# Original Legion Weaknesses



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

We all know that all the legions had individual strengths (World Eaters CC ability, RG Stealth, Iron Warrior Siege craft, etc...) but having a major focus of one aspect had to leave others less than perfected. Not that they were bad at it, they were Astartes after all and are trained in all aspects of warfare, but the World Eaters for example, fighting a static gunfight, instead of getting up close and personal to me would put them at a disadvantage because they were not fighting in their element.

What do you guys think the weaker aspects of the individual legions were?


----------



## 777swappamag777 (Jul 15, 2011)

I beleave the weakest aspect of the iorn warriors has got to be conseving ammuntion in every book i read they have hundreds of siege guns imagine the warsmiths ammo bill.

I can see it now.










"How am i gunna afford this."


----------



## Dînadan (Mar 7, 2009)

The Thousand Sons' 'weakness' would probably of bee close combat, but I'd think that it'd probably be not by much as they'd be able to use their powers to augment their combat ability. Plus an abundance of force weapons would probably be more useful against lots of big gribblies than an abundance of chainswords/axes


----------



## Sangriento (Dec 1, 2010)

I doubt the Alpha Legion had any glaring weakness....


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Sangriento said:


> I doubt the Alpha Legion had any glaring weakness....


I think their biggest weakness would be a time frame. Their methods were not nearly as fast as a direct assault. They need a lot of prep time to get spies in and turn civilians etc.


----------



## Dînadan (Mar 7, 2009)

Klaivex said:


> I think their biggest weakness would be a time frame. Their methods were not nearly as fast as a direct assault. They need a lot of prep time to get spies in and turn civilians etc.


And they're spead out so it's probably harder for them to bring their full forces to bare than it would be for other Legions. Plus if anyone descovered a way to easily uncover their cells it'd be easier to overwhelm them than other Legions as they could take them apart paicemeal rather than have to worry about facing the entire Legion at once (of course, the chances of actually devising such a method on the other hand...).


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Klaivex said:


> I think their biggest weakness would be a time frame. Their methods were not nearly as fast as a direct assault. They need a lot of prep time to get spies in and turn civilians etc.


It was mostly a matter of pride.

They could easily have Ultramarine'd their operations but prefer enjoying going to the longer/harder route.




Dînadan said:


> Plus if anyone descovered a way to easily uncover their cells it'd be easier to overwhelm them than other Legions as they could take them apart paicemeal rather than have to worry about facing the entire Legion at once


If they lost a cell or two, they would not be affected. Their whole philosophy revolves around individualism. They supposedly lost their Primarch and kept fighting much to the surprise of Guilliman.


----------



## Dînadan (Mar 7, 2009)

Malus Darkblade said:


> If they lost a cell or two, they would not be affected. Their whole philosophy revolves around individualism. They supposedly lost their Primarch and kept fighting much to the surprise of Guilliman.


I didn't mean them just losing a cell or two. What I meant was that if someone developed a way to easily uncover their cells then they could take the Alpha Legion on one cell at a time and emilinate them that way. Again, actually coming up with such a method and ensuring the Alphas don't counter it is another matter entirely.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

An impossibility you mean.

You can't outfight a World Eater nor can you sneak up on a Raven Guard.


----------



## Lux (Apr 17, 2010)

Pretty sure A Blood angel could out right kill a world eater in hand to hand combat, and a Night Lord could sneak up on a Ravenguard.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Dînadan said:


> I didn't mean them just losing a cell or two. What I meant was that if someone developed a way to easily uncover their cells then they could take the Alpha Legion on one cell at a time and emilinate them that way. Again, actually coming up with such a method and ensuring the Alphas don't counter it is another matter entirely.


You do realize how fragmented the Imperium is, you could uncover them in one area but never in the entire.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Malus Darkblade said:


> It was mostly a matter of pride.
> 
> They could easily have Ultramarine'd their operations but prefer enjoying going to the longer/harder route.


Yes but they are great at subterfuge and average astartes level at normal combat. Taking away what they are great at would makes them less effective, not non effective but it is still a weakness.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I would say a RG's stealth skills outstrip those of a Night Lord.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Lux said:


> ...and a Night Lord could sneak up on a Ravenguard.


The combination of the fact that the Raven Guard have enhanced cooling systems in their armor to better blend in with the background and become basically invisible to infrared and thermal devices and the fact that they make extensive use of advanced scouts (early warning) i feel like while is it isn't impossible (i don't think anything in 40k is impossible), it is unlikely.

edit: Ninja'd... but i agree.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Lux said:


> Pretty sure A Blood angel could out right kill a world eater in hand to hand combat, and a Night Lord could sneak up on a Ravenguard.


 
I'd love to see that. I'd pay money.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Klaivex said:


> Yes but they are great at subterfuge and average astartes level at normal combat. Taking away what they are great at would makes them less effective, not non effective but it is still a weakness.


Where did you get the idea they're bad at normal combat?

