"Whatever it takes" and the Legions

[Kais Klip]

So Loken told Lucius that the difference between them is that the Luna Wolves do whatever it takes to win, be that bringing spit to a knifefight or a fist to a sword fight.

 

However, isn't that the main "thing" of the space wolves? Or am I misinterpreting doing what needs to be done to win the fight, and doing whatever they're told.

 

Or is it that any successful military body "dares to win" via a variety of methods every now and again?

 

I'm just seeking to encapsulate a legion with a "do or die" attitude but among so many examples (Loken, Space Wolves, Iron Hands Moon shenanigans, Kyr Vhalen ramming his ship and pretty much encapsulating all the character traits I respect) it's hard to pin a specific one down.

[helterskelter]

It's probably a little easier go whittle out the ones that won't first.

Night Lords because they've a need for self preservation.

Salamanders in general care too much for innocent life, as do maybe the ultramarines (in the imperium secundus arc, though this might be down to being home turf).

Blood Angels in the main seem to have higher ideals than the average, and pre fall Emperors Children probably wouldn't "lower" themselves to the percieved savagery of others.

I'm also thinking white scars wouldn't go to certain lengths.

That leaves you the rest who through one way or another would do "whatever it takes" either through uncaring nature, or that's just how they roll.

[Cleon]

I'm not sure I agree with helterskelter of a split between 'absolutist' and 'other' legions, I think all the loyal legions would do whatever it takes, the difference being with how much reluctance and how many other alternatives they'd explore first. The traitor legions I'm less sure about as their motivations differ.

 

What you have as I see it is a sliding scale between those Legions who will take the path they believe to be most effective from the start and those who will explore less militarily effective but more acceptable (for whatever reason of reluctance the legion has) methods first.

 

Backed into a corner and given only one option members of all legions will do whatever it takes (see Meros in Fear to Tread for a Blood Angels example), but the reluctance to pursue those options may lead to the occasional defeat where the 'best' option wasn't used, or the need for it was identified too late.

[Ryltar Thamior]

It may be possible that the Luna Wolves' approach is the more 'simple' iteration of "whatever it takes" - in that they're quite prepared to commit as much and more violence than is required in a given situation to try and bludgeon [metaphorically - or, preferably, literally] a foe into not being a threat anymore .. while the Space Wolves' modus operandi is at once both more 'imaginative' [e.g. considering the operations against the Quietude, how do you think the Luna Wolves would have tried to take them on - Speartip etc at the cost of massive - particularly Imperial Army - casualties? Or would they *also* have gone with the whole 'drop a moon on 'em'], and more 'cultured' [in that there's a rather specific culture and cultural set of values underpinning what their "whatever" is - which leads to them acting in certain ways around Maleficarum etc., and probably tending towards a more Saga-Heroic way of acting, as opposed to all the 'honour' of a prison-fight].

[Like, I think that's probably the best thematic guide for Luna Wolves vs Space Wolves comparisons. Prison Gang versus actual Norse Warparty. A lot of the terminology, symbolism, and big burly muscly guys might LOOK the same [presuming, of course, taht it's a rather *specific* American prison gang we're talking about]; but in practice there's a very different psychology going on.] 

[Not, of course, that this seems to apply to ALL Luna Wolves - but then, does any generalization actually cover an entire legion and its members?] 

[Calas Typhon]

The thing with the Legions in difference to the Chapters they form on the Loyalist side mainly and to a lesser extent the warbands the Traitor Legions become is the variety of sections within the Legions.

 

Most Legions follow a simple way of war they stick to I am sure we all agree. World Eaters being a unchained form of destruction, Iron Warriors directing themselves to superior decimation of foes, Raven Guard conducting war in their own specialist way. However under those Legions they have different sections, and small differences in how the legion conduct warfare when it comes to sub sections. 

