Night Lords at Istvaan

[Kol Saresk]

Now we all know the Night Lords role in the Heresy. We also know that for some strange reason, they were called to Terra to be put on trial for war crimes before being sent to Istvaan V to bring back Horus' head on a nice and shiny silver platter. But I don't think it has ever been said why he was allowed to go. If I am wrong and there is a reason, please leave a citation of source. In the meantime, is it possible that Dorn sent Curze and his Night Lords to Istvaan in the hopes that Horus would take care of them? After all, it seemed that Dorn had laid out a specific plan of attack that was ruined by Manus' impatience. So is it possible that if his plans had been carried out as ordered, Curze may have been the Primarch to die on the black soil of Istvaan?

[Perrin]

Firstly, the DISCLAIMER doesn't help to promote a discussion.

 

Secondly, they weren't called to Terra. The NL were sharing a warzone with the EC and IF when Kurze decided to tell Fulgrim about the dream visions he had had of the Emperor killing him and the whole of the Imperium in civil war. Fulgrim thought he was crazy and told Dorn, Dorn confronted Kurze, Kurze went nuts and beat him down. Kurze accepted being placed under arrest and Dorn was preparing to call a gathering of the Primarchs when Kurze escaped, killed a few EC/IF marines and ran away with his Legion. They then destroyed Nostramo, and around the same time the HH started.

 

Basically, there isnt really any explanation apart from that warp communication at the time was pretty bad, and with the Emperor busy the rulers of the Imperium had no idea what to do with Kurze, and the other Primarchs were busy. They also needed an overwhelming force to utterly crush Horus so they sent to the NL along. All the NL had done up to this time was destroy their own homeworld and kill a couple of friendly marines.

 

Also, with Dorns plans, probably not. The plan was to crush Horus and the other traitors with overwhelming force, one of the attacking Legions being so battered that their own Primarch dies would have meant they were planned to face equal or superior opposition.

 

Source is Lexicanum, also if you need to see the exact sources:

 

Index Astartes II pp.20-27

The Dark King

[Kol Saresk]

But Dorn did have a specific plan that was ruined by Manus. So while I know the events of the Heresy, I was asking about the "why" of the events. And the disclaimer was because many form opinions and then try to make them pure factual canon that cannot be disagreed with in any way, shape or form. And for Manus, he rushed ahead with only his First Company the Morlocks. The rest of his Legion was left behind to catch up along with the other Legions. That is what killed. Source is Fulgrim and The Outcast Dead and Lexicanum.

[MadDoc]

I notice you've both referenced Lexicanum. :P

 

If you're after actual real (and reliable) sources then that excludes Lexicanum from the get go. If you want your sources to be taken even remotely seriously don't reference Lexicanum.

[Kol Saresk]

But Lexicanum does cite real sources, such as BL novels, white dwarf articles, GW articles, IA and FW Imperial Armour Volumes. As such, it is a legitimate source. Now if I quoted the wikia website which has no such sources cited, then you could say that. And Lexicanum cites the Index Astartes article, Fulgrim, Raven's Flight, The Outcast Dead and Deliverance Lost as well a few other, legitimate sources regarding the events leadin up to and including the Dropsite massacre as well as some events afterwards.

[Artein]

I've read somewhere....

The Outcast Dead?

The First Heretic?

Don't remember, doesn't really matter....

Night Lords were sent to Istvaan V without Curze. It was a priority that Night Haunter won't join his legion.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well, it certainly wasn't First Heretic that included that, and I'll also say that I've never heard that bit of informatin before.

[Clewz]

I've read somewhere....

The Outcast Dead?

The First Heretic?

Don't remember, doesn't really matter....

Night Lords were sent to Istvaan V without Curze. It was a priority that Night Haunter won't join his legion.

\

Think it was outcast dead

[Cyrox]

But Lexicanum does cite real sources, such as BL novels, white dwarf articles, GW articles, IA and FW Imperial Armour Volumes. As such, it is a legitimate source.

 

Yes, it does..... but it is also open to be edited by any idiot who thinks they know something, and decide that its gospel truth

[Brother Nihm]

This has been an issue for ages.

 

Early fluff, Night Lords goes bat:cuss crazy just before the Heresy and destroy their homeworld, they ignore the official start of the HH as they are busy escaping and only "join" in late with Horus, as it is a natural thing for them to do. They were the first to openly rebel against the Imperium. Then they get sent to the Eastern Fringes to tie up The Lion.

