The "must have" scene

[Unintentional Batman]

Guilliman was basically telling Alpha how to use the Ctrl button biggrin.gif

 

Nah. More like Rob was telling Alpharius (or someone posing as him) not to use IDDQD and IDKFA. Sure, Rob is good enough to get through it all on Hurt Me Plenty without breaking a sweat and is able to school the Spider Mastermind ever on Nightmare on a good day, but when Alpas come and outright cheat in war, Rob disapproves.

[Pulse]

"People" don't say he is astute, the background says he is. This is like saying "People" say Astartes wear armour. Lets continue with the computer analogy. It is a perfectly reasonable method to use the mouse and the edit toolbar to copy and paste chunks of text. It is a more efficient method to use Ctrl+C/V. Guilliman was basically telling Alpha how to use the Ctrl button :tu:

You know what i mean. ;)

 

Anyway yeh, whoever wrote that background on Guilliman needs a slap for writing a tactical genius as a muppet who only likes certain aspects of war, probably a good idea the Codex wasn't purely Guillimans work. He included much of Dorns work as well as other commanders and such, and the text has been added to hugely over the years since Guillimans "death".

 

We know Guilliman died before he could complete the work but he certainly shouldn't get the acclaim as creator. The Space Marines especially should be aware of this and not get turned on over the Codex.

 

It isnt like what Alpharius was doing was particularly dishonorable. The AL usually engages larger forces with smaller forces and uses appropriate tactics to defeat the larger force. Thats just strategy.

Exactly.

[Ferrata]

Anyway yeh, whoever wrote that background on Guilliman needs a slap for writing a tactical genius as a muppet who only likes certain aspects of war.

Surely that is what is important to make these characters believable - they are not 2 dimensional people that only have one thing to hang their hat on. Guilliman was a genius at war, but he also had a code of chivilary that he would stick to. The same thing can be said about many great historical figures - they had certain things they would not do even if it was probably the best thing to do. However, Guilliman said that Alpha's tactic was inefficient, which by Guilliman's and the Ultramarines statistics of compliance, it was in comparison. I do believe we have side tracked this discussion enough already. It basically boils down to this, if you have a preference towards Guilliman, he was a genius with a code. If you have a prefrence for Alpha, Guilliman was being a tactically snob. Such is being human :P

[Pulse]

Anyway yeh, whoever wrote that background on Guilliman needs a slap for writing a tactical genius as a muppet who only likes certain aspects of war.

Surely that is what is important to make these characters believable - they are not 2 dimensional people that only have one thing to hang their hat on. Guilliman was a genius at war, but he also had a code of chivilary that he would stick to. The same thing can be said about many great historical figures - they had certain things they would not do even if it was probably the best thing to do. However, Guilliman said that Alpha's tactic was inefficient, which by Guilliman's and the Ultramarines statistics of compliance, it was in comparison. I do believe we have side tracked this discussion enough already. It basically boils down to this, if you have a preference towards Guilliman, he was a genius with a code. If you have a prefrence for Alpha, Guilliman was being a tactically snob. Such is being human :P

Name me great commanders in history that didn't apply all aspects of war?

 

What makes a great commander, is the use of all aspects of war to gain advantage.

 

I don't dislike Guilliman but he is written as almost the opposite of a great commander and tactician, that is my problem, he isn't written as good as he should be.

[c-wrex]

Ok, I've got one:

 

Corax, alone and unarmored, a bolt pistol (of appropriate size and humility) at his side, gladius in naked hand, moving to end the lives of the weregeld, the infinite weight of his actions slowing each step down into a crawl, the dirge of his dark thoughts killing him with guilt as he kills his twisted brethren.

[Walter Payton]

Anyway yeh, whoever wrote that background on Guilliman needs a slap for writing a tactical genius as a muppet who only likes certain aspects of war.

Surely that is what is important to make these characters believable - they are not 2 dimensional people that only have one thing to hang their hat on. Guilliman was a genius at war, but he also had a code of chivilary that he would stick to. The same thing can be said about many great historical figures - they had certain things they would not do even if it was probably the best thing to do. However, Guilliman said that Alpha's tactic was inefficient, which by Guilliman's and the Ultramarines statistics of compliance, it was in comparison. I do believe we have side tracked this discussion enough already. It basically boils down to this, if you have a preference towards Guilliman, he was a genius with a code. If you have a prefrence for Alpha, Guilliman was being a tactically snob. Such is being human :P

Name me great commanders in history that didn't apply all aspects of war?

