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.

Because One Inquiisitor simply can't do it on her own - in time she might (or might not) be part of a cabal that tries to do something but not yet.

Have you noticed that how in many zombie and monster films the focus is really on the internal dynamic of the group of people fighting against the monsters? In such films in addition to the external threat, there is also an internal one. The people tun on each other or there is some backstabbing donkey-cave in the group. The story is way more interesting that way, instead of merely being about how the heroes beat the monsters.

Yeah - Burke was a great character in Aliens - nicely done.

And sometimes they are just really anoying or stupid characters you are going, seriously wtf - what have we got this prat doing that for!

Case in point is the last series of GOT,



Also remember that if the story of 40k is a film then this is a snap shot of a single moment in a single scene - and you are judging it on that.

 Crimson wrote:

Yes, I'd love that. But have you noticed how there has been several pages of people saying how an Inquisitor absolutely cannot do such a thing?

That's a gross misrepresentation of our position I'm afraid.

We're saying a SINGLE inquisitor, acting without the support of others of similar de facto power, cannot do it.

If a cabal led by an Inquisitor, with support of some High lords, most of the ecclesiarchy, maybe even some Space Marines with a grudge banded together it could absolutely happen!

 Mr Morden wrote:
Because One Inquiisitor simply can't do it on her own - in time she might (or might not) be part of a cabal that tries to do something but not yet.

Which is why I said on page two of this thread:

 Crimson wrote:

Furthermore, a single inquisitor alone could obviously not challenge Guilliman. It would require the Inquisition as a group, working together with other factions and people who were threatened by Guilliman upsetting the status quo.

Yeah - Burke was a great character in Aliens - nicely done.

And sometimes they are just really anoying or stupid characters you are going, seriously wtf - what have we got this prat doing that for!

Case in point is the last series of GOT,

Spoiler:

Cersei has been a good villian but they had a great moment where she seemingly offers peace (for now) to deal with the vast army of the dead............ but then they just have her revert to type when watching the "heroes" have to work with the "villian" wuld have been really intersting IMO. Is still a million times better than the books but I did find this a little disapointing.

Well, it is important to set believable motivations for those characters who tun against others. That's why I kept harping about that xeno-necromancy thing, as that could certainly work as such motivation for certain people and factions to turn against Guilliman.

Also remember that if the story of 40k is a film then this is a snap shot of a single moment in a single scene - and you are judging it on that.

Of course. And I'm willing to revise my judgement if the situation improves.

To get back on topic....

No one Inquisitor could go against Guilliman.

Not only is he the God Emperor’s Son, but his record is frankly beyond reproach, not to mention legendary. He set up Ultramar, a well known and respected enclave within the Imperium. He fought during the Crusade, Heresy and lead The Scouring.

He’s not just a ‘man’, but a living legend of ridiculous tactical acumen. He ensured the Legions were broken down to prevent another Heresy on the same scale.

He has only ever been a hero of the Imperium.

Anyone going against him would be consider petty and jealous, perhaps fearful of losing their own power.

Not to mention he’s leading the new Crusade, and with success (even before you factor in Imperial Propaganda).

Regardless of how he was returned to the fold, you just cannot stand in opposition to him. Do so, and you’re far more likely to be suspected of Heresy, rightly or wrongly. And let’s face it, with how the Inquisition actually works, someone somewhere will be all to happy to provide damning evidence against you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

He’s not just a ‘man’, but a living legend of ridiculous tactical acumen. He ensured the Legions were broken down to prevent another Heresy on the same scale.

Indeed!

"No one should have the authority to command the might of a full space marine legion. Oh, now install me as the highest authority of the whole Imperium and master of all its armies!"

He is truly a master tactician, as he succeeded in which Horus failed: taking over the Imperium!

He’s taking the reins in a time of extreme strife, on account of being the singularly best placed to do so.

Now, if he does a Palpatine once things are stabilised? Who knows.

But remember, he’s also the greatest Statesman humanity has ever seen - greater than even The Emperor in that regard. If he doesn’t abuse his position, why not have him lead the High Lords?

