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.

Wanting to get away from the usual , Who is the Hardest Cliche, I have been wondering.
Even though Horus was handed the reins of all of the imperial forces after the Ullanor campaign, this would suggest Horus was the most Gifted in this discussion. However Horus did doubt the emperors decision deep down, as he had mentioned about his brother Sanguinius deserving the honour.

This being said there are also many other gifted strategists, such as Gulliman and Dorn, what are everyone opinions on this?

I think Gulliman and the Lion possessed the best Tactical minds. Dorn was amazing at defensive strategies but the Lion saw through Horus' plans and intercepted some major war machines before they could help Horus. The Lion's weakness however was always that he couldn't read people at all and so handed over the powerful war engines to Perturabo.

Horus was the only Primarch to be truly like the Emperor in that he was multifaceted and contained parts of all the Emperor's personality and abilities rather than just one benefit and one drawback like many of the other Primarchs.

When speaking with Magnus, Lorgar mentions that he'd never be able to grasp tactics and logistics with the ease of Guilliman or the Lion, so it's fairly certain to be one of the two of them.

Horus was probably no slouch by any means, but his selection as Warmaster probably had more to do with his force of personality and command presence than being the absolute superior tactician.

Though, are you referring solely to combat/battle tactics, or to overall battle/campaign strategy? Because then the obvious answer is Guilliman.

Roboute Guiliman, hence the Codex Astartes.

Lion was pretty good tactician to, but Guiliman was the best.

I am referring to, when presented with a situation, which primarch would acheive the aim with the least loss of life.
Some Primarch throw manpower at a situation and try to overwhelm the enemy, hoping for strength of numbers caring less about how many men are lost to win, such as Angron, others approach it with so much confidence in there own soldiers martial prowess that they expect to win but such confidence can blind them to their enemies ability such as Fulgrim. While others are just to damn stubborn such as Leman Russ and Perturabo

Primarch Creed. Only think was he was the runt of the litter and sent forward into the future. Think about it, could someone who isnt made by the emperor hide titans and out flank baneblades.

81Northman wrote:I am referring to, when presented with a situation, which primarch would acheive the aim with the least loss of life.
Some Primarch throw manpower at a situation and try to overwhelm the enemy, hoping for strength of numbers caring less about how many men are lost to win, such as Angron, others approach it with so much confidence in there own soldiers martial prowess that they expect to win but such confidence can blind them to their enemies ability such as Fulgrim. While others are just to damn stubborn such as Leman Russ and Perturabo

In this case I'd say Gulliman. If you want a cold, clinical, fast and unfeeling solution then its the Lion. For this type of victory, though, Roboute is your man.

Brother Coa wrote:Roboute Guiliman, hence the Codex Astartes.

Lion was pretty good tactician to, but Guiliman was the best.

Lion was noted as the best.
Guiliman was a good logistician but he wasn't as good a tactician or strategician. He tended to come up with the same ideas and rotate if they weren't working. Hence the Codex Astartes. The one time he did go off-course was widely noted.

purplefood wrote:Hence the Codex Astartes. The one time he did go off-course was widely noted.

Well that was new kind of enemy never encountered, an enemy that came in even grater number then Orks ever came.
But they updated it after that, and after Tau and Necrons to.

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:Hence the Codex Astartes. The one time he did go off-course was widely noted.

Well that was new kind of enemy never encountered, an enemy that came in even grater number then Orks ever came.
But they updated it after that, and after Tau and Necrons to.

I was actually talking about that time when they were fighting the Alpha Legion...
Random people going off the codex-Who cares.
The guy who wrote the codex going off the codex-Big deal.

81Northman wrote:I am referring to, when presented with a situation, which primarch would acheive the aim with the least loss of life.

This is hard to answer because we have no real data on what kind of lost did Legion suffer before the heresy.
Most Primarchs care about their troops, I imagine that Angron was the only one who made them charge like lunatics on enemy lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:
I was actually talking about that time when they were fighting the Alpha Legion...
Random people going off the codex-Who cares.
The guy who wrote the codex going off the codex-Big deal.

Desperate times calls for desperate measures
But still, he and Lion were on a pair when it comes to tactics.
But then why Guiliman wrote it and not Lion?

