New Lost Legions background by Rick Priestley

[Lord_Caerolion]

That's... not particularly accurate. The Loyalists don't really have any major victories, mostly getting beaten back repeatedly. Sure, the Blood Angels aren't wiped out at Signus, or the Ultramarines at Calth, etc, but other than that, pretty much every major engagement we've seen has ended in victory for the Traitors wider strategic goals.

 

Secondly, while the Battle of Phall does have Perturabo beaten, that's because he'd operated on the assumption that Sigismund would be leading the fleet, and had planned accordingly, not realizing that it was Alexis Polux who was given command, a Marine with amazing levels of skill when it came to fleet engagements. It's also implied that if the Imperial Fists had stayed and fought, they would have been overwhelmed, but as it was, they managed to repel the attacks of a Primarch organized to fight an aggressive, confrontational opponent, but ended up fighting one of, if not the, best non-Primarch naval commanders in the Great Crusade deployed in a well-designed defensive deployment. Shortly after this occurred, the Imperial Fists received orders to withdraw, and only through sacrificing a decent portion of their fleet were they able to break away.

Some changes have definitely not been the best, but as the series came into its own, it has definitely improved.

[Lexington]

God, if I vibed any harder with what Priestley is saying here, you could use samples of my flesh to test String Theory...

 

I don't think it was directed at Bligh in particular. FW only got involved after the novel series, the art books and the card game.

Indeed, if he’s being snide at anyone in particular here, it’s probably Alan Merritt. Edited October 15, 2018 by Lexington

[Marshal Rohr]

If they want 40k to be as legendary and compelling as the Heresy they wouldn’t go out of their way to make sure you know how terrible it is. Any setting where a space marine ship can’t have lance batteries, the Codex exists, and a guard infantry regiment can’t have an artillery battalion is a worthless pile of garbage. Everything in 40k is cookie cutter, copy paste. The Heresy has uncountable individual regiments of auxilia. 40k has Cadians and Catchans. Until the studio pulls its head out and makes 40k the setting it was during the 13th BC and 3rd War for Armageddon, Rick can take a walk with his opinion. I’ll take legendary wars with epic armies over small strike forces any day.

[Lord_Caerolion]

"40k, a grim, dark universe where progress is dead, where pointless bureaucracy is all, where the untold trillions of Mankind are kept enslaved to a corpse on Terra, because the alternative is the destruction of reality itself. Whatever happens, you will not be missed.

 

30k, a setting where the Imperium is at the height of its powers, before the death of hope, when humanity is ascendant, before the Imperium is split asunder by the largest civil war in human history, where brother is set upon brother as the most trusted son of the Emperor Himself turns traitor.

 

Hey, why are you guys all choosing the wrong one?!?"

[Lexington]

Hey, why are you guys all choosing the wrong one?!?

I mean, like, it’s obvious why they choose it, but it’s still the wrong one. :p

 

(tho, really, I think the relative sizes of the 40K and Heresy games’ player base make the idea of 30K being the “popular” one...a bit of an odd claim)

[Bryan Blaire]

If they want 40k to be as legendary and compelling as the Heresy they wouldn’t go out of their way to make sure you know how terrible it is.

To which "they" exactly are you referring to each time in that sentence? If you are talking about GW, a crapsack universe could easily be legendary and compelling if written properly - it had been plenty compelling for play for over 20 years before the Heresy setting emerged as a game...

 

Any setting where a space marine ship can’t have lance batteries, the Codex exists, and a guard infantry regiment can’t have an artillery battalion is a worthless pile of garbage. ... Until the studio pulls its head out and makes 40k the setting it was during the 13th BC and 3rd War for Armageddon,

So, what you are saying is that the setting during the 13th Black Crusade and 3rd War for Armageddon was a worthless pile of garbage... because all the statements you made existed then, just like they do now.

 

Besides, Nova Frigates are Marine ships and at least one existed until late M41 - so the first point isn't really that much of a point.

 

Rick can take a walk with his opinion

Pretty sure he already did... hence the comment about being made redundant. Why anyone is putting that much stock in the opinion/statements of a guy that has no influence on modern GW/30K/40K, I don't really understand - I get his place in 40K history and I have a lot of respect for it, but it's just that, history - he doesn't directly shape anything at GW any more, and his 'legacy' is likely less and less felt after almost 15 years since his departure. At the same time, he's also not responsible for anything at GW in that same 15 years, so a lot of what seems to get people's dander up about 40K likely has little to do with Priestly.

 

I understand even less your personal affront, Marshal Rohr - did Priestly insult you personally in some fashion, or do you take offense to him on others' behalf, even if they haven't asked you to?

