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.

In the early editions of 40K Horus is presented as the Emperors greatest generals before the Primarchs and Legions were a thing. Horus went from the greatest, to a cry baby demigod who couldn't handle his job. The Luna Wolves lacked any form of command structure other than rank and had more of a gang culture than soldier. Despite being stated as the "best" what's written about Horus and the Luna Wolves is quite different.

I'm not bashing on Horus and the Luna Wolves, neither is he my favorite Primarch, however as a Chaos fan, him and his legion like the rest of the traitors have been turned into punching bags for the loyalists.

After the Primarchs were presented, Horus and the HH got more in depth lore but at what cost? Fans of the time became writers later in GW and just wrote their own fanfiction to become canon. The lore is like "Ya know there's Sanguinius and The Lion who were always better than Horus, even Guilliman is better than Horus, Russ (furries) is better than Horus etc." so what gives? What happened to Horus being the greatest? Do know, not the "best" but the greatest. (“greatest” has wider and longer coverage than “best.”)

From Slaves to Darkness

General Horus was regarded as the finest military commander that the Imperium had produced. His abilities were faultless, and eventually the Emperor granted him the title of Imperial Warmaster. This was a high honor, even in the early years of the Imperium, when brave deeds were a common place.

The whole theme of 40K is based on Lucifer's banishment from Heaven. The Emperor = God, Horus = Lucifer. I don't remember in which book was it, I think it was in Rouge Trader, it's mentioned that "1/3 of the armies of the Imperium rebelled with Horus". Ian Watson had the Emperor describe Horus as "used to shine like the brightest star". In Slaves to Darkness on Davin Horus falls ill however he's possessed by a daemon, and in later lore the Gods were able to corrupt Horus on Davin because of his pride. Horus pride was his downfall and now wanting to become the new Emperor where the Imperium was worshiping Chaos.

When the Primarchs were introduced and Sanguinius (Archangel Michael), with the powers of Dark Gods, nobody could bestow Horus, not even the Emperor. Despite the Emperor backing down against his own son, it was only thanks to Sanguinius who made a crack in his armor was the Emperor able to kill Horus.

Galaxy in Flames really trashes Horus downfall and that should have been retconed a long time ago. He knew the visions were false, but he still decided to betray the Emperor, because why not? The setting became from Chaos corrupting Horus and 1/3 of the Imperium to "daddy's bad we must rebel so we chose Chaos"(only Horus and Lorgar did, the others were forced against their own will which I despise it because it's not out of free will). From Horus being the greatest to him saying "It should've been Sanguinius Warmaster" and The Lion also wanting the title, because you know, he was "better".

Never in my early years have I ever pictured Horus as a useless nobody, not even now. I don't know if it was my ignorance to catch up with the new lore, or I just straight out deny it unconsciously, that Horus was never a loser. Heck even the famous picture says otherwise.



I don't know if it's me or the writers having some background trauma issues that we readers obviously are not met with.

I mean that's not quite true. Horus was absolutely capable of succeeding as Warmaster, and it wasn't just him that began to question the wisdom of the Emperor leaving the Great Crusade. He was confident until the disastrous conflict with the Interex, his first major action as Warmaster which shook his confidence that he was really worthy of the title. It should have been a peaceful assimilation of a powerful star empire into the Imperium but by all counts it was botched and Horus was in charge, leading to a long and costly war. Then came the betrayal of Temba which furthered his doubts. Think of it like being promoted, then on your first day in charge you lose half your stock then one of your most reliable staff members conducts industrial espionage about two weeks later.

I'm not sure that bit about fans becoming writers holds much weight because of course they did. Random people didn't just join up with GW and progress through the company, they had to be at least interested in the setting and have knowledge about it.
As for the Primarchs themselves, I disagree that each one was written as better than the last outside of fan tier lists. It's made explicitly clear in multiple publications that even those who thought they should be Warmaster, in the end, agreed that Horus was the correct choice because none bar Horus had the support needed from the Primarchs to succeed in the role of Warmaster. The only real malcontents were Angron (because he was Angron), Curze (again cos he's Curze), and Perturabo (who thought he should have been Warmaster) while the Lion and Russ accepted it but were bitter because they thought they were Daddy's Favourites. The rest either didn't care because they knew their duty or actively supported the move, with the majority falling into the latter category.
The Primarchs each had things they were better at, the Lion, for example, was a tactician without equal but had absolutely no charisma when it came to dealing with his siblings (something Horus had in spades) while Russ may have been a pearless warrior but again was not popular with many of his siblings and largely didn't care for the wider Imperial command structure. Horus might not have been the best in every single field but he had what none of his other siblings (barring Sanguinius) had, no grudges or enmities with any other Primarch, Legion, or Imperial institution.

