The Seventh Serpent by Graham McNeill

[Lay]

Phoebus, you're referring to the battle of Tessra Prime from FW's Horus Heresy Books, while Veteran Sergeant is talking about the same incident from the Index Astartes article. The latter source is from 3rd edition when the Alpha Legion had a vastly different characterization. Back then, they were all about trying to prove their superiority over their older brothers.

[Legatus]

His parting shots can largely be dismissed; he calls Alpharius' tactics a waste of time, but by his own admission he would have taken months to conquer the Conservancy, whereas it took his younger counterpart mere weeks to take out its inner worlds.

 

 

The end state of that affair was that Alpharius was able to systematically destroy the entirety of the enemy's forces in one battle (as opposed to several, across the planet) and in a fraction of the time Guilliman estimated.

 

 

Er, no. Guilliman initially remarks that the entire campaign could be ended within a few months, if the Alpha Legion cooperated. But they didn't. They did their own thing, and in the cases where they finally did take action and assaulted some of the worlds of the conservation, they deliberately took their sweet time to enact their elaborate schemes instead of quickly seizing the world. They only took one to two weeks to defeat one of the worlds at a time (severely damaging it's infrastructure and reducing its population in the process), but that makes no comment on the overall progression of the campaign. Indeed, the Index Astartes article and the Extermination account both suggest that the Alpha Legion forces took longer to take out each individual world than a straight forward attack would have taken, as in both accounts Alpharius is asked why he did not simply quickly seize the capital instead of letting the enemy dig in to then orchestrate a grand assault. And hence why in both accounts the Alpha Legion's campaigns are described as a waste of time and resources.

 

Edit: The Index Astartes article specifically noted that the elaborate methods of the Alpha Legion took longer to execute than conventional attacks, even if they required fewer manpower to pull off. While it can be debated whether that would have balanced out their overall Crusade progression by allowing them to undertake more campaigns simultaneously, any single campaign such as in this case of the Tesstra Compliance would have taken the Alpha Legion longer to complete (and, in this particular case, with much more severe damage to infrastructure and population).

 

 

 

Such arrogance certainly isn't what we saw in Legion or any other Alpha Legion story in the Heresy.

 

Regarding this it should be noted that Dan Abnett is notorious for dismissing established lore in his books, such as the entire character or motivation of the Alpha Legion. Not only did he remove any vain ambitions from Alpharius, he turned him into two people.

The description of the Legion in 'Extermination' makes a commendable effort to reconcile the HH stories with their earlier lore.

[RapatoR]

Scars is a bad example, I agree. For all the serfs and servitors going "We're totally losing guys!" All the onscreen action is Russ and Bjorn laying waste to the Alphas. It hardly feels like a loss the way Armatura was for the Ultramarines.

 

Well it is kinda similar - one of the sides brought vastly superior numbers to the fight. If you would put any other legions into the same instances, the outcome would be the same: all the side with lesser numbers could hope for, was to put up a good fight while retreating. In Scars the author even directly mentions the fact. And what happens post-Scars is an epitome to this statement - once Dark Angels show up and join the fight, the only thing that Alpha Legion could do was to was to put up a good fight while retreating.

 

Furthermore there are two things I would like to add: I know that it is easier to say that this is X or this is Y, but as A D-B stated on multiple occassions the lore in 40k/HH rarely works that way. It is more along the lines of: 'This could be X or Y. Or both of them. Or Z. Or neither.' Facts and interpretations are both a parts of lore but try to keep them separated.

 

Also let's nat fall into hyperboles in here. This should be a discussion, not a beating of strawmen.

[Phoebus]

Er, no. Guilliman initially remarks that the entire campaign could be ended within a few months, if the Alpha Legion cooperated.

...

They only took one to two weeks to defeat one of the worlds at a time (severely damaging it's infrastructure and reducing its population in the process), but that makes no comment on the overall progression of the campaign.

 

I don't really see your point.  The Conservation was a single-system state.  Tesstra was the capital world.  While you can certainly argue that the outer worlds may have been formidable in their own right, there is no doubt as to the fact that Tesstra was the seat of the system's government.  It's rather telling that there is no mention of fighting after Prime (the planetary capital) fell.  You would think Guilliman would have piped up if he'd been forced to fight through a bunch of other heavily-defended worlds while Alpha Legion were sitting around in the ruins of Prime.  The story certainly treats the fall of Tesstra with a tone of finality.

They did their own thing, and in the cases where they finally did take action and assaulted some of the worlds of the conservation, they deliberately took their sweet time to enact their elaborate schemes instead of quickly seizing the world.

 

I'm sorry man, but that reading ignores both implied context and explicitly stated detail.  I've already gone over the details in my previous post, so forgive me if I don't repeat it here.  I personally don't "root" for any of the legions, but I can't help but feel that your argument - once more - is informed by less by objectivity and more by a need to "defend" the Ultramarines.

 

Indeed, the Index Astartes article and the Extermination account both suggest that the Alpha Legion forces took longer to take out each individual world than a straight forward attack would have taken, as in both accounts Alpharius is asked why he did not simply quickly seize the capital instead of letting the enemy dig in to then orchestrate a grand assault. And hence why in both accounts the Alpha Legion's campaigns are described as a waste of time and resources.

 

"Further, that if Alpharius were to place his Legion under Guilliman's full command, the Conservation could be made to fall in a matter of months."

 

"Their plans however had been betrayed from within to Alpha Legion infiltration agents placed within the city months previously, ..."

 

Emphasis mine.  Presumably, this was done during the feints that the Alpha Legion were executing.  At any rate, at face value it doesn't appear as if it took significantly longer to get things done Alpharius' way.  And, either way, was Alpharius wasting time or grand-standing?  No.  He was putting into effect plans and contingencies that toppled the Conservation within three days.

 

Does that mean Guilliman and the Ultramarines would have failed to defeat the Conservation their way, or even on their own?  Of course not.  Guilliman would have comprehensively and systematically defeated the Conservation through a series of undoubtedly excellent orbital assaults and planet-side campaigns.

