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.

Guiliman was always the tactician in general, everyone else had certain specialties, e.g.

Sanguinius/ Angron = shock troops, close assault

Khan, hit & run, lightning assault,

Corax, stealh

And so on, but Robute, he was an all rounder.

Why did 8 people choose Russ?
'Raaagh! Beer! Hot woman! Raaagh Blood for the... Err, Emperor! Wolfcharge! Wolfsmash! Clawslash! Raagh!' Makes you a good tactician? Oh my..
Its Guilliman, if you hate ultramarines or not, it is him.
FACE IT

Am sorry, but Gulliman is the logistics guy, he wins you wars.
Horus is the diplomat, he wins you wars without a shot.
The Lion is where Tactics is, He wins you battles.

The old fluff, about the most wins, had Horus at n°1 ( because he used his brethren but was said to leave the ground work to others ) and The Lion and ?Russ? ( IIRC ) close to this.

Russ isnt a tactician. He may win battles, but tactical? 'Nope'

thenoobbomb wrote:Russ isnt a tactician. He may win battles, but tactical? 'Nope'

Except that winning battles to the extent Russ, or any Primarch can achieve requires tactics, which is the immediate application of battlefield experience and knowledge within an immediate conflict. Russ' tactics would resemble a wolf's low and predatory cunning, but tactics he has. Otherwise he wouldnt be winning wars in the Emperor's name. Now if you're talking about being a strategist, then we can say Russ is probably most definitely not a good strategist, as he is often depicted as too impetuous and headstrong for strategy.

As others have mentioned, I think people are mistaking tactics for strategy and vice versa...

BlaxicanX wrote:Who's "he"?

edit- Ah. Did a google search on a hunch. I haven't read either of the Dark Angels HH novels yet.

Thats ok, but thou should not sayeth that there is nothing to back up Lions tactical mastery...when there is

Also the Index astartes say lion is the best... and some of the Heresy novels say the other primarchs "alude" to him being the best strategist

I would say it's a toss-up between Horus and Guilliman.

Horus and his Lunar Wolves came up top in the overall in the Great Crusade and Ultramarines second, but Ultramarines (Guilliman) took more time and care in the aftermath of military efforts, so he "may" (hypothetically) have come out top if he would have been as ruthless as Horus.

With the exception of the Luna Wolves, no Legion conquered as many worlds, or conquered worlds as fast, or left conquered worlds in such good state during the Great Crusade, as the Ultramarines. Whenever Guilliman liberated a world, he would not move on until he had set up a self-sufficient defense system, and left advisors behind to create industry, set up trade routes with the rest of the Imperium, and form a government whose first concern would always be the well-being of the people.

Also, according to the 3rd Edition Space Marine Codex

Roboute was a prodigy, growing fast in both body and intellect. By age ten, he had mastered every subject the wisest men of Macragge could teach him, and his insights into matters of history, philosophy, and science often stunned his elders. However, his greatest talents were as a military leader.

So if you think Guilliman's greatest talent was.. for example.. politics, diplomacy or logistics, keep in mind that his military leadership-skills surpassed his other talents at all times.

Russ had battle cunning or more like predatorial instict and nobody can top on the battlefield ( that's why he had a role of executioner ) - BUT mother of them ALL was HORUS LUPERCAL (guy who become warmaster , for Chris sake)

I went with Guilliman. I don't like the Ultramarines, but the guy is a legend.

As others have mentioned, I think people are mistaking tactics for strategy and vice versa...

Welcome to the world of the armchair general.

I actually agree with Manchu. The Dark Angel's Codex (I think that's where it is) states Johnson is a tactical genius above the other Primarchs, but I don't really feel that fluff is supported as much as Robot Gulliverman (and btw, I do hate the super special flowers that are the Ultramarines).

Of course. this ignores that the tactical ability of the Imperium at large, and 40k in general, seems to be quite lacking. I mean, the moment a flank becomes a brilliant idea (and that you didn't notice you're being flanked by a Titan...), you've thrown out the book of realism, especially since the words tactics and strategy get used so interchangeably.

