# Who ordered the Wolves to punish the Thousand Sons?



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

So I thought it was a given that the Emperor asked Russ to bring back the Thousand Sons to Terra for censure--not to wipe them out. The order to destroy the Thousand Sons was supposedly given either by Chaos-turned Horus or some demon in his guise. 

But in _Vengeful Spirit_ we see the Emperor praising the destruction of the Thousand Sons to Malcador. He tells Malcador that Magnus deserved to be destroyed.

Now this has me confused. There's no sense of regret of being tricked by the now openly traitor Horus. Nothing about how Magnus's warning was not a lie to give reason for Magnus's dabbling in sorcery. The Emperor is completely satisfied of wiping out a loyal Legion (and making its remnants an enemy) and the fierce wounding the Wolves suffered in one of the most crucial moments of the young Imperium.

Was it actually the Emperor that called for the Sons to be destroyed? Or is it just hindsight on the Emperor's part. You know, since Magnus vanished with his remaining sons via sorcery, in the end the Emperor feels justified?

Or just another screw-up on McNeil's part?

His approach towards space-fantasy (or is it space-opera?) grates on my nerves. But that's another thread.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I was under the impression that Horus played a larger part in this.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Horus deceived Russ and Valdor into going all out. The main TS character in Talon of Horus admits it, and it's why he doesn't blame the Wolves for what they did.

As for the mixed signals from the Emperor, he may have ordered them to capture rather than kill, but when he heard of just how far into forbidden knowledge the TS had delved, and what their tutelaries really were after they revealed their true form during the battle, he might have decided that the destruction of Prospero and the TS was the right result.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> As for the mixed signals from the Emperor, he may have ordered them to capture rather than kill, but when he heard of just how far into forbidden knowledge the TS had delved, and what their tutelaries really were after they revealed their true form during the battle, he might have decided that the destruction of Prospero and the TS was the right result.


Aye, that's really the only reason I can think of the Emperor approving of the destruction of the Thousand Sons.

You'd think he'd be a bit more pragmatic and bemoan the loss of basically 1 1/2 Loyal Legions during the most brutal civil war the Imperium has ever experienced.

Particularly since such a loss was engineered by the leader of said rebellion.

Maybe the Emperor is just looking at the silver lining. I still think it'd be a little bit sad the Emperor didn't appreciate the sacrifice Magnus did in warning Him about Horus's betrayal.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

hailene said:


> You'd think he'd be a bit more pragmatic and bemoan the loss of basically 1 1/2 Loyal Legions during the most brutal civil war the Imperium has ever experienced.


Not really. Considering that he is the only person in the Imperium that knows the true nature of the Chaos powers, he's probably glad that the TS were removed from play before their corruption was complete and they switched loyalty to Horus while still a viable fighting force, probably becoming the most powerful one amongst the traitor legions.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> Not really.


I guess that makes sense. Pop the boil before it festers any worse than it has already.


----------



## LokiDeathclaw (Jun 19, 2013)

Khorne's Fist said:


> Horus deceived Russ and Valdor into going all out. The main TS character in Talon of Horus admits it, and it's why he doesn't blame the Wolves for what they did.
> 
> As for the mixed signals from the Emperor, he may have ordered them to capture rather than kill, but when he heard of just how far into forbidden knowledge the TS had delved, and what their tutelaries really were after they revealed their true form during the battle, he might have decided that the destruction of Prospero and the TS was the right result.


I agree. I was under the impression that the Emperor sent the Wolves to bring the TS back to Terra, or be sanctioned. Horus played a part in convincing Russ to destroy the TS and Magnus. And if I'm not mistaken in A Thousand Son's it is also suggested that Valedor influenced the event aswell, maybe with instruction from Macaldor


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

LokiDeathclaw said:


> And if I'm not mistaken in A Thousand Son's it is also suggested that Valedor influenced the event aswell, maybe with instruction from Macaldor


Yeah, it was definitely hinted at that at the very least he knew it wasn't a kill order, but didn't do anything to rein in Russ. He may have had his own agenda, or possibly Malcador's.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

It's interesting how the more he features in the Heresy, the more harsh Valdors character is said to be. Malcador in particular refers to him as having a callous soul, and how even the massacre at Istvaan V would be unlikely to cause him and real sorrow. But I suppose when the Emperors safety is your only priority, there can't be any room for levity or concern over others. To me that shows one of the reasons why Valdor would be so quick or unrestrained to agree to a kill order instead. Magnus was a potential threat to the Emperor, in Valdors eyes, he had to be eliminated due to this, no matter what the cost.