 

Edit: The Index Astartes article specifically noted that the elaborate methods of the Alpha Legion took longer to execute than conventional attacks, even if they required fewer manpower to pull off. While it can be debated whether that would have balanced out their overall Crusade progression by allowing them to undertake more campaigns simultaneously, any single campaign such as in this case of the Tesstra Compliance would have taken the Alpha Legion longer to complete (and, in this particular case, with much more severe damage to infrastructure and population).

 

Because that particular enemy wanted to fight to the death.  And therein lies my issue with this particular criticism of yours.  Guiliman's plan called for conventional warfare.  Faced with a dogged defense on Tesstra, there's no way his plan would have inflicted less damage on Prime.  He still would have needed to annihilate forces that clearly were not interested in surrender.  The infrastructure would still have been crippled by the scale of such an assault.  About the only valid critique one can level on Alpharius was that he deliberately withdrew from Prime following his victory, leaving the capital to anarchy - which undoubtedly led to unnecessary civilian losses and further destruction of infrastructure.

 

Given this, Guilliman is erroneous or even outright disingenuous when he says Alpharius wasted resources:  any comprehensive conventional assault, such as that of the Alpha Legion after their infiltration was complete, would have spent about the same number of munitions and used the same number of vehicles.  Time, though?  So what if it took the Alpha Legion longer?  The infiltration and sabotage undoubtedly resulted in the Alpha Legion taking far less casualties than they would have had they simply launched a conventional assault.  Sounds like a valid tradeoff to me!

 

Regarding this it should be noted that Dan Abnett is notorious for dismissing established lore in his books, such as the entire character or motivation of the Alpha Legion. Not only did he remove any vain ambitions from Alpharius, he turned him into two people.

The description of the Legion in 'Extermination' makes a commendable effort to reconcile the HH stories with their earlier lore.

 

Both the Index Astartes article in question and the entry in Extermination reflect in-universe knowledge from a third person point of view.  They are, like the majority of Warhammer 40k and Heresy material, pre-loaded with both bias and a limited, after-the-fact perspective.

 

In this case, your opinion on the Alpha Legion is informed by an Index Astartes article that makes it clear its contents are derived from a few millennia-old tomes, most of whom are known to be "copies of copies or simply forgeries filled with lies."  If anyone reading this is curious, that's from the introductory paragraph of the article in question.

 

Even more to the point, the same article paints Guilliman as imposing and convinced "his way" is the right one; and rather than depicting Alpharius as vain, it actually states he avoided glory, encouraged initiative, empowered his subordinates, and listened to counsel.  In fact, the same article you cite as supporting evidence leaves hints and question marks (as to Alpharius' agenda and objectives that had no connection to the rebellion as a whole) that could easily serve as the plot hook Abnett went with.

 

So no, Extermination doesn't somehow reconcile the series with your opinion of Alpharius.  It simply retells the story of the battle of Tesstra (a battle that, then as now, was meant to paint Guilliman in less-than-flattering light while extolling Alpharius' abilities), albeit with more detail.

[Wade Garrett]

I'm a bit iffy on saying that Legion doesn't depict the Alphas as prideful.

 

For one thing, it barely depicts them at all. Every time we get a look at one of the XX, it's through the eyes of someone else, there's none of the time inside an Alpha Legionary's skull similar to what the Word Bearers in The First Heretic or the Ultramarines in Know No Fear received.

 

Secondly, much of the rhetoric the Cabal offered to recruit the Alphas is tailored to appeal to pride.

 

"The most efficient warriors Terra ever produced", the Legion that remains pure where all others are decadent and corrupt....you're special. You're better than all the others. That's why we picked you to do the thing we need you to do.

[Phoebus]

You can appeal to someone's pride without them necessarily being vain - which is the trait Legatus was trying to ascribe to Alpharius. There's no arrogance to be found in the Alpha Legion's tactics in this case.  Again, they weren't "wasting time"; they were infiltrating the enemy and his stronghold.  They weren't allowing the enemy to gather his forces for "added challenge"; they were allowing the enemy to gather into a battlefield they had sabotaged to their favor, one in which he wouldn't be able to maneuver or communicate.

 

Look, let's cut to the heart of the matter.  The real issue, IMHO, isn't that the Alpha Legion are written badly or unrealistically; it's that so many of the other primarchs and their subordinates are either written with no regard to tactical ability... or are given an over-the-top serving of anachronism.

[Legatus]

I don't really see your point.  The Conservation was a single-system state.  Tesstra was the capital world.  While you can certainly argue that the outer worlds may have been formidable in their own right, there is no doubt as to the fact that Tesstra was the seat of the system's government.  It's rather telling that there is no mention of fighting after Prime (the planetary capital) fell.  You would think Guilliman would have piped up if he'd been forced to fight through a bunch of other heavily-defended worlds while Alpha Legion were sitting around in the ruins of Prime.  The story certainly treats the fall of Tesstra with a tone of finality.

 

 

Where is that from? I only know of the account in the Index Astartes article and the account in 'Extermination' on page 103. In neither of those sources is the Conservation described as a single system or Tesstra as the capital world of the Conservation. Is the campaign described elsewhere in the book? Page 103 does not make Tesstra out to be of particular significance, other than being one of the "inner Conservation worlds".

 

In the final paragraph on page 103 it states how "the fall of Tesstra Prime would be a pattern repeated elsewhere by the Alpha Legion during the campaign", so this was indeed only the first of several engagements of the Alpha Legion during that campaign. And, as I have already pointed out in my last post, the Alpha Legion were criticised for prolonging the fighting on Tesstra, instead of finishing it quickly. The reason why the battle for Tesstra Prime is described in particular is not because it was the final blow on a capital world, but because it was a recorded example of the Alpha Legion's fighting methods.

 

 

They did their own thing, and in the cases where they finally did take action and assaulted some of the worlds of the conservation, they deliberately took their sweet time to enact their elaborate schemes instead of quickly seizing the world.

 

I'm sorry man, but that reading ignores both implied context and explicitly stated detail.

 

I'll just whip out the quotes, then.

 

"For more than a full week of sidereal time, the Alpha Legion delayed their invasion, appearing only as threatening spectres as more and more Tesstran forces were deployed to Prime's defences in preparation for the inevitable attack. (...)

