Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Of all the Traitor Legions, none received so much flak as much as the Alpha Legion, for the crime of being "dishonorable".

In your personal opinion, what would you consider "dishonorable"? What form of warfare is dishonorable and should not be respected?

Prioritizing civilians as targets instead of the enemy military personnel and assets

I'd consider the whole "virus bomb" and immolation tactic very "dishonorable" as far as a form of warfare. It really depends on your cultures views though, as any form of gun warfare is considered dishonorable by the samurai etc.

Not to say that the virus bomb immolation tactic wasn't awesome though! Truly chaos incarnate in the form of the deaths of billions! Also anything to do with thermobaric technology in warfare just jiggles my jimmies too, but I'd definitely consider it to be a form of dishonorable warfare.

Honor has no place in the 41st Millennium.

You kill or be killed.



On that note, Gak like D-weapons and 2+ Rerollables is pretty fething rude. Like makes me want to start up another game levels of rude.

You say cyclonic torpedoes are dishonorable?

I say the greater dishonor would be to let this foul planet, a seething, rolling ocean of heresy, chaos, and mutation live to mock our Holy God-Emperor a moment longer.

The only dishonor I could suffer here would be to let mawkish sympathy or cowardice disguised as compassion stay my hand from righteous Exterminatus.

Perfidy is considered the most dishonorable form of warfare.

Attacking under flag of truce or attacking during parlay.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
You say cyclonic torpedoes are dishonorable?

I say the greater dishonor would be to let this foul planet, a seething, rolling ocean of heresy, chaos, and mutation live to mock our Holy God-Emperor a moment longer.

The only dishonor I could suffer here would be to let mawkish sympathy or cowardice disguised as compassion stay my hand from righteous Exterminatus.

I definitely see that whole situation as "dishonorable". Though being a chaos fanatic myself, I support the idea of annihilating billions with the flip of one single switch!

Also *false God-Emperor.

Any type of warfare that doesn't bring you close enough to watch the light fade from your enemy's eyes.. Yes I do consider your rifle shot less honourable than the guy who stabs people in the back.

 Drummernathan wrote:
*false God-Emperor.

Hey Chaos-dude, if he's the false God-Emperor, who's the real one? Huh? Checkmate!

40k being such an over-the-top dystopia, honor is defined by what is convenient ("There is no dishonor if a million mon-keighs die to save 10 Eldar"), what is pragmatic (if CSM characters didn't take/issue challenges, their rabble might start to get ideas they're not tough enoughnto lead), or because of ego (the Iron Cage).

On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's unrealistic. Q.v., the Romans almost sacking Q. Fabius Maximus for refusing to take Hannibal on head-first like a manly Roman would.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Any type of warfare that doesn't bring you close enough to watch the light fade from your enemy's eyes.. Yes I do consider your rifle shot less honourable than the guy who stabs people in the back.

If you stab them in the back, how can you see their eyes as they die?

Personally, for me the least honourable thing to do is to abandon your fellow warriors, whether Imperial, Ork, Tau, or Chaos. As a history buff, I'm under no illusions that its happened thousands of times, but its the stories of loyalty that really resonate with me. If you have to lose the planet, at least try and take your guard allies with you and so on.

Also, would it kill the space Marines to stop hogging all the glory?

Mudrat wrote:

Also, would it kill the space Marines to stop hogging all the glory?

I suspect you'd need to address that complaint to the IoMs propaganda department.,

BrianDavion wrote:

Mudrat wrote:

Also, would it kill the space Marines to stop hogging all the glory?

I suspect you'd need to address that complaint to the IoMs propaganda department.,

I sent them a very strongly worded letter about it in July 1927. I reckon in a few years they'll receive it, and as a result of my complaint exterminatus will be carried out on our planet sometime around 2268.

Mudrat wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Mudrat wrote:

Also, would it kill the space Marines to stop hogging all the glory?

I suspect you'd need to address that complaint to the IoMs propaganda department.,

I sent them a very strongly worded letter about it in July 1927. I reckon in a few years they'll receive it, and as a result of my complaint exterminatus will be carried out on our planet sometime around 2268.

Wow you mnust have some friends in high places to get action taken so swiftly

BrianDavion wrote:

Mudrat wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Mudrat wrote:

Also, would it kill the space Marines to stop hogging all the glory?

I suspect you'd need to address that complaint to the IoMs propaganda department.,

I sent them a very strongly worded letter about it in July 1927. I reckon in a few years they'll receive it, and as a result of my complaint exterminatus will be carried out on our planet sometime around 2268.

Wow you mnust have some friends in high places to get action taken so swiftly

Enemies rather.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:

 Drummernathan wrote:
*false God-Emperor.

Hey Chaos-dude, if he's the false God-Emperor, who's the real one? Huh? Checkmate!

Malal.

Mudrat wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Any type of warfare that doesn't bring you close enough to watch the light fade from your enemy's eyes.. Yes I do consider your rifle shot less honourable than the guy who stabs people in the back.

If you stab them in the back, how can you see their eyes as they die?

Presumably they'll turn around to find out what's happened...

