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.

Ignoring Nathaniel Garro from Flight of the Eisenstein, the loyalists down on Istvan III, and certain
members of the Knights Errant, were there any loyalist Word Bearers, Iron Warriors or even World Eaters?

Plenty. They even provide rules for them in the 30K game for people who went rogue for both sides (Blackshields).

A particular notable one is Barbaras Antioch, a loyalist Iron Warrior Warsmith who went to Ultramar later after he held up a bunch of the Warmaster's forces at his garrison.

Yeah, there were loads of Legion elements peppered around the galaxy. Small forces left as garrisons, ships sent to sub-sectors, messenger vessels, straight up realising what was wrong and running off.

There are dozens of reasons why Loyalist elements of traitor legions could have gotten around the 'cleansing' the traitors did.

Curiously there seems to be more concrete hints of loyals within traitor legions than other way around. Where are mentions of openly rebellious ultramarines? white scars? blood angels?

There's a bunch of white scars in the imaginatively titled 'Scars' that betray the primarch.

tneva82 wrote:
Curiously there seems to be more concrete hints of loyals within traitor legions than other way around. Where are mentions of openly rebellious ultramarines? white scars? blood angels?

The Legiones Astartes on an individual basis nominally held loyalty to the Emperor but many privately were more loyal to their Primarchs. But some still venerated the Emperor above all else. So, loyalist legionnaires would have a lot less incentive to rebel if their primarch remained on the Emperor's side unless they held some sort of affection for Horus. In other words, more Legionnaires loved the Emperor over their Primarch than loved the Warmaster over their Primarch. Which makes sense since the Emperor was a revered verging on worshiped god-like being even then.

tneva82 wrote:
Curiously there seems to be more concrete hints of loyals within traitor legions than other way around. Where are mentions of openly rebellious ultramarines? white scars? blood angels?

Of course not! Can't have any of the special snowflake loyalists betraying their brothers!

In seriousness, the White Scars example is a good one, and the Dark Angels' whole backstory is based on the fact that some of their legion went traitor.

Would be nice if there were more traitor elements in other legions though...

Almost every traitor legion has loyalist characters you can play in 30k, where as none of the loyalists have traitor characters. (At least in the red books)

I mean, why would a Terran legionnaire be swayed to work for Horus or turn traitor with their Primarch when everything they've known or fought for has been for the Emperor?

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Curiously there seems to be more concrete hints of loyals within traitor legions than other way around. Where are mentions of openly rebellious ultramarines? white scars? blood angels?

Of course not! Can't have any of the special snowflake loyalists betraying their brothers!

In seriousness, the White Scars example is a good one, and the Dark Angels' whole backstory is based on the fact that some of their legion went traitor.

Would be nice if there were more traitor elements in other legions though...

Not saying there aren't any but surprisingly few. Scars, Dark angels...Where's mentions of traitorous ultramarines? Blood angels that felt call of Khorne?

Seems like would have been good material for at least few short stories where such would appear. No need to have huge fleet of traitorous ultramarines but mentions of small forces.

Now above mentioned loyalty for Emperor/Primarch is good explanation but one would still expect SOME elements that decided "heck it. Let's fight for Horus!".

 Crazyterran wrote:
Almost every traitor legion has loyalist characters you can play in 30k, where as none of the loyalists have traitor characters. (At least in the red books)

I mean, why would a Terran legionnaire be swayed to work for Horus or turn traitor with their Primarch when everything they've known or fought for has been for the Emperor?

Just because they're Terran doesn't mean they're good, or loyal, or anything of the above. Any implication that it is is nothing short of space-racism

tneva82 wrote:

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Curiously there seems to be more concrete hints of loyals within traitor legions than other way around. Where are mentions of openly rebellious ultramarines? white scars? blood angels?

Of course not! Can't have any of the special snowflake loyalists betraying their brothers!

In seriousness, the White Scars example is a good one, and the Dark Angels' whole backstory is based on the fact that some of their legion went traitor.