Afterwards, when Guilliman questioned Alpharius why he had not simply seized the capital before the defending armies had arrived to further fortify it, or why he did not choose to strike at the heart of its governance and take over instead of laying the city to waste, Alpharius was said to have replied "it would have been too easy". The fall of Tesstra Prime would be a pattern repeated elsewhere by the Alpha Legion during the campaign, much to Roboute Guilliman's disgust, claiming such tactics were a "...mere exercise in cruelty and the wasting of the Great Crusade's time and resources""

- The Horus Heresy: Extermination, p. 103

 

"Alpharus deliberately delayed his assault a full week to allow the planet's armies to amass and dig in around the sprawling capital city. (...)

When asked why he had not simply seized the capital before the defending armies arrived, Alpharius replied "it would have been too easy" (...)

His conduct in the battle for Tesstra invited censure from many quarters. Roboute Guilliman is recorded as having called it "a huge waste of time, effort, and the Emperor's bolt shells.""

- Index Astartes Alpha Legion

 

Also from earlier in the Index Astartes article, after a general description of the Alpha Legion's methodology:

 

"While these methods took longer to execute than a simple frontal assault, they were far lest costly in troops, which enabled Alpharius to spread his forces widely."

- Index Astartes Alpha Legion

 

So which clue am I missing that in the case of Tesstra Prime the Alpha Legion did not, in fact, take more time than estimated to capture the planet (which he is explicitely criticised for) but in fact took less time?

 

 

"Further, that if Alpharius were to place his Legion under Guilliman's full command, the Conservation could be made to fall in a matter of months."

 

"Their plans however had been betrayed from within to Alpha Legion infiltration agents placed within the city months previously, ..."

 

Emphasis mine.  Presumably, this was done during the feints that the Alpha Legion were executing.  At any rate, at face value it doesn't appear as if it took significantly longer to get things done Alpharius' way.  And, either way, was Alpharius wasting time or grand-standing?  No.  He was putting into effect plans and contingencies that toppled the Conservation within three days.

 

 

Once more, I have to ask for your sources. This might be my own ignorance, since I only know the account on page 103. I did not go through the entire 'Extermination', so if the campaign is described elsewhere, I am sorry for missing that. On page 103, Tesstra is not described as the Capital of the Conservation. The battle for Tesstra is not described as the pivotal or decisive battle of that campaign. It took at least ten days for the Alpha Legion to take the world (it took more, as only specific intervals are mentioned, the attack was delayed by a week, then it took two days until the Tesstran military could react to the Alpha Legion's assault, but then it took "a matter of days" before the world finally capitulated. Neither the initial attacks that were meant to push the defenders into fortifying nor the full on fighting are given a particular duration).

 

10+ days, when it could have been over in under a week. No, actually, it could have been over months ago, as your quote points out, the Alpha Legion made contact with that world early on, yet they did not attempt to take it. This lack of progress was explicitely criticised by Guilliman earlier during the campaign.

 

 

Because that particular enemy wanted to fight to the death.  And therein lies my issue with this particular criticism of yours.  Guiliman's plan called for conventional warfare.  Faced with a dogged defense on Tesstra, there's no way his plan would have inflicted less damage on Prime.  He still would have needed to annihilate forces that clearly were not interested in surrender.  The infrastructure would still have been crippled by the scale of such an assault.  About the only valid critique one can level on Alpharius was that he deliberately withdrew from Prime following his victory, leaving the capital to anarchy - which undoubtedly led to unnecessary civilian losses and further destruction of infrastructure.

 

 

Talk from commanders and leaders is cheap before the war. In general it does not take much more than to either take out the command structure or to demonstrate superiority to convince a faction to surrender. I am not getting the impression that the Tesstran forces all would have absolutely fought to the death, especially since apparently Guilliman was not of that impression, and Alpharius' decision to go all out was more motivated to demonstrate his Legion's capabilities rather than out of strategic considerations.

 

 

Given this, Guilliman is erroneous or even outright disingenuous when he says Alpharius wasted resources:  any comprehensive conventional assault, such as that of the Alpha Legion after their infiltration was complete, would have spent about the same number of munitions and used the same number of vehicles.  Time, though?  So what if it took the Alpha Legion longer?  The infiltration and sabotage undoubtedly resulted in the Alpha Legion taking far less casualties than they would have had they simply launched a conventional assault.  Sounds like a valid tradeoff to me!

 

 

The Ultramarines are commonly noted to have conquered worlds in excellent conditions, and the Alpha Legion's campaign on Tesstra on the other hand is noted as having been especially cruel (and at least in the Index Astartes article Alpharius was criticised from all sides for it, not just by Guilliman). So that seems to be a baseless assertion, and Guilliman's estimation of the circumstances were spot on.

 

 

Both the Index Astartes article in question and the entry in Extermination reflect in-universe knowledge from a third person point of view.

 

 

When I am referring to the Alpha Legion's earlier lore, I am going further back than the Index Astartes article.

 

"Though the youngest Legion, the Alpha Legion sought to outshine its brethren in all things as if to prove their worthiness amidst the older Legions. (...) When Horus made his pact with Chaos the martial pride of the Alpha Legion was their downfall. The Warmaster was a mighty warrior himself, he commanded armies and fleets and fought at the forefront of the Emperor's wars. By comparison he made the distant Emperor on Terra seem a weak and cowardly individual. The Warmaster was a leader worthy of their respect, the Emperor sought only to exploit Horus's conquests and crush the liberated humans of the galaxy beneath his stifling regime. So the lies were insinuated into the hearts and minds of the Alpha Legion, and if any lie is repeated often enough it begins to be accepted, and once accepted it becomes truth.

Joyously, the Alpha Legion clashed with loyalist Space Marines on Istvaan V and the campaigns thereafter. Here at least was an opponent fully as tough, as war trained, as ferocious as themselves."

- 2nd Edition Codex Chaos, p. 14-15

 

That was the original lore for the Alpha Legion, and for a long time the only information about them.

 

The 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines was the next source for them that I am aware of. Though regrettably short on lore, it included this description:

 

"Though the youngest, or perhaps because of it, the Alpha Legion sought to outshine its brethren in all things, as if to prove their worthiness amidst the older Legions. Their pride led to a number of incidents where members of the Alpha Legion clashed with and even fought against members of the other Legions in existence at that time. In particular there seems to have been a strong mutual hatred between the Alpha Legion and the Imperial Fists as they had clashed on more than one occasion prior to the Heresy.

