What happened to the pro-Imperium traitor legionaires?

[Marshal Rohr]

 

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 The Dark Angels Codices repeatedly tell us things that no one within the Imperium, no historical document, no inquisitorial report would know.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.

If that happened to my chapter, why should I care if it happens to someone else's chapter? It is obvious that the BL and FW authors have an understanding that for everyone in a legion to be loyal to the Emperor based on if their Primarch was loyal was a silly notion, since no civil war in history played out like that. The real issue is that this new stuff exposes a weakness in the studio (like always) by bring up the question of why the dark angels were the only loyalist legion with traitors.

[Millicant]

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.

I was looking for the "make passionate love to" this post button, but all I could find was the "like" this post so that's what I clicked.

[Castiel]

See, I have always taken these twists in the legion history as being part of the grand tragedy.

 

For example, Guilliman is a superb warlord with an unmatchable battle record. He writes a tome and goes "Here's how you do it, but if needs be use your own initiative as even I cannot account for every eventuality in war." I like this as it shows Guilliman was not arrogant enough to believe that he could forsee how every battle ever would play out. The tragedy being that over the 10000 years since he stopped having an influence it has become seen as a prescriptive bible, rather than a guiding work saying "99% of the time follow me, but  1% of the time you might need to just make it up as you go along."

 

The Dark Angels situation for me is also a bit different to the other chapters losing a few marines to go fight for Horus, as they fell independently to the Heresy raging throughout the galaxy and didn't just quietly slip off to join the charismatic Horus. They also poisoned the next few generations of DA being raised for initiation, something that didn't happen to the other loyal legions when their traitors were discovered. The depth of the rot in the DA legion for me is the difference between them having traitors and the other loyalists. No other loyal Legion found themselves so utterly corrupted that the only way to resolve the taint was to destroy their own homeworld, and lose their primarch in the process. That for me is the difference.

[Legatus]

He writes a tome and goes "Here's how you do it, but if needs be use your own initiative as even I cannot account for every eventuality in war." I like this as it shows Guilliman was not arrogant enough to believe that he could forsee how every battle ever would play out. The tragedy being that over the 10000 years since he stopped having an influence it has become seen as a prescriptive bible, rather than a guiding work saying "99% of the time follow me, but  1% of the time you might need to just make it up as you go along."

 

 

The problem with McNeill's Codex Astartes is not that this is how McNeill now describes the Codex to work, but that McNeill's Codex doesn't work like that.

 

Of course that is how a monumental treatise on military doctrine and strategy would approach the subject. It could not make explicite sugestions for all conceivable eventualities. It could only give specific suggestions for very specific, well known circumstances, but leave the scholar with the tools to adapt the teachings to further, as of yet unkown, situations.

 

After all, Guilliman himself was a military innovator, managing in his first campaign on Macragge to defeat the mountain raiders that had never before been successfully conquered. And the Ultramarines as recently as the Battle for Macragge demonstrated that they were able to overcome a previously unkown opponent.

 

But that is not how things work in McNeills version of the 40K universe. In his version, the Codex Astartes supposedly at no point communicates that it could not cover all conceivable situations in detail, and that that approaches might have to be adapted depending on the changing variables of the situation. But that is such a basic element of understanding and applying a tactical guide. It is simply not believable that the Codex would not address this (and address it in depth, thoroughly preparing the commanders to take battlefield initiative).

[HaSY]

Keeping up with the theme.

[lokkorex]

HaSY: those pictures won't enlarge for me, would you mind printing in a post what it says about the blackshield?

 

Edit: nevermind, found out what was wrong.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keeping up with the theme.

Please, go on. :)

[Phoebus]

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.

That's right:  often.  Not always.  Not even consistently within the same document.  Codex: Angels of Death and Codex: Dark Angels (Sixth Edition) provide information that reflects ten millennia information (that is just as corrupted as one might expect) in some sections, and information that reflects omniscient information in others.  Just because you happen to know that the Lion is asleep in the core of the Rock doesn't mean that every other section provides a completely comprehensive account of the First Legion's  history.

