Who were Guilliman's "four or five"?

[Conn Eremon]

Well, that has kind of already happened, which is why you kind of come across to me as wanting this to be the case rather than actually being informed by sources of it.

 

I mean, you say how he handles Lorgar and Angron is offset by him getting beaten up by a single squad of Marines, which seems to be an opinion formed by actively ignoring that the scene is described as being deadly for any and all Primarchs, not just Guilliman.

[Gree]

Well, that has kind of already happened, which is why you kind of come across to me as wanting this to be the case rather than actually being informed by sources of it.

 

I mean, you say how he handles Lorgar and Angron is offset by him getting beaten up by a single squad of Marines, which seems to be an opinion formed by actively ignoring that the scene is described as being deadly for any and all Primarchs, not just Guilliman.

Which is contradicted so many times by other feats by Primarchs that withstand far worse, so I simply consider the narrative cancelled out by the vast multitude of contradictory evidence. That is my right as a 40k fan, to interpret the lore in any fashion I see fit. Loose canon and all that. Black Library is inconsistent at the best of times, but when comparing Guilliman to his brothers, he simply had more bad feats than good ones. It's 2-1 so to speak. Show, not tell, and we see alot of showing by other Primarchs that really makes Guilliman look unimpressive in comparison. I myself consider Corax from Raven's Flight a great example on how tough and skilled a Primarch is even in sub-optional conditions.

 

And to be a frank, a single bad incident can permanently color someone's reputation. For example, the Ultramarines have never really recovered since Mat Ward's infamous comments about them, no matter how many other authors write about them in different interpretations. That one bad scene sticks. The damage is done already. The fact that Guilliman worse showings take place in Ultramarine-centric novels only makes it worse. So even if future authors want us to believe that Guilliman is some sort of top-tier warrior, he's just got this incident that permanently stains his record.

 

That's how I view it at least.

[Conn Eremon]

I'm certainly not going to argue against your ability to pick and choose, or against the concept of loose canon. You are right, that it is your right. What I'm getting at now is that, after our conversations on this subject, while you have told us that you are basing this opinion on established sources that prove it, to me you seem to be showing us that it's more a matter of picking and choosing how you view the sources to accommodate your pre-conceived opinion.

 

That is everyone's right as a fan, just like it is Legatus' to cling to the era in which the lore he most enjoyed was the perceived canon, or most fans to elevate their favored faction(s). Hell, I do the latter to some extent, in that I favor the Human factions over the Xenos, or the Loyalist Humans over the Chaos Humans, even though deeper than that I am hard-pressed to favor any over others. I won't say you can't do that, if that is what you want to do. But I can call it out as being what it is, as it seems to me.

[Gree]

I'm certainly not going to argue against your ability to pick and choose, or against the concept of loose canon. You are right, that it is your right. What I'm getting at now is that, after our conversations on this subject, while you have told us that you are basing this opinion on established sources that prove it, to me you seem to be showing us that it's more a matter of picking and choosing how you view the sources to accommodate your pre-conceived opinion.

 

That is everyone's right as a fan, just like it is Legatus' to cling to the era in which the lore he most enjoyed was the perceived canon, or most fans to elevate their favored faction(s). Hell, I do the latter to some extent, in that I favor the Human factions over the Xenos, or the Loyalist Humans over the Chaos Humans, even though deeper than that I am hard-pressed to favor any over others. I won't say you can't do that, if that is what you want to do. But I can call it out as being what it is, as it seems to me.

Well, I am basing it off established sources that prove it.

 

It's just that a certain level of picking and choosing is a must though. If GW publishes a novel saying that Leman Russ wore pink armor and liked ponies, would exactly does one reconcile that with the massively contradictory information that other sources present? Or if GW releases a novel stating that Fugrim remained loyal to the Emperor and Sanguinius fell to Slaanesh? Or that Angron actually wrote the Codex Astartes? Or should I point out that the Ultramarines were a Third-Founding Chapter with a half-Eldar Librarian once? Should I assume that everything published after 1st Edition is wrong?

 

It is the same for me. I go with what is more consistent. There is simply far more examples supporting the contradictory view that Guilliman's comment. Or should I go with Primarchs being able to be slain by bolter shells while ignoring all the feats that Corax, Fulgrim, Sanguinius and Angron all pull off on stark contrast?

