New Lost Legions background by Rick Priestley

[Arganias]

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.

 

Sorry for the late reply, I appreciate the clarification. That group mostly played Imperium and basically only ever tell me things from the Imperial perspective, they are mostly young and 90% loyalist. I expressed my interest in maybe starting Iron Warriors but then all I got was screeching about how Perturabo is an autistic scrub that no one liked, then they brought up Phall as an example, also Tallaran. The Imperial Fist player in particular was just non-stop, it got really obnoxious so I just continued to play 40k and Sigmar with my main group.

 

I might have to dive back into this again. I still like the idea of a forgotten age, but that will slowly fade in 40k with the other Primarchs returning at some point. I will admit that Gman being legitimately angry with the state of affairs of the modern Imperium has been effective as a plot device for me knowing the goals of the Emperor. It must be crushing to be woken up from 10,000 years of slumber into what can only be described as a literal nightmare.

[Zuvassin]

1. The “Create Your Own Legion/Chapter” confusion is likely due to GW originally calling them Chapters - the whole Legion terminology is technically a retcon.

 

2. I recall part of the push behind 3rd edition was to “reset” the lore as they felt 2nd edition had fleshed it out too much. So that seems like a popular line of thinking in GW.

 

3. “Mystery” also allows room for invention. Priestly has said elsewhere that the Inquisition was invented to explain away the non-Marine power armoured models he was forced to release (because he didn’t have the time/resources to have them resculpted but they were too divergent to use as Marines). When you spell everything out, you remove the blank spots to fit unplanned improvements.

 

4. Lots of keyboard warriors acting like they know more/better than the inventor of the game.

 

5. Disappointed no one’s pointed out yet that there’s zero mention of how the HH setting is essentially a retelling of the Traitor General plot from Rogue Trooper while 40k proper is a reworking of his previous Laserburn game.

[alfred_the_great]

5. Disappointed no one’s pointed out yet that there’s zero mention of how the HH setting is essentially a retelling of the Traitor General plot from Rogue Trooper while 40k proper is a reworking of his previous Laserburn game.

My understanding that the underpinning structure was taken nearly wholesale from Milton’s Paradise Lost...

 

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/12/17/meat-meta-ghosts-warhammer-40k/

 

I can’t quite find the original interview that is referred to.

[Lucien Eilam]

The Horus Heresy has precious little in common with Rogue Trooper. The Drop Site Massacre has obvious parallels with the Quartz Zone Massacre (genetically engineered super-soldiers deploying by drop pod and being betrayed, and Imperial super-heavy tank design takes a lot from the Nort Blackmare), but the similarities end almost the moment you go farther than that synopsis.

 

Priestley didn't write Laserburn, Bryan Ansell did. The roots of the 40k background can be found in the (extremely thin) background for Laserburn/Imperial Commander, but the mechanics clearly owe more to Warhammer Fantasy.

[Vykes]

 

5. Disappointed no one’s pointed out yet that there’s zero mention of how the HH setting is essentially a retelling of the Traitor General plot from Rogue Trooper while 40k proper is a reworking of his previous Laserburn game.

My understanding that the underpinning structure was taken nearly wholesale from Milton’s Paradise Lost...

 

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/12/17/meat-meta-ghosts-warhammer-40k/

 

I can’t quite find the original interview that is referred to.

 

 

I'll be 100% honest, I always thought that the Horus Heresy plot was so thoroughly Milton's Paradise Lost in form and function that it didn't bear needing to be identified as such.  It's what drew me so thoroughly to the Heresy in the first place and kept me here.  

 

As to the on topic nature of this all... -kinda bites lip and shrugs- Everyone has an opinion, and while I appreciate Priestly's work, I don't exactly care for his take on the matter. Legion wise, the idea of them being scrubbed for apologizing just feels a bit meh, the Rangdan Xenocide connection and sealed documentation just gets me way more curious. 

 

As for the Heresy and early stuff: I mean, anyone who works in collaborative creative projects knows how dissonance and drift can occur from conception to completion, and usually it'll leave the germinal party a little disheartened if they deem it losing resonance or focus.  Really, the Heresy did a lot to come into its own, and no not everything is good or bad, but for the most part I guess I appreciate the narrative structure and focus it has going for it.  There's something a little more unified in it than some other plot lines or what the 40K universe was (which felt more sandboxy). So as much as I can decry certain novels or reinterpretations in black books, and I get why people don't like stuff fleshed out to the degree that a lot of the Black Books took it, or wanted it more mythic, I rather like the animal I see.  And yeah, some upcoming stuff scares me because I don't know if they can handle it, but all-in-all I view much of it as change for the better. 

