhaps adress the arguments instead? FYI, so far I had heard that "Legion" changed the entire motivation for the Alpha Legion to turn traitor, having them act upon the advice of a xeno councel, though what the Alpha Legion's ultimate decision was had not been revealed. I had also heard that there now were two Primarchs, of course, who took turns to act as the "one" Primarch. I had also heard that they sometimes had one of their Legionnaires pose as the "Primarch". However, I was under the assumption that "Legion" was adressing events during the Great Crusade, and did not adress anything during the Scouring, specifically not the Battle on Eskrador. So when the Battle on Eskrador describes how Alpharius was surprised by Guilliman's initial strike (a thing proponents of the account usually are citing with glee, pointing out how Guilliman even had to go against his own methods to stand a chance), how "Alpharius" was then unstoppable by regular Ultramarines, and only Guilliman could stop him, how the Ultramarines then took the time to retrieve and burn the body, considering that Guilliman had previously met Alpharius (which is confirmed in "Legion" IIRC, where Alpharius remarks that Guilliman despises him) and has had lenghty and heated debates with him, and that the entire point of that ordeal was to demonstrate how the Alpha Legion was able to fight on even without the leadership of their Primarch, then that leaves no room at all for any switcharoo tricks being retroactively introduced by a novel explaining that "sometimes Alpharius would have others pose as him".

 

- Guilliman knew the real Alpharius personally

 

- "Alpharius" was surprised by the Ultramarines attack, and had not anticipated it

 

- no other Ultramarine, only Guilliman was able to stand against "Alpharius"

 

- the Ultramarines retrieved the body of "Alpharius"

 

- the point of the story was to show how the Alpha Legion was able to fight without their Primarch, just how Alpharius had trained them

 

Not really a lot of wiggle room there. Especially the last point is crucial, but it is really a number of points that make it near impossible to explain retroactively that it had not really been Alpharius, even if the author might have originally meant it that way.

 

 

Know what's funny about the Horus Heresy? It is 10,000 years before the current timeline. 10,000 years before the codex. 10,000 years before Logan Grimnar. Time enough for roles to change. Time enough for an institution such as the Wolves of Fenris to change. The Wolves in Prospero Burns aren't unrecognizable. They are clearly Space Wolves. However, they are clearly Space Wolves in the Heresy, not Space Wolves in 40k.

I kinda thought that it would be a given that the original Legion and the First Founding Chapter of the same name and heraldry would have the same character.

 

 

Or, the battle was a con, meant to spread misinformation about the Alpha Legion while simultaneously making Gulliman look like a chump. Call it a hunch, chief.

I have only poined that possibility out in every one of my posts. It would be ironic if you hadn't thoroughly read my argument after giving me all this talk about not having read "Legion", wouldn't it? ;)

[Nemisor]

speaking as somone who spends far too much time disscusing the alpha legion and all the subtlety that comes with them over at the serpents lair i can honestly say that the vast majority of us dont buy into the vision of the cabal being the reason behind the change of sides.

 

alot of us look at legion and try to read between the lines. remember that under legion it also reads "secrets and lies".

 

and the great thing about the alpha legion is that there are so many ways you can interpret why they sided with horus that your own force can be as different from the next AL player as the players are themselves. thats a win in my book

[Arkangilos]

Oddly enough, I had no idea you were so full of :cuss either. You stated that Legion alters the background of the Alpha Legion. You stated that you have never read it as well. You also state it has no bearing on our understanding of Eskander. How you would know what part of the background it changes (if it indeed changes anything) and if it does or does not relate to Eskander when you have never read a single page of the book makes me suspect you are in fact full of :cuss.

