Kol Saresk Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 So, I was looking through some things involving the Index Astartes articles and I came across these. Frankly, they made me laugh because, well, it's worth laughing at. And it explains why GW takes the attitude it does regarding the Legions. For those whose devices or computers may not like photos for one reason or another, both of these are pictures showing factions clearly called the Traitor Legions. In the first picture, is a painted mini of the Violators(also listed as the Violators) while the second image lists the "Recorded Traitor Legionnes Astartes" and lists the Warp Ghosts, Violators and Sons of Malice as Traitor Legions. So basically GW has been doing the whole "a warband is a warband regardless of where it comes from since the Legions are equal to the Renegade Chapters" since the Eye of Terror campaign and it isn't something Gav Thorpe just pulled out of his hat in 4th Edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm too tired at work, I'm not really amused or surprised. Then again I should have the BnC's most negative member award, ADB can sign it himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Nah, there are a few who can beat you. Like one or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz431 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think I have a copy of that floating around my library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forté Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Eh. Since when were the 'Sons of Malice' and 'Violators' Traitor Legions? I don't think I've ever noticed that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helterskelter Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I do remember this. Was too young to spot the egregious error first time round though. Ah well it is an aged piece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forté Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Don't think I ever actually read the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What makes me smile is that the orders of battle for the 13th Black Crusade tend to make belive the Legions are as big as the SM Chapters that have come to oppose them when actually, the Black Legion alone is bigger than the entire Imperial order of battle for the Black Crusade. There were some serious scale issues, back then. But hey. At least that was something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperors Immortals Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't remember, but is that roster from the campaign? Its classic GW, though back then violators et all were not considered legions though all traitors were chaos traitor legionnaire. And this is why old folk don't really care over the whole "give us Leegionnns!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Nah, there are a few who can beat you. Like one or two. Buuulllll:cuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 The black pic comes up in a bookmark called "The Eye of Terror". It's at the very very very end. But I think that's the point. The Warp Ghosts, Violators and Sons of Malice were never Traitor Legions and this(these, in the case of the Violators) are the only sources I know of that they are referred to as such. But that's the thing. To the Imperium, the Space Marines are the Adeptus Astartes. They are divided into Chapters which are further divided into Companies. But the Chaos Marines are the Traitor Legionnes Astartes further divided into the nine original Legions and Renegade Chapters before dividing into warbands. Just think how often Traitor Marine is interchanged with "Renegade" and "Chaos". Nowhere else in the roster is there a place to mention Chaos Space Marine force. And in the case of the Sons of Malice, they have always clearly been defined as a Renegade Chapter. It isn't a casual mistake. You don't write something down fifty times only to "just casually" screw it up. It'd be like writing the avatar name "forte" only to one day just casually list your avatar name "forte" as your real name and go "oops" and then print it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Can't remember, but is that roster from the campaign? Its classic GW, though back then violators et all were not considered legions though all traitors were chaos traitor legionnaire. And this is why old folk don't really care over the whole "give us Leegionnns!" I'm a young folk(4th ed baby here) and I don't much see it. Not the way everyone else does. I don't know. Guess I've seen too much where the lines between "Legion" and "Renegade Chapter" are too often the ones we decided to place. I mean heck, is someone really going to point out the behavioral differences between a World Eater warband and a Crimson Slaughter warband when much leave only dead worlds in their wake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forté Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Lol, I've been using the Forté name for 20+ years now and there's a fair few who know me just as that in real life too ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I've had inci for 12 years. I miss the hit lists I was on, made me warm and fuzzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flint13 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Lol, I've been using the Forté name for 20+ years now and there's a fair few who know me just as that in real life too Pffft... people have been calling me Flint in real life for 26 years, and I've been playing since the week 3rd ed dropped in 98'. I'm totes more old than you :P But Kol, I think it's pretty likely that GW had no idea how much more fleshing out that all of the chapters, legions, warbands and the like were going to get down the line. We look back at it now, and it's erroneous based on what we know of the traitor legions vs the loyalist/renegade chapters and renegade warbands. But at the time, it looks like they were probably just using the words legion, chapter and warband pretty interchangeably (maybe just to differentiate between "traitor" and "loyalist?") with no real clue how the connotations would change... what 16 years maybe?... down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I always forget that there