Why wheren't the Wolves at Isstvan

[Raven Angel]

The new Garro Audio store answers just how ruthless Custodias think

[KarkassBC]

@Telanicus

 

My point is not the 4 traitors Legions were traitors at the start... but if you are in command you will not put in a reserve position on your back units that have some "shadows" on them. You will prefer to lead the first attack or at least make a secondary attack to reduce the enemy strenght.

 

I will not give any remark if the IW and WB were left in the back while NL and AL attacked in the first wave (I think for the numbers of soldiers involved the front was very large) alongside the 3 loyal legions.

 

Maybe for IW no one was aware of Olympia and the WB showed a complete acceptance of the Emperor decision, so they could stay in the back... but not believable for the AL and NL.

NL are pretty clear the reason for not having at the back, but the same is for the AL.

 

Many Primarchs were suspicious of the last found because he remained very closed (of course it's his nature) and the most important thing is the link with Horus. Remember Alpharius was the only lost brother not found by the Emperor... this difference is very important because they can fear where his allegiance really are.

I'm not sure where but we can find that on the Wiki and Lexicanum for him:

"Pleased beyond measure, instead of immediately sending him to Terra to meet the Emperor of Mankind, Horus kept Alpharius with him for some months. The two formed a strong bond, with Alpharius and his ragtag alliance of pirates quickly embracing the Imperium. and also in another part: It has long been supposed that since Alpharius was only familiar with one other Primarch, Horus, it was self-explanatory why he chose the side he did at the outset of the Heresy. "

 

 

@WLK

 

There are contradictory information about the attack sequence in Istvaan V. At a first reading we can think that Manus attacked only with the 3 loyal legions, but Corax simply said that Manus attacked Fulgrim without following the plan of Dorn, ahead of the main force.

In Deliverance Lost at page 147 there is the most important piece of information about the preparatory actions made by the "loyalists". Corax in his notes wrote there was a council of them and they agreed on the strategy. All the ships belonging to the 7 Legions began the encirclement of the Warmaster fleet taking some fixed position. All ground units were ready for landing and

"at the time nothing seemed amiss, but on reflection Corax could see the plots of his treacherous brothers already in motion... In retrospect, it had allowed the traitors close, their ships alongside of the Salamanders, IH and RG...".

 

 

So this point is clear, all the seven "loyalist" arrived at the same time.

[Jehoel]

@WLK

 

There are contradictory information about the attack sequence in Istvaan V. At a first reading we can think that Manus attacked only with the 3 loyal legions, but Corax simply said that Manus attacked Fulgrim without following the plan of Dorn, ahead of the main force.

In Deliverance Lost at page 147 there is the most important piece of information about the preparatory actions made by the "loyalists". Corax in his notes wrote there was a council of them and they agreed on the strategy. All the ships belonging to the 7 Legions began the encirclement of the Warmaster fleet taking some fixed position. All ground units were ready for landing and

"at the time nothing seemed amiss, but on reflection Corax could see the plots of his treacherous brothers already in motion... In retrospect, it had allowed the traitors close, their ships alongside of the Salamanders, IH and RG...".

 

 

So this point is clear, all the seven "loyalist" arrived at the same time.

In Fulgrim, Ferrus Manus, Corux, and Vulkan arrived at Isstvan V first, with the other 4 legions due to arrive shortly. Ferrus ordered the 3 to attack, assuming the other 4 would land and support him. And we all know what happens when you assume. Each book seems to see the events at Isstvan V a bit diferent, so there is no "clear" point.

[KarkassBC]

@WLK

 

There are contradictory information about the attack sequence in Istvaan V. At a first reading we can think that Manus attacked only with the 3 loyal legions, but Corax simply said that Manus attacked Fulgrim without following the plan of Dorn, ahead of the main force.

In Deliverance Lost at page 147 there is the most important piece of information about the preparatory actions made by the "loyalists". Corax in his notes wrote there was a council of them and they agreed on the strategy. All the ships belonging to the 7 Legions began the encirclement of the Warmaster fleet taking some fixed position. All ground units were ready for landing and

"at the time nothing seemed amiss, but on reflection Corax could see the plots of his treacherous brothers already in motion... In retrospect, it had allowed the traitors close, their ships alongside of the Salamanders, IH and RG...".