When Horus made his pact with Chaos, the martial pride of the Alpha Legion was their downfall and they were among the first to join him. The Legion clashed with loyal Space Marines on Istvaan V and in the campaigns thereafter, any need for restraint forgotten."

- 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines, p. 32

 

Throughout 2nd Edition and for the first years of 3rd Edition that was the character of the Alpha Legion. The Index Astartes article already deviates from that lore, and already starts to set them up as "the infiltration Legion", whereas before the Alpha Legion had been described as a highly disciplined and coordinated and very martial Legion, that pressured the enemy with relentless attacks. The Index Astartes article maintains this "relentless attacks" theme, and expands it to mean employing a wide range of different venues of attack, while offering infiltration among those venues. The Horus Heresy series then turned them from power armoured shock troopers into a full on intelligence agency. As I said earlier, the description in 'Extermination' does a great job of reconciling their newer "secrecy" schtick with their earlier coordinated and relentless style of direct warfare.

 

Edit: Typos.

[Phoebus]

In the final paragraph on page 103 it states how "the fall of Tesstra Prime would be a pattern repeated elsewhere by the Alpha Legion during the campaign", so this was indeed only the first of several engagements of the Alpha Legion during that campaign.

 

Legatus, you are spot-on. I missed something that, in hindsight, is very obvious.  My argument largely hinged on the - incorrect - idea that Tesstra was the capital of that system.  I don't know how I never noticed that it wasn't after so many readings.  You're obviously correct, Roboute Guilliman was within his rights to opine that Alpharius' tactics amounted to a waste of time.

 

I still maintain, however, that Guilliman was wrong to say those tactics were a waste of resources.  I also continue to feel that these tactics resulted in far fewer casualties than would normally have been incurred, and that this was an acceptable tradeoff.

 

Talk from commanders and leaders is cheap before the war. In general it does not take much more than to either take out the command structure or to demonstrate superiority to convince a faction to surrender. I am not getting the impression that the Tesstran forces all woudl have absolutely fought to the death, especially since apparently Guilliman was not of that impression, and Alpharius' decision to go all out was more motivated to demonstrate his Legion's capabilities rather than out of strategic considerations.

 

The references I made were not about pre-combat talk, though.  That the Tesstrans were unwilling to surrender can be seen by their actions over the three days that saw Prime conquered by the Alpha Legion.  Two and a half days after the majority of their forces were stranded and annihilated, the Tesstran leaders opted to go for a desperation counterattack.

 

The Ultramarines are commonly noted to have conquered worlds in excellent conditions, and the Alpha Legion's campaign on Tesstra on the other hand is noted as having been especially cruel (and at least in the Index Astartes article Alpharius was criticised from all sides for it, not just by Guilliman). So that seems to be a baseless assertion, and Guilliman's estimation of the circumstances were spot on.

 

I'm sorry, but you're comparing general observations with one specific situation.  You don't know whether the Ultramarines "commonly" encountered worlds whose leaderships fought on until their last reserves were thrown into combat.  Ultramarines don't have weaponry or warships that are inherently more accurate or less prone to inflicting collateral damage.  

 

Beyond that, you're making an apples-to-oranges argument.  My point was about wasting resources:  numbers of tanks, aircraft, artillery, men, bullets, etc.  Your counterpoint is about whether or not the Ultramarines would have done less damage.

 

When I am referring to the Alpha Legion's earlier lore, I am going further back than the Index Astartes article.

...

The 3rd Edition Codex Chaos Space Marines was the next source for them that I am aware of. Though regrettably short on lore, it included this description:

...

Throughout 2nd Edition and for the first years of 3rd Edition that was the character of the Alpha Legion. The Index Astartes article already deviates from that lore, and already starts to set them up as "the infiltration Legion", whereas before the Alpha Legion had been described as a highly disciplined and coordinated and very martial Legion, that pressured the enemy with relentless attacks. The Index Astartes article maintains this "relentless attacks" theme, and expands it to mean employing a wide range of different venues of attack, while offering that among those venues is infiltration. The Horus Heresy series then turned them from power armoured shock troopers into a full on intelligence agency. As I said earlier, the description in 'Extermination' does a great job of reconciling their newer "secrecy" schtick with their earlier coordinated and relentless style of direct warfare.

 

Legatus, you're taking us back to an era when legions were comprised of ten thousand Space Marines.  Go a little further, and they weren't even legions at all, but had always been Chapters.  And hey, why don't we go a couple more years back to when Roboute Guilliman wasn't even a primarch?  The material you're bringing up is 16-18 years old.  While some of the basic themes of the setting persist from that time period, at what point do you come to grips with the fact that your personal preferences have little to do with the story today?

Mind you, I say this because the material you're referencing to amounts to an incredibly limited and  condensed perspective.  The Index Astartes article was exponentially more in-depth than your sources.  The novel Legion and the other Horus Heresy stories expanded even further on it.  And Extermination doesn't hearken back to the material you brought up; if anything, it simply sticks with the "secretive, covert, saboteur" themes while repeating the Index Astartes battle. 

 

 

[Veteran Sergeant]

 

Regarding this it should be noted that Dan Abnett is notorious for dismissing established lore in his books, such as the entire character or motivation of the Alpha Legion. Not only did he remove any vain ambitions from Alpharius, he turned him into two people.

The description of the Legion in 'Extermination' makes a commendable effort to reconcile the HH stories with their earlier lore.

 

Both the Index Astartes article in question and the entry in Extermination reflect in-universe knowledge from a third person point of view.  They are, like the majority of Warhammer 40k and Heresy material, pre-loaded with both bias and a limited, after-the-fact perspective.

 

In this case, your opinion on the Alpha Legion is informed by an Index Astartes article that makes it clear its contents are derived from a few millennia-old tomes, most of whom are known to be "copies of copies or simply forgeries filled with lies."  If anyone reading this is curious, that's from the introductory paragraph of the article in question.