 

I’ll take legendary wars with epic armies over small strike forces any day.

And lucky for you, you have the chance to play all the Heresy you want... personally, I'd like 40K to improve some and not become Horus Heresy 2.0 - we already did that, its ancient history now - no need to rehash, give us something new with some depth, GW!

[Lexington]

I get his place in 40K history and I have a lot of respect for it, but it's just that, history - he doesn't directly shape anything at GW any more, and his 'legacy' is likely less and less felt after almost 15 years since his departure.

Not that it negates anything, but I think you’re mixing up Priestley and Andy Chambers, here - Priestley’s departure was somewhere in the 2010 - 11 era, if memory serves.

[Bryan Blaire]

 

I get his place in 40K history and I have a lot of respect for it, but it's just that, history - he doesn't directly shape anything at GW any more, and his 'legacy' is likely less and less felt after almost 15 years since his departure.

Not that it negates anything, but I think you’re mixing up Priestley and Andy Chambers, here - Priestley’s departure was somewhere in the 2010 - 11 era, if memory serves.

Ah, yeah, I did. Okay, so let me revise to almost 9 years, closing in on a decade.

 

Lord knows nothing I did at my last job that long ago is still shaping forward movement there, I really can't even say that five years later at my current job.

 

At this point, I'm realizing that the thread probably should have been titled something along the lines of "Old Lost Legions background recently revealed by Priestly" to be a bit more accurate on the import of the statements. It's interesting to see original thoughts that shaped something in the background of 40K, but for the modern forward movement, those thoughts likely have little impact on what GW might chose to do with that subject tomorrow.

 

Hopefully they leave it the Hell alone...

[Charlo]

Going away from the keyboard warrior-ing for a moment...

 

A great interview with a legend. I like the redemption idea on the lost legions a lot, thats a very fresh take (for something decades old!)

 

I don't think anything here can be considered cannon or the missing truth but its a nice theory and considering Cawl has the gene-seed and GW is decidedly moving away from "do a DIY chapter!" we may well see some II / XI fluff in the not too distant future.

 

Or not!

[Bryan Blaire]

I took it more like "We got your message".

Yes, you got what it meant.

 

"Got your number": phrase informal. to understand someone or realize the true purpose of their actions

 

The bolder portion of it is exactly how it was used.

 

considering Cawl has the gene-seed and GW is decidedly moving away from "do a DIY chapter!" we may well see some II / XI fluff in the not too distant future.

I really hope not - anything GW does with the Lost Legions won't live up to expectations and is just bound to cause more kvetching and gnashing of teeth. It would just be the erosion of more mystery that GW has embarked on for 40K.

[Charlo]

 

considering Cawl has the gene-seed and GW is decidedly moving away from "do a DIY chapter!" we may well see some II / XI fluff in the not too distant future.

I really hope not - anything GW does with the Lost Legions won't live up to expectations and is just bound to cause more kvetching and gnashing of teeth. It would just be the erosion of more mystery that GW has embarked on for 40K.

 

It's very tough to do well and I admit I am much more forgiving than many on this board when it comes to the recent fluff, but given a good enough reason it would be cool to see what the gene-traits are or any personality ticks, even if just in a few random Marines.

[Panzer]

I'd love to learn more about the lost legions but I don't think it'd be a good idea to introduce them as still active element of 40k. They should stay lost.

[Khornestar]

I’d love for them to remain completely (or as close to it as possible, given the bits and pieces we’ve seen in HH books) mysterious, myself. Perhaps in the minority, but I really appreciate that sort of thing.

[Lay]

The best way to explore the Lost Legions would be as in-universe myths and legends.

For example, there's an old Space Marine novel ("Daenyathos" from the Soul Drinkers series I think) that delves into the Lost Legions a bit. I forgot the details, but the gist (according to one of the characters) is that the two Lost Primarchs were hated by their brothers and cut into a thousand pieces which were then used to create the first Space Marines.

It's a good way to add to the fluff without spoiling the core premise behind it.

[Panzer]

The best way to explore the Lost Legions would be as in-universe myths and legends.

For example, there's an old Space Marine novel ("Daenyathos" from the Soul Drinkers series I think) that delves into the Lost Legions a bit. I forgot the details, but the gist (according to one of the characters) is that the two Lost Primarchs were hated by their brothers and cut into a thousand pieces which were then used to create the first Space Marines.

It's a good way to add to the fluff without spoiling the core premise behind it.

 

How makes that sense? The Space Marines got created before the Primarchs got found already.