 

There might be a couple of things that contradict my view, but that's true for pretty much everything else in the fluff.

[Legatus]

Now, while some homeworlds obviously shaped their Primarchs to a degree(Angron and Magnus probably being the most pertinent,) I do think the Emperor designed each Primarch for a certain role. It's something you see echoed in the Pre-Primarch Legions, how they had the same basic traits that their Primarchs had.

 

I.e, the War Hounds had an strong aggressive streak to them. The Pre-Dorn Fists apparently excelled at sieges. The Pre-Alpharius Alpha Legion were already being used as wetwork agents by the Emperor. The 14th and 18th gene-lines apparently boasted high physical toughness inherent to them. The Thousand Sons seemed to be heavily implied to be made by the Emperor to be his psykers. The 17th have unquestioning dogma on a genetic level, etc, etc.

 

Now, the homeworlds might have reinforced those traits, but it wasn't like they were the sole arbiter or cause of those traits. Magnus was always going to be a psyker. Mortarion and Vulkan were always going to be physically though. Angron was always going to have some level to aggression in him.

 

 

Here is how that line of arguing works in Guilliman's favour though: The Ultramarines are not an army of administrators. The Ultramarines are the "professionals" among the Legions, being formally trained and expected to perform in all ways of warfare. Their fighting capabilities are similarly described as methodical and well trained. The two Primarch fights with Guilliman in the Horus Heresy series did not exaclty describe him in that vein, but see for example the Ultramarine Tetrarch Nicodemus in 'Iron Within', Captain Orfeo in 'Betrayer', or even the Marines Errant (?) Champion from Blood Reaver (?) (it's a very strict Codex Chapter, so it counts) as examples of the Ultramarines' combat traditions. The description of Guilliman's technique during the confrontation between him, Jonson and Curze in 'Unremembered Empire' goes in a similar direction, but their fight is interupted before we could see more.

[Legatus]

Or should I go with Primarchs being able to be slain by bolter shells while ignoring all the feats that Corax, Fulgrim, Sanguinius and Angron all pull off on stark contrast?

 

 

But... if you pick your sources based on consistency, and all those other Primarchs are shown as super tough, wouldn't that mean that the description of Guilliman being almost killed by ten Alpha Legionaries would be inconsistent with the rest, and thus have to be dismissed?

[Gree]

Here is how that line of arguing works in Guilliman's favour though: The Ultramarines are not an army of administrators. The Ultramarines are the "professionals" among the Legions, being formally trained and expected to perform in all ways of warfare. Their fighting capabilities are similarly described as methodical and well trained. The two Primarch fights with Guilliman in the Horus Heresy series did not exaclty describe him in that vein, but see for example the Ultramarine Tetrarch Nicodemus in 'Iron Within', Captain Orfeo in 'Betrayer', or even the Marines Errant (?) Champion from Blood Reaver (?) (it's a very strict Codex Chapter, so it counts) as examples of the Ultramarines' combat traditions. The description of Guilliman's technique during the confrontation between him, Jonson and Curze in 'Unremembered Empire' goes in a similar direction, but their fight is interupted before we could see more.

That wasn't an argument exactly, more me stating my view of things. If people want to interpret the Primarchs as being otherwise then that's fine.

 

I actually do view the Ultramarines as an army of administrators though, given Guilliman apparently spent time creating his own personal little fief while his brothers crusaded in the Emperor's name, and the Ultramarines would have to spent an inordinate amount of time administrating and ruling.

 

But I do think the basic capacity of Astartes would be about the same, barring a view exceptions (Like the Space Wolves and Grey Knights). Most Astartes's combat skills are in the same ballpark, with outliers and variations in each legion. The Ultramarines are the ''average'' Space Marine, unremarkable and typical of their kind.

 

However while I do think the Ultramarines are the average example of their kind, I do place Guilliman as being one of the weaker Primarch in terms of martial prowess. I don't have any doubt he's methodical or well-trained, just that he's really not up to par with guys like Corax or Sanguinius, who have accomplished greater feats. After all, Guilliman was the Primarch that got almost killed by Kor Phaeron and later a single squad of Astartes. Those two incidents are really telling to me.