The short story by James Swallow has one Alpha Legionnaire totally dismantle a guy in terminator armor and a bunch of others with ease. I know he wasn't Astartes but it was the only piece of fluff that shows a AL fighting in detail I believe.



Lux said:


> Pretty sure A Blood angel could out right kill a world eater in hand to hand combat, and a Night Lord could sneak up on a Ravenguard.


I didn't mean 100% I'm sure there are such cases but I meant in general.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Malus Darkblade said:


> Where did you get the idea they're bad at normal combat?
> 
> The short story by James Swallow has one Alpha Legionnaire totally dismantle a guy in terminator armor and a bunch of others with ease. I know he wasn't Astartes but it was the only piece of fluff that shows a AL fighting in detail I believe.


Well first i never said they were bad at normal combat so i don't know where that came from. I said they were average astarte level which is still pretty damn good.

They have never been described at being amazing in close combat like the WE or BA or being great at siege like the IF or IW, or anything other than hands down the best at subterfuge.

Hence my statement.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

They never were described being able to make a killer batch of cookies either. 

You can't assume they are average simply because authors have focused on their major strength/identity.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Malus Darkblade said:


> They never were described being able to make a killer batch of cookies either.
> 
> You can't assume they are average simply because authors have focused on their major strength/identity.


By your own logic then, we can assume that because the authors have focused on their subterfuge, their major strength/identity, their combat skills are NOT their major strength/identity hence not focusing on them.

All legions had strengths but no legions had all the strengths. That would throw off the balance of the whole concept of different legions. Why have different legions if the Alpha Legion can destroy the enemy from within (with ease) and crush it by force (with ease). Why not just have them all be Alpha Legion because they work the best in every situation?

And everyone knows Crimson Fists make the best cookies. The red hand is really just a cleverly disguised oven mitt.


----------



## Mob (Nov 14, 2010)

The weaker aspects of the legions are those that were created by the psychological flaws either inherent in their gene-seed and/or exacerbated by their cultural background.

I mean, the Thousand Sons didn't actually have any weaknesses in the martial ability sense, they were just as deadly in close combat as many other legions. Deadlier, in fact, considering an average Son could either use TK, predict what his opponent would do, or straight up read his mind. Their weakness lay in their arrogance, which is a highly exploitable flaw in a warrior.

Hardly any of the legions have outright martial weaknesses - if they did, they would suck at their role. All you can point to is their achilles' heels, most of which are a result of their mindset. 

To use an obvious example for clarity of my point: the World Eaters used artillery units and ambush tactics. To think of them as *just* close-combat shock troops and therefore weak in long-range ability and tactical planning is just wrong. However, they could obviously be baited into over-extending themselves or initiating strategically flawed operations due to their gladiatorial mindset.

You can analyse all the legions like this as they are entities created to emphasise particular attitudes and backgrounds.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Mob said:


> The weaker aspects of the legions are those that were created by the psychological flaws either inherent in their gene-seed and/or exacerbated by their cultural background.
> 
> I mean, the Thousand Sons didn't actually have any weaknesses in the martial ability sense, they were just as deadly in close combat as many other legions. Deadlier, in fact, considering an average Son could either use TK, predict what his opponent would do, or straight up read his mind. Their weakness lay in their arrogance, which is a highly exploitable flaw in a warrior.
> 
> .


I used to think they could hold their own in CQC but then I read Prospero Burns or was it Thousand Sons where one of them absorbed the techniques from one of their enemies in order to fight like he downloaded a copy of some Bruce Lee movie.


----------



## Dînadan (Mar 7, 2009)

locustgate said:


> You do realize how fragmented the Imperium is, you could uncover them in one area but never in the entire.


You've missed my point. I said _*IF*_ you could develop a way to uncover cells easily, you could exploit their fragmented nature. Again, I also state that this is an extremely long shot and an extremely unliky thing for anyone to accomplish, but that doesn't mean it should just be disregarded out of hand - that'd be like saying the Thousand Sons comparritive weakness to blanks and reliance on psychic powers is meaningless because blanks are rare.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Night Lords couldn't out stealth a cat let a lone a Raven Guard. Maybe their Primarch has some skill at it but in general the Night Lord Marines just wanted to terrorise and kill things. Reading Soul Hunter etc kind of proves this since a lot of the time he explain how noisy they are just walking about.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Night Lords couldn't out stealth a cat


Stopped reading here.

Top of my head reference, ADB's short story Shadow Knight.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Well if you stopped reading there then you missed my proof via ADB where he all the way through his novels he talks about how loud the Night Lords are.

Night Lords are just not a stealth legion, you may have some individuals here and there but on the whole they can scare people in the dark, where as they'd have no chance of out stealthing a Raven Guard whose very strategy and training revolves around it.

Not even finishing the sentence just proves what a fan boy of them you are.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

I didn't finish it because what you were saying made no sense.