One thought on the matter anyway.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> It's interesting how the more he features in the Heresy, the more harsh Valdors character is said to be. Malcador in particular refers to him as having a callous soul, and how even the massacre at Istvaan V would be unlikely to cause him and real sorrow. But I suppose when the Emperors safety is your only priority, there can't be any room for levity or concern over others. To me that shows one of the reasons why Valdor would be so quick or unrestrained to agree to a kill order instead. Magnus was a potential threat to the Emperor, in Valdors eyes, he had to be eliminated due to this, no matter what the cost.
> 
> One thought on the matter anyway.


I agree. We already have examples of Malcador and Valdor either going against the Emperor's will or acting without his express permission - eg. The assassination attempts on Horus. It is only logical that Valdor was pushing his own agenda onto Russ's mission to Prospero, his "sinister urgings" designed to sway Russ towards "a destination of total destruction". Of course, I am not questioning his loyalty, merely that he felt that Magnus was a direct threat to the Emperor and needed completely removing from the equation.

The Burning of Prospero remains one of the greatest tragedies of the Horus Heresy.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> The Burning of Prospero remains one of the greatest tragedies of the Horus Heresy.


I will disagree with that. I think if they had been allowed to finish their journey down the road to corruption the Heresy would have ended very differently. Magnus himself was responsible for allowing his sons to bond with demons, irrevocably corrupting them. Even if he had seen his mistake, there was nothing he could have done about it. Tzeentch would have cashed in his chips at some crucial point in the future when the TS were in a key position amongst the loyalists. Imagine if they were on the Walls of the Palace when that happened.

Apart from the Emperor killing Horus, the burning of Prospero was possibly one of the key reasons for the loyalist victory IMO.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> Apart from the Emperor killing Horus, the burning of Prospero was possibly one of the key reasons for the loyalist victory IMO.


I think their path to damnation was much further than the length of the Heresy. With Magnus at the helm, I'd assume they'd be fine for at least a few centuries more. That's just a guess on my part.

With the Thousand Sons on the Loyalist side, I think, as the Horus-daemon thing said in _Prospero Burns_, Horus would have had a much harder time in the war against the Emperor.

Recrimination and punishment could be meted out after the crisis.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

hailene said:


> With Magnus at the helm, I'd assume they'd be fine for at least a few centuries more.


I'm not so sure. The chaos gods play a long game, and you have to imagine the corruption of the TS was part of the greater scheme that led to the Heresy. They wouldn't go to that much trouble to _not _activate them during the Heresy.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> They wouldn't go to that much trouble to not activate them during the Heresy.


I figure it was the opposite. They Thousand Sons _weren't_ ready to be used as a weapon for Chaos, not yet. That's why the Ruinious Powers had to wipe them from the table before they could be used as a weapon against them.


----------



## polynike (Aug 23, 2008)

hailene said:


> I figure it was the opposite. They Thousand Sons _weren't_ ready to be used as a weapon for Chaos, not yet. That's why the Ruinious Powers had to wipe them from the table before they could be used as a weapon against them.


I agree. I think they were a loyal legion, albeit already being influenced by deamons (though they were not sure what they wee dealing with) but ultimately loyal. Horus, played by the RP as he always was during the Heresy plied the seeds of destruction by manipulating Leman Russ and the SW. A lot more detail is given in the Talon of Horus.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> I will disagree with that. I think if they had been allowed to finish their journey down the road to corruption the Heresy would have ended very differently. Magnus himself was responsible for allowing his sons to bond with demons, irrevocably corrupting them. Even if he had seen his mistake, there was nothing he could have done about it. Tzeentch would have cashed in his chips at some crucial point in the future when the TS were in a key position amongst the loyalists. Imagine if they were on the Walls of the Palace when that happened.
> 
> Apart from the Emperor killing Horus, the burning of Prospero was possibly one of the key reasons for the loyalist victory IMO.


I agree, it seemed to me that the Emperor and Malcador had their own insight about the realities of the Thousand Sons and Magnus' influence with Chaos Allies. From a distance I think we look at their actions and thoughts as very cold and perhaps even close-minded, however, I believe Malcador and the Emperor have their own concepts of Chaos and the Warp. I dare say that they perhaps have the greatest insight of any in the Imperium and perhaps extending to what we even know in the 40k world (with the codexes and other lore that has been created about it).


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

hailene said:


> I figure it was the opposite. They Thousand Sons _weren't_ ready to be used as a weapon for Chaos, not yet.


But the fact that they warped as soon as battle was joined proves that they were. The tutelaries were all that were keeping their mutations at bey, and once these demons decided that the time was right to cut loose, their fate was sealed. They were firmly under the sway of chaos from the time the very first SM bonded with a demon.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> The tutelaries were all that were keeping their mutations at bey, and once these demons decided that the time was right to cut loose, their fate was sealed.


That's quite a bold statement.