Talk like that will only get this thread locked down, so you may want to refrain from that. Perhaps adress the arguments instead? FYI, so far I had heard that "Legion" changed the entire motivation for the Alpha Legion to turn traitor, having them act upon the advice of a xeno councel, though what the Alpha Legion's ultimate decision was had not been revealed. I had also heard that there now were two Primarchs, of course, who took turns to act as the "one" Primarch. I had also heard that they sometimes had one of their Legionnaires pose as the "Primarch". However, I was under the assumption that "Legion" was adressing events during the Great Crusade, and did not adress anything during the Scouring, specifically not the Battle on Eskrador. So when the Battle on Eskrador describes how Alpharius was surprised by Guilliman's initial strike (a thing proponents of the account usually are citing with glee, pointing out how Guilliman even had to go against his own methods to stand a chance), how "Alpharius" was then unstoppable by regular Ultramarines, and only Guilliman could stop him, how the Ultramarines then took the time to retrieve and burn the body, considering that Guilliman had previously met Alpharius (which is confirmed in "Legion" IIRC, where Alpharius remarks that Guilliman despises him) and has had lenghty and heated debates with him, and that the entire point of that ordeal was to demonstrate how the Alpha Legion was able to fight on even without the leadership of their Primarch, then that leaves no room at all for any switcharoo tricks being retroactively introduced by a novel explaining that "sometimes Alpharius would have others pose as him".

 

- Guilliman knew the real Alpharius personally

 

- "Alpharius" was surprised by the Ultramarines attack, and had not anticipated it

 

- no other Ultramarine, only Guilliman was able to stand against "Alpharius"

 

- the Ultramarines retrieved the body of "Alpharius"

 

- the point of the story was to show how the Alpha Legion was able to fight without their Primarch, just how Alpharius had trained them

 

Not really a lot of wiggle room there. Especially the last point is crucial, but it is really a number of points that make it near impossible to explain retroactively that it had not really been Alpharius, even if the author might have originally meant it that way.

 

 

Know what's funny about the Horus Heresy? It is 10,000 years before the current timeline. 10,000 years before the codex. 10,000 years before Logan Grimnar. Time enough for roles to change. Time enough for an institution such as the Wolves of Fenris to change. The Wolves in Prospero Burns aren't unrecognizable. They are clearly Space Wolves. However, they are clearly Space Wolves in the Heresy, not Space Wolves in 40k.

I kinda thought that it would be a given that the original Legion and the First Founding Chapter of teh same name and heraldry would have the same character.

 

 

Or, the battle was a con, meant to spread misinformation about the Alpha Legion while simultaneously making Gulliman look like a chump. Call it a hunch, chief.

I have only poined that possibility out in every one of my posts. It would be ironic if you hadn't thoroughly read my argument after giving me all this talk about not having read "Legion", wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

 

I am with you on this that the IA and Novel were not at the same time, and do not tie in together :P

 

There is nothing saying that both the Novel and the IA are right. That is the thing about the Alpha legion.

 

 

As for the Space Wolves thing. They were probably really ticked off, so they would be more savage. Also, I can see their character changing after all of this too. I mean, the Blood Angels character changed after the Heresy (for obvious reasons), so it is plausable that the Space Wolves could change, both after the Heresy and after their Primarch left them.

Maybe they felt the events as a blemish on their honor, so now they have to do even more to make it up. But I do know there are parts of the Imperium that do not like them, and think that they are rather savage :P

 

P.S.

I do like the idea that the Alpha Legion turned for the Emperor, but I don't accept that as total fact. I just like the idea that they did the wrong thing for the right idea, and maybe they are still good.

[Cleanse And Purify]

Oddly enough, I had no idea you were so full of :cuss either. You stated that Legion alters the background of the Alpha Legion. You stated that you have never read it as well. You also state it has no bearing on our understanding of Eskander. How you would know what part of the background it changes (if it indeed changes anything) and if it does or does not relate to Eskander when you have never read a single page of the book makes me suspect you are in fact full of :cuss.