 Crimson wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

He’s not just a ‘man’, but a living legend of ridiculous tactical acumen. He ensured the Legions were broken down to prevent another Heresy on the same scale.

Indeed!

"No one should have the authority to command the might of a full space marine legion. Oh, now install me as the highest authority of the whole Imperium and master of all its armies!"

He is truly a master tactician, as he succeeded in which Horus failed: taking over the Imperium!

Question - what was he supposed to do when he was awoken? I don;t really see what else he could have done......He doesn't want the job, but there is no one else to do it.

As you repeatedly said the Imperium is in a terrrible state - realistically - saying "oh Well just carry on then guys" was not an option.

Comparing him to Horus is a bit pathetic, if he wanted to take over he could have done after the HH.

Also its better than GW just churning out models for the same old snowflake Marine Chapters.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He’s taking the reins in a time of extreme strife, on account of being the singularly best placed to do so.

Now, if he does a Palpatine once things are stabilised? Who knows.

But remember, he’s also the greatest Statesman humanity has ever seen - greater than even The Emperor in that regard. If he doesn’t abuse his position, why not have him lead the High Lords?

Well, I don't know... Why were other loyalist primarchs assumed to abuse their (way lesser) position? Why it so happens that the guy who invents the idea that others should give up their power is the only one who can trusted with (far greater) power? Seem pretty convenient to me.

This would be a reason for all non-Ultra space marines (and Ultras who have a shred of decency and are ashamed of their founders blatant hypocrisy) to distrust Guilliman.

Oh just stop. Please.

Which other loyalist Primarchs ‘were assumed to abuse their position’?

Seriously, that’s a new one on me.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Question - what was he supposed to do when he was awoken? I don;t really see what else he could have done......He doesn't want the job, but there is no one else to do it.

As you repeatedly said the Imperium is in a terrrible state - realistically - saying "oh Well just carry on then guys" was not an option.

What did other loyalist Primarch do after Guilliman had stripped them of their autority? Lead their chapters as generals. He could have put his tactical acumen in use without assuming a politiacal position. But he did not do this after the Heresy either, so this hypocrisy already originated then, so in that sense I didn't expect him to behave any differently now.

Comparing him to Horus is a bit pathetic, if he wanted to take over he could have done after the HH.

He did take over after the HH! He has the exact same position he assumed after the Emperor was out of the picture. "Oops, I was late to save you dad, I guess have to take over!" Too bad the other Primarch were pussies and let him get away with it, but then again, it is understandable that they didn't want to start another civil war just after the Heresy.

Guilliman would actually make an absolutely amazing villain, if GW would have balls to depict him as such.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh just stop. Please.

Which other loyalist Primarchs ‘were assumed to abuse their position’?

Seriously, that’s a new one on me.

That is Guilliman's whole rationale for breaking the Legions! No one man, not even a Primarch, should be trusted with such authority... Except Guilliman himself...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To get back on topic....

No one Inquisitor could go against Guilliman.

Not only is he the God Emperor’s Son, but his record is frankly beyond reproach, not to mention legendary. He set up Ultramar, a well known and respected enclave within the Imperium. He fought during the Crusade, Heresy and lead The Scouring.

He’s not just a ‘man’, but a living legend of ridiculous tactical acumen. He ensured the Legions were broken down to prevent another Heresy on the same scale.

He has only ever been a hero of the Imperium.

Anyone going against him would be consider petty and jealous, perhaps fearful of losing their own power.

Not to mention he’s leading the new Crusade, and with success (even before you factor in Imperial Propaganda).

Regardless of how he was returned to the fold, you just cannot stand in opposition to him. Do so, and you’re far more likely to be suspected of Heresy, rightly or wrongly. And let’s face it, with how the Inquisition actually works, someone somewhere will be all to happy to provide damning evidence against you.

I dunno, Populace in the Imperium are mostly depicted as a fearful and suspicious lot - stereotypical uneducated medieval folk. Imperium has no reliable and fast means of communication or travel, with worlds going years, decades or even centuries without contact with another imperial world. I could easily see a lot of people initially questioning the claims of a Primarchs miraculous return, and remaining a bit suspicious of him even after it is confirmed after who knows how long time.