And how is Horus falling because of his pride not the same as the general story of Lucifer? He believed he was greater than his father and sought to overthrow and surpass him. He turns many to his side yet is cast down by his father. The only difference is that Horus kills Sanguinius thereby showing the depth of his fall and also striking a mortal blow to the Emperor before his death.

Horus didn't believe Erebus because he came shrouded as an old friend but Magnus was also directly disobeying the Emperor's own orders to try and stop Erebus. Horus didn't believe either but due to the "failures" he had suffered already and the lack of trust he had at that time for anyone, he decided to make his own choice and that was to return the Imperium to the way it was during the Crusade by removing the corrupt Emperor and the Council of Terra. He later fell to Chaos proper after associating with the Lodges and learning of the power of the Gods through various sources, with his final fall coming on his journey to Molech to attain greater power. The other Primarchs weren't forced into following Horus either. Perturabo did so in the belief that Horus would give him the respect he craved from the Emperor but never got, Mortarion followed because he hated the Emperor and preferred Horus on the Throne, Fulgrim was already corrupted by this point and threw his lot in, Angron didn't care but saw an excuse to hurt the Emperor, Magnus followed because he had ulterior motives and didn't know Horus had ordered Prospero burned, and Curze only "followed" in that he happened to be there and liked the chaotic nature of it all. Alpharius/Omegon are better left unsaid because that arc is atrocious.
And yeah, by all accounts it was either Horus or Sanguinius as the choices for Warmaster, and Horus won out. And the Lion thought he was better because he believed warfare was the only consideration, which is exactly why he lost out on the role.

The crack about mental issues was crass and needless.

Speaking as someone who doesn't feel strongly about Horus one way or the other, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

 F.E.A.R. wrote:
In the early editions of 40K Horus is presented as the Emperors greatest generals before the Primarchs and Legions were a thing. Horus went from the greatest, to a cry baby demigod who couldn't handle his job.

He seems to have done pretty well overall during the Great Crusade. Any errors in judgement we might ascribe to him after he went all chaos-y don't really reflect on his performance prior to going rogue.
If the "cry baby" part is referring to when he decided to turn against his dad, my impression was that the author was going for larger-than-life angst/tragedy coming from effectively alien minds. So it's a bit hard to throw shade at the inhuman guy for having an inhuman reaction to a larger-than-life reveal. Lots of big emotions when you realize the creator you've committed countless atrocities for isn't a perfect being capable of justifying said atrocities, y'know? And that's without factoring in chaos poison mind whammy.

The Luna Wolves lacked any form of command structure other than rank and had more of a gang culture than soldier.

I mean, it seemed to be working for them pretty well until literal gods conspired against them. Respectfully, I don't think that their command structure being insufficiently formal and stuffy for your taste can be considered evidence that they suck.

Despite being stated as the "best" what's written about Horus and the Luna Wolves is quite different.

What's the rubric for "the best" that you're using to determine that they're falling short? It seems like the Luna Wolves generally scored pretty highly on bringing planets into compliance quickly and with limited collateral damage. Did one of the other legions have a significantly better success rate/speed while also not having major drawbacks to their methods?

however as a Chaos fan, him and his legion like the rest of the traitors have been turned into punching bags for the loyalists.[/b]

I haven't read all of the HH series. Is there a portion where Horus and his lads get significantly slapped around by another legion? The closest thing I can think of is the novel where Russ launches a suicidal assassination attempt on Horus. Russ loses multiple ships to the unconventional approach vector he uses before the fight really begins, then Russ gets in one decent stab before having his butt handed to him by Horus, at which point his forces carry his half-dead butt back to their ship and run away. Horus and pals didn't really come across as "punching bags" to me.

After the Primarchs were presented, Horus and the HH got more in depth lore but at what cost? Fans of the time became writers later in GW and just wrote their own fanfiction to become canon. The lore is like "Ya know there's Sanguinius and The Lion who were always better than Horus, even Guilliman is better than Horus, Russ (furries) is better than Horus etc." so what gives? What happened to Horus being the greatest? Do know, not the "best" but the greatest. (“greatest” has wider and longer coverage than “best.”)

As Gert pointed out, the primarchs are generally shown as having their own respective strengths and weaknesses. Some of the primarchs could beat (non-chaos) Horus in a fight. Some were arguably better tacticians or strategists. Lorgar could be argued to have been more charismatic. But Horus seems to have had a combination of stats (and lack of obvious flaws) that made the Emprah give him the job of Warmaster. You could argue that big E may have been blinded somewhat by favoritism, but I don't think there's an *obvious* better choice for the job.

The whole theme of 40K is based on Lucifer's banishment from Heaven...
... it was only thanks to Sanguinius who made a crack in his armor was the Emperor able to kill Horus.

Right. Do you feel that some part of that is no longer the case? Again, nto sure what you're getting at here.

