PDA

View Full Version : Horus Still had some good inside him. (Fulgrim Spoliers)



Vesica
04-09-2007, 14:10
Ok as much as i dislike horus and what he did, i have to addmit i was suprised with the fact that he still had some humanity in him (which lessend my dislike for him) because he says in 'Fulgrim' that he would find a way to save his brother from the deamon that has control of his body.

This lead me to believe that this might have been the small aspect of his true self that the Emperor saw in him in the final battle and why i believed he pulled his punches.

So i wondered what you guys think? and would it be reasonable for me to make a Csm army that has the soul mission of trying to save fulgrim from his prison (as i said in my other post i have come to love fulgrim as one of my favorite primarchs)

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 14:14
while horus may have had some last vestige of good in him, its unlikely it was passed on to his legion, who are under horus's son abaddon, who viewed horus as weak and a fool

Vesica
04-09-2007, 14:17
You sure they saw him as weak? im sure the newest Uk WD says they painted there armour black as a tribute to him.

True, about his legion i might just have them as some Emps Children that realised what had happened and want to free him or somthing.

Rockerfella
04-09-2007, 14:22
I think, at that point in the books, well, even at the beginning of FULGRIM, Horus wasn't nearly as 'bad' or 'infested' or 'far gone' as Fulgrim himself was.

I don't think. :)

He still has his eye on the prize and dosen't have strange warp creatures writing around his feet staring up at his yello teeth in adoration. He's still a Primarch really at this stage, just one with a 'warped' view of his situation. Or maybe not warped.. who knows!!!!

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 14:24
quote from the just about to be taken offline chaos space marine codex-

''horus was weak, horus was a fool. he had the whole galaxy within his grasp and he let it go'' - abbadon

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 14:25
You sure they saw him as weak? im sure the newest Uk WD says they painted there armour black as a tribute to him.

True, about his legion i might just have them as some Emps Children that realised what had happened and want to free him or somthing.


the armour was painted black in shame and petinence, and to show the legion's new leadership shake-up and re-orginisaton under abaddon

Vesica
04-09-2007, 14:29
This is a quote from the uk wd

" This ancient legion is led by Abaddon the Despoiler, and wears jet black armour in memory of their Primarch, Horus. Their Insignia represents the Eye of Horus."

I think that if they really disliked him they wouldnt keep his symbol on their armour.

pookie
04-09-2007, 14:33
This is a quote from the uk wd

" This ancient legion is led by Abaddon the Despoiler, and wears jet black armour in memory of their Primarch, Horus. Their Insignia represents the Eye of Horus."

I think that if they really disliked him they wouldnt keep his symbol on their armour.


typical change in GW fluff, they repainted there armoour to distance themselves from Horus, plus if they adored him that much, why destroy his body?

Horus at the end of Fulgrim, still isnt fully on the path and In my opinion still feels he can lead humanity to a better end than the Emp, by the time he reaches Terra he has crossed the line and will have very little in the way of 'humanity' still in him, look at him strangling Snagunius, his closest Brother.

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 14:35
This is a quote from the uk wd

" This ancient legion is led by Abaddon the Despoiler, and wears jet black armour in memory of their Primarch, Horus. Their Insignia represents the Eye of Horus."

I think that if they really disliked him they wouldnt keep his symbol on their armour.

i'm only quoting the book.


emperor's children wouldnt bother trying to help their former master, and would rather pursue their own twisted aims

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 14:36
typical change in GW fluff, they repainted there armoour to distance themselves from Horus, plus if they adored him that much, why destroy his body?

Horus at the end of Fulgrim, still isnt fully on the path and In my opinion still feels he can lead humanity to a better end than the Emp, by the time he reaches Terra he has crossed the line and will have very little in the way of 'humanity' still in him, look at him strangling Snagunius, his closest Brother.

i recall abaddon smashing up the body so fabius bile couldnt ressurect horus

The pestilent 1
04-09-2007, 14:57
You're forgetting.
Horus believes he is doing the right thing, that the Emperor is evil and is poised to abandon the whole of humanity, in his eyes, he is the good guy.


It's not until the siege (Ish, The Emperors children seem to have fallen some already) that they become debased and corrupt, and even now they belive the Emperor betrayed them.
Atleast some of them do, I seem to recall a certain passage in storm of Iron that suggests some of them knew what they were doing, that and Typhon / Eberus of course.

Vesica
04-09-2007, 15:21
Yea i remeber reading something like that in storm of iron aswell.

pookie
04-09-2007, 15:26
i recall abaddon smashing up the body so fabius bile couldnt ressurect horus

IIRC Horus body was stolen from the Black Legion and fabius was trying to unlock the genetic code to produce stronger SM, the Black Legion fought with them furiously to recover the Body and then subsequently destroyed it so that it couldnt be fought over again.

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 15:28
IIRC Horus body was stolen from the Black Legion and fabius was trying to unlock the genetic code to produce stronger SM, the Black Legion fought with them furiously to recover the Body and then subsequently destroyed it so that it couldnt be fought over again.

sounds about right

Vesica
04-09-2007, 15:35
Cool i never knew that.

I doubt they could have brought Him back properly anyway.

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 15:51
Cool i never knew that.

I doubt they could have brought Him back properly anyway.

your missing the point.

the black legion dont care about horus anymore, and the emperor's children are too debased and scattered to care about saving fulgrim.

it sounds almost like your just trying to get the wargaming community to back you up on your army fluff, which doesnt really work or make sense.

sorry if i sounded rude with that.

Vesica
04-09-2007, 16:08
no your kind of right lol, i was trying to justify a reason.

I was think i will instead make a Slaaneshi hating Khorne force, or something instead.

I ment that who ever was trying to remake horus couldnt do it anyway.

pookie
04-09-2007, 16:11
Cool i never knew that.

I doubt they could have brought Him back properly anyway.

it wasnt to bring horus back, but to unlock his genetic code iirc, and decided that his body was the last true part of the sons of Horus, hence by destroying his body they rid themselves of the last pasrt of themselves that were the sons of horus.

Witchfire
04-09-2007, 16:43
it wasnt to bring horus back, but to unlock his genetic code iirc, and decided that his body was the last true part of the sons of Horus, hence by destroying his body they rid themselves of the last pasrt of themselves that were the sons of horus.

pookie just said what i was about to!

Damn you salazar!

ryng_sting
04-09-2007, 17:32
No, Fabius actually cloned Horus. The act caused something within Abaddon and the Black Legion as a whole to snap, and they wiped out the clones and the facility. For all we know, the clones were just vegetables in stasis tubes, as what state of completion they were in hasn't been detailed.

Vesica
04-09-2007, 19:25
Cool, I remeber reading something about horus clones but didnt know the full story.

Thanks guys.

pookie
05-09-2007, 12:38
No, Fabius actually cloned Horus. The act caused something within Abaddon and the Black Legion as a whole to snap, and they wiped out the clones and the facility. For all we know, the clones were just vegetables in stasis tubes, as what state of completion they were in hasn't been detailed.

i thought there was more to it than i actually remebered,

Lord Dante
05-09-2007, 13:46
I think Abby only belives Horus to be a fool because he failed to kill the Emp in the battle for earth. Untill that point I dont belive Abby has an issue with Horus.

And even if Abby did, what on earth could he about it? - Im pretty sure Horus would kill Abby without much effort, and who are the Traitor marines going to back in all honesty? Abby? perhaps Abbys own company but beyond that? not many...

Vesica
05-09-2007, 13:58
I dont think abby has any room to speak he hasnt really done much himself in ten thousand years has he.

Iracundus
05-09-2007, 14:04
Abaddon has had a love-hate relationship with Horus. Before Horus fell against the Emperor, Abaddon idolized Horus. When his hero and idol lost, he swung the other way. It's like that annoying kid from the movie Incredibles. Goes from being fanboy to enemy. However the fact the Eye of Horus still appears occasionally among Black Legion iconography perhaps means in some small manner they are still hung up over Horus, and still have a complicated conflicted love hate relationship.

pookie
05-09-2007, 15:58
I dont think abby has any room to speak he hasnt really done much himself in ten thousand years has he.

that really would depend on how you look at his 13 crusades, some have been more succesful than others, but in all fairness he has done fairly well..... at staying alive and not being turned into a spawn! lol,

Tastyfish
05-09-2007, 18:06
i thought there was more to it than i actually remebered,

Seem to remember part of it being in a fluff piece alongside Fabius' background when the last chaos codex came out. Though to muddy the waters Abaddon is rumoured to also be a clone of Horus so there might be a bit more at stake than just a debasement of their primarch's body.

Erebus26
05-09-2007, 19:08
Seem to remember part of it being in a fluff piece alongside Fabius' background when the last chaos codex came out. Though to muddy the waters Abaddon is rumoured to also be a clone of Horus so there might be a bit more at stake than just a debasement of their primarch's body.

Well that's just supposed to be a rumour, in fact they were many in the Lunar Wolves/Sons of Horus that had a likeness to the big man himself - remember Aximand?

Abaddon doesn't hate Horus - he was in great pain when he died, but the problem was is that the Sons were dying a nasty death in countless wars with the other traitor legions. Abaddon knew that they would stay this way if they were shackled to the memory of Horus, so he took control of the Sons, gave them the black colour scheme, and denounced the primarch as a failure and a fool.