 

 

So this point is clear, all the seven "loyalist" arrived at the same time.

In Fulgrim, Ferrus Manus, Corux, and Vulkan arrived at Isstvan V first, with the other 4 legions due to arrive shortly. Ferrus ordered the 3 to attack, assuming the other 4 would land and support him. And we all know what happens when you assume. Each book seems to see the events at Isstvan V a bit diferent, so there is no "clear" point.

 

Yes you are right. In fact the timing was previously a good reason why the traitors remained in the back. The 2nd wave have awaited a bit more in the Warp until the loyalist made planetfall.

But Deliverance Lost is written later than Fulgrim so it probably change the "time arrival" explanation.

 

I want to point out a possible military incoherence for the "time arrival" scenario.

 

Ferrus started an attack against a well dug defender with 2 full Legions (plus a IH detachment) against 4 Legions (not full, maybe they were between 50% and 66% level - at Istvaan III the 4 Legions with Horus lost a 1/3 of their force).

And the attack was made in the prevision of the incoming arrival of the other Legions... with a difficult Warp travel and also with serious problems in astropathic communications... you cannot be sure of the arrival of the 2nd wave through the Warp, they could arrive even months later...

 

You need to attack only if you see the enemy was in the process to going out of the system, but the objective is to pin him in place not to have a full batlle.

 

The story in the "time arrival" scenario could happen only with Angron... he would attack without a second thought... but not with Ferrus... at least Corax and Vulcan would stop him phisically and not only with words.

[Raven Angel]

You both are forgetting reasoning for the unified fleet deployment. Upon reaching the system no sign could be found of the Horus' warships. The full fleets of 4 Legions was a significant force and it was decided to keep the strike fleet together to prevent them being divided and destroyed in detail by the traitors. It was simple and sound strategy.

[Arkangilos]

Karkass, you also have to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Up until this point, this was unheard of. Also, you have to remember that these "shady" legions had proven their loyalty well enough to have been kept around. The Word Bearers showed no signs of betrayal up until now. They actually showed signs of improvement, that they listened to the Emperor.

 

Yes, you can say that "they had daemons" but that is all from their perspective, which NO ONE but them had. So to the Imperium, they were fiercely loyal, and had done far better than in their past. And with them, how is "over devotion" shady? If anything, that would make me WANT to send them, because I would KNOW FOR SURE that they would not betray me. Sure, they have broken my rules and built statues in my name, but THEY BUILT STATUES IN MY NAME! IF THAT DOESN'T SCREAM LOYALTY!

 

 

For the Alpha Legion, again, they had done NOTHING to prove that they were not loyal. Again, every primarch had met him. Guilliman had tactical and strategic disputes with him, and that was about it. Heck, when Alpharius asked for help in a campaign, Sanguinius sent HIS ENTIRE LEGION to help him, which means that Sanguinius didn't have any issues with him. Alpharius was not held in low regard.

 

 

For the Iron Warriors, how are they shady? What story makes them seem like they might turn against the Emperor? All they did was something that nearly every primarch had already done. They did absolutely nothing wrong, so why would they be mistrusted?

 

 

The ONLY legion you could say was shady was the Night Lords, but again, they did not show disloyalty. All they showed was excessive violence. Why would you mistrust them in a civil war? They hadn't done anything against you, they hadn't fought against the Imperium. In fact, they did gruesome things to people who did. Where is the disloyalty and shadiness in that?

 

 

Again, you are looking through pure hindsight.

[KarkassBC]

Karkass, you also have to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Up until this point, this was unheard of. Also, you have to remember that these "shady" legions had proven their loyalty well enough to have been kept around. The Word Bearers showed no signs of betrayal up until now. They actually showed signs of improvement, that they listened to the Emperor.

