Just finished Age of Darkness

[overlordjebus]

I noticed this during the story about Guilliman that he seemed very good at predicting how future events will turn out, and what actions are best taken for these events. That's when it occured to me what Guilliman may be doing (As we all know, he wasn't at Terra).

 

The end of Savage Weapons confirmed this. Is it possible that the whole thing is just one giant Just As Planned on Guillimans part? He saw this coming and decided to take action which will give him the seat of power? And, if I have to remind you, totally worked out for him.

[Legatus]

Well, he then went on to become one of the High Lords, at least for the Scouring period, and enacted the military reforms, reducing his own Legion to a single Chapter. He then proceeded to lead his Chapter for the followng century or so, before being mortally wounded in battle against Fulgrim. So, yeah, if his agenda was to reform the imperial military, then that worked out just as he wanted.

[Perrin]

Kind of sucks for him that he's been wounded so badly after all that hard work.

 

I'm not sure he saw it all coming per-say, maybe just reacted to events as they happened. Though the AoD story does make it look like he purposefully didnt rush to Terra I still want to believe that he knew he wouldn't make it in time.

[Captain Idaho]

Problem is with many people who read the Heresy series is they can't divorce their prior knowledge from the plots and characters. They see a character's choices and know the final result, so judge those choices rather harshly.

 

Guilliman had a plan and he revealed his intention to "put down" Horus. We know his plan involved taking on opposing Space Marines of any stripe and understood no fortress was impregnable so wanted a master siege master on side to make the appropriate provisions.

 

This implies Guilliman's intent to the Palace on earth. After all, what good is a siege master if he can't get to the siege?

 

It also shows his intention to kill the Warmaster whilst explains his intention to hold true to The Emperor's plan, which was bigger than either him or the Emperor.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is the Siege of Terra isn't even close to happening yet so from his perspective there is every possibility in opposing Horus in the open. Judging from his procurement of a top siege speicalist, putting 2 and 2 together it is logical his plan could involve bleeding Horus' forces dry in costly sieges using minimal resources then breaking his forces with Guilliman's main forces. This could also include Terra, but that would mean the loyalist Iron Warriors would have to visit Terra and Dorn would have to be in on the plan, so seems unlikely.

 

Incidently, people are caught up on the Siege of Terra as being what the Heresy is all about but are forgetting that the whole galaxy was set aflame. A rush to Terra of all forces would be to admit defeat as Horus would just change his plans to take the Imperium and choke the capital.

 

Technically the Siege hasn't even got close to starting in the Heresy series so we don't even know that Guilliman's abscence is a crime. Read the series with an open mind as a new story you have no prior knowledge of and you will enjoy and understand it more. (generic comment)

 

As for the aftermath of the Heresy; I think established background material is very clear that Guilliman didn't become Emperor and even reduced his own power base somewhat (the largest Legion which accounted for more than half the Space Marines in the field down to a Chapter). As of yet there is no evidence to suggest he was a power hungry traitor or anything.

 

Personal Prediction

 

I think there will be a surprise in store regarding Guilliman's plan to defeat Horus. It will come before the Siege of Terra but what will happen is a failure due to a key loyalist ally turning away from Guilliman's plan, thus allowing Horus to escape/counter it. My guess, judging from location and attitude would be The Lion.

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

Personal Prediction

 

I think there will be a surprise in store regarding Guilliman's plan to defeat Horus. It will come before the Siege of Terra but what will happen is a failure due to a key loyalist ally turning away from Guilliman's plan, thus allowing Horus to escape/counter it. My guess, judging from location and attitude would be The Lion.

 

Maybe when the Lion was needed some ware he had to deal with Luthor.

[malika666]

Nope, since the whole Luther thing happened after the Heresy during the Scourging.

[Captain Idaho]

He makes an interesting point though. The DA have a history of pursuing their own agenda and this could be the start of that attitude.

 

Maybe not Luther directly, but something intrinsically linked to it is entirely likely.

