Garvy wrote: 1. Lorgar wasn't beaten by Magnus in any duel
2. He sucker attacked deamon Fulgrim ,real Fulgrim would rape his arse any day of the week
3. Be precise,and put your adoration to Magnus aside
People should really stop trying to argue with me concerning the fluff. After being trashed so many times, you'd think they would learn...
1. Yes he was. Lorgar was able to repel Magnus's probes into his mind when he was being gentle, subtle, but the very moment Magnus was tired of Lorgar's internet tough guy act, he psychically dominated Lorgar, leaving Lorgar on the floor with blood oozing from his nose. Oh, and he also shattered some statures and incinerated nearby paintings. Oh, and he did this while projecting a psychic avatar which Magnus specifically noted took a good deal of energy to maintain from such a distance (The other side of the galaxy).
2. Daemon Fulgrim is stronger than normal Fulgrim, and I frankly can't see why anyone would think otherwise. It wasn't Fulgrim's power that won that duel with Ferrus Manus on Istvaan V, Primarch Fulgrim was about to be overpowered and died. He had to use the daemon's power to survive. So no.
3. You're inferior to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconUprising wrote: I dont understand how you can say psychically commanding Horus, beating another Primarch into submission and defeating one of the greatest daemons ever is "nothing"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh also he's pretty much the sole reason for chaos entering the imperium and is technically the orchestrator of the Horus heresy...
So I don't think you seem to know what tactics are.
Psychic and martial power isn't a measure of tactical competence, nor are political machinations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Garvy wrote: Hammering Ultramarines....hard...maybe that is good tactic, although it was a suprise attack...
Kor Phaeron planned the attack at Calth, not Lorgar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Garvy wrote: What I was just about to post, he just started to discover pp and already senses Fulgrim as a deamon (which even Magnus didn't) - who knows how much he will grow in time...
And what fascinated me, is how much he trashed Magnus with his rhetoric it amost seemed that he is one and only chaos chosen
Spoiler:
Emperor, commanding the second-largest Legion in the Imperium. You are a broken soul, leading a shattered Legion. Perhaps I was never the one that needed protection, nor did my arrogance lead to my downfall. You cannot claim the same, Magnus. We both knew the truth, but only one of us faced it.’
And such a truth. Bitter amusement lapped at Lorgar’s senses. The galaxy is a foul place. We are only making it fouler. Have you considered that it might be better to die in ignorance than to live with the truth?
Lorgar repelled his brother’s creeping emotions with a burst of irritation. The spectre shimmered again, almost dissolving into the air.
+ Have you considered it, Magnus? If so, why do you yet live? Why did you not surrender to the howling death that came for you, when Russ broke your spine over his knee? +
Magnus’s ghost-image laughed, but it was a forced sound, barely reaching Lorgar’s mind. Is this what we have come to? Is this the bitterness you have hidden from all of us for half a century? What did you see at the end of your Pilgrimage, my brother? What did you see when you stared into the abyss?
+ You know what I saw. I saw the warp, and what swims within its tides. + He hesitated a moment, feeling his fingers curl, forming fists in his rising rage. + You are a coward, to know of the Primordial Truth yet fail to embrace it. Chaos Incarnate is only grotesque because we see it with mortal eyes. When we ascend, we will be the chosen children of the gods.
Lorgar knew that Magnus could sense the Daemon in Fulgrim, and when pressed, Magnus admitted he could feel it just as Lorgar did.
Which makes sense. Lorgar's issue with Magnus is that he knows the Primordial Truth, yet does not embrace it, as that excerpt you posted shows.
Tacticle competence is not solely measured by the ability to control an army, tactics can be manipulating other individuals which Lorgar did to half of his brothers and psychicly. I would ultimately agree that another Primarch such as Gulliame is properly a more competent tactician but dont rule lorgar out because he's not a the best in conflict.
@Magnus ,Void Dragon - You are soooo delusional, my God how old are you? 15 ? People were kind enough to warn me about you, but I didn't expect this...please don't comment my posts anymore...ty
BaconUprising wrote: I dont understand how you can say psychically commanding Horus, beating another Primarch into submission and defeating one of the greatest daemons ever is "nothing"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh also he's pretty much the sole reason for chaos entering the imperium and is technically the orchestrator of the Horus heresy...
So I don't think you seem to know what tactics are.
Psychic and martial power isn't a measure of tactical competence, nor are political machinations.
What are you on about!? All of those are forms of tactical competence, they are off course not all of them but they all showcase his talents that's my point. Your view of being tactical is obviously very narrow minded...
Automatically Appended Next Post: "your inferior to me" I'm afraid that is quite pathetic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lastly I agree (if it will please you) that Lorgar would be slapped around by Magnus during the Heresy in combat but to answer the actual question Lorgarbis a far better tactician.
2. Daemon Fulgrim is stronger than normal Fulgrim, and I frankly can't see why anyone would think otherwise. It wasn't Fulgrim's power that won that duel with Ferrus Manus on Istvaan V, Primarch Fulgrim was about to be overpowered and died. He had to use the daemon's power to survive. So no.