Would be nice if there were more traitor elements in other legions though...

Not saying there aren't any but surprisingly few. Scars, Dark angels...Where's mentions of traitorous ultramarines? Blood angels that felt call of Khorne?

Seems like would have been good material for at least few short stories where such would appear. No need to have huge fleet of traitorous ultramarines but mentions of small forces.

Now above mentioned loyalty for Emperor/Primarch is good explanation but one would still expect SOME elements that decided "heck it. Let's fight for Horus!".

Exactly. It's a special snowflake treatment for the loyalist marines that detracts from the storyline in my opinion. I love the idea of a cohort of Blood Angels falling to Khorne, or a number of Ultramarines who had been fighting alongside the Sons of Horus for a significant portion of the Great Crusade and held more loyalty to those they knew (or just sided with them through simple pragmatism, believing the Imperium would be better run with Horus in charge).

If I've got it right, the seeds of the heresy were spread through the Warrior Lodges. Were there no warrior lodges in the loyalist legions? Legionnaires who had more loyalty to their secret society than to their legion or primarch?

Would have made for some excellent writing about the seige of Terra, with Imperial Fists having traitors in their ranks who let the Traitor Legions in at key locations, or assassinated key defenders...

But if the whole, Chaos exploited flaws in the traitor Legions gene - seed, can be believed isn't that a good enough reason why there wouldn't be loyalists that went traitor due to special snow flake super loyal gene - seed?

I think a lot of it as well is where the Legions loyalties eventually lie. Do they believe in the ideals of the Great Crusade or is it a crock o' poop and is it loyalty to Emperor or Primarch. The traitor that were traitors seem to be more for their Primarch than either.

Ynneadwraith does make a good point though about the warrior lodges. As far as I know the Word Bearers sent Chaplains, to each Legion to plant the seeds for them to grow, I guess some just didn't take. I think in one of the books it's mentioned that one of the legions didn't need to have another chaplain as they already had their own. I guess it might have been in Fear to Tread? I suppose with the Blood Angels wanting to keep their own secrets they wouldn't let anyone else in, as with the Wolves.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
But if the whole, Chaos exploited flaws in the traitor Legions gene - seed, can be believed isn't that a good enough reason why there wouldn't be loyalists that went traitor due to special snow flake super loyal gene - seed?

I think a lot of it as well is where the Legions loyalties eventually lie. Do they believe in the ideals of the Great Crusade or is it a crock o' poop and is it loyalty to Emperor or Primarch. The traitor that were traitors seem to be more for their Primarch than either.

Ynneadwraith does make a good point though about the warrior lodges. As far as I know the Word Bearers sent Chaplains, to each Legion to plant the seeds for them to grow, I guess some just didn't take. I think in one of the books it's mentioned that one of the legions didn't need to have another chaplain as they already had their own. I guess it might have been in Fear to Tread? I suppose with the Blood Angels wanting to keep their own secrets they wouldn't let anyone else in, as with the Wolves.

Thanks yeah I'd have expected traitors in all the legions really, purely through law of averages. There were a lot of marines, spending a lot of time in a galaxy full of corrupted things.

Also, it wasn't only the traitor primarchs that were manipulated by the Chaos Gods. All of them were flung through the warp, and all of them were created using fractions of power stolen from the gods themselves. Given that the gene-seed comes from their primarch, every single Marine is touched by the warp gods in some way or another.

As for the lodge thing, I can see the Blood Angels and Wolves saying no to the Word Bearers Chaplains, and the Dark Angels too due to secrecy. However, they're all legions that are already slightly iffy on the whole purity front as it is. The Dark Angels definitely had traitors, I can see Khorne having a decent pull on some of the, lets say 'thirstier' Blood Angels, and I'd be willing to bet that given their aspirant stock there were Space Wolves who enjoyed all the 'viking' (in the verb form of the word) a little too much...

