Loyalist or traitor?

[hisdudeness]

I think you guys are forgetting that the Crusade List in Betrayal is not just the Heresy period.  It is also the 200ish years leading up to it.  The "Loyal vs Traitor" is really only needed when you play the campaign... or your personal fluff/back story. 

[Hyaenidae]

It's also the 250 - 500 year hell that was the Unification Wars of the Sol System.

[recon0321]

Wow totally forgot it does crusade list when you get to the army section

[Reinholt]

I think one of the key points that bears repeating is the story element.

 

I kind of divide units into three camps when I look at them, from the HH lists, for each army:

 

1 - Loyalist or Traitor

 

Most units are in this bucket. Tactical squads, Apothecaries, etc. Basically everything "non-special" in the legions falls in here.

 

2 - Traitor only.

 

This is usually only named characters (Abaddon, as an example), or units that clearly occurred after the Heresy began (Kakophoni).

 

3 - Loyalist only.

 

This is, so far, only named characters (Loken, as an example).

 

 

So to that end, if someone wanted to have loyalist grave wardens, I wouldn't be against it. Either they'd be some of the few loyalists from Typhon's company who were being "purged", or some other renegade splinter. One of the great things about the 40k universe is that it's so vast, so as long as the background focuses around smaller groups that legitimately could have been stranded / overlooked / lost, you can really carve out any splinters you want without having to retcon the fluff.

 

There is no reason that traitor ships lost in the warp or on missions with explorator fleets in the far reaches of the galaxy couldn't re-emerge and remain loyal, or small factions of loyalists declare for Horus, or even have renegades who straddle the line and don't really declare for either side. For me, when I play with someone or listen to people talk about their armies, it all depends on "is this plausible within the fluff" and "are they building to theme"?