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.

? The night lords were on Terra during the siege, they fought mainly against the blood angels inside the palace. Malcharion, a night lord captain, killed 3 captains in one day of battle, a famous blood angel captain, a dark angel captain, and i believe a white scar captain.

I was referring to the implication that they somehow failed in their goal, which they did not.

Oh, i see.. Ya i was wondering if ABD was going to include any of that in his NL trilogy. Hopefully get gets to write all the NL stuff in the HH.

BlaxicanX wrote:
The problem with that logic is that you can take it and run with it.

Horus only confronted the Emperor because of the imminent arrival of the other legions. But the other legions only managed to arrived because the Night Lords, Thousand Sons and Word Bearers failed to defeat them. Those legions failed to defeat them because yadayadayada and so on and so on and so fourth. Obviously, there was a huge chain of events that ultimately led to the Traitors defeat. Trying to make one specific event more significant than the rest is pointless.

As well, you have to take into consideration that while the other loyalist legions's arrival is what forced Horus' hand, it's not what caused him to lose- thus there is no direct cause and affect there. Even with the Loyalist's arrival, Horus could have killed the Emperor in there fight. He would have probably just been killed by the loyalist reinforcements, but the Emperor would be dead. IIRC Horus managed to mortally wound the Emperor but hesitated before delivering the killing blow, thus giving the Emperor a window to one-shot him. That hesitation had nothing to do with the Loyalist arrival.

Similarly, the loyalist reinforcements had nothing to do with the traitor legions turning tail. If Horus hadn't died then they would have stayed and probably fought to the death. Hell, even with Horus dead, they could have chosen to stay and fight to the death anyway. They chose not to.

I didnt mean for a fact that when one says "The imminent arrival of Guilliman at the head of his Legion caused the Traitors to abandon the siege of Terra. " it is true. I mean that the statement is KIND OF right. That is because When Horus heard the loyalist were coming, he knew he had no chance so he prepared to lower his shields of his ships knowing the Emperor would come. That is fact, he ONLY lowered the shields because of the reforcements. Now the reforcements were coming because the others failed to stop them yes so you could KIND OF say that Horus lowered the shield because the reforcements stopped the loyalist because that is pretty much true.People dont because the farther back you go, though techinically true, just doesnt seem.... I dont know the word im looking for, like it seems like you are reaching. The most immediate cause is the one you focus on and you CAN mention the cause before that but anything else is just reaching and no one would say it.


The reforcements did not cause Horus to lose the war thats correct but because Horus died it KIND OF does, it is simply stretching the saying.
Horus did not hesitate, he was distracted. The Guardsman/Terminator/Custodian (depending on your fluff) ran in and distracted him. When the Emperor saw that Horus was TRUELLY corrupted, the Emperor actually TRIED for the first time in the battle.

Now I have always heard it that with Horus death, the legions turned and ran. Now if that was becasue the Reforcements were coming ALSO or if Horus death was good enough I dont know.

 Omegus wrote:
Word Bearers didn't really fail. They were instrumental in creating the warp storms that stifled Imperial communications and travel, and killed something like 100,000 Ultramarines. They basically took the Ultras out of the fight (it remains to be seen which version they will go with, since some accounts list the Ultras among the approaching Legions, while others omit them)..

That's fairly easy to explain. Old background (2nd through 5th edition, basically), it was the Wolves and Angels on their own - Ultramarines were succesfully detained from interfering with the Siege by the Word Bearers.

With GWs ever-increasing hard-on for the boys in blue, this has recently (at least, in BL publications, I think) been retconned to them suddenly jumping from the other side of the galaxy to be the main force arriving to relieve the siege. Also, IIRC, the worlds Russ insisted on saving/reconquering were of great strategic value in retaking the galaxy after the end of the Heresy, so it wasn't just sentimentalism on his part.

Finally, Horus' hesistation used to not be a hesitation as such, it was an Imperial Guardsmen called Ollianus Pious who jumped in the line of fire to protect his Emperor, got obliterated for his trouble. Seeing Horus casually snuff the life of one so noble made the Emp realise his son was truly lost, and he let loose with the entirety of his psychic might and killed Horus.