And in that sense I find this question kind of blarg.

To be fair, it is most often the absurdity of the 40K setting that confuses strategy (e.g. how to conquer a planet) with tactics (e.g. how a 10-man unit adapts smartly to changing circumstances) because planets here are often invaded by 10 people (or defended by even less.. see Maugan Ra's exploits against Tyrandis )

So the distinction is - as far as 40K goes - is usually mute...

Ok I am not a smurf fan boy, but if the the OP is basing his poll on pure fluff then although Robute is a true all around general he was more the consummate diplomat than a tactician...
Based on pure fluff I would say that Khan was the most pure tactician of all of them sure he was all about hit and run, and lightening attacks but if you look at it from a tactician point hit & run takes a whole lot more plan and strategy than the straight on standard battle plan.... That is why still today the Apache and guerrilla fighting is considered one of the most dangerous forms of combat tactically...

I say it is definately the Lion. LordofHats is right, the DA codex says that he is a supreme tactictian.
and to everyone asking where are his stories of tactical prowess? Guilliman and some other primarchs got a lot more story time. But there are still a few stories that show how great a tactician that Lion El' Johnson was, particularly the story of the Lion and the Wolf.
Where Russ wanted demanded that he lead an immediate attack, he was denied. Lion el'Johnson had spent days gathering intel on the enemy headquarters and had planned a detailed assault. When the Dark Angels went to battle, they took the fortress with ease and very few casualties. Russ watched from the ground as the Lion killed the rebel leader on top of high walls of the fortress.

Its a shame the Great Khan isn't really mentioned as a great strategist, especially since he is based on my personal favorite historical strategist Genghis.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:LordofHats is right, the DA codex says that he is a supreme tactictian.

But don't all codices tout their own factions?

Gulliman.

He wrote the Codex Astartes.

Enough said.

So far it seems the blue flower is getting more votes, because he had a major triumph with the fall of the chaos armies when the emperor went down, this shows me how strong of a character he is, not that hes some great strategist or battle commander. He manned up huge, no doubt about it, but Ive seen some arguments and i'm really convinced that Horus is the best of them all, from a diplomat stand point, Lion from the battlefield point of view, and Guilly from and all round stand point. However i do not know much about Khan, but it seems like he could be best of everyone to be honest.

Khan's tactic: go faster. Can someone enlighten me as to why he's the best?

Manchu wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:LordofHats is right, the DA codex says that he is a supreme tactictian.

But don't all codices tout their own factions?

Cus fasta'as betta?

LordofHats wrote:Cus fasta'as betta?

Oi! Zoggin git doesn't even paint 'is bike red! 'Ows 'e even dat fast?

What tactical brilliance has Guilliman exhibited?

I was under the impression that the Ultramarines where sent to conquer the entire South and Eastern part of the Galaxy, while all the other primarchs dick around in the western/north part.

Wasn't it implied in Know No Fear that the Ultramarines had conquered the biggest part of the Imperium at that point? That the Ultramarines had swelled to be the biggest Legion?

You can't conquer the most and grow the most without being a genius in all forms of Warfare, imo.

The "whose best" argument has been made before, Id say there all more or less equal.

Think for a second, say we pit Magnus the red against Angron in each of their expertise.

Obviously, in a purely psychic war, Magnus would win (partly cause Angron doesn't have powers), however, i a purely close combat fight, Angron will obviously win.

Let me rattle through them like this:

Horus: He is the guy who uses every guy he has to achieve victory. Always described as "using all his brothers) he doesn't just run in and go smash with his armies approach, He would (pre heresy) get The Alpha legion to undermine the command structure, or the Night lords to terrify the whole defense force into being easier to kill. Every Tool is used, not just the ones he likes.

Fulgrim: Many wouldnt think of his as being tactical but you have to remember, he did extinguish the Laer within a month. His tactic is for not just the people you train to be armed well and trained well, but to arm them and train them really well. Once thats done he tells them where to go and leads from the front, ensuring that his troops do their job.