 

Even more to the point, the same article paints Guilliman as imposing and convinced "his way" is the right one; and rather than depicting Alpharius as vain, it actually states he avoided glory, encouraged initiative, empowered his subordinates, and listened to counsel.  In fact, the same article you cite as supporting evidence leaves hints and question marks (as to Alpharius' agenda and objectives that had no connection to the rebellion as a whole) that could easily serve as the plot hook Abnett went with.

 

So no, Extermination doesn't somehow reconcile the series with your opinion of Alpharius.  It simply retells the story of the battle of Tesstra (a battle that, then as now, was meant to paint Guilliman in less-than-flattering light while extolling Alpharius' abilities), albeit with more detail.

 

These aren't real people. They don't have to be portrayed consistently because different authors can write whatever they please.

 

Legatus was pointing out what I did, and it's hard fact, not up for debate. The Alpha Legion have been portrayed in very distinctly different ways by different authors. You can choose which version you like better, but you can't deny the existence of the other versions, lol. Abnett chose to make fundamental changes to the Alpha Legion lore and personality. Because he's an author writing about imaginary people who are only as real as the words written about them.

[Legatus]

The references I made were not about pre-combat talk, though.  That the Tesstrans were unwilling to surrender can be seen by their actions over the three days that saw Prime conquered by the Alpha Legion.  Two and a half days after the majority of their forces were stranded and annihilated, the Tesstran leaders opted to go for a desperation counterattack.

 

 

I am not sure I read any exceptional defiance in the description of the defending forces. Once the Alpha Legion starts to attack, it pretty much only describes how the defending forces are being massacred. It does not really describe their attitude at all. At one point (top right paragraph) it states how "within hours, what had begun at first as an attempted withdraw by the Tesstrans had become a massacre, and soon devolved into city-wide panic and anarchy."

The attempted counter-offense after two days could be seen as strong defiance, but on the other hand the Alpha Legion was mercilessly slaughtering the defending forces and did not let any forces escape, so it could also be seen as a desperate fight for survival.

 

 

I still maintain, however, that Guilliman was wrong to say those tactics were a waste of resources.  I also continue to feel that these tactics resulted in far fewer casualties than would normally have been incurred, and that this was an acceptable tradeoff.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're comparing general observations with one specific situation.  You don't know whether the Ultramarines "commonly" encountered worlds whose leaderships fought on until their last reserves were thrown into combat.  Ultramarines don't have weaponry or warships that are inherently more accurate or less prone to inflicting collateral damage.  

 

Beyond that, you're making an apples-to-oranges argument.  My point was about wasting resources:  numbers of tanks, aircraft, artillery, men, bullets, etc.  Your counterpoint is about whether or not the Ultramarines would have done less damage.

 

 

In the Index Astartes article, the battle on Tesstra is preluded by this:

 

"After the [argument with Guilliman about proper doctrine], Alpharius pushed his Legion even harder and sought out the most difficult challenges for his forces. He knew he could not equal the number of worlds conquered by the older Legions, for they had been found centuries earlier, but he seemed determined to win their respect for his Legion's martial prowess.

On the world of Tesstra Prime, the population was violently resistant to the idea of Imperial rule. Alpharius deliberately delayed his assault a full week to allow the planet's armies to amass and dig in around the sprawling capital city. When battle commenced, there were close to a million soldiers arrayed against the Alpha Legion."

 

And it is concluded with this:

 

"Within a week, the Tesstran forces had suffered 90% casualties. When asked why he had not simply seized the capital before the defending armies arrived, Alpharius replied, "It would have been too easy". (...)

His conduct in the battle for Tesstra invited censure from many quarters. Roboute Guilliman is recorded as having called it "a huge waste of time, effort, and the Emperor's bolt shells." However, concerns about alleged atrocities committed by the Night Lords Legion diverted attention away from the incident. Nevertheless, Alpharius was furious at the reaction to his Legion's masterful performance. Only Horus openly praised the manner in which the Alpha Legion had overcome an opposition that outnumbered them a hundred to one."

 

An emphasis of mine was added to the initial quote.

 

The Index Astartes description does make it seem that Alpharius deliberately let the enemy amass forces and strength just so that he could then demonstrate how his Alpha Legion would deal with such an opposition. When he is only criticised for his conduct after the battle, he is furious that the strength his Legion demonstrated is not appreciated.

 

Meanwhile, Roboute Guilliman, the guy repeatedly noted to conquer worlds in better condition than most (and suffering fewer casualties than most), suggests that Alpharius could have taken the world quicker, with lower expenditure in resources, and with less loss of enemy life (and, presumably, infrastructure).

 

The battle for Tesstra is not an example of how the Alpha Legion's methods were super efficient. It is an example of how the Alpha Legion were able to outmanouver, trip up, blind, and take out a foe of notable military strength. But they are then criticised for not having been very efficient in doing so.

 

 

Legatus, you're taking us back to an era when legions were comprised of ten thousand Space Marines.

 

 

The 2nd Edition was for most of the Legions where their character first was established. For the most part, the Legions still have the character that was given to them in 2nd Edition. The Alpha Legion are a stark example of where that is not the case, where their original characterization was completely dismissed in the Horus Heresy series (while only being glanced over in the Index Astartes article). The Alpha Legion, like with most of the traitor Legions, also did not have that many different characterizations throughout the editions. The four big loyalist Chapters have had many more instances of where they are described, while the traitor Legions mainly just had the 2nd and 3rd Edition Chaos Codices prior to the Index Astartes series.

 

The lore has not really been heavily revised from 2nd to 5th Edition, especially considering how drastically it was changed from 1st to 2nd, so I find the occasional dismissal of 2nd Edition lore baffling. The 2nd Edition was where the current 40K universe was established, and for the most part the current sourcebooks are still based on the 2nd Edition sources, with the 5th Edition Codices in particular copying a large number of pages almost directly. It has gotten a bit crazier in 6th and 7th Edition, but that is mainly due to the addition of new units (Thunderwolves, ugh) or the revamping of a particular faction (Necrons). The complete rewrite of the Horus Heresy events is a completely different matter entirely.

 

 

And Extermination doesn't hearken back to the material you brought up; if anything, it simply sticks with the "secretive, covert, saboteur" themes while repeating the Index Astartes battle.

 

 

'Extermination' does describe a very aggressive combat attitude, which is closer to how they were described in 2nd Edition. A trait that was perhaps a bit lost in the constant covert ops appearances in the Horus Heresy series.