Rogal Dorn drove the Thousand Sons off (like,shew-shew )and the guy in the Gold armor directed the surviving librarians of the BA and IF to block the attacks of the TS...
and sorry but I don't see Guilliman in any way because of the WB...

 Galdos wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
The problem with that logic is that you can take it and run with it.

Horus only confronted the Emperor because of the imminent arrival of the other legions. But the other legions only managed to arrived because the Night Lords, Thousand Sons and Word Bearers failed to defeat them. Those legions failed to defeat them because yadayadayada and so on and so on and so fourth. Obviously, there was a huge chain of events that ultimately led to the Traitors defeat. Trying to make one specific event more significant than the rest is pointless.

As well, you have to take into consideration that while the other loyalist legions's arrival is what forced Horus' hand, it's not what caused him to lose- thus there is no direct cause and affect there. Even with the Loyalist's arrival, Horus could have killed the Emperor in there fight. He would have probably just been killed by the loyalist reinforcements, but the Emperor would be dead. IIRC Horus managed to mortally wound the Emperor but hesitated before delivering the killing blow, thus giving the Emperor a window to one-shot him. That hesitation had nothing to do with the Loyalist arrival.

Similarly, the loyalist reinforcements had nothing to do with the traitor legions turning tail. If Horus hadn't died then they would have stayed and probably fought to the death. Hell, even with Horus dead, they could have chosen to stay and fight to the death anyway. They chose not to.

I didnt mean for a fact that when one says "The imminent arrival of Guilliman at the head of his Legion caused the Traitors to abandon the siege of Terra. " it is true. I mean that the statement is KIND OF right. That is because When Horus heard the loyalist were coming, he knew he had no chance so he prepared to lower his shields of his ships knowing the Emperor would come. That is fact, he ONLY lowered the shields because of the reforcements. Now the reforcements were coming because the others failed to stop them yes so you could KIND OF say that Horus lowered the shield because the reforcements stopped the loyalist because that is pretty much true.People dont because the farther back you go, though techinically true, just doesnt seem.... I dont know the word im looking for, like it seems like you are reaching. The most immediate cause is the one you focus on and you CAN mention the cause before that but anything else is just reaching and no one would say it.


The reforcements did not cause Horus to lose the war thats correct but because Horus died it KIND OF does, it is simply stretching the saying.
Horus did not hesitate, he was distracted. The Guardsman/Terminator/Custodian (depending on your fluff) ran in and distracted him. When the Emperor saw that Horus was TRUELLY corrupted, the Emperor actually TRIED for the first time in the battle.

Now I have always heard it that with Horus death, the legions turned and ran. Now if that was becasue the Reforcements were coming ALSO or if Horus death was good enough I dont know.

You're saying that I'm reaching, while simultaneously stating that while I'm absolutely right, from a "certain point of view he's "KINDA" right.".

Think about that, for a moment.

 Omegus wrote:
I was referring to the implication that they somehow failed in their goal, which they did not.

That's a non-sequituer. Horus' ultimate goal was to use those legions to prevent the Loyalists from reinforcing the Emperor on Terra.

The traitor legions failed to prevent those loyalist legions from reinforcing the Emperor on Terra.

Whatever peripheral or personal goals they may have don't have anything to do with what I'm saying.

Guilliman for me, i read that the pre-heresy ultramarines do theoreticals for each battle so that they're never caught unprepared, having a battle plan for whichever way a battle goes. Except ironically in the case of the word bearers attacking them, they never did any theoreticals against fighting fellow space marines since it was considered borderline heresy...

I have to go with Alpharius/omegon here.

The only guys who actually know how to play the mind game aside from Konrad.

I say Curze but the tactic I think of extends to Sanguinius and Manus too.

Terror Tactics. Nothing works better. Sure you can bring down a fortress, but that takes work. If you can scare the gak out of the occupants and they surrender, not only is it better in terms of compliance, but better in terms of saving ammo.