The pestilent 1
05-09-2007, 21:10
He gave them His Colour scheme.

Free Spirit
05-09-2007, 21:53
I quote:

"Horus was weak. Horus was a fool. He had the whole galaxy within his grasp and he let it slip away."

Chaos alters every marine in there, they are all whispered lies and half-truths to slowly turn them to chaos. That is why the transaction isn't immediate, it goes on during a longer period of time. Horus didn't believe in the way chaos marines believe and act now ( read the new book 'Dark Apostle' for some excellent portrayal of chaos marines and their way of life ). Horus isn't suddenly bent on destroying the whole Imperium, he just wants to punish his father for his mistakes and disrespect.

Abbadon had much more time to change and he started off as a firm follower of Horus and his ideals, but after everything that happened his ego, pride and hate only increased and led him further in damnation. He probly hates Horus as much as he hates the Emperor himself.

DantesInferno
05-09-2007, 22:25
I get the feelings Abaddon has toward Horus are much more complicated and contradictory than most posters have given him credit for. I doubt very much that it's just a case of "Abaddon hates Horus and thinks he was a fool" or on the other hand "Abaddon loves Horus's memory". No doubt there is a bit of both involved.

EDIT: I must have missed Iracundus's post the first time I skimmed through this thread. He got it right - it's a love/hate relationship.

Erebus26
05-09-2007, 23:53
It was a case of the Sons of Horus falling apart, and Abaddon having to make some tough decisions if they were going to live and fight another day. The decision he made was to leave the memory of Horus behind, although the 'eye of horus' is still there as legion emblem so he hasn't totally been forgotten.

-IronWarrior-
06-09-2007, 08:23
You sure they saw him as weak? im sure the newest Uk WD says they painted there armour black as a tribute to him.

True, about his legion i might just have them as some Emps Children that realised what had happened and want to free him or somthing.

No all of the books including the new codex says Abbadon wanted their armor black because they were shamed to have lost the battle on Terra.

They fight to reclaim their honor by destroying the tyrant false Emperor.

-IronWarrior-
06-09-2007, 08:25
Seem to remember part of it being in a fluff piece alongside Fabius' background when the last chaos codex came out. Though to muddy the waters Abaddon is rumoured to also be a clone of Horus so there might be a bit more at stake than just a debasement of their primarch's body.

Yea they did have a few clones but as soon as Terra ended Abbadon took what was left of the Son's and destroyed all of he duplicates.

He almost wiped out the entire chapter in the process... but pulled it off.

Lastie
06-09-2007, 08:32
I would imagine Abaddon has deep feelings of betrayal that drives his anger at Horus; the Warmaster was, after all, Abaddon's greatest aspiration, his idol if you will. To see such a great pillar of support in your life fall so greatly would probably leave a large amount of bitter resentment. Abaddon feels betrayed, angry at Horus for losing (how could he lose? He was the Warmaster; he could do anything! etc.), and possibly a little frightened that if such a seemingly invincible figure could actually die (Davin and the anathema (or however you spell that Plot Device from False Gods) didn't stop him, so what could?). In short, Abaddon's now by himself, like a child who's lost his parents and now faces the harsh reality of existence without the comforting support of Horus, and is angry. Very angry.

After millennia this anger has most likely become an obsession. He is Michelangelo, the destruction of the Imperium his Sistine Chapel. After that, he might take up that long-standing offer of Daemon Princehood.

Baaltharus
06-09-2007, 11:02
typical change in GW fluff, they repainted there armoour to distance themselves from Horus, plus if they adored him that much, why destroy his body?

Horus at the end of Fulgrim, still isnt fully on the path and In my opinion still feels he can lead humanity to a better end than the Emp, by the time he reaches Terra he has crossed the line and will have very little in the way of 'humanity' still in him, look at him strangling Snagunius, his closest Brother.

He doesn't strangle him, that hasn't been the case since second edition. He unleashed a even more grotesque psychic attack on him.

Vesica
06-09-2007, 12:25
Im sure he strangled him, i have seen it since the 2nd edition.

I have read that he did unleash a psychic attack but still strangled him.

Erebus26
06-09-2007, 12:42
Probably did both at the same time!!!

pookie
06-09-2007, 13:43
He doesn't strangle him, that hasn't been the case since second edition. He unleashed a even more grotesque psychic attack on him.

that may have changed, but as im only aware of him being strangled, i'l stand by that rather than 'sepculate' on something i dont know.

i pref this also because to kill someone, especially a close family member by your own hands rather than blasting them shows the hatred he had for Sanguinius/Imperium/Emp.

Vesica
06-09-2007, 15:00
Im sure he tried to turn Sanguinius, and didnt it hurt/upset him to do it?
i always thought that, that was what weakend Horus and put the 'chink' in his armour?

Baaltharus
06-09-2007, 15:18
Im sure he tried to turn Sanguinius, and didnt it hurt/upset him to do it?
i always thought that, that was what weakened Horus and put the 'chink' in his armour?

No, what 'weakens' Horus and puts a chink in his armour is Sanguinuis driving his sword into him before Horus unleashes his 'psychic mega death'. Horus can't beat Sanguinuis in close combat and so destroys him with a monstrous psychic attack.

If you want more info theres the details in the 'Was the Emperor holding back thread'.http://www.warseer.com/forums/40k-background/99810-was-the-emperor-holding-back-on-horus-in-the-final-battle-3.html

@Pookie, I got what you were trying to say, I was also pointing out that what he does is far worse than even strangling him.

pookie
06-09-2007, 15:51
@Pookie, I got what you were trying to say, I was also pointing out that what he does is far worse than even strangling him.

ic, im with you now. :)

Vesica
06-09-2007, 16:14
Wasnt Horus the best Primarch at combat?

Baaltharus
06-09-2007, 16:31
Nope, even in the 2nd edition background Horus wasn't able to land a blow on Sanguinuis until the Blood Angels primarch dives on him to land his wounding blow with the last of his strength.

In the present version of the background Horus can't even touch him (while hes still alive anyway, lol).

Rockerfella
06-09-2007, 16:45
Interesting this. I wsa always under the impression the other Primarchs were jealous of Leman Russ (the Lion especially), for he was the only Primarch to have been able to best Horus in combat during sparring?

I guess real combat is different though eh.

Erebus26
06-09-2007, 16:52
Pah! Horus was holding back! He could have bested Sangy in combat anyday!!! :D

Seriously though you could debate for years who was the best in close combat - Horus, Russ, Angron, Fulgrim? They are all pretty tasty at close quarter fighting. I think any struggle between primarchs would be titanic - I can't imagine Horus' and Sanguinius' scrap being a short affair!

Vesica
06-09-2007, 16:53
All i have to say is Sanguinius was the best, just seeing that he could be touched made me love him all that much more.

Lord_Crull
06-09-2007, 21:21
your missing the point.

the black legion dont care about horus anymore, and the emperor's children are too debased and scattered to care about saving fulgrim.

it sounds almost like your just trying to get the wargaming community to back you up on your army fluff, which doesnt really work or make sense.

sorry if i sounded rude with that.

It's his army, he can play however he wants too.

But anyway I would like to say that there is indication that there is not some splinter company that is trying to rescue Fulgrim

Vesica
07-09-2007, 01:32
Ok what about some worshippers of Khorne who have learned about fulgrims shall we say problem, and have decieded the best way to really **** Slaanesh off is to save him?

God damn i hate Slaanesh.

The Warmaster
07-09-2007, 07:31
He doesn't strangle him, that hasn't been the case since second edition. He unleashed a even more grotesque psychic attack on him.

The 3rd Edition Chaos 'dex (the first one, not the one that's just been invalidated recently), and, if I recall correctly, "Horus Heresy: Visions of Death", state that he did, in fact, strangle him. Unless they changed it in the new Chaos Codex?

Lord_Crull
07-09-2007, 18:07
Ok what about some worshippers of Khorne who have learned about fulgrims shall we say problem, and have decieded the best way to really **** Slaanesh off is to save him?

God damn i hate Slaanesh.

Sure, do it , it is perfectly plausible.

Baaltharus
11-09-2007, 12:25
The 3rd Edition Chaos 'dex (the first one, not the one that's just been invalidated recently), and, if I recall correctly, "Horus Heresy: Visions of Death", state that he did, in fact, strangle him. Unless they changed it in the new Chaos Codex?

This is just a copy and paste job of the original Bill King story, everything else has him being killed by a psychic attack. Its why the BA have the curse they suffer from.

The Warmaster
11-09-2007, 12:29
This is just a copy and paste job of the original Bill King story, everything else has him being killed by a psychic attack. Its why the BA have the curse they suffer from.

You wouldn't happen to have a source for this, would you? That would be greatly appreciated.

Actually, come to think of it, the whole thing about Horus causing the curse has been invalidated by the "Visions of..." books, because they suffered from it once before (at Signus Prime, if I recall correctly).

- N.

Iracundus
11-09-2007, 12:47
There has never been any objective non-biased evidence of Sansuinius landing any sort of blow on Horus to open any chink in his armor. Every time that has been brought up it has been mentioned that it was what the Blood Angels believe. This is of importance because the only people that could have witnessed or commented on whether or not this actually happened were all either dead or noncommunicative (ie the Emperor) by the end of the fight. Given all the other accounts show an unscathed Horus facing the Emperor, it is likely that Sanguinius story is wishful thinking by the Blood Angels trying to attribute greater glory to their Primarch by having him do something before his death instead of just falling before Horus's might.

