least nonsense Primarch

[omo667]

Hey, I was thinking about Primarchs recently, and I actually I'm starting to believe that some of them weren't that great tacticians, etc.

Which one would you pick as the least nonsense primarch? Some of them show terrible lack of self control etc., and wouldn't be scared to charge at entrenched enemy even if they had a way to attack from rear, some would fight just because, similar to Inquisition 10k years later, which can be simply used to remove your enemies - just say "he believes in chaos" about X, and poof X is hunted by Inquis

[HandOfDorn]

The worst tactician has to be Angron, simply because his only tactic - the headlong charge - isn't that good a tactic, as can be seen in Galaxy In Flames, any enemy with sense can easily lure in, counter attack and flank. He's just lucky he has some of the toughest marines out there..

[Wrath of Terra]

The worst tactician has to be Angron, simply because his only tactic - the headlong charge - isn't that good a tactic, as can be seen in Galaxy In Flames, any enemy with sense can easily lure in, counter attack and flank. He's just lucky he has some of the toughest marines out there..

 

 

Or you could argue that it was a very good tactic in the sense that it played to the strengths of his Legion... Why faff about with intricate maneouvers, complex firepatterns, etc when you've got the best close-combat fighters of all the legions and you yourself are nigh on unstoppable up close? Just find the quickest and most direct way to get your men within chainaxe range of the enemy and you've won. Like I've said on other topics; it's one thing knowing the World Eaters are coming and even how they'll operate, but it's a whole other thing actually managing to stop them when it comes fight time... Angron played to his strengths and why shouldn't he have? You don't see Tau charging into hand to hand or Orks trying to shoot enemy armies to death.

 

Angon may have repeated the tactic again and again but it brought victory. Horus used the speartip/decapitation strategy again and again, so much so it was nearly ritualistic yet he never get's criticised for using the same tactic repeatedly. Nor the other primarchs with "themed" legions and fighting styles. Angron's tactics resulted in higher casualties for his own men but that's not much of a flaw when he wasn't overly concerned for his men. He was probably one of the chief exponents of Darwinism among the primarchs; if his men were good enough they would survive and become better fighters. If they didn't then they were too weak and weakness is better removed.

[HandOfDorn]

I do agree on that point, however, surely he is a lesser tactician if he does not value his forces, plus, if he were a better tactician, he would have been able to adapt to situations as they occured, but on Isstvan, he had no idea he was even being played..

[Durgey]

I reckon Alpahrius Omegon; they planned a covert op and although their primarch died he still won the battle... so you coudl argue either way if you liked...

[Wrath of Terra]

I do agree on that point, however, surely he is a lesser tactician if he does not value his forces, plus, if he were a better tactician, he would have been able to adapt to situations as they occured, but on Isstvan, he had no idea he was even being played..

 

Oh by no means am I saying he's Guilliman or anything. I'm just saying that yes he was one of the lesser tacticians, not the worst. And he was one of the lesser by choice and favouring direct simplicity. There's other primarchs that could be considered worse. Mortarion never struck me as particularly good for e.g. (that may change if he gets fleshed out with his own book of course). Many people are too quick (and happy) to stereotype Angron and his legion as shallow and one-dimensional when there's been more than a few signs in the books that both Angron and the World Eaters have hidden depths and a more fleshed out human side rather than being one-dimensional characitures.

[HandOfDorn]

I think that both Alpharius Omegon and Lion El'Jonson are tactical masters, 'Legion' shows just how pragmatic the Alpha Legion are, and how everything they do sets up the next move in a huge chain culminating in a instantaneous victory. As for The Lion, he shows great tactics in the HH novels, even though they are selfish and fueled by ambition..

[Pacific81]

I do agree on that point, however, surely he is a lesser tactician if he does not value his forces, plus, if he were a better tactician, he would have been able to adapt to situations as they occured, but on Isstvan, he had no idea he was even being played..

 

I'm not so sure, so far we have only really seen Angron after he 'turned' and became a crazy. If you remember 'After D'Eshea', there is a bit where the marine Captain Dreagher is explaining to Angron about a previous campaign that the then War Hounds had been involved in. It describes Angron closing his eyes and picturing the battle, running imaginary battle lines through his head. Also, Khârn was once a measured and quite normal Astartes, and only goes a bit mental later on.