Night Lords did it best, but the other two did well too. Sanguinius and his lot would deep strike and land in the enemies midst. Suddenly no one knows whats going on and it creates fear of the unknown.

Manus would lead his warriors head on. Don't stop, don't falter, never retreat. You have an army of gentically enhanced superwarriors further enhanced with mechanical upgrades and a demigod who can bend metal with his hands and a hammer that can flatten mountains (says legend), who will seek to detroy you without mercy no matter the cost. For any rational foe it would be terrorfying

 Deadshot wrote:
I say Curze but the tactic I think of extends to Sanguinius and Manus too.

Terror Tactics. Nothing works better. Sure you can bring down a fortress, but that takes work. If you can scare the gak out of the occupants and they surrender, not only is it better in terms of compliance, but better in terms of saving ammo.

In order for the terror tactics to be effecting you need an opponent who is susceptible to fear. Not counting your run of the mill human PDF, have there actually been any situations were NL brought defeat to other races and faction by the use of fear? Do the Imperial Fists lose their resolve and stand down from their fortresses when they hear the NL are in the neighbourhood? Will terror ever be enough to bring pause to the animalistic drive of Orks and the insatiable hunger of Tyranids? I think not.

Curze’s tactics work well against the right opponent, but are less effect when employed on a universal scale. To fight on such a scale you need adaptability and not limit yourself to a single strategy. That’s why I consider Guiliman and Lion to be best (overall), as they are not so limited in their approach to warfare.

You would be inaccurate in your analyses.

1 Tyranids did not exist (as far as the fluff was concerned) prior to 775.M 41. Well after the Heresy.

2 The IF did not abandon castle because they had no fear. Upon design and usage in the crusade the only fearless enemy were the orks (and then it only lasted untill you gruesomely slaughtered their ladz, which the NL did very effectively).

3 When they did use Terror Tactics, against fearful enemies such as humans, it was one of the most effective tactics in the Crusade. What's more is that these systems didn't just rebel after they had left, they were too scared to.

4 When called into battle, the NL were everything their image promised. Destruction. Merciless, brutal, unrelenting, mechanical warfare. The Night Lords didn't use what they needed. The used everything. A tower needs a Missile Launcher to blow up? Send 10 Predators and obliterate it? Assault Squad to capture the objective? Send in a company. Warboss needs a slap on the wrist? Curze rips hkm apart. All of this produced news which travelled and fueled their image. When people thought of the.Night Lords, they thought of their death. Systems surrendered without a shot. So better for life and economy.

Going by the only measuring stick that really matters in war, the greatest tacticians among the Primarchs after Horus are Johnson and Russ, in that order.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Going by the only measuring stick that really matters in war, the greatest tacticians among the Primarchs after Horus are Johnson and Russ, in that order.

Fair digs. Horus is obviously the best (at everything really) and Johnson was a supreme tactnician. Russ must be a superb commander. To defeat an entire Legion of space marines (and a lot of psykers to boot) as well as possibly defeating 2 other Legions is phenomenal.

 Deadshot wrote:
You would be inaccurate in your analyses.

1 Tyranids did not exist (as far as the fluff was concerned) prior to 775.M 41. Well after the Heresy.

2 The IF did not abandon castle because they had no fear. Upon design and usage in the crusade the only fearless enemy were the orks (and then it only lasted untill you gruesomely slaughtered their ladz, which the NL did very effectively).

3 When they did use Terror Tactics, against fearful enemies such as humans, it was one of the most effective tactics in the Crusade. What's more is that these systems didn't just rebel after they had left, they were too scared to.

4 When called into battle, the NL were everything their image promised. Destruction. Merciless, brutal, unrelenting, mechanical warfare. The Night Lords didn't use what they needed. The used everything. A tower needs a Missile Launcher to blow up? Send 10 Predators and obliterate it? Assault Squad to capture the objective? Send in a company. Warboss needs a slap on the wrist? Curze rips hkm apart. All of this produced news which travelled and fueled their image. When people thought of the.Night Lords, they thought of their death. Systems surrendered without a shot. So better for life and economy.