Dakka Wolf, would a telescopic sight on your rifle make it more or less honourable?

Oh, and as for the concept of honour itself it's absolutely and entirely a societal construct, and changes not only between cultures but also over time. 'Honour' is basically a list of things that will increase your standing in the eyes of your peers, and 'dishonour' is a list of things that will decrease your standing. So, it being almost completely arbitrary (it could be argued it's loosely based around societal survival mechanisms), almost anything could be considered honourable given the right societal pressures.

For an extreme example. Killing the helpless is utterly abhorrent to most people in real life, and would be considered dishonourable. However, for a Khornate worshipper killing the helpless could well be honourable because it's a good thing in their culture to spill blood and collect skulls.

Killing a Grey Knight without ending him rightly.

*laughs in artilleryman*

Dishonorable is whatever is disadvantageous to me in combat that I can successfully indoctrinate potential enemies to find morally improper through my social position and its consequent influence on the wider culture.

If I'm a medieval knight, I want single combat to be king, because 10 peasants can mob me, hold me down, and smash me with rocks, and they outnumber me at least that much.

If I'm a Fire Warrior, I want "barbaric" melee to be dishonorable, because I suck at it and have the advantage at range against all but the most capable of shooting specialist enemies.

If I'm an Astartes who really likes CQC (Hi, Vlka Fenrika!), I want melee combat to be the height of honor, because getting sniped 300 m away without having a chance to kill something sucks.

Behaving like whiny "I hate my dad!" emo teens rebelling for the sake of rebelling and being evil for the sake of being evil.

 Melissia wrote:
Behaving like whiny "I hate my dad!" emo teens rebelling for the sake of rebelling and being evil for the sake of being evil.

Bu...bu...but he took my STC away and sent me to my room-planet!

Mudrat wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Any type of warfare that doesn't bring you close enough to watch the light fade from your enemy's eyes.. Yes I do consider your rifle shot less honourable than the guy who stabs people in the back.

If you stab them in the back, how can you see their eyes as they die?

Grab their hair/jaw and pull their head over backwards - it's not rocket surgury...brain science...?

Personally, for me the least honourable thing to do is to abandon your fellow warriors, whether Imperial, Ork, Tau, or Chaos. As a history buff, I'm under no illusions that its happened thousands of times, but its the stories of loyalty that really resonate with me. If you have to lose the planet, at least try and take your guard allies with you and so on.

Also, would it kill the space Marines to stop hogging all the glory?

Very probably.
Pretty sure glory is most of the reason the Marines exist - to be held up as a glorious beacon of hope - like Captain America's stage show.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Dishonorable is whatever is disadvantageous to me in combat that I can successfully indoctrinate potential enemies to find morally improper through my social position and its consequent influence on the wider culture.

If I'm a medieval knight, I want single combat to be king, because 10 peasants can mob me, hold me down, and smash me with rocks, and they outnumber me at least that much.

If I'm a Fire Warrior, I want "barbaric" melee to be dishonorable, because I suck at it and have the advantage at range against all but the most capable of shooting specialist enemies.

If I'm an Astartes who really likes CQC (Hi, Vlka Fenrika!), I want melee combat to be the height of honor, because getting sniped 300 m away without having a chance to kill something sucks.

You get top marks off me.

Dirty Dirty Psykers

GodDamUser wrote:
Dirty Dirty Psykers

seriously though

No ones mentioned Night Lords yet?

I am at dissapoint Dakka!

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

Mudrat wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Any type of warfare that doesn't bring you close enough to watch the light fade from your enemy's eyes.. Yes I do consider your rifle shot less honourable than the guy who stabs people in the back.

If you stab them in the back, how can you see their eyes as they die?

Presumably they'll turn around to find out what's happened...

Dakka Wolf, would a telescopic sight on your rifle make it more or less honourable?

Oh, and as for the concept of honour itself it's absolutely and entirely a societal construct, and changes not only between cultures but also over time. 'Honour' is basically a list of things that will increase your standing in the eyes of your peers, and 'dishonour' is a list of things that will decrease your standing. So, it being almost completely arbitrary (it could be argued it's loosely based around societal survival mechanisms), almost anything could be considered honourable given the right societal pressures.

For an extreme example. Killing the helpless is utterly abhorrent to most people in real life, and would be considered dishonourable. However, for a Khornate worshipper killing the helpless could well be honourable because it's a good thing in their culture to spill blood and collect skulls.

Having a telescopic sight doesn't make a difference. Using the telescopic sight to be further away makes the difference.
Killing the weak isn't dishonourable - it's how you close useless mouths to save rations for warriors.

The thread itself kinda reminds me of Emperor with a Voice Box from youtube, when he finds out the Tau don't do h2h combat THE MOST HONORABLE FORM OF COMBAT

Blood Axes

Honor was established by the adherance to codes, oaths and duties. Wars almost systematically follow rules, some written, others notm but still well known and widely accepted. Thus, a dishonorable combattant was one who didn't respected those rules by spite or for gain. In 40K, there is no widely respected codes and rules for war between ennemies, but there is such a thing within each faction. Thus, you will almost never be called dishonorable by your ennemy, but by you allies.