The rest I can see no reason they'd turn down extra Chaplains if they're being handed out. Especially understrength Legions like the Raven Guard.

Perhaps, we can apply the old 'propaganda' filter to this incongruent piece of special snowflakism. History is written by the victors. Wouldn't the loyalist legions want to record that every single one of them was loyal to a fault. No, they definitely didn't have traitors amongst them. Of course not. Please visit your closest Commissar for 're-education'...

It is stated in one of the red books (The 6th one IIRC, with the shattered legions and blackshields rules) that every Legion had both loyalists and traitorous elements during the heresy. But the thing is, being a traitor doesn't mean you've sided with Horus. There could be traitor elements that still retains their Legion's colours (thus not really becoming black shields) while rejecting their Primarch and the Emperor (kinda like the Dark Angels schism) and some white scars

I think in one of the DA books its mentioned that Nemeil's chaplain role was influenced by the Edict of Nikea which meant that the Legions needed to have Chaplains to watch for their brothers using, or showing signs of having the ability to use, psychic powers. If the legion had their own chaplains then these took the job. If they didn't then the WB provided some.

From memory, Salamanders didn't take WB chaplains as they already had their "Keepers of the Flame" for the Promethean creed who took that role. No mention of lodges that I can remember

Similarly, the Blood Angels had their own chaplains.

Conversely, the rebellion within the White Scars was caused by Lodge activity.

Both the EC and IW had "lodges" that the Word Bearers infiltrated leading to rebellion.

Personally, I think the main key to legion loyalty is the whole Emperor vs. Primarch loyalty struggle. The reason you see more loyalist traitors than traitorous loyalists is because their loyalty is being pulled in two different directions between Emperor and Primarch, while for the loyalists both Emperor and Primarch have one vision, so they have no conflict of loyalty. Sure, there are probably a few rogue elements in the loyalist who might see opportunity in supporting Horus, but due to the dominance of loyalty in their legion they would have had little power to do anything except maybe slip away quietly.

Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

 Castiel wrote:


Personally, I think the main key to legion loyalty is the whole Emperor vs. Primarch loyalty struggle. The reason you see more loyalist traitors than traitorous loyalists is because their loyalty is being pulled in two different directions between Emperor and Primarch, while for the loyalists both Emperor and Primarch have one vision, so they have no conflict of loyalty. Sure, there are probably a few rogue elements in the loyalist who might see opportunity in supporting Horus, but due to the dominance of loyalty in their legion they would have had little power to do anything except maybe slip away quietly.

Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

Very good explanation that. Explains it very neatly.

I still think they missed a trick though. Traitors in loyalist legions would make for some excellent storytelling opportunities.

 Castiel wrote:
Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

I can buy that for reason as to why there would be ONLY FEW traitors from loyal chapters. But almost complete lack is harder to swallow. Some small outpost garrison force turning. Or small squad amidst larger force that waits it's time and then turns in during battle adding extra drama to the action.

That's what I would have liked to see. But seems that's not going to happen.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

 Castiel wrote:


Personally, I think the main key to legion loyalty is the whole Emperor vs. Primarch loyalty struggle. The reason you see more loyalist traitors than traitorous loyalists is because their loyalty is being pulled in two different directions between Emperor and Primarch, while for the loyalists both Emperor and Primarch have one vision, so they have no conflict of loyalty. Sure, there are probably a few rogue elements in the loyalist who might see opportunity in supporting Horus, but due to the dominance of loyalty in their legion they would have had little power to do anything except maybe slip away quietly.

Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

Very good explanation that. Explains it very neatly.

I still think they missed a trick though. Traitors in loyalist legions would make for some excellent storytelling opportunities.

I would love to read even a short story about traitor Ultramarines, since Guiliman was trying to teach them how to be thinkers, scholars and leaders beyond the pure military thing. But you know eh, they gotta be flawless

Engrenages wrote:


I would love to read even a short story about traitor Ultramarines, since Guiliman was trying to teach them how to be thinkers, scholars and leaders beyond the pure military thing. But you know eh, they gotta be flawless

Yeah I'd absolutely love that too. Especially if it's as a result of their utilitarian nature.

