Horus Heresy: Living Primarchs

[Legatus]

Weell, during the fight between Jonson and Luther they were said to have leveled the entire monastery they were fighting in, so that sounded like some DBZ/Man of Steel stuff. And remember that Jonson was the guy elsewhere described to have duked it out for an entire day with Leman Russ.

 

Those fights were on a different level than "Guilliman gets warp-slapped around a bit by a dark apostle".

[Loesh]

Rereading this discussion and the lore notes I took for it, it made me realize that really I just want to see the next Black Legion book to see what happens next.

 

With the Black Legion supplement I always thought the wording was interesting, where not only was a deal struck but their 'ancient hatreds' were set aside, it almost makes it sounds like they are...friends? after. Only ADB knows how it goes down of course, but it my head I can see Abaddon arriving on this massive fortress world which is Fulgrims pleasure planet, countless Emperors Children from Fulgrims personal warhost have been waiting with lots of anti-air defenses, they are expecting a big and bloody battle....then Fulgrim just lets him land, some of them shoot Abaddon a few glances of hate but say nothing.

 

Fulgrims waiting in a ridiculously huge dining hall "Would you like some wine?" and scene cut. That just seems like something Fulgrim would do in my mind, hopefully we get to see a bit more of the modern Primarchs in 40k through those books, if only a tiny bit.

[daveNYC]

One thing I wouldn't mind them exploring is the idea that not all the traitor primarchs are daemon primarchs.

 

Maybe Lorgar decided that since his big plan failed that he's not worthy of elevation or perhaps Perturabo got extra sulky and decided that going 100% chaos is for losers and then locked himself in his fortress to brood.  Even Magnus could just be his astral self, and not actually incorporating anything from Tzeentch, it's just that Tzeentch keeps playing him for a sucker so he's too frozen with doubt to try and strike out on his own.  And of course Alpharius and Omegon, because reasons!

 

It'd be a big change, but it'd be interesting if some of the existing traitor primarchs had motivations outside of 'for chaos', which is difficult to do if they're daemonized and have their will subverted to that of their master.  Not that there aren't examples of some daemons doing things contrary to their God's interest, but those moments tend to be short lived, ineffectual, and harshly punished.

[Wade Garrett]

Just popping on to say that the Lucifer Blacks are a terrible example as far as mortals being able to hang with Astartes, since (so far) every time they've gone up against Space Marines they've come up short.

 

Although there are cases like Tom Cruise in The Outcast Dead or Inquisitor Eisenhorn in the "modern" era that do illustrate this is a thing that can happen.

[Phoebus]

 

But you see that's the thing, Dorns fate isn't defined, in fact none of the Primarch's fates are defined. Even Konrad Curze's feed cut out just before the fight starts, we don't actually know if any of them are dead. Even Ferrus Manus, the man who we read about having his head chopped off, never had his body found and many Iron Hands believe he still lives to this day. I am not saying I believe Ferrus Manus is alive, I believe he's deader then a doornail, but I am saying there's ambiguity left there just for the possibility.

 

But that possibility cuts two ways, there are rumors that Fulgrim died during the Legion Wars, do I find that likely? No, but that's my interpretation. It's equally possible that Dorn was dragged out of his saddle and beat to death by cultists. Personally, I don't mind that possibility because it's just that, it's one in about ten squillion things that could of happened. 

Perhaps I'm not using the word properly.  When I say the primarchs are a "defining aspect," I just mean that they are of the utmost importance, and that their death has to be respectful of this.  Logic and limitations be damned, possible isn't what we should be thinking about when it comes to what might kill a primarch; rather, it has to be something appropriately spectacular - tragically or heroically so.

 

When I referenced Fulgrim's fate, I was just pulling an example out of a hat.  I didn't mean his fate was defined.  His actual fate (whatever it may be) is irrelevant to me.  What is relevant is the notion that it was possible that he might die that way... had SHARROWKYN been packing a bigger gun.  I'm obviously peddling my opinion here, but I just think that would be such a disappointing, underwhelming way for a creature as important to the setting as Fulgrim to die.