Talk like that will only get this thread locked down, so you may want to refrain from that. Perhaps adress the arguments instead? FYI, so far I had heard that "Legion" changed the entire motivation for the Alpha Legion to turn traitor, having them act upon the advice of a xeno councel, though what the Alpha Legion's ultimate decision was had not been revealed. I had also heard that there now were two Primarchs, of course, who took turns to act as the "one" Primarch. I had also heard that they sometimes had one of their Legionnaires pose as the "Primarch". However, I was under the assumption that "Legion" was adressing events during the Great Crusade, and did not adress anything during the Scouring, specifically not the Battle on Eskrador. So when the Battle on Eskrador describes how Alpharius was surprised by Guilliman's initial strike (a thing proponents of the account usually are citing with glee, pointing out how Guilliman even had to go against his own methods to stand a chance), how "Alpharius" was then unstoppable by regular Ultramarines, and only Guilliman could stop him, how the Ultramarines then took the time to retrieve and burn the body, considering that Guilliman had previously met Alpharius (which is confirmed in "Legion" IIRC, where Alpharius remarks that Guilliman despises him) and has had lenghty and heated debates with him, and that the entire point of that ordeal was to demonstrate how the Alpha Legion was able to fight on even without the leadership of their Primarch, then that leaves no room at all for any switcharoo tricks being retroactively introduced by a novel explaining that "sometimes Alpharius would have others pose as him".

 

- Guilliman knew the real Alpharius personally

 

- "Alpharius" was surprised by the Ultramarines attack, and had not anticipated it

 

- no other Ultramarine, only Guilliman was able to stand against "Alpharius"

 

- the Ultramarines retrieved the body of "Alpharius"

 

- the point of the story was to show how the Alpha Legion was able to fight without their Primarch, just how Alpharius had trained them

 

Not really a lot of wiggle room there. Especially the last point is crucial, but it is really a number of points that make it near impossible to explain retroactively that it had not really been Alpharius, even if the author might have originally meant it that way.

 

 

Know what's funny about the Horus Heresy? It is 10,000 years before the current timeline. 10,000 years before the codex. 10,000 years before Logan Grimnar. Time enough for roles to change. Time enough for an institution such as the Wolves of Fenris to change. The Wolves in Prospero Burns aren't unrecognizable. They are clearly Space Wolves. However, they are clearly Space Wolves in the Heresy, not Space Wolves in 40k.

I kinda thought that it would be a given that the original Legion and the First Founding Chapter of teh same name and heraldry would have the same character.

 

 

Or, the battle was a con, meant to spread misinformation about the Alpha Legion while simultaneously making Gulliman look like a chump. Call it a hunch, chief.

I have only poined that possibility out in every one of my posts. It would be ironic if you hadn't thoroughly read my argument after giving me all this talk about not having read "Legion", wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

 

Okay, how about instead of full of :P you are merely intellectually dishonest? Does that hurt your virgin ears so much? I have addressed your arguments, you seem firmly set on ignoring the facts, fully admitting your own ignorance and other assorted bits of idiocy.

 

But please, how does the writing of Legion not at all impact the account of Eskander? Alpharius was known to use doubles. No other Ultramarines could stand against him? Maybe they were all idiots and the Legionnaire was simply a good fighter? They burned his body? Perhaps because they realized their mistake and did not want to damage their own morale with the admission that "Not only did we get boned by the Traitors, but we didn't even kill their Primarch!" This is not impossible to explain. It only seems that way to you because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

And yes, I know you said "but perhaps the battle is fake!". Good for you. You don't actually elaborate on that at all and instead spend the majority of your post doing the equivalent of "Lalalalala anything that isn't in the IA doesn't exist!"

[Xenith]

Sorry to jump in on this one, I was looking for a specific piece of AL fluff: The AL are fighting the UM in rocky gorges/chasms etc - the The AL paint their armour as UM, and display UM heraldr, making the battered UM think that they are getting reserves, when they get closer, the AL reveal their true colours and wipe out the AL - I was wondering if anyone could point me toward the original source for this?

