Bryan Blaire Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Aleax, I'm going to chalk this one up to a language issue, because other than the constant Lucifer reference, you almost said the exact same thing I did. Lion el'Johnson doesn't equal Lucifer, no one in the Dark Angels does or is intended to, the closest Lucifer figure we have is Horus (his last name even has the same number of syllables, but even with similar sounds, the last two are inverted). Hebrew demons don't automatically equate with Lucifer, and many Hebrew demons were often hero or god figures from other religions that would have been encountered in the early Middle Eastern region. So far as I can see, you've been the only one to mention any Lucifer connection at all, I know that I've never thought this at all, so I've never seen any contradiction on that front. As I and others have mentioned, Azrael isn't actually a demon's name, it is sometimes used as the name for the Angel of Death, which while quite fitting and somewhat sinister, doesn't always have a negative association, nor is he a traditionally named Hebrew demon, and therefore falls outside your assertion. Equally, as was stated by Dogbreath99, Ezekiel is also a leader in the Chapter (head of the entire Librairium and also determiner of Inner Circle membership) and bears the name of a Hebrew prophet having no association with the Hebrew demons. The Dark Angels are not based on Lucifer himself though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPK Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'd say if anything Luther and his Fallen Angels are where the Lucifer analogy lies anyway. We can all agree that the Lion would not fit that role. If I had to make an educated guess, the hebrew demon/angel names are just paying off that - regardless if they are Loyal Dark Angels or Traitor Fallen. Take Sammael for instance - technically the name of an Angel, not a deamon, albeit he is referred to as the angel of death (though that's a title given to Space Marines in general anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FerociousBeast Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well, now that we've mentioned it, demons and hell are another very strong theme in the Dark Angels' background. There's their name first, Dark Angel, which invokes the angelic and the evil at the same time. Then there are the Fallen Angels, which taps into a strong current throughout judeo christian culture, that of the once noble angel who falls from grace. Satan, in Revelation, was once the "Morning Star" but he fell from grace and took 1/3 of the stars in heaven (angels) with him. And what happens to Fallen Angels when they are captured? Just like the demons in Revelation, they are taken into the pit to be tormented. So there's definitely a Lucifer and demons theme among the Fallen, there's definitely a strong correlation between the Rock and hell, and the Dark Angels themselves are less than angelic. So I think we can safely say that demons and hell are part of the Dark Angels' theme through and through as well. Demons also being fairly hard to reconcile with Native American-Arthurian-Monastic Freemasons.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPK Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I really think the Native American thing can just be written off a a theme of changing times per se - not a constant or major theme, more of a smaller footnote. Just how cultures change over time in our world, the Dark Angels recruits change due to them using various recruiting planets instead of just one - sort of like a melting pot. Why the recruits from the Plains World were able to keep so much of their culture is surprising (maybe simply due to it being older fluff) but we could chalk it up to the fact that they were Deathwing and entitled to personal heraldry and they had maintained a strong feeling towards their home world whether they showed it or not. Perhaps those days are over and that particular Plains World is not even used a s recruitment world anymore (not sure). The feathers still being used in current time are simply a nod to the incident in my opinion. But, we have certainly moved away from Native-American-esque markings - I think it's safe to discount it as a major theme completely. I could see other strong willed recruits holding on to their culture more. If elevated to the DW perhaps they too show a homage to their home planet in one way or another. But again, these wouldn't be chapter-wide more on the individual or small group basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FerociousBeast Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not a major theme, you're right. It once was, in earlier days. But it's mostly irrelevant now, aside from our expectation of feathers on the Deathwing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 An alternative view might say that the Dark Angels could be an allusion to the Nephilim, a class of beings that may have either been themselves fallen angels (meaning those that had disobeyed/followed their own agenda/rebelled/fallen from the grace of heaven, but not