 

So, at least at the beginning, and like all of the Primarchs, he seems to have an inbuilt tactical or computational ability. Although I agree with you in a sense that the 40k berzerkers are perhaps the most unbelievable survivors of the Horus Heresy. Having just a tactic of 'charge and kill' would get you killed sooner or later, as even in the fluff there are many weapons that can beat marine armour, and not using tactical advances and covering fire just doesn't make sense. Not to mention the fact that they are constantly killing each other off as well!

[Candleshoes]

My vote for the "No Nonsense" Primarch, assuming the timeline is when all 18 are still loyal and on crusade, would be Rogal Dorn.

[Gunslinger87]

I see everybody is ignoring Guilliman simply because we have always been told directly that he was supposedly the best tactician. So if we ignore that piece of fluff, I think the mentions of Alpharius are justified, (though not necessarily signs of excellent tactics, just guise and scheming) though in terms of combat tactics, it has to be Horus. Why else would he be Warmaster? One man doesn't change the tide of the battle, so it must be his command. The quote saying that he reused the speartip... I dunno. Its not really a tactic as it doesn't say exactly how the spear must strike down the head. All manner of tactics can entail that, including just charging ahead like Angron.

[Mekelan]

..though in terms of combat tactics, it has to be Horus. Why else would he be Warmaster?..

 

Well, I'm not saying you're wrong that Horus was the best, at the very least he was very good even by Primarch standards, though there could be any number of reasons he was chosen Warmaster other than pure tactical ability - the skills to deal with the administratum, maybe he was the least controversial candidate (there was some bickering but maybe less than if anyone else had been chosen?), maybe the simple fact that the big E knew Horus better than any of the other primarchs?

[nightlordsrock3564]

My vote for the "No Nonsense" Primarch, assuming the timeline is when all 18 are still loyal and on crusade, would be Rogal Dorn.

 

I agree, I think it was dorn followed by gulliman, horus and fulgrim

[Kizzdougs]

Least nonsense Primarch?

 

1. Purterabo.

2. Dorn.

3. Mortarion.

4.Guilliman.

5. Vulkan.

 

For me Purterabo is the most calculating and clinical Primarch. After Purterabo the others all rank very closely. The other four on my list are all serious straight forward Primarchs. I can't imagine Mortarion was much of a laugh :confused:

I don't really think any of the Primarchs can be considered 'nonsense' Primarchs.

 

Edit: What has tactical acumen or strategy got to do with being the 'least nonsense Primarch'

[Legatus]

Dorn (and also his Legion) is described as stoic and professional. But he is also known for occasional outbursts of emotion, as well as not considering retreat as a tactical option. While that is definitely a cool treat, objectively speaking it is also a slight disadvantage. His campaigns, or at least his officiers during the Crusade, while demonstrating expert planning, have also been called "unimaginative". For those reasons I cannot see him be ranked above Guilliman.

Guilliman's could perhaps be accused of being too idealistic and not resorting to "dirty" warfare, but then the same can be said about Dorn as well.

 

Horus, Guilliman, Jonson, Dorn and Fulgrim were probably the top allrounder Primarchs. The others are either not credited with impressive feats (sometimes because not being credited at all, really), or are more "single note" types.

[NO BLOOD - NO FOUL!]

Though Fulgrim was written from the viewpoint of the Emperor's Children, Ferris Mannis doesn't really come off looking like a great Tactician. In the book his temperament seems to override his tactical sense.

[Hellios]

Lion or Alpharius were the best when it comes to strat... when it comes to tactics the Emperors Children were obviously well drilled but I don't know how great a tactician Fulgrim was.. Mortarion, Peturabo and Angron seem to be the least tactical to me as they seem to rely on brute force in one way or another...

 

Corax seems like he might be someone who can think on his feet... Sang, Horus and Gilly and Dorn would also seem more than able but it is hard to tell on what is known...

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

Corax seems like he might be someone who can think on his feet...

 

For me Corax is at the top of the list. He lead 3k Astartes off that death trap Istvaan V.