Don't forget that Imperium is depicted as a medievally religious place, so faith is a VERY important thing, to a point which us 21st century people can hardly even understand. No doubt ecumenical depates over Guilliman place in Imperiums religious life must have raged for a long time. Entire religious sects must have risen, ones that either support him with extreme acts or that see him as a fraud or an anti-christ like figure that has come to fool the faithful. Civil unrest and wars must have raged on more religious parts of the Imperium over his return, imperial world declaring crusades against each other over varying opinions, with the Ecclesiarchys top brass being stuck between their vigilant peers and the restless masses.

I do hope we see how Primarchs return affects that side of the Imperium, since religiousness has always been an interesting and an important aspect of it - even though it's usually only used to shout "HERESY!!"

Guilliman might make an interesting villain, but that'd be a boring story. There's fifty novels from Black Library that are telling that story already, why do it again?
It's explored in Dark Imperium that the Second Founding, the creation of the High Lords of Terra, the disbanding of Greater Ultramar was done partly in a sort of post-traumatic state of emergency and partly because he thought (or wanted to think) that the Heresy was over, that the Crusade could begin again and that the major Chaos threat had been defeated. Now, ten millennia later he returns and sees that he was wrong; the post-Heresy reforms have simply resulted in a divided and weakened Imperium, and the threat he thought defeated has been regrouping all along. If Guilliman hadn't been nearly killed by Fulgrim, then I think Guilliman would have instigated these same changes much earlier.

Back on topic, you'd need to find a sufficiently large cabal of Inquisitors who are basically heretics. Remember, the Imperial Creed is just as strong in the Inquisition as it is in every other area of Imperial society (after all, Inquisitors are recruited from the Imperium, so that's obvious). There's no reason to think they'd be any less likely, as a group, to accept the miracle of the rebirth of one of His Holy Majesty's sons.

Why would he be a villain, He has been consistently written as a strong statesman who was loyal to the idea of the IOM. Even in the heresy novels when he founds a new Imperium he doesn't take the crown. He shares it with Sang and the Lion. Also he wasn't late to saving dad, the Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Ultras make a deliberate decision based on the situation for the BA to get to Terra while the UM and DA hold the line and distract the traitors. As for him taking over, both times he's done that he was reluctant to do so but pretty much had no real choice. Of the loyalists left after the Heresy we have Russ, Corvax, Dorn, maybe Vulkan and the Khan.

Russ is many things but a stateman and administrator isn't one of them. Corvax and the Khan also were not big on running the whole show, Vulkan might not have even been around and by that point didn't even want to lead his own legion. That leave Bobby G and Dorn. Dorn decided to run off and get most of his Legion killed due to his guilt and thoughts of failure.

So even back then it was always going to fall to him to keep it going. Now fast forward 10k years, things are worse than ever, all his brothers are dead or missing, he's openly stated he's tired and really doesn't want to deal with any of this but carries on because without him Humanity is likely doomed. He's actually a pretty compelling character but you keep assuming that anything that isn't the IOM is screwed for ever is simplistic and bad.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:


I dunno, Populace in the Imperium are mostly depicted as a fearful and suspicious lot - stereotypical uneducated medieval folk. Imperium has no reliable and fast means of communication or travel, with worlds going years, decades or even centuries without contact with another imperial world. I could easily see a lot of people initially questioning the claims of a Primarchs miraculous return, and remaining a bit suspicious of him even after it is confirmed after who knows how long time.

Don't forget that Imperium is depicted as a medievally religious place, so faith is a VERY important thing, to a point which us 21st century people can hardly even understand. No doubt ecumenical depates over Guilliman place in Imperiums religious life must have raged for a long time. Entire religious sects must have risen, ones that either support him with extreme acts or that see him as a fraud or an anti-christ like figure that has come to fool the faithful. Civil unrest and wars must have raged on more religious parts of the Imperium over his return, imperial world declaring crusades against each other over varying opinions, with the Ecclesiarchys top brass being stuck between their vigilant peers and the restless masses.

