What happened to the pro-Imperium traitor legionaires?

[Tymell]

Yeah, I like that idea too. At the very least, it'd be interesting to see some variety on the lodges, not just the same thing each time.

 

Maybe a short story (or sub-plot within a novel) about a lodge within a loyalist legion after the Heresy. Someone within the legion finds out about it's existence and wants it disbanded. Others within it argue that it existed before any traitor influence, and that such an organisation is needed now more than ever to unify bonds and so on. Lots of suspicion and intrigue, hints that there are traitors there, but eventually a revelation that there aren't.

[Machine God]

 

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...

Good point about the weakness thing. Remember the Ferrus Mannus quote about him not liking the over-use of bionics/cybernetics in the Iron Hands Legion, that probably got right up a few noses.

 

There we are getting bigger and stronger and then He says its a bad thing! Mutter Mutter!

[HaSY]

 

[Reyner]

I wasn't going to go for this book for a while but all the stuff you lot are talking about makes me want to buy it... And tomorrow is payday!

[Slave to Darkness]

 instead of Loyalist Traitors.

You mean the Dark Angels??? :P

[Kol Saresk]

 

I like how it says that some are "simply just forgotten". :D

 

And that's only a couple of centuries after the Heresy. ;)

[HaSY]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

[Theis]

I am tempted to say I don't understand a lot of the conversation in the previous pages, regarding loyal legions having traitor elements, and traitor legions having loyalist elements. I am tempted to say I don't understand why some view this as diminishing the fluff of a particular favorite, etc.

The truth is though, I do. Some people crave absolutes. Absolutes are easier to grasp, immutable, unchanging. Good is always good, bad is always bad, it's easy to parse. 

 

Real life, runs the counter argument, isn't that way. So, where's the harm in a little nuance or complexity? Many of us find that engaging.

 

Where's the harm in those who find real life's complexity frustrating clinging to some absolutes, those who want simplicity, finding it?

 

Neither viewpoint is right or wrong, neither holds more merit. They are simply two different approaches toward engaging in this universe GW created.

 

I would like to make clear I am not saying these viewpoints are anyone others' than my own. They are just two of literally, countless, explanations for what has been written prior to this post, pure imagination on my part, not to be attributed as my thoughts on the thoughts of others, please?

 

That said, my further thoughts on the subject are that, until the Horus Heresy series of novels, and now Forge World's 30k expansions to the 40k game system, the history of the Empire / Imperium had been that communicated in White Dwarf's, codexes, rule books, expansions, etc., and was very much a catch as catch can sort of thing. Back when it was possible to go years without knowing about some key piece of fluff. 

 

Today it is more difficult, as the wiki's exist, and the information is compiled more centrally, more easily accessible to anyone interested, but for many people, opinions and favorite pieces of this "fluff" were formed early.

 

These were also, to be honest, rather simplistic backgrounds, histories, etc., as only so much "fluff" can be crammed into  the limited number of pages available.

 

I think of them as the myths and legends of the universe. The stories which survived through ten thousand years, original records long since lost, and retold, retold again, and again through ten millenia.

 

Now though, with the advent of the novels and FW's contributions, significantly more page space has been made available for "fluff." They are also being treated more seriously in some cases, as actual historical records being read, told, or examined. No longer the legends, where archetypes are used to denote unambiguous messages, myths with heroes and monsters, but actual, nuanced, gritty and real seeming accounts of the events that gave basis to the myths, with all the confusion, chaos, and seemingly contradictory tidbits such actual historical records are filled with.

 

The legions were large, complex, organizations filled with warriors / soldiers from a huge number of backgrounds, planets, classes, cultures, and communities. To this was added a number of traits based on geneseed. To think that there wouldn't be as many different thoughts on the heresy as there were individual legionnaires is to ignore the very nature of man and individuality. 

 

Given the sheer complexity of the species, of course there will be loyalists within the rebels, or rebels in the loyalists, or those who seek to carve out small empires of their own, or whatever.