A whole garrison of Ultramarines takes a popular vote, and decides that Horus is the best bet for the Imperium's future. Nothing personal, just pure logical reasoning.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


Very good explanation that. Explains it very neatly.

I still think they missed a trick though. Traitors in loyalist legions would make for some excellent storytelling opportunities.

Thanks! I agree, it'd be nice to see a couple more traitor loyalists popping up. There was definitely a RG kicking around with one of the traitor legions, can't remember which, would like to hear more about how he got there. There certainly must have been a few out on secondment that might have turned due to their long time with their surrogate legion. That said though, they might just have been killed rather than given the choice. Certainly I can't imagine Mortarion or Perturabo asking them. Horus or Lorgar on the other hand I could see at least making the attempt, they don't seem the type to waste a possible resource.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

Also, it wasn't only the traitor primarchs that were manipulated by the Chaos Gods. All of them were flung through the warp, and all of them were created using fractions of power stolen from the gods themselves. Given that the gene-seed comes from their primarch, every single Marine is touched by the warp gods in some way or another.

Well, that's not entirely the case, although it does look as if the Emperor came to some bargain with the Chaos Gods for the power to create the Primarchs but currently it's only been spoken from the mouths of Daemons, which aren't notoriously trust worthy. With the loyal Legions/Primarchs they weren't called into account or questioned though. They proved to be resolute in the face of the Heresy unlike the traitor Legions regardless of how many stayed loyal. If their Gene seed had the same imperfections, wouldn't they have gone traitor to? Elements of the Scars and Dark Angels did go Traitor but both were cut out and not left to fester and they are loyal to the Imperium today. The loyalist parts of the Traitors were expelled so they could all be naughty boys.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

The rest I can see no reason they'd turn down extra Chaplains if they're being handed out. Especially understrength Legions like the Raven Guard..

I don't know, maybe they just wouldn't want them around. In Visions they are sent out because of Nikaea to make sure that the Edict is being followed. I am not sure if it is the case now. But if it is, Legions like the Raven Guard and Iron Hands aren't known for their high levels of psykers as far as I know, so possibly wouldn't want them around. Dorn was back on Terra and I don't think they would have risked setting up a lodge there. You've only got the Salamanders and Ultramarines then.

 Ynneadwraith wrote:

Perhaps, we can apply the old 'propaganda' filter to this incongruent piece of special snowflakism. History is written by the victors. Wouldn't the loyalist legions want to record that every single one of them was loyal to a fault. No, they definitely didn't have traitors amongst them. Of course not. Please visit your closest Commissar for 're-education'...

Of course that is a possibility and mostly likely the reason. With the Gene - seed, if the Wolves were found to have the same imperfections in addition to what they already do Guilliman isn't going to yell TAINTED and then start a mission of eradicating the Space Wolves, although I would like to have seen that. But maybe though, the loyalist legions were just that loyal.

 Castiel wrote:
I think in one of the DA books its mentioned that Nemeil's chaplain role was influenced by the Edict of Nikea which meant that the Legions needed to have Chaplains to watch for their brothers using, or showing signs of having the ability to use, psychic powers. If the legion had their own chaplains then these took the job. If they didn't then the WB provided some.

From memory, Salamanders didn't take WB chaplains as they already had their "Keepers of the Flame" for the Promethean creed who took that role. No mention of lodges that I can remember

Similarly, the Blood Angels had their own chaplains.

Conversely, the rebellion within the White Scars was caused by Lodge activity.

Both the EC and IW had "lodges" that the Word Bearers infiltrated leading to rebellion.