I do hope we see how Primarchs return affects that side of the Imperium, since religiousness has always been an interesting and an important aspect of it - even though it's usually only used to shout "HERESY!!"

Yeah, this is good stuff. This is the sort of thing that I was getting to when I said it matters much more what people believe than how things are.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Why would he be a villain, He has been consistently written as a strong statesman who was loyal to the idea of the IOM. Even in the heresy novels when he founds a new Imperium he doesn't take the crown. He shares it with Sang and the Lion. Also he wasn't late to saving dad, the Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Ultras make a deliberate decision based on the situation for the BA to get to Terra while the UM and DA hold the line and distract the traitors. As for him taking over, both times he's done that he was reluctant to do so but pretty much had no real choice. Of the loyalists left after the Heresy we have Russ, Corvax, Dorn, maybe Vulkan and the Khan.

Russ is many things but a stateman and administrator isn't one of them. Corvax and the Khan also were not big on running the whole show, Vulkan might not have even been around and by that point didn't even want to lead his own legion. That leave Bobby G and Dorn. Dorn decided to run off and get most of his Legion killed due to his guilt and thoughts of failure.

So even back then it was always going to fall to him to keep it going. Now fast forward 10k years, things are worse than ever, all his brothers are dead or missing, he's openly stated he's tired and really doesn't want to deal with any of this but carries on because without him Humanity is likely doomed. He's actually a pretty compelling character but you keep assuming that anything that isn't the IOM is screwed for ever is simplistic and bad.

He can pretend that he doesn't like being in charge, but he is in charge. He explicitly forbade his brothers from having similar (or actually way lesser) authority. That is rank hypocrisy however you look at it. If he truly believes that no one should have such authority, he should decline such a leadership position and accept the consequences. (Imperium survived several thousand years without him, so I'm sure they could manage a couple of more without him telling everyone what to do.) Or if he doesn't believe that, he should not have broken up the legions.

 Crimson wrote:
That is rank hypocrisy however you look at it. If he truly believes that no one should have such authority, he should decline such a leadership position and accept the consequences. (Imperium survived several thousand years without him, so I'm sure they could manage a couple of more without him telling everyone what to do.) Or if he doesn't believe that, he should not have broken up the legions.

It's actually only hypocrisy if he takes command of the Imperium whilst simultaneously believing no one man should ever be in charge. You're taking a snapshot of his thoughts at one specific point in time (immediately post-Heresy) and assuming it remains his viewpoint ten millennia later. Which, considering the established story, is factually incorrect.

People are allowed to change their minds without being hypocrites. People are also allowed to make mistakes and adjust their opinion to changed circumstances.

When Guilliman wrote the Codex Astartes and pushed to have the legions broken up, he believed it was the only way to ensure the stability of the Imperium. He broke up the Legions, and contrary to what you posted above, continued to lead the Ultramarines into battle personally. He retained the head of the Lordship of Terra, but didn't occupy it as a rule of thumb. It's why he was out hunting for Alpharius, and managed to get wounded by Fulgrim in the first place. He clearly thought that the remaining number of marines would be sufficient to safeguard the Imperium's interests.

Two and a half thousand years later, the War of the Beast proved him horrendously wrong. He wasn't there to see it, but he was wrong. And in ensuing time, more threats still have arisen. The Tyranids, the return of the Silent King, the Cicatrix Maledictum. The Imperium's position is not what it was before, Humanity's enemies are not what they were before, and no more of his loyalist brothers remain to fear another split. Looking over the history compiled by his new chroniclers, Guilliman will have ascertained that things are different, and his solution insufficient. And so his response has altered in kind.

Theoretical: Humanity is now surrounded by extinction level threats, a dispersed and broken command structure exists, and no Primarch insurrection is possible in the forseeable future.
Practical: Secure control of existing infrastructure, marshal necessary resources, streamline command structure, and establish coherent strategical oversight and direction.

 Ketara wrote:
It's actually only hypocrisy if he takes command of the Imperium whilst simultaneously believing no one man should ever be in charge. You're taking a snapshot of his thoughts at one specific point in time (immediately post-Heresy) and assuming it remains his viewpoint ten millennia later. Which, considering the established story, is factually incorrect.

