User talk:Terraine

Current State of the Project

You made a very good point about the lack of armoured forces on the Loyalist side. I've been told that the Silver Cataphracts are actually being reworked in that direction in order to cover the gap (with that hip and stylish Soviet Deep Battle thing) but I'm not 100% sure of that. The main reason for the Crusaders being cut was that they had substantial overlap with the Steel Marshals in terms of source material - although I must admit that the final voting on what to cut was quite political and a great many horses were traded.

At present, the project is mainly being discussed on Skype and written here. It's probably a bad idea to trade skype details on a forum like this that never forgets, but you could drop me a line at lumey@sharklasers.com if you'd like to get brought into the loop. (Just bear in mind that it's a throwaway e-mail address, so if you're not replying in the next hour the reply will probably just vanish into the ether.) Regardless, it looks like there will be some upheaval in the existing roster. I know for a fact that the Crimson Teeth are being removed and replaced by a re-imagined Horns of Ruin, and it seems likely that The Justicars are up for simplification. I'll raise your remark about the Entombed, as they have been abandoned, and check up on the doctrine situation with the Silver Cataphracts to see if the Crusaders or something like them could be brought back into the fold.

--Lumey (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I’ll just drop some thoughts of the Legions both as they compare to their canon counterparts and as they stand on their own. I've spent several months reading up and this might be of some interest.

The Loyalists have no less than four heavy infantry Legions (Silver Cataphracts, Steel Marshalls, Stone Men and Entombed) one air-assault Legion (Void Angels), two line infantry Legions (War Scribes and Thunder Kings), one biker Legion (Scale Bearers), and one Psyker Legion (Eyes of the Emperor). If we go to some of the defunct Legions we can add another Air Assault (Storm Bringers/KoJ), an Armored Legion (Crusaders). I don’t count the Sand Keepers as they’re almost the same as the Eyes, which are themselves the older Eyes fused with the Sand Keepers.

The Traitors have one line infantry Legion (Heralds of Hektor), one destroyer Legion (Sons of Fire), two close assault Legions (Crimson Teeth and Eternal Zealots), one Chemical Warfare Legion (Life Bringers), one armored Legion (Lions Rampant), one Psyker Legion (Black Augurs), one light infantry Legion (Iron Rangers) and one information warfare Legion (Children of Astarot). Again, adding in defunct Legions we get another close-assault Legion (Bloodbound), another destroyer Legion (Horns of Ruin) and another Tank Legion Mastodontii).

So both sides double up a few too many times, with Legions overlapping each other when each should have a clear strength and weakness that no other Legion shares and a unique method of warfare that is entirely their own.

As for the Entombed, they have what has been described within your own circles as the ‘Rook North’ syndrome. An idea that really only goes as far as a Chapter (An entire Legion that because of gene-seed has only 10,000 marines and almost all terminators, led by a dread who worships the Emperor and somehow turns the entire northern traitor flank during the Heresy? That doesn’t come off well). Roll them into the Stone Men, perhaps as their Terminator Elite or their Dreadnoughts and it would work a lot better (Golgothos could be the Cassian Dracos of the Legion, the first Legion Master given a special Dread by the Primarch).

As for the Crusaders, my idea was to take the darker aspects of both the Blitzkrieg and the Teutonic Knights, to contrast them with the shining paragons that the Steel Marshalls represent. So the Crusaders would be willing to use Terror-Bombing and deliberate strikes on civilian targets, anything to end the war as swiftly as possible. And given they move on as quickly as they can from war zone to war zone, they’d leave behind worlds that are largely in ruins and thus more difficult to bring into the Imperial Fold as productive members. The Steel Marshalls are the Knightly Paragon coupled with Medieval Siege Warfare – The Crusaders are the religious wars in Eastern Europe meets the Blitzkrieg. At least that was my thoughts. If you have any, please feel free to share. --Terraine (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fairly accurate and, as you seem to imply, the removed legions include a fair few double-ups. Interestingly the idea of making the Entombed a Successor of the Stone Men is exactly what I have in my notes - it didn't go down during the last rationalisation, but I'm glad to see that it makes sense to someone. :) Similarly, if I had my way the War Scribes would be focused on light infantry to support their exploration theme. Thankfully, I have the creative liberty to shift the Steel Marshals. They could certainly drift closer to the Imperial Fists and play up a siege/fortification angle without losing their existing feel, or swing out towards the Black Templars and favour assault. Do you have any feelings about which would play better?