necessarily demons or as part of Lucifer's war) or the sons of those beings. They were described as giants among men and great heroes, but are definitely of shadowy lineage. Also part of the story are the Watchers, often a part of the parentage of the Nephilim (similar to the possibility that the Lion interacted with the Watchers - they could have even helped shelter and teach him if he agreed to work with them - I really hope we learn more about the Watchers/Lion interaction in the Codex or another HH novel). However, there are several variations of this story, but this is the one I think fits slightly better, although none of them actually match up fully. Also there's the fact that Lion el'Johnson refers to the Chaos beasts and demons on the ship as nephilla in the Call of the Lion short story. I agree that if we look for a Lucifer allusion in the microcosm of the Dark Angels legion itself, it would be Luther and the Fallen Angels. However, Luther isn't the Lion's son, so I still think Horus Lupercal (Lu-per-cal is similar to the rearranged Lu-fer-ci in appearance and somewhat similar in sound) makes a much better overall Lucifer allusion/reference in 40K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Sergeant Bohemond Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I do not see how hard it is to reconcile these themes. I think Pheobus and Semper have, between them, come up with a pretty good summary. Though, I must say that in the IC itself there must be some diversity between the members. Sure, one SGM could be a real evil machiavellian ruler, then he dies and his successor is more open to the idea of serving the Imperium more than he was, but is equally devoted to the cause of hunting the fallen. I see the Chapter as a whole being very Knights Templar, whereas the BT are more Tuetonic. However, I would agree also that the upper echelons are much more sinister and different, sort of the dark side of the Templars, I suppose. I think, in terms of gameplay, our more 'sinister/KGB' side should play second fiddle to the Knightly Order theme. I would love to see that, to 90% of the Chapter and the Imperium, the DA are thought to be secretive Knights with secret rituals and the like. That they are an Order of Knights, akin to the Templars, and only a handful know about the Hunt. This, I feel should be relegated, mostly, to the background. I would love to read about how we have millions of agents, including priests, rouge traders, Inquisitors, Generals, Commanders, Admirals, Governors, etc. all serving the Dark Angels Chapter thought they may not know it. Yes, it is very Alpha Legion-esque, but I think we would do something like this in order to serve our hunt. There is just not enough brothers to constantly hunt and maintain our other duties. Going back to the Knightly theme and Monk theme, there is no need to seperate the two. The Templars were Warrior Monks, in many ways, the Order resembles this closely. In this sense, these two themes become one if we accept the idea of a Knightly Order, not necessarily an Arthurian Knight, though they were very ruthless if one reads some of the less well known stories. We can also accept the ruthless, Inquisiton, secret service feel if we accept that only a handful embody this theme, we then also open ourselves up to interesting dilemmas when a Knight faces the decision to sacrifice millions for ONE person who may or may not exist where they think he does. This, to me, is what attracts me to the Dark Angels. So, in summary, I think we have these ideas: - The Chapter is, in essence, a Knightly Order loosely based on the Templars, and Order of Warrior Monks - A handful of the Chapter know of the Hunt and the Shame, these are the ruthless, shadowy leaders that guide the Chapter and really create the 'feel' of the Angels, these guys are, for the most part, willing to abandon worlds in order to pursue their quest - The Chapter, probably, uses its serfs and then like to maintain a massive network of agents, cells, spies, mercenaries across the galaxy in order to assist the hunt, hence the idea of a secret service is brought into it. Out of all of these only the first and a tiny bit of the second, needs to be brought into the game itself, the rest if=s background, or adds to a special rule here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleax Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Hi. Aleax, I'm going to chalk this one up to a language issue, because other than the constant Lucifer reference, you almost said the exact same thing I did. Lion el'Johnson doesn't equal Lucifer, no one in the Dark Angels does or is intended to, the closest Lucifer figure we have is Horus (his last name even has the same number of syllables, but even with similar sounds, the last two are inverted). Hebrew demons don't automatically equate with Lucifer, and many Hebrew demons were often hero or god figures from other religions that would have been encountered in the early Middle Eastern region. So far as I can see, you've been the only one to mention any Lucifer connection at all, I know that I've never thought this at all, so I've