[Skirax]

I do agree on that point, however, surely he is a lesser tactician if he does not value his forces, plus, if he were a better tactician, he would have been able to adapt to situations as they occured, but on Isstvan, he had no idea he was even being played..

 

Oh by no means am I saying he's Guilliman or anything. I'm just saying that yes he was one of the lesser tacticians, not the worst. And he was one of the lesser by choice and favouring direct simplicity. There's other primarchs that could be considered worse. Mortarion never struck me as particularly good for e.g. (that may change if he gets fleshed out with his own book of course). Many people are too quick (and happy) to stereotype Angron and his legion as shallow and one-dimensional when there's been more than a few signs in the books that both Angron and the World Eaters have hidden depths and a more fleshed out human side rather than being one-dimensional characitures.

I'm actually surprised at this, Brother.

 

In A Thousand Sons (You may not have read it) it mentions Mortarion's own fighting against what could only be described as a Daemonic Force, and when he mentions that, what appear to be Blood Crushers, charging in such a way that they manage to batter aside a Death Guard formation, Ahriman is shocked as he has never heard of Death Guard formations being defeated in battle, as their formations are probably the best in the entire Great Crusade. This, to me, shows that Mortarion is a great tactician as he manages to create a doctrine that is undefeatable by Mortal foes.

[Ubermensch Commander]

I do agree on that point, however, surely he is a lesser tactician if he does not value his forces, plus, if he were a better tactician, he would have been able to adapt to situations as they occured, but on Isstvan, he had no idea he was even being played..

 

Oh by no means am I saying he's Guilliman or anything. I'm just saying that yes he was one of the lesser tacticians, not the worst. And he was one of the lesser by choice and favouring direct simplicity. There's other primarchs that could be considered worse. Mortarion never struck me as particularly good for e.g. (that may change if he gets fleshed out with his own book of course). Many people are too quick (and happy) to stereotype Angron and his legion as shallow and one-dimensional when there's been more than a few signs in the books that both Angron and the World Eaters have hidden depths and a more fleshed out human side rather than being one-dimensional characitures.

I'm actually surprised at this, Brother.

 

In A Thousand Sons (You may not have read it) it mentions Mortarion's own fighting against what could only be described as a Daemonic Force, and when he mentions that, what appear to be Blood Crushers, charging in such a way that they manage to batter aside a Death Guard formation, Ahriman is shocked as he has never heard of Death Guard formations being defeated in battle, as their formations are probably the best in the entire Great Crusade. This, to me, shows that Mortarion is a great tactician as he manages to create a doctrine that is undefeatable by Mortal foes.

 

With respect, I am fairly certain Ahriman was just surprised they get the infantry square got broken by a cavalry charge, as the Death Guard are renowned for being stubborn and unyielding, with Mortarion favoring a policy of unyielding stubborness to win the Deathguard's battles. The Deathguard's strategy (as describe thus far in IA and other sources) is to shrug off whatever the enemy threw at them and grinding the enemy into submission. Basically, being "tougher" than the other guys. An effective tactic or trait, but not exactly a subtle or inventive one.

There is nothing to suggest he was not a competent tactician or strategist, but nor is there any quotes of anyone lauding his inventiveness in such matters.

 

As for most "no-nonsense" Primarch, in the sense of least flashy, most controlled, and most efficient, I like Kizzdougs list, just scramble the order and add Corax in there. Least effort, max effect seems to adequately describe the Raven Guard's actions. Yknow, when favoring their preferred sneaky methods of course.

[Sgt.Sangha]

I think Gulliman is better at battlefield logistics, and this gets confused with tactics. Considering the size of Ultramar region, his understanding of logistics is naturally understandable. As for Fulgrim his legion was very well diciplined and was know to have the greatest leadership, however the battle against the Lear shows how his losses were alot. he could have done it differently but he did it to prove a point. As for Horus hes a politician, he knew how to talk to his brothers and get them to do what he wanted and he would get alot of the credit. Angrons fightin style just plays to his strengths, and they work. As for Mortirion he relies heavily on infantry and digging in and creating powerful formations, even after the battle for Terra the death guard did not just flee tothe eye of terror they retreated in well formed formations that were causing alot of damage. The lion was a great stratigist, however he did not understand people, he just understood battlefield tactics and thus he had a flaw. My choice would be Alpharius he understood all these things, he did not lose men, he understood his enemy, and his men and he knew how to manipulate people. the only person who could challange him would be Corax. He knew how to use his scouts and how to infiltrate and hit the enemy where it counted, and how to escape from hairy situations.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