I've been digging through _Thousands Sons_ to try to find proof of this, but I'm having trouble. Could you list where and when exactly it states the tutelaries had willingly destroyed the Thousand Sons?

And the flesh change afflicted the Thousand Sons before they met with Magnus. I find it hard to believe the Thousand Sons would have consorted with daemons while under the Emperor's watch.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

hailene said:


> And the flesh change afflicted the Thousand Sons before they met with Magnus. I find it hard to believe the Thousand Sons would have consorted with daemons while under the Emperor's watch.


Magnus "cured" the flesh change by making a deal with forces in the Warp. The tutelaries were shown to be demons in _A Thousand Sons_. They had been using them since Magnus sealed the deal. Which has to mean that the deal, and use of the tutelary/demons are linked, and affect the flesh change. It went on for over a hundred years on the Emperor's watch.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I was hoping for some specific citations that state so.

We have no idea when precisely the tutelaries came into practice. Nor whether every (or even a significant minority) of Thousand Sons had them.

Also that correlation does not imply causation. You'll need more proof than that. At least as something as poorly understood (by our modern reckoning) as things dealing with the Warp.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

I have no specific citations, I never claimed to have. It's just the overall impression I got from reading the book as a whole. The use of tutelaries certainly wasn't a recent thing though. It was definitely going on under the Emperor's nose.

I don't think you can argue that Magnus' pact and the use of tutelaries were two seperate, completely unconnected occurrences though.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> It's just the overall impression I got from reading the book as a whole.


It's difficult to have a discussion with "overall impressions". They're too...soft. That's why we need citations and facts. A conversation will go no where if I we just give our feelings on the subject. No where concrete, anyway.



Khorne's Fist said:


> The use of tutelaries certainly wasn't a recent thing though.


Recent is relative. Recent since Magnus took the reins? Yeah, sure. No question about that.

Recent that they came about before the Great Crusade found Magnus? I think there's room for argument there. I haven't read much pre-Magnus TS fluff (I'm in the middle of reading _Talon of Horus_, so maybe that will change), but in my limited reading I haven't seen a tutelary pre-Magnus.



Khorne's Fist said:


> I don't think you can argue that Magnus' pact and the use of tutelaries were two seperate, completely unconnected occurrences though.


Completely unconnected? I agree with you. Cause and effect? I think you have your work cut out for you.