Galaxy in Flames really trashes Horus downfall and that should have been retconed a long time ago. He knew the visions were false, but he still decided to betray the Emperor, because why not? The setting became from Chaos corrupting Horus and 1/3 of the Imperium to "daddy's bad we must rebel so we chose Chaos"

It has been a while since read (listened to?) the novel where Horus falls, but I'm pretty sure that's a disingenous summary of what went down. Again, the way I remember it is that Horus became disillussioned with the fantasy that the Emperor was *literally* infallible, which recontextualized all the atrocities committed as part of the Great Crusade as terrible actions taken to serve a flawed being rather than acts that were ultimately justifiable because daddy is an omniscient being who literally knows best.

(only Horus and Lorgar did, the others were forced against their own will which I despise it because it's not out of free will).

Pretty sure Perty, Morty, and the twins all agreed to join team Horus with their eyes open, even if the latter may or may not have been doing so as part of a long con. Angron, Curze, and Magnus all have really fun tragedies tied to their natures and circumstances, and I'm not sure the story would be improved by having them turn to chaos because someone presented them with a really solid argument.

I don't know if it's me...

No disrespect intended, but I think it's you. Horus was solidly competent at what he did (especially pre-Heresy), and had a combination of skills that some could argue made him "the best." But also his brothers were perfectly competent in their own ways and are allowed to be a bit more talented in some areas than Horus is. I mean this in a sincere and non-aggressive way: would you prefer that Horus just be hands down better than his brothers in all fields?

 Gert wrote:
I mean that's not quite true. Horus was absolutely capable of succeeding as Warmaster, and it wasn't just him that began to question the wisdom of the Emperor leaving the Great Crusade. He was confident until the disastrous conflict with the Interex, his first major action as Warmaster which shook his confidence that he was really worthy of the title. It should have been a peaceful assimilation of a powerful star empire into the Imperium but by all counts it was botched and Horus was in charge, leading to a long and costly war. Then came the betrayal of Temba which furthered his doubts. Think of it like being promoted, then on your first day in charge you lose half your stock then one of your most reliable staff members conducts industrial espionage about two weeks later.

It's what I also think, but I have my doubts after discussing with people, heck even online, majority of people do not agree of Horus being Warmaster, that it should have been Sanguinius or The Lion, the main point of people is that Horus is just a man child who couldn't handle the tasks he was given, and the Interex campaign is perceived as Horus being weak shouting mid battle for the war to stop. If the majority of people do not agree and don't like it, then there must be something wrong with the writing where you have to look things objectively. If fans favor Sanguinius and The Lion over Horus for Warmaster and didn't deserve the title, then there must be something wrong.

 Gert wrote:
I'm not sure that bit about fans becoming writers holds much weight because of course they did. Random people didn't just join up with GW and progress through the company, they had to be at least interested in the setting and have knowledge about it.

Not random people, but definitely fans GW chose who most of them can write.

 Gert wrote:
As for the Primarchs themselves, I disagree that each one was written as better than the last outside of fan tier lists. It's made explicitly clear in multiple publications that even those who thought they should be Warmaster, in the end, agreed that Horus was the correct choice because none bar Horus had the support needed from the Primarchs to succeed in the role of Warmaster. The only real malcontents were Angron (because he was Angron), Curze (again cos he's Curze), and Perturabo (who thought he should have been Warmaster) while the Lion and Russ accepted it but were bitter because they thought they were Daddy's Favourites. The rest either didn't care because they knew their duty or actively supported the move, with the majority falling into the latter category.

Well Primarchs such as Sanguinius, The Lion and Russ are favored a lot, with the majority of people claiming Sanguinius to be the best not what should be Horus from my perspective. People back up on things such as "Sanguinius was the most powerful, the embodiment of the Emperor, humble" and with Horus saying "It should have been Sanguinius Warmaster" which makes Horus have low-self esteem and not fitted for the job, that there was someone already better than him and that he didn't deserve it. People jump on this wagon with a point though and I don't blame them.

 Gert wrote:
The Primarchs each had things they were better at, the Lion, for example, was a tactician without equal but had absolutely no charisma when it came to dealing with his siblings (something Horus had in spades) while Russ may have been a pearless warrior but again was not popular with many of his siblings and largely didn't care for the wider Imperial command structure. Horus might not have been the best in every single field but he had what none of his other siblings (barring Sanguinius) had, no grudges or enmities with any other Primarch, Legion, or Imperial institution.

I think this writing is what makes Horus weak while each Primarch had a special gift such as better tactician, builder, painter etc. except for Fulgrim was who was a jack of all trades, Horus should've exceeded in every field with pride being his only weakness and his downfall. That's the problem that I see, that he wasn't great at everything aside being the greatest politician, diplomat and having no grudges with his brothers.