never seen any contradiction on that front. As I and others have mentioned, Azrael isn't actually a demon's name, it is sometimes used as the name for the Angel of Death, which while quite fitting and somewhat sinister, doesn't always have a negative association, nor is he a traditionally named Hebrew demon, and therefore falls outside your assertion. Equally, as was stated by Dogbreath99, Ezekiel is also a leader in the Chapter (head of the entire Librairium and also determiner of Inner Circle membership) and bears the name of a Hebrew prophet having no association with the Hebrew demons. The Dark Angels are not based on Lucifer himself though. We are going to disagree and disagree I suppose. Yup at least we agree on that Lion'el Jonson has not a lot to do with the symbolic Lucifer. But look at this way again, here's a question : what is the name of the shooty Dark Angel psychic power??? Did you checked? :) Clearly, designers have made the current Dark Angels (post Space Hulk) Devils in Space, there are enough elements to conclude this way. At least to me. :D FerociousBeast, you got it. I agree with you, modelling Indian Feathers on Dark Angels in 2012 is a bit of an anachronism. If I had to buy some of them, I wouldn't keep the feathers on the models. (I would cut them off, simple and effective) As of the freemason theme, frankly I don't see its influence in the Dark Angel background. As of the Monk theme, yup templars were warriors-monks, but never did they wear robes in battle. They were given a mantle, or/and a tabard. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion El Jason Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Hellfire is just another 2nd edition name they re-used, it used to be a 4" template (Called a 2" radius template back in the day) and could be used by marines, guard and inquisition. Smite was another 2nd edition power, lots of the names get used even for totally different effects. As far as consistent themes go, from 2nd ed onward we always had the worst marine codex and arguably the worst overall codex in the game. Everything else has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Aleax: The Dark Angels names, and names of other things are all just dark. They do not follow the fall of Lucifer and his followers though. Well, not exactly. Lucifer revolts against/betrays God, gets bitch-slapped, and he and his followers are cast into hell... ...equivocates to... The Lion revolts against the Emperor, gets bitch-slapped, and is cast into the warp. Oops! That didn't happen! Wrong guys! Let's try again, but let's set this up properly in the Dark Angels microcosm... Lucifer betrays God, gets bitch-slapped, and he and his followers are cast into hell... ...equivocates to... Luther betrays the Lion, gets bitch-slapped, and his followers (but not Luther) get cast into the warp (just not by the Lion; and Luther is put in a cell rather than follows his "Fallen Angels" into hell...er...the warp). The story is a simple parallel of The Fall, just with a few tweaks. The Fallen. Fallen Angels? Get it? As to the names, Space Marines are supposed to be intimidating. Using such names is a simple tool in and of itself. Are you going to be more intimidated if you are told you will be fighting marines named Interrogator-Chaplain Candy and Grand Master Bambi, or marines named Interrogator-Chaplain Asmodai and Grand Master Belial? Kind of a "Duh?" question, eh? :) Oh, and Grand Master of Chaplains Sapphon is not named after a devil, and neither is Supreme Grand Master Azrael (Angel of Death, very much NOT a fallen angel). Azrael is, quite literally, a servant of the Emperor who brings death to His enemies. He is "an angel of death", but all marines are referred to as "angels of death". Then there is Ezekiel. I think his name was purposely chosen to not be so grim, as he carries one of the symbols of the Chapter's great hope, that being the redemption of The Fallen (by bolter or otherwise), the Book of Salvation. The names are just to set a tone though. Dark Angels = dark/grim/devoid of honour?/of questionable loyalty?/of questionable morals? Yes, you want those question marks in there, because you want that reputation. That just makes it even better. But, a name does not a devil make. So, no, the Lion and the Dark Angels are not "Luciferian" at all. However, Luther and The Fallen very much are. As to hellfire, I am afraid that it is the good guys that call down the judgement of hellfire upon the bad guys, not any other way. Yes, the Dark Angels Librarians are, in effect, passing judgement and dishing out some hellfire to the bad guys. The fogged lens with which you are viewing the Dark Angels is clearing up I hope? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion El Jason Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 If you really want to make connections to the fall then the quote you're after is: Horus marched upon Earth with a third part of the hosts of the imperiumwhich he had seduced to his purpose. If anything, Luthors betrayal echos Horus' betrayal rather than being based on the judeo-christian idea itself. This was the impression I got from talking to Jervis when AoD was about to be released and makes much more sense from an authors POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FerociousBeast Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 I do not see how hard it is to reconcile these themes. My point is not that you CAN reconcile these themes. Conceivably one could do so--I attempted to do it by tying them to the idea of circles--though in my opinion any result would be unavoidably awkward and slapdash-feeling. Including my own, though I hope it's a little more elegant than some others. My point is that these are separate themes that have NOT been reconciled in the fluff. We have the Dark Angels in the old codexes--dark, monastic, secretive. Then we have the Dark Angels in The Lion and Savage Weapons--straight out of feudalism. Then there are the models. One looks like a monk, another looks like a Templar, another looks like a Late Medieval/Early Renaissance knight, with its winged helmet and noble sword. The problem, in my mind, is that the Dark Angels did once have a theme: dark, secretive, warrior monks that worked well. But then some elements decided that the Order sounded like Camelot--which it does--and decided to play that whole thing up. Then there was the angel thing which used to exist solely in the Lion's ancient helmet, which was then used in a piece of card art, and which then a number of fans and GW folks latched on to to show the Dark Angels in a new thematic light. Yet another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antarius Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 First off, this is a very interesting and engaging thread. Lots of fascinating ideas being bandied about by pretty much everyone ;) I think it goes to show how hard the DA theme is to truly pin down. This is part of the appeal, certainly but there are some things that might be made clearer without losing the central theme of dark secrets and mystery. That is to say, our defining themes could stand to be spelled out more clearly, even as most of our secrets should remain truly secret (to us as players/readers as well as to the people in the setting). Now people might want to play the Arthurian theme up - it can work. Not a fan of tragic btw – there is nothing tragic about the DAs in my view. That’s more BAs territory since they have to overcome a genetic disease that was not theirs by choice. And really would have loved to get rid of it too. Dark Angels made a conscious choice 10k years ago and willingly stick to it to this day - nothing tragic there. Or one can go all dark with no redeeming features theme as I like it, or you can play it somewhere in the middle with a dark theme but with some redeeming features (to pump up the feel-good factor). So yes there are some angles you can play around with DAs (much like other Chapters) but the Native American is not one of them imo. (...) So again my point is it doesn’t matter if the vast majority of the Chapter is really nice guys – they do not define the DAs. The Inner Circle does. And they are evil! :devil: While I think you make a lot of good points, I feel the need to butt in with a few disagreements. I think the "regular" DA are very much part of the chapter's overall theme and mood. They're the majority after all and aren't just there to bulk up the ranks. Another minor quibble I have is the thing about ligh and darkness. To my mind, the redeeming features aren't "feelgood" at all -in fact I'd argue that they make the overall story feel darker, due to the contrast and tension they create. Dark with no light is just boring, whereas darkness with points of light or shades of grey make for a more interesting painting (to really stretch the metaphor). As I see it, the DA absolutely have noble goals -the darkness comes into play due to the way they achieve those goals and what they're willing to do to keep their less savory secrets. I would also say that the DA are certainly dedicated to ideals that go beyond their own interests. They are dedicated to the Emperor above and beyond all else, even if they are borderline traitors to the Imperium -after all, if they weren't the fallen wouldn't really matter at all. I guess you could say their fanatical devotion to their noble ideals are what turns them towards the darkness. Well, I suppose one counter argument to that is to suggest that the Dark Angels as they were and as they are are actually two very different beasts. You could make that argument, and many have. But I don't think it's workable. Because for one, no other chapters/legions in the Horus Heresy novels have been depicted so drastically different from how they are "today" in the 41st millennium. Second, even within the Horus Heresy novels the Dark Angels' depictions have varied tremendously. And finally, you would still have a problem with theme confusion because there are many people who read ADB's take on the Dark Angels and prefer that to the traditional take, and that preference informs their expectations of the Dark Angels of the 40,000 as well. They will either be disappointed that the knightly emphasis is gone or they