Loud? In all of ADB's novels they were hunting scared humans aboard derelict ships or in situations where stealth was not needed.

Shadow Knight has 

Talos hunting a squad of scouts/initiates for fun and his two other members watch a group of Blood Angels from afar before engaging in what I assume was a stealthy first attack
.

And I'm not going to talk about Lord of the Night.

Clearly I am a fanboy.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

All the legions have specific fields were they outshine others, and places were they are not as good as other space marines.

Night Lords: Depend on psychology and surprise to break the enemies moral so they can over run their scattered defenses. Yet are not as proficient at CC, or even long range as specialist chapters, and are almost demoralized if the enemy is able to ignore their terror attacks altogether.
-World eaters: Are highly martial in their strategies and attitudes and will fight bitter combats to the bloody end, but can also be suckered into traps and suicide assaults even when they are well aware of the true nature of the situation. ect ect.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

And the Rainbow Warriors.

What of them?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Malus Darkblade said:


> I didn't finish it because what you were saying made no sense.
> 
> Loud? In all of ADB's novels they were hunting scared humans aboard derelict ships or in situations where stealth was not needed.
> 
> ...


It's stated several times how noisy a Night Lord is when stamping about supposedly trying to be stealthy. You're talking about Blood Angel scouts/initiates woo they are so known for their stealth ability, if you bothered to read you'd know I was referring to the comment about a Night Lord being able to sneak up on a Raven Guard. 

You took my comment about the cat to literally and like a fan boy went "ZOMG he said Night Lords couldnt sneak up on a cat must try to embarrass him and not read the rest of it because it can't be right"

Only fan boys don't read entire posts, sensible people read the entire post to make sure they don't come across as an idiot when trying to prove it wrong.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Words_of_Truth said:


> It's stated several times how noisy a Night Lord is when stamping about supposedly trying to be stealthy. You're talking about Blood Angel scouts/initiates woo they are so known for their stealth ability, if you bothered to read you'd know I was referring to the comment about a Night Lord being able to sneak up on a Raven Guard.
> 
> You took my comment about the cat to literally and like a fan boy went "ZOMG he said Night Lords couldnt sneak up on a cat must try to embarrass him and not read the rest of it because it can't be right"
> 
> Only fan boys don't read entire posts, sensible people read the entire post to make sure they don't come across as an idiot when trying to prove it wrong.


I also mentioned the part about them watching the real Blood Angels from afar before moving in for the kill.

Trying to embarrass you? lol no need to get so defensive bro.

And I obviously read your entire post.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Malus Darkblade said:


> And the Rainbow Warriors.
> 
> What of them?


Protecting homosexuals. They aren't a legion they were a chapter in RT.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Yes lets stay on topic, after all chapters can have such crippling set backs and their are so many of em that even trying to approach them on the subject would be far to time consuming.


----------



## Digg40k (Sep 7, 2008)

I think that to say any Legion had a specific weakness is wrong. You're all looking at their respective strengths, comparing them and concluding that whatever the polar opposite of that strength is will be their weakness. All of the Legions were adept at all aspects of warfare they just had their preferences which flow from their progenitor.

The only real weakness any of the Legions had, again, stems from their progenitor genetically. In terms of warfare, they had little to no weaknesses, which is why they were such an awesome force.



Klaivex said:


> All legions had strengths but no legions had all the strengths.


Arguably the Luna Wolves when said named were at least very strong if not dominant in comparison to their brother legions in most aspects of battle.

Likewise with the Ultramarines, their main strength is tactical genius which affects all aspects of warfare as opposed to a Legion such as the World Eaters whose strength is only rooted in their assault.

_*Edit:* Note I am talking only of the Pre-Heresy Legions and not the Post-Heresy Chapters. They're riddled with weaknesses. ;P_


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Mob said:


> I mean, the Thousand Sons didn't actually have any weaknesses in the martial ability sense, they were just as deadly in close combat as many other legions. Deadlier, in fact, considering an average Son could either use TK, predict what his opponent would do, or straight up read his mind. Their weakness lay in their arrogance, which is a highly exploitable flaw in a warrior.


Unless of course there was a few sisters of silence running around. Without there psychic powers there is no mind reading or any other bonuses. Then they are run of the mill astartes. Of course they are still powerful against normal opponents but they would definetly have a distinct disadvantage against specialist astartes like the wolves.

I would say their weakness is reliance on psychic powers.


> To use an obvious example for clarity of my point: the World Eaters used artillery units and ambush tactics. To think of them as *just* close-combat shock troops and therefore weak in long-range ability and tactical planning is just wrong. However, they could obviously be baited into over-extending themselves or initiating strategically flawed operations due to their gladiatorial mindset.


Put yourself in the 40k world. The entire world eaters legion is standing in front of you and your army. You know of there reputation. Do you think you have a better chance of survival fighting them at distance with ranged weapons or letting them get in close?

