What happened to the pro-Imperium traitor legionaires?

[Schultzhoffen]

Mostly agree with ElectricPaladin.

 

There would be very few survivors left after points 1-3. Most of what would be left would end up as point 4 - meaning that their geneseed dies with them or (maybe) 6.

 

I don't think there'd be enough survivors for point 5.

 

 

 

Any other possibilities?

[ElectricPaladin]

Mostly agree with ElectricPaladin.

 

There would be very few survivors left after points 1-3. Most of what would be left would end up as point 4 - meaning that their geneseed dies with them or (maybe) 6.

 

I don't think there'd be enough survivors for point 5.

 

 

 

Any other possibilities?

 

I only included Point 5 to account for a few cases where it is almost certain to have happened - Blood Ravens, for example, and possibly the Minotaurs as others have pointed out. However, the fact is that every example of Point 5 is based on specific narrative events, rather than just random chance. I sincerely doubt that any modern chapters are founded because a bunch of, say, Loyalist Sons of Horus were hanging around and say "hey, there's a couple of dozen of us... I bet we could be a full chapter if we found a likely planet, convinced the mortals there to help us - it wouldn't be hard, we could just protect them from xenos, Chaos, and pirates for a few decades - laid low and recruited heavily. Let's do it!"

 

That said, you could do a lot worse as a backstory for your army, if that floats your boat. But in most cases - almost all, I'd say - it was the result of something happening. Magnus sending a strike cruiser away before the Burning of Prospero, for example, or the intercession of the Emperor or Malcador or one of the proto-High Lords.

[GreyCrow]

Interesting topic ! I had no idea about the Rouge Iron Hands nor the fact that the Red Scorpions were rumoured to be or Traitor origins ! After reading a lot more, they really seem like Loyalist Word Bearers, or is there any other rumour out there ?

[The Yncarne]

Are there any illustrations of Rouge Iron Hands? I'm curious as to what their color scheme looks like.

[Krikey]

Are there any illustrations of Rouge Iron Hands? I'm curious as to what their color scheme looks like.

My guess is they would be predominantly some shade of red.

 

~K

[Uprising]

I am still waiting to find out what happen to the 65 Death guard from flight of Einstein. 

[Toomanyprojects]

Are there any illustrations of Rouge Iron Hands? I'm curious as to what their color scheme looks like.

I think the original quote was supposed to read "Rogue" Iron Hands lol

 

In the story they are basically critically injured marines who stay alive with additional cybernetic implants. They're more machine-y iron hands basically. More or less normal scheme I think

[Kol Saresk]

After reading Sons of Wrath, I have a number 7. Vengeful sons of the Imperium murdered them, not caring that they were still Loyalists.

[Tymell]

An interesting topic, and I'm reading through HH Book IV: Conquest right now, it has a bit of further info on the matter.

 

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

 

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

 

Lastly, it talks about some reports of marines with no markings at all, so-called 'black' Legionaries, though doesn't say exactly what they are. The 'Black Shield' legionary as seen in that picture is described as unknown, but seen fighting alongside loyalists at Numinal, and also that he (or someone with the same markings) was seen at numerous other engagements throughout the Heresy.

 

Juicy food for thought!

 

And as already mentioned, we do have various examples from Black Library too. I won't name specifics for spoiler reasons, but Prince of Crows, Scars, Sword of Truth, Ravenlord, The Iron Within, Flight of the Eisenstein, Battle For the Abyss, Allegiance and Vengeful Spirit all show us examples of legionaries on the "wrong" side.

[GhostMalone]

It's good because the good vs evil concept isn't in 30k

 

It's civil war on a galactic scale

Brother v brother

Son v father

Families being crucified or reduced to atomic ashes.

 

 

This is "the horus heresy"

[Legatus]

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

 

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

 

 

That's a shame. Sounds like someone at GW (or FW) was ignoring the ramifications for the integrity of the established lore again. If more loyalist Legions had units or even full companies side with Chaos, then the entire backstory of the Dark Angels is meaningless. Way to completely deligitimize one of the most famous Chapters of 40K.

[Tiberius Cato]

 

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

 

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

 

That's a shame. Sounds like someone at GW (or FW) was ignoring the ramifications for the integrity of the established lore again. If more loyalist Legions had units or even full companies side with Chaos, then the entire backstory of the Dark Angels is meaningless. Way to completely deligitimize one of the most famous Chapters of 40K.