 

"Under the critical eye of their Primarch during the Great Crusade the Legion became renowned for its discipline and strict organisation. (...) On the battelfield the terrifying coordination of the Alpha Legion was their hallmark, their attacks kept the enemy under relentless pressure while they sought a weak point in their defenses."

- 2nd Edition Codex Chaos, p. 14

 

"Among the Traitor Legions, the Chaos Space Marines of the Alpha Legion are renowned for their ruthless tactics and coldly efficient coordination. The many-headed Hydra, symbol of the Alpha Legion, reflects their diversity, as well as their ultimate unity of purpose. Their martial prowess was their hallmark even before their downfall and since the Horus Heresy the Alpha Legion has continued to pit its strength against loyal Space Marines, often for the sheer joy of meeting and overcoming equals on the battlefield."

- 2nd Edition Codex CHaos, p. 35

[mc warhammer]

some general points:
 

i'd still find the "you can pick and choose from all the depiction cherries on the 40k tree whenever you like" a little more convincing if there didn't seem to be such an attempt to create an agreed upon and shared status quo in the horus heresy series. as an easy example, alpharius of the IA is as tall and broad as horus and his marines are all specifically described as tall. in the horus heresy every author (except abnett, funnily enough) has described him as the runt of the litter. a casual reader would be forgiven for thinking the current horus heresy depiction supplants the IA as an official status quo.
 

it reads more like "pick all the depiction cherries you like, but we're only going to sell you THIS cherry".
 

for my money, i see the IA depiction of the alpha legion as the one they're happy for the imperium to buy into, whether there's truth to it or not (seriously, the IA contrived as hell).

 

as for the believability of the alpha legion being so good at infiltration- don't the good 'ol IA articles depict the emperor as a master of magical disguise? i'm sure one of his sons could inherit that trait, not just the punch face ones. it's part of the lore; each son embodies one of his traits.

 

regarding the alpha legion not acting like a proper legion and being all special, i like the idea that alpharius omegon were one of the few primarchs were given a legion of transhumans and thought- i'm going to use them differently. 80% of primarchs play within the rules of my army of strong men will meet your army of strongmen and then tactics! strategy! for the win. agreed? the alpha legion weren't the only ones who didn't conform to this approach, magnus and lorgar at least wanted to colour outside the lines.
 

whenever one legion decides to play against the rules, it seems to give them an advantage: iron warriors vs imperial fists in the cage. lorgar using the power of betrayal as a concept (knf) and tactic, horus using alpha legion approaches to great effect on istvaan v.  i think that's fair enough, unlike a truly advantaged legion, like the thousand sons. if they weren't handicapped by a mutation and low numbers, their combo of magic + psychic + killing machines has the potential to trump plain killing machine.
 

that the loyalists are reeling from an unexpected and unfamiliar mode of battle is not beyond belief. half of the alpha legion success isn't their infallibility, it's the loyal legions being at a huge disadvantage and playing catch up (by 40k, it can argued that the playing ground has been leveled).
 

after all, if the alpha legion's aim is to have horus win, we already know that they fail.

[Lay]

 

And Extermination doesn't hearken back to the material you brought up; if anything, it simply sticks with the "secretive, covert, saboteur" themes while repeating the Index Astartes battle.

 

'Extermination' does describe a very aggressive combat attitude, which is closer to how they were described in 2nd Edition. A trait that was perhaps a bit lost in the constant covert ops appearances in the Horus Heresy series.

 

It's worth noting that the biggest throwback to the old lore isn't even in the background, but in the rules section with the AL's "Martial Hubris" rule.

[Legatus]

Regarding the depiction of the Alpha Legion's doctrines in 'Extermination', this description sounds awfully familiar:

 

"In battle this 'youngest' Legion, driven by its mysterious and taciturn Primarch, became renowned quickly for its discipline and strict and impenetrable organisation and regime, which emphasised the unity of the Legion and its wider actions over the individual in every respect. Its hallmark was a relentless application of force and a terrifying level of co-ordination between its warriors and war machines."

- The Horus Heresy: Extermination, p. 82

 

That almost looks like taken directly from the 2nd Edition Codex Chaos. See three posts above for a direct comparison.

 

Regarding what the Battle for Tesstra was supposed to showcase, this is how the Alpha Legion's methods are described on page 84:

 

"Such zealousness to prove themselves as part of the Great Crusade at any cost, and the often over-elaborate and needlessly complex and malign way in which the Alpha Legion chose to wage war saw them quickly gain infamy more than fame."

 

The Battle for Tesstra itself is introduced with this line on page 103:

 

"The battle to force the human world of Tesstra into compliance has been seen by many as an exemplar both of the Alpha Legion's particular strengths and ultimately its flaws."

 

That might just refer to their uncooperative demeanor, but the account for the battle (and with it the Alpha Legion chapter of that book) closes with them being criticised by Guilliman for their methods' waste of time and resources.

[Chaeron]

Forgot to ask - was there any indication of when this would go up for order?

[Phoebus]

These aren't real people. They don't have to be portrayed consistently because different authors can write whatever they please.

 

 

Legatus was pointing out what I did, and it's hard fact, not up for debate. The Alpha Legion have been portrayed in very distinctly different ways by different authors. You can choose which version you like better, but you can't deny the existence of the other versions, lol. Abnett chose to make fundamental changes to the Alpha Legion lore and personality. Because he's an author writing about imaginary people who are only as real as the words written about them.

See my follow-on response to Legatus.  You may as well be arguing, "Legions once numbered 10,000 Space Marines in the 1990s.  Clearly, legions today still number 10,000 Space Marines as well as 100,000+ Space Marines."

 

Beyond that, it's not about which version I like better.  Frankly, I couldn't care less about the Alpha Legion beyond the interest I take in discussing the series as a whole in this forum.  What I disagree with is:

 

1. The assertion that a few paragraphs from 16-18 years ago trump dozens of pages of far more recent material in a setting that is understood to evolve.

2. The assertion that Abnett's take on the Alpha Legion was outright contradictory to the material that first started to provide a serious amount of detail to this faction.