We're often on the same page, but I have to strongly disagree here. Daemon Fulgrim is a pale shadow of the real thing (especially when comes to being villainous...have you read Angel Exterminatus? That guy embrases Chaos more readily than Lorgar!). Fulgrim won both fights against his brother, what the daemon sword did was give him that extra push to deal the killing blow. With Lorgar now being the Chaos ambassador or whatever, he would have additional influence over a daemon.
My personal theory is that Lorgar's (and several of the dark Apostles') mental domination of others, although psychic in nature, isn't exactly traditional telepathy, but rather more like the Voice of the Bene Gesserit. That's what makes them such effective demagogues and demonancers.
Omegus wrote: Uh, Magnus knew Fulgrim was a demon, that's the first thing they discuss.
Yep, you are right, my bad, sorry -
Spoiler:
Magnus fell silent for some time. The only sound in the room was the scritch-scratch of Lorgar’s quill-tip, and the omnipresent bass murmur of the generators on the enginarium decks.
Fulgrim is dead.
‘So it seems.’ Lorgar stopped writing long enough to look up. ‘How long have you known?’
Magnus moved to the wall, reaching out as if his ethereal fingers could touch the paintings of Colchis hanging there.
I knew it as soon as I reached into Horus’s war room. He withdrew his fingers, curling them back with slow care. Like you, I am no stranger to the entities within the warp. One of them animates his body now.
+ Entities? Name them as they are, brother. Daemons. +
Magnus’s image wavered again, almost discorporated in the winds of Lorgar’s silent voice.
BaconUprising wrote:Tacticle competence is not solely measured by the ability to control an army, tactics can be manipulating other individuals which Lorgar did to half of his brothers and psychicly. I would ultimately agree that another Primarch such as Gulliame is properly a more competent tactician but dont rule lorgar out because he's not a the best in conflict.
Lorgar manipulated nothing. The initial framework of the heresy was constructed by Erebus, and to a lesser extent, Kor Phaeron, while Lorgar was off searching for his answers. Horus made his own decision to turn, as did Fulgrim. Angron was already crazy and didn't need much of a push. Perturabo turned out of guilt and shame. Magnus dropped the ball on his own. Mortarion was set-up by Typhus.
The battle of Calth is not a commendation of the Word Bearers' tactical acumen, considering they still lost despite having a ridiculous advantage and killing 100,000 Ultramarines in the initial sneak attack. The overarching goal of that whole enterprise was to summon warp storms anyway.
Garvy wrote:@Magnus ,Void Dragon - You are soooo delusional, my God how old are you? 15 ? People were kind enough to warn me about you, but I didn't expect this...please don't comment my posts anymore...ty
Pot calling the kettle black? The discussion seems pretty friendly to me so far, no need for hostility.
Wow did you really say that Void__Dragon? I don’t really know if there is some friendly banter between the two of you or not. If not, then this comment only serves to show how stupid these pissing competitions between the primarchs are. We are just going to accept, that the most lauded primarchs (for whatever reasons) are Horus, followed closely by Gulliman, Dorn and Lion.
I call out to the moderators to put an end to this thread. It serves no other purpose than causing more trouble and spite. Please let us put an end to this…
Maby I phrased that wrong but in a way lorgar did orchestrate the whole heresy without lorgars permission Erebus wouldn't have been able to influence Horus meaning no HH. If lorgar had chosen he could have had Erebus executed for heresy. It doesn't function without lorgar.
Omegus wrote: Giving someone the ok to do something, doesn't give you credit for what they do. Ordering a steak at a restaurant doesn't make you a chef.
And Dorn? Tactically sound? Most laughable comment in this whole thread.
Hmmm,but check this quote from the Horus risng :
Spoiler:
Rogal Dorn possessed perhaps the finest military mind of all the primarchs. It was as ordered and disciplined as Roboute Guilliman’s, as courageous as the Lion’s, yet still supple enough to allow for the flash of inspiration, the flash of battle zeal that had won the likes of Leman Russ and the Khan so many victory wreaths. Dorn’s record in the crusade was second only to Horus’s, but he was resolute where Horus was flamboyant, reserved where Horus was charismatic, and that was why Horus had been the obvious choice for Warmaster. In keeping with his patient, stony character, Dorn’s Legion had become renowned for siegecraft and defensive strategies. The Warmaster had once joked that where he could storm a fortress like no other, Rogal Dorn could hold it. ‘If I ever laid assault to a bastion possessed by you,’ Horus had quipped at a recent banquet, ‘then the war would last for all eternity, the best in attack matched by the best in defence.’ The Imperial Fists were an immovable object to the Luna Wolves’ unstoppable force.
I' m not so sure about him - but in "the Crimson fists" I was amazed how lowly IF was whooping Perturabo in space battle...but then I've read "Angel exterminatus" which raised my opinion on Perturabo sky high....
See spending half the crusade hanging out on Terra. See Siege of Terra. See Iron Cage incident. See last remembrancer. See Sword of Sacriledge. Dorm was full of fail.
Omegus wrote: See spending half the crusade hanging out on Terra. See Siege of Terra. See Iron Cage incident. See last remembrancer. See Sword of Sacriledge. Dorm was full of fail.