 

That is one of the talents that makes a great commander, is the use of all aspects of war to gain advantage. Guilliman is written as almost the opposite, that is my problem.

 

I have Index Astartes: Alpha Legion in front of me and it doesn't infer that Guilliman criticized Alpharius for using "dishonourable" tactics. Guilliman suggested that the Alpha Legion should adopt the Codex Astartes doctrines, and the two had a debate about tactics. But the word "dishonourable," is never used. I don't think that it was necessarily a case of not applying all aspects of war, merely that Guilliman believed in a different method of doing so to Alpharius.

 

P.S: The Alpha Legion's tactics were hugely inefficient, at least they could be: c.f Battle of Tesstra Prime.

[Jimmy Carmine]

Name me great commanders in history that didn't apply all

 

Well there is the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

 

Just before the battle of Waterloo started, when Wellington was informed that Napoleon was in range of the British cannons and asked if they should take the shot he replied "Certainly not!". At that time it was considered improper to kill the enemy leader despite the advantage assassinating Napoleon would have had for the British in the coming battle.

[Capt. Taurus]

Ok, I've got one:

 

Corax, alone and unarmored, a bolt pistol (of appropriate size and humility) at his side, gladius in naked hand, moving to end the lives of the weregeld, the infinite weight of his actions slowing each step down into a crawl, the dirge of his dark thoughts killing him with guilt as he kills his twisted brethren.

 

Spot on!!

[Ferrata]

I don't dislike Guilliman but he is written as almost the opposite of a great commander and tactician, that is my problem, he isn't written as good as he should be.

Really? He is the opposite of "the use of all aspects of war to gain advantage."? The Codex is filled with many complex tactics from a range of overall methods of going to war, from camoflauge for sneaking missions, to armoured assaults to Drop Pod attacks. All he said was that the Alpha tactics were inefficient in comparison. I must have miss-remembered the section though, I am sure one primarch called another dishonourable (was this Dorn to Haunter, which really would make more sense for the Knight) :P

[c-wrex]

And now another one!

 

The scene from the first short story collection from the HH with Angron and Khârn. Where Angron and Khârn talk about what makes them what and who they each are, how they fight, why they fight, and them bonding and such. The fusion of Terran War Hound and the bitter gladiator. Then, the next combat action taken by the War Hou-erm, World Eaters. I guess technically, I want to see the first deployment made by the new World Eaters. See how tried and true Imperial Astartes martial arts are bloodily mated to the arena killing skills of Angron's gladiator heritage.

[Walter Payton]

I don't dislike Guilliman but he is written as almost the opposite of a great commander and tactician, that is my problem, he isn't written as good as he should be.

Really? He is the opposite of "the use of all aspects of war to gain advantage."? The Codex is filled with many complex tactics from a range of overall methods of going to war, from camoflauge for sneaking missions, to armoured assaults to Drop Pod attacks. All he said was that the Alpha tactics were inefficient in comparison. I must have miss-remembered the section though, I am sure one primarch called another dishonourable (was this Dorn to Haunter, which really would make more sense for the Knight) :devil:

 

He didn't say "dishonourable." The section of Index Astartes: Alpha Legion reads thus:

 

"His first encounter with Roboute Guilliman was reputedly strained. Guilliman believed in rigid structure and hierarchy and had a frim battle doctrine from which his Legion never wavered. He was in the process of documenting the "correct," tactics and operation of a Space Marine force, tried and tested during his long years of command. He suggested that Aplharius should adopt this "Codex," structure. However, such rigidity was anathema to the Alpha Legion's belief in initiative and adaptability and an argument over tactics and ideology ensued. When it became clear that Alpharius would not bow to Guilliman's experience and superiority, Guilliman pointed to the thousands of victories and battle honours his legion had won and told his youngest brother he could not hope to compare."

 

Seems more a debate over organisational philosophies and tactics than anything else. He never said Alpharius was "dishonourable."

[Pulse]

Well there is the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

 

Just before the battle of Waterloo started, when Wellington was informed that Napoleon was in range of the British cannons and asked if they should take the shot he replied "Certainly not!". At that time it was considered improper to kill the enemy leader despite the advantage assassinating Napoleon would have had for the British in the coming battle.

He wasn't great.

 

Plus that era was full of poncyness, and smacks of a reputation gaining tactic.