2 ”The IF did not abandon castle because they had no fear” you said it yourself friend. The very
Core rule of which Curze and his legion has build their strategies on, becomes obsolete when they are opposed by their brethren.

3 Were exactly did you get this ‘never revolted’ idea from? What I have read about NL pre-heresy days paint the picture of a legion, who made any rebelling colonise severely regret choosing the way of ‘dissident.’ But these colonise still had the guts to rebel when the NL weren’t around, Curze said so himself: “when he thought he would be punished, he dared not shoot, but when he thought he was free from consequence, he acted.” And regarding Nostramo. Shang: “without fear of reprisal humanity reverts to its basic instincts.” You must at least agree with me on the fact, that Curze’s terror tactics did not have any positive lasting effect on the worlds he conquered yes?

4 I don’t quit understand the argument your trying to put forth here. How does the “Destructive. Merciless. Brutal. Unrelenting. Mechanical warfare” side of NL distinguish them from that of any other legion? Do the other legions not use their ‘everything’ as well?

I’m not trying to label the NL and Curze as useless punks who don’t know how to plan for their battles. I’m merely instigating, that Curze’s strategies works well when used under a specific criteria, but fails short when employed on a broader scale.

Jaghati Khan.

He showed how to fit 7 marines in a razorback, By riding ON TOP of it!

Plus he was space Genghis khan, so he has that is also going for him.

And also took a spaceport using just a handful of men during the siege of terra.

My point was that the NL above all, if not then.most, others used excessive, mainly unnessecary for. For example if only 1 squad was needed, they send 5 or a company, or more. This built up a reputation, so that others found out then they surrender. It was effective and very powerful. It falls down at the example of enemy marines because they were not designed to deal with marines. The tactics were designed to fight humans. Sure they were a little short sighted but in terms of tactics, there are none better than TT in my opinion. Sieges take time, plans take intelligence, assaults require warriors. All terror requires is rumour and chinese whispers. It is by far the most cost effective, in terms of supplies and lives. That's why it is best. Because you just have to exist for it to work.

But what happens when you send a company to do a squads job and then your hit from an unexpected quarter, send in the reserves oh wait they're all off over there wasting time. or once again you send the company too destroy tower block A when 10 squads could be destroying ten different tower blocks.

Any one that relies on 1 tactic just isn't worth considering, except maybe the alpha legion, but even then sneaking around isnt always best some times it takes a bit of shock and awe

It's just horses for courses

Cruze and his legion did indeed perform well when used under the right circumstances, I will defiantly agree with you on that. But when it comes to who we consider the best tactician, we have to let the discussion be, as we have our own opinions (And rightly so!) It was fun discussing with you

Due to personal IRL issues I didn't but for the record I would have if my circumstances were different. Another time then!

I think this was a little to genaralised. Siege/Assault wise I go Perturabo and his Iron Warriors all the way of course. His trap on Sebastus IV made him look pretty smart to me at least . But to be honest Horus seemed to be the only Primarch that got anything done.

I really don't Hrmorus should vmcount. He was literally the best of dverumything. I think this was even stated somewhere? Need to find where...

He may have screwed the pooch once, but Dorn DID dole out the defensive stratagems at the Gate of Terra dudes, ya gotta give it to him.

 Deadshot wrote:
I really don't Hrmorus should vmcount. He was literally the best of dverumything. I think this was even stated somewhere? Need to find where...

Well no, he certainly wasn't.

Vulkan and Ferrus Manus are definitely physically stronger, Magnus, Lorgar, Sanguinius, and a few others are more powerful psykers, Fulgrim and Sanguinius had way more bishi hawtness, etc.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Fulgrim and Sanguinius had way more bishi hawtness, etc.

Amen to that!