 

*Seriously, Sanguinius in totality has been a massive disappointment for me and right now I'm almost pleading for something to happen soon which will make him merit all the adulation that his legacy created.  I'll take grim dark, I'll take noble bright, I just hope it's not mediocrity after a poor showing in the novels thus far. On the other hand, Khan, Angron, Lorgar, Kurze, Dorn, and Gulliman along with a host of other lesser 'mortals' have been terrific surprises for me. 

[Brother Lunkhead]

I'm a bit late to the party on this ……. Thanks Brother Beta for visiting this interview. It takes me back to when I first discovered 40K back in 2nd Ed. Even then things had changed a lot and so much was fleshed out since the days of RT. Rick Priestly's words were tinged a little with bitter-sweet memories, and being one of the creators who sired 40K I have much empathy for him...… I too would have preferred the Heresy remained shrouded in mystery and ancient legend but it didn't and on the whole I'm pleased with the results. As Brother Vykes rightly points out, "anyone who works in collaborative creative projects knows how dissonance and drift can occur from conception to completion, and usually it'll leave the germinal party a little disheartened if they deem it losing resonance or focus."

 

Many creative people have left their mark on the 30K/40K lore and on the whole all of the changes and additions have added up to a positive experience. Even though what we have today may not be what Mr. Priestly envisioned, I think he can be very proud of the part he played in it's creation

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I didn’t see any new information regarding these two Legions.

[Indefragable]

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.

 

I agree. The Force in Star Wars is far more compelling and interesting when it's this mystical energy to be tapped into rather than how much cultured bacteria you had for breakfast (midichlorian :cuss ).

 

The Unknown is what drives so much of human culture for time immortal, both out of fear and an insatiable curiosity.

 

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.

 

That's freaking amazing.

 

 

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.

 

 

It's beautiful in the way that children tell each other ghost stories and never ever step on that crack in the playground (because it will open and swallow you to the center of the earth!) and such. Or read Tim O'Brien's How to Tell a True War Story. Or have you heard of Snake Plissken? I heard he was dead.

 

etc...

 

William Wallace: "Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace--"

Peasant Soldier: "Can't be! William Wallace is 7 feet tall!"

William Wallace <smiling>: "Aye, I've heard. And if he were here, he'd consume the English with bolts of lightning from his eyes, and fireballs from his :cuss !"

-from Braveheart

 

**********************************************

 

Pretty cool interview overall. It's always amazing to get inside creators' heads and get their thought processes and original visions. If you ever go back and read about George Lucas' original drafts/vision for Star Wars, it's a stunningly different production that what we know and love today. And that's not a bad thing! It takes a couple tries to get the recipe right and the ideas that end up on the cutting room floor are just as interesting as the ideas that end up in the final material....as is why the were removed, etc...

 

I don't think there's anything to get riled up about with any of what he's said...I didn't take a nefarious tone from any of it, other than possibly a few digs at a former employer who involuntarily let him go (and who among us wouldn't be a bit bitter about such a thing?).

 

It is quite interesting to know his original thoughts on the II and XI Legions. Clearly GW will change whatever they want and has filled in the gaps since he's moved on anyways, so it's fair to have your cake and eat it too in this instance: if you like his ideas, its a great theory. If you don't, then that's why their disappearance is so mysterious.

 

As stated above, I prefer to keep their disappearance (and reasons for it) mysterious...

 

...but if there has to be a reason why their backstory is explained, I would prefer if it's kind of like the how Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight keeps making up different origin stories for effect ("wanna know how I got these scars?"), weaving a different tale each time to psychologically mess with his victims and play on their potential sympathies.

[Trevak Dal]

Isn't it a long running trope of "the Imperium lost and chaos 'won' with it's long term goals achieved or advanced"? Like up there with every chapter having a "long proud tradition in the Imperium"?

 

The most enjoyable way to play 30k is to bring my 7th edition Tau army stuff out, and be like "loyalist, traitor-im here to kill sphess mahrines."