They might be able to kill you at range... but if they get into your ranks with their axes and start killing maiming and burning you it is almost a certainty because that is where their strengths lay.

In combat an astartes weakness isn't like a humans weakness in that they aren't bad at any aspect of warfare (in general). There are just aspects they are GREAT at and aspects they are average (for an astartes) at. Taking away what makes them GREAT is a weakness. (great > average)


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Digg40k said:


> Arguably the Luna Wolves when said named were at least very strong if not dominant in comparison to their brother legions in most aspects of battle.
> 
> Likewise with the Ultramarines, their main strength is tactical genius which affects all aspects of warfare as opposed to a Legion such as the World Eaters whose strength is only rooted in their assault.


The Luna wolves major weakness in my eyes was chain of command. As soon as horus was killed above terra their whole battle plan fell into disarray which is why they high tailed it out of there.

The Alpha legion would be an opposite to this. When their primarch was (supposedly) killed they surprised the ultramarines by getting better in combat and whipped the floor with them.

The Ultramarines were a tactical legion for sure but that was there weakness as well as stated above. Guilliman thought that once he took out Alpharius the AL would retreat... not make his legion bite the curb. Any miscalculation could spell disaster for the ultramarines, granted there weren't a lot of mistakes but the few of them that there were were pretty big.


----------



## Digg40k (Sep 7, 2008)

Klaivex said:


> The Luna wolves major weakness in my eyes was chain of command. As soon as horus was killed above terra their whole battle plan fell into disarray which is why they high tailed it out of there.
> 
> The Alpha legion would be an opposite to this. When their primarch was (supposedly) killed they surprised the ultramarines by getting better in combat and whipped the floor with them.
> 
> The Ultramarines were a tactical legion for sure but that was there weakness as well as stated above. Guilliman thought that once he took out Alpharius the AL would retreat... not make his legion bite the curb. Any miscalculation could spell disaster for the ultramarines, granted there weren't a lot of mistakes but the few of them that there were were pretty big.


They weren't the Luna Wolves during the Battle of Terra they were the Sons of Horus by that point and heavily influenced by the Ruinous Powers. I'm disinclined to pin them with over-reliance on their hierarchy as a weakness after they have been changed so much from their original selves.

What you describe as a weakness of the Ultramarines was actually a mistake made by them or Guilliman. Being tactically brilliant isn't a weakness but it can like everything else come undone with a mistake. That's like saying the weakness of the World Eaters was their brutal skill in assault because they take casualties in order to get into a melee. Take the last stand of the loyalists on Istvaan III for example, Angrion himself led the charge on numerous occasions but each time their perceived "strength" was turned on it's head, does that mean it is a weakness? No it means that assaulting well entrenched, staunch, betrayed and pissed off about it defenders was a mistake.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Malus Darkblade said:


> It was mostly a matter of pride.
> 
> They could easily have Ultramarine'd their operations but prefer enjoying going to the longer/harder route.


You would call this hubris really.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Digg40k said:


> They weren't the Luna Wolves during the Battle of Terra they were the Sons of Horus by that point and heavily influenced by the Ruinous Powers. I'm disinclined to pin them with over-reliance on their hierarchy as a weakness after they have been changed so much from their original selves.
> 
> What you describe as a weakness of the Ultramarines was actually a mistake made by them or Guilliman. Being tactically brilliant isn't a weakness but it can like everything else come undone with a mistake. That's like saying the weakness of the World Eaters was their brutal skill in assault because they take casualties in order to get into a melee. Take the last stand of the loyalists on Istvaan III for example, Angrion himself led the charge on numerous occasions but each time their perceived "strength" was turned on it's head, does that mean it is a weakness? No it means that assaulting well entrenched, staunch, betrayed and pissed off about it defenders was a mistake.


The Luna wolves were alway, even before becoming the Sons of Horus, very centered on chain of command. They even had a very distinct command structure in the form of The Mournaval. Yes they changed some at the battle of terra but they weren't the black legion yet. They were a very unified force with the same basic tactics of the original legion.

As for the ultramarines, in a highly tactical army making mistakes is the greatest weakness... if you make mistakes your not a very good tactician.

The world eaters- I would say the inability to dislodge heavily entrenched troops based on their combat doctrine and tactics would definetly make that sort of battle a weakness for them.


----------



## Digg40k (Sep 7, 2008)

Klaivex said:


> The Luna wolves were alway, even before becoming the Sons of Horus, very centered on chain of command. They even had a very distinct command structure in the form of The Mournaval. Yes they changed some at the battle of terra but they weren't the black legion yet. They were a very unified force with the same basic tactics of the original legion.
> 
> As for the ultramarines, in a highly tactical army making mistakes is the greatest weakness... if you make mistakes your not a very good tactician.
> 
> The world eaters- I would say the inability to dislodge heavily entrenched troops based on their combat doctrine and tactics would definetly make that sort of battle a weakness for them.