The Warmaster
11-09-2007, 13:06
There has never been any objective non-biased evidence of Sansuinius landing any sort of blow on Horus to open any chink in his armor. Every time that has been brought up it has been mentioned that it was what the Blood Angels believe. This is of importance because the only people that could have witnessed or commented on whether or not this actually happened were all either dead or noncommunicative (ie the Emperor) by the end of the fight. Given all the other accounts show an unscathed Horus facing the Emperor, it is likely that Sanguinius story is wishful thinking by the Blood Angels trying to attribute greater glory to their Primarch by having him do something before his death instead of just falling before Horus's might.

Funny, I don't think I've actually ever seen any mention of Sanguinius doing such a thing in any GW publication.

- N.

Iracundus
11-09-2007, 13:08
I think it first appeared in a White Dwarf article on the Blood Angels. I forget the exact issue # as it's quite old. We're talking 2nd ed. at least, perhaps when they released the Angels of Death supplement.

The Warmaster
11-09-2007, 13:11
I think it first appeared in a White Dwarf article on the Blood Angels. I forget the exact issue # as it's quite old. We're talking 2nd ed. at least, perhaps when they released the Angels of Death supplement.

That would explain why I haven't seen it, then. I thought it was just fan-fluff that eventually became accepted as canon.

- N.

Baaltharus
11-09-2007, 14:23
There has never been any objective non-biased evidence of Sansuinius landing any sort of blow on Horus to open any chink in his armor. Every time that has been brought up it has been mentioned that it was what the Blood Angels believe. This is of importance because the only people that could have witnessed or commented on whether or not this actually happened were all either dead or noncommunicative (ie the Emperor) by the end of the fight. Given all the other accounts show an unscathed Horus facing the Emperor, it is likely that Sanguinius story is wishful thinking by the Blood Angels trying to attribute greater glory to their Primarch by having him do something before his death instead of just falling before Horus's might.

Sounds more like wishful thinking on your behalf with no evidence to support it. The source hasn't solely been said to come from the BAs. In the 2nd edition armoury book it is stated that Sanguinuis opens up a chink in Horus's armour and there is NO mention that it is a belief of the BAs.

'It is said that it was through the chink in Horus's armour opened by Sanguinius that the Emperor was able to deliver the fatal blow. Thus the brightest of the Emperor's host did not die in vain, crushed upon the steps of Horus's foul altar, but dying gave the Emperor the one chance to destroy the great Betrayer'.

Further more, some BAs live through Sanguinuis final battle and the truth of it is known to them regardless of what others think happened to Sanguinuis. Even in the Bill King version of the story Sanguinuis wounds Horus.

Also in regards to the psychic attack it can be found in BA index Astartes, 3rd/4th edition codex Blood Angels. The black rage is a consequence of the massive psychic force unleashed on Sanguinuis in his final battle with the Warmaster. Its why the legions of other Primarchs who have died in more mudane means don't have flash backs to their deaths or the times of the Heresy.

Vesica
11-09-2007, 15:28
Im sure it says somewhere that when sanguinius was beaten by the bloodthirster on some planet and when he fainted after seeing his sons killed that the remaining BA's fell into the Black Rage.

Also did sanguinius have a closer relationship with his sons? and i am sure i have read that he had psychic powers himself, so mabye when he died some sort of psychic death left an imprint on his sons?

But i find it hard to see how a psychic attack on just one person could corrupt gene-seed?

Iracundus
11-09-2007, 21:42
Read the Bill King story. Horus isn't wounded. The Emperor finds Horus over his dead body, with Horus quite unscathed and gloating.

Re-read your own quote too. "It is said..." That phrase is key in showing it isn't conclusive evidence. It is hearsay and story. No Blood Angel witnessed the fight and lived to tell the tale. The Emperor confronts Horus alone, surrounded by dead Marines of both sides. The whole "chink in armor" tale is wishful thinking by the Sanguinius fanboys (ie the Blood Angels and those BA players that cannot tell the difference between what is an objective source and what is a subjective belief in 40K)

ArtificerArmour
12-09-2007, 10:26
I thought he strangled Sanguinius with the talon of horus, hence why BA's get improved stats whenever they see Abaddon as they hate the weapon so much?

pookie
12-09-2007, 10:47
doesnt 'fluff' say something along the lines of: even at the height of his power Sanguinius couldnt best Horus. ? ( im an ex BA player and there still close to my heart ) the quote also mentions that Sanguinius was still smarting after breaking a Blood thirsters back over his knee whilst defending the space port.

and Vesica - yes he had the power of foresight, even though he knew Horus would kill him he still went to fight him.

Orion Vargus
12-09-2007, 11:12
I kinda noticed this threads turned into does the black legion still like horus...
I personaly think horus did have alot of good left in him and from his point of veiw he wasn't beening evil just doing what he thought needed to be done.
warning another fulgrim spoiler........................................... ........................
When fulgrim (with the demon in him) Threw ferrus mannus' head to horus, Hourus was disgusted and didn't want to see one of his brothers dead.
I think when horus stormed terra and faced the emperor he probably felt remorse for what he had done, hence abbadon hating him who know htough maybe we'll find out with the future books.

pookie
12-09-2007, 11:16
I kinda noticed this threads turned into does the black legion still like horus...


thought it was more how Horus Killed Sanguinius ;)

oh and i think Horus was more horrified by the fact his Brother was trapped in his 'shell' whilst a deamon paraded around in his body.

Baaltharus
12-09-2007, 15:12
Read the Bill King story. Horus isn't wounded. The Emperor finds Horus over his dead body, with Horus quite unscathed and gloating.

Re-read your own quote too. "It is said..." That phrase is key in showing it isn't conclusive evidence. It is hearsay and story. No Blood Angel witnessed the fight and lived to tell the tale. The Emperor confronts Horus alone, surrounded by dead Marines of both sides. The whole "chink in armor" tale is wishful thinking by the Sanguinius fanboys (ie the Blood Angels and those BA players that cannot tell the difference between what is an objective source and what is a subjective belief in 40K)

I have, I've taken evidence from it, Sanguinuis dives on him from on high, driving his sword into him. Horus screams out but more from surprise and shock than from pain.

The Blood Angels witness the end of Sanguinuis, Mephiston for one has seen what happened and lived.

And I have proven you wrong yet again...

@Artificer armour, in the old story Sanguinuis was strangled but this has been phased out and replaced. BA no longer get the benefit from the Talon of Horus (because you can't strangle anyone with a lighting claw, especially one thats the same size as your opponents chest). He is now killed by a horrific and collosal psychic attack. Its why Blood Angels suffer from the memories of Sanguinuis final battles on Terra.

Iracundus
12-09-2007, 22:07
Blood Angels have visions. That is not the same as being true so you haven't proven a thing. Captain Tycho had visions of being Sanguinius and killing Horus and saving the Emperor. We know that was him just hallucinating and being delusional from the Black Rage. Just because Blood Angels believe their Primarch didn't just die against Horus, and because their belief makes them have visions, doesn't change the fact the Emperor fought an unwounded untouched Horus.

Baaltharus
12-09-2007, 23:13
Sigh...your complete lack of evidence to support any of your points is a bit annoying, so here I go again...Horus was wounded by Sanguinuis, it says this even in the old story by Bill King.

To enlighten you on some of the details of the Blood Angels visions, as the black rage worsens the individual gets more and more caught up in the visions of the past and struggles to distinguish them from the present. When the Black Rage nears its worst the affected Blood Angel can undergo the Lestrallio procedure in which the individual lives through the final journey of the Primarch on board Horus's battle barge.

Some extracts from the Blood Angel Index Astartes

'And thus it is the Blood Angels alone know the details of their Primarch's fate. The sacrifice of their founder is echoed in the soul of every one of their number, and their souls burn with troubled dreams of Sanguinuis's death. These inherited memories are so powerful that the Blood Angels are known to lapse into fugue state known as the black rage, experiencing horrific visions of death and pain that they share with Sanguinuis himself'.

The following is in regard to the results taken from the Lestrallio procedure.

'From the collated results of these experiments, it is possible to draw conclusions from the valuable evidence provided by those suffering the black rage. Sanguinuis is thought to have undergone unimaginable psychic damage at the hands of the Warmaster who, it is believed by many Blood Angels, could not best him in personal combat'.

Erebus26
13-09-2007, 01:02
I'm sure Horus could best Sanguinius in personal combat Baal. The BA IA article only shows the personal opinion of the Blood Angels themselves. At the end of the day the BA's ain't going to admit that their Primarch was snuffed out without wounding Horus.

You were spot on in the rest of your article though.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 06:12
All that "evidence" is flawed as it even in the same passage admits to it being what the BA believe, and what they experience in visions. I suggest you re-read the Bill King story very carefully as there is NO mention of any wounding of Horus. They have visions of their Primarch's death. We all agree he died at Horus's hands. However I have already given evidence wherein during the 3rd War of Armageddon Captain Tycho had visions of Sanguinius ripping out Horus's throat and winning when in reality he was hallucinating regarding fighting an Ork, and nothing of that nature had really happened during the Heresy. The BA visions are fallible. What the BA believe or speculate happened is not the same as what really happened.