 

Or Jump pack world eaters.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Trevak Dal

[Zuvassin]

The similarities to Rogue Trooper extend to the wholesale “borrowing” they did of 2000AD in general, including hive cities and judges (Arbites) from Judge Dredd, the worship of “Kaos” in the ABC Warriors, and the entire plot of Nemesis the Warlock, in which the Grand Inquisitor of Termite (short for “Mighty Terra”) sends his Terminators to hunt down an alien psyker.

 

Not to mention the visual elements, such as the upward pointing arrow that’s used as the Space Marine tactical squad icon looking suspiciously like both the Souther icon from Rogue Trooper and the stylized mushroom cloud warning signs for radiation in several of those works, the often exact replica of the Nort icon as the generic lightning bolt heraldry and restylized as the White Scar icon, and that GW repurposed several of their Rogue Trooper minis into the first ranges of the totally coincidentally named Rogue Trader.

 

The Paradise Lost parallels are less specific and more the fact that almost every good vs evil and betrayal story told by westerners relies on the same biblical themes that Milton relied on.

[Zuvassin]

Back to the lost Legions, there’s another Priestly interview somewhere where he more explicitly stated his inspiration was the Roman practice of letting shamed Legions redeem themselves by earning the right to have all record of them wiped out, as Roman honor saw being forgotten as mercifully better than being remembered as failures.

 

Which fits this interview’s comments, save their mystery has less to do with the overall mystery of the Heresy era and more to do with them being specific echoes of Roman practices.

[Vykes]

...

 

The Paradise Lost parallels are less specific and more the fact that almost every good vs evil and betrayal story told by westerners relies on the same biblical themes that Milton relied on.

Dunno dude, that sounds like you're selling Milton out pretty hardcore. 

[Tyriks]

Back to the lost Legions, there’s another Priestly interview somewhere where he more explicitly stated his inspiration was the Roman practice of letting shamed Legions redeem themselves by earning the right to have all record of them wiped out, as Roman honor saw being forgotten as mercifully better than being remembered as failures.

Which fits this interview’s comments, save their mystery has less to do with the overall mystery of the Heresy era and more to do with them being specific echoes of Roman practices.

Rome never did that. They kept extremely detailed histories of their failures as well as successes. There are two "lost" legions, which is where the idea came from, but there's no historical reason to think their sudden absence from records is anything like this. While they both simply stop showing up in contemporary attestations we do have physical artifacts (such as tiles and bricks) made by one of those legions decades after they vanish from the record. Things like the Battle of Cannae wouldn't exist in our history books if Romans hadn't self-reported their humiliating defeats and failures.

[Spinsanity]

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.

Personally, I always liked canon-conflict because it fits so well the theme, which is all the more obvious as time goes by now... Considering how difficult it is becoming to sift truth from falsehood today, on a single planet, extrapolating this to the scale of the Imperium means there are bound to be false records, corrupt or incomplete files and just as many false information a there is truth floating throughout the imperial archives here and there.

 

As for the topic at hand, I do like the idea that Priestley had for the 2 lost legions, it's thematically different enough from the traitor legions to have warranted such a different treatment.

[Domhnall]

I think the important thing to remember here is that Priestley is talking in the past tense. As in this is what he envisioned at the time: 

 

"I always imaged these Legions were deleted from the records as a result of things that happened during the Horus Heresy - and that the 'purging' was a recognition that whatever terrible things they had done had been - in the end - redeemed in some way."

 

Now that the Horus Heresy is more fleshed out, we know that the missing legions had been removed prior to the heresy, so they can't have been redeemed of their misdeeds during the Horus Heresy.*

It is an interesting interview, and shows what they were thinking 30 years ago, but is to be taken as more of a 'what could have been', rather than what is fluff. 

 

 

*Though you could transfer the idea to current fluff that they did something really bad, but redeemed themselves in some way. Like not taking their shoes off in the Emperor's house, but then doing the hoovering. 

[Lexington]

Now that the Horus Heresy is more fleshed out, we know that the missing legions had been removed prior to the heresy, so they can't have been redeemed of their misdeeds during the Horus Heresy.*

This is one of the reasons (among many others) why fleshing out the Heresy always struck me as such a bad idea.

[Scammel]

So, uh, this is awkward... Rick Priestly kinda seems like an unpleasant person. I understand his reasons for being bitter at GW The Entity, but he's taking some very broad swings at a lot of people who've put a lot of effort and respect into his kernel of a universe. Poor show.