The Mournival was an organisation which carried no official weight and was considered to be outside the command structure fulfilling a purely advisory role to Horus. How were the Luna Wolves very centred on the chain of command? They had a variety of Captains who were more than capable of operating autonomously and even Sergeants of specific squads are mentioned as effectively engaging with the enemy without the need of orders every minute from higher up the command chain. As for not being the Black Legion yet are you implying that the Legion wasn't greatly changed prior to the Battle of Terra even through the uprising of the lodges aligned to Chaos?

In any army making mistakes is a great weakness. I'm not sure how you can say that the brilliant tactical nature of the Ultramarines is a weakness. In any matter the incident you are talking about if anything proves my point. In fighting the Alpha Legion the Ultramarines did NOT stick to their rigid ways and that is how they managed to get close enough with enough surprise value to kill Alpharius.

My point is none of the Legions in my opinion had a glaring weakness in terms of their ability to make war. It's not as simple as finding their strength and concluding that their weakness is the polar opposite.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

In the story little horus they went into how new members of the mornival were chosen. While it may not have been "official" it was taken seriously by its members.

 The fact that Captains can act autonomously is fine and all, i'm sure all captain in every legion could. The strength of the Luna Wolves lay in their fluidity and ease of changing battle plans as the battle changed. For this to be most effective strong close leadership was paramount. Order from the primarch with the input of the mournival to the captains to the companies. The Luna Wolves even had some companies with multiple captains due to the importance of leadership in their tactics of fluidity in battle.

They didn't need the chain of command to be effective but it vastly improved the speed in which they could addapt.

As for changing prior to terra i don't disagree that they did. However they hadn't split into war bands or anything major. They were still a unified fighting force, under a very tactically minded leader. They just also had chaos on their side. 

Even one of their own preferred tactics was to cut the head off the enemy because they knew the advantages of being able to issue orders quickly and effectively.

As for the ultramarines: Their plan to act unlike themselves was a great tactic and worked great… until it didn’t.

When the AL acted in a way they did not predict in their battle plan they got wrecked. Following a battle plan that did not foresee that outcome was indeed a weakness

Weaknesses don’t have to be glaring to be weakness. And if no legion had them why did the World Eaters struggle so much against heavily dug in defenders. Do you think the Iron Warriors would have had the same problem? The Iron Warriors are great at that style of warfare, the World Eaters are not.


----------



## Blue Moon (Sep 22, 2010)

Well I think people have it wrong, the original Legions didn't have any glaring weaknesses when it came to fight.

There weaknesses came when there was a war to win.
Yes the WE could butcher a whole force but then what, they'd be destroyed by artillery.
Yes the IF could hold a fortress, but what if their position was orbitally bombarded.
Yes a EC were great swordsmen, but what if they faced a 'great xenon-weilding anti-astartes gun'.

Infantry win fights.
Tanks win battles.
Artillery win wars.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

of course, the legions are all multidimensional and their strengths and weaknesses can't be adequately summed up in a few simple words

furthermore, every character trait is two-sided
in situation A, a certain trait proves to be a blessing
in situation B, the same trait proves to be a curse 

here is a very simplified list of my impressions: 


> Dark Angels
> specialty - ?
> weaknesses - paranoid, won't trust their allies
> 
> ...


please note that I listed glaring flaws in character or ability, not areas in which the legion is only average



Klaivex said:


> Why have different legions if the Alpha Legion can destroy the enemy from within (with ease) and crush it by force (with ease). Why not just have them all be Alpha Legion because they work the best in every situation?


so far in the fluff, the Alpha Legion has been portrayed as annoyingly untouchable and always a million steps ahead of the dimwitted loyalist marines


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

MontytheMighty said:


> so far in the fluff, the Alpha Legion has been portrayed as annoyingly untouchable and always a million steps ahead of the dimwitted loyalist marines


The White Scars and Raven Guard bested the Alpha Legion in Hunt for Voldorius.

As for everyone who is spouting on about glaring weaknesses. I never said there had to be a glaring weakness.

All armies have strengths and weakness. Space marines are great soldiers (perhaps the best) but they are not perfect so they are not an exception to the rule. 

Again I am not talking about a weakness as in something they are completely inept at, just something that they do not excel at, something that prevents them from using their strengths to their fullest.

Put yourself in the roll of warmaster. You have a heavily fortified enemy emplacement that needs to be destroyed, and a long siege is likely. Would you send the White Scars, who do not have devastator squads and only make limited use of tanks, or would you use the Iron Warriors who a siege masters?

If you had a objective that needed to be held at all cost would you send the headstrong World Eaters who are just as likely to run off to slaughter fleeing enemies or the stubborn Imperial Fists who would hold the location to the last man?

If you had to take an area by surprise would you send 250,000 bright blue ultramarines or the Raven Guard?