 

Yes, you can say that "they had daemons" but that is all from their perspective, which NO ONE but them had. So to the Imperium, they were fiercely loyal, and had done far better than in their past. And with them, how is "over devotion" shady? If anything, that would make me WANT to send them, because I would KNOW FOR SURE that they would not betray me. Sure, they have broken my rules and built statues in my name, but THEY BUILT STATUES IN MY NAME! IF THAT DOESN'T SCREAM LOYALTY!

 

 

For the Alpha Legion, again, they had done NOTHING to prove that they were not loyal. Again, every primarch had met him. Guilliman had tactical and strategic disputes with him, and that was about it. Heck, when Alpharius asked for help in a campaign, Sanguinius sent HIS ENTIRE LEGION to help him, which means that Sanguinius didn't have any issues with him. Alpharius was not held in low regard.

 

 

For the Iron Warriors, how are they shady? What story makes them seem like they might turn against the Emperor? All they did was something that nearly every primarch had already done. They did absolutely nothing wrong, so why would they be mistrusted?

 

 

The ONLY legion you could say was shady was the Night Lords, but again, they did not show disloyalty. All they showed was excessive violence. Why would you mistrust them in a civil war? They hadn't done anything against you, they hadn't fought against the Imperium. In fact, they did gruesome things to people who did. Where is the disloyalty and shadiness in that?

 

 

Again, you are looking through pure hindsight.

 

Sorry to disagree, but probably you jumped over some previous note.

 

First I try to give a "question" with the information that the other characters in the story already have. It's too easy to give the answer knowing exactly what was happened, but I try to fix some doubts in the characters point of view.

 

I agree that the IW and the WB could be considered loyals by the other brothers... for example it's possible that no one except the IW and Horus knew about the destruction of Olympia...

 

but for the NL there were many doubts.

 

Please to follow my points, reported in the lore.

 

Alpharius. Only Horus know him. He found him and stayed together a while before Alpharius went to Terra to show himself at the Emperor.

In the lore is reported that due to his very recent founding, he made a bond only with Horus.

Roboute spoke against him (only for authors sake because RG never questioned the result of Angron, for example) and Horus on the contrary lauded him.

You say that Sanguinius sent his entire Legion to aid the AL, but it was an order of the Warmaster, not a decision of Sanguinius. And in the book (Fear to Tread) is clear that Sanguinius and his commanders were completely dissatisfied with the actions of the AL.

 

So if you consider that in the group of the loyalist Primarchs there were Corax and Dorn (on Terra but giving orders to the fleets) who had already spoken in the past to the Emperor about a possible bond of Mortarion with Horus, stronger than with him, I doubt that after the betrayal of Mortarion (and in a lesser way Fulgrim) no one of them objected with the idea to have the AL at their back.

 

Curze. He wounded Dorn. He killed at least 8 space marines between IF and EC with the order to keep him inside a tent. He destroyed his home planet... Ok, if the humans were completely expendable in the Imperium, please to consider under a in-character view...

Garro and Iacton Qruze explained to Dorn the betrayal of Horus at Istvaan III. Horus planned to purge the loyalist part of the Legions with an orbital attack... not happened as planned only for Angron... now you received the information (from IF ships, following the NL primarch) that the NL fleet made an orbital attack on their homeworld... why? Maybe to purge the loyalist side of his Legion... we don't know, but for a in-character point of view is a very important information... he made the same actions of the traitor Horus to kill part of his family/personnel.

 

It's not hindsight 20/20 as reader, but those are in-character doubts.

[Arkangilos]

I don't remember it being said that Horus ordered Sanguinius to fight there with the Alpha legion, but I could be mistaken.

 

And it is actually known why the Night Lords blew up their home world, it reverted back to the lawlessness that it had been before him.

 

Also, it wasn't for "author's" sake that Guilliman criticized Alpharius, that actually happened to be in an Index Astartes, IIRC.

[Kol Saresk]

Also, in that exact instance, Gulliman had questioned Alpharius because he knew that Alpharius could have ended the Compliance much faster than it had been. Alpharius responded with "I wanted to make it last longer." Gulliman then reprimanded him for wasting lives and resources when there was a better alternative that Alpharius knew about. Gulliman never criticized Angron because there were enough people doing it already.