 

In that, its pretty clear that the legions will use what it takes from a military position if that makes any sense. However when talking about the mental natures of those Legions, its pretty hard to say who would do what to get the job done and it comes down to how one would view those Legions outside of the extracts from the black books and horus heresy books. I don't see the Imperial Fists, Ultramarines or Salamanders getting dirty when fighting and sticking to something more 'honourable'. On the other hand, the Death Guard, Night Lords, World Eaters/Warhounds, Iron Warriors I believe would use anything in their power to get it done. 

 

Legions like the Blood Angels, Raven Guard and White Scars are blurry in my view due to the differences in the Legions or how they conduct warfare which could influence it. Blood Angels being vastly different in mannerisms (bloodthirsty nature of the Flesh Tearers, or the more honourable nature of Askellons ilk) Raven Guard being somewhat similar, but mainly due to the willingness to use moritats to get jobs done.

 

Its interesting to be honest looking at this now. Those more likely to get the job done using any tool or dirty tactic at their disposal are more likely to be on the side of the traitors. Those on the border are more likely to have mixed feelings about those legions such as the distrust of the Raven Guard and White Scars, or the heresy accusations of the Blood Angels and high likeliness to become renegade/traitors in the future years after the Heresy. Those who would look down on the use of deception and all that dirtiness all align to the Emperor.

[Brother-Captain Gilead]

I think the more interesting question is to ask what the actual phrase "Whatever it takes" means for each legion. Because of doctrinal differences and the different temperaments of each primarch I can see the phrase have completely different meanings for different legions with some of them focused on pragmatism, others focused on offense, others focused on martial prowess and yet others focused on single-minded endurance. Here are some of my thoughts on what it could represent.

 

Dark Angels:

If winning this battle requires we abandon our honor, we will do it. Whatever it takes.

 

Emperor's Children:

If winning this battle requires a precise application of force and uncommon levels of skill across all fighting forces, we will still be able to do it. Whatever it takes.

 

Iron Warriors:

If winning this battle requires we spend every single bullet, shell and life we have, we will still do it. Whatever it takes.

 

White Scars:

We are not really all that into the "whatever it takes". We prefer fighting when and where we choose and if the situation is not ideal, we are mobile enough to slip away from any trap that our enemies try to set us and we will do it with no hesitation. Whatever it takes.

 

Space Wolves:

If winning this battle requires we charge into enemy fire heedless of the mortal danger it would put us in, we will do it without hesitation. Whatever it takes.

 

Imperial Fists:

If winning this battle requires inhumanly stoic determination in the face of adverse conditions (preferably guarding some fortifications though), we will hold the line. Whatever it takes.

 

Night Lords:

If winning this battle requires we poison the wells, flay the civilian population alive, destroy their air filters and smash their biospheres, we will do it without a second thought. Whatever it takes.

 

Blood Angels:

If winning this battle requires we sacrifice more than our enemy, we will do it without hesitation. Whatever it takes.

 

Iron Hands:

With the Iron Hands I am not actually sure. Their primarch had a focus on perfection, but it was rather perfection of being rather than perfection of execution as with Fulgrim.

 

World Eaters:

If winning this battle requires unending, animalistic savagery, we will do it. Whatever it takes.

 

Ultramarines:

I have a similar problem with the Ultramarines as I have with the Iron Hands. Ultramarines don't really lend themselves well to the whole "whatever it takes" as they have too much honor to be pragmatic (see their conflict with Alpha Legion) and they don't really seem all that willing to bend their rules either.

 

Death Guard:

If winning this battle requires us to go through the most dangerous, toxic conditions, we will endure and come through on the other end. Whatever it takes.

 

Thousand Sons:

If winning this battle requires novel solutions we will look for them no matter where they can be found. Whatever it takes.

 

Sons of Horus:

If winning this battle requires we fight dirty, we will fight dirty. If winning this battle requires we are more savage than our enemy, we will be more savage. If winning this battle requires we are more brilliant in our strategy, we will be just that. Whatever it takes.