 

Where #2 is concerned, Abnett seems to have invented two significant concepts for the Alpha Legion.  The first (assuming this wasn't a card GW had been holding tightly to themselves) was the Twin Primarch theme.  The other was the idea that different Alpha Legionnaires would pretend to be him.  If the former isn't your cup of tea, I get it.  The latter, however, is hardly irreconcilable with the first work that deigned to really shed light (however questionable, fraught with errors, and laced with lies) on how the Alpha Legion fought.

 

Legatus,

 

Forgive me, but it may a few more hours before I can respond to you.

[Phoebus]

I am not sure I read any exceptional defiance in the description of the defending forces. Once the Alpha Legion starts to attack, it pretty much only describes how the defending forces are being massacred. It does not really describe their attitude at all. At one point (top right paragraph) it states how "within hours, what had begun at first as an attempted withdraw by the Tesstrans had become a massacre, and soon devolved into city-wide panic and anarchy."

The attempted counter-offense after two days could be seen as strong defiance, but on the other hand the Alpha Legion was mercilessly slaughtering the defending forces and did not let any forces escape, so it could also be seen as a desperate fight for survival.

I think it's worth remembering that a great deal of the Conservation's forces were trapped - unable to flee or advance, and unable to be reinforced or resupplied.  The Alpha Legion aren't mentioned offering quarter, but - tellingly - no quarter appears to have been asked for, either.

 

At any rate, this series has qualified, time and again, that the Legiones Astartes are capable of great violence while prosecuting Compliance.  We may have to wait until a Forge World book that deigns to tell the story of the XIII Legion to get a clear(er) picture of their tactics and rules of engagement.  Until then, however, your counter argument to the Conservation's desperate counter-attack seems to be that the Ultramarines would have to worry about this, because they would allow the Conservation forces to flee without surrendering... and that they in turn would simply lay down their arms.

 

I mean, that could happen in theory, but it doesn't seem likely given the context of the situation.  This was a totalitarian state that enforced eugenics on its population, had a caste-based society (which means their soldiers were probably an ideologically-driven society unto themselves; this might explain why they never seem to have asked for quarter before they finally broke), and maintained a cadre of elites specifically bred for battle (their Ogryns).  When faced with invasion by hundreds of city-sized warships carrying hundreds of thousands of giants, they opted to fight.

 

Sorry, I just don't see surrender to be a very realistic premise in this case.

 

 

I still maintain, however, that Guilliman was wrong to say those tactics were a waste of resources.  I also continue to feel that these tactics resulted in far fewer casualties than would normally have been incurred, and that this was an acceptable tradeoff.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're comparing general observations with one specific situation.  You don't know whether the Ultramarines "commonly" encountered worlds whose leaderships fought on until their last reserves were thrown into combat.  Ultramarines don't have weaponry or warships that are inherently more accurate or less prone to inflicting collateral damage.  

 

Beyond that, you're making an apples-to-oranges argument.  My point was about wasting resources:  numbers of tanks, aircraft, artillery, men, bullets, etc.  Your counterpoint is about whether or not the Ultramarines would have done less damage.

 

 

In the Index Astartes article, the battle on Tesstra is preluded by this: ...

And this is when I remind you that the article in question is based on millennia old tomes, most of which are "copies of copies or simply forgeries filled with lies."  By contrast, Extermination does away with the undoubtedly invented attempts to convey what Alpharius actually felt.

 

But again, you're not addressing the actual point.  The point was, again, whether or not Alpharius wasted resources.  Ipso facto, the point becomes a question: whether or not the Ultramarines would have used less resources by conducting the battle using their doctrine.  That is, would they have needed less drop pods, gunships, armor, artillery, or men?  That is the question.  I posit that a conventional assault would have required at least as many resources.

 

 

Legatus, you're taking us back to an era when legions were comprised of ten thousand Space Marines.

 

 

The 2nd Edition was for most of the Legions where their character first was established. ...

I sympathize, man, but the fact of the matter is that this is an evolving setting, and the Alpha Legion have evolved since that Index Astartes article came out.

 

 

And Extermination doesn't hearken back to the material you brought up; if anything, it simply sticks with the "secretive, covert, saboteur" themes while repeating the Index Astartes battle.

 

'Extermination' does describe a very aggressive combat attitude, which is closer to how they were described in 2nd Edition. A trait that was perhaps a bit lost in the constant covert ops appearances in the Horus Heresy series.

You're ignoring the forest for the trees.  You're citing a few sentences of rather generalized flavor text while ignoring the fact that the battle described in Extermination is almost entirely lifted from the Index Astartes article we've been discussing. The central theme in both pieces was the Alpha Legion's infiltration/sabotage-driven doctrine, not the vague filler from 2nd Edition.

[Lay]

1. The assertion that a few paragraphs from 16-18 years ago trump dozens of pages of far more recent material in a setting that is understood to evolve.

The old Codex fluff 'trumps' the new HH one in its portrayal of Alpha Legionnaires being Space Marines first and foremost. It was just brought up as a reaction to yet another story where they are shown as super spies rather than super soldiers.

 

2. The assertion that Abnett's take on the Alpha Legion was outright contradictory to the material that first started to provide a serious amount of detail to this faction.

It was asserted that he contradicted the lore that was first established in 2nd and 3rd edition and which was valid until Legion came out. Which is correct.

[Legatus]

This was a totalitarian state that enforced eugenics on its population, had a caste-based society (which means their soldiers were probably an ideologically-driven society unto themselves; this might explain why they never seem to have asked for quarter before they finally broke), and maintained a cadre of elites specifically bred for battle (their Ogryns).  When faced with invasion by hundreds of city-sized warships carrying hundreds of thousands of giants, they opted to fight.

 

 

The citizens/soldiers of a totalitarian state might not be all that enthusiastic to keep fighting once their beloved leadership has been removed. For a populace to continue to fight even if their leaders and their command structure are destroyed it would take cultish fanaticism, not just a strictly enforced social order.

 

Plus, the initial weaker advances by the Alpha Legion that were meant to motivate the Tesstran forces to amass their forces probably left them with the impression that they were very much capable to defeat the imperial opposition. (An assumption that is not unreasonable, since the entire stunt by the Alpha Legion would have been meaningless if there was never any doubt that the Imperial forces would win handily. It was meant to be seen as a demonstration of ther prowess, after all.) So the commanders would probably not immediately think to surrender after the first hours of a devastating assault, since they were of the impression that they had a realistic chance. Plus, the communication channels were out as well, so there was not much chance for official action anyways.