 Gert wrote:
And how is Horus falling because of his pride not the same as the general story of Lucifer? He believed he was greater than his father and sought to overthrow and surpass him. He turns many to his side yet is cast down by his father. The only difference is that Horus kills Sanguinius thereby showing the depth of his fall and also striking a mortal blow to the Emperor before his death.

It's more implied that he'll still do it anyway (like I said above) rather than pride. Literally nobody mentions Horus downfall is pride, it's just he'll do it, because why the heck not?

 Gert wrote:
Horus didn't believe Erebus because he came shrouded as an old friend but Magnus was also directly disobeying the Emperor's own orders to try and stop Erebus. Horus didn't believe either but due to the "failures" he had suffered already and the lack of trust he had at that time for anyone, he decided to make his own choice and that was to return the Imperium to the way it was during the Crusade by removing the corrupt Emperor and the Council of Terra. He later fell to Chaos proper after associating with the Lodges and learning of the power of the Gods through various sources, with his final fall coming on his journey to Molech to attain greater power. The other Primarchs weren't forced into following Horus either. Perturabo did so in the belief that Horus would give him the respect he craved from the Emperor but never got, Mortarion followed because he hated the Emperor and preferred Horus on the Throne, Fulgrim was already corrupted by this point and threw his lot in, Angron didn't care but saw an excuse to hurt the Emperor, Magnus followed because he had ulterior motives and didn't know Horus had ordered Prospero burned, and Curze only "followed" in that he happened to be there and liked the chaotic nature of it all. Alpharius/Omegon are better left unsaid because that arc is atrocious.

Galaxy in Flames is one of the most hated books along side "Fugrim" and "Reflection Cracked". Horus downfall should've been on Davin and not later with the lodges. The Molech power up thing is good, but I think that there was no need for either Erebus or Magnus in the play field. The Dark Gods were enough to corrupt Horus to be their champion, all 4 Gods showing him not a future where the Emperor is worshiped as a god, but rather Horus as the new Emperor, accept our offer, worship us, and you will become Emperor, after all you are better than your Father. This is just my take.

 Gert wrote:
The crack about mental issues was crass and needless.

I meant traumas. I forgot which writer used to write SM eating fecies, and traitor Primarchs are written with daddy issues and the Emperor is a bad father and that's not really a good thing.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who doesn't feel strongly about Horus one way or the other, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

Majority of people complain that Horus was just whining, betrayed the Emperor because why not, and Sanguinius should've been Warmaster or The Lion. People I know and people on the internet said the same thing, most do not like him because of those said reasons, which surprised me that even Horus is hated pre and post heresy. Since people favor these Primarchs a lot and cast Horus aside, then there's a clear problem with writing a likable antagonist as well as for the rest of the traitors.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
He seems to have done pretty well overall during the Great Crusade. Any errors in judgement we might ascribe to him after he went all chaos-y don't really reflect on his performance prior to going rogue.
If the "cry baby" part is referring to when he decided to turn against his dad, my impression was that the author was going for larger-than-life angst/tragedy coming from effectively alien minds. So it's a bit hard to throw shade at the inhuman guy for having an inhuman reaction to a larger-than-life reveal. Lots of big emotions when you realize the creator you've committed countless atrocities for isn't a perfect being capable of justifying said atrocities, y'know? And that's without factoring in chaos poison mind whammy.

People ascribe judgment to him pre-heresy and especially post-heresy. My personal view is that he should've been even more badass after turning to Chaos. A well written antagonist is always more favored than a well written good protagonist. And that's not the thing with Chaos Primarchs.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I mean, it seemed to be working for them pretty well until literal gods conspired against them. Respectfully, I don't think that their command structure being insufficiently formal and stuffy for your taste can be considered evidence that they suck.

Not my evidence, I have my doubts but people compare him to The Lion and Sanguinius that the Luna Wolves weren't as war like their cousin legions and made up of gang leaders.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
What's the rubric for "the best" that you're using to determine that they're falling short? It seems like the Luna Wolves generally scored pretty highly on bringing planets into compliance quickly and with limited collateral damage. Did one of the other legions have a significantly better success rate/speed while also not having major drawbacks to their methods?

The Luna Wolves scored high I do not deny that, however I'd have Horus and the Luna Wolves be the greatest in every field, but their main goals stays the same, bringing worlds into the Imperium with the least damage and wars. As for the other legions, The Lion and the DA were the most powerful legion during the Great Cruse and HH, this is evident, however the Lions drawback is that he used force and war at the cost of massive civilian casualties to bring worlds into the Imperium. Also the DA were trusted with DAOT tech, this greatly overshadows the Luna Wolves and Horus, especially for someone who's gonna be Warmaster.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I haven't read all of the HH series. Is there a portion where Horus and his lads get significantly slapped around by another legion? The closest thing I can think of is the novel where Russ launches a suicidal assassination attempt on Horus. Russ loses multiple ships to the unconventional approach vector he uses before the fight really begins, then Russ gets in one decent stab before having his butt handed to him by Horus, at which point his forces carry his half-dead butt back to their ship and run away. Horus and pals didn't really come across as "punching bags" to me.