But he became the the Lord Commander and a High Lord right after the Heresy (the same position he has now.) That's when the Legions were broken.

Oh, and if people think I try to paint him in questionable light because I don't like him, that is kinda true, but not in the obvious way. I would actually like him way more, if he clearly was a lying manipulative donkey-cave executing a tactical and ruthless power grab while cloaking himself in false honour. I could respect that. It would be twisted and grimdark. But this noble hero bs is just nauseating.

Congratulations on making this the most depressing thread I’ve ever encpuntered.

Top marks.

12/10.

Well done you.

 Crimson wrote:

But he became the the Lord Commander and a High Lord right after the Heresy (the same position he has now.) That's when the Legions were broken.

And functioned as merely one of the High Lords. Not as sole dictator, not as voice of the Emperor, not even as the Head of any of the great departments. The 'Lord Guilliman' position (as it became known) was effectively that of a Chairman on a company board. In other words, the bloke who calls the meeting to account, ennumerates the business of the day, and makes public statements on behalf of the Board. And as stated, he wasn't even there to do that most of the time; it was a ceremonial title.

There's no hypocrisy or conflict with him assuming that role and simultaneously believing that no one man should rule the Imperium; however much you might wish it.

 Ketara wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

But he became the the Lord Commander and a High Lord right after the Heresy (the same position he has now.) That's when the Legions were broken.

And functioned as merely one of the High Lords. Not as sole dictator, not as voice of the Emperor, not even as the Head of any of the great departments. The 'Lord Guilliman' position (as it became known) was effectively that of a Chairman on a company board. In other words, the bloke who calls the meeting to account, ennumerates the business of the day, and makes public statements.

There's no hypocrisy or conflict with him assuming that role and simultaneously believing that no one man should rule the Imperium; however much you might wish it.

It is the same position he has now and gives him command of all of Imperium's armed forces, certainly a position far more powerful than a leader of single legion.

Guilliman has taken over the Imperium before, in the aftermath of the Heresy (as the titular Lord Guilliman). The thing that makes him not a hypocrite? He actually stepped down from power, and lived up to his word.

He stabilised the Imperium, abdicated, and then got taken down by Fulgrim.
He fully admits that he made errors, but he knows that the best thing he can do (and Guilliman is nothing if not pragmatic) is take control again and slap some heads together. When he knows things are safe, will he step down again? Probably, but maybe that's where your "villainous" Guilliman might come in.

The problem is that you're trying to inject a degree of grimdark into a character who has been consistently on the right side of things (in intent, at least), whilst ignoring the flaws of that character, and their own moral issues (working with the Ecclesiarchy, dealing with the knowledge that his "father" doesn't care at all about him, seeing his works and species fail and falter, and the knoweldge that what he's doing is precisely what he wanted to avoid).
A story isn't worse for having morally pure and noble characters. Nor does having those characters detract from a gritty and "grimdark" setting. In many cases, having those characters can ENHANCE the grimdark and fatalistic setting.

The Lord of the Rings works well due to the contrast of the pure and innocent Hobbits against characters hungry for power: Gollum/Smeagol, Denethor, Saruman, and Sauron. The evil in that is contrasted by a good force, and that enhances the evil. 40k, before the Gathering Storm, was getting too close to a point where, because there was no actual contrast, and everyone was evil, humanity was DOOOOOOOOOOOMED, the setting had no real tension. It was just a slope downwards into darkness.

Now, it's far more tense, with Chaos and the xenos forces gaining ground against a weakened Imperium, but the Imperium is renewed with new vigor, resolve, and an actual figurehead with internal miring and conflict (not war-conflict, but thought-conflict).

The aforementioned Theoretical/Practical quote is fantastic. It's exactly what must be going on for Guilliman in his head.

Firstly, he's now 'Imperial Regent', not 'Lord Guilliman' (the Lordship for that position/job role fell out of use after the War of the Beast). Secondly, the position did not entail the responsibilities he currently holds now back then (making it impossible to have forseen what would result from his being amongst the Lords of Terra). Thirdly, his current power derives from his solely representing the direct authority of the Emperor; something he did not possess then.

