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.

Considering how effective military leader Horus was and how planets he forced compliance on were better off after similar to Guilliman and also how Horus and Luna Wolves were some of the most hard working folks expanding the Imperium given the rate they acquired planets, shouldn't he have been included in Dauntless Few?

Possibly because at his core he was still a short-fused gang boss - from The Last Council: "Ah, and there we have it, Malcador noted. The Cthonian hubris. The gangland pride, hidden beneath a Legion’s noble livery."

This.
Horus was arguably the best single commander, but Gulliman didn't necessarily trust him to fight effectively in a group of his brothers rather than grandstand.

The Dauntless Few was more based on how much Guilliman could rely on those other brothers, not necessarily their success rate. Dependability, not strength - and Horus, for all his military accomplishments, was not fond of sharing power, or being relied upon outside of gaining favours.

I'm pretty sure that Guilliman even says he respects/admired many Primarchs (Khan, Corax, and Magnus), but because he couldn't rely on them to have his back, he didn't count them in his Few. Honestly, I'm personally a little surprised that Russ was in the Dauntless Few. If I were Guilliman, I'd much rather have had someone like Vulkan or Magnus take up that fourth slot. And, well, Manus is one of those weird cases where we have people say that they loved/respected him, but we're never really shown *why*. One of my biggest gripes with the Horus Heresy series is actually about Ferrus, because they don't really *do* anything with him. He's killed way too early on, and the little character he does get in Fulgrim is pretty lacklustre compared to the more revolutionary treatment given to Primarchs like Angron and Guilliman.

Russ beiung the dauntless few actually makes sense. we tend to see him and the space wolves as a buncha reckless people who go their own way and do their own thing (which is certainly the case in 40k) but at the same time in the heresy era he's the executioner, willing to do the "dirty jobs no one else will" Russ can be trusted to follow a battle plan if he agrees to do so, even if his assigned task isn't the most glorious.

now the thing to keep in mind Gulliman may be WRONG about his brothers, Ferrus for example, proved that he WASN'T always dependable when he went YOLO against the traitor forces

BrianDavion wrote:
Russ beiung the dauntless few actually makes sense. we tend to see him and the space wolves as a buncha reckless people who go their own way and do their own thing (which is certainly the case in 40k) but at the same time in the heresy era he's the executioner, willing to do the "dirty jobs no one else will" Russ can be trusted to follow a battle plan if he agrees to do so, even if his assigned task isn't the most glorious.

now the thing to keep in mind Gulliman may be WRONG about his brothers, Ferrus for example, proved that he WASN'T always dependable when he went YOLO against the traitor forces

Exactly this IMO. For example, The Lion also isn't among the Daultless Few, which I think has more to do with Guilliman's complicated relationship with him, than any question of effectiveness or loyalty.

 harlokin wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Russ beiung the dauntless few actually makes sense. we tend to see him and the space wolves as a buncha reckless people who go their own way and do their own thing (which is certainly the case in 40k) but at the same time in the heresy era he's the executioner, willing to do the "dirty jobs no one else will" Russ can be trusted to follow a battle plan if he agrees to do so, even if his assigned task isn't the most glorious.

now the thing to keep in mind Gulliman may be WRONG about his brothers, Ferrus for example, proved that he WASN'T always dependable when he went YOLO against the traitor forces

Exactly this IMO. For example, The Lion also isn't among the Daultless Few, which I think has more to do with Guilliman's complicated relationship with him, than any question of effectiveness or loyalty.

yeah the Lion struck me as not playing well with others

Very much so. He was possibly the single best pure strategist of the lot of them, but was very bad at judging and managing people - it's why, despite his own opinions, he was never really in the running for the post of Warmaster.

The Lion is a psychopath in the clinical term. He completely lacked an understanding of human interactions and could not judge character. It is intensely suspicious because he doesn't understand why people make the decisions they do. I never liked him as a character, but I have to admit I do think the writers took his character in a more interesting direction. Outwardly a noble, knight in shining armor, while inwardly, he is cold, disconnected, and ultimately lost when navigating society at large. He is capable of following human conventions, he understands how he is supposed to act. Konrad Curze is the more extreme, sociopathic version. Harsher upbringing led to a more severe disorder. He is not just lacking in empathy and understanding (as is the case with the Lion), but actively enjoys inflicting suffering and pain.

Anyways, the point is that Guilliman couldn't rely on the Lion because he couldn't trust that the Lion would play well with others, trust Guilliman and the other dauntless few, etc.

My short Dauntless Few candidacy list (beyond the original three) analysis:

1. Dorn: A good candidate, solid all around, though his thick-headedness and pride puts him a bit on shaky ground.
2. Vulkan: Should be a part, as he is loyal, tough as hell, and truly self-sacrificial.
3. Russ: Not a horrible candidate, but a too hot-headed and also quite hypocritical when it came to psykers and the warp. Not having him be part of the few I think was a good idea.
4. Ferrus Manus: Started the overuse of cybernetics among his men and got himself killed due to not following the plan. Not a bad primarch, but definitely not one of the best.
5. Corvus Corax: Don't know too much about him to be honest to give a good enough look.
6. Horus: As was said before by others, too blunt and bullying, and ultimately, put his pride before anything else. Doesn't belong here.
7.Fulgrim: A pretty good primarch before his fall, but way too prideful, incautious and impulsive. Doesn't belong.
8. Perturabo: Good at his given task, but way too impulsive, emotional, petulant, and prone to fits of extreme anger and violence. Doesn't belong
9. Alpharius and Omegon: Shady and manipulative to their core. While this was pretty much their job description, I'd trust Lorgar over these two guys.
10. Lorgar: Flaunted the Emperor's wishes in order to promote his own delusions and greatly hampered the progress of his own part of the Great Crusade. Does not belong.
11. Mortarion: A cruel, spiteful individual who treated men like expendable blunt objects. Does not belong.
12. Magnus: If he had listened to the Emperor and obeyed Nikaea, he might have turned out to have been one of the Imperium's greatest primarchs. And while he definitely did a bunch of stuff wrong, he was not really a bad guy and wanted to increase the knowledge base of the Imperium.
13. Kurze: NO
14. Angron: NO

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
My short Dauntless Few candidacy list (beyond the original three) analysis:
11. Mortarion: A cruel, spiteful individual who treated men like expendable blunt objects. Does not belong.

Examples on Mortarion treating men as being expendable?

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
My short Dauntless Few candidacy list (beyond the original three) analysis:
11. Mortarion: A cruel, spiteful individual who treated men like expendable blunt objects. Does not belong.

Examples on Mortarion treating men as being expendable?

his entire style of campaigning is attrition based. a commander who cares about every loss tends not to use that style of warfare