Perturbo: As the seige expert, he is pretty tactical. You have to know where to send your troops at what point, after all.

Mortarion: His legion specialize in attrition warfare, therefore its key to know how to wear people down , attacking while sustaining minimum casulties and all that.

Angron: You need to know where to send your troops, even the best close combat fighter is useless if away from an enemy he can fight.

Lion: He seems capable of tactical thinking, and has done so on many occasions.

Alpharius Omeagon: Very tactical and expert in creating complicated plans of Tzeentch like proportions.

Vulkan: Never really read in to Vulkan, but as a techie, Id say he is capable commander.

Corax: In the books I read, Corax seems very cleaver, factoring in percentages and probabilities into his plans and predicting his enemies moves before they know, he is definatly tactical.

Ferrus: Towards the end, not really but before that he seemed a very tactically sound legion, as analytical machine marines they know how to approach a situation. Plus, when Ferrus absorbed the dragoshard through his hands, I reckon he had part of its tactical knowledge imprinted into his memories.

Lorgar: As the only primarch who doesnt want to be a warrior, Lorgar's skill isnt combat or low alt strikes, however his skill is to inspire people to greatness and his devotion means that he will always try his best.

Magnus: with powers like that, he could probably see every move years before its time. He knew what to do.

Dorn: Defence expert, You need to know how to defend an obstacle or your useless at your role.

Konrad Curze: He had a good Idea, to stop people from being tempted, make them fear you. That is a good tactic.

Kahn: A few times I heard of him being described as reckless and bloodthirsty (though that could well be just memories from the Dornian Heresy. But he must be tactical to stage lightning strikes like he did

Sanguinius: I remember hearing Horus say that Sanguinius should of been made warmaster and not him (this was on Davin) and I also Imagined his tactics to be pretty simple of effective.

Guilliman: He is tactical, no doubt about it, no other primarch managed to sustain minimal damage during the heresy, get "distracted" for long enough to not realist something was going on at Terra or turn up to fight far too late in order to help but still arrive in time to wrte a book that you dictate everybody must follow despite the fact it severely weakened the space marines forever. His exploits during the great crusade were pretty basic. They just come across as the biggest, most pompous of the Primarchs, like the smug older brother who has the biggest room that your always told that you should be more like whilst every time he winds you up you get told off for shouting at him. He is tactical simply because he manages to grab fame without putting in a lot of effort.

Russ: He does have a tactic, like Angron, your CC troops are pointless if you are out of combat.

Well, according to Sun Tzu:

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

Guess Curze and Alphy win this one

thenoobbomb wrote:Russ isnt a tactician. He may win battles, but tactical? 'Nope'

The Codex Astartes says different.

And I quote:

" Many of the most brilliant minds of the age contributed to the Codex Astartes. It describes not only methods of fighting wars, but also deals with such diverse elements as organizing troops, establishing supply lines, clothing and feeding troops, subtrefuge, and espionage, and of course, countless tactics and ploys to confound the opposing commander.

With such brilliant minds as the Space Marine Primarchs Leman Russ and El'Johnson offering sagely advice, as well as the practical wisdom of the great Imperial Guard commander General Tybour, the Codex Astartes has always been regarded as an essential part of every young officer's education. Every Imperial officer is familiar with its contents, and its many precepts and ideas form the basis for much lively debate. The book remains fresh and valid ten thousand years after it was written. "

From Armies of the Imperium, page 25.

Sounds like it's written in-universe, meaning that it ultimately doesn't mean much.

That being said, I imagine that Russ probably is a brilliant tactician- probably more-so than a strategist.

I'm still curious to know about any practical genius Guilliman has ever displayed, though. I stand by former comment that his tactics are probably just average for a Primarch, compared to his near-peerless strategy.

I voted for Russ, because I think he outlived (out lives?) all the others.
You can argue tactics all you want, but if a building smashes you dead, that says something about how well you plan.