I repeat, you are taking a snapshot of his thoughts on administrative structure from 30K, and applying it to a completely different scenario in 40K. His position is not the same, the Imperium's structure is not the same, and the Universe generally is not the same.

Him splitting up the legions isn't remotely the same as him heading the Imperium though. The legions were split so that if corruption took hold it would be more isolated. So they'd only have to deal with ~1000 marines instead of ~100,000. It's not so much him not wanting one man to have too much power as it is having fail safes so that if one man succumbs he doesn't take half the Imperium with him. It's risk management. Sure he could theoretically get turned to chaos while leading the Imperium and take the whole thing down with him but someone has to be in charge. If there isn't a leader the Imperium will just implode into civil war.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The problem is that you're trying to inject a degree of grimdark into a character who has been consistently on the right side of things (in intent, at least), whilst ignoring the flaws of that character, and their own moral issues

This, in a nutshell. Guilliman has his flaws. He has little imagination compared to his brothers, he wants to render everything down to numbers and figures. He's not the most powerful fighter, and he's willing to morally compromise to get his way. He's a sore loser. I could go on, but the point is made. Trying to say he's all either a hypocrite or noblebright is just denying the complexity of the existing character.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Guilliman has taken over the Imperium before, in the aftermath of the Heresy (as the titular Lord Guilliman). The thing that makes him not a hypocrite? He actually stepped down from power, and lived up to his word.

He stabilised the Imperium, abdicated, and then got taken down by Fulgrim.

Did he step down? Could you elaborate on that?

The problem is that you're trying to inject a degree of grimdark into a character who has been consistently on the right side of things (in intent, at least), whilst ignoring the flaws of that character, and their own moral issues (working with the Ecclesiarchy, dealing with the knowledge that his "father" doesn't care at all about him, seeing his works and species fail and falter, and the knoweldge that what he's doing is precisely what he wanted to avoid).
A story isn't worse for having morally pure and noble characters. Nor does having those characters detract from a gritty and "grimdark" setting. In many cases, having those characters can ENHANCE the grimdark and fatalistic setting.

Not if those characters are big damn heroes who succeed and rule the whole damn thing. Heroism is for guardsmen who die a miserable death, unsung and unremembered. Guilliman is a boring character, he is a invincible honourable superguy who has been given the highest authority in the setting and he even has audacity to angst about it.

The Lord of the Rings works well due to the contrast of the pure and innocent Hobbits against characters hungry for power: Gollum/Smeagol, Denethor, Saruman, and Sauron. The evil in that is contrasted by a good force, and that enhances the evil. 40k, before the Gathering Storm, was getting too close to a point where, because there was no actual contrast, and everyone was evil, humanity was DOOOOOOOOOOOMED, the setting had no real tension. It was just a slope downwards into darkness.

Everyone being evil, was the fething point! As much as I like Middle-Earh 40K should not be that sort of setting where there are clear good guys, it ruins the whole bloody thing.

 Ketara wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The problem is that you're trying to inject a degree of grimdark into a character who has been consistently on the right side of things (in intent, at least), whilst ignoring the flaws of that character, and their own moral issues

This, in a nutshell. Guilliman has his flaws. He has little imagination compared to his brothers, he wants to render everything down to numbers and figures. He's not the most powerful fighter, and he's willing to morally compromise to get his way. He's a sore loser. I could go on, but the point is made. Trying to say he's all either a hypocrite or noblebright is just denying the complexity of the existing character.

Agreed - lots of great replies here and from Sgt_Smudge

 Ketara wrote:
Firstly, he's now 'Imperial Regent', not 'Lord Guilliman' (the Lordship for that position/job role fell out of use after the War of the Beast). Secondly, the position did not entail the responsibilities he currently holds now back then (making it impossible to have forseen what would result from his being amongst the Lords of Terra). Thirdly, his current power derives from his solely representing the direct authority of the Emperor; something he did not possess then.

I repeat, you are taking a snapshot of his thoughts on administrative structure from 30K, and applying it to a completely different scenario in 40K. His position is not the same, the Imperium's structure is not the same, and the Universe generally is not the same.