 

Really? He is the opposite of "the use of all aspects of war to gain advantage."? The Codex is filled with many complex tactics from a range of overall methods of going to war, from camoflauge for sneaking missions, to armoured assaults to Drop Pod attacks. All he said was that the Alpha tactics were inefficient in comparison. I must have miss-remembered the section though, I am sure one primarch called another dishonourable (was this Dorn to Haunter, which really would make more sense for the Knight) :devil:

Thats standard military thinking though - apart from drop pods but that can be classed as Air Assault. :)

 

Still AL tactics are arn't inefficient. :(

[Jimmy Carmine]

He wasn't great.

 

With over 60 military victories between 1796 and 1815 in campaigns in the Netherlands, India and France I think he pretty much is a definition of a great military leader. Especially as these victories led to him being promoted from Colonel all the way through to Field Marshall, and directly led to a new Dukedom being created for him. I think that qualifies as great.

 

Plus that era was full of poncyness, and smacks of a reputation gaining tactic.

 

By the time Waterloo had come, he had not only served a term of office in the Irish House of Commons but through his competence in the field he had risen through the ranks and had been awarded a Dukedom. By Waterloo his reputation was well and truly established.

 

I don't know what it is about the era that makes you think it's a little poncy, the aesthetics prehaps. Either way it doesn't change that the Duke's record speaks for itself. A great military leader who as noted in my previous post above did not use all options available to him as he did not deem them proper.

[Marshal Rohr]

He wasn't great.

 

With over 60 military victories between 1796 and 1815 in campaigns in the Netherlands, India and France I think he pretty much is a definition of a great military leader. Especially as these victories led to him being promoted from Colonel all the way through to Field Marshall, and directly led to a new Dukedom being created for him.

 

Plus that era was full of poncyness, and smacks of a reputation gaining tactic.

 

By the time Waterloo had come, he had not only served a term of office in the Irish House of Commons but through his competence in the field he had risen through the ranks and had been awarded a Dukedom. By Waterloo his reputation was well and truly established.

 

I don't know what it is about the era that makes you think it's a little poncy, the aesthetics prehaps. Either way it doesn't change that the Duke's record speaks for itself. A great military leader who as noted in my previous post above did not use all options available to him as he did not deem them proper.

 

You realize all it would have taken would be even a semi-competant commander to use the RL equiv. to AL doctrine on him and it would have ruined him right?

Its a silly comparison. He was a commander during an era where veryone abided by rules as the example showed. What would have happened if he'd been forced to go against any enemy like the AL who used subterfuge and sabatoge to ruin his supply lines, infiltrated his entire force with spies, secretly negotiated Britains allies onto his own side, caused anarchy back in the UK, and ruined the UKs production capabilities during his wars?

 

How effective would he be then? Sure he was brilliant at what he did but the minute you take him out of his comfort zone he would have been screwed.

 

By the way, your nationalism is showing. May wanna zip that back up.

[Walter Payton]

Really? He is the opposite of "the use of all aspects of war to gain advantage."? The Codex is filled with many complex tactics from a range of overall methods of going to war, from camoflauge for sneaking missions, to armoured assaults to Drop Pod attacks. All he said was that the Alpha tactics were inefficient in comparison. I must have miss-remembered the section though, I am sure one primarch called another dishonourable (was this Dorn to Haunter, which really would make more sense for the Knight) :D

Thats standard military thinking though - apart from drop pods but that can be classed as Air Assault. :)

 

Still AL tactics are arn't inefficient. ;)

 

Battle of Tesstra Prime?

 

The Alpha Legion come across a city with weak defences. Rather than attack, they wait for it to build up decent defenses before attacking, so that they can prove their superiority in a difficult battle. (Index Astartes: Alpha Legion)

 

Seems inefficient to me. And not a little arrogant.

[Lord_Caerolion]

So, in one battle, they wait so they can demonstrate how efficient their tactics are. Get rid of the wait, and just look at the battle. The Alpha Legion won a battle against a foe they were only a fraction the size of, with little to no casualties. That's pretty damn efficient. When you then realise that in every other battle they wouldn't have waited to give the enemy time to prepare, and simply started their attack, your only real criticism falls away.

[Pulse]

The Alpha Legion come across a city with weak defences. Rather than attack, they wait for it to build up decent defenses before attacking, so that they can prove their superiority in a difficult battle. (Index Astartes: Alpha Legion)

 

Seems inefficient to me. And not a little arrogant.

You can go quoting the IAs all day, but what they actually would do (given a writer who understands war and tactics) are two different things.

[greatcrusade08]

so becuase you dont agree with the IAs and the authors, and becuase you have a better understanding of war in this fictional setting then none of the quotes and evdience counts?

this could be a very circular argument dont you think?