They don't get slapped around as far as I remember, however Abaddon did fail at the Saturnine Gate during the Heresy but I can't recollect what it was. By "punching bags" I do not mean just getting slapped by loyalists, I also mean by Horus failing to command, the traitor Primarchs not following his orders, only Perturabo and and Morty carrying the Siege and so on. As for the novel where Russ Leroy Jenkins Horus is one of the least things I like, dude storms in and manages to injure Horus. Come on.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As Gert pointed out, the primarchs are generally shown as having their own respective strengths and weaknesses. Some of the primarchs could beat (non-chaos) Horus in a fight. Some were arguably better tacticians or strategists. Lorgar could be argued to have been more charismatic. But Horus seems to have had a combination of stats (and lack of obvious flaws) that made the Emprah give him the job of Warmaster. You could argue that big E may have been blinded somewhat by favoritism, but I don't think there's an *obvious* better choice for the job.

I know that, but my thing is he should've been the Greatest fitting his role as Warmaster. Nothing complicated. An antagonist that everyone likes.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Right. Do you feel that some part of that is no longer the case? Again, nto sure what you're getting at here.

That's a problem. Look a the Witcher series and Halo as an example. If you stray off the path of established canon (I do not mind minor changes) then people won't like what you present at the table, and it will backfire.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Pretty sure Perty, Morty, and the twins all agreed to join team Horus with their eyes open, even if the latter may or may not have been doing so as part of a long con. Angron, Curze, and Magnus all have really fun tragedies tied to their natures and circumstances, and I'm not sure the story would be improved by having them turn to chaos because someone presented them with a really solid argument.

I meant choosing Chaos. They did choose Horus side however they did not choose Chaos out of free will, but they were forced and destined to and this is why I despise. It's like I'm reading some Eastern Buddhist inspired stuff of destiny.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
No disrespect intended, but I think it's you. Horus was solidly competent at what he did (especially pre-Heresy), and had a combination of skills that some could argue made him "the best." But also his brothers were perfectly competent in their own ways and are allowed to be a bit more talented in some areas than Horus is. I mean this in a sincere and non-aggressive way: would you prefer that Horus just be hands down better than his brothers in all fields?

Non taken. Yes I would have Horus be the greatest Primarch fitting the role of Warmaster and traitor as champion of Chaos Undivded. People would go nuts for a well written antagonist. This also applies for the rest of traitors instead of playing football mid Siege.

I think this writing is what makes Horus weak while each Primarch had a special gift such as better tactician, builder, painter etc. except for Fulgrim was who was a jack of all trades, Horus should've exceeded in every field with pride being his only weakness and his downfall. That's the problem that I see, that he wasn't great at everything aside being the greatest politician, diplomat and having no grudges with his brothers.

The politician/diplomat/getting along with his brothers thing is probably the main reason he was made warmaster, tbh. For the sake of argument, let's say Sanguinius (or whomever) was *slightly* better at tactics. That's arguably not as valuable as being able to get all the other primarchs and mortal factions pointed in the right direction via politics and charisma.

Admittedly, Horus kind of lacks a "thing" to make him interesting in his own right. He's not a werewolf viking. He's not a vampire angel. He's not a twin. But on the other hand, he *is* dad's favorite, the warmaster, the face of the heresy, and eventually juiced up by four chaos gods at once. I think you'd run the risk of making him a bit too "busy" if you gave him too much of a gimmick on top of all that.

Can't say I'd want Horus to be the best of the best in every single field. It's too close to Marty Stu territory. Having him be the center of the heresy because he has close ties to most (all?) of his brothers is less obvious and more interesting to me. We get to see him give a devil-on-the-shoulder pitch to most of the other primarchs and explore their relationships at least a smidge. Plus it makes sense that you'd want the well-placed charismatic guy because you need someone who can get enough other factions to turn traitor so that you have a chance of taking on the rest of the imperium.

He gets supercharged by chaos so his power level is high enough for the big showdown. Making him *also* be the best at fisticuffs before that point would kind of be a hat on a hat.

Nothing presented makes me feel like Horus is wildly out of character or contrary to his own prior fluff here. At worst, they added some nuance to the whole, "He was the absolute bestest!" thing. Look at how many threads we have comparing and contrasting primarchs. That's way more interesting (and better for the fanbase) than just making Horus a Marty Stu that's inexplicably better than everyone else.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

The politician/diplomat/getting along with his brothers thing is probably the main reason he was made warmaster, tbh. For the sake of argument, let's say Sanguinius (or whomever) was *slightly* better at tactics. That's arguably not as valuable as being able to get all the other primarchs and mortal factions pointed in the right direction via politics and charisma.