Well with him, I' don't know...there are like 100 versions of his emo stuff...so I will stay impartial + him after heresy...don't wanna comment because I'm still puzzeled....
I'm just afraid, that Sanguinius is on a good path in becoming a ultimate Mary Sue...
They should be very careful when battle for Terra will be played ( who will write him )...
BaconUprising wrote: Tacticle competence is not solely measured by the ability to control an army, tactics can be manipulating other individuals which Lorgar did to half of his brothers and psychicly. I would ultimately agree that another Primarch such as Gulliame is properly a more competent tactician but dont rule lorgar out because he's not a the best in conflict.
See, I have to disagree here. Tactics are solely measured by the ability to control an army. Compare... Hitler. Hitler was an excellent politician, he could sway others to his side with his speeches, he was competent at that. But as a commander of armies, he fell short.
Now, I don't think Lorgar is a particularly bad tactician, like, say, Angron seems to be. And after Monarchia, he proved he can indeed be competent when given direction. I could also see him being placed above Magnus as a tactician, who designed his army in such a way that it could largely act autonomously of his direct orders (The telepaths and diviners doing the actual directing). But put up with guys like Guilliman, Horus, the Lion, Perturabo, Russ, etc? Nawh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Garvy wrote: @Magnus ,Void Dragon - You are soooo delusional, my God how old are you? 15 ? People were kind enough to warn me about you, but I didn't expect this...please don't comment my posts anymore...ty
21 actually.
Lol. Warned you of me? Who? As if I am some dreaded figure in DakkaDakka history, whose very appearance in a thread means surrender? Maybe I should change my avatar to Konrad Curze then...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redcruisair wrote: Wow did you really say that Void__Dragon? I don’t really know if there is some friendly banter between the two of you or not. If not, then this comment only serves to show how stupid these pissing competitions between the primarchs are. We are just going to accept, that the most lauded primarchs (for whatever reasons) are Horus, followed closely by Gulliman, Dorn and Lion.
I call out to the moderators to put an end to this thread. It serves no other purpose than causing more trouble and spite. Please let us put an end to this…
Garvy has, very recently, waltzed into threads with little purpose but to insult me and insuate bias on my part, when, naturally, all I state is entirely, irrevocably, true. Like how he just did so concerning Magnus, in response to me pointing out that Magnus did, in fact, telepathically best Lorgar.
I hold no illusions that what I did was right, nor will I strive to claim some moral superiority over Garvy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Omegus wrote: Yes, BL is very inconsistent with their characterizations. Look at the Lion, for example.
Oh yeah, the impression I got from the DA novels set in the HH implied to me that, if anything, the Lion was a sociopath. ADB apparently went a different way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Omegus wrote: We're often on the same page, but I have to strongly disagree here. Daemon Fulgrim is a pale shadow of the real thing (especially when comes to being villainous...have you read Angel Exterminatus? That guy embrases Chaos more readily than Lorgar!). Fulgrim won both fights against his brother, what the daemon sword did was give him that extra push to deal the killing blow. With Lorgar now being the Chaos ambassador or whatever, he would have additional influence over a daemon.
My personal theory is that Lorgar's (and several of the dark Apostles') mental domination of others, although psychic in nature, isn't exactly traditional telepathy, but rather more like the Voice of the Bene Gesserit. That's what makes them such effective demagogues and demonancers.
I haven't read Angel Exterminatus, actually, nor have I read The Mirror Crack'd, which could make me mistaken in my assumption.
I can't agree that Lorgar won the fight against Ferrus Manus, the second time. Fulgrim was moment's away from dying when he gave into the Daemon's power to defeat his brother.
Well, Lorgar is at the very least still a supremely powerful telepath in the traditional sense as well. He was able to compel Horus to obey him.
Its funny to see how this poll asked who do people think is the best Tactician but a huge chunck of the replies are "Who my favorite is." ANYONE who says Leman Russ, Alpharius, Corax, Khan, Angron, or Night Lord fit in this category lol
Omegus wrote: See spending half the crusade hanging out on Terra. See Siege of Terra. See Iron Cage incident. See last remembrancer. See Sword of Sacriledge. Dorm was full of fail.
'half crusade hanging around terra' Okay thats a point IN Dorn's favor. The Emperor wanted the best to build his Palace and wanted an elite force to serve as his Vanguard and he picked the Imperial Fist.
'Siege of Terra' Another point in his favor as he leads the defense of the Imperial Palce against the Warmaster Horus, already believed to be one of the greatest leaders of the Imperium along with his Chaos allies. He did a damn fine job here holding out against a superior force long enough for reforcements to arrive.
'Iron Cage incident isnt a great example. On one hand he charged in like an idiot trying to get revenge. On the other hand he was able to organize a defensive stance that saved his legion from being destroyed when they should have been wipped out in one get go. This actually shows good tactics, poor strategy.
'Last Remembrancer' I dont see a huge problem here but this does put Dorn in a bad light. This is the first one Ill say goes completely against Dorn
'Sword of Sacriledge' Dorn sacifices his life to stop this Chaos Battleship and help save Cadia? This is NOT a negative for him.