 

But... if you pick your sources based on consistency, and all those other Primarchs are shown as super tough, wouldn't that mean that the description of Guilliman being almost killed by ten Alpha Legionaries would be inconsistent with the rest, and thus have to be dismissed?

No. Why would it be? In that case it would merely seen that Guilliman is less resilient than his brothers, something that seems to be established with his battle against Phaeron. If it had only happened once with Guilliman I would be inclined to dismiss it, but it's happened twice now.

 

Now maybe if Guilliman got more feats showcasing his resilience, then I would revise my opinion, but there seems to be a certain trend that is established, one that is consistent with my view of Guilliman as being an administrator.

[Conn Eremon]

 

But... if you pick your sources based on consistency, and all those other Primarchs are shown as super tough, wouldn't that mean that the description of Guilliman being almost killed by ten Alpha Legionaries would be inconsistent with the rest, and thus have to be dismissed?

No. Why would it be? In that case it would merely seen that Guilliman is less resilient than his brothers, something that seems to be established with his battle against Phaeron.

Because it is inconsistent with the rest, by showing all of the Primarchs as being less resilient. Guilliman was just the example used. It's saying Primarchs are immune to bolt shells, but I'll allow this contradiction in because then I can say Guilliman isn't.

[Legatus]

After all, Guilliman was the Primarch that got almost killed by Kor Phaeron and later a single squad of Astartes. Those two incidents are really telling to me.

 

 

I heard that in Abnett's next book, Guilliman leads a boarding party into the remaining super battleship of the Word Bearers, but he runs into a group of cleaning personell and they beat him up with their mops. But when the head janitor is about to finish Guilliman off, he stops to gloat about having brought low a Primarch, and then Guilliman uses the distraction and punches his head off.

 

 

No. Why would it be? In that case it would merely seen that Guilliman is less resilient than his brothers, something that seems to be established with his battle against Phaeron. If it had only happened once with Guilliman I would be inclined to dismiss it, but it's happened twice now.

 

Now maybe if Guilliman got more feats showcasing his resilience, then I would revise my opinion, but there seems to be a certain trend that is established, one that is consistent with my view of Guilliman as being an administrator.

 

 

Well, he got jetisoned into space without a helmet, and continued punching Word Bearer heads off. He also took a maul to the head and continued to beat up Lorgar and eventually take on Angron, even though he was eventually bested by the latter.

[Gree]

Because it is inconsistent with the rest, by showing all of the Primarchs as being less resilient. Guilliman was just the example used. It's saying Primarchs are immune to bolt shells, but I'll allow this contradiction in because then I can say Guilliman isn't.

Why would that be a contradiction? We are shown Guilliman getting hurt not once but twice on two separate occasions, while his brothers show superior durability. Since we got a feat for Guilliman's durability, we can compare. Hence my rating.

 

EDIT: Are you referring to Euten's comment? She says something about Guilliman could get killed by a bolter shell to the head, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's right or is knowledgeable about other Primarchs. Is there some other relevant line that I missed?

 

Well, he got jetisoned into space without a helmet, and continued punching Word Bearer heads off. He also took a maul to the head and continued to beat up Lorgar and eventually take on Angron, even though he was eventually bested by the latter.

I don't really consider the former to be impressive, since even Marines have some protection against vaccum with the Mucranoid. It's not as impressive as say, Corax wading through waves of bolter fire or divebombing a Bloodthirster.

 

The scene in Betrayer is good, but as I said before,it's already outnumbered by the other two occasions n which Guilliman got punked, so it's kinda overshadowed by that.

[Castiel]

If I may weigh in, there are a couple of points I'd like to address:

 

1) The nature of the weaponry that we see the primarchs tanking. By and large the weapons that we see them tanking hits from are weapons that damage by crushing - power fists, mauls and the like. I don't know what happens in Raven's Flight, but I'm guessing Corax is shrugging off the bolter fire while fully armoured. A bolt shell is a different proposition, it damages by blasting apart the target. The Primarchs have super-dense bone, far more resistant to crush pressure than normal bone, which may explain why they can take hits from those weapons so well. However, Lorgar loses a hand to a bolt shell an Guilliman points out that a round into the brain pan is fatal even for a primarch. That is because the bolt shell will explode and shatter the skull from within sending brain matter everywhere, or if the shrapnel doesn't have the penetration to leave the skull then it will ricochet around inside turning the grey matter into more of a grey soup. Either way there is no walking away from that.