 

Later fluff, Night Lords are suddenly sent to Istvaan instead.

 

I'd love to see something done to explain this (and not an Alpha/Omegon/Warp-thing), it would be tricky to do, but not impossible.

[Greyall]

Curze was nuts, but there was no indication that he'd gone to the traitor side, right? If being a psychopath meant you'd have to deliver your Primarch badge, Angron wouldn't have lasted ten years.

 

Dorn was presented with the most unbelievably dire situation possible and (correctly) concluded overwhelming force was the best response. If that included a few oddballs like Perturabo or (especially) Curze, so be it. At the end of the day, having Horus hanging from the palace's entrance was such a priority that a few scratches caused by the Nigh Haunter paled in comparison.

 

I didn't know the destruction of Nostamo had taken place so soon. I assume the Imperium had no knowledge of the act, the same applying to Perturbo's cull of Olympia.

[Legatus]

Now we all know the Night Lords role in the Heresy. We also know that for some strange reason, they were called to Terra to be put on trial for war crimes before being sent to Istvaan V to bring back Horus' head on a nice and shiny silver platter. But I don't think it has ever been said why he was allowed to go. If I am wrong and there is a reason, please leave a citation of source.

I think one problem with the Night Lords' participation in the Battle at Istvaan V is that their background had been developed under the assumption that They had not been among the Seven Legions that had been sent to defeant not Horus and his four allied traitor Legion, but only Horus alone. I.e. the current Horus Heresy fluff assumes that all nine Traitor Legions were present at Istvaan V, where earlier background assumed that only five of them were, and that the Night Lords simply were not one of them.

 

The notion that it had been 7 vs. 1 on Istvaan (instead of 7 vs. 5)

was introduced in the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos, in the description of the early Heresy on page 9, where other Legions being involved simply are not mentioned at all. It merely describes how seven Legion were "sent to cruch Horus and his rebels", and while this might technically have referred to multiple Legions under Horus' command, it does not say so, and later sources will then go on to cite cite four different Legions that had been sent as part of the seven to take out Horus, showing that there were no four Legions assumed to already have stood with Horus on Istvaan.

 

The 2nd Edition Codex Chaos states that the Emperor's Children, the Iron Warriors and the Alpha Legion had been among the Legions sent against Horus, as stated on those Legions' descriptions on the pages 15 and 16.

 

The Index Astartes of the Emperor's Children confirms that they had been among the seven Legions sent against Horus, and that they were the first to arrive.

 

The Index Astartes of the Iron Warriors hints that Horus alreay had sided with the World Eaters, the Death Guard and the Emperor's Children when the seven Legions were sent against him (contrary to earlier sources naming the Emperor's Children among those seven Legions), and lists the Iron Warriors, the Word Bearers, the Night Lords and the Alpha Legion as being part of the seven Legions.

 

The Index Astartes of the Raven Guard granted them a special rule against those Legions that had betrayed them at Istvaan V, and names the Iron Warriors, the Emperor's Children, the World Eaters and the Death Guard as being those Legions.

 

In the 3.5 Codex Chaos Space Marines, on page 5, it lists the Iron Warriors, the Emperor's Children, the World Eaters and the Death Guard as the four Legions that comprised the "second wave" of the seven that turned against the other three loyal Legions on Istvaan. (Probably being written at teh same time as the Raven Guard Index Astartes, which listed the same Legions.)

 

All this is changed in the Horus Heresy narrative, where the "cult" Legions had already been with Horus and were at his side when the seven loyal Legions, among them the four "undivided" traitor Legions, were sent against them. Now, this is not entirely new, since the 1st Edition book "Slaves to Darkness" had already stated that Horus had 5 Legions under his command when the seven were sent against him. It is just that the 2nd Edition background had not said that, and that the Chaos sources had all listed different four Legions that had been sent amon the seven Legions. It might be that the Index Astartes of the Iron Warriors was written with this older background in mind, though, already setting up that the "cult" Legions had already been with Horus and that the "undivided" Legions were part of the seven. Other sources clearly name some of the cult Legions ot be among the seven, though.

 

 

Where was I going with this? Ah, yes. I assume that the description of the Night Lords (first in 2nd Edition, then later as part of the Index Astartes series), and their actions during the early stages of the Horus Heresy, had been written with the assumption that not all nine (5 initially and then 4 among the seven), but only five (1 initially and then 4 among the seven) traitor Legions had been at Istvaan V, and that the Night Lords had not been one of them.