Well, with the Dark Angels they had their own mini civil war. The entirety of the legion was in internecine conflict. It wasn't just company x followed Horus while the legion remained loyal. Luther and a fairly large contingent of the legion straight up were like ":cuss you, Lion, your Emperor will fall to the might of the Warmaster!"

 

Then pew pew's were had and Caliban turned into a bunch of rocks and the Unforgiven were born.

[Millicant]

 

 

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

 

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

 

That's a shame. Sounds like someone at GW (or FW) was ignoring the ramifications for the integrity of the established lore again. If more loyalist Legions had units or even full companies side with Chaos, then the entire backstory of the Dark Angels is meaningless. Way to completely deligitimize one of the most famous Chapters of 40K.

Well, with the Dark Angels they had their own mini civil war. The entirety of the legion was in internecine conflict. It wasn't just company x followed Horus while the legion remained loyal. Luther and a fairly large contingent of the legion straight up were like ":cuss you, Lion, your Emperor will fall to the might of the Warmaster!"

 

Then pew pew's were had and Caliban turned into a bunch of rocks and the Unforgiven were born.

You know this interesting I never thought of it like that. While it may delegitimize the Dark Angels it is certainly a much more realistic approach to the Horus Heresy. One of the reasons I like it so much, especially from Forgeworlds stuff, Is how gritty and real it is,has opposed to the almost cartoony vibe of 40k. This may just be one of the acceptable losses in terms of collateral damage.

[Tymell]

Eh, everyone's entitled to their own opinions on it of course, but I can't see how it "delegitimizes" the Dark Angels myself.

 

For one thing, the Dark Angels split wasn't really about the Heresy: it's Luther and his lot wanting to be separate. Others siding with Horus during the Heresy is a different thing altogether.

 

For another, it seems strange to define the Dark Angels purely by this and this alone. Sure, their split is a major feature of their background, but does that mean no other loyalist legion is allowed to have any traitors/Horus supporters (which, again, isn't the same thing as the DA anyway) among it's ranks? Because suddenly...what? That somehow makes the Dark Angels less special? The Dark Angels split is still unique in the reasoning behind it, the extent of it, and the long-term repercussions.

 

The 30K/40K universe is a big place, with plenty of things left open or vague, some of which can be explored or plugged in, and for me that's a large part of the draw of the HH series: exploration and expansion of new ideas, or different ways of looking at the events we've had presented to us in a very distant fashion for many years before. Traitor members, groups, even whole companies of other legions just gives them more depth IMO.

[Millicant]

Eh, everyone's entitled to their own opinions on it of course, but I can't see how it "delegitimizes" the Dark Angels myself.

 

For one thing, the Dark Angels split wasn't really about the Heresy: it's Luther and his lot wanting to be separate. Others siding with Horus during the Heresy is a different thing altogether.

 

For another, it seems strange to define the Dark Angels purely by this and this alone. Sure, their split is a major feature of their background, but does that mean no other loyalist legion is allowed to have any traitors/Horus supporters (which, again, isn't the same thing as the DA anyway) among it's ranks? Because suddenly...what? That somehow makes the Dark Angels less special? The Dark Angels split is still unique in the reasoning behind it, the extent of it, and the long-term repercussions.

 

The 30K/40K universe is a big place, with plenty of things left open or vague, some of which can be explored or plugged in, and for me that's a large part of the draw of the HH series: exploration and expansion of new ideas, or different ways of looking at the events we've had presented to us in a very distant fashion for many years before. Traitor members, groups, even whole companies of other legions just gives them more depth IMO.

I think you really nailed it there. The Dark Angels uniqueness in 40k comes largely from their reaction to and handling of the traitors, as opposed to the mere fact that there were traitors.

[Stonerhino]

 

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

 

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

 

 

That's a shame. Sounds like someone at GW (or FW) was ignoring the ramifications for the integrity of the established lore again. If more loyalist Legions had units or even full companies side with Chaos, then the entire backstory of the Dark Angels is meaningless. Way to completely deligitimize one of the most famous Chapters of 40K.

 

I actually enjoy the fact that someone has chosen to explore the Space Wolves unquestionable loyalty.  Or any other loyalist for that matter.  It doesn't take away from the Unforgiven.  It just shows that the HH battle lines where not as clear cut and 10,000 years of history would like us to believe.