Personally, I think the main key to legion loyalty is the whole Emperor vs. Primarch loyalty struggle. The reason you see more loyalist traitors than traitorous loyalists is because their loyalty is being pulled in two different directions between Emperor and Primarch, while for the loyalists both Emperor and Primarch have one vision, so they have no conflict of loyalty. Sure, there are probably a few rogue elements in the loyalist who might see opportunity in supporting Horus, but due to the dominance of loyalty in their legion they would have had little power to do anything except maybe slip away quietly.

Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

Pretty much what I was trying to say

 Pilau Rice wrote:


Well, that's not entirely the case, although it does look as if the Emperor came to some bargain with the Chaos Gods for the power to create the Primarchs but currently it's only been spoken from the mouths of Daemons, which aren't notoriously trust worthy. With the loyal Legions/Primarchs they weren't called into account or questioned though. They proved to be resolute in the face of the Heresy unlike the traitor Legions regardless of how many stayed loyal. If their Gene seed had the same imperfections, wouldn't they have gone traitor to? Elements of the Scars and Dark Angels did go Traitor but both were cut out and not left to fester and they are loyal to the Imperium today. The loyalist parts of the Traitors were expelled so they could all be naughty boys.

Yeah you have to look at the source when these comments are said. Didn't realise that it was only alluded to by daemons.

Saying that, just because it's come from the mouth of daemons doesn't mean it's false. If the truth would have a destabilising effect they'd have no problem being honest

 Pilau Rice wrote:


Of course that is a possibility and mostly likely the reason. With the Gene - seed, if the Wolves were found to have the same imperfections in addition to what they already do Guilliman isn't going to yell TAINTED and then start a mission of eradicating the Space Wolves, although I would like to have seen that. But maybe though, the loyalist legions were just that loyal.

Yeah I like applying the 'propaganda' filter to Marines. Makes a lot of the marine fanbase appeasement more palatable

The loyalist legions being 'just that loyal' seems a bit of a weak explanation from a writing perspective, but definitely sounds like something a propaganda-writer would suggest

The official line from Forgeworld is the following, "Some element of every single legion fought some element of every other legion at some point during there Heresy, no exceptions."

So even if we don't hear about traitor Ultramarines or Blood Angels doesn't mean they didn't exist. They just haven't been detailed. Every legion has loyalists, traitors, and others. The difference is only the ratio between the three.

 Castiel wrote:
Personally, I think the main key to legion loyalty is the whole Emperor vs. Primarch loyalty struggle. The reason you see more loyalist traitors than traitorous loyalists is because their loyalty is being pulled in two different directions between Emperor and Primarch, while for the loyalists both Emperor and Primarch have one vision, so they have no conflict of loyalty. Sure, there are probably a few rogue elements in the loyalist who might see opportunity in supporting Horus, but due to the dominance of loyalty in their legion they would have had little power to do anything except maybe slip away quietly.

I disagree, but only because I feel that drastically oversimplifies the concept of loyalty that a marine is faced when during the Heresy. Especially during the Age of Darkness period of the Heresy, all of the legions had disparate elements and far-flung detachments and expeditionary fleets all over the galaxy. Even within the same legion element you're going to find plenty of differences of opinion and conflict.

The way I like to look at loyalty in the legions is more nuanced. Every marine has many different types of loyalty, all of which they must balance and prioritize appropriately as the truths of the Heresy are revealed to them. Thinking about which loyalties a marine values most and which they are willing to turn on is a great way to work out the decisions that marine makes, whether that means staying loyal, turning traitor, or becoming a black shield.
Here's a list of loyalties that I found that a marine could have:

Legion
Squadmates
Primarch
Homeworld
The Emperor
Terra
Humanity
Commanding Officer
Religious/Secular Beliefs
Machine Cult
Personal Honor
Combat Prowess
Sanity

For some decisions, it may be easy to balance these loyalties, but others may cause a great deal of conflict and its in those moments of conflicts that you get interesting stories, and during the Heresy there'd be plenty of the latter.