 

Was this Eskrador? The internet doesnt seem to have details of the AL dressing as UM at this battle.

 

Many thanks,

[Menkeroth]

IIRC it was written in the IA article and yes, it was on Eskrador.

 

Yes, so it is.

[0420.] After five grim days of intermittent fighting we sighted the distinctive blue armour of our Ultramarines brethren advancing down a valley towards us. However, having approached into range our 'rescuers' opened fire. A contingent of the Alpha Legion scum had disguised its heraldry and armour in order to spring a trap. Are there no depths to which these heretics will not sink? The utter dishonour that our erstwhile brothers had shown left me stunned. More of the Alpha Legion appeared to our rear, initiating the biggest attack from our enemies so far. With mountains to either side, we had little option but to stand our ground and fight for our lives. Losses were heavy, and might have been total, if it were not for the timely arrival of the real rescuing force. The reinforcements were in little better shape than our own beleaguered strike force, but the extra numbers allowed us to force a way through and establish a more defendable front line [END ENTRY] IA article about AL

[Legatus]

Okay, how about instead of full of :) you are merely intellectually dishonest?

Perhaps not dishonest per se, but it is a bit unfair of me to bring a long list of arguments and points from an actual source to bear against an argument based on wishful thinking and conjecture. I should learn that this never is received well.

 

 

And yes, I know you said "but perhaps the battle is fake!". Good for you. You don't actually elaborate on that at all and instead spend the majority of your post doing the equivalent of "Lalalalala anything that isn't in the IA doesn't exist!"

Here is an excerpt from my first reply:

 

"Guilliman didn't mention a fight against Alpharius. The only known account is an alleged found report by an Ultramarine who participated in the battle for eskrador. In that account, it is described how Alpharius cut his way through several Ultramarines before facing off against Guilliman. After Alpharius was killed, the Ultramarines routed the rest of the Alpha Legion force in that location and afterwards took the time to construct a pyre and burned Alpharius' body.

There has been doubt from different sources as to the accuracy of that account of the Battle on Eskrador, even from representatives of the Ultramarines. So it is in question whether that entire battle happened at all. (...)

If the account is accurate, and the Battle for Eskrador happened, then Alpharius is dead. But maybe that battle did not happen, or at least not as described in that account. I myself am rooting for the latter possibility."

 

I was quite elaborate at pointing out that there is legitimate doubt as to the accuracy of that account, mentioning it several times, and even pointed out that I would prefer if it was a fraud. I think I made abundantly clear that all my arguments towards the death of Alpharius were based on the premise that the account is taken as accurate.

 

 

But please, how does the writing of Legion not at all impact the account of Eskander?

Mainly because at a time where the established background was that Alpharius was a regular Primarch, not a twin, an author wrote "Alpharius died". You need a specific retcon saying that this never happened for that to no longer be considered canonical. A statement such as "Alpharius sometimes used doubles" does not change a specific statement sayng "Alpharius died", especially if we know that the stated "Alpharius" was meant to refer to Alpharius, and not "someone who was believed to be Alpharius". I was pretty confident that the novel did not include any such specific retcon.

 

But then there are all those narrative clues preventing from it retroactively being turned into a double. It states that Alpharius did not expect that sudden attack from Guilliman, so it is unlikely that he would have had set up a double at that position. No Ultramarine could stand against that "Alpharius", and sorry, an explanation such as "maybe the Ultramarines were all incompetent fighters" is not very convincing. The Ultramarines retrieved the body, and Guilliman knew Alpharius personally, so they could likely confirm that it was his Primarch brother they got. And then there is that very important point that it was pretty much the narrative intent to have Alpharius die and the Alpha Legion fight on without him, to prove the worth of his doctrines. This is like saying "maybe Curze is not really dead and had put a chaos decoy on his throne when teh Assassin came to kill him". That would remove the entire point of his death in the background. Alpharius wasn't killed in the Index Astartes Alpha Legion to make him look wimpy or to make Guilliman look good. He was killed at the beginning of the battle so that in the following battle the worth of his doctrines could be demonstrated. That goal was set up earlier in the Index Astartes where Alpharius' teachings for his Legion are described, where he sometimes would leave them alone to see how they would perform.