Brother Coa wrote:

81Northman wrote:I am referring to, when presented with a situation, which primarch would acheive the aim with the least loss of life.

This is hard to answer because we have no real data on what kind of lost did Legion suffer before the heresy.
Most Primarchs care about their troops, I imagine that Angron was the only one who made them charge like lunatics on enemy lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:
I was actually talking about that time when they were fighting the Alpha Legion...
Random people going off the codex-Who cares.
The guy who wrote the codex going off the codex-Big deal.

Desperate times calls for desperate measures
But still, he and Lion were on a pair when it comes to tactics.
But then why Guiliman wrote it and not Lion?

Because writing all your tactics down in a big book of tactics and then giving it to everyone is a really stupid idea...
If i wrote down every permutation of plana nd all the guidelines for every kind of plan i would create into a book and then gave it out to all my friends it would be really dumb?
Why?
Because some of those friends aren't friends and i have to try and kill them tomorrow and they know all of my moves.

And then Black Templars came in to save the day.

And that may be true for Chaos but I doubt that aliens bothered to steal a copy and read it...

All of the Primarchs have some kind of tactical genius, even Angron, but the level of Genius is dependant on some factors such as situation, number of personnel, element of suprise and don't count out the cornered wolf, which can be very dangerous because of desperation.
An example of this, is the way Corax taught the Iron Warriors a lesson on Istvaan 5. This would indicate that Corax when put in a situation against a numerically superior force improvised and used what he had to win. The best thing he had was the Element of surprise.

Horus, AlphariusOmegon, the Lion and Gullyman seemed like the mostly tactically gifted to me, but it'd be quite the debate as to whom was the best. Perturabo and Dorn were also very talented, but over specialized.

Brother Coa wrote:
But then why Guiliman wrote it and not Lion?

Because being almost dead on a chair buried in the middle of the Rock is not the ideal place for writing a tactical treatise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the way to look at it is the type of victory you require:

Beat the foe quickly and mercilessly - Lion El'Jonson

Beat the foe without them knowing what hit them or that they have even been defeated - Alpharius Omegon

Beat the foe in the most efficient manner conserving supplies, lives etc - Gulliman

purplefood wrote:Hence the Codex Astartes. The one time he did go off-course was widely noted.
~~
I was actually talking about that time when they were fighting the Alpha Legion...

That's such a terribly written article (the one from WD/IA that you are referring to), and the story makes no sense. I think it's disingenuous to say "the one time" because there's no evidence that it is the "only time". I mean, it's just as reasonable to say that Alpharius was a fool by believing that the Codex Astartes was a rigid doctrine that did not hold any room for improvisation and seizing the initiative. Alpharius underestimating him and getting outfoxed by Guilliman is a much more realistic interpretation of that story based on everything we know about Guilliman and the successes of the Ultramarines.

Brother Coa wrote:Roboute Guiliman, hence the Codex Astartes.

Lion was pretty good tactician to, but Guiliman was the best.

QFT.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

purplefood wrote:Hence the Codex Astartes. The one time he did go off-course was widely noted.
~~
I was actually talking about that time when they were fighting the Alpha Legion...

That's such a terribly written article (the one from WD/IA that you are referring to), and the story makes no sense. I think it's disingenuous to say "the one time" because there's no evidence that it is the "only time". I mean, it's just as reasonable to say that Alpharius was a fool by believing that the Codex Astartes was a rigid doctrine that did not hold any room for improvisation and seizing the initiative. Alpharius underestimating him and getting outfoxed by Guilliman is a much more realistic interpretation of that story based on everything we know about Guilliman and the successes of the Ultramarines.

Probably true but considering the fact that AFAIK it's the only account of him diverging from his own book then it's safe to say other times he stuck by it otherwise why bother mentioning it? (The fact he diverged not that he beat Alpharius... or did he?)
The Codex has room for improvisation but it also has 'guidelines' from my understanding, it can't cover every situation so for those it doesn't cover you have guidelines. If your enemy knows these then they can guess what you might do...

I know I am biased, but if you want the most successful with the least loss of life, I think Alpharius Omegon take first. And hell, Alpharius may have been killed by Guilliman (gotta remember that even the Ultramarines are skeptical about if it really was Alpharius and they are unaware of the existence of Omegon) but the victory of the ground battle went to Alpha Legion.