The idea for the Crusaders you have is a good one but I can't speak for everyone involved. I will be sure to raise it with the guy writing the Silver Cataphracts (because I see the greatest overlap there) and the group at large. Again, if you'd like to discuss things by Skype or e-mail, just drop me a line at lumey@sharklasers.com. (I misread the guerillamail terms earlier - the account will hold your mail for an hour to see if I get it, then delete it, so any e-mail in the next few hours should reach me.)

Thanks for your input so far. I'll do my best to make sure that your ideas get included in the project.

--Lumey (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Steel Marshalls do trend close to the Fists in some areas. The 30k Fists are a hybrid of Siege-Focused and Crusading, which is split to become the Fists Chapter and the Templars. The big difference seems to be the Crusaders don’t build fortresses, they bring them down. I feel they’re best as the shining paragon of what the Great Crusade is, the visual embodiment of what the Emperor wants to set out and build. They don’t build fortresses; they bring them down as a show that nothing can stand in the way of the Emperor’s dream. Siege Warfare is a means to an end, it is something they may specialize in but it is not their be-all-end-all the way it is with their canon counterparts. So they actually have a fair bit of the Blood Angels in them as well, the sort of paragon that people look up to, a Legion that strikes awe into their allies and stark terror into those who deny the Imperium. I wanted to contrast that with the Crusaders, who are the dark and dirty side of the Great Crusade, the columns of tanks running down everything in their path while flights of gunships mercilessly strafe refugee columns to spread panic and despair. For there are both the ‘good’ loyalist Legions (Marshalls, Stone Men) and the bad ones (Void Angels). Just like there are those traitors who were idealists as well as the assholes.

Given I liked the idea of the Crusaders guy being someone largely disliked, I could see him having disputes with Alexandri of Rosskar over doctrine, whether speedy or prolonged pacification works better to bring worlds into the Imperial fold to play up the German/Russian divide.

I don’t have Skype at the moment, but I can certainly E-Mail. Do I do that now or do I wait until I have something serious to contribute?

--Terraine (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that you single out the Void Angels as 'bad' Loyalists. They've occasionally been singled out as excessively right. Anyway, best to drop me an e-mail so I can at least get you in on a mailing-list type discussion. Trying to persuade Alexandri's writer to use talk pages is more than I can muster.

--Lumey (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a line. I've sent a mail from my gmail account to you & Silver Cataphracts guy with the key points you've made here. I know he'll be busy tomorrow but you'll definitely get a reply this week. (If my mail is not in your inbox, please check your spam folder.)

--Lumey (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The martian landscape

I appreciate you linking in the stub on Vilyon Luthier, but the copy added raises some points about the shape of Mars that we should wrap our heads around sooner rather than later. Tyrrhena Terra is a long way from Olympus Mons. You can see the distance at wikipedia. Tyrrhena Terra is near the big blue disc of Hellas Planitia in the east of that map, Olympus Mons is over by Tharsis on the west. Even accounting for wrapping around the sphere, Luthier's forges are a long way off.

I don't think that's a problem, though. It strikes that the four Autopostates (still not sure about that name) should have different roads to rebellion. Whoever serves Tzeentch probably deserves to be the one right under the Fabricator General's nose. Maybe even his trusted Logis? --Lumey (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

BURN THIS AFTER YOU READ IT

Thanks for the clarification of the Eternal Zealot legion. And just so you know (assuming you didn't just forget) you can sign your posts by pressing the tilde key (~) four times at the end of the post. Feel free to delete this once you read it, it's just some quick info so no need to leave it cluttering up your page. Josman (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)