 

Word Bearers:

If winning this battle requires fanatical devotion and belief in the surety of our cause, we will not shirk from anything required of us. Whatever it takes.

 

Salamanders:

The Salamanders are the purest anti-"whatever it takes" of the bunch. I guess humanity in general should be glad there is at least one legion with a different approach from the others.

 

I can't actually come up with whether to consider Raven Guard and Alpha Legion the purest expression of "whatever it takes" or the least representative (after the Salamanders). On one hand they are both willing to do anything for victory (although not in the extremes that the Night Lords are willing to do), but on the other hand they are the most adaptable legions who would certainly prefer avoiding the situations where they would need to put everything on the line and if such a situation would seem to appear, they would be the first to slink away to search for a better option.

[Cleon]

Ultramarines:

I have a similar problem with the Ultramarines as I have with the Iron Hands. Ultramarines don't really lend themselves well to the whole "whatever it takes" as they have too much honor to be pragmatic (see their conflict with Alpha Legion) and they don't really seem all that willing to bend their rules either.

To steal a turn of phrase.

Theoretical: Our  established plans and strategies are insufficient to meet the needs of the situation.

Practical: We will develop a new strategy, we will keep trying, whatever it takes.

[bluntblade]

Ultras doctrine is strategic in the political sense; win honourably through your superior strength, tactics and resources, and ensure your enemy recognises those.

[Leif Bearclaw]

I think the more interesting question is to ask what the actual phrase "Whatever it takes" means for each legion. Because of doctrinal differences and the different temperaments of each primarch I can see the phrase have completely different meanings for different legions with some of them focused on pragmatism, others focused on offense, others focused on martial prowess and yet others focused on single-minded endurance. Here are some of my thoughts on what it could represent.

 

I dunno, I think you've missed the mark on a number of Legions. Several of your summaries look more like 'thing this Legion is best known for. Whatever it takes', even when that doesn't really add up. It's more 'all you have is a hammer' type thinking. The World Eaters are always savage butchers, the Night Lords are always sadistic murderers. There's no 'whatever it takes' here, that's just the standard MO.

 

Frankly, that sequence from Horus Rising seemed just to exist to make Lucius look like a chump, and Loken a boss. It's a Hollywood one liner, that doesn't bear up under detailed scrutiny. Because ultimately, we're talking about 18 Legions of indoctrinated super soldiers, whose primary goal is war and conquest. All the Legions would do 'whatever it takes' if that's what it came to. Would the Salamanders be happy with a population reduction campaign, the Emperor's Children with an attritional grind in the trenches? No, not really. But given the choice between that and defeat/failure? Yeah, they'd swallow their pride and do the job.

 

As for the Wolves, they seem to have embodied a kind of brutal, creative, pragmatism as their 'thing'. This is best seen with the Quietitude conflict in PB, from grabbing enemy weapons because it's quicker than drawing bolters, to using the space station as a weapon, it's ways of approaching the problem of 'how do I make you dead, as quickly as possible?' with more flexibility than most other Legions tend to display. The only one I can see doing similar stuff in those circumstance are the AL. The others would be trying to preserve the tech, take a more direct approach, or be far sneakier, and therefore slower. Of course, there are elements of this in other Legions and individuals, it's not a 100% unique SW trait. But, for example, Autek Mor would probably fit in very well if he'd been sent to the Sixth rather than the Tenth.

[bluntblade]

Mor didn't actually fit in with the X, let's remember. His Clan was a dumping ground for those who Ferrus and his other lieutenants considered too nasty.

[depthcharge12]

I think it's funny whenever anyone tries to describe the SoH having a gang mentality. It's a slight tangent, but no BL author to date has been able to accurately describe what a 'modern gang' is to the SoH. When they use characters like Loken, Torgaddon, and such, I never, ever, see a gang member. Modern gangs give zero craps about women and children coming into the line of fire, beat the everliving crap out of new members to make them tough, and kill each other in an eternal struggle for power.