 

I'd even like it if the Lion's own ambition meant he deliberately disrupt Guilliman's plans to weaken him, since the Lion was certainly keen on the position of Warmaster after the Heresy, as he said to Perturobo...

 

Be a nice twist.

[Perrin]

The deus ex machina would be the Alpha Legion just thrown in whenever something needs to fail or succeed agaisnt all odds.

[ninja6fett]

I don't think Guilliman was predicting how things would really end, but more of a worst-case scenario. The whole point of the codex was more of a "do this in this instance or do this if this happens and you will get the best result." I see him as capable of seeing all results and proceeding and planning from there in order to cover all POSSIBLE eventualities, not just the likely ones.

[Marshal Rohr]

I just finally finished it as well.

 

Rules of Engagement managed to frustrate the hell out of me, while simultaneously awing me with the badassery of the codex. McNeill has definitely finally figured out just what the codex is. Thank God. However, the new 'Ultramarines wait in Ultramar while everyone else gets screwed over' pisses me off to no end. Also Graham McNeill needs to get over his 4th Co fetish. Blue and Green is one of the poorer color combos.

 

Liars Due was just perfect. A nice thriller/mystery in the novel.

 

I didnt like Forgotten Sons much, though it did have good parts to it.

 

The Last Rememberancer was trulyamazing. Damn good piece there.

 

Not a big Thousand Sons fan so rebirth was good, but not my favorite. A bit like watching a football game between two teams that you dont follow much. Chris is a great author, though. I like his writing style, and the 'subplot' behind why Khârn went to Prospero. Buyers Remorse .

 

The face of treachery was ok-ish. The AL plot twist was straight outta the internet.

 

Little Horus was by far one of my favorite short stories of the whole series. The SoH are still a military organization even with their weird practices, which I really liked. I am not a fan of everyone growing horns and being a massive a-hole to mortals the day of Isstvaan V on, so I like how Abnett portrayed them.

 

The Iron Within made my hatred for the Iron Warriors abate a little. Dantioch is the Clint Eastwood of Gran Torino in the HH series now. I can just imagine him saying 'Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have :huh:-ed with? That's me.'

 

Finally, as a captain in the A D-B fanboy army, clearly Savage Weapons was a good read. The description of the Dark Angels is right on with how I see them. Cold, distant, dry sense of humor.

[Captain Idaho]

Never let your hatred abate brother, just re-direct it. ;)

 

I loved RoE. I agree it is the 1st time we have ever had a proper explanation and demonstration of the Codex working. McNeil did well and in my opinion was a direct response to critics from this very forum. A very humble thing to do, as the man is successful and doesn't owe anyone here anything, so my opinion of him went through the roof.

 

As for the plot twists and turns, I really believe judging Guilliman on apparent inaction at this stage in the series is premature. A D-B himself said this particular plot line was leading somewhere. Like I said previously, the final result of the Heresy hasn't occurred yet and no-one knows it is going to happen yet. Treat the Heresy series as i you don't know what will happen and you will get a fairer representation of what is going on and enjoy the nuances of the story much more.

 

***Edit*** did anyone else laugh when they read the part in RoE when 2 "Salamanders" were killed, 1 jumping of the balcony in a copletely over the top fashion. Gave me the impression that particular Marine was a joker and not taking everything as seriously as many of his brethren!

[Legatus]

Rules of Engagement managed to frustrate the hell out of me, while simultaneously awing me with the badassery of the codex. McNeill has definitely finally figured out just what the codex is. Thank God.

I agree it is the 1st time we have ever had a proper explanation and demonstration of the Codex working. McNeil did well and in my opinion was a direct response to critics from this very forum.

Funny, my reaction was rather the opposite of that. RoE demonstrated that McNeill still does not "get" the Codex, and explains why in almost every of his stories, the Codex is proven insufficient and has to be circumvented. (Other recent example: Chapter's Due). He presents the Codex as not merely giving suggestions on what actions would prove most successful, but instead a specific sequence of instructions for an entire campaign. A sequence which has to be followed, even if the commander does not understand what that sequence will eventually lead to, as could be seen in the engagement against the World Eaters. Obviously, if the Codex works like this, any opponent with the Codex will immediately know what the Codex force will do. No wonder the McNeill Ultramarines are so easy to outmanouver, and the Codex instructions somehow don't suitable apply to all the situations they encounter.