You're right it is not valuable, but Horus still fails to command his traitor brothers despite uniting under the banner of Chaos. Angorn Leroy Jenkins in battle and Fulgrim is doing Fulgrim stuff and nobody knows what Alphairus is doing. If the Emperor said to his servants "go do this" they will do it. Since the traitors pledged their loyalty and service to Horus, they should listen to his word, but maybe this all comes down to the characters of Angron, Fulgrim, Alpharius, Magnus, Curze and Lorgar did their own thing, while it was truly Perturabo who listened to Horus and carried the Siege, followed by Mortarion. That's not a good thing and it has always painted the traitors in a bad spot.

I think a little twist to the Black Legion's Catechism becoming a thing for all the traitors and not just the BL would be badass no doubts during the Heresy

Who did we pledge loyalty to?
The Warmaster
Whom did we serve in faith?
The Warmaster
Who shall remake us?
The Warmaster
And who shall lead us to victory?
The Warmaster

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Admittedly, Horus kind of lacks a "thing" to make him interesting in his own right. He's not a werewolf viking. He's not a vampire angel. He's not a twin. But on the other hand, he *is* dad's favorite, the warmaster, the face of the heresy, and eventually juiced up by four chaos gods at once. I think you'd run the risk of making him a bit too "busy" if you gave him too much of a gimmick on top of all that.

I mean if the writers can write a Blood Angel character that can wipe off a whole sector of daemonic influence and invasion just because he went berserk, and Dorn as "incorruptible" then I don't see a problem Horus being the greatest at everything and not just appointed Warmaster because of favoritism.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Can't say I'd want Horus to be the best of the best in every single field. It's too close to Marty Stu territory. Having him be the center of the heresy because he has close ties to most (all?) of his brothers is less obvious and more interesting to me. We get to see him give a devil-on-the-shoulder pitch to most of the other primarchs and explore their relationships at least a smidge. Plus it makes sense that you'd want the well-placed charismatic guy because you need someone who can get enough other factions to turn traitor so that you have a chance of taking on the rest of the imperium.

I don't think it's close to Mary Sue territory. At least I don't see it that way, you're not obviously going to write him as Matt Ward did with the Ultramarines with the others looking up to them and inspiring to be like them. There are a lot of characters in fiction that are antagonists and super badass and are liked by majority of the people. If you write the traitors as good antagonists, a lot of people will jump on the wagon and prefer them over the loyalists.

The thing with Horus is that, while he’s not really the best at any one thing (other than perhaps overall charisma and being able to get on with all the others the best) he’s one of the best at pretty much everything other than psychic powers. And the ones that do exceed him in key areas usually have a major flaw somewhere which Horus didn’t really have.

Horus’s ‘it should have been Sanguinius’ thing shows a degree of humility tbh which is a good thing. Compare the Lion who’s arrogance and refusal to listen to others is his biggest flaw and the most important reason he’s unsuitable for Warmaster.

And Sanguinius has his own issues. He’s rather melancholy and his Legion has some fairly substantial flaws that would become more apparent if he had the spotlight of Warmaster (and they were pretty close to the line before he was found). Whereas the Luna Wolves were the most successful legion.

 F.E.A.R. wrote:
The Luna Wolves lacked any form of command structure other than rank and had more of a gang culture than soldier.

i'm not sure what book you were reading, but that is not the impression i got. within the squads and companies there is camaraderie and rivalry (as is common in the military IRL), but there is also a very strict structure across the legion which we see often enough. which is the reason the Lodges was such a big deal to those inside them, it gives the warriors of the legion a place where that strict structure and discipline can be relaxed, and they can interact across unit and rank more freely.

it is important to remember who our main viewpoint character is though.. Loken is a higher officer, a company commander (basically what 10,000 years later would be a chapter master, in terms of the number of people under his command). and then he immediately finds himself elevated into the highest rarefied ranks of the legion through the Mornival, where he has the direct ear of the Primarch and of equal status as the most senior company commanders. and yes, his interactions with his fellow mornival members is not very structured.. but that is the point. much like the lodges, the mornival is presented as something that exists outside the rigid ranks and rules of the legion proper, allowing Horus to get advice and feedback freely that would be impossible otherwise, since normally those officers would not even be able to be in the same discussions and briefings as the warmaster, much less be able to give candid commentary and suggestions. and yes within the mornival there is a degree of factionalism (which is a more accurate term than "gang culture", given the behavior we see.), especially as the plot goes forward. the Mornival is not of one mind with the warmaster, or with each other, and power politics are involved as each member tries to gather support for their own stances. it starts off pretty minor, and grows as time goes on as people and events conspire (often literally) to place Horus into more and more difficult positions ,and the mornival member's own personalities and understandings start to be insufficient to deal with the problems that Horus is facing. something the lodges amplify, given that it allows those viewpoints to be disseminated more widely across the legion, and the mornival members to build followings for those ideas directly.

and that breakdown of the structure of the legion's leadership over time was meant to be an illustration of the corruption the legions were undergoing even before Horus made his choice to turn on the emperor.