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Klaivex said:


> The White Scars and Raven Guard bested the Alpha Legion in Hunt for Voldorius.


what I hear from Alpha fans is that the authour totally botched the portrayal of the Alpha Legion in that novel
I just snickered 



> just something that they do not excel at


well, then just look at each legion's trademark strength...everything else would be something they don't "excel at"


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

MontytheMighty said:


> well, then just look at each legion's trademark strength...everything else would be something they don't "excel at"


Well each of their strengths are useful in multiple situation.

Iron Warriors for example are great at siegecraft. Therefore they can take defensive positions, they can create defensive positions, they excel at battles of attrition, when not in a defensive location, based on their tactics.

Therefore their weaknesses (in my opinion) would be:

Fighting fast armies that can get in close and destroy their artillery quickly
(proof of this would be ravens flight where corax took on the whole Iron Warrior army by himself because they just couldn't keep up with him as he targeted their tanks and other bigger weapons. They also could not take out the much smaller Raven Guard force because of their speed)

Infiltrators could cause them issues as sabotaging defences from within can change the course of a defensive battle very quickly. (This hasn't happened to my knowledge but it makes perfect sense)

Fighting armies that vastly outnumber them would put them at a serious disadvantage in a war of attrition. Armies like nids, orks, pre codex ultramarines would more than likely win a war of attrition


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Only Imperial Fists have no weaknesses, they are the consummate Marines, mixing tactics, with passion, stubbornness, determination and faith in the Emperor. 

*turns off fanboi personae*


----------



## Mob (Nov 14, 2010)

Klaivex said:


> Unless of course there was a few sisters of silence running around. Without there psychic powers there is no mind reading or any other bonuses. Then they are run of the mill astartes. Of course they are still powerful against normal opponents but they would definetly have a distinct disadvantage against specialist astartes like the wolves.
> 
> I would say their weakness is reliance on psychic powers.


Well yes, their _arrogance_ in their belief in their psychic abilities, it's implicit in my point. When your opponent believes themselves superior due to a massive tactical advantage and relies upon it in the first instance, nulling it is the obvious strategy. The person who said to look at their strengths and then work backwards expresses the simple version of what I'm trying to say. As the legions exist to exemplify a type of warfare or warrior, the mindset that comes with that (and provides their strengths) also provides their weaknesses. 

I'm not arguing that the legion's have no weaknesses. I'm pointing out that their weaknesses are psychologically sourced. The discussion about the Raven Guard vs the Night Lords is useful here; it doesn't matter who is the 'stealthiest' and that the Night Lords would auto-lose because they are the 'least stealthy'. 
The Night Lords' weaknesses are all a result of their terrorist/pirate mental attitude; they prefer to attack by surprise, from a position of dominance, inflicting maximum panic and confusion in the process. The fact this most obviously translates into bursting unannounced from the shadows of course leads to the idea that they are stealth marines. But this is just as a generalistic statement as them being the 'flying marines' that they were pidgeon-holed as for ages. Jumping out of the shadows and falling from above are the same to them - a means of appearing out of nowhere and scaring the shit out of you.
So, to defeat them you would seek to counter that tactic, sure, but if you look beyond the tactical, their weakness is not exactly just their reliance on this technique - they can fight and hold their own in other battlefield scenarios, they're Marines - but _why_ they rely on it. It's because they don't want to get involved in stand-up fights as those types of combats have less chance of guaranteeing victory, providing spoils of war and making their enemies scared of them. Thus, if you deny the Night Lords their chosen method of fighting, they are very likely to either avoid the combat or bug out at the first opportunity.
Unlike, I would suggest, the Raven Guard, who are more like saboteurs or special forces than terrorists. I think I'm getting lost inside my own verbiage and losing the thread of my point, so I'll finish up with a very pat suggestion to illustrate the separate psychology: If you pin down a Night Lord, he will flee. If you pin down a Raven Guard, he will manouever.

The WE thing you mention is tangential to my point, I'm not saying one should not engage the WE at range, it's obviously the first thing one thinks of. But it is not an 'auto-win' - the WE have artillery of their own, and they are still Space Marines (even if they like to get in your face above all else). I would suggest instead that a more effective tactic than simply bombarding them is to retreat and feign weakness - they are essentially gladiators and will be therefore highly likely to pursue without considering your strategy...and thus you now have the initiative and can do whatever (lead them into a trap, act as a distraction etc)

tl;dr - I don't disagree with you, I just see the way to beat a legion as based around analysing their mindset rather than their tactical strengths - though both are obv connected and the latter is important.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

Mob said:


> I'm not arguing that the legion's have no weaknesses. I'm pointing out that their weaknesses are psychologically sourced.
> I do agree that many had exploitable psychologies. IF, SW and WE come to mind fairly quickly. I do think, however, that psychology can be used as a catch all for every aspect of a legion. Their beliefs, their combat doctrine, their organization, their appearance and their general behavior can all be based off of their personality. It would be easy to say that weakness are psychologically based because of that. I personally don't but i see where you are coming from.
> 
> The discussion about the Raven Guard vs the Night Lords is useful here; it doesn't matter who is the 'stealthiest' and that the Night Lords would auto-lose because they are the 'least stealthy'.
> ...