Baaltharus
13-09-2007, 08:11
I'm sure Horus could best Sanguinius in personal combat Baal. The BA IA article only shows the personal opinion of the Blood Angels themselves. At the end of the day the BA's ain't going to admit that their Primarch was snuffed out without wounding Horus.

You were spot on in the rest of your article though.

Horus doesn't and can't beat Sanguinuis in personnel combat, its not just the opinion of the Blood Angels, its what happens. Its why Horus uses such a massive psychic attack on Sanguinuis.

Original story says Horus lashes out at Sanguinuis, Sanguinuis easily dodges the blows and all Horus connects with is a bulkhead smashing it to pieces. Sanguinuis then attacks Horus whose armour bleeds upon being struck as he is now fused with his armour. Horus continues to swing and miss as the Blood Angel primarch is simply to quick and skilled in close combat for Horus's massively bloated form. Sanguinuis sees he cannot hope to defeat Horus so with the last of his strength dives upon the Warmaster and drives his sword into him through a weakpoint in armour.

'It was a short and bloody battle before the brazen throne of Horus. The blade of Sanguinius sang as it spun through the air, cutting and stabbing at the Warmaster's Armour. The armour of Horus bled where that blade touched it, for now the Warmaster and his armour were one, it had grown to be part of him. It was not for long that Horus endured this whirling dance. He lashed out clumsily. Lightning Claws arced through the air, catching upon bulkheads and doors, tearing great gashes and sending molten metal shrieking across the floor. Soaring over Horus' head, Sanguinius easily avoided those sluggish strokes, and eagerly sought out a weak spot in Horus' defenses. As he flew he spotted a damaged link of armour on the Warmaster's neck, and Sanguinius stabbed out with all his remaining strength. His blade lodged at once in the Warmaster's armour. Horus screamed more with anger than with pain, and reached out to strike the winged Primarch. Steel talons dripping with plasmic energy closed upon the winged Angel of Baal'.

The newer version of the story hasn't changed considerably except that Horus unleashes a horrific psychic assault as despite being ultimately more powerful than Sanguinuis cannot surpass him in skill at arms.

@Iracundus, the evidence is perfectly valid, in its final state the black rage reveals the final battle between the Warmaster and Sanguinuis and thus the BA do know the fate of their Primarch. Even with its initial flaws (at FIRST blending the present and the past to create delusions) this evidence is infinitely superior to what you put forward with no evidence to support anything you say.

The pestilent 1
13-09-2007, 08:31
Horus doesn't and can't beat Sanguinuis in personnel combat, its not just the opinion of the Blood Angels, its what happens. Its why Horus uses such a massive psychic attack on Sanguinuis.


I think at the end of the day it's damn irrelevant how he killed him as the fact reamins that Sangy died and Horus was nobbled by the Emperor.
Whether he used his tooth pick of great justice or his match stick of great fortitude is, surely, not important.

Baaltharus
13-09-2007, 08:40
I think at the end of the day it's damn irrelevant how he killed him as the fact reamins that Sangy died and Horus was nobbled by the Emperor.
Whether he used his tooth pick of great justice or his match stick of great fortitude is, surely, not important.

Its a fair point but I'm simply describing the background as it is written apposed to what others might wish it to be. Its more to do with Sanguinuis wounding Horus which I have now given direct evidence of and thus should pretty much end this debate...hopefully.

The_Patriot
13-09-2007, 08:52
Seems to me that Horus is suffering from Anakin Skywalker Syndrome. Personally, I think it's lame for GW in copying something Lucas already did.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 09:02
I have already put forth evidence which punctures yours, which you have conveniently ignored. Read the 3rd War for Armageddon piece on Captain Tycho and his "visions". All of which turned out to be hallucinations and not what actually happened in the Heresy. Go look it up. That is the evidence that shows that just because a delusional Blood Angel has visions doesn't make it true. I have thus proven that the Blood Angels are just clinging to the wishful thinking their Primarch actually did something before dying to Horus. Sanguinius's sacrifice was in refusing to turn despite knowing full well he was powerless before Horus, not in actually doing something to aid the Emperor's later battle.

Baaltharus
13-09-2007, 12:16
I have already put forth evidence which punctures yours, which you have conveniently ignored. Read the 3rd War for Armageddon piece on Captain Tycho and his "visions". All of which turned out to be hallucinations and not what actually happened in the Heresy. Go look it up. That is the evidence that shows that just because a delusional Blood Angel has visions doesn't make it true. I have thus proven that the Blood Angels are just clinging to the wishful thinking their Primarch actually did something before dying to Horus. Sanguinius's sacrifice was in refusing to turn despite knowing full well he was powerless before Horus, not in actually doing something to aid the Emperor's later battle.

Ahh sweet jeez, your complete ignorance of the facts and evidence presented is just getting painful. Sanguinuis sacrifice isn't just refusing to turn to Chaos, thats only scratching the surface of the whole story. I've already shown that theres different 'levels' of the black rage, in the case of Captain Tycho he is becoming delusional as he blends the present with the past due to being in a battle situation. This does not happen in the Lestrallio procedure. It is the memories of Sanguinuis relived by the Blood Angels as they happened. So horrific and damaging are the memories that only Mephiston has been able to live through them.

What I've shown here is that you've proven squat as I've shot down every point you've attempted to make and always given evidence to the contrary. Even in the oldest versions of the story Sanguinuis wounds Horus as I've shown from the actual passage. How do you not get this?

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 13:45
The oldest version is the story from the Emperor's point of view when he confronts an untouched Horus.

You've not proven a thing about "levels" of Black Rage. Don't make things up and attempt to pass them off as canon. The whole Black Rage is an altered mental state in which they have visions, in which they believe themselves in the past or they believe themselves in the role of their Primarch. Yes, even the Lestrallio procedure which you cling to is still just a vision, not an accurate history of events. It is an in-character and hence fallible source from individuals that had no direct experience of the events in question, relying purely on induced visions. As compared with the Emperor POV story facing a Horus gloating, quite intact, over a dead Sanguinius, it is obvious which is true. Hint: It's not the ones in which people are having hallucinations, induced or not.

Wazzahamma
13-09-2007, 15:02
The later versions of the story have Sanguinius being outmatched by Horus from the start:


Sanguinius refused. Horus grew wrathful and attacked him. At the peak of his powers the Blood Angel would have been no match for the Warmaster and now, sorely wounded and weary he had no chance at all. Horus strangled him with his bare hands before the throne the Powers of Chaos had gifted him with.


and wasn't there an article for a Blood Angel who sustained the black rage for long enough that had an almost full vision of the battle between Sang and Horus?

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 15:05
Visions as we have established are fallible and not verbatim transcriptions of what happened, stemming as they do from in-character points of view from characters that are naturally biased to be worshipful of their Primarch.

Wazzahamma
13-09-2007, 15:19
Good thing that wasn't from the Visions, then, isn't it? That small extract was from a Bill King story in White Dwarf 161.

Not only that, but it's from a 'god's eye view' narrative, so we're all happy!

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 15:34
True, aside from the those rabid BA fans that can't accept Sanguinius died without making a dent in Horus. It's similar in a way to how the Blood Angels as characters in 40K probably feel.

Sanguinius had his moment in the sun at the Ultimate Gate against the Bloodthirster. That was his moment of physical, martial virtue. The confrontation with Horus was the moment of moral virtue, when knowing full well it was utterly futile, he still chose to fight Horus rather than switch sides.

Wazzahamma
13-09-2007, 15:41
Agreed, Irancundus...there's more pathos to his death that way. I especially like your identification of the distinct answering of calls for martial/moral virtue in Sanguinius' last days.

But the other thing to note is that people can choose to believe whichever version of the tale that they personally prefer- in the same way that there's a multitude of Arthurian tales to enjoy and appreciate.

Baaltharus
13-09-2007, 15:52
'It was a short and bloody battle before the brazen throne of Horus. The blade of Sanguinius sang as it spun through the air, cutting and stabbing at the Warmaster's Armour. The armour of Horus bled where that blade touched it, for now the Warmaster and his armour were one, it had grown to be part of him. It was not for long that Horus endured this whirling dance. He lashed out clumsily. Lightning Claws arced through the air, catching upon bulkheads and doors, tearing great gashes and sending molten metal shrieking across the floor. Soaring over Horus' head, Sanguinius easily avoided those sluggish strokes, and eagerly sought out a weak spot in Horus' defenses. As he flew he spotted a damaged link of armour on the Warmaster's neck, and Sanguinius stabbed out with all his remaining strength. His blade lodged at once in the Warmaster's armour. Horus screamed more with anger than with pain, and reached out to strike the winged Primarch. Steel talons dripping with plasmic energy closed upon the winged Angel of Baal'.

Is this story just being disregarded? Its quite a clear demonstration of Sanguinuis wounding Horus.

Furthermore, there ARE different severities of the black rage, from those who just begin to suffer with the odd flash of the past, to those who are inducted into the death company and finally those who are transformed into blood thirsting psychopaths. So clearly there ARE different levels of the black rage and once again you've been proven incorrect in another case.