[Kol Saresk]

And then there is the latest change of there only being 8 Traitor Legions at Istvaan while the Thousand Sons are hiding out in the warp and licking their wounds. Although according to Outcast Dead Prosperro massacre happened shortly after the drop pod massacre.

 

@Artein and Clewz: Actually all of the BL books list Curze as being Istvaan V. In Fulgrim, you see him on a stage as Horus gives his victory speech. You see him again in The First Heretic as he fights Corax. Then Corax has a flashback to fighting him and says that it was basically a stroke of luck that he didn't turn out like his brother in Deliverance Lost. The only thing The Outcast Dead says about the massacre is that Ferrus Manus was rushing ahead of the main fleet with his Terminator company. And then you hear Dorn rant that his carefully laid out plans are about to be ruined and he tells the astropaths to tell Corax and Vulkan to catch him. Then you hear that the massacre happened, Manus is dead and Vulkan and Corax are MIA. Those are the only Primarchs mentioned in context to the Drop Site Massacre.

[The 13th Goat]

I was under the impression the Night Lords were still considered loyal; it was Kurze himself that was to be censored. After listening to Dark King, I assummed Kurze left with a small band Night Lords while the rest of the Legion continued out on the Crusade. I believe it was this smaller force that destroyed Nostramo, and made their way to Horus independantly. Interestingly, that is one thing we don't see; Horus converting Alpharius, Perturabo and Kurze to his cause. That would be an interesting story to see.

[Legatus]

And then there is the latest change of there only being 8 Traitor Legions at Istvaan while the Thousand Sons are hiding out in the warp and licking their wounds. Although according to Outcast Dead Prosperro massacre happened shortly after the drop pod massacre.

That might be the case in any or all of the accounts I mentioned above, though I carelessly included them in my summary of "the cult Legions" without really checking how their involvement was described in any of the sources. That was not very thorough of me, sorry. But I had glossed over it mainly because the Thousand Sons being or not being there does not change the matter.

[Kol Saresk]

And then there is the latest change of there only being 8 Traitor Legions at Istvaan while the Thousand Sons are hiding out in the warp and licking their wounds. Although according to Outcast Dead Prosperro massacre happened shortly after the drop pod massacre.

That might be the case in any or all of the accounts I mentioned above, though I carelessly included them in my summary of "the cult Legions" without really checking how their involvement was described in any of the sources. That was not very thorough of me, sorry. But I had glossed over it mainly because the Thousand Sons being or not being there does not change the matter.

Oh I know. I just remember that Galaxy in Flames made some controversy because it changed the fluff even more. Like before it came out IIRC the Eisenstein was supposed to have Loyalists from the "cult Legions" and the Sons of Horus aboard but then it only had several Death Guard and a Lone Wolf. I wasn't disagreeing, I was just adding to the list.

 

And I haven't listened to any of the audios simply because in school, I got into the habit of zoning out audio tapes and sadly it seems irremovable so I'm sticking to books for now so I cannot agree nor disagree with your interpretation of Dark King. What I do know is that most of the books, both 40k and HH, agree with the IA article in that the entirety of the Night Lords Legion participated in the destruction of Nostramo.

[Legatus]

I'm sticking to books for now so I cannot agree nor disagree with your interpretation of Dark King.

I hadn't talked about it. Maybe you were thinking of someone else's post?

[Kol Saresk]

Yeha that part was meant for 13th Goat. Sorry.

[MadDoc]

But Lexicanum does cite real sources, such as BL novels, white dwarf articles, GW articles, IA and FW Imperial Armour Volumes.

Yes it does and the number of articles I've seen that cite various sources but contain speculation that is trying to be passed of as being explicitly stated in those sources, or worse contain information that is nowhere to be found in those sources, only goes to prove that just because its using citation that doesn't make the information it contains accurate.

 

As such, it is a legitimate source.

No, it really isn't. Its a passable reference for finding sources to check, but unless you have those actual sources and can verify that what Lexicanum claims is drawn from them is actually in them, then you can't trust that the information is accurate (inspite of the hopes of those who think that including citation (usually without quotes or page references) somehow makes their facts above reproach), and as such it doesn't constitute a valid source.

 

The Watchers in the Dark article used to state categorically that the Watchers were part of the Cabal referencing Legion and Fallen Angels, no such thing is ever stated, even implicitly, in either book. It was speculation by fans based on disparate parts of two sources and yet it was presented as explicit fact complete with citation. That particular error has, thankfully, since been corrected.