 

 

We may have to wait until a Forge World book that deigns to tell the story of the XIII Legion to get a clear(er) picture of their tactics and rules of engagement.

 

 

We already know they were renowned to conquer worlds in excellent condition and that they generally suffered the fewest casualties of all the Legions. So claims from Guilliman that he could have conquered a world in better condition and with fewer casualties are reasonably credible. (Plus, the Index Astartes account flat out explained that the Alpha Legion cared for no such considerations.)

 

What the Alpha Legion did was intentionally let the opponent amass all of his strength in one place, and then proceed to tear them apart in a brutal assault. His main priority was to demonstrate the strength of his Legion. Guilliman suggests that instead the Capital should have quickly been seized and the command structure been taken out before the defense forces could have be fully mobilised. His main priority was the efficient conclusion of the campaign on Tesstra.

 

 

And this is when I remind you that the article in question is based on millennia old tomes, most of which are "copies of copies or simply forgeries filled with lies."  By contrast, Extermination does away with the undoubtedly invented attempts to convey what Alpharius actually felt.

 

 

To me, the Index Astartes article and the account in 'Extermination' are two accounts we are given of this event. We can see where tehy agree or disagree, or where one describes details the other does not. But if you want to argue credibility, this is the first paragraph of the Alpha Legion Chapter, page 79 of 'Extermination':

 

"There is no other Legion like the XXth. Of all the mighty forces of the Imperium commanded during the Great Crusade, there were none so wound about with falsehood, supposition and paradox than they. Any attempted study of the XXth division of the gene-seed of the Legiones Astartes, a force that would eventually become known as the Alpha Legion among a myriad of other names, is therefore fraught with difficulty and contradiction, and uncovering 'truth' when applied to such study is a vain hope. This is the case even to a record such as this, compiled with the highest of authorities and most extensive reach possible given the wreckage of the age of war which we have so recently survived."

 

So in what way is this account more credible than the Index Astartes article? And why should we just categorically dismiss the former, even in matters that are not contested by the latter?

 

 

But again, you're not addressing the actual point.  The point was, again, whether or not Alpharius wasted resources.  Ipso facto, the point becomes a question: whether or not the Ultramarines would have used less resources by conducting the battle using their doctrine.  That is, would they have needed less drop pods, gunships, armor, artillery, or men?  That is the question.  I posit that a conventional assault would have required at least as many resources.

 

 

Guilliman does not think so. In both accounts. In the Index Astartes, a lot of other individuals also thought so (or at least had some form of critique for Alpharius' campaign). And in the Index Astartes article, Alpharius explicitely was not concerned to conduct a quick campaign with as little collateral damage as possible. The account in 'Extermination' omits those details, but earlier in the article, the Alpha Legion's methods are described as "often over-elaborate and needlessly complex" (p. 84). On what grounds are we then meant to assume that the campaign on Tesstra was instead executed quickly and efficiently? While the 'Extermination' account does not point out that Alpharius intentionally let the Tesstrans build up strength to demonstrate his Legion's prowess, it does not contradict the earlier account of the battle either. And in both accounts, he is criticised for wasting time and ressources. In the Index Astartes article it was evident that that was the case. It does not suddenly become the exact opposite just because one line of exposition was cut from the newer account. Alpharius is still said to deliberately have waited a week to let the Tesstrans amass their forces. And he is still criticised for wasting time and resources. The only thing missing is the description of his intention to demonstrate the power of his Legion. (Which can be found in other places in 'Extermination', though, such as on page 84, upper right paragraph.)

 

Edit: Oh yeah, I could also point out that in both accounts, Alpharius is said to have thought of quickly seizing the Capital as "too easy". So apparently he agreed that that would have lead to a quicker conclusion as well.

 

 

I sympathize, man, but the fact of the matter is that this is an evolving setting, and the Alpha Legion have evolved since that Index Astartes article came out.

 

 

I had originally remarked how Dan Abnett was dismissing older lore in the case of the Alpha Legion. I think I have aptly demonstrated that that is indeed the case. The Alpharius in 'Legion' (ignoring the twin thing) is very different from the Alpharius in the 2nd and 3rd Edition Chaos Codices.

 

 

You're ignoring the forest for the trees.  You're citing a few sentences of rather generalized flavor text while ignoring the fact that the battle described in Extermination is almost entirely lifted from the Index Astartes article we've been discussing. The central theme in both pieces was the Alpha Legion's infiltration/sabotage-driven doctrine, not the vague filler from 2nd Edition.

 

 

I believe I remarked that the description in 'Extermination' does a good job reconciling their lore from the older Codices with the newer Horus Heresy material. That 'Extermination' all but verbatim quotes their battlefield doctrine descripton from the 2nd Edition Codex should be pretty convincing.

[Hyaenidae]

We're not going to re-hash the argument of "Old lore versus New Lore" again. That horse is dead and beaten. Please return to discussion of the Seventh Serpent.

 

=][=

[Wade Garrett]

Are we still allowed to discuss the Tesstran campaign in regards to the efficiency of Guilliman's tactics versus Alpharius's?

[Conn Eremon]

I don't really think it's relevant to the topic of the book itself (unless Tesstra is in the book), but one could always make a new topic, right?

[Hyaenidae]

Of course.

[Nineswords]

Forgot to ask - was there any indication of when this would go up for order?

 

 

To bring this back on topic, I would wager it will go on Black Library's website within the next month. This week it's the Sabbat Worlds anthology First Edition.

[Chaeron]

 

Forgot to ask - was there any indication of when this would go up for order?

 

 

To bring this back on topic, I would wager it will go on Black Library's website within the next month. This week it's the Sabbat Worlds anthology First Edition.

 

 

Yeah, I noticed that the free shipping promo ends the day before - so I'm wondering if it'll be the final week in November, or a couple of weeks after. Normally they do like a lead in.

[Phoebus]

Legatus,

 

I find myself unable to continue our debate without also referencing the older articles/material that we discussed.  Would you care to continue in a separate topic?