Horus was the best tactician because he had a mind for campaigns. He could lose a battle that seemed key on purpose, only to set up the enemy to feel proud and inflated, then destroy their entire command structure in one decisive raid. He took half the space marines in the galaxy and beat back the other technologically advanced and numerically superior until he could cripple their leader, the most powerful man ever to live. Even in death he could have won that battle if the forces hadn't pulled back.

Got to give it to Horus. Though, I can see where some of the other Primarchs gain their strengths from. Guilliman was an extremely effective organizer and his legions reflected that. Then Alpharius was a mastermind; the dropsite massacre at the beginning of the Heresy was based on plans originally designed by him. My second choice would have to be the Lion, who joined the Crusade late and still managed to enjoy much success. Kinda disappointed that Sanguinius didn't get higher on the polls. Horus thought that Sanguinius was a good choice for a Warmaster, but I guess there hasn't been much to prove his success. And then, Rogal Dorn was pretty amazing himself, with the defense of Terra being a great achievement.

Horus I feel is just the best tactician because he taught a decentralized command structure which gave his soldiers more flexibility in the field. He also masterminded many strategies himself, most famously, the 'Speartip' which would sever the head of the enemy command structure, leaving the army to wither on the vine. He also knew how to take advantage of others, such as the Mechanicum and his fellow Primarchs. While not being so tactical as strategic, this trait gave his armies the support to go conquer the Imperium, which culminated in the siege of Terra and his death by the Emperor.

 Jacobshepard wrote:
Got to give it to Horus. Though, I can see where some of the other Primarchs gain their strengths from. Guilliman was an extremely effective organizer and his legions reflected that. Then Alpharius was a mastermind; the dropsite massacre at the beginning of the Heresy was based on plans originally designed by him. My second choice would have to be the Lion, who joined the Crusade late and still managed to enjoy much success. Kinda disappointed that Sanguinius didn't get higher on the polls. Horus thought that Sanguinius was a good choice for a Warmaster, but I guess there hasn't been much to prove his success. And then, Rogal Dorn was pretty amazing himself, with the defense of Terra being a great achievement.

Horus I feel is just the best tactician because he taught a decentralized command structure which gave his soldiers more flexibility in the field. He also masterminded many strategies himself, most famously, the 'Speartip' which would sever the head of the enemy command structure, leaving the army to wither on the vine. He also knew how to take advantage of others, such as the Mechanicum and his fellow Primarchs. While not being so tactical as strategic, this trait gave his armies the support to go conquer the Imperium, which culminated in the siege of Terra and his death by the Emperor.

There really isn't anything to suggest that Sanguinius was a particularly gifted tactician. His legion competed with the World Eaters for the title of best shock/assault troops, their tactic was "hit 'em fast, hit 'em hard".

Russ and his wolves were tasked with taking out whole Legions

it would be unthinkable for him not to come up with a tactical game plan to fight other Astartes.

when the time came Them Emp went right to the only son he knew had everything in his arsenal.

I had cast in my vote for Jaghatai Khan because of this:

Facing a breach and potential collapse of the Imperial defences, Jaghatai Khan decided on a change of plan. Rather than assaulting the almost-invincible flanks of the Chaotic army, Khan redirected his highly mobile White Scars Space Marines and the surviving Loyalist Tank Divisions of the Imperial Army to Lion's Gate Spaceport. At dawn Jaghatai's lightning raid caught the Traitor garrison at the spaceport completely by surprise, and reclaimed the spaceport for the Imperium. The Khan ordered his troops to reactivate the spaceport's defence lasers to prevent the Traitor fleet from bringing down any more troops and equipment and form a defensive perimeter to hold their newly reconquered territory. Khan's troops repelled several frenzied counter-attacks from the Traitors, and began firing on Horus' unprotected drop ships. The Khan's plan worked perfectly: the flow of the Traitors' men and machines to the Imperial Palace had been cut in half at a single stroke. Inspired by this success, the Loyalists also tried to seize back the Eternity Wall Spaceport, but were driven back by the Chaos forces without difficulty, as they had reinforced their garrison following the loss of the Lion's Gate.

Source: warhammer 40k wiki