Who is "unreliable"?

[Conn Eremon]

Kol is correct. I was providing the views of each side without saying one was more correct than the other.

[Brother-Sergeant Bohemond]

Legatus, I would say that Leman is the more unreliable than Jonson...Leman knew the plan and instead of going with the plan he wanted to rain on Jonson's parade and do things to satisfy his honour. So I would say Jonson doing his own thing was actually a response to Russ doing his own thing, and hence being unreliable. ;)

[Legatus]

Legatus, I would say that Leman is the more unreliable than Jonson...Leman knew the plan and instead of going with the plan he wanted to rain on Jonson's parade and do things to satisfy his honour. So I would say Jonson doing his own thing was actually a response to Russ doing his own thing, and hence being unreliable.

At least in one side's telling of the events. From the other side's point of view, the Dark Angels suddenly left their positions and left the Space Wolves' flank unprotected. I could agree that Russ making demands over how the battle should proceed was not the most cooperative (going even as far as ordering Jonson to stand down), but on the other hand Jonson apparently did not inform him that he would not comply, as we end up with Russ at the feet of the fortress witnessing in frustration how Jonson has made it to the top and has defeated the tyrant.

Russ perhaps wasn't the easiest to deal with, but it was specifically with Jonson where the two attitudes clashed. More social Primarchs may have made concessions to Russ in such a situation, but in turn would have gotten him to compromise in other matters. Russ may have been headstrong, but I didn't get the impression that he was unwilling to cooperate in general. Whereas Jonson was generally described as uncommunicative.

Edit: Which is why I specifically only deemed Jonson himself as "unreliable", but not the Dark Angels Legion in general.

[E.G.J.]

I think we have to look at "reliable" as meaning more than just getting the job done.

 

Reliable connotes being trustworthy.  Being somewhere when you say you're going to be there.  Performing a task the way you're supposed to and within an agreed upon time frame.  To be somebody that others can depend on.  To not break one's word.

 

So pulling a Charlie Sheen and calling the "win" when you didn't finish a campaign on time, put your brothers at risk, or otherwise massacred millions in no way makes you reliable.  Quite the opposite.  And the burden of proof would be higher for a primarch.  They are superhuman after all, and with far superior intellects and faculties than regular mortals.  So no, for a primarch it's not reliable to not be on time, to leave your brothers in the lurch, or to go off the rails and commit planet-wide genocide.

 

So:

 

Alpharius- Reliable?  Trustworthy?  Or let's put it this way.  Would you want to depend on Alpharius?  Didn't think so. 

 

Angron-  Reliable?  Only if reliable suddenly means unstable. 

 

Lorgar-  Reliable?  Hmmm, let's see.  Who has he not lied to?  And let's not forget that whole heresy bit.

 

Horus- Reliable?  Don't they call it the Horus Heresy?  Maybe we can ask the loyalists if they think Horus is dependable.

 

Fulgrim- Reliable?  Ask Perturabo.  I'm sure he's chuffed.

 

Magnus- Reliable?  How did that whole Edict of Nikaea turn out?  Again, reliable means you do what you say you're going to do.

 

Perturabo- Not sure on that one actually.  Benefit of the doubt....until Olympia.  And no, that was not what had to be done.  That was over the top, and he knew it, which is why the Iron Hands all felt such guilt and were easily turned to Horus' cause. 

 

Leman Russ-  What shall we call that whole Night of the Wolf thing.  Can we rely on this guy not to attack his brothers in arms?  Are the Wolves a reliable legion?  I'm not sure.  I think it depends on what perspective you're looking from.  In 40k, at least, the Imperium at large probably don't find them all that reliable (at least in the trustworthy department).

 

Lion el'Jonson- I don't know if you can consider a person with that many secrets and that many suspicions reliable.  Maybe if he was super punctual.

 

Ferrus Manus-  Maybe.  A tad volatile, but seems to run things with errr, machine like precision.  Benefit of the doubt.  Until he got his head chopped off.  Now we can't even rely on him 100% to be entirely dead.

 

Corvus Corax-  Seems reliable enough.  Depends on how subterfugy his subterfuge is from the perspective of his brothers.

 

Mortarion- Do you  think Magnus thought he was reliable after he ratted him out to daddy?  Depends on the point of view, I suppose.

 

Vulkan-  Seems reliable

 

Konrad Curze-  Hmmm, nope!  If you and your legion would be subject to sanction with or without the Heresy, then reliable is not the word I'm looking for.

 

Rogal Dorn- Probably reliable, or at least it appears that way. 

 

Roboute Guilliman-  Yeah, he might be somewhat reliable.  I'd gather if he was picking you up from the airport he'd be there on time and there would be few to no casualties.  Hey, might even get a parade.  Bonus.

 

Sanguinius-  A genetic flaw within your legion that you don't share with others, you say?  Reliable on lay-away maybe.

 

Jaghatai Khan- I haven't read enough on him to make that call.....yet.

 

 

In my book, very few of the primarchs are particularly reliable.  Most are prone to go off on their own agendas, to put themselves ahead of their brothers, to willfully abandon or endanger other legions, and to harbor suspicions and outright hostilities against each other. 

 

As far as teamwork goes.  Every single one of the primarchs plays HORRIBLY with others.  Maybe Sangy gets a pass, but otherwise they pretty much act like spoiled, petulant, barely-keeping-from-scrapping-with-one-another, man-children.  It's almost a miracle the Great Crusade lasted as long as it did.