 

Whatever. Bleh.

[Jareddm]

 

Now that the Horus Heresy is more fleshed out, we know that the missing legions had been removed prior to the heresy, so they can't have been redeemed of their misdeeds during the Horus Heresy.*

This is one of the reasons (among many others) why fleshing out the Heresy always struck me as such a bad idea.

 

Based on what I've seen from Brotherhood of the Lost and the individual Lost Legion primarchs, I would consider most to be a step up in quality from what we used to see of lost legion fan projects before the Heresy was fleshed out.  Maybe it was just lack of visibility into the good projects 15+ years ago, but to me it's seemed like projects that work within the restrictions of fitting the lost legions into the Heresy lore have felt more grounded and creatively engaging.

I'm not saying that all mysteries should be revealed, only that from new revelations can come new mysteries.

[spessmarine]

So, uh, this is awkward... Rick Priestly kinda seems like an unpleasant person. I understand his reasons for being bitter at GW The Entity, but he's taking some very broad swings at a lot of people who've put a lot of effort and respect into his kernel of a universe. Poor show.

 

Whatever. Bleh.

Yep, the bitterness is tangible.

Some interesting info for sure but you can feel the attitude.

[Gederas]

So, uh, this is awkward... Rick Priestly kinda seems like an unpleasant person. I understand his reasons for being bitter at GW The Entity, but he's taking some very broad swings at a lot of people who've put a lot of effort and respect into his kernel of a universe. Poor show.

 

Whatever. Bleh.

Yep, the bitterness is tangible.

Some interesting info for sure but you can feel the attitude.

He honestly reminds me of Christopher Tolkien and his "how DARE people want to do things with my father's work" attitude.

 

It's really off-putting.

[SpecialIssue]

I'm curious what lines in particular are making people feel he's being poisonous and disrespectful.

 

As far as I can tell, he said that he, as the genesis of the Heresy and the 10,000 year history of 40k, dislikes the direction GW/FW went in fleshing out the HH as he envisioned something different. He remarks on the direction in business they went after making him redundant, and wishes them the best in the new steps they are taking. Nor does he claim to have ownership over the setting or make executive decisions on its direction.

 

He mentions some bright spark who 'ruined' his original vision for the heresy, but that's a true, if a bit blunt choice of words. This new vision is not the same as his personal vision. It is a bad thing to his original vision, but not an objectively bad thing.

 

There's nothing wrong with that tbh.

[Vykes]

I'm curious what lines in particular are making people feel he's being poisonous and disrespectful.

 

...

 

He mentions some bright spark who 'ruined' his original vision for the heresy, but that's a true, if a bit blunt choice of words. This new vision is not the same as his personal vision. It is a bad thing to his original vision, but not an objectively bad thing.

 

There's nothing wrong with that tbh.

 

It's subtext, context, reading between the lines: the diplomatic choice of words would be that there were other individuals who added their interpretation of the Horus Heresy mythos.  Perhaps, even that things had changed over time from his original vision (full stop).  Both more eloquent, both more diplomatic, the choice and tone is pretty bitter. It's not just blunt, it's intentionally so.  

 

Tzeentchian words for Tzeentchian ways without doing the middle-finger wind up calling himself 'Starlord'*. 

 

*Merely a reference, not a judgement call   Honestly I sure don't have verbal queues, never met him, and I'm the sort of person who looks at the finished product and not the author: as I know I may have massive issues with either the author or the works and still respect who they are or what they've done.  And I don't know Rick Priestly, so I don't want to many any assumptions.

 

So, back to point, I could say, "Frankly, I couldn't care less about what stuff Rick Priestly is prattling off these days, because, thankfully, he doesn't have control of the Horus Heresy." and it's objectively true, but how does it sound? 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Vykes

[N1SB]

Hi Brothers, I went back and re-read the article, I totally see your point of view.  I write to share some perspective on 2 things:

 

 

+++ Rick Priestley spoke pretty sarcastically in the past, and he's mainly making fun of himself +++

 

 

IIRC, once he was actually being complimented on how he made GW/40k a success, by interweaving roleplaying elements in a strategy game more than just setting background but a real personality to each race or Chapter or something.  And his reply was vulgar and shocking.