The Lestrallio procedure involves living the final battles of the Primarch, indeed they have no direct experience of the event yet they can see it as clear as day as they relive it as it happens and this is why all but Mephiston have died upon the visions reaching the death of Sanguinuis. Its a massively traumatic and destructive procedure and certainly doesn't allow for lies to be made up by the Blood Angels undergoing it.

There has certainly been more than 1 version of the final battle between Horus and the Emperor but hopefully the HH novels will decide upon GWs official line because I'm getting bored of people ignoring direct evidence even when its right in front of them.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 16:05
The Lestrallio procedure gives visions "echoing" Sanguinius's experience. Check the description of the procedure from the Index Astartes. It specifically uses the echoing word. Not re-enactment verbatim. Also note the aforementioned Lestrallio is conspiciously silent on any wounding of Horus. Nowhere does his account mention it.

The Black Rage has no "levels" in the sense used earlier of some giving clear camera like unbiased visions while others are like Tycho's being complete false hallucinations. They are all part of the same spectrum. Tycho's visions were fallible hence all the visions are fallible. No one said they are "lies" since they may believe they are true, but just because they suffer is absolutely no guarantee they are true in part or in entirety. Suffering has no relation to whether one's visions are true or not, in 40K and in real life. Tycho suffered immensely but his visions were patently false.

Clinging to the "Blood Angels suffered saw it in a vision so it must be true" line only shows how utterly tenuous and desperate both the BA and certain BA players are to put their Primarch on a pedestal.

Baaltharus
13-09-2007, 16:16
Your totally ignoring the whole first paragraph aren't you? Furthermore we're going to have to agree to disagree as I feel there is a clear definition between the levels of severity in relation to the Black Rage.

The notes regarding the Lestrallio procedure also do not mention Sanguinuis denying Chaos for the final time either yet it is clear this happened anyway. The notes on the Lestrallio procedure deal predominantly with the nature of Sanguinuis's death, not the events before it.

You can say its tenuous if you so choose but it seems damn clear to me that the evidence pretty much states Sanguinuis does wound Horus before being overcome by Horus's infinitely greater psychic powers.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 16:23
Sanguinius's refusal of Horus is documented and confirmed in the Emperor vs Horus account, wherein Horus relates Sanguinius's refusal and subsequent death. It doesn't need reliance on any vision for confirmation.

The earlier claim relied on the Lestrallio procedure somehow giving a vision confirming a wound on Horus, which is false. In fact the account is so utterly lacking in clear detail that it could just as well be a nightmare, ranking alongside Tycho's visions in inaccuracy. There is no objective confirmation of the procedure's accuracy, merely that the BA believe it to be accurate. Again belief does not equate to truth.

Wazzahamma
13-09-2007, 16:29
The Lestrallio proceduce proves nothing either way- as all the visions have been inconclusive. So, even if the procedure can be argued to accurately reflect Sanguinius' last moments- what does that prove? After all, Lestrallio only made it to the point of confronting Horus before spasming to death (in fact, you'd almost read that as saying that Sanguinius died promptly after finding Horus, rather than engaging him in battle).

And Baaltharus, there's no reason to disregard that article detailing Sangunius opening up a can of whoop-ass on Horus, though there is reason to put it in context- as it is a much older version of the tale than the one I quoted (and even that one has been subsequently rejigged).

It's like saying that it was definitely an Imperial Guardsman who charged Horus on board his ship and inspired the Emperor to finally kill his favoured Primarch- you can quote the relevant passage to me, but I can also quote a different passage that claims it was a nameless Imperial Fist terminator and then a subsequent passage that replaces that IF with a custodes. All of which were officially published by GW. How do we determine which is the truth?

Baaltharus
13-09-2007, 17:05
I understand this Wazzahamma and as both you and I have said theres certainly a few versions of the story floating about and to a degree its down to personnel taste what you want to believe. Its just infuriating having Iracundus flatly deny what it right in front of him and what remains a perfectly valid version of events if you choose to believe it. The given evidence is such that the most recent versions of the story back up that Horus cannot land a blow on Sanguinuis and in his rage unleashes a massive psychic attack. This is how I see it anyway.

Like I've already said the point will be more or less settled with the HH series conclusion.

Iracundus
13-09-2007, 21:50
There is flatly given evidence that Horus was utterly untouched when the Emperor found him that is perfectly good evidence that is being denied in favor of overinterpretation of induced visions, which when analyzed carefully are both unverified in veracity and also do not mention the detail in question.

Baaltharus
14-09-2007, 11:05
There is flatly given evidence that Horus was utterly untouched when the Emperor found him that is perfectly good evidence that is being denied in favor of overinterpretation of induced visions, which when analyzed carefully are both unverified in veracity and also do not mention the detail in question.

Theres ALSO flatly given evidence that Horus is wounded as well as many more pieces of evidence suggesting this is the case. Again it seems your just being an arrogant nay sayer for the hell of it and disregarding what is in front of you.

pookie
14-09-2007, 11:18
The later versions of the story have Sanguinius being outmatched by Horus from the start:
[QUOTE]

i knew there was something about that! cheers good to re read it, now to dig out WD 161

[QUOTE=Baaltharus;1910684]Theres ALSO flatly given evidence that Horus is wounded as well as many more pieces of evidence suggesting this is the case. Again it seems your just being an arrogant nay sayer for the hell of it and disregarding what is in front of you.


but you are only believing the fluff you care about, you pointed out to me that this story has changed several times, your just using 'fluff' that you want to use.

i agree with Icrandus and his thoughts on this, but i do think we all should agree to disagree on this one.

Baaltharus
14-09-2007, 11:45
I recognize theres different versions of the background and as I've said above its down to personnel opinion, and yes I recognize that I believe what I think makes for the best story. I'm just saying that because one person believes something else, it does not negate the views or beliefs of another (in an fictional and abstract case such as this one anyway).

Erebus26
14-09-2007, 12:47
Well lets just wait until BL publish a novel about the siege of terra shall we!

Wazzahamma
14-09-2007, 15:04
It just depends on how you want to determine these things- GW themselves have said that they consider anything and everything that they publish to be canon- even when what they publish blatantly condradicts itself. The explanation is that 40k is a universe of half-truths, lies and myths- so any or all of it could be true.

My personal belief is that this line a little lazy and hypocritical. Lazy, because it gives GW license to just do whatever they like, whenever they like with their fictional universe, without any mind to consistency or cohesion. Why bother when they've given themselves this all powerful get-out-of-jail-free card?

Hypocritical, because it's blatantly obvious that they attempt to create a somewhat cohesive vision at any given point in time- they simply don't do it very well. If it was really a fluff-free-for-all, Squats would still be mentioned every so often, the Ultramarines might be a 2nd founding chapter rather than definitely a 1st and there'd still be mentions of a half-eldar space marine librarian mincing about. Instead, all these things have been cleared up or swept under the carpet and forgotten with the advent of updated canon.

It seems obvious to me that, however poorly, GW are currently trying to establish certain truths in their universe- that the Imperium was once science based, that Fulgrim cut off Ferrus' head, that Russ was tricked into attacking Magnus...and that Sanguinius wasn't martially capable of defeating Horus.

So, while I think it is fine and fair for people to personally believe what they will, I also think that as far as GW 'canon' is concerned, it's a matter of 'latest is greatest', irrespective of whether or not the fans/readership approve.

Then again, you probably only need to wait a few years till GW change their mind on the Sang vs Horus battle back to something you find more acceptable, Baaltharus. ;)

Askari
14-09-2007, 15:13
I like the story where Sanguinius makes a chink in Horus' armour.

Because it quietens Emperor fanboys who say the Emperor was holding back his power

=P

Aptly enough, the newest account of the Horus Heresy, the Chaos Codex, doesn't even mention the actual fight between Horus and Sanguinius save for where it says Sanguinius "had fallen to Horus' fury"

Baaltharus
14-09-2007, 15:31
It just depends on how you want to determine these things- GW themselves have said that they consider anything and everything that they publish to be canon- even when what they publish blatantly condradicts itself. The explanation is that 40k is a universe of half-truths, lies and myths- so any or all of it could be true.

My personal belief is that this line a little lazy and hypocritical. Lazy, because it gives GW license to just do whatever they like, whenever they like with their fictional universe, without any mind to consistency or cohesion. Why bother when they've given themselves this all powerful get-out-of-jail-free card?

Hypocritical, because it's blatantly obvious that they attempt to create a somewhat cohesive vision at any given point in time- they simply don't do it very well. If it was really a fluff-free-for-all, Squats would still be mentioned every so often, the Ultramarines might be a 2nd founding chapter rather than definitely a 1st and there'd still be mentions of a half-eldar space marine librarian mincing about. Instead, all these things have been cleared up or swept under the carpet and forgotten with the advent of updated canon.

It seems obvious to me that, however poorly, GW are currently trying to establish certain truths in their universe- that the Imperium was once science based, that Fulgrim cut off Ferrus' head, that Russ was tricked into attacking Magnus...and that Sanguinius wasn't martially capable of defeating Horus.

So, while I think it is fine and fair for people to personally believe what they will, I also think that as far as GW 'canon' is concerned, it's a matter of 'latest is greatest', irrespective of whether or not the fans/readership approve.