 

I'm going to again refer to Alexander the Great as a suitable example.  We're just 2,337 years removed from his death.  We have mere pages of information available about him.  They are all drawn from secondary sources, all of which were written well after his death.  No primary source on his life survives.  No copy of his well-circulated and ongoing official campaign journals survives.  With that in mind, if Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus, etc., somehow knew the actual cause of his death... would that somehow make up for the fact that they had just broad, embellished detail when it came to virtually every other aspect of his life and his campaigns?

That's exactly what you have going on with the Dark Angels and every other legion for that matter.

 

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. 

But that's just the thing:  "their lore from the start" is an incomplete perspective that has been embellished and corrupted over a period of ten thousand years.  Of course the Ultramarines feel they "exemplify" their primarch's teachings; practically every agency in the Imperium would tell you that their doctrine is practically sacred.

 

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.

But again, the truth of the Dark Angels isn't the same as the truth of the other legions.  I hope you won't mind if I don't repeat myself on this matter.

 

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.

Nothing prior to the Horus Heresy series purported to give you anything resembling a fully accurate view of the past.  The overwhelming majority of the information provided came with a perspective of looking back after many millennia.  If that wasn't enough, fanaticism, paranoia, and a systematic suppression of knowledge are themes that are reinforced over and over in this setting.  Meaning no offense, but how on earth did you think that you had a comprehensive view of the Ultramarines of the 31st millennium prior to the Horus Heresy series?  Why would you think you possessed anything other than what the Ultramarines and/or the Imperium thought of themselves and their history in M41?

 

I mean, I'm a "fan" of the Dark Angels, but I never felt that I knew everything about them.  Before "Savage Weapons", I could never shake the fear that Astelan might end up being at least half-right about the Lion.  Their past was painted with so broad a brush that I wouldn't be surprised if one author or another was, like, "You know what?  The Dark Angels are covering up more than just the fact that Luther turned on the Lion and the Emperor."

[Phoebus]

But that is not how things work in McNeills version of the 40K universe. In his version, the Codex Astartes supposedly at no point communicates that it could not cover all conceivable situations in detail, and that that approaches might have to be adapted depending on the changing variables of the situation.

I know! If only someone had warned the Ultramarines that the Codex Astartes wasn't an infallible document that addressed all conceivable situations in detail:

“What is so hard to accept?’ said Guilliman. ‘You followed my teachings, and they led you to defeat. If this and Calth have taught us anything it is that we must always be adaptable and never too hidebound in our thinking.’

‘But your teachings…’

‘Are yet flawed,’ said Guilliman. ‘No one, not even one such as I, can anticipate every possible outcome of battle. My words are not some holy writ that must be obeyed. There must always be room for personal initiative on the battlefield. You and I both know how one spark of heroism can turn the tide of battle. That knowledge and personal experience can only be earned in blood, and the leader in the field must always be the ultimate arbiter of what course of action should be followed.”

Excerpt From: Christian Dunn. “Age of Darkness.” iBooks.

I wonder if, over a period of millennia, knowledge degraded throughout the Imperium, and the intent of the god-like creatures that forged that galaxy-spanning empire was lost to the paranoid fanatics that followed their footsteps.

Seriously, though, the oldest surviving copy of the Codex Astartes can't even name all the Ultramarines Successors. How does it them follow that it would contain all of Roboute Guilliman's wisdom? And, in an environment where fanaticism, zealotry, and turning your heroes into a cult of personality are thought of as good things, why would we think that the men who followed Guilliman would be honest or objective in paying him homage? Is the Ultramarines "forgetting" to mention that the Codex Astartes isn't flawless that much different than Christians going from "turn the other cheek" to "DEUS VOLT!" only a little more than a millennium after the death of Christ?

[Conn Eremon]

Seriously, though, the oldest surviving copy of the Codex Astartes can't even name all the Ultramarines Successors.

Honestly, I think the most telling bit about the Apocrypha of Skaros is not what is in it, but what they name it.

 

The oldest surviving copy of the Codex Astartes and it's apocryphal.