 

The sons of Horus, in the way BL had depicted them, is ye ancient old timey British gag 1800 gangs. "Show me what for old chum? You slappeth down my cup o tea. I'll round up me boyos and give you whatfor wot wot."

 

I have yet to see the Sons of Horus portrayed as "kill the 6 year old kid of a rival gang member on the playground" as a means to an end. This is coming from a dude that likes them too.

 

 

Legions that I see doing anything for victory are post Isstvaan IH, DAs, IWs, DG, AL, and Heresy WBs.

[Hrolf the Cunning]

Mor didn't actually fit in with the X, let's remember. His Clan was a dumping ground for those who Ferrus and his other lieutenants considered too nasty.

Yeah, I think that is what Leif is alluding to with his final comment. Interesting contrast between the desired or respected qualities in the different legions.

[Kais Klip]

I'm really liking all the answers here boys. The way I see it is this, take iron warriors as an example:

 

Crunch: Hail of Fire is a boon that I think should be an LA rule, not a RoW. Because it's specifically allows the given situation to come into play: tactical squad 0001 is facing a superior enemy, enemy that is both better at shooting, and better equipped in melee. It is, howerver, better at shooting than it is at melee, thus the prudent course of action is to hail of fire the enemy to hit it on a 3+, and then die in a melee meat grinder that will hopefully render the enemy squad insignificant once they exterminate 0001. I believe this is what encapsulates the iron warriors; if they can't shoot it or beat, they will expend all their ammunition at it and then tie it down for their battle buddy squads elsewhere.

 

That's the mindset I'm looking for; we prefer option A, however option A sees us lose the fastest, so no matter how painful option B is, we must undertake it. That's the route I always take in strategy games of whatever flavour, for instance charging my DoW: Winter Assault imperial guard troops into a space marine squad that I know will eat them alive, but they will eat them alive slower in melee than they would at range, plus it would tie up their shooting so the other squads can get the job done. It's why I finally moved to Space Marines from tau; their statline and equipment is jack of all trades, master of none, but what this means is that while almost all enemies will be better than you at something, there are many more things that your are better than them at, and you will look to bring about the environment at which you hold the advantage.

 

See what I mean? I'm looking for a legion who's heavy support legionaries will bumrush an enemy, simply because conditions favour their melee over the shootout. While some players (legions?) will cry "lol heavy support melee L2P"

 

The problem is, whether that's Bjorn taking a Daemon-Horus's spear into his side on purpose to get a hit in, or Kyr Vhalen crippling his battleship by ramming the alpha legion ambusher, it's hard to pin this mindset down beside a generic "do or die badass" mentality apparently present in all Astartes. So which legion doctrine would best support what I'm talking about?

[Calas Typhon]

I think it's funny whenever anyone tries to describe the SoH having a gang mentality. It's a slight tangent, but no BL author to date has been able to accurately describe what a 'modern gang' is to the SoH. When they use characters like Loken, Torgaddon, and such, I never, ever, see a gang member. Modern gangs give zero craps about women and children coming into the line of fire, beat the everliving crap out of new members to make them tough, and kill each other in an eternal struggle for power.

 

The sons of Horus, in the way BL had depicted them, is ye ancient old timey British gag 1800 gangs. "Show me what for old chum? You slappeth down my cup o tea. I'll round up me boyos and give you whatfor wot wot."

 

I have yet to see the Sons of Horus portrayed as "kill the 6 year old kid of a rival gang member on the playground" as a means to an end. This is coming from a dude that likes them too.

 

 

Legions that I see doing anything for victory are post Isstvaan IH, DAs, IWs, DG, AL, and Heresy WBs.

Its brought up a few times that the Legion is starting to bring its Cthonian roots into the Legion by the time Horus is starting his assault on Molech and that is about where we are at with the Sons at the moment. I expect we will be seeing something more dark as we get more out of the Legion. What we have seen is the final death throws of the Luna Wolves and that more honourable line and the birth or influence of darkness from Cthonia in the Legion. 