 

Now, does this rob the Dark Angels of their pathos? To those of us who examine everything with a thought to complexity being the nature of things, no, probably not. To those who find  this noble, tragic, chapter being unique in their quiet dignity, their mystery, subtlety, and steadfast loyalty, perhaps. To those who long for some sort of archetype in their hobby, some ideal that should, but doesn't exist in our workaday world, almost definitely.

 

I am not ascribing those viewpoints to any poster preceding me. I'm just throwing them out there as potential viewpoints. Any given person's is going to be more complex than these. I don't doubt that all of yours are. I am quite certain I can't do more than guess at your particular viewpoints. 

 

Larger point being, what happened to pro-Imperium traitor legionnaires? There is no answer beyond, whatever makes sense to you.  The answers you receive from anyone else will range from discounting the possibility of there being any at all, to them being the founders of current chapters, to some still being out there in the 41st millenium, furthering the agenda of the emperor, their own agenda, or something else entirely. 

 

Personally, it's a big sand box this. I am fortunate enough to have views on it that are almost in lockstep with the direction being taken by the studio. Then again, I think they're walking a line that allows folks to go pretty much any direction they choose to with their personal forces. Makes sense. Leave enough doors open and you'll find every hobbyist goes a slightly different direction.

 

Do want to say I like the bits about the blackshields I'm reading so far. Civil wars are incredibly complex, complicated, affairs the brother fighting brother thing, in every possible interpretation of that phrase, is just the beginning of that complexity, and it's nice to see FW / GW / Blacklibrary dip a toe in those waters.

[Legatus]

I am tempted to say I don't understand why some view this as diminishing the fluff of a particular favorite, etc. The truth is though, I do. Some people crave absolutes.

 

 

Soo missing the point, man. I am apparently just terrible at explaining the situation coherently.

[Theis]

 

I am tempted to say I don't understand why some view this as diminishing the fluff of a particular favorite, etc. The truth is though, I do. Some people crave absolutes.

 

 

Soo missing the point, man. I am apparently just terrible at explaining the situation coherently.

 

Don't doubt that I was, why I put in the caveats about not ascribing these viewpoints to the prior posters, etc.

 

The thing about "craving absolutes" is, just one of a thousand potential explanations, and I think I get where you were coming from. but if putting your thoughts into words is difficult for you, imagine my dilemma.  

 

Really though, regardless of where you're coming from on this subject, I respect your opinion, and am never going to find anything "wrong" with it, whether I'm in lockstep with it or not.

 

A good friend of mine is a huge Dark Angels fan. I'm not particularly, but I do get to hear a lot of his thoughts on subjects related to that legion / chapter, which are expressed similarly to your own. When you figure out how to express them more eloquently or thoroughly, I think it will make for good reading and conversation.

[spu00sed]

My taking of the dark angel thing is as follows (and is probably incorrect)

 

During the heresy, entire legions, and sections of other legions followed Horus in their battle against the emperor.

 

The only legion which stayed wholly loyal were the dark angels. Not a single battle brother joined the rebels. They all crusaded alongside the primarch or helped Luther guard calibration and train new recruits.

 

As the heresy continued the depths of the betrayal and the forces of chips became apparent, and yet still no dark angel fell.

 

(The dark angels at this pint might have even used it to point out how great the first legion were)

 

After the heresy the lion returns to caliban and find out that a massive amount of his legions are traitors, and trained his recruits.

 

 

This is why they are the unforgiven, because for seven ling years they told the other legions, the imperium and the emperor himself that they could count on the whole first legion. That statement was a lie. It didn't matter that they didn't know it was a lie, the fact remained that they lied and lies can not be forgiven.

[StruManChu]

There's a difference, I'd suggest, between the traitors coming from Loyalist legions and the Fallen of the First. The clue's in the name.

 

The traitors betrayed the Emperor, siding with Horus, much in the same way that the Traitor Legions did, and probably for the same reasons - We built this empire, we should rule it.

 

The Fallen, from memory of the 2nd Ed Angels of Death codex, actually fell to Chaos. Luthor, a grown man elevated to an Astartes-like soldier, was only able to defeat the Lion, a Primarch, because he was imbued with power from the Chaos Gods. That's the source of the Dark Angel's shame. Not that half their Legion turned from the Imperium, or even that they turned to Horus, but that they turned to Chaos itself.