[Lay]

It doesn't and that's the beauty of it. It's a retelling of mythologized events after 10.000 years.

[Brother Casman]

Folks, this is a discussion about one man's vision of the Lost Legions and the Horus Heresy - we really don't want to see a rehash of the old 30K vs 40k argument, even if you happen to think that Rick is arguing against 30k as a setting. The reality is that both 30k and 40k settings exist: enjoy them as you like.

[Lucien Eilam]

Kind of to make a snide comment about Alan Bligh making the Heresy.

 

It’s possible he was referring to someone named Alan, but the decision to turn the Horus Heresy into a setting was made literally decades before Bligh’s time, and well above his pay grade.

 

I suspect that’s just as likely a joke at his own expense. He had as much as anyone to do with the late 80s/early 90s publications that fleshed out the original story.

 

I can’t imagine Rick had any beef with Alan Bligh. The last thing he worked on before leaving GW, Tamurkhan: Throne of Chaos, they wrote together.

[N1SB]

This is beautiful.

The best way to explore the Lost Legions would be as in-universe myths and legends.

It doesn't (make sense) and that's the beauty of it. It's a retelling of mythologized events after 10.000 years.

I think you nailed what Rick Priestley tried to do with his initial concept of 30k! That's not saying it's the best option, but maps to what he was talking about.

Ok. There was a paradox that I wrestled with (I wrestled with it, but perhaps you're more creative or smarter than me and had it pinned down): how to make something canonical without making it the only true account? This is a huge thing with fandoms now, and we're seeing these big multi-billion dollar franchises, like in films, comics, etc., retconning stuff, subverting expectations, etc. GW found IMHO the BEST solution:

I've said many times before and will say many times again, this is the most ingenious fictional writing, because it is absolutely canonical, yet also absolutely all lies. That's what makes it IMHO the funniest ongoing in-joke in all fandom. It's not just the content, it's the framing of that content.

The Horus Heresy is serious business, though, so I'm not saying it's supposed to be a jokey thing. But they could've framed it as, say, a Chaplain or Soritas or Rune Priest delivering a sermon or telling a parable or singing a saga from the 30k era. Like different scriptures and accounts of the same events. So cool.

That said, now that GW/FW/BL made the novels and (my favourite thing) the FW HH books written like a historical documentary, they shouldn't undo that. I don't think anyone is suggesting that, and I don't think Rick Priestley is saying that, because he didn't. He just said his initial concept was different as that's what he was asked.

Basically Rick Priestley just loves leaving things ambiguous. Debating lore is part of the game, so he wanted players to have that part of the game to themselves.

Now...what if there was a similar near-mystical or religious account of history for the Age of Apostasy...like a B&C Special Project? Brother Lay mentioned Daenyathos and I thought of this. The lore would be expanded upon from 40-era pastors interpreting scriptures from different disciples of Sebastion Thor, but no one in the current age agrees on exactly what happened. And you got all these scenarios, and every game played by anyone is canonical to some Imperial Cult that believes the events of that game to be their version of their truth.

[Panzer]

It doesn't and that's the beauty of it. It's a retelling of mythologized events after 10.000 years.

 

I don't see any beauty in a theory contradicting facts. It just makes it a bad theory. Maybe interesting for some in-universe conversation because they don't know the truth, but we know that Marines got created before the Primarchs got found.

[Closet Skeleton]

Its kind of silly how the nature of fictional canon made the events of the Horus Heresy less ambiguous than those of WW2 are to us today. The so called 'dark millenium' has more clear answers than even contemporary political events because fiction is always simpler than reality.

 

The roots of the heresy background was the Andy Chambers Index Astartes articles. I think that the moment the Traitor Legions were introduced keeping the heresy mysterious basically became impossible.

 

Any setting where a space marine ship can’t have lance batteries, the Codex exists, and a guard infantry regiment can’t have an artillery battalion is a worthless pile of garbage.

 

Infantry regiments don't have artillery in the real world, its in the name. Heresy era regiments won't be any less specialized. How can you have an 'epic' engagement where any one regiment is any kind of limiting factor?