[caladancid]

Question on the modern chapters with possible Traitor Legion loyalists....

 

Minotaurs are Iron Warriors, Red Scorpions I thought were rumored to be Word Bearers, Blood Ravens are almost certainly Thousand Sons.... are all of those right or did I miss one in there?

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

 

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

 

That's a shame. Sounds like someone at GW (or FW) was ignoring the ramifications for the integrity of the established lore again. If more loyalist Legions had units or even full companies side with Chaos, then the entire backstory of the Dark Angels is meaningless. Way to completely deligitimize one of the most famous Chapters of 40K.

Well, with the Dark Angels they had their own mini civil war. The entirety of the legion was in internecine conflict. It wasn't just company x followed Horus while the legion remained loyal. Luther and a fairly large contingent of the legion straight up were like ":cuss you, Lion, your Emperor will fall to the might of the Warmaster!"

 

Then pew pew's were had and Caliban turned into a bunch of rocks and the Unforgiven were born.

It also saw the destruction of their homeworld. And it doesn't delegitimize them. If that was the case, they'd be delegitimize every time we hear of an Ultramarine or a Blood Angel turning Traitor.

 

The Hunt for the Fallen isn't "We fear persecution". Its a matter of pride. "None must be able to question our loyalty. So we will do whatever it takes to remove this stain on our honor. Regardless of the cost."

 

And it is very fitting with the Imperium's attitude of "better to destroy knowledge than to even risk it turning one person against the Imperium.

 

It is literally no different than the lengths some of the Blood Angel successors will go to hide the Black Rage and Red Thirst.

[depthcharge12]

Yeah Luther was more of a Cartman: "Screw you guys, I'm goin home."

 

Luther and his lot were just pissed at the Lion for leaving them out and wanted Caliban to be independent of the larger imperium. Most of that reasoning I believe also came with the jealousy of Luther losing his grandstanding.

 

 

I think Kol put it best. It's more of a pride thing, especially since some Inquisitors know about the whole dealio <_<

 

I mean, if you think about it, the White Scars had a large falling out within their own legion to Horus' side (thank you Mr. Wright <3)

[Leif Bearclaw]

Not going to quote fully in case that's not allowed, but it mentions that the divisions of loyalty aren't as clear-cut as "This Legion was entirely loyal" and "This Legion was entirely traitor". There were those who were on differing sides to most of the Legion, on both sides. Some due to the warrior lodges, some due to existing grudges or grievances, some due to manipulation or corruption, some simply due to believing Horus was in the right. In turn, some stayed loyal against their Primarchs.

It mentions a few specific examples, including Night Lords with defaced heraldry fighting traitors on Estaban III, marines with the old Dusk Raiders colours fighting Iron Warriors at Kibron and Malinche's Fall, and even rumour of an entire Great Company of Space Wolves bearing Horus' mark at Neo Cadiz, and a company of Astartes with mixed livery of the Iron Hands and the Sons of Horus at the Siege of Mezoa.

That's a shame. Sounds like someone at GW (or FW) was ignoring the ramifications for the integrity of the established lore again. If more loyalist Legions had units or even full companies side with Chaos, then the entire backstory of the Dark Angels is meaningless. Way to completely deligitimize one of the most famous Chapters of 40K.

I sort of agree with this, but for different reasons. What those rumours (so it may just be FW trolling us ) lack is any context. This is something that had bugged me with the whole 'no Legion was 100% loyal/traitor' thing. Some Legions it's easy to explain, primarily loyal Traitors, their loyalty to the Emperor outweighed the Primarch's cult of personality/the mistreatment of their Legion. However, why would a Blood Angel, Imperial Fist or Space Wolf side with Horus? It doesn't add up to me. (Especially on the scale of a bloody Great Company, there were only 13 of them to begin with!). Why would these Legionaries side against both their Emperor, who should be their ultimate authority, and their own Primarchs? I get that Horus was a charismatic and popular dude, but that much more than thier own gene-fathers? Just nope. I believe Scars had a decent explanation (Terrans not welcome in the V, and those recruits were meant for the XVI anyway), then there's Luther, and potentially some IHs going made after Istvaan. But the other 6 loyal Legions, mass treachery on that scale just doesn't gel.

Question on the modern chapters with possible Traitor Legion loyalists....

