What happened to the pro-Imperium traitor legionaires?

[Tymell]

If it invalidates the core character of a Chapter, then I'd rather they didn't.

Great, so no objections to anything we're discussing here then, because it's already been shown how that hasn't been done

On a more serious note, I feel you're taking these things a little too deeply. If you don't like the portrayal of a particular legion/character/event, that's fine, but then saying it "invalidates" or "delegitimizes" that entire legion/chapter as a whole is daft. There are plot points and characterisations within the HH series that I don't like, but they don't suddenly mean everything about those characters/legions are ruined. I critique them and move on.

If you feel that other legions having traitors among them suddenly invalidates everything you like about the Dark Angels, then I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't think at this point that I nor anyone else is going to change your mind on it, so all I can say is that I think that's an over-reaction, and leave it there.

[helterskelter]

It'd be akin to a Night Lord getting upset about other legions commiting acts of murder. No?

[depthcharge12]

I believe in one of the newer books released, the inquisitors know about the fallen or have a good idea of them.

 

They don't feel it's damning because it causes the Dark Angels to fight harder and remain pure and committed to the cause of the Imperium (even when they go off on their Fallen witch hunts).

 

It might also be a sly form of blackmailing they could use against the Dark Angels if need be to do certain things.

[Legatus]

On a more serious note, I feel you're taking these things a little too deeply. If you don't like the portrayal of a particular legion/character/event, that's fine, but then saying it "invalidates" or "delegitimizes" that entire legion/chapter as a whole is daft. There are plot points and characterisations within the HH series that I don't like, but they don't suddenly mean everything about those characters/legions are ruined. I critique them and move on.

 

In some cases it just means that the actions of a faction that have shaped its ten thousand years history are no longer justified, when before they were. The core theme of the Ultramarines has allways been strict adherqnce to the Codex Astartes. Then McNeill comes along and tells us that Guilliman never intended for the Ultramarines to do so. The core theme of the Dark Angels has allways been their shameful past of a significant portion of the Legion turning traitor during the end of the Heresy, and to what lengths they go to keep it a secret. Now FW apparently tells us that that was not all that uncommon among the Legions.

 

That such lore changes significantly diminish the legitimacy of those Chapters is not in question. It tells us flat out that their actions were not really justified. Whether one is fine and dandy with those changes (maybe because one is not really invested in either of those factions) is a matter or personal preferences. But please don't tell us that it does not make the 40K Ultramarines and the 40K Dark Angels look the slightest bit foolish for clinging to millennia old traditions out of faulty interpretations of events.

 

 

It'd be akin to a Night Lord getting upset about other legions commiting acts of murder. No?

 

 

Or maybe like saying that a different Legion was the most ruthless and unhinged Legion, rather than attributing that to the Night Lords or the World Eaters...

 

One author actually said that. But a closer example would be if most Legions had instances of forces harassing undeserving populations just for the fun of it. That would mean the Night Lords' tendencies were nothing out of the ordinary, and they weren't so scary after all. Does that make sense at all, how that would lessen their appeal?

[Tymell]

I kind of want to respond in depth, splitting apart the post and pointing out everything wrong with it. But it wouldn't achieve anything, so I'll sum it up like this:

 

Saying other legions having traitors invalidates the Dark Angels is like saying other legions having psykers invalidates the Thousand Sons.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

I don't think this debate over the "awareness" is that relevant. I've always thought it had more to do with the fact that the Dark Angels didn't discover that half their legion had turned until AFTER the heresy was over. They returned home from a crushing end to the heresy, arriving too late to save their emperor, to have their own fire upon them and ultimately lose their primarch to a war they thought was over, and they thought they had been on the right side of. Devastating.

 

Additionally, the pride of being the First Legion, and having been above doubt or reproach or peers for so many centuries, means that to discover that they also have had brothers turn with Horus is a huge shock. They would never be able to claim their litany of victories because it would be tainted by the fallen.

This^

 

Anyone who thinks traitors in other loyal legions compromises the Dark Angels and their story needs to get more familiarized with the them, or take the melting of their unique-snow-flake loyalist traitors a little less personally IMO. This is civil war. If other legions didn't have their own turn coats, my intelligence would have been insulted.

But it is fair to point out awareness since that is a determining factor on who is able to do what in pretty much the entire setting.

 

I wonder. Could these Traitor Wolves be the origin for Skyrar's Dark Wolves?