 

I don't remember his exact wording, but he attributed his own success to how, back then, he could put a piece of feces into a box that read "roleplaying game" and it would still sell.  He was making fun of everything from the industry to the players, but mostly at himself for being nowhere as smart as people give him credit for.

 

 

So, back to point, I could say, "Frankly, I couldn't care less about what stuff Rick Priestly is prattling off these days, because, thankfully, he doesn't have control of the Horus Heresy." and it's objectively true, but how does it sound? 

 

I don't know exactly how he'd reply, but Rick Priestley might say, "ya, that sounds about right."

 

 

+++ And just an actual parallel in 30k/40k lore to illustrate unknowable "deep time" +++

 

 

I was listening to a newer player, but one who has done his due diligence from reading, about something he noticed.

 

Long story short, he compared the Horus Heresy to the Fall of the Eldar.  The former is like military history, especially in how FW HH books presented it (I LOVE that aspect especially) whereas the latter is like mythology.  Whereas the Primarchs are planning and organising and fighting, the Eldar Gods are getting their hands chopped off for fingers to become awesome weapons, raging each other for shorting them on swords, getting kidnapped by Nurgle out of love.  And his point was those events happened at around the same time, both 10,000 years ago, but are re-told so differently.

 

And when I think of how Rick Priestley described his initial concept for the Horus Heresy, I think of how the Fall of the Eldar was presented.  That really is an unknowable "deep time" lost in myths and superstition and legend.  I don't personally feel they could make a game based on the Fall of the Eldar (if only because I think there's more interest in Space Marines), but if they did, it would rob the mystique from the Eldar.

 

So there's a trade-off.  In the case of the Horus Heresy, IMHO it totally pays off.  Before 8th I played almost all 30k and no 7th ed.  I even loved things like how The Unremembered Empire foreshadowed the current lore, it made both the 30k and 40k more interesting.  But I found that parallel relevant to Rick Priestley's point.

[Bryan Blaire]

Meh, Priestly would have been around for Space Marine/Epic, so if he really wanted to institute the "deep time" concept to the HH, he should have had the influence to back then. If he couldn't/wouldn't make that stick then, then it really doesn't matter what he says now (and may even be a bit of revisionist history, even if I would have preferred the "deep time" method).

[Skaorn]

I agree that having the lost legions as being completely lost in 40k is a good idea. Being the distant past, you can put in lots of little exceptions, contradictions, and mix ups to add flavors. Maybe there was really there was really more legions and Primarchs because 20 legions for a galaxy wasn't really enough and several got lost in the fighting. Maybe some of the Primarchs and legions have got their mythology wrong and things like the Iron and Imperial Fists really being from the same source happened. It's good to leave yourself room to change and grow.

 

However...

 

D&D has gone through several changes since the time of Uncle Gary. It is the collected works of many people and explores different settings and even times in some of those settings. While it had several downs, I'd say that D&D has continued to improve from what it was when Gary Gygax was shown the door. Even 4th Ed.

 

Things changed, new people took over for 40K, they brought in new things, and went different directions. Whether you like the way things are going or not, it's going to happen (I will probably have to deal with Chaos Primaris, for instance). My problem with 30K and the lost legions is that they went back to explore the time period they were from and don't, except to say "we don't talk about them". Including the traitors to the Emperor. This is not satisfactory as there would still be records, people who would have known about them but hadn't gotten the memo that they weren't to be mentioned, gossips, rumors, slip ups, etc. Avoiding the subject but occasionally showing a little ankle to cause a scandal is just bad world building. They should have been dealt with. You can still keep a decent amount of mystery behind them and speculation about what happened. Hell, if the Emperor was canny and never gathered all of his Primarchs together at once in the story, you could have had Horus speculating that there was only ever 18 Primarchs/legions and that the lost were creations by the Emperor so that the others were more hesitant to try to betray him before hand (something the Emperor nixed once he made Horus Warmaster). What if the lost weren't really lost, but in reserve by the other side, waiting for the right moment to strike, might even crop up from time to time. There was no luxury of having a veil of myth and legend that grew over 10,000 years after several periods of great devastation.

 

Yes, it might ruin some of GWs fans personal projects and many would probably would be underwhelmed by what they got of the lost. I'm personally underwhelmed by the loyalist SM legions and a few Chaos ones already. Look at things like UM or SW hate that already exist while the setting continues to thrive. I think actually getting some real details on the lost because GW decided to delve into the HH won't kill the game.