For the Ultramarines specifically, you have the controversy of Imperium Secundus or the use of the Pharos. I have no doubt that there are those Ultramarines who would hold the life of the Emperor or the safety of Terra over anything and for some of them, it may reach a breaking point where they see their primarch as traitorous for his actions. As for the Pharos, such a blatant use of a xenos artifact is certainly something that could rile some of the more orthodox Ultramarines. Especially those who know the horrors of messing with xenostech first-hand. There are also those Ultramarine detachments that would've been attached to traitor legion elements. Who's to say that the bonds that they developed fighting the Great Crusade aren't stronger than their bonds to a primarch they haven't seen in decades, or the bond to a Terra they've only ever heard of?

Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

The thing is, what is dominant in a legion is irrelevant. Our armies are not whole legions. Our armies aren't even significant portions of a legion.They're a tiny fraction that has no reason to be some perfect median sample of the legion. Further more, how history remembers those elements plays a huge role. You think the Ultramarines are going to let any mention of traitor Ultramarines make it through The Scouring?

A great post.

Question though, so FW say that all the legions fought each other at some point in time, so the Fists fought the Ultramarines or Space Wolves at some point during the heresy?

 Pilau Rice wrote:
A great post.

Question though, so FW say that all the legions fought each other at some point in time, so the Fists fought the Ultramarines or Space Wolves at some point during the heresy?

Indeed, though the specific elements involved may be, as has been said, just a few squads or a single company, and certainly not something history would want to have remembered, especially if the fighting was due to a breakdown in communication rather than one side or the other actually turning traitor. The reasoning is really just to give some lore flexibility to allow nearly any army type to fight any other army type, and to play up the difference in perspectives. I mean heck, we have a story where Imperial Fists and Custodes fight each other to the death! And that was over a parking spot!

jareddm wrote:

Spoiler:

The official line from Forgeworld is the following, "Some element of every single legion fought some element of every other legion at some point during there Heresy, no exceptions."

So even if we don't hear about traitor Ultramarines or Blood Angels doesn't mean they didn't exist. They just haven't been detailed. Every legion has loyalists, traitors, and others. The difference is only the ratio between the three.

 Castiel wrote:
Personally, I think the main key to legion loyalty is the whole Emperor vs. Primarch loyalty struggle. The reason you see more loyalist traitors than traitorous loyalists is because their loyalty is being pulled in two different directions between Emperor and Primarch, while for the loyalists both Emperor and Primarch have one vision, so they have no conflict of loyalty. Sure, there are probably a few rogue elements in the loyalist who might see opportunity in supporting Horus, but due to the dominance of loyalty in their legion they would have had little power to do anything except maybe slip away quietly.

I disagree, but only because I feel that drastically oversimplifies the concept of loyalty that a marine is faced when during the Heresy. Especially during the Age of Darkness period of the Heresy, all of the legions had disparate elements and far-flung detachments and expeditionary fleets all over the galaxy. Even within the same legion element you're going to find plenty of differences of opinion and conflict.

The way I like to look at loyalty in the legions is more nuanced. Every marine has many different types of loyalty, all of which they must balance and prioritize appropriately as the truths of the Heresy are revealed to them. Thinking about which loyalties a marine values most and which they are willing to turn on is a great way to work out the decisions that marine makes, whether that means staying loyal, turning traitor, or becoming a black shield.
Here's a list of loyalties that I found that a marine could have:

Legion
Squadmates
Primarch
Homeworld
The Emperor
Terra
Humanity
Commanding Officer
Religious/Secular Beliefs
Machine Cult
Personal Honor
Combat Prowess
Sanity

For some decisions, it may be easy to balance these loyalties, but others may cause a great deal of conflict and its in those moments of conflicts that you get interesting stories, and during the Heresy there'd be plenty of the latter.