[Castiel]

 

But that is not how things work in McNeills version of the 40K universe. In his version, the Codex Astartes supposedly at no point communicates that it could not cover all conceivable situations in detail, and that that approaches might have to be adapted depending on the changing variables of the situation. But that is such a basic element of understanding and applying a tactical guide. It is simply not believable that the Codex would not address this (and address it in depth, thoroughly preparing the commanders to take battlefield initiative).

 

Probably because Guilliman never imagined that the people who came after him would need to have it explicitly stated that it was not a complete treatise on war and how to make it. He would have assumed that they would have had the common sense to figure out that if the Codex was leading to defeat that they needed to change their actions. But over 10,000 years the Imperium has got information twisted and confused, and now believe that the CA is the be all and end all of how to make war.

[Legatus]

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. 

 

But that's just the thing:  "their lore from the start" is an incomplete perspective that has been embellished and corrupted over a period of ten thousand years.  Of course the Ultramarines feel they "exemplify" their primarch's teachings; practically every agency in the Imperium would tell you that their doctrine is practically sacred.

 

 

Seems I am still terrible at explaining my position. My problem is not that the loss of information within the Warhammer 40K universe is not a plausible scenario. My problem is with Games Workshop, the company developing and publishing the Warhammer 40K lore, building up a Chapter with a certain background theme and certain beliefs, sometimes consistently over the course of several years and several editions of the game, and a lot of players will gravitate to that particular Chapter because it appeals to them. And then Games Workshop, or perhaps just an unguided author withing Games Workshop, turns around and, in an official publication, tells those players "Psyke! Your Chapter is actually wrong about its core beliefs!".

 

 

Meaning no offense, but how on earth did you think that you had a comprehensive view of the Ultramarines of the 31st millennium prior to the Horus Heresy series?  Why would you think you possessed anything other than what the Ultramarines and/or the Imperium thought of themselves and their history in M41?

 

 

Because this...

 

"Their Primarch, Roboute Guilliman, wrote the Codex Astartes, and the Chapter has exemplified its teachings ever since."

 

...is not just some line from a paragraph from the 2nd Edition Codex Ultramarines. That is from the back cover of the Codex. That is the tagline of the Ultramarines Chapter, and how GW is selling it to new customers.

 

Also, there is this:

 

"Over the millennia most of the Chapters have evolved variations of the details laid down by the Codex Astartes. Some have changed quite radically so that their organisation and operating procedures bear almost no resemblance to the textbook. The Ultramarines however have remained every detail of the Codex Astartes intact and have become famous for their rigid adherance to its ancient orthodoxy. This means the Chapter is a very good place to start, as all the other Chapter organisations represent developments of the Codex Astartes or complete revisions of it.

Every Space Marine Chapter has only a finite number of Space Marine companies (...) You can choose to field as many of these as you want, choosing to pay points for epic army cards as normal (...)

(...)

On the whole the Ultramarines represent a well prepared force true to the tactical precepts of the Codex Astartes. Some Chapters offer more special troops or unusual combinations of weaponry, but few rival the Ultramarines' flexibility."

- Epic 2nd Edition, 'Armies of the Imperium', p. 8

 

That was one of the first instances of the Ultramarines' "modern" lore, even though it had been written even before the 2nd Edition of 40K was released. What is so noteworthy about that text is how it is specifically not written from a 40K historians perspective, but from the game's developer's, who briefly explains who the Ultramarines are before explaining how to field them in the game. The background for the Chapter grew from there. The next source for them would be the 2nd Edition Codex, with the tagline quoted above.

 

Another reason why I "knew" who the Ultramarines (or Dark Angels, or Blood Angels, or Space Wolves) are is because I read their Codices. A Codex is meant to and is advertised as providing a faction's background. If GW then proceeds to lie to customers only to later reveal how their core concepts were actually not true, that is called fraud.