 

Now if I quoted the wikia website which has no such sources cited, then you could say that. And Lexicanum cites the Index Astartes article, Fulgrim, Raven's Flight, The Outcast Dead and Deliverance Lost as well a few other, legitimate sources regarding the events leadin up to and including the Dropsite massacre as well as some events afterwards.

Unless you're directly quoting a given source, or have firsthand knowledge/access to said source, then you can't reference it (especially if you're doing so secondhand via Lexicanum). That may seem harsh, but sorry, unless you have access to a source then you shouldn't be referencing it, secondhand "facts" from Lexicanum without any personal knowledge of the source material won't cut it (and if you have the actual source material you shouldn't need to be referencing Lexicanum anyway).

 

I never reference/cite material I don't have either direct access to, or knowledge of, but I'm fortunate in that I have copies of, or access to, the vast majority of reference material produced by GW (both past and present).

 

You're the one who made an issue of valid sources/citation with your (now removed) Disclaimer. Lexicanum is not a valid source, at best, its a handy reference for what actual sources you should be looking at, but its definitely not a valid substitute.

[Perrin]

EDIT: Wrote a big paragraph arguing about Lexicanum as a source, but decided I didnt like what i had wrote :wacko:

 

I think that as long as what is used from Lexicanum is taken with a pinch of salt it is fine as a source, espiecally in an enviroment such as this forum where if you write about something that is wrong and use lexicanum as a source, the kind people here will straight away point out how wrong you, and your source, are :)

For example, if I had read about the Watchers in the Dark being members of the Cabal, then mentioned it in a discussion here, then numerous people will point out that there is no evidence of that being true, and i will learn and move on.

[MadDoc]

You have a good point about the Watchers in the Dark article, but I'm sure that there are more users/members of lexicanum that write exact facts as given by relevant sources than users/members who allow their opinion to influence it. For example, on the Lexicanum homepage there's a tab that shows the latest changes done to website, surely any senior members or moderaters of the site will be checking that daily and ensuring that all changes to pages are accurate. For example, the Watchers in the Dark page now has no mention of the Cabal, so obviously someone has edited it when they noticed what had been written.

You have far more faith in the Lexicanum moderators than they deserve. I've had dealings with a couple of their mods pointing out errors (including their chief moderator), and their reactions have always been borderline (if not outright) hostile. On more than one occasion I was told that their site doesn't have errors and that if I thought something on it was wrong the fault lay not with their site but with my own knowledge, even after I presented evidence of the errors I was still treated with open hostility (including being insulted and having my intelligence called into question).

 

Unfortunetly not everyone has access to the vast majority of reference material produced by GW (both past and present) that you do, whether its because they don't have the money to buy it, don't have access to a library, don't know where to buy it or simply because they are new to the hobby and the source in question is out-of-print. So by your reckoning, as Lexicanum isn't a source and shouldn't be used as one, you and probably a handful of others, would be the only people allowed to debate things such as the Night Lords involvment at the Dropsite Massacre?

Meh, I guess I'm just naive to trust human nature :lol:

I didn't say Lexicanum wasn't a source, what I said was that its not a valid source.

 

Anybody who has access to Fulgrim, The Outcast Dead and (but not necessarily) Index Astartes II will have ample access to the relevant information and only one of those sources is OOP. Anybody fortunate enough to have access to The Dark King/Lightning Tower chapbook (or the more common, and still available, audio release) will have some nice additional background but not really any information relevant to why the NL were sent to Isstvan.

 

However, if somebody doesn't have access to the relevant information firsthand, then anything they say will be based on secondhand (and therefore questionable) knowledge, meaning they can't really engage in an informed discussion. They'd be able to speculate all they want, but without firsthand knowledge they wouldn't really be able to take part in an informed debate. Lexicanum is find as a kicking off point but is seriously lacking as a sole source of information.

 

Also, as ana aside, I like to point out that presenting information taken from Lex but citing the books/references listed on Lex as your source is intellectually dishonest (and yes I have seen people do this).

[Kol Saresk]

Here's the way I figure, Legatus will set you straight on what the source says. If there is room for individual interpretation, like the original post about if Dorn's plans involved removing the Night Lords in any way, shape or form, he will admit that. If there is no room for subjective interpretation, he will point put why. And Lexicanum has gotten somewhat better in the past few months. They still hate it to be told, much less proven wrong, but they do update it usually within a week. They were pretty fast in changing Pereclitor from his original fluff as a Night Lord daemon prince to his new Forgeworld-given fluff as a Word Bearer daemon prince. But this topic is not about the validity of sources or if the source cites valid sources.