Dorn is one of the Primarchs with a GOOD history actually. I understand you may not care for him but that doesnt mean he is actually a bad leader as it does turn out he is one of the better Primarchs. (Note he is not even close to be the best tactician of the group but that doesnt mean he is bad)
I see now what you are trying to tell me Void__Dragon and I’m very sorry if my previous post painted you as some nefarious troublemaker. Such was not my intent at all.
Hehe mental illness regarding the Primarches could be a hilarious discussion. With Horus and Guilliman suffering from delusions of grandeur. Dorn from battle-fatigue. Lorgar has serious daddy-issues. Russ suffer from lapses of judgement due to alcohol, Magnus from being a Cyclops and not throwing rocks at people like Russ expected, and the Emperor with his favoritism basically laid the groundwork for the Horus Heresy.
And that's just the Primarches I bother to name of the top of the hat.
Okay then. I'm not quite sure HOW people get so worked up about the fictional universe for our toy soldier hobby, but it's clear that some of you have had about enough of this thread. Next rude comment earns the poster a vacation.
2. Daemon Fulgrim is stronger than normal Fulgrim, and I frankly can't see why anyone would think otherwise. It wasn't Fulgrim's power that won that duel with Ferrus Manus on Istvaan V, Primarch Fulgrim was about to be overpowered and died. He had to use the daemon's power to survive. So no.
We're often on the same page, but I have to strongly disagree here. Daemon Fulgrim is a pale shadow of the real thing (especially when comes to being villainous...have you read Angel Exterminatus? That guy embrases Chaos more readily than Lorgar!). Fulgrim won both fights against his brother, what the daemon sword did was give him that extra push to deal the killing blow.
If I remember rightly, hadn't Fulgrim technically lost their second duel until he used the daemon sword to block Manus' attack? I'm not saying that he couldn't have done exactly the same thing with another sword, but it did more than just make his intended warning shot into a killing blow. I don't think that the daemon is necessarilly stonger or weaker than Fulgrim either, just less refined. Lucius noted that Fulgrim's swordplay had suffered since Isstvan (though how much of that was just Fulgrim trolling them is unclear), so they could be of comparable strength, with Lorgar gaining an advantage simply because, as you say, he likely has influence over daemonic entities.
2. Daemon Fulgrim is stronger than normal Fulgrim, and I frankly can't see why anyone would think otherwise. It wasn't Fulgrim's power that won that duel with Ferrus Manus on Istvaan V, Primarch Fulgrim was about to be overpowered and died. He had to use the daemon's power to survive. So no.
We're often on the same page, but I have to strongly disagree here. Daemon Fulgrim is a pale shadow of the real thing (especially when comes to being villainous...have you read Angel Exterminatus? That guy embrases Chaos more readily than Lorgar!). Fulgrim won both fights against his brother, what the daemon sword did was give him that extra push to deal the killing blow.
If I remember rightly, hadn't Fulgrim technically lost their second duel until he used the daemon sword to block Manus' attack? I'm not saying that he couldn't have done exactly the same thing with another sword, but it did more than just make his intended warning shot into a killing blow. I don't think that the daemon is necessarilly stonger or weaker than Fulgrim either, just less refined. Lucius noted that Fulgrim's swordplay had suffered since Isstvan (though how much of that was just Fulgrim trolling them is unclear), so they could be of comparable strength, with Lorgar gaining an advantage simply because, as you say, he likely has influence over daemonic entities.
Fulgrim was described as a "empty husk" during his possesion + when somebody attacks you when you're sitting on a bar stool, doesn't seem like a duel...
Excuse me, but I was of the impression that Ferrus had beaten Fulgrim so badly that only him allowing the demon to possess him was the reason for Fulgrim to beat Ferrus, and also for them (the Iron Hands) to regard the flesh as weak in turn.
Beaviz81 wrote: Excuse me, but I was of the impression that Ferrus had beaten Fulgrim so badly that only him allowing the demon to possess him was the reason for Fulgrim to beat Ferrus, and also for them (the Iron Hands) to regard the flesh as weak in turn.
No and no
I dont remember exactly how it went but it was NOT that Ferrus was kicking his ass. Ferrus could have prevailed in the end but Fulgrim was able to use his daemon aid to help him win, I dont remember exactly. I THOUGHT I remember it that it was Fulgrim winning but he didnt mean to kill Ferrus but he lost control and the Daemon did it and thats when Fulgrim began to regret it. Again I dont remember for sure, I just no it was not a one sided battle.
The second thing is DEFFINETLY wrong. The Iron Hands had ALWAYS regarded the flesh as weak even before that. In fact, Ferrus was quoted as saying that once the Great Crusade was over he would teach his legion that not all flesh is weak and that he will stop them from thinking that when things cool down.
So can we end this discussion with our results of the following:
Horus is stated by the lion as having the best tactics. Which was my poll question. So i guess many people who voted havent read Fallen angels.
Rogal dorn is stated as having a brilliant mind but the actual books about him say other wise.
Roboute Guilliman is a master strategist, but Horus once again is better, as stated in many books and fluff.
So... Horus wins in everything, tactics, strategy. And Guilliman is 2nd in Strategy, and Lion is 2nd in tactics. Dorn is somewhere... with them but has gotten no love.