Then again, you probably only need to wait a few years till GW change their mind on the Sang vs Horus battle back to something you find more acceptable, Baaltharus. ;)

I'd totally agree, I've never thought Sanguinuis was capable of defeating Horus (once he'd become Chaotically empowered anyway), by the time they have their battle the Warmaster was simply too powerful and all the versions of the story make this clear. I did think he was capable of wounding him however as a great many of these stories say. I also think it makes a far more sense in explaining the Blood Angels curse in terms of a psychic attack than it does with a nonsensical strangulation. And yes it does make it an epic finale to the Blood Angels Primarch to say that despite Horus being so much more powerful than Sanguinuis, the Blood Angels bravery and strength at arms still allowed him to meet the Warmaster blade to blade.

Iuris
14-09-2007, 15:33
Regarding the original idea that Horus had some good within him:

He gathers every particle of his power, focuses it into a mighty bolt of pure force, more coherent than a laser, more destructive than an exploding sun. He aims it at Horus, a lance of power destined for the madman's heart. Horus senses the upsurge of energy and turns to face the Emperor, a look of horror on his face.
The Emperor lets fly. It strikes the Warmaster. Horus screams as destruction rains down on him, twisting and writhing in titanic agony. He strives frantically to counter the Emperor's deathblow but his struggles become ever more feeble as the lethal energies play over him.
Driven by all the force of his rage and pain and hatred the Emperor wills Horus's death. He senses the forces of Chaos retreat, disengaging themselves from their pawn. As they do so sanity returns to the Warmaster. The Emperor sees realisation of the atrocities he has commited flicker across Horus' face. Tears glisten there.
Horus is free but the Emperor knows he himself is dieing and that the Powers Of Chaos may once again possess the Warmaster and he will not be there to stop them. He cannot take that risk. Horus must die. Yet for a second, looking into his old friends face, he hesitates, unable to do the deed. Then he thinks of the slaughter that still goes on outside, may go on forever. Resolve hardens within him.
He forces all mercy and all compassion from his mind, empties it of all knowledge of friendship and love.
His eyes lock with Horus and see understanding there. Then with full cold knowledge of what he is doing the Emperor destroys the Warmaster.
(courtesy of a forbidden tome of ages long gone)

Apparently, at least in that age as this was written, Horus did turn back - for about microsecond - just before his death. However, it's also quite clear that the Emperor completely destroyed him.

As for Abbadon - I'm quite sure he no longer cares about his founding primarch. It's only his own agenda that matters now.

As for Sanguinius - no clear sources are available. My reading would be rather metaphoric - the Emperor held back, and while the killing of the terminator was one of the things that made him realize that Horus was beyond redemption, I'm sure Sanguinius' corpse was another. Thus, Sanguinius' death has weakened the primary defence Horus had - the Emperor's reluctance.

But then, all the above implies a lot more thought being put into the background than I believe GW actually did put there...

ghost21
14-09-2007, 15:59
abadon does only care for his agenda , he knows taht calling horus a failure makes him apear all the more stronger, i will sucseed where he failed sort of thing

tbh i dont like abadon he seems like mouse compared to archon from wahammer

fabius bile isnt the only one to try and clone horus some heretical inquisitors tried this also

tbh i hope that horus does retun one day and finishes what he began if not a new warmaster please maybe honsu? or a cool world barer charecter?

im not sure if the emporer pulled his punches maybee maybe not

Wazzahamma
14-09-2007, 16:53
Baaltharus, I can see your reasons for liking certain elements of different fluff over others, and I do agree with some of what you say. Just because I argue that one thing is 'current canon' over another, doesn't necessarily mean I prefer it on a personal level.

DantesInferno
14-09-2007, 22:37
I also think it makes a far more sense in explaining the Blood Angels curse in terms of a psychic attack than it does with a nonsensical strangulation.

I'm sure Horus was capable of doing both at the same time.


And yes it does make it an epic finale to the Blood Angels Primarch to say that despite Horus being so much more powerful than Sanguinuis, the Blood Angels bravery and strength at arms still allowed him to meet the Warmaster blade to blade.

This is Warhammer 40k. Meaningless death is a key theme. Pointless sacrifices happen all the time.

"There is no peace among the stars, only an eternity of slaughter and the laughter of thirsting gods."

7thOffensive
14-09-2007, 23:13
It was probably more a hate for anything non human more than anything. Primarchs are still primarchs. They don't want to see their kind enslaved to anybody, even if they are crazy evil bastards.

The pestilent 1
14-09-2007, 23:52
This is Warhammer 40k. Meaningless death is a key theme. Pointless sacrifices happen all the time.

"There is no peace among the stars, only an eternity of slaughter and the laughter of thirsting gods."


Ah Eldrad. Not expecting the Eldar artifact to be possessed by a Daemon of Slaanesh :rolleyes:

Baaltharus
15-09-2007, 11:51
I'm sure Horus was capable of doing both at the same time.



Indeed but the whole point is that he can't touch Sanguinuis physically therefore making the psychic assault necassery.


This is Warhammer 40k. Meaningless death is a key theme. Pointless sacrifices happen all the time.

There is indeed lots of meaningless slaughter in 40k but I don't see this as one of those situations. Its an epic climax to the Horus Heresy and you don't finish an epic climax with a meaningless story.

Rockerfella
15-09-2007, 12:24
Ah Eldrad. Not expecting the Eldar artifact to be possessed by a Daemon of Slaanesh :rolleyes:

Ahhh indeed. Such a silly death for the only character the Eldar had that was anything like as 'likeable' as the other races characters.

Maybe he did know, maybe he also knew (in a spock type manner, ala the wrath of Kharn) that he would 'die' in the process of single handedly saving Cadia from the talisman. Least he did that much, eh? Was kind of like Dumbledores death. Totally unfitting for a character of that power and magnitude. The truth only transpires sometime after the event as such. Am I making sense?

Anyways, we all know he's not really dead. Those little stones of his still shimmer and the rest.

He'll be back. Honest. :eyebrows::rolleyes:;)

Iracundus
15-09-2007, 13:51
Sanguinius's death isn't meaningless. Knowing that he would get defeated by Horus in combat, knowing that he was no match for Horus, he still chose to stand by his principles. That bravery in the face of utter physical helplessness gives his death more meaning than BA fanboys desperately trying to concoct some accomplishment for him that is contradicted by multiple other pieces of evidence. It is ironic that in their desperation to elevate him, they demean his true accomplishment.

Erebus26
15-09-2007, 14:06
Horus was Warmaster, which means that he was pretty damn good at anything he turned his hand too. The only guy to beat him in combat (sparring) was Russ. Sanguinius couldn't and nor could the Lion and they gave it their best shot. Now add the fact the ruinous powers have bestowed their gifts on him and he's going to own everyone except for the Big E. Sanguinius didn't have a prayer Baal - sorry mate!

Baaltharus
15-09-2007, 17:07
Where are you getting this from? Sanguinuis is noted as being the greatest of the Primarchs in material combat. Its also said by Horus himself that Sanguinuis is the greatest of the Primarchs (HH books). Unless you actually prove any of what you've said I'll be inclined to think its made up.

@ Iracundus, you can spout all this fanboy nonsense until your blue in the face but the facts remain that theres two contradictory stories neither of which GW has chosen (as of yet) to be the 'official' line. Until that time its up to the individual to choose what they will.

Erebus26
15-09-2007, 17:53
Horus was the greatest of the Primarchs - enough said! And I think you're taking it a bit too seriously now - so can we get back on topic and actually put forward points about whether Horus still had some good in him after he turned.

Baaltharus
15-09-2007, 18:11
And yet the greatest of the Primarchs said Sanguinuis was better...lol

I personally don't really care who was supposedly the greatest as each of them will always put forward points as to why they were the best. As you've said its irrelevant to the point of the topic and thus needs no more discussion. I would say that if your going to post something its best to be able to identify your source. I'm quite interested in you saying only Russ defeated Horus, I've never read anything which even said any of the Primarch's sparred far less Russ could defeat Horus, where could I have a look at this?

jb85
15-09-2007, 19:06
I'm a big Sanguinius fan but I do believe that the recommendation from Horus to make him Warmaster needs to assessed carefully. Firstly part of this was likely false modesty on the part of Horus. That being said I do think that Horus genuinely believed Sanguinius would make a good Warmaster, but not for any particular tactical/strategic skills, his military record or any martial abilities. Rather the recommendation seems to based on a number of softer factors. Sanguinius seems to be the quiet and wise Primarch among his brothers, the cool head effectively. In addition he has been noted as being the Primarch who has the most appreciation of what ‘human condition’.

As Warmaster, the holder was effectively the de facto Emperor in the field and as such had more than just command of the Marine legions to consider. Being the one most able to emphasise with ordinary humans Sanguinius may, in retrospect, have been the man to take the role of Warmaster. There were plenty of great generals and mighty warriors in the Imperiums ranks but how many had the skills or commanded the same respect as Sanguinius?

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 04:11
There are multiple pieces of evidence all showing a distinct absence of any wounds on Horus. There is only one piece of evidence being clung to for support of any wound. All the other supposed evidence previously cited, such as the visions, have all under closer examination been disproved. It should be pretty obvious which is the stronger case and which makes more sense, particularly given the whole theme was about Sanguinius making a sacrifice in the face of helplessness not about trying to make Sanguinius the ultra cool guy responsible for the Emperor's victory. Sanguinius lost and he died. He chose to lose, knowing he couldn't win, than betray his principles. That is the essence that is being missed.