were some violators left after they lost most of their chapter. Also GW shows its hate for all khorn by mentioning an unknown styx cruiser and not mentioning the best of them all The Bloodlust. Known for not using it guns, but raming other ships[which it did more then once , at least twice being reported as have main enginee drive exploded]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrautScientist Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Hmm, at the risk of drawing a bit of flak... While I agree the title of the page from that old Eye of Terror codex seems a bit iffy, with the word "legions" used like that and all, I always saw this as basically giving people the idea that there were options for warbands beyond the original legions -- that they were free to create their own colour schemes and background instead of just adhering to one of the established legions. Just like the lost Astartes legions were originally created as blank slates for the hobbyists to fill with their own legions. I really don't think there was any kind of sinister plot or egregious misinterpretation of the established background at play here, to be honest... Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urauloth Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I still have this book and I never noticed this either. Huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebris Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 It bears notice that this is pre-HH Black Library books era, so essentially this is based upon legions of old having around 10.000 space marines, not the ten times that number as we are used to nowadays. But yes, I am a supporter of the warband concept. The legions are a fractured, fratricidal and cantankerous hosts of hundreds of warbands, which struggle each in their own way and their geneseed is no longer the original one, so many "legionnaires" are only brothers due to the colors of their plate and the allegiance to the warband belief system and philosophy, and method of war of course. To me there is little distinction between a chaos space marine warband and a "legion" warband. Both have to rely on bastardized fonts of gene-seed, both have to adapt to countless other methods of war and both struggle to define their relationship with the denizens of the Warp and the Dark Gods themselves. But yes, as Vesper aptly put, the Black Legion outnumbers the entire loyalist warhost cited in the font, considering the "modern" lore. Same can be said for the "traitor legion" warbands and in some case I presume for the other warbands too. Not only that, I presume that the Black Legion alone outguns the entirety of the loyalist battle fleets deployed, without even considering the other Chaos forces. All I can see is that Cadia is doomed and so it is the Imperium. Huzzah for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lay Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Don't read too much into these lines. Plenty of publications mix up terms like "Legion" or "Renegades" or even use them synonymously (the Vraks campaign books occasionally refer to the Alpha Legion as a Chapter). Especially after the Legion-centric 3.5 Codex came out, "Traitor Legion" became synonymous with "Chaps Space Marines". Anyway, the 3.5 and EoT Codices are from late 3rd edition, back when only a handful of Renegade Chapters had been established. The best source from that time would be the article "Rogue Sons" from Index Astartes IV which explains how they differ from Legions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Nah, there are a few who can beat you. Like one or two. Buuulllll:cuss. I think that this is possibly the first of your posts that I agree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaplain belisarius Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I put it down to the imperial scribes getting it wrong! Started playing in second edition. I feel old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yes. Remember that this was back in the day when the Legions were 10,000 marines strong. A lot has changed since then, I would not consider these as evidence for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kol Saresk Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Normally I wouldn't, except that since 3.5 we've been told in every Codex we've been told that the warband determines the Chaos Space Marine's identity and that warband's identity can be its own, shared with an originating Legion, or shared with an originating Chapter. And then we get something in a set of documents that, as pointed out by Lay, are clearly distinguished from Legions as being separate entities but then both are just slammed together. "We're going to tell you about Renegade Chapters and introduce nine of them in the 3.5 codex. We're then going to misname three of them as Legions. One of them twice in two separate documents." I'm not saying its some massive planned conspiracy, but that it isn't some sudden shift from "You should play Legions" to "You should play warbands" either. I actually think Kraut did a fantastic job of nailing what I think happened. It was just GW was less subtle about saying it in 4th Edition. Of course, looking through 3.5, it is rather funny to see the exact words "Inventing your own Legion, with its own colour scheme, history and identity can be a highly rewarding endeavour, and hopefully the ideas on this page will inspire you to do just that." Page 76 for any interested in looking it up. It shows a picture of the less painted up Red Corsairs(the ones who just slapped red "X" over their Chapter symbol), the Pyre(Incinerator should be happy about seeing those guys), Steel Cobras, Children of Purgatos, Warp Ghosts, Extinction Angels, Violators, the Damned Company of Lord Caustos and the Sons of Malice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incinerator950 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The Pyre were my Space Marine colors besides the Steel Cobras (their scheme was refreshing from the majority of players) Damned Company of Lord Caustos and Pre Heresy World Eaters. Which is amusing, I'm closer to air than fire. And Xenith, you and I have agreed... Maybe once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.