 

2) Guilliman as has been rightly pointed out, was the General with the professional military training. However, Generals rarely see actual combat in the field, and while Guilliman has certainly seen his fair share of fighting, this is why I feel he is less likely to be as good in combat as many of his brothers. My own personal take is that he probably only took to the field when the situation demanded it, be that diplomatic, inspirational or tactical. However a lot of his time is also spent conducting the overall command of the largest  and most successful of the Space Marine Legions. Guilliman wouldn't be as deadly in combat as his brothers because he didn't need to be, he had the resources and the tactical awareness that meant that he would always be fighting on his terms. 

 

Think of it this way, a general will have a lot of training for combat both strategic and personal, but this is weighted towards the strategic and his combat abilities won't be as innate as that of a captain, for example. The Captain sees much more direct combat, and so is more attuned to the natural flow of personal close quarters combat, knows exactly how to move, when to strike etc from hard won experience, its instinctive for him. He has some awareness of strategic planning as well, but doesn't understand it as well as the General.

 

If you pitch them both straight into hand to hand combat then the smart money is on the captain to win, as he has the more experience an ingrained understanding of this kind of combat. However, if its a war then I'd bet on the General, as his experience and tactical nous mean that he can bring the captain to battle on his terms, worn down and weary to strike the killing blow.

 

To me Guilliman is a general, whereas a lot of the other primarchs are captains. If you throw them into a straight hand to hand engagement Guilliman will probably come off worse, but if it is a pitched battle then I'd bet on Guilliman, as he will outmanoeuvre and pick apart his opponent.

 

I don't think not being as strong a combatant as some of his brothers makes Guilliman any less or worse than his brothers, I think it shows that he understands war better than a lot of them. A strong arm might win a battle, but a keen mind will win a war.

[Gree]

1) The nature of the weaponry that we see the primarchs tanking. By and large the weapons that we see them tanking hits from are weapons that damage by crushing - power fists, mauls and the like. I don't know what happens in Raven's Flight, but I'm guessing the bolter fire Corax is shrugging off while fully armoured. A bolt shell is a different proposition, it damages by blasting apart the target. The Primarchs have super-dense bone, fare more resistant to crush pressure than normal bone, which may explain why they can take hits from those weapons so well. However, Lorgar loses a hand to a bolt shell an Guilliman points out that a round into the brain pan is fatal even for a primarch. at is because the bolt shell will explode and shatter the skull from within sending brain matter everywhere, or if the shrapnel doesn't have the penetration to leave the skull then it will ricochet around inside the skull turning the grey matter into more of a grey soup. Either way there is no walking away from that.

Corax's armor was broken and wrecked from an earlier explosion and he himself was exhausted and wounded. That doesn't stop him from wading through a hurricane of bolter fire and going through Astartes like a knife through hot butter, even taking out tanks and Terminators in the process without stopping.

 

Fulgrim's skin is explicitly described as being tougher than Terminator Armor, and taking only a bruise from Ferrus's fist, which would have apparently ruptured Terminator Armor.

 

Angron had an entire fortress fall on him. It made him angry.

 

This is all just off the top of my head. I could probably pull out many more durability feats if I sat down and did a close reading.

[Castiel]

 

Corax's armor was broken and wrecked from an earlier explosion and he himself was exhausted and wounded. That doesn't stop him from wading through a hurricane of bolter fire and going through Astartes like a knife through hot butter, even taking out tanks and Terminators in the process without stopping.

 

Fulgrim's skin is explicitly described as being tougher than Terminator Armor, and taking only a bruise from Ferrus's fist, which would have apparently ruptured Terminator Armor.

 

Angron had an entire fortress fall on him. It made him angry.

 

This is all just off the top of my head. I could probably pull out many more durability feats if I sat down and did a close reading.