 

Case in point:

 

I mean, I'm a "fan" of the Dark Angels, but I never felt that I knew everything about them.  Before "Savage Weapons", I could never shake the fear that Astelan might end up being at least half-right about the Lion.  Their past was painted with so broad a brush that I wouldn't be surprised if one author or another was, like, "You know what?  The Dark Angels are covering up more than just the fact that Luther turned on the Lion and the Emperor."

 

 

The back of the 6th Edition of the Codex Dark Angels promises the following:

 

"Inside you will find:

 

THE DARK ANGELS: The history of the First Legion and their greatest battles, from the Horus Heresy to their endless hunt for the traitorous Fallen."

 

It then follows on to further list the forces of the Dark Angels, a miniatures showcase, and the army list to play them. Note how the history of the Chapter is the first point on the list of contets. Note also how it's not "some rumours about the Dark Angels".

 

The introduction to the Codex on page 3 goes on:

 

"Within this tome can be found the truth about the Dark Angels' shadowy past. These pages reveal an epic tale of betrayal and tragedy. Best of all, you can join the most brooding and gothic of Space Marine Chapters in their ongoing war, but will your quest for vengeance lead to atonement or cross the line into eternal damnation?"

 

Again. The Codex Dark Angels is not "some rumours the Imperium knows about the Chapter". Their history within the Codex is meant to be accurate. It is not meant to be just half truths and rumours. If other sources contradict this information, then those are either mistakes by the respective author or outright changes made to the lore. What it isn't is "a revelation of their true history".

 

That is how I knew that Jonson was not a traitor, without having to wait for a HH novel to clue me in, and that is how I know the Ultramarines are still adhering to Guilliman's ideals. At least until a new author, influenced by years of McNeill retardation of their character, introduces those changes into the next Codex Space Marines.

 

 

Probably because Guilliman never imagined that the people who came after him would need to have it explicitly stated that it was not a complete treatise on war and how to make it. He would have assumed that they would have had the common sense to figure out that if the Codex was leading to defeat that they needed to change their actions. But over 10,000 years the Imperium has got information twisted and confused, and now believe that the CA is the be all and end all of how to make war.

 

 

My problem is that that is just not plausible. Even the 6 year olds in the training barracks of Macragge probably learn that if parameters of a situation change you have to adapt your approach to them. That is one of the most basic princibles in regard to pretty much everything, really, not just tactics. To say that the Ultramarines completely ignore that principle would be like to say they don't know which end of the gun needs to be pointed toward the enemy. It is such a basic principle. The Codex force was built around flexibility, as demonstrated by the ancient quote from the 'Armies of the Imperium' above, specifically so that a Codex force could easily adapt to the current battlefield situation. But then they somehow don't recognize that there may be situations that are nto explicitely covered by the Codex?

 

I say it is "not plausible", because it is a matter of plausibility. But in case "plausibility" sounds as too weak a rebuttal, let me one up that and say it makes so little sense, it deserves to be calles impossible.

 

The Codices outright tell us that the Codex Astartes has grown since the days of Guilliman. We know of several vehicles that did not exist back then, some of which have only recently been discovered. The doctrines on how to incorporate them into a Codex force were added to the Codex as well. Then there was the Tyranid trheat, which was capably dealt with by the Ultramarines. The notion that an Ultramarine commaner adhering to the Codex Astartes would not be able to deal with unprecedented situations does not hold up. Graham McNeill's notion of the Codex Astartes runs dounter to the Codex Astartes lore established by two decades of publications.

[Millicant]

Legates, at the end of the day you just need to do what the rest of us do: take what you like and ignore the rest. For example, as far as I'm concerned, Gav Thorpe's "The Lion" doesn't exist.

 

Adapt and make 30k/40k what you want it to be. Nobody here, or at Black Library, or Forgeworld, or GW, can force you to believe anything. In fact, they are more specifically "guidance" for your own personal hobby experience. Frankly this discussion is getting a little ridiculous.

[Legatus]

That would probably be better for my blood pressure. It is just so frustrating that that is how GW treats their community dependant hobby universe.