[GhostMalone]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

So are Iron Warriors Minotaurs' progenitors? Always thought that World Eaters way fitted better with Minotaurs behavior, where have you found that information? Thanks

I'm pretty sure the evidence pointed to the Red Scorpions being Emperor's Children and the the Minotaurs being chimerically improved World Eaters? It's left pretty open to interpretation on both counts though.

The connection between the Minotaurs and the Iron Warriors stems more from the rules. Fluff wise, the Minotaurs do seem like World Eater Loyalists at first... but both the Minotaurs and Iron Warriors ignore casualties from shooting for their morale checks and the Minotaurs always fight in large chapter formations, often in seige engagements, heedless of the casualties that it causes them. That is a very Iron Warriors trait.

Have you even heard of the world eaters and their attrition rates?

Or how they are able to cracked world's open through any means necessary to butcher those inside.

 

The Iron warriors represent their rules the world eaters are their fluff and more likely to honour able like the war hounds of old compared to the sons of olympia

[mc warhammer]

 

 

I don't think this debate over the "awareness" is that relevant. I've always thought it had more to do with the fact that the Dark Angels didn't discover that half their legion had turned until AFTER the heresy was over. They returned home from a crushing end to the heresy, arriving too late to save their emperor, to have their own fire upon them and ultimately lose their primarch to a war they thought was over, and they thought they had been on the right side of. Devastating.

 

Additionally, the pride of being the First Legion, and having been above doubt or reproach or peers for so many centuries, means that to discover that they also have had brothers turn with Horus is a huge shock. They would never be able to claim their litany of victories because it would be tainted by the fallen.

This^

 

Anyone who thinks traitors in other loyal legions compromises the Dark Angels and their story needs to get more familiarized with the them, or take the melting of their unique-snow-flake loyalist traitors a little less personally IMO. This is civil war. If other legions didn't have their own turn coats, my intelligence would have been insulted.

what. can't you buy into the idea that EXACTLY 9 legions turned on EXACTLY 9 legions? it's even stevens in love and war.

[Legatus]

Saying other legions having traitors invalidates the Dark Angels is like saying other legions having psykers invalidates the Thousand Sons.

 

 

If no other Legion ever had them and then all of a sudden we were told that they now did, it indeed would. Though it would not "invalidate" them as much as simply diminish their appeal.

 

I do still remember the furious reactions when other Chapters were given venerable Dreadnoughts, which previously had been exclusive to Space Wolves. Or Plasma Cannons for Tactical squads of Chapters other than the Dark Angels.

 

But then the issue with the Dark Angels is not simply that having traitors is somehow cool. It is that their entire identity is based on how significant an issue the betrayal of parts of their Legion was, and their strong reaction to it. If that betrayal is now considerably less significant, as it had happened in smaller scale to other Legions without any repercussions, then their strong reaction to it is no longer reasonable. Which it previously was. But now isn't.

[Huggtand]

 

It is that their entire identity is based on how significant an issue the betrayal of parts of their Legion was, and their strong reaction to it. If that betrayal is now considerably less significant, as it had happened in smaller scale to other Legions without any repercussions, then their strong reaction to it is no longer reasonable. Which it previously was. But now isn't.

 

But nothing has changed for the Dark Angels as I see it. As you write it´s their really strong reaction to the betrayal that sets them out from the other legions situations. The thing that makes the DA unique is that the split contrast so much against their strong pride, honor and loyalty. This makes it so much worse for them.

 

That the other legions also has turncoats doesn’t detracts from the the DA situation. Rather it´s make it more special and their reason for the strong reaction more understandable in light of their background.

[Kol Saresk]

Guys, let's face it. Unless everything is a reprint of 3rd edition, Legatus will find fault with it. Let's go ahead and move on before the topic is murdered for being off-topic talking about Dark Angels instead of Loyalist Traitors.

[ElectricPaladin]

Guys, let's face it. Unless everything is a reprint of 3rd edition, Legatus will find fault with it. Let's go ahead and move on before the topic is murdered for being off-topic talking about Dark Angels instead of Loyalist Traitors.

 

I do think he's right that if every legion had traitors, it tends to suck a lot of the drama and pathos out of what happened to the Dark Angels, but I see this as a flaw in the writing of the Dark Angels, rather than the otherwise. The Heresy is more fun if the battle lines were wavier than everyone else likes to admit. The Dark Angels used to embody that, but extended that to everyone else was a natural next step. The writers are going to have to alter or update the Dark Angels fluff to match the new history so that they don't seem like they're whining over a non-shame and desperately hiding a non-secret.