If you go by the only really measurable scale of tactical acumen, the list goes like this:

Victory tally:
1) Horus
2) Lion El'Johnson
3) Leman Russ.

In the old days, there was a very good reason why Horus decided to lower his warbarge into low orbit to try to lure the Emp on board in a last-ditch gambit to win his Heresy. It would have been a stupid move, what with his forces on the Earth outnumbering the defenders and slowly pushing them inwards toward the heart of the Palace.
That reason was news of the impending arrival of the combined forces of the Lion and the Wolf - Horus knew that either alone was as close to an equal (in warfare) he was likely to face, and that the two Legions together were more than the sum of the parts.

Certainly in the HH books (and most other BL books I know) Russ and his warriors are described as rough, stupid barbarians. They may be barbarians, they may be rough, but they're *not* stupid. However, for some reason BL authors don't seem to like the Wolves, and thus portray them as barbaric, gullible and stupid. *Rant over*
I'm also disappointed that the Space Wolf/Dark Angel rivalry has been sort of lost into obscurity these days - I found it always one of the more appealing bits of Primarch lore.

Okay, went off on a bit of a tangent there, but olkd-school fluff definitely has the Primarch's victory tally in that order.

I haven't gotten that from Prospero Burns by Dan Abnett at all thus far. He has portrayed them as being extremely smart and tactically gifted, but yes... 'rough' as well. Which HH book portays the Space Wolves as stupid?

Horus.

purplefood wrote:
Because writing all your tactics down in a big book of tactics and then giving it to everyone is a really stupid idea...
If i wrote down every permutation of plana nd all the guidelines for every kind of plan i would create into a book and then gave it out to all my friends it would be really dumb?
Why?
Because some of those friends aren't friends and i have to try and kill them tomorrow and they know all of my moves.

If only Guilliman had anticipated that a Codex Chapter might have to fight another Codex Chapter…….

After all, it had been anticipated by the Codex that Chapters would turn to Chaos in the future, as it's main decree (the division of the Legions) had been established for just that reason. So the Codex would never uncompromisingly demand a certain action where the enemy's knowledge of said action would doom the entire thing. Or else the Codex, whose main goal it was to prepare the new Space Marine Chapters for the event of new Space Marine Chapters turning, would be useless against new Space Marine Chapters that had just turned.

The problem with how some view the Codex Astartes is that they interpret it as being a specifically detailed set of instructions for a given situation. That is pretty much how McNeill seems to view it, and it is how he has described the Codex in "Rules of Engagement". The Codex dictated step by step how to fight a global campaign, and the Marine Commander using the Codex did not even understand what the ultimate goal of the individual steps would be. IMO that is a ridiculous notion, as it would be impossible to calculate and predict all the myriad constellations and factors of every battle ever to be fought. I mean, we are dealing with a fictional fantasy setting, but I just cannot keep up my suspension of disbelief with such a "predicts every step, in minute detail" manual.

I assume the Codex has much more general descriptions, and is intended to allow a force to work as economical and efficient as possible under varying circumstances. Situations have an optimal approach, and the Codex will have suggestions based on hundreds of years of warfare and empirical tests. But it cannot predict all minute details.

E.g. when fighting Orks, the Codex probably does not flat out dictate that every other squad must be equipped with a heavy bolter. Because then when facing a mechanized waaagh or a small force of 'ard boys and mega nobs the Marines would not be all that effective. The Codex will likely suggest that including heavy bolters is usually effective against orks, but the Codex will also suggest that missile launchers or laser cannons are useful against heavy armored opponents. When the Marine Commander is faced with an opposing waaagh, he has to decide the best course of action based on his intel of the situation and the suggestions of the Codex. If he only knows that he will be fighting Orks, he might opt to equip several of his squads with heavy bolters. But when the waaagh includes a lot of armour, he has to consider whether to equip more anti tank weapons.

The Codex will probably include figures on how many anti infantry and anti tank weapons are advisable depending on the amount of enemy infantry and enemy armour, but it will probably not flat out state that 3 squads must be given heavy bolters, 2 squads missile launchers and 1 squad a laser cannon.