 F.E.A.R. wrote:

You're right it is not valuable, but Horus still fails to command his traitor brothers despite uniting under the banner of Chaos. Angorn Leroy Jenkins in battle and Fulgrim is doing Fulgrim stuff and nobody knows what Alphairus is doing. If the Emperor said to his servants "go do this" they will do it. Since the traitors pledged their loyalty and service to Horus, they should listen to his word, but maybe this all comes down to the characters of Angron, Fulgrim, Alpharius, Magnus, Curze and Lorgar did their own thing, while it was truly Perturabo who listened to Horus and carried the Siege, followed by Mortarion. That's not a good thing and it has always painted the traitors in a bad spot.

In your opening post, you included this quote:

From Slaves to Darkness

General Horus was regarded as the finest military commander that the Imperium had produced. His abilities were faultless, and eventually the Emperor granted him the title of Imperial Warmaster. This was a high honor, even in the early years of the Imperium, when brave deeds were a common place.

It's pretty clear to me that this is referring to Horus's pre-heresy accomplishments. So if your concern is that the quoted fluff has been compromised by newer fluff, mid/post Heresy actions don't really have any impact on that. If Steve was good at football in high school, and then he got out of shape in college, the latter doesn't change the former.

Also, I'm reluctant to dock too many points for "only" managing to coordinate a bunch of psychotic demigods long enough to battle their way across the galaxy, waylay several other demigods, and then stumbling towards the finish line. Like, Hannibal got within spitting distance of Rome and then ultimately had to turn around because they bumrushed Carthage. No one's talking crud about Hannibal.

I mean if the writers can write a Blood Angel character that can wipe off a whole sector of daemonic influence and invasion just because he went berserk, and Dorn as "incorruptible" then I don't see a problem Horus being the greatest at everything and not just appointed Warmaster because of favoritism.

The problem is that it would be boring and probably a bit cringe. Leveraging specific strengths is almost always more interesting than just getting first place in every event by default.

I don't think it's close to Mary Sue territory. At least I don't see it that way, you're not obviously going to write him as Matt Ward did with the Ultramarines with the others looking up to them and inspiring to be like them. There are a lot of characters in fiction that are antagonists and super badass and are liked by majority of the people. If you write the traitors as good antagonists, a lot of people will jump on the wagon and prefer them over the loyalists.

Well-written characters will be well-written characters regardless of what they can and can't do. Making Horus hands down better at melee than Russ, better at smithing than Vulkan, better at sneaking than Corax, better at plotting than Alpharius... That doesn't make him more interesting or more likable. It just makes everyone else feel less impressive by contrast. They sort of get away with that with the Emperor because he's supposed to be an entirely different category of being and is also basically a Chuck Norris joke. Making Horus Emprah-tier would make him less of a primarch, and making him a primarch who's just casually better at everything than his more specialized brothers just makes those brothers seem less good at what they do (if only by contrast.)

Also, plenty of people like the traitors quite a bit. I get that you don't care for their stories, but it's clear that a lot of people enjoy them. So maybe their stories just aren't for you?

Horus is warmaster becuse the lion allows him to exist that is true.









/s

So @F.E.A.R

First off, the "majority" opinion especially online does not automatically mean it is the correct opinion. It's also a bit ironic to suggest that GW hiring fans to write for the company was wrong but that current fans are correct because some believe a point that you agree with.


When it comes to the Primarchs, again yes, Sanguinius is the greatest contender to be Warmaster but that was never going to happen because:
A - It literally had to be Horus.
B - Other stories have shown that Sanguinius desperately didn't want to be placed above his siblings, largely because the elevated status of the Legion might have caused their secret to be revealed.
Horus claiming Sanguinius would have made a better Warmaster was Horus showing exactly why he was suited to the job. He was able to look at his failures with humility and if he had the time to confide in Sanguinius, the latter would have supported him.