By the way the best posts on here were from Void__Dragon ripping people apart while sounding similar to Magnus's speech style, i thought it was funny.
Beaviz81 wrote: Excuse me, but I was of the impression that Ferrus had beaten Fulgrim so badly that only him allowing the demon to possess him was the reason for Fulgrim to beat Ferrus, and also for them (the Iron Hands) to regard the flesh as weak in turn.
No and no
I dont remember exactly how it went but it was NOT that Ferrus was kicking his ass. Ferrus could have prevailed in the end but Fulgrim was able to use his daemon aid to help him win, I dont remember exactly. I THOUGHT I remember it that it was Fulgrim winning but he didnt mean to kill Ferrus but he lost control and the Daemon did it and thats when Fulgrim began to regret it. Again I dont remember for sure, I just no it was not a one sided battle.
The second thing is DEFFINETLY wrong. The Iron Hands had ALWAYS regarded the flesh as weak even before that. In fact, Ferrus was quoted as saying that once the Great Crusade was over he would teach his legion that not all flesh is weak and that he will stop them from thinking that when things cool down.
Beaviz81 wrote: Excuse me, but I was of the impression that Ferrus had beaten Fulgrim so badly that only him allowing the demon to possess him was the reason for Fulgrim to beat Ferrus, and also for them (the Iron Hands) to regard the flesh as weak in turn.
No and no
I dont remember exactly how it went but it was NOT that Ferrus was kicking his ass. Ferrus could have prevailed in the end but Fulgrim was able to use his daemon aid to help him win, I dont remember exactly. I THOUGHT I remember it that it was Fulgrim winning but he didnt mean to kill Ferrus but he lost control and the Daemon did it and thats when Fulgrim began to regret it. Again I dont remember for sure, I just no it was not a one sided battle.
Just to expand here, the duel was pretty evenly matched. After re-reading, they actually seem to have struck what would have been fatal blows to a normal person to each other at the same time- Fulgrim hit Ferrus in the head with Forgebreaker, and Ferrus used that opening to cut open Fulgrim's stomach. The pain Fulgrim felt because of that cut through the daemon's manipulations of him, which made him see Manus as a friend again, which would have left Manuis free to kill him if Fulgrim hadn't drawn the daemon blade in order to deflect it (it's not actually stated whether it was reflex or the daemon's manipulation that made him draw the sword). Fulgrim then beat Manus using the power of the daemon blade, then attacked Ferrus of his own free will when Ferrus tried to get his sword back, though he did try to prevent it being a killing blow while the sword was already set in motion.
Frecklesonfire wrote: So can we end this discussion with our results of the following:
Horus is stated by the lion as having the best tactics. Which was my poll question. So i guess many people who voted havent read Fallen angels.
Rogal dorn is stated as having a brilliant mind but the actual books about him say other wise.
Roboute Guilliman is a master strategist, but Horus once again is better, as stated in many books and fluff.
So... Horus wins in everything, tactics, strategy. And Guilliman is 2nd in Strategy, and Lion is 2nd in tactics. Dorn is somewhere... with them but has gotten no love.
By the way the best posts on here were from Void__Dragon ripping people apart while sounding similar to Magnus's speech style, i thought it was funny.
Frecklesonfire wrote: So can we end this discussion with our results of the following:
Horus is stated by the lion as having the best tactics. Which was my poll question. So i guess many people who voted havent read Fallen angels.
Rogal dorn is stated as having a brilliant mind but the actual books about him say other wise.
Roboute Guilliman is a master strategist, but Horus once again is better, as stated in many books and fluff.
So... Horus wins in everything, tactics, strategy. And Guilliman is 2nd in Strategy, and Lion is 2nd in tactics. Dorn is somewhere... with them but has gotten no love.
By the way the best posts on here were from Void__Dragon ripping people apart while sounding similar to Magnus's speech style, i thought it was funny.
The Lion thinks that, certainly, but the Lion also believed that buttering up Perturabo with siege engines would make him Warmaster. Evidently, he was wrong, all that accomplished was making Vulkan take starship weaponry to the face, and killing numerous men.
Frecklesonfire wrote: So can we end this discussion with our results of the following:
Horus is stated by the lion as having the best tactics. Which was my poll question. So i guess many people who voted havent read Fallen angels.
Rogal dorn is stated as having a brilliant mind but the actual books about him say other wise.
Roboute Guilliman is a master strategist, but Horus once again is better, as stated in many books and fluff.
So... Horus wins in everything, tactics, strategy. And Guilliman is 2nd in Strategy, and Lion is 2nd in tactics. Dorn is somewhere... with them but has gotten no love.
By the way the best posts on here were from Void__Dragon ripping people apart while sounding similar to Magnus's speech style, i thought it was funny.
The Lion thinks that, certainly, but the Lion also believed that buttering up Perturabo with siege engines would make him Warmaster. Evidently, he was wrong, all that accomplished was making Vulkan take starship weaponry to the face, and killing numerous men.
And lol, truly? I am flattered.