 

No where in any piece of fluff is division structure equated to battles being small or combined arms tactics being nonexistent. Of course the fluff is bad if you choose to interpret it in the stupidest way possible.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Closet Skeleton

[Brother Tyler]

The interview with Mr. Priestley is interesting in an academic sense, providing us with a view of the initial concept behind how the two lost legions were incorporated into the lore and what purpose they were intended to serve. As has been pointed out, though, the Horus Heresy setting has been in play since the 1st edition period of the Warhammer 40,000 game. The setting has been provided with more and more information over the years, and an incredible amount of lore has developed with the fiction and Forge World game, and that is largely because players were clamoring for it. As with anything, there are going to be those that enjoy the outcome and those that don't enjoy it, but no subjective response can counter the fact that the setting has garnered considerable interest from fans and profits for GW - it definitely wasn't a misfire. Also, Mr. Priestley didn't in any way suggest that developing the Horus Heresy was the wrong thing to do. At one point in the interview, he even mentions that he would have developed the concept of the lost legions differently if he had had the opportunity to develop the Horus Heresy setting. Since the concept of the smaller post-Heresy forces of the Imperium was developed on Mr. Priestley's watch, it's difficult to say that his own version of the Horus Heresy setting would have been vastly different from the one that we have in terms of the forces (the events and places may have differed, of course).
 
In terms of preserving the mystery behind the two lost legions, I'd say that the developers, both of the fiction and the game, have succeeded. While Mr. Priestley may have had one concept in mind (i.e., traitors that later repented and were forgiven and forgotten), in the setting now, the two lost legions pre-date the Horus Heresy, remaining a mystery. There have been hints and red herrings, but we (the fans) still know nothing concrete about these two legions or the reasons for their erasure and dissolution.  Their intended purpose in the game setting - demonstrating the insecurity of the Imperium (to paraphrase the interview) - remains intact. Now, though, that insecurity includes the Imperium of the Emperor rather than potentially excluding his direction in the event. This, at least, is a significant aspect of the mystery; and it makes the obfuscation more credible (an erasure that took place with, at the very least, the tacit consent of the Emperor and reinforced by his primarchs makes much more sense than one driven by the High Lords of Terra, especially when you consider the autonomy of the Adeptus Astartes).
 
Regardless of whether or not you like the mystery and/or want revelations about the two lost legions, the only thing that doesn't make sense is the traitor legions not spilling the beans. After all, they are under no compulsion to preserve the secret; and some may find some strategic purpose in revealing what really happened.
 

Now...what if there was a similar near-mystical or religious account of history for the Age of Apostasy...like a B&C Special Project?  Brother Lay mentioned Daenyathos and I thought of this.  The lore would be expanded upon from 40-era pastors interpreting scriptures from different disciples of Sebastion Thor, but no one in the current age agrees on exactly what happened.  And you got all these scenarios, and every game played by anyone is canonical to some Imperial Cult that believes the events of that game to be their version of their truth.

 
The B&C has seen numerous special projects to develop the two lost legions over the years. Sometimes these are short-lived collective efforts, and sometimes they are individual efforts. Those that still remain can likely be found by looking for one or more of the following tags: lost legion lost legions missing legion missing legions 2nd legion Legio II 11th legion Legion XI (and be sure to search for both LIVE CONTENT and ARCHIVED topics when using the advanced search engine).

[Lay]

 

I don't see any beauty in a theory contradicting facts. It just makes it a bad theory. Maybe interesting for some in-universe conversation because they don't know the truth, but we know that Marines got created before the Primarchs got found.

 

Not a theory, but a belief. For example, we, the readers, know that the Emperor is not a god. We know he didn't want to be seen as a god. But we also know that the Imperium at some point in its history decided that the Emperor is just that. And we know that this is an integral part of the setting, so we don't just dismiss any mention of the god-emperor as contradictions.

[Panzer]

 

I don't see any beauty in a theory contradicting facts. It just makes it a bad theory. Maybe interesting for some in-universe conversation because they don't know the truth, but we know that Marines got created before the Primarchs got found.

 

 

Not a theory, but a belief. For example, we, the readers, know that the Emperor is not a god. We know he didn't want to be seen as a god. But we also know that the Imperium at some point in its history decided that the Emperor is just that. And we know that this is an integral part of the setting, so we don't just dismiss any mention of the god-emperor as contradictions.

That's really not on the same level. Most people in the 40k universe don't know :cuss about Marines and even less about Legions and even less than that they'd know anything about any lost legion. Not even enough to believe anything.

[Lay]

Well the bit about the Lost Legions comes from a novel about Space Marines, where Space Marines talk about their own history. It does make sense in context.

If you want better examples: We know that Oll Persson was an ancient immortal human in 30k, but we also know that he's remembered by the common humans in the Imperial Guard as an exemplar of self sacrifice under a different name.

We know that the Alpha Legion had prior knowledge of the Heresy and that even Horus didn't trust them, but we also know that the Inquisition believes that they fell to Chaos due to their arrogance and closeness to Horus.

And so on.

Apocryphal variants of established fluff are pretty common in the setting.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Lay