I skimmed through _Thousand Sons_ earlier today. I saw a tutelary cause a marine to explode...others urging them to fight and use their powers. I did not see any specific narrative that said the tutelary caused the flesh change.
~~~~~~~~~~

Basically, in short, this conversation can not really proceed without you giving some citations that support your view point. Afterall, an argument from ignorance, is not an argument at all.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

hailene said:


> Recent is relative. Recent since Magnus took the reins? Yeah, sure. No question about that.
> 
> Recent that they came about before the Great Crusade found Magnus? I think there's room for argument there. I haven't read much pre-Magnus TS fluff (I'm in the middle of reading Talon of Horus, so maybe that will change), but in my limited reading I haven't seen a tutelary pre-Magnus.


I never claimed they the were pre-Magnus. Quite the opposite in fact. I said that Magnus made his pact with the gods, then all of a sudden his sons are consorting with demons. Seeing the connection between the two isn't as huge a leap of faith as you seem to think.



hailene said:


> I did not see any specific narrative that said the tutelary caused the flesh change.


Once again, I never said they caused it, I said they controlled it and kept it in check. Of course it was using their powers that caused the change, but the tutelaries kept the effects at bay. When it became apparent that there was nothing to be gained by it any more, they stopped holding it back.



hailene said:


> Completely unconnected? I agree with you. Cause and effect? I think you have your work cut out for you.


I don't think so. The fact that hundreds, possibly thousands of TS start mutating at the same time, after decades of stability, proves to me the tutelaries were responsible for holding the flesh change back. If not they would have been killed off in every battle previous to this that required them to call on their powers.



hailene said:


> Basically, in short, this conversation can not really proceed without you giving some citations that support your view point. Afterall, an argument from ignorance, is not an argument at all.


Frankly mate, the arrogant and dismissive tone of that line dismays me a little. It's not usually your style. 

Debates can continue without concrete proof, that's the fun bit, debating back an forth about the merits of each others arguments. If we could only debate the things that are beyond doubt, we wouldn't be debating very much at all, and those debates would be very boring. Nice way to kill off an interesting thread though. Well done.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

hailene said:


> I did not see any specific narrative that said the tutelary caused the flesh change.


I'm sure you have read lots of 40k. If you don't think it was a reasonable educated view then thats kind of hard to argue with somebody. 



hailene said:


> Basically, in short, this conversation can not really proceed without you giving some citations that support your view point. Afterall, an argument from ignorance, is not an argument at all.


From experience I think there's a limit to how one will willingly go on a search of fluff. Its actually tedious, and if you are arguing with someone who pretty much has their mindset about things its really just a waste of time. You and I know that the 40K world is pretty much pure perspective, and if your going to argue... well the author doesn't flat out say it specifically, then you can't really a argue anything with someone unless you like those arguments that goes round and round.


----------



## Beaviz81 (Feb 24, 2012)

I liked this thingy from Cracked http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-commo...age&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage it underscores a lot about internet-debate.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Khorne's Fist said:


> I never claimed they the were pre-Magnus. Quite the opposite in fact. I said that Magnus made his pact with the gods, then all of a sudden his sons are consorting with demons. Seeing the connection between the two isn't as huge a leap of faith as you seem to think.


It's a matter of timing. Yes, if the Sons were suffering from the flesh change and the next day they aren't with tutelaries buzzing about like bumblebees, there might be room for argument.

The time frame you're describing--sometime after Magnus is found and sometime immediately preceding the events of the destruction of Prospero--is almost guaranteed to be over a century in duration!

There's too much unknown. We--or at least I-- don't know the timing of events. Nothing close enough to even hazard the tuelaries were the cause of anything concrete. From the book _Thousand Sons_, I could find on citation the tutelaries caused the flesh change nor them working in concert towards any specific goal. 



Khorne's Fist said:


> When it became apparent that there was nothing to be gained by it any more, they stopped holding it back.


Could you provide some sources on this, please? I can not find it.



Khorne's Fist said:


> The fact that hundreds, possibly thousands of TS start mutating at the same time, after decades of stability, proves to me the tutelaries were responsible for holding the flesh change back.


Or maybe the Chaos Gods who Magnus had bargained with decided to remove whatever protection they offered? Or some other Chaotic being? Or maybe the bindings simply wore out due to time or extensive use of so many Thousand Sons drawing on their powers at the same time.

What proof do I have? None in particular. Certainly nothing that I can cite. But that's exactly what ground you're standing on...so we could bounce ideas back and forth all day, but nothing really will come of it without some citations in the fluff somewhere to back it up.



Khorne's Fist said:


> It's not usually your style.


I'm not calling you ignorant. It's the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Uh, it's a thing.

Like, I can't say Santa Clause exists because, well, do you have any proof that Santa Clause _doesn't_ exist? You can't (or at least, I don't think you could?) That's the crux of it, just because you say something exists because there's a lack of proof of it non-existing, doesn't mean it does.

Other favorites of this are proving God exists or about an invisible ghost aggressively dancing behind your desk. There's no way to prove either doesn't exist...but that doesn't mean they _do_ exist.



Khorne's Fist said:


> Debates can continue without concrete proof, that's the fun bit, debating back an forth about the merits of each others arguments


I most certainly do not believe a debate could exist without concrete proof. Or at least information that we have to take for granted less the our whole understanding of the universe begins to unravel. Like, do the things we observe are actually occurring? Or are our perceptions somehow warping true reality into a false reality it perceives. Or if somehow we all perceive reality differently, but merely coincidence has everything neatly controlled. Crazy stuff like that.

But a debate needs concrete facts to build itself. Otherwise a debate would be futile. We'd be hurling "I think" and "Do believe that..." and other things like that all day. We'd get no where. I wouldn't be convinced of anything if someone tried to sell me something I did not already believe without at least some proof.

Discussions are a different matter. We can bounce ideas off of each other. Theories and what not. But those statements and ideas should be prefaced with the fact that is all that they are: theories. 

Now if your _theory_ is that the tutalries controlled were the ones holding the flesh change at bay, then that's fine. Just don't state it as something that is proven.

I have no control over what goes on in your head. Not directly, anyway. You are free to believe what you wish. On the other hand, if you want to change what goes on in _my_ head, make sure to back it up with evidence. I am no means infallible or have eidetic memory like our much loved Astartes. There are plenty of times in the forums where people have either proven me wrong or convinced me of their argument with appropriately cited sources and compelling rhetoric. 



ckcrawford said:


> If you don't think it was a reasonable educated view then thats kind of hard to argue with somebody.


How so? I'm not quite sure I'm catching your meaning.

His point is certainly plausible...but there are too many missing dots to confirm it as fact. As close we can get in our muddled fluffy universe, anyway.



ckcrawford said:


> From experience I think there's a limit to how one will willingly go on a search of fluff.


I guess I'm the oddball. I'll go hunting for hours for a citation or even procure and read books people cite. I like the universe and I like talking about it.

To each their own, but I mean I wouldn't want to state something as fact without the evidence to back it up. At least when asked.


----------