[helterskelter]

Nearly half the 1st founders have secrets of some variety, RG von frankenstein, Count BA, an American fenrisian in prospero, then the DA have their version. Different versions of a story. Anyway, I need to work on the fluff for the black shields night raptor that's living in the wip subsection... shameless enough? Never!

[Hyaenidae]

One of the lines in the new Conquest book mentions 'midnight clad warriors wearing defaced Night Lords iconography' attacking traitor forces.  ;)

[Slips]

One of the lines in the new Conquest book mentions 'midnight clad warriors wearing defaced Night Lords iconography' attacking traitor forces.

Yeah, that shocked our Night Lords player right proper when we told him ahahhaah!

[Knight of the Raven]

I won't be happy until War Hounds attack traitor forces.

[Kol Saresk]

I can buy it and dig it. Especially since Child of Night.

[Slips]

I'm mostly surprised at the "Iron Hands and Sons of Horus" force. Anyone have Deets on them?

[Kol Saresk]

I'd imagine Renegade-isj Iron Hands and Sons not really fighting for either side.

[helterskelter]

I can buy it and dig it. Especially since Child of Night.

It's become one of my favourite heresy tidbits!

 

@hyaenidae1000 but the winged skull is awesome, I can't bring myself to deface it! Painted on blackshield for now, and a potential claim to the only loyalist NL (in mini format anyway) on this board :p

[blackoption]

I'm mostly surprised at the "Iron Hands and Sons of Horus" force. Anyone have Deets on them?

Unfortunately that is the extent of the information presented.  It was just one line of information.

 

As for the loyalist night lords... i can see them going back to the crimson sons livery.

[Leif Bearclaw]

I'm mostly surprised at the "Iron Hands and Sons of Horus" force. Anyone have Deets on them?

Well, if they're Traitor, I see one of three explanations:

 

Iron Hands actually siding with Horus due to the death of Ferrus proving he wasn't able to practice what he preached. He was weak, Horus was strong, therefore Horus is more worthy of their allegiance than a weak corpse.

 

They were actually all SoH, some were using salvaged IH gear from Istvaan and were misidentified, possiblty because they decided not to/hadn't got round to defacing it properly.

 

The 'Iron Hands' were actually Alpha Legion. Because Alpha Legion. (This is also a possible explanation for all the large scale rumoured Traitors form loyalist Legions. It fits right in with the modus operandi of the AL, plus they've done it in the fluff before)

[Tymell]

Iron Hands actually siding with Horus due to the death of Ferrus proving he wasn't able to practice what he preached. He was weak, Horus was strong, therefore Horus is more worthy of their allegiance than a weak corpse.

I really like this idea (for a group I mean, not suggesting it for the legion as a whole or anything).

 

The section in the book about these side-switchers is very vague, but I feel that's the point: much like how the unknown legions were originally to open up the possibility of people creating their own homebrew ones, I feel this is there to inspire people to be creative, to allow them to create ideas for "loyalist traitors" or "traitor loyalists" if they want to.

[1ncarnadine]

Definitely! It's the real beauty of the Conquest book, really making 30k into whatever you want it to be. 

 

I think in book 2, there was mention of the Seal of the Eye of Vigilance that was basically an Eye of Horus mark of honour for the Iron Hands. They also mentioned warrior lodges being started but not really taking a strong hold in the legion... these traitor Iron Hands could be those legionnaries that did buy into the warrior lodges or took pride in the seal of the eye. The psychology of IH marines like this is kind of interesting, because on some level they probably hated their own primarch as weak. Whether this was before or after he got offed is another question... 

[Leif Bearclaw]

Something of a tangent, but I one thing I'm not so fond of in the more recent Heresy stuff is the almost 100% Warrior Lodge=Traitor relationship. I liked how the Lodges were portrayed in Horus Rising. The secret society within the loyal Legion, it gave them more of an archaic 'warrior/knight' vibe which contrasting the surface 'soldiers of the secular age' image, hinting at the thin veneer of the Imperial Truth, even at its height. It also gave them an avenue of psychological support in a community of brothers (best seen in False Gods when Marr is brought to the lodge to help him deal with the death of Moy).

 

Now I know someone will want to come in with 'they were set up by the Word Bearers before Horus fell to corrupt the Legions form within', and yes, that's the story we have now. But I preferred the idea that the Lodges were always present in the Legions, and were twisted by the WBs to serve Lorgar's goals. Not only because of the interesting role suggested for them in Horus Rising, but twisting an extant institution for their own ends fits the corruptive nature of chaos quite well imo.