That's how I look at it anyway.


----------



## piemelke (Oct 13, 2010)

Very interesting question, maybe a related question is what is the less strong point of every chapter, no fanboy will admit his fav legion/chapter is crap at cc, still some legions/chapters are less strong at it, i guess it is a matter of time in the sense that most marines have about the same potential, however some like to invest most of their training time in a broad spectrum, other tend to be more focussed at the cost of less widt, the product of width times depth is the same.
E.g. the WE tend to focus more on brutal cc and also excel at it, likely at cost of other capabilities (e.g. less capable to repair their own gear).For example the alpha legion, I do not think they really have an internal culture of training close combat that much I think they have a very broad spectrum of capabilities again at the cost of dept, in legion for example we could read that (at least it seemed to be a primarch) Alpharius actually got hurt by a (lucifer black), a mere human, I do not think this would have happened with Angron or sanguinus, I interpret this as the primach being less great at cc, since the primarch is a good measure for the martial doctrine of a legion I would say the alpha legion are less great at cc and when in battle with another legion this could be seen as a weak point,
in that sense,

ultramarines: Lack of pragmatic creativity, strictly adhering the codex, also I feel cc is less pronounced they tend to breath the Roman culture, also in the roman legion the combat doctrine was less built upon individual martial prowness but more a strictly organised battle machine.

blood angels: I do not know In the 40 K setting obviously the anger issues, hower I understood that in the pre-heresy age the anger issues were not really there yet

we: anger issues lack of adaptability to, basically the lack of a width in their spectrum is their weak point,

sw, I do not know, based upon the battle of the fang book I would say stupidity, however prospero burns gave the impression of the uber marine, maybe less technical skills

luna wolves: pre heresy arrogance, post heresy dependence upon demons

salamanders: lack of speed and emotional issues they can lack the cold mathematics of war that on a large scale make a difference

raven guard: no idea, based upon what I read from the RG they are pretty solid space ninja's,

...


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

It was only when Sanguinius got owned by a Bloodthirster during the ambush at Signus Prime that the Blood Angels started getting very angry.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> It was only when Sanguinius got owned by a Bloodthirster during the ambush at Signus Prime that the Blood Angels started getting very angry.


yes I'm not sure that the BA were CC oriented in 30k

in 40k, with the Black Rage/Red Thirst and their Death Company squads, they're CC oriented


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

piemelke said:


> Very interesting question, maybe a related question is what is the less strong point of every chapter,


That's not so much a related question but the same question using different words in my oppinion. If you know what they are "less good at" and exploit that then that creates a weakness.


----------



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

MontytheMighty said:


> yes I'm not sure that the BA were CC oriented in 30k
> 
> in 40k, with the Black Rage/Red Thirst and their Death Company squads, they're CC oriented


No, they were always combat orientated, considered rivals of the World Eaters during the Great Crusade in fact. Sanguinius' reign kept them pure and restrained, but following the blooding at Signus and Sanguinius' death at the hands of Horus, the Blood Angels descended into the Red Thirst/Black Rage. But they were always bloodthirsty and combat-orientated.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Words_of_Truth said:


> It was only when Sanguinius got owned by a Bloodthirster during the ambush at Signus Prime that the Blood Angels started getting very angry.





MontytheMighty said:


> yes I'm not sure that the BA were CC oriented in 30k
> 
> in 40k, with the Black Rage/Red Thirst and their Death Company squads, they're CC oriented


The Black Rage and Red Thirst may have fully manifested during the Signus Prime campaign but there were shadows of both conditions amongst the BA from the start.

Before the discovery of the Primarchs the Blood Angels were counted as one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty of the Legions, alongside the Warhounds (pre-Angron World Eaters). Whilst the influence of Angron degenerated the World Eaters into further barbarity Sanguinius restrained the BA to some extent- but for all that they were still a ferocious Legion when roused.

Edit: curse you Ninja CotE!


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

It's been a while but I can't recall them being especially brutal when they where fighting on Murder with the Emperor's Children and that's after they reconnected with Sanguinius, but like I said it's been a while.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

It's interesting how many legions the Emperor created with the potential to be berserkers under certain conditions.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

piemelke said:


> sw, I do not know, based upon the battle of the fang book I would say stupidity, however prospero burns gave the impression of the uber marine, maybe less technical skills


Discipline issues are rife throughout the chapter, especially within the younger members, as is a strong distaste for authority outside of the chapter (See: The Ecclesiarchy Comes to Fenris). Their strong sense of honor, while admirable, can lead to conflict (See: The Daemonbane War and Honour's End). They can, at times, act impetuously leading to less than desirable situations (See: Battle of the Fang). They are also limited, in some ways to their strong feelings for their tradition can also hold them back from progressing (See: Battle of the Fang, specifically, the Tempering). 