The Regent thing is not mentioned in any of the studio material, only in the BL books. All studio material just refer him as Lord Commander of the Imperium. Regardless, Lord Commander is certainly an authority level comparable to a leader of a legion, and arguably far greater.

 Crimson wrote:

The Regent thing is not mentioned in any of the studio material, only in the BL books. All studio material just refer him as Lord Commander of the Imperium. Regardless, Lord Commander is certainly an authority level comparable to a leader of a legion, and arguably far greater.

Errr...so? He's in charge of Imperium now, yes. He wasn't before. The position/duties he held then and the one he holds now are not comparable (either in title or execution). His views then and now have changed. The situation then and now are different.

When he sat as the Lord Guilliman in 30K, he drew up minutes in between charging off to fight in various corners (when I imagine the machinery worked just fine without him, given he didn't actually run any department). I daresay Dorn, Corax, or Russ would have been accorded a similar empty accolade/position on the Council of Terra if they'd wanted it. But none of them did. Crikey, given that he was wandering off to hunt his brothers and lead campaigns, I can't imagine he was having much fun or wielding any substantive power there.

When you get right down to it, he's obviously the man to be providing strategic oversight and streamlining resource management; he can do it better than anyone. What he really needs is another two brothers to come back; Imperium secundus style. Then he can get on with the business of keeping the gears grinding, a better fighter/tactical operative than him can take the frontline, and a third can play figurehead. If Vulkan and the Khan returned tomorrow, I daresay he'd cede the position at the top and at the front in a minute.

 Ketara wrote:


Errr...so? He's in charge of Imperium now, yes. He wasn't before. The position/duties he held then and the one he holds now are not comparable (either in title or execution). His views then and now have changed. The situation then and now are different.

When he sat as the Lord Guilliman in 30K, he drew up minutes in between charging off to fight in various corners (when I imagine the machinery worked just fine without him, given he didn't actually run any department). I daresay Dorn, Corax, or Russ would have been accorded a similar empty accolade/position on the Council of Terra if they'd wanted it. But none of them did. Crikey, given that he was wandering off to hunt his brothers and lead campaigns, I can't imagine he was having much fun or spending much time there.

As far as the studio fluff is considered his position is identical to what the held when he was last around. Lord Commander of the Imperium was then, as it is now the leader of all Imperium's armed forces. Isn't it pretty clear that is position greater than a leader of a single legion?

When you get right down to it, he's obviously the man to be providing strategic oversight and streamlining resource management. What he really needs is another two brothers to come back; Imperium secundus style. Then he can get on with the business of keeping the gears grinding, a better fighter/tactical operative than him can take the frontline, and a third can play figurehead. If Vulkan and the Khan returned tomorrow, I daresay he'd cede the position at the top and at the front in a minute.

Oh yes, here is again the narrative where only a Primarch can accomplish anything of value.

Let’s just all agree to pop him on ignore?

 Crimson wrote:

As far as the studio fluff is considered his position is identical to what the held when he was last around. Lord Commander of the Imperium was then, as it is now the leader of all Imperium's armed forces. Isn't it pretty clear that is position greater than a leader of a single legion?

Sorry, just to clarify here; because I want to understand if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Given that Guilliman:

i) clearly wasn't directing the collective forces of the Imperium post-Heresy,
ii) wasn't claiming to speak for the Emperor post-Heresy,
iii) claimed no prerogative above his brothers or the Lords of Terra collectively post-Heresy,
iv) had no successor of his formal seat/position do any of the above either

With all that, are you actually trying to say that the position Guilliman occupied immediately post-Heresy is the same (meaning the same in all respects) identical formal position as the one he has now in 40K?

Oh yes, here is again the narrative where only a Primarch can accomplish anything of value.

Please don't put words into my mouth. It only makes you look disingenuous.

Guilliman is a superhuman with a level of strategic cognition and acumen far above that of any other remaining Imperial servant. He also has considerably more experience than any other, and can function as a religious icon in the way no other competitior currently can. He is therefore the obvious theoretical choice for piecing the Imperium back together at this point given existing options.