And then you ruined it.....Magnus is much more of a rofl primarch than an lol one
in the end tactics will only get you so far.
i'd say Guilliman would win based purely on the complete package which allowed him to field an absolutely ridiculous number of astartes
Manesni wrote: in the end tactics will only get you so far.
i'd say Guilliman would win based purely on the complete package which allowed him to field an absolutely ridiculous number of astartes
Thanks, to bad no one asked for that lol
Doesnt Sun Zhu or someone have a quote on what happens if you got good tactics but poor strategy and what happens if it is reversed?
Manesni wrote: in the end tactics will only get you so far.
i'd say Guilliman would win based purely on the complete package which allowed him to field an absolutely ridiculous number of astartes
Thanks, to bad no one asked for that lol
Doesnt Sun Zhu or someone have a quote on what happens if you got good tactics but poor strategy and what happens if it is reversed?
Probably. But none of the primarchs were very good at strategy anyway. Even if they were hands down the best fighters in the galaxy, they still shouldn't have been putting themselves on the front lines like that. They would have been better suited as champions instead of generals, since a general has to understand that it's good for the army if he doesn't put himself where a stray bullet or sniper can pick him off. Perturabo was the only primarch who understood this I think, even if Alpharius had an interesting work-around.
Manesni wrote: in the end tactics will only get you so far.
i'd say Guilliman would win based purely on the complete package which allowed him to field an absolutely ridiculous number of astartes
Thanks, to bad no one asked for that lol
Doesnt Sun Zhu or someone have a quote on what happens if you got good tactics but poor strategy and what happens if it is reversed?
Probably. But none of the primarchs were very good at strategy anyway. Even if they were hands down the best fighters in the galaxy, they still shouldn't have been putting themselves on the front lines like that. They would have been better suited as champions instead of generals, since a general has to understand that it's good for the army if he doesn't put himself where a stray bullet or sniper can pick him off. Perturabo was the only primarch who understood this I think, even if Alpharius had an interesting work-around.
The thing was that they could do both. They were unrivalled in the strategy which is what allowed them to be such good generals. Wait no what Im saying is backwards, you meant tactics I think here.
Strategy is done long before the battle begains covering battle to battle. Tactics is once the battle begans. Even so Primarchs could do both no problem because their ability to multitask was so good.
Also Rogal Dorn did a lot of commanding from a safer back position.
Finally, some of the best generals were constantly getting in trouble by their second in commands for being too close to the front lines. It inspires loyalty and causes the men to fight better if they see their leader is with them. Not the smartest thing to do sense a lot of them got shot in the process doing it. General Reynolds at Gettysburg and 'Stonewall' Jackson and Antietam. Both fine generals who the men loved, both killed from being to close to the front lines
Manesni wrote: in the end tactics will only get you so far.
i'd say Guilliman would win based purely on the complete package which allowed him to field an absolutely ridiculous number of astartes
Doesnt Sun Zhu or someone have a quote on what happens if you got good tactics but poor strategy and what happens if it is reversed?
Well, it's a good thing that Guilliman has both. The guy wrote the book on warfare. One can only imagine that it's got all of Sun Tzu's material in it too, lol. After all, Guilliman created his own empire. The other primarchs were generals, or warlords, or kings when the Emperor found them. Guilliman had already established his own empire.
How this poll is even close is astounding. Unless people just want to fall back on semantics of tactics vs strategy.
Want to know the reality? The Primarchs had very little use for tactics except in ensuring that their Sergeants and Captains were well versed. Tactics is a small unit consideration, and the Primarchs were commanding Legions. It's kind of a silly topic to begin with, since we really don't have many examples of the Primarchs actually being tacticians. We just know that, out of the primarchs, Guilliman was the undisputed master of warfare. Mind you, this doesn't diminish any of the other primarchs. It's just that there is always going to be a "best", and not everyone gets a trophy. Horus's selection as Warmaster had more to do with his charisma. Even he suggested that Guilliman was a better choice, and as he grew paranoid after being corrupted, was angry/worried that other primarchs thought he wasn't the best choice for the job.
And the quote you were looking for is "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Or perhaps "All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."
BTW, there is no such thing as Astartes, as a plural for Astarte. Adeptus Astartes is an Adeptus of the Astartes (stars/space/whatever). It isn't an Adeptus made up of Astartes. There is no singular Astarte. People get confused on this. A member of the USMC or the British Royals is a Marine, because the Marine Corps is a corps of Marines, corps being an organizational unit. On the other hand, a country has an Army, but an individual is not an army, he is a soldier.
BTW, there is no such thing as Astartes, as a plural for Astarte. Adeptus Astartes is an Adeptus of the Astartes (stars/space/whatever). It isn't an Adeptus made up of Astartes. There is no singular Astarte. People get confused on this. A member of the USMC or the British Royals is a Marine, because the Marine Corps is a corps of Marines, corps being an organizational unit. On the other hand, a country has an Army, but an individual is not an army, he is a soldier.
Pedant much?
More to the point, maybe in The Real World.
There is such a thing as an Astartes in the made up fictional funland known as 40K, isn't there?
Well, it's a good thing that Guilliman has both. The guy wrote the book on warfare. One can only imagine that it's got all of Sun Tzu's material in it too, lol. After all, Guilliman created his own empire. The other primarchs were generals, or warlords, or kings when the Emperor found them. Guilliman had already established his own empire.