[Legatus]

There's a difference, I'd suggest, between the traitors coming from Loyalist legions and the Fallen of the First. The clue's in the name.

 

The traitors betrayed the Emperor, siding with Horus, much in the same way that the Traitor Legions did, and probably for the same reasons - We built this empire, we should rule it.

 

The Fallen, from memory of the 2nd Ed Angels of Death codex, actually fell to Chaos. Luthor, a grown man elevated to an Astartes-like soldier, was only able to defeat the Lion, a Primarch, because he was imbued with power from the Chaos Gods. That's the source of the Dark Angel's shame. Not that half their Legion turned from the Imperium, or even that they turned to Horus, but that they turned to Chaos itself.

 

 

A lot of the traitor Legions turned not just because they were following Horus, but because they were already in the grip of Chaos.

 

 

---

 

I know most of you don't want any more of this, but for the benefit of Theis I'll try to explain again why I think this development deligitimizes the Dark Angels.

 

The core theme of the Dark Angels is that they are a loyal Chapter that has existed since the Great Crusade, but whose past is mysteriously hidden. They are harboring a dark secret, and their Chapter even is structured to ensure that the secret will not get out, and to try and rectify a troubling incident from their past. That incident being: Late during the Heresy/Scouring, a large number of the Legion betrayed the Imperium and turned to Chaos.

 

Now, in a universe where nine Legions betrayed the Emperor and eight Legions remained completely loyal, having part of their Legion turn is an incredibly significant incident. Their extreme reaction to it is perfectly understandable. If it came out that a large number of them turned to Chaos, they would no longer be trusted, the Legion might be disbanded or excommunicated. Of course they chose to suppress knowledge of that incident. In order for them to continue to serve as warriors of the Imperium, no one must ever learn what has happened. Even if some of their actions seem drastic or hostile, such as abandoning Imperial allies when the Dark Angels learn of a Fallen being nearby, or even exterminating an agent of the Imperium who has learned more than he should, they have a legitimate reason for acting that way, and for having their entire Chapter doctrine altered to maintain that secret. Their actions are justified, so they can continue to exist, and to keep fighting for the Emperor.

 

If, on the other hand, most of the other loyal Legions also had units, companies, or even entire great companies side with Chaos, then we have to ask: Why didn't the Dark Angels just confess that they too had some traitors among their ranks? Now it does not seem so damning an incident. If the Iron Hands or the Space Wolves faced no serious repercussions, then even if the number of traitorous Dark Angels was even higher, they would probably have been allowed to continue to exist. Now they faced no existential crisis. Their choice to keep the traitors of their ranks a secret served only to preserve their reputation. Now every time they abandon an ally, or make a nosy Inquisitor disappear, they only do it so the others will not learn that the Dark Angels too had some of their ranks turn to Chaos during the Heresy. Just like the Iron Hands or the Space Wolves. Now their actions seem to only preserve their status and pristine reputation, and no longer serve to allow the Chapter to persist at all. Their actions are no longer understandable, no longer justified.

[Angrypantz]

I think the main difference is the period. You can kinda forgive those within the loyalists who side with Horus before seeing the chaos following monster he becomes. Once that illusion has been broken and the scale of the atrocities he was willing to perpetrate has been revealed it is safe to assume that (until told otherwise) that help drys up quickly from those whose fathers are still loyal to the Emperor.

 

Whereas the Dark Angels are returning home after witnessing the full horrors of the heresy to find that their legion has also succumbed to the same madness as Horus and his followers. The fear of the level of retribution being readied to be unleashed on those fallen brothers would be almost certain be levelled at the Dark Angels who find themselves split between those fallen to chaos and those still loyal to the emperor.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

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.

Not really. A D B has said frequently all records of the traitor legions were entirely expunged. You'll have whole chapters founded by the 1st black crusade who don't know anything about the Horus Heresy or that traitor marines even exist. The Dark Angels uniqueness comes from their reaction to Luther's betrayal.