Minotaurs are Iron Warriors, Red Scorpions I thought were rumored to be Word Bearers, Blood Ravens are almost certainly Thousand Sons.... are all of those right or did I miss one in there?

Well, none of those are 'right' per se, as it's all fanon speculation. Even the Ravens is pure supposition, as all the 'proof' I've seen is only confirmation if you already accept the idea. However, the Minotaurs are normally speculated to be World Eaters. I've never seen Red Scorpions=Word Bearers before. There's also the Silver Skulls, which some reckon to be descended from a loyal Iron Warrior Warsmith that had some dealings with the Ultramarines during the Heresy. However, I don't buy any of them, it just doesn't make sense, especially when weighted against 'this is the Imperium, they forget things all the time, so they're probably Ultra successors'.

[Still Standing]

The problem with the Thousand Sons / Blood Ravens link is that it is basically confirmed by out of game interviews.

[Kol Saresk]

Scars had Chogorians siding with Horus.....

 

The main instigator was one who had helped the Khan conquer Chogoris.........

 

What people are forgetting are the two main ideologies at war. The Loyalists hold the ideology that the Emperor knows best and everyone should follow his will. The propaganda for the Traitors is that it was the Astartes and the Primarchs who built the Imperium, so it should be the Astartes who rule it. Among a warrior culture like the Legiones Astartes, that is powerful propaganda. And Legions, like the Wolves, who have a true warrior mindset, are likely to respond to that mindset.

 

Also, the Wolves(going by the short in Death and Defiance) aren't neatly divided into 13 Great Companies. Rather, you get thirteen groupings of smaller squads who, when using their official designations, make up 13 Great Companies. Unofficially, any random grouping of a few here and a few there could possibly equal the strength of "a Great Company".

 

It also dies to remember that some Legions went, not necessarily racist, but isolationist. Space Wolves only recruited from fenris. Salamanders recruited from only three worlds, but indoctrinated all in Nocturnean society. And so on. That breeds resentment.

[EdT]

Quite aside from the realism of it and the scope for interesting background (I'm having some fun at the moment with thinking up some Traitor Raven Guard, and I think all the loyalists aside from the Ultras and Imperial Fists could have more or less plausible traitors) I actually think the fact that the majority of Legions suffered some form of split makes the Dark Angels backstory more distinct and tragic, not less.

 

Why? Because it stresses the their pride and their brooding, secretive nature; while other Legions accepted the trauma and moved on, the Dark Angels are incapable of doing so and instead obsess about it long after everyone else has forgotten about their transgression. They've trapped themselves in their own prison of guilt and shame when they didn't need to, and that seems to fit the Legion perfectly. Seems to me that there's the potential for almost as many Traitor White Scars floating around the Eye as members of the Fallen, but ask a Stormseer about it and I bet he'd shrug and say that not all are worthy of the Path of Heaven, or something similarly relaxed.

[Ganders]

Uprising wrote: I am still waiting to find out what happen to the 65 Death guard from flight of Einstein.

(I have no idea how to use the quote function).

 

Me too. I remember reading in the old Index Astartes about Garro and the 70 that escaped on the Eisenstien. I always wondered what happened to the rest of the marines that Garro brought with him. The old article had three possibilities. (The travelled around trying to find a cure for the legion/They rotted in the dungeons in Terra forgotten about/They sucummed to Nurgle in the end).

Store manager told me a while ago that they were being used as guards for other traitor legionaries but I don't know his source.

Interestingly there is a line in the short story 'The Last Rememberencer' that says that Icaton Cruze (sp?) is one of the few men to have seen the faces beneath the helmets of the guards on titan.
 

[Legatus]

If the Fallen are a unique thing, then the Dark Angels' secrecy and their fierce protection of their secrets, going as far as attacking other Imperial forces to stop it from becoming known, are fully warranted. But if they simply don't want others to know that to them happened what happened with almost every other loyal Legion, then their actions are entirely irrational. But at least there are enough people who will find the Dark Angels being turned into a bunch of weirdos much more interesting than them hiding a legitimately damning secret from the rest of their peers. It would be "more tragic" in the sense that no actual shameful event ever happened to the Legion, but that the Dark Angels are simply so socially awkward and paranoid that they are unable to continue to function properly as part of the Imperial forces because of it. Not because it is justified, but because they cannot deal with it.