How this poll is even close is astounding. Unless people just want to fall back on semantics of tactics vs strategy.
Want to know the reality? The Primarchs had very little use for tactics except in ensuring that their Sergeants and Captains were well versed. Tactics is a small unit consideration, and the Primarchs were commanding Legions. It's kind of a silly topic to begin with, since we really don't have many examples of the Primarchs actually being tacticians. We just know that, out of the primarchs, Guilliman was the undisputed master of warfare. Mind you, this doesn't diminish any of the other primarchs. It's just that there is always going to be a "best", and not everyone gets a trophy. Horus's selection as Warmaster had more to do with his charisma. Even he suggested that Guilliman was a better choice, and as he grew paranoid after being corrupted, was angry/worried that other primarchs thought he wasn't the best choice for the job.
And the quote you were looking for is "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Or perhaps "All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."
BTW, there is no such thing as Astartes, as a plural for Astarte. Adeptus Astartes is an Adeptus of the Astartes (stars/space/whatever). It isn't an Adeptus made up of Astartes. There is no singular Astarte. People get confused on this. A member of the USMC or the British Royals is a Marine, because the Marine Corps is a corps of Marines, corps being an organizational unit. On the other hand, a country has an Army, but an individual is not an army, he is a soldier.
Have you read the heresy bub? I think your oversight is astounding.
Every Primarch had something he was much better than everyone else at. Leman Russ was the best raider due to him being a Viking and such. For boring and pragmatic defensive tactics Rogal Dorn was the master. The best at garrisoning was Peturbo. For getting there fustest wuth tha mustest look for the Khan. Angron was the one unleashed for War is Hell. Gulliman was the best administrator. Horus the best conquer. And so on. They all had their facets
Obviously it is Horus, I mean - he almost took over Terra for sake! Getting there would be damn near impossible in the 'current' millenia 40, and then Russ, coz I love 'im.
Jimsolo wrote: I always thought that Angron was secretly the smartest of the Primarchs. It isn't spelled out anywhere, it's just my own private assessment.
See, I always thought the Primarchs were supposed to be, in addition to super-strong, super-smart. Capable of tactical reasoning and planning dozens of moves in advance, which explains part of why they were so successful. (And part of why their wars with each other were so bloody.)
One of the biggest dangers a Primarch could face would be another Primarch, capable of seeing through his brother's strategy. But Angron has the way around that.
If you attack your enemy hard enough, fast enough, and with enough raw, brutal aggression, then he will have to abandon whatever plans he has in motion and respond in kind. When you take it to the kill-or-be-killed level, and his only possible escape is to kill you first, then you have forced him to fight using your strategy. And, if you've been doing this for as long as Angron has, then the advantage is yours, since you are a master with this tactic and he but a novice.
Some people see Angron as nothing more than a raging, foolish brute, but I posit that he has found a genius of simplicity that has worked out pretty well for him so far.
rednecroncryptek wrote: Obviously it is Horus, I mean - he almost took over Terra for sake! Getting there would be damn near impossible in the 'current' millenia 40, and then Russ, coz I love 'im.
Horus' tactics are rumored to all be done by..
drumroll..
Alpharius.
Horus was a politician.. that's why he was warmaster.
Sanginius also was a good politician. Neither was the strategic equal to the Lion
Gulliman was great at LOGISTICS. He could move resources very efficiently and bring worlds and bureaucracy to a more streamlined fashion. He was NOT the equal to the Lion in strategy. Using the Codex Astartes as an example of this is like saying that the book that came with my pick-up truck is the definitive literature on automobiles. The Legions fought to great success without it. The Dark Angels. Spacewolves, Iron Hands, Raven Guard and a whole host of successors still fight without following it. The only reason that is was followed so widely was because Gulliman forced it down the few remaining Primarchs throats. Attacking Dorn when he wouldn't follow it as an example.
You can have all the resources in the world.. that doesn't mean you'll win wars. With such a huge legion to start with he should have EASILY surpassed the Lion and Horus's compliance totals... but he didn't. Why? Because he's a bureaucrat... not a general. Sure h can fill that role well, but not compared to some of his brothers level. If the Lion (or Horus) wold have had his numbers their compliance rate would have been astronomical.
Of course... comparing primarchs is comparing near equals, so the margins of difference is sometimes close. .
Humm wat? They aren't. Mind you, I agree with the Lion, with the exception that Horus was still better then him, but then it's an unfair comparison... Horus was the best at everything, basically. Between the 19 (or 20) others, the best strategist/tactician was the Lion.
But the Unforgiven aren't a Legion. 4-5 Chapters keeping close ties to each other doesn't make a Legion. Hell, by that standard the Black Templars would be the most uber awesome strategists/tacticians ever.
Fluff wise I believe the Lion would be the greatest tactician of the Primarchs. No debate that Alpharius, Horus and Guilliman were good tacticians, however each had a bit of a falling.
Alpharius' legion seems very good at one thing and that is subterfuge. Whilst you can do this instead of say, laying siege to a city, sometimes that city just HAS TO be siege and I don't think the Alpha legion would go about this in the most efficient way.