 

And yes, Curze destroyed Nostramo because it had turned back into the world he first landed on because the Imperial authorities were softies and the criminals had tainted the Night Lords and had perverted the Legion into a giant mob of murderers and sadists. That has always been a long established fact of the fluff.

 

Also, in Prince of Crows Curze tells Sevatar that he had heard of the other Traitor Primarchs conducting purges in their respective Legions. He comments how he wouldn't even know where to begin since his Legion only obeys him out of fear, not respect or loyalty.

[Raven Angel]

Actually I think the way Curz put it implied that if he had to pick who to purge he'd have to kill them all and start over because none of them measured up to his idea Legion recruit to begin with.

[Kol Saresk]

I guess it could go either way really.

 

The quote is:

 

'I spoke with Angron and Lorgar, not long ago. They told me of their purges, cleansing the untrustworthy elements from the Twelfth and Seventeenth. I laughed when they said it, at the sheer absurdity of the idea. They knew exactly when to stop the killing of the weak, the treacherous and corrupt within their bloodlines. I wouldn't even know where to begin culling mine.'

 

 

My view comes from a quote on

page 359

.

 

 

'And I lead a Legion of foul-hearted wretches with no sense of loyalty to me, or to each other.'

 

[Raven Angel]

The sad thing as I see it is in Prince of Crows is that up until that last conversation with Sevatar Curz sees him self as a good guy and probably could have still been redeemed. Before that he was the Dark Knight after he was just another killer I think. :D

[DarthMarko]

The sad thing as I see it is in Prince of Crows is that up until that last conversation with Sevatar Curz sees him self as a good guy and probably could have still been redeemed. Before that he was the Dark Knight after he was just another killer I think. :(

Curze was ultimately a big fail - how Sevatar managed to put him down (with words, ofc) made me wonder on his fear tactic...

But I still like him, because he was a degenarate monster who pretended to do batmans work...What's not to like?

[Raven Angel]

The sad thing as I see it is in Prince of Crows is that up until that last conversation with Sevatar Curz sees him self as a good guy and probably could have still been redeemed. Before that he was the Dark Knight after he was just another killer I think. :P

Curze was ultimately a big fail - how Sevatar managed to put him down (with words, ofc) made me wonder on his fear tactic...

But I still like him, because he was a degenarate monster who pretended to do batmans work...What's not to like?

 

That's the thing, I don't think he was pretending. I think he really believed it. Consider until the Emperor cam Curz never saw another way and by the time he did he was to set in his ways to see he was wrong and it took some one who he saw as an evil man, Sevatar, to show him that he'd become one too.

[Kol Saresk]

To be honest, I always likened Curze to Punisher than I did Batman, mostly because Punisher was the one who always went farther then he needed to just to make the others pack up their bags and forget about being on his bad side at all. And there was the duality to the Punisher as well. In him, we see someone who honestly believes he is doing the right thing even though some of his actions could make someone like Lorgar want to puke.(Butcher's Nails)

[Arkangilos]

To be honest, I always likened Curze to Punisher than I did Batman, mostly because Punisher was the one who always went farther then he needed to just to make the others pack up their bags and forget about being on his bad side at all. And there was the duality to the Punisher as well. In him, we see someone who honestly believes he is doing the right thing even though some of his actions could make someone like Lorgar want to puke.(Butcher's Nails)

 

I agree, I think that Night Haunter is much closer to the Punisher than to Batman, and I think that both of them are far more effective than Batman could ever dream of being. I mean, how many times did the Joker, and his other enemies escape from jail?

 

Now, how many times did the Night Haunters, or the Punishers enemies escape from jail? Ha, they wish they could have even made it to jail.

 

 

Personally, I don't even think they were "bad" just because of that tactic. The Night Haunters only failing is that he couldn't keep enforcing that fear, which means as soon as he was gone, in the case of his home world, it wore off.