I'm also not sure why you think that being able to command the respect and loyalty of not just wider Imperial forces but also the Primarchs and their Legions (which is an important bit I'll come back to) isn't a unique trait while also being the second most successful general next to the Emperor Himself. The whole point of Horus is that it didn't matter if other Primarchs were really good at one thing because they all drastically failed at others or had issues that prevented them from being chosen. Russ was a killer with not a diplomatic bone in his body, the Lion was a master strategist with not a diplomatic bone in his body, and Guilliman was actually close to Horus in skill but had the issue of being a pompous rich boy who touted his own civilisation (Ultramar) above all others which meant people really didn't like him (not just the eventual Traitors either). Horus was considered to be such a great leader that portions of both Loyalist and Traitor Legions would forsake their own Primarch to follow his banner. The Iron Hands, White Scars, and Word Bearers especially all had sizeable numbers that would abandon their brothers in service of Horus.
When it comes to commanding those Primarchs during the Heresy and Siege, yeah a lot tend to do their own thing until they get properly shackled again. Which is the entire point. Horus isn't meant to win the Heresy because he got the bad hand. He manages to give the Imperium a bloody nose by orchestrating Isstvan, Calth, Prospero, Chondax, and the Martian Schism but when the Loyalists start to rally, his plans start to come apart. He even admits this to the skull of Ferrus Manus in Warmaster:

Strange is it not, that so many I wish beside me stand against me, while at my back are only the flawed and damaged. I am a master of broken monsters.

He planned to turn Ferrus and Sanguinius believing they would aid his coming struggle but he used the wrong agents to do so and it backfired. In fairness though, Erebus got flayed for his failure to turn the Blood Angels and nearly killing Sanguinius. But again, Horus was never meant to win in the long run. He had a strong opening gambit that fell apart when his corrupted or maniac siblings went off to cause, well, Chaos. By the time of the Siege, Angron, Fulgrim, and Mortarion had embraced their destiny as Daemon Primarchs, Lorgar had been exiled, Alpharius/Omegon were dead/abandoned the cause, Magnus ascended during the Siege, and only Perturabo remained tethered to mortal concerns which caused him to abandon Horus in disgust. Horus himself was a being of darkness and malice at this point more concerned with beating his father in the immaterium than actually prosecuting the Siege.

As for Horus' downfall being pride, it's mentioned all the time, especially towards the end of the novel series when he makes the push for Terra. And his story of falling to chaos is better because it isn't just "He gets possessed" because it shows the corrupting nature of the Dark Gods. Horus was shown a vision and then went on a "No Gods, No Masters" quest that was eventually corrupted as he learned more about the Emperor, eventually realising that to challenge his father, Horus would need to make the same bargain but keep his word, all the while still believing he was free from control. The tragedy of Horus is that he did fight for freedom, just in the worst way and his power corrupted him into the monster seen at the Siege of Terra.

@Gert you're right about Horus, however the opinions of lot of people led me to doubt. Here's what I wrote:

People keep debating which Primarch is the best and which Primarch can’t count to 3, while objectively speaking it was Horus who was the best Primarch. This is why he was chosen Warmaster and his legion was the best. Horus out of all his brothers first and foremost was the best politician, neither Sanguinius nor the Lion could match Horus skills and talents, they could never be leaders and diplomats like Horus was, and like any other legion who are a reflection of their Primarch, the Luna Wolves did the same thing like their father. Horus and the Luna Wolves were the primary example of how super soldiers should be (transhumans). They fought like an actual coherent Space Marine army and went for the killing blow when needed. Unlike the other legions who most of them slaughtered humans through conquest and took delight in it, Horus was always open for diplomacy and when to great lengths to keep it that way. Horus and the Luna Wolves were reasonable, strong, flexible and had a positive legion culture. They weren’t some evil maniacs like the Nostramo Night Lords, nor suffered mental illnesses like the Lion and the DA, they were the perfect ideal of the Emperor’s vision of superhuman soldiers. Horus was the only one who didn’t have major weaknesses or flaws that tainted him and his legion. This is why he was chosen by the Dark Gods to be the leader of there Heresy (although anyone who was appointed Warmaster ultimately was to fall to Chaos, so that’s debatable). As Loken says to Sigismund “Our record speaks for itself”. The only one who comes second to Horus is non other than Guilliman and this is why he’s the leader of the Imperium and other Primarch outright suck at leading Humanity, and I cannot imagine someone like The Lion and Banana Man leading humanity because of their diagnosed ever present mental illness.

People started reasoning around Horus daddy issues, his fall which I have to agree there, nobody likes it, and that Sanguinius, the Lion and above all else Gulliman was better than Horus. Out of 281 comments, except for literally 2, everyone was against Horus accusing him for being a man child. I was like, did I miss something?



Here's an argument, I'm not gonna post all of them

That argument supports why Horus was made Warmaster though.

I know people love to criticize Horus's fall as depicted in False Gods as him having daddy issues or being some man-child, but I always thought it was a very different reaction. Chaos tried to get him to fall due to the betrayal and lies of the Emperor, but he rejected that as their pathetic attempt to manipulate him.

However, he realized the Emperor, his beloved Father and leader, only saw him, the other Primarchs, and by extension their Astartes children as tools. To that he said, " no", and tried to prove he was more by opposing and defeating the Emperor.