The position of Horus as Warmaster and de facto Emperor is directly analogous and equivalent to the position of Lucifer as first among the angels. The entire Heresy as per original conception is borrowed heavily from the myth of Lucifer's rebellion.

Baaltharus
16-09-2007, 06:26
Your self righteous arrogance is a bit disturbing, why can't you just accept whats put before you in relatively black and white terms, a great deal of fluff isn't set in stone, its down to the individual. Furthermore, there is really very little evidence of Horus not being wounded prior to his fight with the Emperor, its not as if the Emperor inspects him in fine detail at any point.

Theres at LEAST two bits of evidence siting Horus being wounded by Sanguinuis, first one is in the actual story itself where it SAYS Sanguinuis wounds Horus. The second comes from what many people believe, not just the Blood Angels. On top of these factors, with the Bill King story having largely been phased out, this just adds another lair of complexity to the final battle.

Until you can actually 'disprove' anything (which you won't be able to due to the nature of 40k background) I'd stop acting so superior and confrontational where theres no need or place for it.

Ktotwf
16-09-2007, 06:46
Sanguinius' death wasn't a pointless sacrifice...he died as he lived, unafraid and loyal to the Emperor to the last.

I would love to have the guts to die in a situation like that if need be, maybe protecting my family or something.

Formarion
16-09-2007, 08:54
You see that's why I like 40k fluff. Everything you read can be complete propaganda and everyone can read it in a different way. Sanguinius could have easily turned up in front of Horus and got destroyed, with the whole "fighting in defiance of overwhelming opposition" stuff layered in to improve the (admittedly already highly praised) image of Sanguinius. He could also have fought Horus and actually achieved something, who knows? "Actual" history doesn't exist in 40k as far as I am concerned, as there will always be a different point of view, and a different angle on how a situation/battle has played out.

OT: As said by many others, Horus probably wasn't fully evil when Fulgrim turned up in his room at the end of Fulgrim. He just had a more...distorted passion for the revolution than what he was indoctrinated to believe.

Erebus26
16-09-2007, 11:29
After the Word Bearers the SOH are my favourite legion! What I like about all the new fluff offered by the novels is the fact that we do get the chance to see him as the Emperor's finest and all round good guy before his fall rather the just simply being the evil guy who messed up the imperium. The novels have given his character some substance, which makes it harder to believe why he fell from grace so badly. His vanity was responsible for his fall as he believed he could take out the Emperor and become the new ruler of humanity, without noticing that he was a pawn of chaos until it was too late. I think when he sees that Fulgrim is possessed he is still has some good as he realises his friends plight but by the time he fights Sanguinius he has fell too far.

As a final note Baal - I've enjoyed reading your posts and I agree you can see the fluff from as many angles as you wish because that's whats good about it. I hope you just feel happier about the final battles on terra when they do the novel for the siege of terra. :)

Baaltharus
16-09-2007, 13:20
Cheers Erebus, I to hope the 'final' version of the Siege of Terra is at LEAST as grand as the one delivered in the Bill King Story. It easily has the potential to be a really amazing bit of writing if done well. At bare minimum I hope they stay away from the story given in the HH artwork book. If they rush the siege in the novels like they do in the artwork I'll be all kinds of crazy!

Of course thats a long way off yet...plenty of interesting stuff to come in the meantime.

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 14:33
The point under discussion is not whether the Emperor chose to inspect or saw any wounds. It is the fact the NARRATOR who is not the Emperor makes no mention of any wounds. That is an objective point of view, not an in-character point of view.

Your second point about what people believe is utterly irrelevant when it comes to trying to debate and prove something. Belief does not equal truth. Millions of people can believe the Earth is flat but it wouldn't flatten the Earth by one inch. If some spontaneous movement made people believe Horus really won the Heresy, that wouldn't make so in the 40K universe. People believing Sanguinius wounded Horus would be the same: wishful thinking but no amount of wishful thinking makes something true. In short you are back to square one with just one shred of evidence to cling to. If you want to debate a point, use proof not unsubstantiated beliefs.

Baaltharus
16-09-2007, 18:11
Sigh...as has been proven time and again theres certainly more than 1 bit of evidence to suggest that Sanguinuis wounds Horus and since there about an equal amount of evidence that might be used to suggest otherwise its far from a obvious conclusion. Theres no wishful thinking involved, everything I've said is taken directly from background sources. I've used plenty of proof, you on the other hand seem only capable of whining and bitching that what you believe is the be all and end all the background (when clearly this is far from the case).

Iracundus
16-09-2007, 21:55
The amount of evidence is overwhelming against any wounds. All the evidence you have cited is been shown to be invalid, since they don't mention any wounds and are of suspect accuracy. There is only one piece you've been clinging to whereas both me and others have mentioned other evidence against your claim which you conveniently never even bother mentioning when yours is disproved.

Your second point of "evidence" cannot even be called evidence. You yourself mention it's just belief ie wishful thinking, ie you want it to be true Belief means nothing. Belief is not proof. You have no other proof.

Baaltharus
16-09-2007, 23:31
None of the evidence I've sited has been shown to be invalid, least of all by you. You can believe that no wound was done to Horus if you so wish, its your call but theres different versions of the stories and as GW have said themselves theres no solid answer to their writings. Even in stories where Horus being wounded isn't mentioned this doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I've given evidence as it exists (and can be found by anyone who cares to look) and it remains an awesome plot vehicle in building up the final battle between Horus and the Emperor.

Why you continue so pathetically to whine about something you can't be right about is just sad. There is no 'right' answer. These events are FICTIONAL, they didn't happen and as such there will never be any 'proof'. Its the individuals choice to be decided as they like. The sooner you can get this the better.

Ktotwf
17-09-2007, 01:42
Your second point of "evidence" cannot even be called evidence. You yourself mention it's just belief ie wishful thinking, ie you want it to be true Belief means nothing. Belief is not proof. You have no other proof.

Did this little spiel make anyone else laugh? :angel: Sorry.

MadDoc
17-09-2007, 02:24
Did this little spiel make anyone else laugh? :angel: Sorry.

The hypocrisy of it? Or just the statement in and of itself? :skull:

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 06:01
To actually debate anything, one must bring forth proof. Simply saying that I believe it therefore it must be true is invalid as a means of trying to prove a point and simply shows the utter irratioanlity and untenable position held by that side. Try to learn some debating techniques sometime. Belief again does not mean anything in a debate. One can believe the sun rises in the west. Doesn't make any less false.

There has only been one piece of evidence cited that has held up to any sort of scrutiny supporting the possibility of wounds on Horus, however there have been multiple pieces of evidence presented by both me and other posters which has held up similarly under scrutiny to support the opposite. All other evidence that was attempted to be cited by Baal earlier has already failed to hold up to scrutiny as they do not mention the wounds in question and are also of dubious accuracy since they are based on incharacter visions, and hence subject to distortion and falsehood as already shown by the fallibility of Tycho's visions. At no point have I needed to resort to purely opinionated statements unsupported by evidence other than "I believe therefore it must be so." The fact the other side has attempted such a blatant appeal to irrationality and unsubstantiated emotion rather than hard evidence should show untenability of their position.

One only needs to examine the weight of evidence on each side to see that the side trying to contend Horus was wounded hasn't any support other than that one shred which they cling to.

Baaltharus
17-09-2007, 09:43
Well trying to rationalize with you seems to be a complete waste of time, your obviously too arrogant to see something pretty much everyone else can. This is 40K background, its not the laws of physics, there are no right or wrong answers but this concept seems beyond you.

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 09:49
There is proof as there are canonical 3rd party narration pieces as sources to draw upon, and there is a preponderence of proof for one side versus only one piece for the other in this case. A person claiming Horus won the 40K Horus Heresy could and would be proven wrong. In his own personal pet universe he can have whatever he wants but if he's claiming to talk about the 40K universe, then Horus definitely did not win. There are certain facts about the 40K universe that are known: The Eldar created Slaanesh, the Emperor fought Horus and won, Sanguinius fell to Horus without inflicting any wounds

Attempting the excuse of "rationalizing being a waste of time" is merely obfuscation for the lack of substantial solid evidence base with which to actually try to have a rational discussion. Over and over again only the same piece is cited, whereas earlier pieces were attempted but have since conveniently been dropped after they were proven to be of suspect accuracy, and now there is the irrational attempt to resort to belief based arguments.

Baaltharus
17-09-2007, 11:53
Sanguinuis falling to Horus without wounding him is NOT one of the of the FACTS of the 40K universe, it is not a given by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that there are sources saying it DOES happen would allow any sensible person to see this is obvious. Not only this but these sources are just as valid as those you claim somehow debunk it, sources which themselves have been phased out and overwritten.

So your argument comes down to 'my now obsolete source beats your source because I don't like what you believe', quite laughable really.

Also a note on the fallibility of sources, just because something has the potential to be wrong doesn't mean it always will be, in the case of the visions of the Blood Angels under the Lestrallio procedure these are as close to an accurate and up to date account of the battle as is available. That is until (if at all) the HH novels cover the details on board Horus's battle barge.