 

That's fair enough. However, a well aimed or lucky bolt shell hitting his eye could easily penetrate the skull and cause the kind of damage I mentioned. At that close range and with what I can only assume were good marksmen it was probably a very real risk at the time.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

 

1) The nature of the weaponry that we see the primarchs tanking. By and large the weapons that we see them tanking hits from are weapons that damage by crushing - power fists, mauls and the like. I don't know what happens in Raven's Flight, but I'm guessing the bolter fire Corax is shrugging off while fully armoured. A bolt shell is a different proposition, it damages by blasting apart the target. The Primarchs have super-dense bone, fare more resistant to crush pressure than normal bone, which may explain why they can take hits from those weapons so well. However, Lorgar loses a hand to a bolt shell an Guilliman points out that a round into the brain pan is fatal even for a primarch. at is because the bolt shell will explode and shatter the skull from within sending brain matter everywhere, or if the shrapnel doesn't have the penetration to leave the skull then it will ricochet around inside the skull turning the grey matter into more of a grey soup. Either way there is no walking away from that.

Corax's armor was broken and wrecked from an earlier explosion and he himself was exhausted and wounded. That doesn't stop him from wading through a hurricane of bolter fire and going through Astartes like a knife through hot butter, even taking out tanks and Terminators in the process without stopping.

 

Fulgrim's skin is explicitly described as being tougher than Terminator Armor, and taking only a bruise from Ferrus's fist, which would have apparently ruptured Terminator Armor.

 

Angron had an entire fortress fall on him. It made him angry.

 

This is all just off the top of my head. I could probably pull out many more durability feats if I sat down and did a close reading.

 

 

Corax was fueled by RAGE and armored in the blood of his betrayed Sons.

That crate of whoop ass was getting delivered regardless of rain, sleet, bolter fire or snow.

 

WLK 

[Gree]

So having a chance to acquire my copy of Unremembered Empire again, I checked the scene and it's chapters again.

 

The only thing I can find is that Euten claims that a single bolter shell striking Guilliman's head would have killed him, nothing about Guilliman himself stating that all Primarchs could have been killed in that ambush. Am I missing a certain line or paragraph? Because I can't find any other relevant statement on the matter.

[Castiel]

I couldn't tell you. In that case him dying from that is just the speculation of a mortal with iirc no real combat understanding, so maybe it is wrong.

 

 I just remembered though that the AL used banestrike rounds, which would have made them considerably more deadly than the standard rounds of the time.

[Marshal Rohr]

I like to think of Guilliman as the first of the great general Primarchs. He's Maximus Meridius, Caesar, and Emperor Augustus. I don't need black library to tell me what he's like. I know what he's like.

[Augustus]

Didn't Fulgrim get a round to the head? Or was he saved because reasons? (Road to demonhood?)

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

Didn't Fulgrim get a round to the head? Or was he saved because reasons? (Road to demonhood?)

 

In Angel Exterminatus he allowed the RG sniper/superwarrior Sharrowkyn to tag him in the head with a round in order to win Perturabo over to his scheme.

 

WLK

[Phoebus]

But you ignore that this is fiction and how good Guilliman is up to the author.

This statement, right here, should suffice for ending the debate on how different Primarchs respond differently to different types of damage.

 

Fulgrim shrugs off a power fist in a Graham McNeill novel because that's how McNeill views Primarchs. Guilliman is susceptible to "mere boltguns" in a Dan Abnett novel because that's how Abnett views Primarchs. Does anyone seriously doubt that Guilliman wouldn't shrug off a power fist in a McNeill novel? Or that Fulgrim wouldn't be susceptible to "mere boltguns" in an Abnett novel?

 

This is a direct byproduct of a "shared sandbox" setting. I don't mean to sound rude, but readers shouldn't ignore this when trying to argue that Guiliman is automatically weaker than Fulgrim because two different authors depicted two different characters differently in two different novels.

 

On the generalship thing, FW was only really applying logic to statements about Ferrus made a long time ago - he was the 3rd discovered Primarch, so one of the 'oldest', ...