 

Primarch mortality's a weird subject. Remember, originally, Luther almost made a Lion El'Johnson Cranial Pâté with nothing more than a bolt pistol, and the Emperor was nearly throttled to death by a random, frenzied Ork. Under those circumstances, I don't think it's out of line to imagine Rogal Dorn being drowned in a room of madman cultists. During that era (RT, 2nd and maybe some of 3rd Edition), the Primarchs could dish out some pretty serious hurt, but weren't blessed with an equal set of immunities. They kinda came off like the X-Men, at least to me. Now they're more like demigods, which can probably be traced to the overall zeitgeist of scifi/fantasy material right now, but not all the backstories (like Dorn's) have been upgraded evenly. Assuming there's still a 40K to fiddle with in ten years' time, we'll probably see similar adaptive changes.

 

Really?  Man, I have never read that version before.  The earliest mention I recall is from Codex: Angels of Death.  In that book, the Lion couldn't bring himself to finish off Luther (who was aided by Chaos), and his erstwhile brother unleashed a "furious psychic attack that left [the Lion] mortally wounded."  Which, to use the parlance of The Princess Bride, means he was only "mostly dead" and will be back to ruin the Crimson Path, etc., etc..

 

I'd like to add reader's preference to that.  What the authors are presenting to us is one possibility of many.  Some, none, or all could be true.  Therefore, reading the lore is an interpretive exercise where the reader decides what is plausible based on available sources.  In short, we as readers have agency in our interpretation, consumption, and use of available lore.

...

None of the accounts concerning any of the primarchs are definitive.

...

That's the beauty of it.  Context is everything.  And so is interpretation and bias.  Because maybe everything you've been told is a lie.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with the idea that so many of the tales we are told are based on incomplete, or even corrupted sources.

 

But to a point, right?  I say this because it's one thing for Iskander Khayon to be spinning ludicrous tales about Abaddon and the genesis of the Black Legion to the Inquisition for reason X, Y, or Z: the perspective of Talon of Horus, after all, allows for that.  If, e.g., David Allandale came on this forum and tried to explain how Damnation of Pythos is told from an unreliable point of view, however, and thus couldn't be trusted to be telling "the truth" of what happened, I'd cry foul.  I mean, who exactly is providing me with inaccurate information?

[Chapter Master Valrak]

Dorn lives!

[E.G.J.]

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with the idea that so many of the tales we are told are based on incomplete, or even corrupted sources.

 

 

But to a point, right?  I say this because it's one thing for Iskander Khayon to be spinning ludicrous tales about Abaddon and the genesis of the Black Legion to the Inquisition for reason X, Y, or Z: the perspective of Talon of Horus, after all, allows for that.  If, e.g., David Allandale came on this forum and tried to explain how Damnation of Pythos is told from an unreliable point of view, however, and thus couldn't be trusted to be telling "the truth" of what happened, I'd cry foul.  I mean, who exactly is providing me with inaccurate information?

 

I somewhat agree in that it would be a bit odd for an author to declare that their work is told form an unreliable point of view, but it wouldn't be out of this world.  But more to the point, and a more plausible scenario, is that another author composes a narrative that negates, in part or in full, anything written by somebody else. 

 

Consdier what ADB's Night Lords trilogy did to Spurrier's Lord of the Night.  Now, the former doesn't negate the latter.  They represent different accounts and viewpoints of events, the veracity of which, are open to interpretation.  I wouldn't fault either author if they came on here and said, "You know what?  The account I provided may not be entirely reliable."  

 

By the same token, narratives written by the same author within the same novel, are equally open to interpretation.  Look at the discrepancy between Guilliman's encounter with the Alphas in Unremembered Empire and Konrad Curze's seeming invisibility.  It's a glaring inconsistency in terms of a primarch's destructibility.  As a reader you almost have to assume that portions of that yarn are of dubious credibility.

 

Another point I'd like to make is that while BL authors provide us with the lore, within the context of 30/40k the accounts have in-universe origins.  Spurrier is the author, but it's Sahaal's narrative and Sahaal's and Acerbus' points of view.  In that context, Spurrier is free to provide alternative, conflicting, and contradictory narratives.  So if, say, ADB was to write another novel that called parts, or all, of the Night Lord's trilogy into question, or particular events in THF for example, I don't see that as a problem at all.

[Lexington]

When I say the primarchs are a "defining aspect," I just mean that they are of the utmost importance, and that their death has to be respectful of this.  Logic and limitations be damned, possible isn't what we should be thinking about when it comes to what might kill a primarch; rather, it has to be something appropriately spectacular - tragically or heroically so.