[Legatus]

It's not about uniqueness, it is about legitimacy. In a universe where they are the only loyal Legion with traitor elements, their extreme reaction to that incident makes sense. In a universe where several other loyal Legions also had traitors (as much as an entire great company, according to rumours), their secret conspiracy and complitely dedicating the following ten thousand to that cause seem much less warranted.

[Marshal Rohr]

Unless the Dark Angels took the traitors betraying them extremely personally, and everyone else took it in stride, maybe. I'm sure they will get around to making it all add up. Worrying about it now is pointless, because it will just change again when the book about the I Legion comes out and if they do a Scouring Series, it'll be connected. 

[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.

Not really. A D B has said frequently all records of the traitor legions were entirely expunged. You'll have whole chapters founded by the 1st black crusade who don't know anything about the Horus Heresy or that traitor marines even exist. The Dark Angels uniqueness comes from their reaction to Luther's betrayal.

 

Except that's complete hokum. If all records of the Traitor Legions are expunged, how does anyone know that there are traitors in the Eye? How are the names Typhus, Abaddon etc. known as arch-Traitors, rather than 'mysterious Astartes that came out the Eye one day, nobody knows why'? How is the name Horus still known by Imperial personnel in m41? If you expunge the Heresy entirely, you're undermining far more than just the Dark Angels. Prospero, Istvaan, Terra; these were character defining events for the Legions that took part, to claim that the account of these events were entirely suppressed is both objectively wrong and negates any character development the survivors underwent. While I would indeed expect random Imperial citizen on Hive World X to not know about the Heresy, do they honestly expect us to believe that none of the veterans of Scouring told anyone about it? That none of the new High Lords remembered that the Heresy had happened? Entirely expunged is an absolute. The current approach to heresy fluff (for better or worse) seems to be that all absolutes are BS. So falling back on an absolute like 'entirely expunged' to explain discrepancies in the fluff just reeks of the laziest form of writing, that no forethought was given to what they were producing. They didn't have the talent or forethought to adequately account for the ramifications of what they were writing.

 

Simply put, to 'entirely expunge' the Traitor Legions is a terrible idea, that damages the fluff of every loyal Legion, as it creates far too many unanswerable questions.

 

Edited for spelling/grammer.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

 

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.

Not really. A D B has said frequently all records of the traitor legions were entirely expunged. You'll have whole chapters founded by the 1st black crusade who don't know anything about the Horus Heresy or that traitor marines even exist. The Dark Angels uniqueness comes from their reaction to Luther's betrayal.

 

Except that's complete hokum. If all records of the Traitor Legions are expunged, how does anyone know that there are traitors in the Eye? How are the names Typhus, Abaddon etc. known as arch-Traitors, rather than 'mysterious Astartes that came out the Eye one day, nobody knows why'? How is the name Horus still known by Imperial personnel in m41? If you expunge the Heresy entirely, you're undermining far more than just the Dark Angels. Prospero, Istvaan, Terra; these were character defining events for the Legions that took part, to claim that the account of these events were entirely suppressed is both objectively wrong and negates any character development the survivors underwent. While I would indeed expect random Imperial citizen on Hive World X to not know about the Heresy, do they honestly expect us to believe that none of the veterans of Scouring told anyone about it? That none of the new High Lords remembered that the Heresy had happened? Entirely expunged is an absolute. The current approach to heresy fluff (for better or worse) seems to be that all absolutes are BS. So falling back on an absolute like 'entirely expunged' to explain discrepancies in the fluff just reeks of the laziest form of writing, that no forethought was given to what they were producing. They didn't have the talent or forethought to adequately account for the ramifications of what they were writing.

 

Simply put, to 'entirely expunge' the Traitor Legions is a terrible idea, that damages the fluff of every loyal Legion, as it creates far too many unanswerable questions.

 

Edited for spelling/grammer.

 

 

Did you recently get hired by BL? No? Then it doesn't really matter if you don't like it, now does it? If that doesn't float your boat, it's fine, but what can you possibly do to change it?

[Phoebus]

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.

I think you're recalling Pandorax.  In it, it is heavily implied (about as much as one can, without outright stating it as a fact) that ...