will ignore that it's gone and contribute to the ongoing confusion. Hmm. I think it's important to note that insofar as the DA are defined by the hunt for the fallen they are also completely defined by the heresy. No other (loyalist) legion was so fundamentally shaken and changed by the events of the heresy. In fact that is were pretty much all of our defining features were added (except for the monastic-knightly theme of course).As I see it, the DA aren't completely and solely defined by the hunt for the fallen though. But we are certainly defined by the secrets and the shame associated with the fall. As well as the possibility of redemption (or at least the DA's belief in that possibility -whether it is an actual possibility is probably one of those things that should never be revealed). At the risk of adding another load of confusion to the whole mess, I also see a further theme to the DA. The story seem to have echoes of the reformation, obviously because of the name Luther (although I guess that was mostly to signify the schism within the DA) but also along the lines of the DAs personal quest for redemption in the eyes of the Emperor and their obsession with sin. In a way I guess you could say that the DA chapter emerge as a kind of Lutherans after the Heresy ;) It's not exactly a rock-steady analogy, but I think it is an element that is present as well. And of course, the DA are also very much about occultism (in the sense of "knowledge of hidden things"). There is a sense of some sort of mystery cult about them, which might be related to the ideas of the templars and freemasons that they are partly modelled after. This might also be why they have occult/mystical/angelic sounding names. I guess if I had to sum up the DA in a sentence I'd say they were monastic knight-occultists with an overarching theme of secrets, sin, shame and redemption. And now I'm off to bed :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 If you really want to make connections to the fall then the quote you're after is: Horus marched upon Earth with a third part of the hosts of the imperium which he had seduced to his purpose. If anything, Luthors betrayal echos Horus' betrayal rather than being based on the judeo-christian idea itself. This was the impression I got from talking to Jervis when AoD was about to be released and makes much more sense from an authors POV. One does not echo the other. They are both based on the same thing. One is just lesser than the other because the scale is so much smaller. Still, basically the same story, though neither is exactly the same. The same can be seen with some of the other Legions who turned Traitor. Certainly makes for a good story, and sets the stage for endless strife (i.e. "In the Grim Darkness of the far future, there is only war."). :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleax Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 :woot: Folks looks like to dismiss far too easily what has been written and pick what 'seems' to prove their points. Belial much? Why Belial instead of Gabriel? ( - Gabriel comes from Space Hulk ^_^ , being there the captain of the Deathwing until the 4th ed codex when oops, he was replaced) Make your own research about Belial, then come back, I am knowledgeable actually. I do not see how hard it is to reconcile these themes. My point is not that you CAN reconcile these themes. Conceivably one could do so--I attempted to do it by tying them to the idea of circles--though in my opinion any result would be unavoidably awkward and slapdash-feeling. Including my own, though I hope it's a little more elegant than some others. My point is that these are separate themes that have NOT been reconciled in the fluff. We have the Dark Angels in the old codexes--dark, monastic, secretive. Then we have the Dark Angels in The Lion and Savage Weapons--straight out of feudalism. Then there are the models. One looks like a monk, another looks like a Templar, another looks like a Late Medieval/Early Renaissance knight, with its winged helmet and noble sword. The problem, in my mind, is that the Dark Angels did once have a theme: dark, secretive, warrior monks that worked well. But then some elements decided that the Order sounded like Camelot--which it does--and decided to play that whole thing up. Then there was the angel thing which used to exist solely in the Lion's ancient helmet, which was then used in a piece of card art, and which then a number of fans and GW folks latched on to to show the Dark Angels in a new thematic light. Yet another. The Order was an order of knights. Let's keep this, this is central, Dark Angels are knights, althouth not necessary of the Camelot breed. Dark Angels are monks. I already gave my feeling about this, yup this has to be turned down. "The angel thing". Dark Angels are knights, and can be angels too. They are pretty much angels to me. One cannot understand the Dark Angels without considering that they 'are' the sum of different elements, contradictory it seems, but of course not. Original Dark Angels were not only Lions, they were 'winged' lions. Let's see if DA are contradictory again, Ferociousbeast... Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Sheol Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I play DA since 2nd edition and i always thought about them as inquisitorial monastic knights... BT are the typical crusading knights... The DA were very similar to the BT during the GC and HH and turned to monastic knights after the fall of caliban... The native american theme about the DW and the feathers doesnt touch me so much... Yes DA recruit from a native american world but it's just one of the many planets they recruit from... Dont forget the words spoken to the new recruits when they join the Unforgiven "Now you are simply a DA, past is irrilevant" So for DA the native american theme from the plain world is irrilevant... they are just DA and the only thing they took from that culture is the bone-white death colour... in the end the first company is the DEATHWING so the death color of the planet they came from is a good way to show them as DEATH BRINGERS... The RW is a typical knightly formation... they look like winged hussars so the RW reminds the DA when they were just a kightly order from Caliban... The robes should be DW only garment... In the BL book "descent of angels" it's written the origin of the DA name... The DARK ANGELS are creatures of the myths of Caliban and Jonson used them as an inspiration to name the first Legion when the Emperor gave him the command... In the years before the fall of Caliban the DA had a knightly look with hooded cloaks and after the Fall of Caliban the started to wear robes to symbolize that they are the TRUE DA and to hide the shame of the Fall of Caliban... only when you enter the DW you start to know about it... so i think is unfluffy to make all that tactical marines with robes like is usual now... I dont think feathers should be considered anymore a native american thing... in the end past is irrilevant when you become a DA... i think the feathers as parts of the winged sword that is the chapter symbol and not as native american totems... The same is for the winged helms... they are not native american head garments but knightly helm decorations like the ones teutonic knights had... a link to the knightly past of the DA... The Fall of Caliban and the Hunt for the Fallen are the things that shape the behaviour of the Chapter... Their mission is the first goal... they want to redeem themselves with no external help and without letting anyone know their task... only the Emperor and the Lion must know it... The DA are not evil they are just paranoic... they are not able to trust anybody... only themselves and the Emperor... The end always justify the means... So what is the theme of DA...??? Monastic Knights with a Secret Mission... and this is the way i like them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator Stobz Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 That's exactly how I see them too Master Sheol. Spot on. "Evil" is subjective in 40k, morals are sooooo different to 2k, differences in opinion on how evil the DA are inevitable. OFC everybody is welcome to a different perspective :tu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion El Jason Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 If you really want to make connections to the fall then the quote you're after is: Horus marched upon Earth with a third part of the hosts of the imperium which he had seduced to his purpose. If anything, Luthors betrayal echos Horus' betrayal rather than being based on the judeo-christian idea itself. This was the impression I got from talking to Jervis when AoD was about to be released and makes much more sense from an authors POV. One does not echo the other. They are both based on the same thing. One is just lesser than the other because the scale is so much smaller. Still, basically the same story, though neither is exactly the same. The same can be seen with some of the other Legions who turned Traitor. Certainly makes for a good story, and sets the stage for endless strife (i.e. "In the Grim Darkness of the far future, there is only war."). :lol: The echoing of horus betrayal in luthors betrayal is exactly what the author was going for with C:AoD, thats my point, while the biblical fall inspired the horus heresy (As seen easily from that quote) it was much later (10 years on) that the luthor fluff was written and it was already being done based on a wealth of written 40k material, no need to return to other sources. That they are both the same basic story is the whole point, but by the time AoD came around, 40k had enough mythos of its own to draw upon and the echo of horus betrayal goes both ways, as luthors betrayal echos horus' betrayal, so too the tale of the plains people echos luthors betrayal (The Dark Angels returning home to fine their "People" had been turned against them... in the case of the story of the plains people by genestealers but with Luthor, to chaos.) This is certainly how the original author envisiged it, and I have taken some bits from more recent publications which show the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.