Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Primarchs were all great warriors, and I think ultimately anyone of them would have a chance of besting any other in a fight, especially given the right circumstances.
Nonetheless, it is clear some were regarded as better fighters than others, and based upon reputation and accomplishments during the Crusade and Heresy I think it is possible to make a ranging.
Here is my opinion on Primarch fighting strenght:

Greatest fighters:
1. Angron
2. Leman Russ

Great fighters:
3. Sanguinius
4. Fulgrim
5. Lion El'Johnson
6. Konrad Curze

Good fighters:
7. Horus (before corruption)
8. Perturabo
9. Roboute Guilliman
10. Corvus Corax
11. Rogal Dorn
12. Vulkan
13. Mortarion

Meh fighters
14. Ferrus Manus
15. Magnus
16. Lorgar

Unrankable
Horus (when powered by Chaos)
Jagathai Khan (anyone know anything about him?)
Alpharius Omegon (same as the Khan)

Well Sanguinius should be in the top 2 by this list. The Primarchs widely agreed that Sanguinius would be the only one able to go toe to toe with Angron. Leman Russ is good but he's not top 2. Put him top 3 if you like.

Ferrus Manus was a great fighter too. That hammer of his was lethal and he was a raging train of detruction, who lost to Fulgrim because as you say, Fulgrim is a great swordsman.

Lorgar was actually pretty good in Betrayer. He's not shown fighting much. But as the guy above you mentioned, he was capable enough to use his long morning star to keep distance and momentum, so he's at less capable.

Khan was also a great swordsman I hear, but like you said not much to say about him.

Otherwise looks alright.

 Deadshot wrote:

Ferrus Manus was a great fighter too. That hammer of his was lethal and he was a raging train of detruction, who lost to Fulgrim because as you say, Fulgrim is a great swordsman.

The first time Mannus and Fulgrim fought Fulgrim won. The second time Manus was winning until the Daemon with the sword Fulgrim was wielding added to Fulgrim's strength. Which adds support to the "depends on the situation, mindset, luck or what have you" theory.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Ferrus Manus was a great fighter too. That hammer of his was lethal and he was a raging train of detruction, who lost to Fulgrim because as you say, Fulgrim is a great swordsman.

The first time Mannus and Fulgrim fought Fulgrim won. The second time Manus was winning until the Daemon with the sword Fulgrim was wielding added to Fulgrim's strength. Which adds support to the "depends on the situation, mindset, luck or what have you" theory.

I'll have to check that. I remember that Fulgrim won and then realized that he'd beat his best friend, hesitated, then the demon took over and pushed him over the edge.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Ferrus Manus was a great fighter too. That hammer of his was lethal and he was a raging train of detruction, who lost to Fulgrim because as you say, Fulgrim is a great swordsman.

The first time Mannus and Fulgrim fought Fulgrim won. The second time Manus was winning until the Daemon with the sword Fulgrim was wielding added to Fulgrim's strength. Which adds support to the "depends on the situation, mindset, luck or what have you" theory.

To be fair though, Manus wasn't completely aware of the situation th first time. He was just annoyed and disgusted with thoughts of betrayal, but he wasn't trying to kill Fulgrim. In the second fight Manus wasn't holding back, he was out for blood, and he did much better. You also have to take into account that Fulgrim was wielding Fireblade the first fight, and Forgebreaker the second. Fulgrim is an amazing swordsman, but evidently not as good with other weapons, even Forgebreaker. The novel, Fulgrim, has a line which says something similar "The warhammer felt good in his hands, like it was made for him and only him, which it was of course."

So basically, give them both the weapon they made for their own use, Forgebreaker to Fulgrim and Fireblade to Manus, and put both on even ground (trying to kill) and Ferrus wins.
Give Fulgrim a sword, either the Laeran Blade or Fireblade, and he wins.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Primarchs were all great warriors, and I think ultimately anyone of them would have a chance of besting any other in a fight, especially given the right circumstances.
Nonetheless, it is clear some were regarded as better fighters than others, and based upon reputation and accomplishments during the Crusade and Heresy I think it is possible to make a ranging.
Here is my opinion on Primarch fighting strenght:

Greatest fighters:
1. Angron
2. Leman Russ

Great fighters:
3. Sanguinius
4. Fulgrim
5. Lion El'Johnson
6. Konrad Curze

Good fighters:
7. Horus (before corruption)
8. Perturabo
9. Roboute Guilliman
10. Corvus Corax
11. Rogal Dorn
12. Vulkan
13. Mortarion

Meh fighters
14. Ferrus Manus
15. Magnus
16. Lorgar

Unrankable
Horus (when powered by Chaos)
Jagathai Khan (anyone know anything about him?)
Alpharius Omegon (same as the Khan)

Well Sanguinius should be in the top 2 by this list. The Primarchs widely agreed that Sanguinius would be the only one able to go toe to toe with Angron. Leman Russ is good but he's not top 2. Put him top 3 if you like.

Ferrus Manus was a great fighter too. That hammer of his was lethal and he was a raging train of detruction, who lost to Fulgrim because as you say, Fulgrim is a great swordsman.

Lorgar was actually pretty good in Betrayer. He's not shown fighting much. But as the guy above you mentioned, he was capable enough to use his long morning star to keep distance and momentum, so he's at less capable.

Khan was also a great swordsman I hear, but like you said not much to say about him.

Otherwise looks alright.

Leman Russ was the only Primarch that actually went toe to toe with Angron, and came out alive, so that is why I put him on 2 rather than Sanguinius. Sanguinius may be better than Russ, but apart from Ka'Bandha, I don't recall Sanguinius actually fighting any noteworthy foes.
Ferrus Manus is so low because he literally and figuratively lost his head in a duel with another primarch. He is very strong, but his emotions negatively impact his fighting ability.
Lorgar is a great fighter too, but when compared to the other Primarchs, he is probably the worst. Someone has to be in that last place.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Leman Russ was the only Primarch that actually went toe to toe with Angron, and came out alive, so that is why I put him on 2 rather than Sanguinius.

"Went toe to toe"? He got beat, and then he got saved by his legion. Just like Roboute Guilliman did. Although he was actually fighting two primarchs at once for a while there, so arguably his feat was more impressive.