Essentially, the way McNeill and some players see the Codex is that it gives specific instructions for how to equip and how to maneuver in minute detail, and the Marines will have to follow those specific instructions.

The way I see it the Codex makes a lot of suggestions on how to effectively and economically deal with more general situations, and it is then up to the Commander to assess the current situation and decide which suggestions of the Codex would be most applicable for the problems at hand.

As far as exploiting the Codex goes, the first point of view would of course allow for exploitation, as the enemy might now the exact weapon lay out and movement of the Codex force. The latter point of view would not allow for easy exploitation, since the Codex would tell the Commander how to conduct certain maneuvers, but it would not specifically tell him when and where to use them. It would be up to the Commander, to a certain degree, to figure out which tenets of the Codex would be most applicable and beneficial.

Thus an enemy possessing a copy of the Codex would lend them a somewhat greater advantage without, but it hardly would guarantee them victory or any significant advantage over a strict Codex Chapter.

purplefood wrote:
The Codex has room for improvisation but it also has 'guidelines' from my understanding, it can't cover every situation so for those it doesn't cover you have guidelines. If your enemy knows these then they can guess what you might do...

Well a Codex commander’s decision would be based on a variety of factors. His battle plans may change based on what equipment he has available, what amount of men he has, what intelligence he has of the enemy, what troops he has……

In order for an enemy commander to exploit the Codex, he would first have to study the Codex as good as the Codex commander (No easy feat) he would have to know about the exact details of the Codex commander’s troops and supplies. He would have to know what the Codex commander knew about himself.

In other words in order to exploit the Codex the enemy commander would have to know pretty much every possible detail and factor and essentially know everything about the Commander’s current tactical situation and essentially mindread. And in that case it won’t matter if the force follows the Codex or not.

purplefood wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

81Northman wrote:I am referring to, when presented with a situation, which primarch would acheive the aim with the least loss of life.

This is hard to answer because we have no real data on what kind of lost did Legion suffer before the heresy.
Most Primarchs care about their troops, I imagine that Angron was the only one who made them charge like lunatics on enemy lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:
I was actually talking about that time when they were fighting the Alpha Legion...
Random people going off the codex-Who cares.
The guy who wrote the codex going off the codex-Big deal.

Desperate times calls for desperate measures
But still, he and Lion were on a pair when it comes to tactics.
But then why Guiliman wrote it and not Lion?

Because writing all your tactics down in a big book of tactics and then giving it to everyone is a really stupid idea...
If i wrote down every permutation of plana nd all the guidelines for every kind of plan i would create into a book and then gave it out to all my friends it would be really dumb?
Why?
Because some of those friends aren't friends and i have to try and kill them tomorrow and they know all of my moves.

Its more along the lines of the Lion was missing and Robute would of had him write it and improve it.

Guilieman is a master of Discipline, Order, and Logistics.

Theses facts MAKE him a good Strategist, not that he is inherently good at strategy.

Your not born or "made" a good strategist people, it's about experience and your other traits.

Lion El'Jonson and Guiliman were on par with each other accoring to fluff. I did read somewhere that towards the Great Crusade the combined DA/SW fleet was one of the most successful.

Now this is with some bias, however I think the list goes like this
1.Alpharius/Omegon
2.Lion Ell'Johnson, however he is noted as being callous towards civilians which could bite a strategist in the rear
3. Horus
4. Roboutte Guilliman

I believe Horus was the most tactically gifted. Guilliman second with Dorn and the Lion as 3rd and 4th, however not necessarily in that order. Alpharius and Omegon were brilliant aswell but in a different way. I think of them more as great opportunists.

Thatguy91 wrote:I believe Horus was the most tactically gifted. Guilliman second with Dorn and the Lion as 3rd and 4th, however not necessarily in that order. Alpharius and Omegon were brilliant aswell but in a different way. I think of them more as great opportunists.

Horus had such a charisma that he could damn near anyone to agree with anything, which in and of itself is an awesome tactical advantage, however he was not much into the long run. Guilliman was a sound tactician, however risky tactics were not his forte, which risks can make or break a battle. Wherein from what I have read Alpharius/Omegon were both long term planners, psychological warfare masters, and were willing to take risks.