 

 

Kaldor Draigo, Supreme Grand Master of the Grey Knights Chapter, is aware of the Hunt for the Fallen and uses that knowledge as leverage to force the entire Dark Angels Chapter to come to his aid as he attempts to prevent the Damnation Cache from being unlocked.

 

 

It is never stated why he chooses to keep that knowledge to himself.  It does not seem as if he has shared it with anyone.  His opinion of the Dark Angels amounts to grudging respect, though this comes undone near the end, when he suspects Azrael of something he is not responsible for.

[Phoebus]

Legatus,

 

The real issue here is that you treat the Index Astartes articles and the background material found in the Codices as literal fact.  This problem is joined at the hip by your belief that certain concepts that exist in the 41st millennium are exactly the same as they were in the 31st millennium.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Index Astartes articles don't present an accurate picture of how things were during the Great Crusade or the Horus Heresy - nor do they pretend to.  Even if you take away outright retcons (e.g., the change in legion sizes), the perspective of those articles - and of the "history chapter" in the various Codices - is from millennia after the fact, and based on incomplete, biased, and sometimes deliberately inaccurate information.  The Index Astartes article on the Dark Angels is about as comprehensive a record of that legion's history as Plutarch's "Life of Alexander" is a biography of that king.

 

Similarly, when you say that the Ultramarines not viewing the Codex Astartes as a "war bible" in M31 does that Chapter injustice, that entire position demands that nothing about their mentality had changed in the intervening ten millennia.  The theme of ignorance prevailing, of knowledge being corrupted, and of intent being horribly misconstrued is absolutely central to this setting, though.  The Ultramarines missing Guilliman's point on the Codex Astartes is part and parcel of the inherent tragedy of Warhammer 40k:  it is the same as people praying to their tank's engine for it to start, or the Adeptus Mechanicus forbidding innovation.  You're not supposed to feel good about almost anything in the 41st millennium.  We're seeing humanity at the hour before its fall, and the reasons why they got to that point.

 

Where the Dark Angels are concerned, context is absolutely everything.  Leif, you think A D-B's position is complete bunk?  Here's the introductory paragraph from the post-Heresy history chapter of Codex: Dark Angels (Sixth Edition):

 

 

 

“All record and memory of the Traitor Legions was expunged from the Imperial archives and their homeworlds and bases of operations were attacked. All across the Imperium, a tangled web of suspicion hung over everything, misdoubts that were only made worse as further investigations revealed yet deeper corruption. Thus began the Age of the Imperium, an era steeped in paranoia, recriminations and vengeance. After all, if Horus – the right hand of the Emperor – could turn traitor, who might be next?”

 

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Codex: Dark Angels (Enhanced Edition).” Games Workshop, 2013. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/oLrXI.l

This is what the Dark Angels had to deal with, and that's before they had to watch a legion whose name was the byword for loyalty almost come under fire on account of trust-based doctrinal differences.  Now, could this have changed?  Sure.  After the First Black Crusade, for instance, I imagine the attempt to sweep knowledge of the Traitor Legions under the rug probably went right out the window.  But maybe this happens every so often.  Maybe every few centuries the Imperium's agencies demand from the Adeptus Astartes that, for the sake of the spiritual and moral integrity of their warriors, they withhold from them knowledge of the Heresy and the Chaos Space Marines.  Maybe that's why in Ravenwing (which, admittedly, has some pretty zany logic curveballs) uninitiated Dark Angels don't know jack about the Traitor Legions.

 

Back to the topic, the Dark Angels lied to the Imperium about what had happened to Caliban, to the Lion, to Luther, and to the Fallen.  They then ensured that all within their ranks became party to a thorough and ongoing conspiracy of deception.  They followed their own agenda, which they kept the Imperium and the nascent Inquisition ignorant of.

 

That's what makes the Dark Angels unique.  Every other legion had gotten rid of their baggage by the time of the Second Founding.  Better yet, they'd already proven their loyalty throughout the Heresy.  Only the Dark Angels found themselves in the situation of being the only witnesses to their internal strife.  Only they had to explain to a paranoid, mistrusting, trigger-happy Imperium how their primarch was killed by his second-in-command, how their planet exploded, and how they really were loyal.

[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.