 

It is allways possible that Black Library will eventually retcon the death of Alpharius (or to conclusively explain that the battle actually did not occur as it is described in that Index Astartes article), but so far we do not have such a retcon. So far the only argument put forward is "he was a really sneaky fellow, so maybe when we were specifically told that he died, he really didn't".

[Alkana]

So Alpharius is still alive, it's no doubt, i'm sure. Or perhaps Omegon, it doesn't matter.

 

This^. While it would be cool to have the Primarch around scheming, it doesn't really matter if Alpharius is alive or not. The Legion survives. When the head was removed, the hydra simply grew a few more, each, perhaps, with a different agenda.

 

In regards to why they turned, I doubt it has anything at all to do with helping the Cabal defeat Chaos. Throughout the book, the legionairres go on and on about the impossibility of a utopia and that it's better to manage and maintain mankind's flaws. It's hard to manage the flaws of something that doesn't exist. While their loyalty to the Emperor and his Imperium can be questioned, I doubt they'd willingly destroy their own species, especially for the benefit of xenos scum.

[Cleanse And Purify]

Okay, how about instead of full of :) you are merely intellectually dishonest?

Perhaps not dishonest per se, but it is a bit unfair of me to bring a long list of arguments and points from an actual source to bear against an argument based on wishful thinking and conjecture. I should learn that this never is received well.

 

 

And yes, I know you said "but perhaps the battle is fake!". Good for you. You don't actually elaborate on that at all and instead spend the majority of your post doing the equivalent of "Lalalalala anything that isn't in the IA doesn't exist!"

Here is an excerpt from my first reply:

 

"Guilliman didn't mention a fight against Alpharius. The only known account is an alleged found report by an Ultramarine who participated in the battle for eskrador. In that account, it is described how Alpharius cut his way through several Ultramarines before facing off against Guilliman. After Alpharius was killed, the Ultramarines routed the rest of the Alpha Legion force in that location and afterwards took the time to construct a pyre and burned Alpharius' body.

There has been doubt from different sources as to the accuracy of that account of the Battle on Eskrador, even from representatives of the Ultramarines. So it is in question whether that entire battle happened at all. (...)

If the account is accurate, and the Battle for Eskrador happened, then Alpharius is dead. But maybe that battle did not happen, or at least not as described in that account. I myself am rooting for the latter possibility."

 

I was quite elaborate at pointing out that there is legitimate doubt as to the accuracy of that account, mentioning it several times, and even pointed out that I would prefer if it was a fraud. I think I made abundantly clear that all my arguments towards the death of Alpharius were based on the premise that the account is taken as accurate.

 

 

But please, how does the writing of Legion not at all impact the account of Eskander?

Mainly because at a time where the established background was that Alpharius was a regular Primarch, not a twin, an author wrote "Alpharius died". You need a specific retcon saying that this never happened for that to no longer be considered canonical. A statement such as "Alpharius sometimes used doubles" does not change a specific statement sayng "Alpharius died", especially if we know that the stated "Alpharius" was meant to refer to Alpharius, and not "someone who was believed to be Alpharius". I was pretty confident that the novel did not include any such specific retcon.