 

The way they conduct warfare, how they appear and act, the words they use (aebathan), the natural aggression all really points to the gangs the Legion came from. I can somewhat see why other Legions in Universe would look at them as gang rats. Hell, the best point I have that could possibly back up the use of gang warfare is how the Legion destroys its enemy, killing its command or 'tearing the throat out' and then mopping up the messy remains, its a classic gang/tribe tactic.

 

The Sons in The Either and Grey Talon are pretty much a small window as I see, of where the Legion are going. 

[Brother-Captain Gilead]

 

I think the more interesting question is to ask what the actual phrase "Whatever it takes" means for each legion. Because of doctrinal differences and the different temperaments of each primarch I can see the phrase have completely different meanings for different legions with some of them focused on pragmatism, others focused on offense, others focused on martial prowess and yet others focused on single-minded endurance. Here are some of my thoughts on what it could represent.

 

I dunno, I think you've missed the mark on a number of Legions. Several of your summaries look more like 'thing this Legion is best known for. Whatever it takes', even when that doesn't really add up. It's more 'all you have is a hammer' type thinking. The World Eaters are always savage butchers, the Night Lords are always sadistic murderers. There's no 'whatever it takes' here, that's just the standard MO.

 

Frankly, that sequence from Horus Rising seemed just to exist to make Lucius look like a chump, and Loken a boss. It's a Hollywood one liner, that doesn't bear up under detailed scrutiny. Because ultimately, we're talking about 18 Legions of indoctrinated super soldiers, whose primary goal is war and conquest. All the Legions would do 'whatever it takes' if that's what it came to. Would the Salamanders be happy with a population reduction campaign, the Emperor's Children with an attritional grind in the trenches? No, not really. But given the choice between that and defeat/failure? Yeah, they'd swallow their pride and do the job.

 

As for the Wolves, they seem to have embodied a kind of brutal, creative, pragmatism as their 'thing'. This is best seen with the Quietitude conflict in PB, from grabbing enemy weapons because it's quicker than drawing bolters, to using the space station as a weapon, it's ways of approaching the problem of 'how do I make you dead, as quickly as possible?' with more flexibility than most other Legions tend to display. The only one I can see doing similar stuff in those circumstance are the AL. The others would be trying to preserve the tech, take a more direct approach, or be far sneakier, and therefore slower. Of course, there are elements of this in other Legions and individuals, it's not a 100% unique SW trait. But, for example, Autek Mor would probably fit in very well if he'd been sent to the Sixth rather than the Tenth.

 

 

Your criticism is fair, although I feel like I may have miscommunicated my point a bit, so I would like to try again. I feel like the different legions have such a different philosophy when it comes to war, that they would give very different answers as to what, for them, represents going above and beyond. As was astutely pointed out by other commenters, for Ultramarines going above and beyond could be interpreted either as a culmination of strategic maneuvers and logistics that other legions are incapable of or a complete reversal of this, where they fight without these advantages and win through sheer martial prowess. Similar statements can be made for the other legions as well, where the Night Lords are willing to do things in the name of victory that other legions are not or a reversal of this where a Night Lords army would fight as a typical standing army without their typical terror tactics. Both of these represent to me their answers to the question: "What does it mean for the Night Lords to do whatever it takes in the name of victory?"

[rendingon1+]

I think the question should be:

Will x Legion perform actions that go against their military doctrine, moral beliefs, sense of honour etc. to achieve victory.

 

- Are you going to indiscriminately bombard the heavy populated city quarter, knowing the enemy command is hiding there and with them gone, costly campaign will end?

- Are you going to use civilians as meat shields/ bait/whatever?

- Are you going to sacrifice ALL of your legionaires to win?

- Are you going to use forbidden weapons etc

 

Also it begs another question about period. I believe that during HH any Legion would do literally everything to achieve victory. In great crusade era - not so.