Not really. A D B has said frequently all records of the traitor legions were entirely expunged. You'll have whole chapters founded by the 1st black crusade who don't know anything about the Horus Heresy or that traitor marines even exist. The Dark Angels uniqueness comes from their reaction to Luther's betrayal.

Except that's complete hokum. If all records of the Traitor Legions are expunged, how does anyone know that there are traitors in the Eye? How are the names Typhus, Abaddon etc. known as arch-Traitors, rather than 'mysterious Astartes that came out the Eye one day, nobody knows why'? How is the name Horus still known by Imperial personnel in m41? If you expunge the Heresy entirely, you're undermining far more than just the Dark Angels. Prospero, Istvaan, Terra; these were character defining events for the Legions that took part, to claim that the account of these events were entirely suppressed is both objectively wrong and negates any character development the survivors underwent. While I would indeed expect random Imperial citizen on Hive World X to not know about the Heresy, do they honestly expect us to believe that none of the veterans of Scouring told anyone about it? That none of the new High Lords remembered that the Heresy had happened? Entirely expunged is an absolute. The current approach to heresy fluff (for better or worse) seems to be that all absolutes are BS. So falling back on an absolute like 'entirely expunged' to explain discrepancies in the fluff just reeks of the laziest form of writing, that no forethought was given to what they were producing. They didn't have the talent or forethought to adequately account for the ramifications of what they were writing.

 

Simply put, to 'entirely expunge' the Traitor Legions is a terrible idea, that damages the fluff of every loyal Legion, as it creates far too many unanswerable questions.

 

Edited for spelling/grammer.

The Imperium at large is unaware. The Astartes keep their own records, which is isolated to the history of the individual Chapter. It goes back to that "perception is everything". A Chapter stationed in the Segmentum Pacificus that remains isolated to a single subsector of space because it is on watch duty for a danger zone has every possibility of being unaware of events like the Badab war and Rynn's World, or even Macragge being attacked by Hive Fleet Leviathan.

 

Chapters like the First and Second Founding who are made up of survivors of the Heresy will remember the Traitors fleeing to the Eye. But that Third Founding Chapter? That is completely made up of new individuals? That's when its history begins. It won't know about the Traitors unless its parent Chapters decide to tell it.

 

There's a reason that everything from Second Edition to now, literally right now, not five years from now, states that the First Crusade caught the Imperium off-guard and Abaddon's forces ran amok. Cadia wasn't garrisoned until after that. The Adeptus Praeses were not founded until after the First Black crusade. Because everyone forgot there were Traitors in the Eye and those who remembered hoped it would stay a bad memory.

 

When people say "the Imperium likes to forget", it isn't a fanfiction made up to explain why away inconsistencies. It's because it is a very literal fact of the background.

 

Like seriously, hasn't anyone ever wondered why the Imperium never questoned why Caliban just disappeared? Its because the Dark Angels kept its destruction a secret for so long and so well that the Imperium forgot it even existed.

 

But hey, let us not question the disappearance of a planet and why no one investigated it. :D

 

EDIT: I read Phoebus' post after the fact. Very well thought out and carries a few sources I don't have access too.

[Leif Bearclaw]

OK, let's take a stab at explaining my position now I've not just returned form the pub (should've known better than to post really )

The Imperium at large is unaware. The Astartes keep their own records, which is isolated to the history of the individual Chapter. It goes back to that "perception is everything". A Chapter stationed in the Segmentum Pacificus that remains isolated to a single subsector of space because it is on watch duty for a danger zone has every possibility of being unaware of events like the Badab war and Rynn's World, or even Macragge being attacked by Hive Fleet Leviathan.

Yes, Joe Q Public is unaware. I'm not going to dispute this. But I find it somewhat strange that this thread has been about 'those absolute statements about Legion loyalty aren't true', but this absolute statement about no surviving records is 100% legit, despite it presenting far more questions than it answers.