[Mazryonh]

That photo that HaSY posted showing an excerpt about "counter-revolutionary" Night Lords and the like does make me wonder.  Given how the Night Lords were known to recruit psychopaths and the like, it seems odd that there would be anyone in that legion who might have a shred of a conscience or loyalty to the Emperor above loyalty to his psychoses/Kurze.  What reason would someone inured to acts like  regularly hanging disemboweled corpses from high places as gruesome warnings to turn away from such a "profession"?

 

Most of those among the traitor legions who would "not follow a multitude to do evil" (to put it biblically) served before the coming of their primarchs, such as the Terran members of the Dusk Raiders (such as Nathaniel Garro) who eventually became a minority after Mortarion was found and renamed them the Death Guard, and thus their loyalty was principally to the Emperor rather than their Primarch.  I can't find any info on what the Night Lords were called before Kurze was given command of them (most legions were called by another name before their Primarch got command).  Terran recruits for the Night Lords would almost certainly have lived in less psychologically-damaging places than Nostramo, for instance.

 

I'd like to see if there were any loyalist splinters from the Word Bearers.   They certainly had a great deal to resent from the Emperor after their humiliation, so I doubt that was the case.  But maybe a FW or BL writer will come up with a reason that will, surprisingly enough, make sense.

[Leif Bearclaw]

That photo that HaSY posted showing an excerpt about "counter-revolutionary" Night Lords and the like does make me wonder.  Given how the Night Lords were known to recruit psychopaths and the like, it seems odd that there would be anyone in that legion who might have a shred of a conscience or loyalty to the Emperor above loyalty to his psychoses/Kurze.  What reason would someone inured to acts like  regularly hanging disemboweled corpses from high places as gruesome warnings to turn away from such a "profession"?

 

Most of those among the traitor legions who would "not follow a multitude to do evil" (to put it biblically) served before the coming of their primarchs, such as the Terran members of the Dusk Raiders (such as Nathaniel Garro) who eventually became a minority after Mortarion was found and renamed them the Death Guard, and thus their loyalty was principally to the Emperor rather than their Primarch.  I can't find any info on what the Night Lords were called before Kurze was given command of them (most legions were called by another name before their Primarch got command).  Terran recruits for the Night Lords would almost certainly have lived in less psychologically-damaging places than Nostramo, for instance.

 

I'd like to see if there were any loyalist splinters from the Word Bearers.   They certainly had a great deal to resent from the Emperor after their humiliation, so I doubt that was the case.  But maybe a FW or BL writer will come up with a reason that will, surprisingly enough, make sense.

And there's the thing I was trying to get at earlier. Although the DG are apparently an extreme example of the Terran-Primarch divide, they do highlight the motivations of the Legions quite well. To whom to they give their first loyalty, Emperor or Primarch? This makes perfect sense for the majority of the Traitors, but doesn't for some, as well as the majority of the loyalist Legions. These Astartes would have to pick the third option, forsaking both the Emperor and their gene-fathers to follow the Warmaster. As I've said before, the 2 with the best claim are the IHs (due to Ferrus death madness) and the Scars (because it's apparently been built into their HH portrayal form the outset), plus of course Luther's DAs. The idea that thousands of IF/BA/SW/RG/UM Legionaries would side against both the Emperor and their own Primarchs, going against the 2 cults of personality they were most exposed to in favour of one (Horus) that would have only encountered comparatively rarely rings hollow to me. Individuals, small scale units? Yeah, I guess. But entire Chapters/Great Companies/Regiments etc? Doesn't sit right.

 

But the same issues also exist with loyalist traitors. Given the events of Istvaan and Prospero, the 2 legions I can see most likely retaining substantial loyalist elements are the IWs and AL. The former due to their spread out, garrison deployments (as seen in Extermination), plus I can see a lot of resentment towards Perturabo existing amongst veterans for that whole stupid decimation thing. The latter, they're the AL, who the hell knows? (Also that's why I still consider the truth behind these rumours of large scale Traitor Loyalists could easily be AL shenanigans).

 

Night Lords? Pretty messed up (and Massacre shows us, even the Terrans were pretty messed up too). While not impossible, I see it more likely than any splinters groups that didn't want to follow the Primarch would go completely renegade, rather than raising the banner of the loyal VIII in the Emperor's name. But then again, not impossible with legacy formations like the Crimson Sons.