[MadDoc]

Your, since removed, Disclaimer wanted valid citation/sources for peoples positions or they were going to be considered speculation. I was simply pointing out that Lexicanum is NOT a valid source, quite apart from it's open edit nature there is also the matter of its history of quite staggering errors - one article in particular (Battle of the Phall System) noted how the Warp Storms engulfing the system stopped Astropaths being able to navigate, when I quoted the offending text to point out the error, stating that I would hope the error wouldn't need to be spelt out, I was told that incorrect punctuation wasn't a big deal. :) For something as fundamental as the difference between a Navigator and Astropath to be confused and then for the error not to be noticed, even after being pointed out, that brings their whole system of fact checking into question.

 

Based on that alone Lexicanum should NOT be considered a valid source, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. Relying on others to make up for the shortcomings that using such a dubious source can result in doesn't do anything to make it any more valid a source either.

[Kol Saresk]

True, but it is getting better as I pointed out. And the disclaimer was if someone provided a why to my original post, I would have liked a valid source because I am strictly limited to BL novels due to the fact that I cannot afford the things coming out of GW. Heck, I have to save up for some of the cheap stuff from BL. Legatus provided that. Perrin provided that. And I removed it because as Perrin pointed out, it served more to stifle any chance of discussion rather than ask for opinion. But Lexicanum is an encyclopedia. Depending on who made it and when, it can be wrong. Such as the word "ain't". It has been in use for decades. But only recently has it been accepted as an actual conjunction of "am not", "is not" and "are not". That was my point about. Even while the information may be "wrong", the source isn't. It works much to the effect of Wikipedia, even to the point that the moderators are basically full grown men who spend their days in a windowless room, staring at monitors to make sure the information is legitimate. Now, were they stupid in the situation you described? Yes. But don't worry, from now on when I attempt a discussion because I heard/read/saw something and it wasn't explained properly, I'll be sure to keep it to myself since it was second-hand information and therefore cannot be referenced, much less cited.

 

P.S. Legatus, Perrin, and Nihm, thanks for answering my question.

[MadDoc]

True, but it is getting better as I pointed out.

And one day it might actually meet the rigours required for it to be considered valid, but that day is a long way of yet. No wiki is considered a valid source of information (they can't be referenced in academic writing or any other written work the author wants to be taken seriously).

 

And the disclaimer was if someone provided a why to my original post, I would have liked a valid source because I am strictly limited to BL novels due to the fact that I cannot afford the things coming out of GW. Heck, I have to save up for some of the cheap stuff from BL. Legatus provided that. Perrin provided that. And I removed it because as Perrin pointed out, it served more to stifle any chance of discussion rather than ask for opinion. But Lexicanum is an encyclopedia. Depending on who made it and when, it can be wrong. Such as the word "ain't". It has been in use for decades. But only recently has it been accepted as an actual conjunction of "am not", "is not" and "are not". That was my point about. Even while the information may be "wrong", the source isn't. It works much to the effect of Wikipedia, even to the point that the moderators are basically full grown men who spend their days in a windowless room, staring at monitors to make sure the information is legitimate. Now, were they stupid in the situation you described? Yes.

As I said, thats only a single example, I have many more and I'm sure there are others who have had their own such experiences with the Lex.

 

As to your comment of "while the information may be "wrong", the source isn't", the entire point of citing a source is as proof of the provenance of the information you're giving. If the information is wrong then it won't be from a valid source, as such any source given for said bad information won't actually be valid as it won't contain said information (seeing as how it isn't valid information to begin with). Bad/shoddy/wrong information that claims provenance from a valid source is either an example of a misquote, incorrect citation or intentional misrepresentation/outright dishonesty.

 

When the source you're giving has a history of containing shoddy/wrong information, ala Lexicanum, then it can't really be considered a valid source. If the information from a given source is wrong, as many things on Lexicanum have been (and doubtless will be in the future), then its not a valid source.

faulty/shoddy/wrong information = invalid source

But don't worry, from now on when I attempt a discussion because I heard/read/saw something and it wasn't explained properly, I'll be sure to keep it to myself since it was second-hand information and therefore cannot be referenced, much less cited.

Come on, I'm sure you're better than a churlish remark like that.

 

If you hear something secondhand that you're unsure of, the best way to get clarification is to seek out the source of that information yourself, failing that you can ask those who have firsthand knowledge. I'm sure, in spite of the above response, you realise that though.