The Imperium at large being unaware, fine. But to have the Astartes Chapter Masters, Guard Lord Generals, Inquisitors, Arch Magos, High Lords etc. unaware that the traitor Legions even exist is silly of the highest order imo. These macro impressions of the Imperium have to walk the fine line between showing it as the uncaring, bureaucratic dystopian hell hole it is, but also now have it be so stupid and incompetent that the reader is left wondering how it survived 10,000 years. This 'entirely expunged' business falls squarely in that 'how have they not been conquered already?' category for me.

Chapters like the First and Second Founding who are made up of survivors of the Heresy will remember the Traitors fleeing to the Eye. But that Third Founding Chapter? That is completely made up of new individuals? That's when its history begins. It won't know about the Traitors unless its parent Chapters decide to tell it.

But why wouldn't their parent Chapters tell them? These events were the crucible in which the modern Astartes were forged. Aside form rather specific circumstances like the Unforgiven (and even then, their high command knows the 'truth'), I just don't see what the foundering Chapter has to gain by keeping their successors in the dark.

Slight pedantic point, aren't the third founding also comprised, at least in part, of Heresy Veterans? After all, the Executioners are 3rd founding, and Rann was definitely involved in the Heresy.

There's a reason that everything from Second Edition to now, literally right now, not five years from now, states that the First Crusade caught the Imperium off-guard and Abaddon's forces ran amok. Cadia wasn't garrisoned until after that. The Adeptus Praeses were not founded until after the First Black crusade. Because everyone forgot there were Traitors in the Eye and those who remembered hoped it would stay a bad memory.

See, I'd always read that as the High Lords believing that the Legions no longer posed a threat to the Imperium as a whole. That they were broken, disorganised and it was only a matter of time before the remnants were consumed by the hell they'd fled into, or were naturally exterminated by the regular Imperial presence in the area, and it's only the 1sty Black Crusade that shows them how madly they misjudged it. Somewhat similar to their reaction to the Tyranids after the defeat of Behemoth and before the arrival of Kraken. Not the the High Lords had forgotten/not been told that there were Traitors in the Eye.

Like seriously, hasn't anyone ever wondered why the Imperium never questoned why Caliban just disappeared? Its because the Dark Angels kept its destruction a secret for so long and so well that the Imperium forgot it even existed.

But hey, let us not question the disappearance of a planet and why no one investigated it.

I was under the impression that the DAs had reported the loss of Caliban to hostile forces (because Berek Thunderfist tried to taunt them about it in the Ragnar series) but not the whole truth. This abridged story was accepted by the Imperium, after all, who would question the motives of the glorious 1st Legion ?

[Legatus]

The real issue here is that you treat the Index Astartes articles and the background material found in the Codices as literal fact.  This problem is joined at the hip by your belief that certain concepts that exist in the 41st millennium are exactly the same as they were in the 31st millennium.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Index Astartes articles don't present an accurate picture of how things were during the Great Crusade or the Horus Heresy - nor do they pretend to.  Even if you take away outright retcons (e.g., the change in legion sizes), the perspective of those articles - and of the "history chapter" in the various Codices - is from millennia after the fact, and based on incomplete, biased, and sometimes deliberately inaccurate information.  The Index Astartes article on the Dark Angels is about as comprehensive a record of that legion's history as Plutarch's "Life of Alexander" is a biography of that king.

 

 

As an aside, since the Dark Angels had a Codex in 2nd Edition I rarely find the need to refer to their Index Astartes article, other than for the specific matter of genetic purity.

 

More importantly, you could not have picked a worse example to argue against the validity of Codex lore than the Dark Angels, since they are about the most indesputable example of how the accounts in a Codex are often presented from an omniscient point of view. The Dark Angels Codices repeatedly tell us things that no one within the Imperium, no historical document, no inquisitorial report would know.

 

"deep within the Rock, his continued existence known only to the Watchers in the Dark and the Supreme Grand Master, the arch-traitor Luther raves on - speaking of what is to come or emitting senseless shrieks. (...) It is the rare moments of lucidity, when Luther begs for his own end, that are, perhaps, the hardest to endure - although each and every Supreme Grand Master has done so. They hope to gain wisdom from this darksome oracle, hoping to hear Luther recant, so that he might be, at last, released. Yet even the highest-ranking Dark Angels do not know everything, although they think that they do...