 

Guilliman considered AL tactics to be inferior to codex tactics, you can argue he was wrong as alpharius did, but Guilliman backed his assertions with the track record of the ultramarines.

whilst the AL were capable of winning against a much larger force (as marines in general are), the ground work of subtifuge and preparation would have taken too long.

the marines werent created to be super spies, they are shock troops.. its thier job to hit fast hit hard and get the job done.. You can imagine why a primarch would find these back alley handshakes to be a little distasteful

[Jimmy Carmine]

You realize all it would have taken would be even a semi-competant commander to use the RL equiv. to AL doctrine on him and it would have ruined him right?

 

That's something we can only speculate. You could be absolutely rights and if someone had 'pulled the rug out from under him' so to speak it could have completely changed the outcome of the 19th Century in Europe... but we are not playing what ifs here. Pulse asked for an example of a great commanders in history that didn't apply all aspects of war, I think his record on paper counts as great and he certainly didn't hold with assassination. Here we have a real world expy for Guilliman in the Ultra vs AL school of war, as requested.

 

By the way, your nationalism is showing. May wanna zip that back up.

 

Not meaning to come over Nationalistic, just striving for accuracy in presenting my argument. If that comes across as jingoistic I'll do my best to dial it back a notch.

[greatcrusade08]

Not meaning to come over Nationalistic, just striving for accuracy in presenting my argument. If that comes across as jingoistic I'll do my best to dial it back a notch.

 

Nah be proud of your british heritage my friend, we can learn from the past, history is important

[Jimmy Carmine]

Not meaning to come over Nationalistic, just striving for accuracy in presenting my argument. If that comes across as jingoistic I'll do my best to dial it back a notch.

 

Nah be proud of your british heritage my friend, we can learn from the past, history is important

 

Oh yes, it is important to be proud of the good and to recognise the bad of your nations history and heritage, but it's always best not to step into trite jingoism, you end up blinding yourself to the 'truth', or as close to it as you can get with a shifting cultural and historical perspective.

 

But now we're getting way off topic here, my bad, sorry! :)

[Walter Payton]

So, in one battle, they wait so they can demonstrate how efficient their tactics are. Get rid of the wait, and just look at the battle. The Alpha Legion won a battle against a foe they were only a fraction the size of, with little to no casualties. That's pretty damn efficient. When you then realise that in every other battle they wouldn't have waited to give the enemy time to prepare, and simply started their attack, your only real criticism falls away.

 

It's still hugely inefficient to do that. Refusing to attack simply to prove a point. That's inefficiency. Slowing down the whole pace of the campaign so Alpharius can show off.

[Aqui]

Having thought about it a little, some more scenes from the HH that I'd love to see. The scene where Dorn is being told that Horus has betrayed the Emperor at Istvaan. The look of horror, anger, and sheer disbelief on his face and the palpable tension in the air. The midnight ceremony inducting Loken to the Mournival. The bit where you see Loken take his oath of moment (witnessed by the Remembrancers). The meeting between Horus and others on the campaign not long after that. And Istvaan itself.

[Pulse]

Nah be proud of your british heritage my friend, we can learn from the past, history is important

I am as proud as they come about being British but there is a time and a place for things like that mate. A 40k forum is not one of them.

 

Having thought about it a little, some more scenes from the HH that I'd love to see. The scene where Dorn is being told that Horus has betrayed the Emperor at Istvaan. The look of horror, anger, and sheer disbelief on his face and the palpable tension in the air. The midnight ceremony inducting Loken to the Mournival. The bit where you see Loken take his oath of moment (witnessed by the Remembrancers). The meeting between Horus and others on the campaign not long after that. And Istvaan itself.

Agreed they would all great scenes, especially Loken being inducted into the Mornival. :D

[Sons of Horus]

It only happened once. Just because Alpharius wanted to show off just one time does not mean his tactics were inefficient. He still won that war didn't he? Besides, if his tactics are inefficient then I guess so are those of current military intelligence agencies?

 

So, in one battle, they wait so they can demonstrate how efficient their tactics are. Get rid of the wait, and just look at the battle. The Alpha Legion won a battle against a foe they were only a fraction the size of, with little to no casualties. That's pretty damn efficient. When you then realise that in every other battle they wouldn't have waited to give the enemy time to prepare, and simply started their attack, your only real criticism falls away.

 

It's still hugely inefficient to do that. Refusing to attack simply to prove a point. That's inefficiency. Slowing down the whole pace of the campaign so Alpharius can show off.