Though, to be fair to the Wolves, many of those same faults do have their advantages.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> Discipline issues are rife through the chapter, especially within the younger members of the chapter, as is a strong distaste for authority outside of the chapter (See: The Ecclesiarchy Comes to Fenris).


An interesting point because at the same time, they are completely devoted to the Emperor more so than most legions.


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> Discipline issues are rife through the chapter, especially within the younger members of the chapter, as is a strong distaste for authority outside of the chapter (See: The Ecclesiarchy Comes to Fenris). Their strong sense of honor, while admirable, can lead to conflict (See: The Daemonbane War and Honour's End). They can, at times, act impetuously leading to less than desirable situations (See: Battle of the Fang). They are also limited, in some ways to their strong feelings for their tradition can also hold them back from progressing (See: Battle of the Fang, specifically, the Tempering).


I'm betting they're also the only chapter that probably smells like wet dog when they fight in the rain.:biggrin:

I sincerely hope they don't mark their territory, if you know what I mean.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Malus Darkblade said:


> An interesting point because at the same time, they are completely devoted to the Emperor more so than most legions.


Very true. 

The Wolves honor martial prowess, and some less than conventional talents, but above all else, they respect power. When the Emperor came to Fenris, he behaved as they did, and competed for command of the legion, and the primarch in the true Fenrisian fashion, and ultimately bested Russ. Perhaps that could be what earned them their unflinching loyalty.

EDIT: Though, tbf, I really don't know why that is.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> Very true.
> 
> The Wolves honor martial prowess, and some less than conventional talents, but above all else, they respect power. When the Emperor came to Fenris, he behaved as they did, and competed for command of the legion, and the primarch in the true Fenrisian fashion, and ultimately bested Russ. Perhaps that could be what earned them their unflinching loyalty.
> 
> EDIT: Though, tbf, I really don't know why that is.


It's kind of odd because Russ is the type that can't handle taking orders or being second in command given his personality and yet here we have him blindly obeying the Emperor without any doubts whatsoever.

The only thing I can think of that explains his absolute obedience is because of his wolf DNA.

I am aware of the whole allfather thing going on with them but we can't just flat out call Russ a viking for I am sure the Wolves are aware of the similarities between their culture and the ancient vikings of Terra.

And given their awareness of the Emperor's stance on all things mythological/religious which also explains why they don't consider their rune-priests as psykers, it's just weird.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Baron Spikey said:


> the Blood Angels were counted as one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty of the Legions, alongside the Warhounds (pre-Angron World Eaters). Whilst the influence of Angron degenerated the World Eaters into further barbarity Sanguinius restrained the BA to some extent- but for all that they were still a ferocious Legion when roused.





Child-of-the-Emperor said:


> No, they were always combat orientated, considered rivals of the World Eaters during the Great Crusade in fact.


this is cool but could you guys cite sources please
I would like to read it



Words_of_Truth said:


> It's been a while but I can't recall them being especially brutal when they where fighting on Murder


as I recall, they were only mentioned in passing, as the unlucky first wave
given how deadly the arachnid-like creatures were, the first wave of marines would've died regardless of which legion they were from


----------



## piemelke (Oct 13, 2010)

I back up Monty I would really appreciate to know the sources of the BA being extremely brutal before encountering Sanguinus, I perceive them in the current setting as renaissance marines with anger issues? My view of the pre heresy BA is more like the EC striving toward beauty both in terms of art and combat. I think I have read somewhere that Sanguinus while growing up on Baal went bezerk on some fore scorpions. That would indeed explain agression amongst the BA.
Regarding the NL I tend to see as a weak point the fact that they never stopped being villans rapist and murderers, it restrains them in their evolution buit that is just an opinion,


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

piemelke said:


> I back up Monty I would really appreciate to know the sources of the BA being extremely brutal before encountering Sanguinus


I like the idea of brutal BA more actually...it would be an interesting dichotomy if a very "beautful" chapter were very savage on the battlefield
I'm not a fan of the Emperor's Children philosophy 



> I think I have read somewhere that Sanguinus while growing up on Baal went bezerk on some fore scorpions. That would indeed explain agression amongst the BA.


I think Sanguinius went berserk when mutant cannibals tried to kill his comrades on Baal


----------



## piemelke (Oct 13, 2010)

indeed mutant cannibals, fire scorpions what was I thinking,


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

_Horus Heresy: Collected Visions_

Further support from the _Index Astartes: Blood Angels_ article which states that Horus played similar Legions off against each other by sending them news of their rival's successes- a specific example is the Blood Angels and World Eaters, and then it goes on to say that the BA were never quite as ferocious as Angron's Legion (but then it's difficult to be completely psychopathic when you're led by the personification of humble nobility).


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

I think the Flesh Tearers are all the evidence you need to point out how ruthless and barbaric the BA can be without their Primarch.


----------