 

Buried yet deeper within the Rock, hidden in its innermost chamber, is the final, greatest secret of the Dark Angels. Only one person in the galaxy knows the full truth - the Emperor. Even in his living entombment upon the Golden Throne, even though the sunken orbits of his skull no longer have eyes, the Emperor still sees much. Hidden inside a secluded chamber at the heart of what was once the planet of Caliban, unreachable by all save the cryptic Watchers in the Dark, the mighty Primarch Lion El'Jonson lies sleeping. There he slumbers, his wounds long-healed, waiting for that time when he will be needed again, when the clarion call of battle sounds for the last time, summoning him to once again defend the Imperium of Mankind against its enemies."

- 6th Edition Codex Dark Angels, p. 26

 

As I said, that cannot possibly be from any official imperial records. You cannot even put it down to Eldar knowledge, since it specifically rules out every individual in the entire galaxy save for the Emperor.

 

A Codex will often intentionally be ambiguous, tell us of things that have been lost or forgotten, or tell us what is "believed" to have happened. But at other times a Codex will flat out state certain things, and those statements can be taken as factual.

 

 

Similarly, when you say that the Ultramarines not viewing the Codex Astartes as a "war bible" in M31 does that Chapter injustice, that entire position demands that nothing about their mentality had changed in the intervening ten millennia.  The theme of ignorance prevailing, of knowledge being corrupted, and of intent being horribly misconstrued is absolutely central to this setting, though.  The Ultramarines missing Guilliman's point on the Codex Astartes is part and parcel of the inherent tragedy of Warhammer 40k:  it is the same as people praying to their tank's engine for it to start, or the Adeptus Mechanicus forbidding innovation.  You're not supposed to feel good about almost anything in the 41st millennium.  We're seeing humanity at the hour before its fall, and the reasons why they got to that point.

 

 

I am not saying that something like that is not plausible within the 40K universe. I am saying it hurts the Chapter in question if their core character is invaludated retroactively. If that was part of their lore from the very start, that is all fair. E.g. the Blood Angels. They have a genetic flaw. That flaw makes them super awesome in a way, but it has its detriments. GW did not build up the Blood Angels as genetic wonders of longevity and strength thanks to the divine genes of their angelic Primarch to then years later tell us that, actually, that's because of a detrimental genetic mutation, not because their initial genetic material was so great. No, that it is a genetic flaw was their lore from the beginning.

 

In other instances, though?

 

In 3rd Edition, GW told the Iron Hands players how they replace their limbs with bionics because that is what they thought their Primarch wanted of them, to become ever stronger and go beyond the weak flesh. But then some GW author comes out and tells them, "actually, he never wanted them to do that, and explicitely warned against it." Can you say major bummer?

 

GW in 1993: "The Ultramarines have exemplified Guilliman's teachings for ten thousand years." - McNeill in 2011: "Actually, they have been wrong about that the entire time."

 

Since 2nd Edition, and repeated till as recently as the 6th Edition Codex Dark Angels, GW told us how "Should the truth be revealed, the Dark Angels would be labelled Excommunicate Traitoris and never be given a chance to redeem themselves." (6E C:DA, p. 10) But now they tell us that other loyal Legions had traitors and got away scott free, without any repercussions.

 

 

You can have a Chapter with built in flaws and a misunderstanding of the past. But if that is the case, it should be made clear from the outset. To build up a Chapter's identity over several editions, and to then turn around and retroactively invalidate their identity. That is just a dick move. A player should not be given a certain description of a Chapter's culture and belief system and be sold on the Chapter, just for GW to then later publish material that invalidates that Chapter's beliefs. If the Chapter fanatically clings to an irrational belief, that should be clear in their initial description, and not be revealed to players only much later. That sort of pulls the rug from under the players who bought into that Chapter and thought it was cool.

[Adra'Melek]

If that's what you want (maintaining old stuff without changing things, having hrd facts, etc) it seems like GW stuff is as unsuited to you as it is for the balanced-competitive gamers. And I'll say the same to you as I did to them. Find a point you were happy with an ignore everything that came after. In fact it's easier for you since you don't need to find someone else to share it with you, like a gamer would.