 

Word Bearers? Unfortunately the least likely to splinter imo. As much as I'd love to see a return of the Grey armoured Iconoclasts (partly because I think that name just plain rocks), it would raise unfortunate questions. Lorgar was planning the Heresy for decades, if that wasn't enough time to sneakily get his own house in order and dispose of any residual loyalists, then that paints everyone in a bad light. The WBs look stupid for not even being able to purge their own ranks, as does the Imperium who got suckered by such incompetants.

 

The other Traitors? How did large numbers of loyalists avoid being sent to Istvaan III? This was already something of a failure of Horus thanks to Tarvitz, Garro and Angron, but to compound it by having thousands of loyalists not even present? Just makes the Heresy look far more slapdash than the rest of the fluff had shown.

[Conn Eremon]

Remember, the Night Lords suffer multiple psychoses, such as the illusion of grandeur, to give it a negative spin*. They have certainly degraded over time, but not all and not at the same rate. A Night Lord dies late in the final millennium that still believed in the nobility they once had.

 

The Night Lords are all about repercussions for overstepping bounds. While they eventually come to love the inflicting of punishment, and become misguided on where the lash should fall, at their core this is who they were. There were bound to be those of the VIII Legion who see the actions of their father and Warmaster as unlawful, and would not be bound by the bonds of brotherhood to stay their hand against them.

 

 

* A positive spin would be that their given task, noble in intent, has eroded them by its required atrocities and sins, chipping away at their veneer until they either share in that exhaustion with the Iron Warriors, or allow themselves to be changed by their actions into something that, while horrible, can at least handle what they do.

[Marshal Traben]

Here's a pic of the unknown Black Shield marine i scanned from Conquest. I'm sorry that the pic came up too bright.

http://i863.photobucket.com/albums/ab195/Pohjanpoika85/TMKL1_zpsab43d689.jpg

[Kol Saresk]

That photo that HaSY posted showing an excerpt about "counter-revolutionary" Night Lords and the like does make me wonder. Given how the Night Lords were known to recruit psychopaths and the like, it seems odd that there would be anyone in that legion who might have a shred of a conscience or loyalty to the Emperor above loyalty to his psychoses/Kurze. What reason would someone inured to acts like regularly hanging disemboweled corpses from high places as gruesome warnings to turn away from such a "profession"?

 

Most of those among the traitor legions who would "not follow a multitude to do evil" (to put it biblically) served before the coming of their primarchs, such as the Terran members of the Dusk Raiders (such as Nathaniel Garro) who eventually became a minority after Mortarion was found and renamed them the Death Guard, and thus their loyalty was principally to the Emperor rather than their Primarch. I can't find any info on what the Night Lords were called before Kurze was given command of them (most legions were called by another name before their Primarch got command). Terran recruits for the Night Lords would almost certainly have lived in less psychologically-damaging places than Nostramo, for instance.

 

I'd like to see if there were any loyalist splinters from the Word Bearers. They certainly had a great deal to resent from the Emperor after their humiliation, so I doubt that was the case. But maybe a FW or BL writer will come up with a reason that will, surprisingly enough, make sense.

The Night Lords owe little loyalty to anyone. So while even the Terrans are messed up, it is more than plausible there were splinters of the Night Lords who either went completely renegade or still chose to fight for the Imperium.

 

As Cormac pointed out, part of their mentality is a compulsive need to punish others. They could simply be using the Heresy as an excuse to punish the VIII Legion for its various sins and they're fighting the other Traitors because they side with the Night Lords. In a way, the Night Lords are the easiest to explain fighting on one side or another, provided you can justify it since they don't give in to the cult of personality as some Legions do.

 

As for their previous name, they didn't have any. In fact, only four Legions have names that predate their Primarchs: the Dusk Raiders, the Imperial Heralds, the Luna Wolves and the War Hounds. There were some like the X and XVIII that had nicknames, but no official designation.