By "a long time ago" do you mean a year or so ago, when Laurie Goulding revealed the Primarch Discovery Order for the first (to my knowledge) time ever? ;)

 

My feelings on this "renaissance" of Ferrus Manus's generalship is that it's a well-meaning attempt to rehabilitate the character's reputation after a number of showings that ranged from "lackluster" to ill-conceived. So yeah, you have Guilliman and Horus, among others, talking about how indispensable he was and what a grasp on warfare he possessed. Forge World casts him in a better light, to be sure, but what's done is done.

[b1soul]

Didn't Fulgrim get a round to the head? Or was he saved because reasons? (Road to demonhood?)

 

IIRC Fulgrim tanks a sniper round to the eye

[Augustus]

 

 

Didn't Fulgrim get a round to the head? Or was he saved because reasons? (Road to demonhood?)

In Angel Exterminatus he allowed the RG sniper/superwarrior Sharrowkyn to tag him in the head with a round in order to win Perturabo over to his scheme.

 

WLK

I read that as Fulgrim's hubris forcing him to say that.

[Gree]

This statement, right here, should suffice for ending the debate on how different Primarchs respond differently to different types of damage.

I think everyone can recognize the Doylist reasons for a particular event, but however many others do approach the issue from the Watsonian perspective of focusing on the in-universe reasons for an events. It's a very common view then by many fans, not only in 40k, but in many other science fiction fandoms.

 

Everyone is entitled to their view and interpretation of 40k, so yeah, one is entirely entitled to ignore that view when compiling an opinion. ''Death of the Author'' is a thing, and a concept I myself use when compiling my own interpretation of the fandom. Shared sandbox or no, I know what I read and what impression that gives me. If someone to approach to Guilliman in the Doylist manner, then they are so inclined, but I, and others, go with the Watsonian view.

[Legatus]

''Death of the Author'' is a thing

 

 

But if we know a lot about the authors and the differences in their work and in their personal interpretations of characters and lore, since they often give interviews and respond to questions during conventions or online, then maintaining a strict Watsonian perspective would be blatantly willfully ignorant. "Death of the Author" does not really apply when a lot of readers can immediately connect the name "Dan Abnett" not only to a face, but even to a voice and to a bit of personality. And when his preliminary descriptions of a novel (like "the Space Wolves are the most ruthless and unhinged of all the Legions") are enough to enrage the fandom. A Watsonian perspective cannot be maintained when so much additional material and statements by the authors are available via blogs, forums, interviews and youtube videos.

[Gree]

 

''Death of the Author'' is a thing

 

But if we know a lot about the authors and the differences in their work and in their personal interpretations of characters and lore, since they often give interviews and respond to questions during conventions or online, then maintaining a strict Watsonian perspective would be blatantly willfully ignorant. "Death of the Author" does not really apply when a lot of readers can immediately connect the name "Dan Abnett" not only to a face, but even to a voice and to a bit of personality. And when his preliminary descriptions of a novel (like "the Space Wolves are the most ruthless and unhinged of all the Legions") are enough to enrage the fandom. A Watsonian perspective cannot be maintained when so much additional material and statements by the authors are available via blogs, forums, interviews and youtube videos.

 

It certainly can be maintained. I've spoken to A D-B many times on this forum and I maintain my own views and opinions on Abaddon and the Black Legion. I've seen interviews of Dan Abnett and suchlike, but I certainly don't have any problem with disagreeing with him on certain aspects. (Though I have never had the chance to speak with him).

 

A Watsonian perspective can definitely be maintained. Heck, in the Star Wars fandom alone you have countless fans who disagree rather fiercely with George Lucas, let alone players in a universe as flexible and permissive as Warhammer 40k and it's concept of loose canon.

 

(If you want I can name plenty of online debating sites for various fandoms in 40k that use the Watsonian perspective. Spacebattles for one. Actually in my experiences I find the Doylist perspective to be firmly in the minority. Perhaps not on this site, but certainly in the wider 40k fandom. People just take what they read and run with it.)

 

That is of course, the beauty of 40k, players are fully entitled to whatever perspective and opinion of the setting they have. If a fan chooses to take a Watsonian perspective to something, then it certainly doesn't make them ignorant or any less wrong than fan who chooses to take another perspective, and vice-versa. Maybe you feel differently about that, but that's your opinion.