I'd put Corax and Alpharius as the two most flexible in tactical acumen. Whether or not that makes them "the most least nonsense" of the Primarchs I leave to you. Surprised no one's mentioned Night Haunter in this thread yet, as it could be argued that the favored tactics of the Night Lords required a bit of a recipe to have to fulfill, but once baked became an exceptionally good dish.

[KaosRaptor]

I'd have to say there are 3 main ones: Rogal Dorn was possibly the best tactician of the Primarchs. During the Crusade he lead the Imperial Fists well (so I am told :) ) and when he returned to Terra he proved his mettle as a fortress commander, as we all know.

Alpharius Omegon: Though his tactics were unorthodox, he did get the job done. He knew some tasks required a more subtle touch than that of the Astartes, employing regular humans when necessary.

And finally, like Khestra said, the Night Haunter. Curze didn't take anything he did lightly, and some could say that his fear tactics were perhaps the most effective tactics employed to date. Why fight an army when you can easily break them with the mere knowledge of your presence?

[Wrath of Terra]

I do agree on that point, however, surely he is a lesser tactician if he does not value his forces, plus, if he were a better tactician, he would have been able to adapt to situations as they occured, but on Isstvan, he had no idea he was even being played..

 

Oh by no means am I saying he's Guilliman or anything. I'm just saying that yes he was one of the lesser tacticians, not the worst. And he was one of the lesser by choice and favouring direct simplicity. There's other primarchs that could be considered worse. Mortarion never struck me as particularly good for e.g. (that may change if he gets fleshed out with his own book of course). Many people are too quick (and happy) to stereotype Angron and his legion as shallow and one-dimensional when there's been more than a few signs in the books that both Angron and the World Eaters have hidden depths and a more fleshed out human side rather than being one-dimensional characitures.

I'm actually surprised at this, Brother.

 

In A Thousand Sons (You may not have read it) it mentions Mortarion's own fighting against what could only be described as a Daemonic Force, and when he mentions that, what appear to be Blood Crushers, charging in such a way that they manage to batter aside a Death Guard formation, Ahriman is shocked as he has never heard of Death Guard formations being defeated in battle, as their formations are probably the best in the entire Great Crusade. This, to me, shows that Mortarion is a great tactician as he manages to create a doctrine that is undefeatable by Mortal foes.

 

 

I have read it, and one battle does not a warmaster make. Where are his other great victories? Like Ubermensch Commander says above, where are the quotes from other primarchs lauding his other victories like there are for many other primarchs? Like I said; when he gets fleshed out maybe the perception of Mortarion will change but until then he and the Death Guard come across as solid, dependable b-teamers compared to the a-teamers like Space Wolves, Ultras, World Eaters etc etc.

[Blood Angel Scout]

Surprised not a lot of mention for Sanguinius as quote from Horus- "it should be him" can't remember exactly where and what novel but think it's familiar to most- plus related actions in Great Crusade/Heresy already mentioned should be worth consideration.

 

Also Jaghati (spelling?) Khan for Lightning strikes, a difficult manouver to maintain in heat of battle, has merit.

 

IMO Dorn is good for building/defensive quality but lacks an element of control when attacking i.e. zealous to an extent, not level headed. Fulgrim's concept of perfection in all things also weighs against him.

 

However, from all accounts regarding the Primarchs backstories prior to meeting to Emperor, they all showed their tactical abilites in their relationship to leading homeworld clans, tribes, orders etc etc which were more than likely the basis for tactics used upon recieving their legion

[Skirax]

Alpharious isn't a very no-nonsense guy.

 

It's explicitly stated in the fluff that Alpharious generally took these the long way around, and where other Primarchs would do things the easy way, Alpharious took pains over doing the long thing.

 

As for the most no-nonsense guy; Fulgrim.

 

The prime example for this is the Learan Campaign. Imperial Logistics scientists estimated a long war that would last decades. It took a month.