[Marshal Rohr]

Legs, I think the descriptions of when Venatus was taking in the information through his retinals and then made a decision was what made me think better of his descriptions. For instance I don't think he was processing it as a formula, simply forming a plan around the information he had at the time.

 

The description of the World Eaters attack was an example of what you are thinking of overall. Guilliman was trying to train the officers to do more with less men, since ultimately they would have less men at their disposal in the future. The references to captains being given overall command of multiple companies and using single companies as bait, etc are all standard practices of the 41st mellinnia. I think that specific instance was Guilliman attempting to teach, not just give a unbeatable formula.

 

As for the plot line... I assume what Guilliman is doing is letting the Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, and White Scars act as a sacrificial lamb to draw Horus into committing all his forces to one place. By not going straight out and donkey punching Horus he is playing the long game. If Horus seems to be unstoppable then he will eventually become cocky and act as if he is unstoppable and will take more risks. By petting Horus put all his eggs in one basket at Terra Guilliman, the Lion, and Russ can envelop Horus' forces in the Sol system and totally crush them as opposed to letting them scatter.

 

I bet Horus catches wind of this during the Siege and lowers the sheilds because he knows the Emperor will have no way of knowing what Guilliman intends. By the Emperor killing Horus and the chaos forces scattering we have the perfect tragedy by good intentions.

[Legatus]

Legs, I think the descriptions of when Venatus was taking in the information through his retinals and then made a decision was what made me think better of his descriptions. For instance I don't think he was processing it as a formula, simply forming a plan around the information he had at the time.

It is described as the Codex presenting orders and actions to him, but they made no sense to him and his subordinates, and none of them could understand why the Codex would suggest such actions. His subordinates pleaded with him to not listen to those suggestions, as they all were certain that they made no sense, but Ventanus chose to trust in his Primarchs work. Then later in teh campaign, the Subordinates and ventanus himself are surprised that the suggestions of the Codex actually payed off, and it all culminated in a successful stratagem. Essentially, the Codex has not helped him analyze the situation and presented comprehensible approaches, it presented a magic formular that had to be followed. Ventanus trusted in that formular and followed it, and in teh end was surprised that it payed of. The Codex (and Guilliman in writing it) had not merely offered suggestions for one isolated situation where the details had been known as factors, it had anticipated and planned out the entire campaign, and had predicted how all the steps would ultimately play out.

[Captain Idaho]

Did you not read the whole short story Legatus? I'm not being sarcastic here, just genuinely asking because you have missed the whole point.

 

Guilliman goes on to show his "pupils" how dogmatic reliance of the Codex leads to defeat. He admits the Codex is not designed to be the be all and end all of warfare and he has failed as teacher because Venatus didn't realise that.

[Gree]

Did you not read the whole short story Legatus? I'm not being sarcastic here, just genuinely asking because you have missed the whole point.

 

Guilliman goes on to show his "pupils" how dogmatic reliance of the Codex leads to defeat. He admits the Codex is not designed to be the be all and end all of warfare and he has failed as teacher because Venatus didn't realise that.

 

I think what Legatus is objecting to is portraying the Codex as a magic formula, instead of a highly comprehensive tactical document that is understood and added to over the millenia.

[Legatus]

Did you not read the whole short story Legatus? I'm not being sarcastic here, just genuinely asking because you have missed the whole point.

 

Guilliman goes on to show his "pupils" how dogmatic reliance of the Codex leads to defeat. He admits the Codex is not designed to be the be all and end all of warfare and he has failed as teacher because Venatus didn't realise that.

Which is just another problem of how McNeill views the Codex. It tells you specifically what to do. And sometimes it's wrong.

 

That is a fundamental problem with McNeill's interpretation of what the Codex is.