I dunno about this. There's an idea out there, and not a great one, I think, that all 40K stories have to work optimally within the confines of the genre novel model of storytelling. Every event has to be based on the trials of specific characters, external or internal, and it makes quite a bit of the newer background feel lame and artificial. This is something that goes beyond 40K - it's present in a lot of gaming today, and probably has a lot to do with the way that anyone with a half-decent IP is caught up in the trend of franchising, GW included.

 

Anyway, getting away from that diversion, often it's OK to just let history be boring old history, even in a fictional and ostensibly "epic" setting like 40K's. F'rex, it always added a lot of verisimilitude, at least to me, how pre-3rd Edition background suggested that several of the Primarchs simply got old and died. Besides feeling a bit more real, it also added some nice catharsis to the post-Heresy story, as those hoary old warhorses ended their days rebuilding an empire they were now reluctantly in charge of. When the IA articles came out and detailed every Primarch's life in dramatic form, that ended up getting lost, and I think 40K's lesser for it. Besides that, they got repetitive - every loyalist Primarch ended up going out or disappearing in some dramatically suitable, epic way, which had a net effect of making none of their final acts seem very interesting. 

 

Really?  Man, I have never read that version before.  The earliest mention I recall is from Codex: Angels of Death.  In that book, the Lion couldn't bring himself to finish off Luther (who was aided by Chaos), and his erstwhile brother unleashed a "furious psychic attack that left [the Lion] mortally wounded."

Nah, I'm talking about Lion and Luther's first meeting, when El'Johnson was just a feral little Primarchlet. It might've been changed since, but I distinctly remember that just getting clipped by a bolt round put the Lion out of the fight, and it's specifically said that the full-on round would have left the First Legion Primarchless.

[Phoebus]

I'll have to offer responses on the other topics later, but re: the Lion...

 

The incident you're referring to is from Codex: Angels of Death. I mean no disrespect, but you're not remembering that excerpt correctly. An unknown knight fires a volley of shots at the Lion when he and his party confront him in the wilderness. Thanks to his reflexes, the Lion dodges all of them save one, which clipped him in the shoulder and exploded, causing him great pain. It is the full volley that would have killed him, according to the narrator - not a single bolt. Also, he's not "taken out of the fight", but is cornered by the knights. At that point, the narrator states that, things may have turned out quite differently had he been gunned down, but that Luther recognized him to be a man.

 

Either way, I maintain that this sort of thing comes down to the individual author. There are two other situations similar to that of the Lion, but with wildly varying results. On the one extreme, we have Guilliman almost being killed by a squad of Alpha Legionnaires who open up on him. That story is told by about as reliable a perspective as you get in this universe: the perspective of the reader, observing events not told by an in-universe narrator. On the other extreme, we have Alpharius - in his Index Astartes article - rushing through a volley of boltgun fire, getting shot several times, but still being able to get within striking distance of Horus. He is not described as "near death" by the narrator, who is - by the record's own admission - not reliable.

 

And then, of course, we have a variety of other situations where Primarchs are able to shrug off tremendous damage with no real effect.

[Chaeron]

I somewhat agree in that it would be a bit odd for an author to declare that their work is told form an unreliable point of view, but it wouldn't be out of this world.

It's a narrative device that some use quite effectively: the whole point of an unreliable narrator is you as the reader actively question the motives and what they choose to portray. It doesn't always come across perfectly, but it works in a different way to a character's perspective through which the story may be told. We should inevitably question what is written and the influences on the characters, but this should be interpreted differently to a narrative device employed for effect.

[Loesh]

 

I somewhat agree in that it would be a bit odd for an author to declare that their work is told form an unreliable point of view, but it wouldn't be out of this world.

It's a narrative device that some use quite effectively: the whole point of an unreliable narrator is you as the reader actively question the motives and what they choose to portray. It doesn't always come across perfectly, but it works in a different way to a character's perspective through which the story may be told. We should inevitably question what is written and the influences on the characters, but this should be interpreted differently to a narrative device employed for effect.

 

 

Hell, ADB does it all the time, none of his books are 100% unbiased and that's on purpose. Talos, for example, smacks of being ignorant when dealing with Abaddon. I get the impression in fact, that in his books the people that are giving us the narration often believe or think things that are just flat out wrong in the Warhammer universe and their own warped perception is all that makes it seem right.

 

Course, i'm not ADB so I wouldn't know and to my limited understanding he's probably way too busy to answer this kind of stuff on the forum right now.