 

As for loyalist Word Bearers, there are probably some, but not many. Most were purged from the Legion. Heck, the Purge was so thorough that if anyone was even suspected of still worshipping the Emperor they got the axe.

 

And that is what makes Narek unique. He believed in the New Path. He willingly followed the XVII into corruption and betrayal. And it was only after this that he turned back into the Emperor's light.

 

One thing everyone should remember is that some of these are switching sides after the Heresy began, such as Narek did. Loyalty is never absolute. And I do have to wonder how many Space Wolves questioned their loyalties after Prospero.

[spu00sed]

I'm sure some night lords stayed loyal just to be different to the rest of the legion. Rebelling against the rebellion just 'cus

[Angrypantz]

As I mentioned earlier. It is a matter of timing. Before the full scope of the heresy is revealed to everyone there is a chance that there would be battle brothers that felt that their fathers fought on for the emperor out of misplaced loyalty, especially if they had fought with Horus in the past. In some cases this might damn them with the rest of the traitors but it wouldn't reflect on their respective legions since it would be isolated incidences of betrayal.

 

Returning to the Dark Angels, those left on calaban did not take part in the heresy being left at home to stew on the growing paranoia of Luther and his lieutenants. By the of the end of the Heresy, the powers of chaos are revealed to the imperium as whole and the corruption it inflicts on those within the ranks of Horus and his fellow traitors. I would I agine that the established high lords of terra and the newly founded inquisition would have a zero tolerance towards anyone found consorting with chaos. The Lion and those still loyal to him would do their absolute best to hide that secret.

 

I don't see how one invalidates the other. As others have pointed out, civil wars are messy affairs and divide all involved one way or the other. Astartes might be post-humans but they are still human at their core.

[Marshal Rohr]

Night Lords staying loyal is perfectly reasonable. It may be a group who enjoys the safety of being the Imperium's favored, and doesn't want to risk the unknown of independence. It may be a group that hates Kurze and Nostramans. It may be someone like Talos who is clinically insane, but still appreciates novel concepts.

[Atia]

As I mentioned earlier. It is a matter of timing. Before the full scope of the heresy is revealed to everyone there is a chance that there would be battle brothers that felt that their fathers fought on for the emperor out of misplaced loyalty, especially if they had fought with Horus in the past. In some cases this might damn them with the rest of the traitors but it wouldn't reflect on their respective legions since it would be isolated incidences of betrayal.

 

Returning to the Dark Angels, those left on calaban did not take part in the heresy being left at home to stew on the growing paranoia of Luther and his lieutenants. By the of the end of the Heresy, the powers of chaos are revealed to the imperium as whole and the corruption it inflicts on those within the ranks of Horus and his fellow traitors. I would I agine that the established high lords of terra and the newly founded inquisition would have a zero tolerance towards anyone found consorting with chaos. The Lion and those still loyal to him would do their absolute best to hide that secret.

 

I don't see how one invalidates the other. As others have pointed out, civil wars are messy affairs and divide all involved one way or the other. Astartes might be post-humans but they are still human at their core.

But, the Lion still works together with a Nurgle Demon?  And i'm sure the Dark Angels still make use of Tuchulcha in 40k ... so, ask yourself WHO the real traitor is?? Also, he seemed cool about the whole Imperium Secundus thing, don't care for the Emperor or Terra.

[Marshal Rohr]

I think he cares about the Emperor in a vassal to his lord way, but not on a personal father-son relationship level. It really seems like only a few Primarchs felt paternal love for the Emperor, and the majority accepted him as the boss and that's it. Kurze specifically didn't love him but took pleasure in rubbing in that he was an aspect of the Emperor.

[Legatus]

Some Night Lords clinging to Curze's original ideals of tough justice makes sense. The question would be, why weren't those Night Lords taken care off on Istvaan? But maybe Curze didn't keep close tabs on whose loyalties lay with whom. Or if he knew, perhaps he did not care to remove them. He was not exactly full on with Horus. Out of all the traitors, he probably cared least if any of his Legion split off to do their own thing.