 

Leaving McNeill's stories aside, what we know about the Codex is that it was written by a Primarch of very high intellect, who not only included his own ideas but also the best ones from his brothers. And we know that the Ultramarines have adhered rigidly to the Codex for 10,000 years and are one of the most successful Chapters. So the Codex had been written by an outstanding author, after having fought wars for 200 years. And it has stood the test of time for 10,000 years.

There is one conclusion I draw from this: The Codex does not tell you to do stupid things.

 

It is reasonable to assume, given the way it was authored and has proven itself again and again, that when one knows of the important conditions in a situation, the Codex will provide the empirically most successful solution for that problem. However, that does not mean that someone in possession of the Codex will never lose. There are several factors that could still lead to defeat. If not all conditions are known, then the Codex cannot give accurate advice. If the conditions change (which they will constantly), then the strategy has to be adapted accordingly. Failing to do so will lead to defeat. The commander also has to be very familiar with it, since he has to know where to look for advice and how it is to be applied. Simply "having the Codex" would be pointless. If the enemy combatants overcome your combatants, then no tactics will help. Even with the correct battle plan, the battle will still have to be fought. No one can predict where the missiles will hit, and where the line will break. Suggested tactics rely on probability and averages. The commander also is not omniscient, he cannot know every surprise the enemy has up his sleeve, though the Codex should provide for most eventualities. Also, unknown conditions cannot be accounted for.

 

But there is one thing that should not be an issue: When all conditions are known, and they are common and known conditions, the Codex should not ill advise the commander. He should not give a detrimental suggestion when the commander knows that another would clearly be better. But sadly, the latter is the case in most McNeill stories. It is almost comical how that is the continuing theme of his Ultramarine stories. Obviously the most well known is in "Warriors of Ultramar", but I was quite surprised to learn that he had used pretty much the same plot device in a "Citadel Journal" comic about Uriel Ventris. I had thought that he would have come around in "Chapter's Due", but when skimming through it recently I again found the same device. The Ultramarines are prepared to go with the Codex suggestions, but they just know that they should chose a different approach.

 

It is not that the Codex sometimes simply cannot provide a direct answer, because of unusual circumstances. It is that the answer it gives is wrong. The commander knows all the conditions, and has a good overview of the situation. But what the Codex says would lead to defeat, or at least to much greater casualties than the ad hoc plan the Commander comes up with.

Under such circumstances, it is probably only due to the ineptitude of all the other Chapters that the Ultramarines till managed to be one of the most successful Chapters for 10,000 years, even though tehy adhered to rigidly to the Codex.

[Captain Idaho]

I didn't get take it that way. I read it that the Codex had many of the answers needed for victory, but you need to be aware of the pitfalls of someone working around the protocals you are following.

 

As an example, Venatus tried everything in the Codex (or pre-Codex as we should refer to it). He tried and tried and tried. Not once did he say, "well this ain't working, so let's think of something that will".

 

The Codex provides the knowledge to beat any and all documented warfare Guilliman had experienced, much of that documented by others and likely that which is only conceived by Guilliman. (he was a genius afterall)

 

If something follows a certain method or procedure, then following the Codex to the letter will have an appropriate answer. However, if a foe is wise to your documentation and learned Commanders, or doesn't follow the rules (naughty enemies) then you need to be flexible and think outside the box.

 

The examples given were excellent actually. The World Eaters are always going to be fearsome and relentless in their assaults. They are perfect candidates for being beaten by a large text book. Contrasting to that, the Son's of Horus, lead by a suitably cunning leader (a "mock Horus", if you will) are never going to be so predictable, even though they fight conventional warfare. You beat them Tactically with the Codex, but Strategically with innovation.

 

So you see, it is possible to adhere to the Codex against some opponents and deviate against others and still be Codex adherent.

[Legatus]

If something follows a certain method or procedure, then following the Codex to the letter will have an appropriate answer. However, if a foe is wise to your documentation and learned Commanders, or doesn't follow the rules (naughty enemies) then you need to be flexible and think outside the box.

My point is that in such unconventional situations, the Codex would simply provide no specific suggestion. In McNeills view the Codex would still provide suggestions, but they would then be unwise and detrimental.