For the Ultramarines specifically, you have the controversy of Imperium Secundus or the use of the Pharos. I have no doubt that there are those Ultramarines who would hold the life of the Emperor or the safety of Terra over anything and for some of them, it may reach a breaking point where they see their primarch as traitorous for his actions. As for the Pharos, such a blatant use of a xenos artifact is certainly something that could rile some of the more orthodox Ultramarines. Especially those who know the horrors of messing with xenostech first-hand. There are also those Ultramarine detachments that would've been attached to traitor legion elements. Who's to say that the bonds that they developed fighting the Great Crusade aren't stronger than their bonds to a primarch they haven't seen in decades, or the bond to a Terra they've only ever heard of?

Ultimately what made the traitor legions able to act against the Emperor was that their overriding loyalty was to their Primarch over the Emperor. This made the traitors the dominant faction with strength of numbers within the legions. If Horus had gone "Lets overthrow the Emperor!" and his legion, barring a few marines, had refused to follow him, the Heresy would never have got anywhere. This probably explains why traitor elements within the loyalist legions is uncommon - there is no clash of loyalty or strength of numbers to take action, meaning that any traitorous elements probably only amount to a few squads at the most.

The thing is, what is dominant in a legion is irrelevant. Our armies are not whole legions. Our armies aren't even significant portions of a legion.They're a tiny fraction that has no reason to be some perfect median sample of the legion. Further more, how history remembers those elements plays a huge role. You think the Ultramarines are going to let any mention of traitor Ultramarines make it through The Scouring?

Brilliant now this is a picture of the heresy I can get behind!

 Pilau Rice wrote:
A great post.

Question though, so FW say that all the legions fought each other at some point in time, so the Fists fought the Ultramarines or Space Wolves at some point during the heresy?

I think the issue with that statement is 'the Fists' and 'the Ultramarines'.

In the picture painted above, the legions are not unified fighting forces all in one place at the same time.

Some Fists fought some Ultramarines, because everything was an absolute mess and no-one really knew everything of what was going on and who was loyal and who wasn't.

Hell, they could both be completely loyal, but think that the other side are traitors so set out to kill each other while they're both screaming 'For the Emperor' and 'Die traitor scum!' at the top of their lungs

 Ynneadwraith wrote:
but definitely sounds like something a propaganda-writer would suggest

Even if it were 100% true, you wouldn't believe it would you

 Ynneadwraith wrote:


I think the issue with that statement is 'the Fists' and 'the Ultramarines'.

In the picture painted above, the legions are not unified fighting forces all in one place at the same time.

I wasn't saying they were

jareddm wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
A great post.

Question though, so FW say that all the legions fought each other at some point in time, so the Fists fought the Ultramarines or Space Wolves at some point during the heresy?

Indeed, though the specific elements involved may be, as has been said, just a few squads or a single company, and certainly not something history would want to have remembered, especially if the fighting was due to a breakdown in communication rather than one side or the other actually turning traitor. The reasoning is really just to give some lore flexibility to allow nearly any army type to fight any other army type, and to play up the difference in perspectives. I mean heck, we have a story where Imperial Fists and Custodes fight each other to the death! And that was over a parking spot!

I can easily see a pack of SW deciding after a disagreement or a minor quarrel that some decisions that Ultramarine Sergeant made are of traitorous nature or bearer of Maleficarum. That's only one example among many that can be imagined. The disparities between Legions (which was supposed to be their greatest strength) made it easy to create bloody feud, especially in an era where paranoia and suspicion are growing.

 Pilau Rice wrote:


Even if it were 100% true, you wouldn't believe it would you

Hah! You're probably right

Blame my diehard belief that there are no good guys (or bad guys) in 40k, just varying shades of grey.

That's just the view of 40k that brings me the most enjoyment if someone else enjoys it more if the loyalist legions are all absolutely loyal then by all means! I think the fluff's deliberately vague with things like that to allow the myriad interpretations of hundreds of thousands of fans to coexist (which is a stroke of genius compared to the rigid dogmatic 'canon' you find in other fantasy franchises...)

If it were dogmatic you might have what you want you though

 Pilau Rice wrote:
If it were dogmatic you might have what you want you though

Nah, having far too much fun playing devil's advocate and shouting 'propaganda' all over the place