 

But then there are all those narrative clues preventing fromit retroactively being turned into a double. It states that Alpharius did not expect that sudden attack from Guilliman, so it is unlikely that he would have had set up a double at that position. No ltramarine could stand against that "Alpharius", and sorry, an explanation such as "maybe the Ultramarines were all incompetent fighters" is not very convincing. The Ultramarines retrieved the body, and Guilliman knew Alpharius personally, so they could likely confirm that it was his Primarch brother they got. And then there is that very important point that it was pretty much the narrative intent to have Alpharius die and the Alpha Legion fight on without him, to prove the worth of his doctrines. This is like saying "maybe Curze is not really dead and had put a chaos decoy on his throne when teh Assassin came to kill him". That would remove the entire point of his death in the background. Alpharius wasn't killed in the Index Astartes Alpha Legion to make him look wimpy or to make Guilliman look good. He was killed at the beginning of the battle so that in the following battle the worth of his doctrines could be demonstrated. That goal was set up earlier in the Index Astartes where Alpharius' teachings for his Legion are described, where he sometimes would leave them alone to see how they would perform.

 

It is allways possible that Black Library will eventually retcon the death of Alpharius (or to conclusively explain that the battle actually did not occur as it is described in that Index Astartes article), but so far we do not have such a retcon. So far the only argument put forward is "he was a really sneaky fellow, so maybe when we were specifically told that he died, he really didn't".

 

Ah I apologize. I forgot that when I use arguments from a source you've never read, it is obviously my wishful thinking.

 

The Index Astartes article is not rendered invalid by Legion. However, one's interpretation of it must be altered by reading Legion. Yes, I do not doubt that the narrator of the Eskander account meant to have Alpharius killed. However, the narrator was an "in-universe" character relating a second-hand story from another dubious "in-universe" character. The point was, as you said, to vindicate Alpharius' tactics and strategies. However, knowing what we know from Legion, it becomes readily apparent that in addition to the already established unreliability of the account's narrator, it is also possible that everything occurred exactly as the narrator perceived. Except his perception was flawed. Someone certainly did cut through the Ultramarines, someone certainly did die and someone certainly did burn. Was it Alpharius? Was it Omegon? Or was it someone like Captains Ranko or Herzog? It is established in the IA article itself that Alpharius spent no considerable personal time with any of his brothers but Horus. His debates with Gulliman could've occurred over any medium, not necessarily face to face. And Alpharius was famous for never removing his helmet, as were the members of his Legion. It is truly possible that Gulliman had no idea what his brother looked like. The narrator's intent was to prove the Alpha Legion's superiority. The narrator himself was executed for being their agent. Could it be that he exaggerated the account or the account itself was somehow tainted, if the battle even took place? By painting the Alpha Legion as invulnerable even in the face of a Primarch, he does damage to the morale of his foes, shaking their faith in the demigods they venerate to its very core.

 

This account was never reliable in the first place, the knowledge gained from Legion just makes it even less reliable.

[Legatus]

Seriously, you don't need to convince me that the account of the Battle for Eskrador is questionable. I am 100% behind you on that. The questionable details of that account are many. I merely maintain that the specific detail of the duel between Guilliman and Alpharius had been described as pretty straight forward and very conclusive in that account, without leaving much room for doubt in this particular element.

 

It may well be that the battle never happened. Or at least not as described in that account. (Though I have the suspicion that the Black Library authors will make it happen.) But if we were to assume that the account is accurate, then the changes described in "Legion" so far are insufficient to retcon the specific events described in the Index Astartes article.

 

From a time when there were no doubles and decoys for Alpharius you have a statement such as "Alpharius was killed in battle". Since the concept of the doubles did not exist at this time, the author meant exactly this when he wrote it. The novel brought new background and introduced the concept of the doubles, so you could of course re-interprete the initial statement as "someone who was thought to be Alpharius was killed in battle". However, since the intent of the author of the original text had been to have Alpharius die, I would insist that in regard to the newly developed background the initial statement would have to be read as "Alpharius himself, and not one of his doubles, was killed in battle". The latter incorporates the new background, but maintains the original intent of the statement. The former ("someone who was thought to be Alpharius...") changes the background. And for a change in background, I would expect an issue to be specifically adressed.

[Xenith]

IIRC it was written in the IA article and yes, it was on Eskrador. [snip]

 

 

Many thanks!

[Larkyn]

And, why are we still arguing about this?