 

 

So you see, it is possible to adhere to the Codex against some opponents and deviate against others and still be Codex adherent.

However, the Ultramarines are famous for having strictly adhered to Codex doctrine for the past 10,000 years. That has kind of been their theme since 1st Edition. Since the exact working of the Codex has never been described, his working should conform to that background. McNeill does it the other way around. He assumes that a textbook must be inherently inflexible and flawed, so that must be true for the Codex Astartes doctrine. Therefor if the Ultramarines rigidly adhered to it, that would be a disadvantage. Sometimes it is just necessary to go against it. Specifically in every McNeill story ever written*.

He is not looking at the Ultramarines background and then concludes how the Codex will likely work. He assumes how a tactical book will likely work, and then concludes that following it rigidly would be a disadvantage and therefor the Ultramarines background is silly and needs to be changed.

 

 

*This is an exaggeration. I can merely think of four of his stories off the top of my head where that was the case.

 

 

Edit:

Contrasting to that, the Son's of Horus, lead by a suitably cunning leader (a "mock Horus", if you will) are never going to be so predictable

As far as field tests go, that last engagement was completely redundant and pointless. Or rather, the engagement did not demonstrate whether the Codex would work against Horus leading the Sond of Horus, it demonstrated whether it would work against Roboute Guilliman leading the Ultramarines. There are two distinct differences, which are observable in that engagement's account: First, the Sond of Horus would not have been as intimately familiar with the terrain as the Ultramarines (including Guilliman) were, so ambushes such as those that had been attempted in the account would have been more successful. Secondly, Horus would not have known every detail of the Codex Astartes like the man who had written it did.

The engagement showed one thing: That a commander using the Codex Astartes would not be able to beat the man who wrote the Codex Astartes. But they did not really have to dress up like the Sons of Horus to demonstrate that.

[Captain Idaho]

My point is that in such unconventional situations, the Codex would simply provide no specific suggestion. In McNeills view the Codex would still provide suggestions, but they would then be unwise and detrimental.

 

To be honest, there isn't too much water between those interpretations.

 

Hell, the two interpretations aren't even mutually exclusive. Many unconventional situations would have a provision or two in the Codex, suggestions to assist you but not be the be all and end all of your game plan. The more unconventional the situation, the less information you will have in the Codex to assist you.

 

However, the Ultramarines are famous for having strictly adhered to Codex doctrine for the past 10,000 years. That has kind of been their theme since 1st Edition. Since the exact working of the Codex has never been described, his working should conform to that background. McNeill does it the other way around. He assumes that a textbook must be inherently inflexible and flawed, so that must be true for the Codex Astartes doctrine. Therefor if the Ultramarines rigidly adhered to it, that would be a disadvantage. Sometimes it is just necessary to go against it. Specifically in every McNeill story ever written*.

He is not looking at the Ultramarines background and then concludes how the Codex will likely work. He assumes how a tactical book will likely work, and then concludes that following it rigidly would be a disadvantage and therefor the Ultramarines background is silly and needs to be changed.

 

 

*This is an exaggeration. I can merely think of four of his stories off the top of my head where that was the case.

 

Well to be fair, we never had a real definition as to what strict adherence to the Codex actually meant. If adherence was following the Codex as Guilliman intended in RoI, i.e. to use it to formulate a keener strategic and tactical analysis, then the Ultramarines can quite be successful throughout the 10,000 years.

 

If it was always dogmatic adherence with no free thinking or innovation in it's practioners, then that just means the enemies of mankind are morons! :P

 

As far as field tests go, that last engagement was completely redundant and pointless. Or rather, the engagement did not demonstrate whether the Codex would work against Horus leading the Sond of Horus, it demonstrated whether it would work against Roboute Guilliman leading the Ultramarines. There are two distinct differences, which are observable in that engagement's account: First, the Sond of Horus would not have been as intimately familiar with the terrain as the Ultramarines (including Guilliman) were, so ambushes such as those that had been attempted in the account would have been more successful. Secondly, Horus would not have known every detail of the Codex Astartes like the man who had written it did.