Erebus26
17-09-2007, 13:05
Can't you guys just agree to disagree!:D

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 13:16
The Lestrallio procedure isn't even valid evidence because it is subjective in-character evidence, not objective narrator evidence. Not only is it fallible, it never even mentions the point you are trying to "prove". It never even really details the battle and cuts out right at the beginning. Everyone knows Horus and Sanguinius had a battle. One cannot conclude just because they fought that Sanguinius had to have wounded Horus. That is not working from evidence but adding purely irrational belief in. Get it straight: in-character "evidence" isn't evidence, precisely because it is fallible. Raving visions that don't mention any wounds don't suddenly "prove" there were wounds. All it really proves is one person had visions and then died. Period. Nowhere is it said they are "accurate" merely that the BA BELIEVE they are accurate. Crucial word over and over. They BELIEVE, but that doesn't make it truly accurate. The Ecclesiarchy believe the Emperor is all powerful but he clearly isn't. The belief of characters in the 40K universe is utterly irrelevant when it comes to discussing the truth, and that is the mistake you constantly make.

To make the positive claim there were wounds, one has to provide evidence beyond merely "they don't mention wounds but that doesn't mean there weren't any." To make positive claims the onus of proof is on the side making the positive claim.

There is no evidence of that one piece you are so desperate to cling to obsoleting anything else. If anything, it is that piece that has been obsoleted as it is never mentioned again whereas it is consistently the Emperor POV duel with Horus that is repeated. There is a multitude of other sources, up to and including the latest Horus Heresy artwork, itself based on the older RoC depicting the Horus vs. Emperor duel, which is still the source you will find quoted all around the web. One might argue the artistic merits of it as being less canonical than pure text but nonetheless it is based off of the story of the duel as told in the RoC, and both versions of the art depict unscathed main combatants, with a duly mangled dead Sanguinius in between.

Baaltharus
17-09-2007, 14:52
Can't you guys just agree to disagree!:D

I've said this already but Iracundus doesn't like this idea and seems obsessed with having everyone believe what one can only assume he believes. I for one won't be swayed no matter how much he whines on about 'fanboys', fallibility and what hes come to view as 'true evidence'.

pookie
17-09-2007, 15:05
Can't you guys just agree to disagree!:D

agreed!

back on topic, i think at the point of ferrus head being presented as a 'gift' Horus does have some, although a small amount of good in him, he's sickened by what he see's and then hears about his brother fulgrim. i would assume though tahts hortly after this he starts to lose all thoughts of 'being' good and totaly turns from the light

Baaltharus
17-09-2007, 15:19
The differences between Horus in the Istvaan system and while Sieging Terra differ markably. Horus while corrupted in Istvaan still seems to believe that what hes doing will be for the good of humanity. It seems he is yet to recognize the full evil of Chaos. Horus at Terra on the other hand is bloated daemonic monster obsessed with his own power and foremost place within the Universe. He cares nothing for humanity as well as having accepted and embraced the full wretched powers the Chaos Gods offer.

madd0ct0r
17-09-2007, 15:45
So my conspiracy theory that the emporer ascended and it's horus that is actually imprisioned in the golden throne is demonstrabley false? drat.

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 21:11
So in other words even when conclusive proof is offered and his own evidence leaks like a sieve and is suspect, Baal prefers to stick his fingers in his ears and close his eyes rather than face the fact Sanguinius could possibly ever fail at anything. Sounds like an admission of losing the debate and resorting to irrationality.

Rockerfella
17-09-2007, 21:18
I'm gunna be honest, I have always been under the impression Sangunius was able to put a 'chink' in the armour of Horus, and it was this in fact that led to his eventual downfall at the hands of the Emperor.

Thats the story i always remember from waaaay back in the dark ages anyways.

Cheers.

Iracundus
17-09-2007, 21:29
As mentioned earlier, there was that story but there was also that story from the Emperor's POV that mentioned no wound whatsoever. Horus was unscathed and gloating over Sanguinius's dead body. Nowhere in the artwork is there a wound.

The point is there is just one piece of evidence to support that wound theory, just the one, while there exists multiple pieces of evidence to support the opposite.

Baaltharus
17-09-2007, 23:53
As mentioned earlier, there was that story but there was also that story from the Emperor's POV that mentioned no wound whatsoever. Horus was unscathed and gloating over Sanguinius's dead body. Nowhere in the artwork is there a wound.

The point is there is just one piece of evidence to support that wound theory, just the one, while there exists multiple pieces of evidence to support the opposite.

The Emperor not mentioning a wound is quite understandable...first off because Horus is a bloated monstrosity and no longer looks like what the Emperor remembers, the fact that the chamber is a carnal house littered with dead bodies would probably draw the attention. Horus probably has blood splattered across him from those hes butchered obscuring any of his own blood. The wound is never described as being some gaping hole, its a precise stab wound. Not only this but in that version the Emperor is in shock and hardly likely to comment on some small hole in Horus's armour.

As to the artwork, well that counts for squat, its artistic license in a book filled with a painful amount of errors. Not only this but in the original story where Sanguinuis does wound Horus for definite the accompanying picture doesn't have any tear in Horus's armour either thus making artwork based arguments null and void.

I'm just repeating myself with you but there is more than one piece of evidence saying Sanguinuis wounds Horus, just because you choose not to believe it doesn't mean squat, others can and do. Not only this but your supposed overriding evidence doesn't negate the wound story, it simply fails to comment on it.

As I've said already, people believe what they like, its what makes 40Ks background interesting (if a tad infuriating at times).

We've both said our piece on the matter and now we're just repeating ourselves. I suggest we call it quits.

MadDoc
18-09-2007, 00:57
I must agree with those who've suggested that you both simply agree to disagree.

Baaltharus, has made several good points (and missed a few pieces of evidence he may not be aware of that support his position, and sorry but I refuse to get dragged into this so don't bother asking), but Iracundus would disregard anything he added anyway so it's a moot point.

Iracundus, please just let it go. Quite frankly, the sheer sanctimoniousness and condescending tone of your posts is getting beyond a joke. (I'm putting that in as polite terms as a I can, not that the tone of said posts deserves it.)

Please, just put it to rest, or take it to PM. Either way I think most people have had enough of your cyclic argument to last a lifetime.

Erebus26
18-09-2007, 01:19
Yeah time to get back on topic!!! :D

It was starting to become an epic struggle a la Horus v. The Emperor on the Vengeful Spirit!!!!

Iracundus
18-09-2007, 03:26
Once again, Lestrallio is not valid evidence. Subjective accounts from in-character sources aren't and have never been valid evidence in arguing any side precisely because of their subjectivity and fallibility. Beliefs do not translate into something being true no matter how much the characters may wish it to be. Chaos fanboys or 40K characters wishing Horus won doesn't change the truth of what happened, and the same goes for Sanguinius fanboys. Think for a moment of just why it is that in courts and debates one relies on objective concrete evidence rather than just hearsay and unsubstantiated beliefs? Opinions need to be backed up by proof. It is not a matter of me refusing to accept evidence, when it is a matter of there being no such evidence other than that one piece from a narrator POV, which is outweighed by the larger body of evidence for no wounds period. The constant attempt to revert back to flawed subjective "evidence" is only showing there is little else that can be brought forth to back that position.

Apply Occam's Razor. Isn't it far more likely the Emperor did not comment on any wounds for the simple reason there were NONE? Rather than bend to invent all sorts of twisted reasoning, and making wild speculations or making things up as justification, the simpler explanation is more likely.

DantesInferno
18-09-2007, 03:46
Once again, Lestrallio is not valid evidence. Subjective accounts from in-character sources aren't and have never been valid evidence in arguing any side precisely because of their subjectivity and fallibility. Beliefs do not translate into something being true no matter how much the characters may wish it to be.

Subjective accounts are still valid evidence, and something that should be considered when analysing the background.

Are they automatically true? Of course not. In particular, the reliability of the context in which the evidence is given should be a concern (which is why, in this case, I'm not persuaded by what the Blood Angels believe about their Primarch). That's no reason to dismiss the whole concept though.


Think for a moment of just why it is that in courts and debates one relies on objective concrete evidence rather than just hearsay and unsubstantiated beliefs? Opinions need to be backed up by proof. It is not a matter of me refusing to accept evidence, when it is a matter of there being no such evidence other than that one piece from a narrator POV, which is outweighed by the larger body of evidence for no wounds period.

Just so you know, people are allowed to present subjective evidence in court - for example, a witness is allowed to testify on what they saw occur. Does that mean their testimony is somehow "proof"? Not necessarily. It depends whether the testimony is backed up by other evidence. But even that other evidence needs some sort of interpretation. Even scientific evidence needs someone to present it, and provide an explanation of what it means (in their expert opinion, of course). There's nothing which simply provides a clear objective truth. Instead, the best theory of what happened needs to be formed from all the evidence, considering its reliability and so on. Everything is not simply black and white.

If you really want to convince people, just quote all your evidence in one post so people can see what you mean.

VanHel
18-09-2007, 15:47
*completely ignores the argument going on in the background* After finally tracking down and finishing Fulgrim, I have to say that I like the contrast between Fulgrim and Horus at the end, alluding to what Horus would ultimately become and showing that he was still doing what he percieved to be right. I think that it makes Horus's downfall more tragic.

Erebus26
18-09-2007, 15:51
Horus knew what he was doing as regards to attempting to depose the Emperor, but nobody understood Chaos at that time, so Horus was unaware of what kind of deal he was getting himself into until it was too late!