-Matt

He didn't outlive the others. He was doing lines with Vulkan and Corvux and they all decided to go on a road trip. They're MIA.

Guys, You are mistaken about terms. Neither Horus, nor Guilliman were tacticians - they were rather military strategists.
Strategy is about planning, tactics is about getting your job done after strategy meets reality and fails . I'd say that top tacticians were (not necessary in that order) - Alpharius-Omegon, Corax, Russ and Lion.

Frecklesonfire wrote:

The Ultramarines

why? i dont understand ultramarine fans, they do not seem to have any redeeming qualities that i have read at. what are their top strong points? their primarch apparently steals all of Dorns honor, and is he a good tactician or does he just have large numbers, and a strong economy and planetary setup, from my understanding hes smart at politics and governments and recruitment like hes a good political head, and organizer but in warfare?

During the Crusade, the Ultramarines had the longest record of successes, while also achieving compliance with the least amount of casualties, making them one of the largest legions by far. Their efficiency and efficacy under Guilliman was unmatched. If he had a flaw, it was that he would always take the most efficient and efficacious approach, opening up the door to being predictabile (something that has culminated into a serious problem for 40K-era Ultramarines). Horus could probably match Guilliman, but being a glory hog, he wouldn't always make the "best" decision tactically if a more bombastic approach would still achieve the objective (casualties be damned) while making him look better, so he falls a tad short. The Lion could also probably match Guilliman/Horus on a tactical level, but the Lion's whole paranoia/inability to judge a person's character would likely hamper him in the grand scheme of things.

I guess another way to distinguish them is that Guilliman and Horus are better strategist and big picture guys, while Lion is better at the nitty gritty while missing the big picture (the only real example we have is his skill in void warfare). Alpharius-Omegon may also qualify as great, if unconventional tacticians (which is why Guilliman disliked them and Horus favored them).

Rochronos wrote:Although Guilliman is THE tactician, I would hazard that Russ shows more brilliance. As the Emperors executioner he had refined his Astartes slaying abilities long before Roboute and co were all shocked that some of their members were contemplating killing other Space Marines.

I seriously doubt they had "refined" his Astartes slaying abilities. Russ and his Legion weren't specifically designed to be executioners; a lot of what the Emperor did with the Primarchs seems to have been blind experimentation. Like a quote from Kharn in a later novel states, the Wolves were picked to attack other Astartes because they were loyal hounds, who would follow their orders and go no further, and could always be called back to heel. The World Eaters could just as effectively kill other Space Marines, but there was no recalling them once they were unleashed. In Aurelian, we're told that in an alternate timeline where the Emperor decided to sanction Lorgar rather than give him a second chance, the purge of the Word Bearers is enacted by the Wolves and Night Lords working in tandem (which makes sense, Kurze was another tool of the Emperor's vengeance, and the Wolves by themselves would be far too outnumbered to handle the Bearers solo... hell, they needed a huge detachment of Custodes and Silent Sisters to barely handle the Thousand Sons).

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Russ isnt a tactician. He may win battles, but tactical? 'Nope'

The Codex Astartes says different.

And I quote:

" Many of the most brilliant minds of the age contributed to the Codex Astartes. It describes not only methods of fighting wars, but also deals with such diverse elements as organizing troops, establishing supply lines, clothing and feeding troops, subtrefuge, and espionage, and of course, countless tactics and ploys to confound the opposing commander.

With such brilliant minds as the Space Marine Primarchs Leman Russ and El'Johnson offering sagely advice, as well as the practical wisdom of the great Imperial Guard commander General Tybour, the Codex Astartes has always been regarded as an essential part of every young officer's education. Every Imperial officer is familiar with its contents, and its many precepts and ideas form the basis for much lively debate. The book remains fresh and valid ten thousand years after it was written. "

From Armies of the Imperium, page 25.

This bit goes back to the early days of 2nd edition, when the game and its setting were significantly different than now.