The engagement showed one thing: That a commander using the Codex Astartes would not be able to beat the man who wrote the Codex Astartes. But they did not really have to dress up like the Sons of Horus to demonstrate that.

 

I can't see why someone who is expert in the Codex and follows the best course presented within it's tenents would be disadvantaged facing the author of the book. They would both have the same understanding of the same information, after all.

 

What the field test did was show Guilliman how to over come the Codex, and that his men need to have a brain. It showed them all that a tactical genius, like Guilliam or Horus, would be able to out think them if they allowed themselves to be hide-bound. The Marines learnt a valued lesson in dogmatic trust in a written text book of warfare, whilst the Primarch realised his own failings as a teacher.

 

As a field test, it was the most important test of all.

[Legatus]

To be honest, there isn't too much water between those interpretations.

In one instance, where the Codex simply does not offer specific suggestions, it is not necessary to go against the Codex to succeed. In the instance wher the Codex gives detrimental suggestions, it is necessary to go against the Codex from time to time. I see that as quite a fundamental difference.

 

 

Well to be fair, we never had a real definition as to what strict adherence to the Codex actually meant. If adherence was following the Codex as Guilliman intended in RoI, i.e. to use it to formulate a keener strategic and tactical analysis, then the Ultramarines can quite be successful throughout the 10,000 years.

 

If it was always dogmatic adherence with no free thinking or innovation in it's practioners, then that just means the enemies of mankind are morons! laugh.gif

Or maybe you assume the Codex doctrines are very simple, as in, there are exactly 67 ways to conduct a specific type of operation (like an orbital attack), and the Marines will allways use one of these specific approaches when conducting such an operation. But maybe the Codex just isn't that simple, and doesn't give one comprehensive approach for the whole campaign, and instead has to be applied on a case by case, incident by incident basis, and will take a myriad of different conditions into considerations. A Campaign will consist of several battles, a battle will consist of several encounters, each encounter consists of different combat manouvers*. The Codex will inform each of the individual steps, as opposed to give a complete sequence of actions from the beginning of the Campaign till the end.

 

*Obviously the Codex would not be consulted for impending combat, but the Codex also includes guidelines on how to fight close combat and fire fights, and the Marines would be trained accordingly.

 

 

I can't see why someone who is expert in the Codex and follows the best course presented within it's tenents would be disadvantaged facing the author of the book.

Because the author knows what he wrote. He would know how to effectively counter what he wrote, while the one using the Codex would have to read up on how to counter the approach he was chosing.

 

 

What the field test did was show Guilliman how to over come the Codex, and that his men need to have a brain.

There is a difference between "The Codex will not have the answer to everything, so you need to use your brains", and "The Codex will not get everything right, so you need to use your brains".

[Captain Idaho]

I think you are looking at the nature of the Codex to literally. You are saying that some of it's suggestions will be wrong, therefore the Codex is a manual which you can either follow or disregard. My interpretation, and the one I believe GW through McNeill is going for, is the Codex is a comprehensive text which can explain to you how to do many thinks very efficiently. It provides guidance that can be followed at the discretion of the Commander on the ground etc, depending on variables it cannot quantify in advance.

 

The key word is suggestions. A suggestion by its very nature isn't binding. By the same token, the Codex doesn't make bad suggestions, it provides the best advice it can in a finite capacity. If that doesn't fit, the advice doesn't become less valuable or wrong, it is merely just irrelevant.

[Walter Payton]

I noticed this during the story about Guilliman that he seemed very good at predicting how future events will turn out, and what actions are best taken for these events. That's when it occured to me what Guilliman may be doing (As we all know, he wasn't at Terra).

 

The end of Savage Weapons confirmed this. Is it possible that the whole thing is just one giant Just As Planned on Guillimans part? He saw this coming and decided to take action which will give him the seat of power? And, if I have to remind you, totally worked out for him.

 

It's not impossible. It seems a pretty drastic thing for Games Workshop to do in changing his fluff. But we shall have to wait and see...