Guilliman's Codex was torn apart by the Tyranids as they were unlike any other foe ever encountered, granted the ultramarines did succeed but thats because certain captains believe "nuts to the codex I'll fight this war how I want to", then promptly get censored.
As for the Lion stacking up to Horus, I believe reasons the Lion was not made warmaster is because of a few of his personal failings. The Lion is not a good judge of character or diplomatic, shown by him counseling Nemeil on the purity of.... someone I can't remeber, causing Nemeil to actually question the Lions ability to judge character, then there was that whole "Giver Perturabo unholy siege tank" thing. And on Calaban Luther was is diplomat. Secondly because he;s not a people person, as seen in the short story where the Lion KARATE CHOPS NEMEILS HEAD OFF!
Horus, However is not only a great tactician, but also a diplomat and a charasmatic person, more than just a leader of men.
Horus was a politician.. that's why he was warmaster.
Sanginius also was a good politician. Neither was the strategic equal to the Lion
Gulliman was great at LOGISTICS. He could move resources very efficiently and bring worlds and bureaucracy to a more streamlined fashion. He was NOT the equal to the Lion in strategy. Using the Codex Astartes as an example of this is like saying that the book that came with my pick-up truck is the definitive literature on automobiles. The Legions fought to great success without it. The Dark Angels. Spacewolves, Iron Hands, Raven Guard and a whole host of successors still fight without following it. The only reason that is was followed so widely was because Gulliman forced it down the few remaining Primarchs throats. Attacking Dorn when he wouldn't follow it as an example.
You can have all the resources in the world.. that doesn't mean you'll win wars. With such a huge legion to start with he should have EASILY surpassed the Lion and Horus's compliance totals... but he didn't. Why? Because he's a bureaucrat... not a general. Sure h can fill that role well, but not compared to some of his brothers level. If the Lion (or Horus) wold have had his numbers their compliance rate would have been astronomical.
This was a ridiculously awesome and nonsensical rant for your first post. Bravo, good sir, bravo.
It's important to note that the Ultramarines were consistently noted as among the most successful legions. Their worlds brought into compliance were also known as among the most progressed and stable. The large numbers were due to the sold recruitment and training infrastructure Guilliman left in his wake. And yes, some bit of fluff have suggested the Dark Angels won more battles than the Ultramarines, though if you try to find all the instances of which primarch/legion won the most battles, you'll find examples that suggest the Sons of Horus, Space Wolves and Ultramarines as well.
But saying Guilliman wasn't a general? That's like going full slow. And you never go full slow. Everyone knows that. Plus, the Dark Angels are a Codex chapter, lol. So are the Iron Hands and Raven Guard. They all make their own tweaks to the organizational structure and the Raven Guard have their own preferred methods (which, it should be noted, are covered by the Codex so the Raven Guard are just more specialized, not necessarily "better" than other chapters). The Codex isn't like your car's manual. It's like surveying every great mechanic ever and combining every auto repair manual ever published into one thing so that you could fix or improve every car ever made.
Robinson92 wrote:
Guilliman's Codex was torn apart by the Tyranids as they were unlike any other foe ever encountered, granted the ultramarines did succeed but thats because certain captains believe "nuts to the codex I'll fight this war how I want to", then promptly get censored..
Censured, lol.
I've always kind of chuckled at this idea of the Tyranids being too weird for the Codex, as if there would be no tactics for swarming horde aliens. Then again, I think this bit of fluff comes from the 4th Edition Space Marines codex, which was written by Graham McNeill, who is probably the worst of the guys who writes Space Marines fluff. McNeill seems to really have no grasp on how warfare actually works, so this sounds like something he'd have written. The original story of the Battle of Macragge just had the Tyranid fleets so massive and unrelenting that they overwhelmed all resistance. And technically, it was Calgar's brilliant maneuvering in space that allowed the combined fleets to stop Behemoth. So I don't really know where this idea of a handful of captains doing their own thing came from.
Though, more on topic, it's important to note that it's not really a failing of Guilliman's either way. He probably would have found a way to fight the Tyranids. If the Space Marine commanders 10,000 years later couldn't, that's a different thing entirely.
As it had been said, strategy and tactics are not the same thing.
Hence, for me, we have:
Guilliman is the best "regent", imo, but he goes too much "by the book" to be the best tactician/strategist
Horus "delegates" much to the mournival (and when he does not, he makes mistakes)
Alpharius is the Intelligence men (typo intended )
On tactics (short term results, which in SM point of view is the compliance of a planet, a city for a 'normal warrior' ) I think we could put on top Russ, Kahn, with maybe the wolf king a bit "in the lead".
On strategy (long term) I see the Lion and the Angel: Jonson 'conquers' a planet with normal 'dark ages' men with a years-long plan (Luther is the charismatic one, the speaker, not the planner); Sanguinius has simply great potential for strategy, from his visions.
So, since the question was about tactics, I answered "Russ"
Obviously it is Horus, I mean - he almost took over Terra for 
sake! Getting there would be damn near impossible in the 'current' millenia 40, and then Russ, coz I love 'im. 
