Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Does it really matter if it enrages the fandom? Does the fandom even exist as a unified body? People just on the BnC tend not to give a :cuss what enrages me. Why would a BL author? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892386 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoebus Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Gree, You're free to maintain whatever stance you want, of course. Ultimately, though, we're still talking about inconsistencies of character treatment by several different authors within a fictional universe. Ignoring this when engaging in a "Who is the Best?!?"-style discussion will make things problematic... unless your view is that all fifteen (I hope I didn't miscount) authors entrusted with depicting a primarch in a short story, novella, or novel are operating from a common standard (one that would also have to had been applied to the last two decades' worth of Codices, Index Astartes articles, etc). Going by that logic, Fulgrim is depicted being able to handle far more damage in a McNeill novel than Roboute Guilliman in an Abnett novel precisely because the former is simply that much tougher than the latter.We can put whatever labels we want on our experience, and we can compare it to other genres however much we life. At the end of the day, however, it's been made clear that the authors who write fiction for Warhammer 40k have fairly broad discretion on how they depict places, characters, and things. This has - inevitably - resulted in variations from novel to novel and from author to author. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892470 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc warhammer Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 i hear bl are trying to address the imbalance of primarch portrayals. found this Khârn strode by his lord’s side, a child in ceramite by comparison. Suddenly, Angron clambered ahead, his pace not slowing again till he was on the other side of the pit. ‘My lord…” Khârn began. “Hmmm?” came the low reply of his primarch. “Why- why did you do that?” Angron continued to walk calmly ahead with no answer for his first captain. “You- I swear-’ breathed Khârn in awe ‘jogged. Just a bit” “No.” came the strangled voice of his master “I did not.” “You did. We were walking together and then you sped up. Did this tiny jog and now you’re walking again as if-” The broken primarch’s face stiffened and his eyes clouded with more pain, if such a thing were possible. “I HAVE NO TIME FOR THIS”. “Were you covering up tripping on that stone?” “My brother calls!” Angron’s bellicose tone still suggesting the need to change the subject “Blood for Horus!” Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892550 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Ignoring this when engaging in a "Who is the Best?!?"-style discussion will make things problematic... unless your view is that all fifteen (I hope I didn't miscount) authors entrusted with depicting a primarch in a short story, novella, or novel are operating from a common standard (one that would also have to had been applied to the last two decades' worth of Codices, Index Astartes articles, etc). Going by that logic, Fulgrim is depicted being able to handle far more damage in a McNeill novel than Roboute Guilliman in an Abnett novel precisely because the former is simply that much tougher than the latter. Oh it's not that problematic. I take it you haven't taken part in many of these sort of versus debates or power level rankings? People do it all the time and don't have any particular issue with viewing that way. If you like, I can certainly like you to many of the big name debating sites likes Spacebattles, or Stardestroyer.net. If you think it's problematic then you you should go tell then to stop arguing and debating about fictional power levels? I'm not denying that authors can put forth different depictions of fictional universe, but that's not a problem if one doesn't let it be one. People do this all the time while using the in-universe feats of characters in order to establish rankings or to determine power levels or who would win in a fight. Even in this forum right now you have a power ranking debating on how tough the Primarchs are on. It's something that happens all the time by people who are not bothered by any perceived inconsistencies. (Even the idea in this thread that Primarchs are tougher in Graham McNeill novels when compared to Abnett novels simply boils down to fan conjecture and opinion.) Now if you are asking for my opinion (Which is different from a versus debate or power level debate) then I don't have any problems at all with putting together my personal ranking for the Primarchs. I take the most consistent depiction in the Horus Heresy as a gauge for how tough each Primarch is. I'm fine with ignoring older sources like Index Astartes books and codices as in-universe misinformation and propaganda (As the Horus Heresy series seems to do). I don't find that approach problematic at all. Maybe you might, but I certainly don't. So that's why I find Guilliman weaker than his brothers, in the context of the Horus Heresy novel series and the evidence presented as in, judging by his performance when comparing characters from novel to novel. So far I've found things to be relatively consistent. That might change in the future, but for now I'm not having any problems with compiling my opinion. (But then again I don't have any aim of purchasing more Black Library material) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892713 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't know all the combat the Primarchs have seen in the Horus Heresy series. How can the scene from 'Unremembered Empire' be compared to other examples? The one thing that might be similar to an unarmed, unarmoured Guilliman being attacked by an Alpha Legion squad with boltguns would be a deranged Vulkan being attacked by two perpetuals with shuriken pistols. He goes down surprisingly fast, considering he is supposed to be one of the tougher Primarchs. I remember reading something about how he got killed pretty easily numerous times while being held captive by Curze? He dies multiple times in 'Unremembered Empire' if I recall correctly. The book before Guilliman takes a full swing with an energised power maul to the face, described as "hitting like a cannonball", and keeps on fighting two Primarchs. So I guess Guilliman is only the second weakest Primarch, then. After Vulkan. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892792 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoebus Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Gree, I have taken part in quite a few of said discussions, and you're right: it's not a problem - so long as you're not interested in them having a meaningful* resolution. People might not necessarily be bothered by the inconsistencies in question, but they often don't acknowledge them, either. Thus we have an ongoing cycle of discussions wherein the same inconsistent examples are brought up: "Well, this book says a primarch's skin is like terminator armour, but in this book Guilliman riddled by boltgun shells." Any attempt to definitively rank the primarchs is sabotaged from the start precisely because the authors aren't required to depict them in exactly the same manner. * Opinions on "meaningful" will obviously vary, but in this case I define it as "arriving at an objective answer to the question raised". As in, an objective answer to "which primarch is the best melee combatant", or, as per the OP, "how primarchs ... would have performed against Guilliman." Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892793 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I have taken part in quite a few of said discussions, and you're right: it's not a problem - so long as you're not interested in them having a meaningful* resolution. I've seen a group reach a meaningful resolution. I might not agree with them, but I've seen 40k forums reach a group consensus. Perhaps you might not think it's a meaningful resolution or maybe you think it's a pointless affair, but that's not going to stop people from continuing to do it anyway, or taking a different stance. If you are trying to address my posts in this thread, I don't believe I have ever made an objective assertion or statement so far in the thread. (In relation to Guilliman) Everything I have offered is merely my opinion and interpretation of the sources in question. I'm not really trying to convince anyone or try to make any sort of a objective statement. People might not necessarily be bothered by the inconsistencies in question, but they often don't acknowledge them, either. Thus we have an ongoing cycle of discussions wherein the same inconsistent examples are brought up: "Well, this book says a primarch's skin is like terminator armour, but in this book Guilliman riddled by boltgun shells." Any attempt to definitively rank the primarchs is sabotaged from the start precisely because the authors aren't required to depict them in exactly the same manner. I acknowledge it, but to me it merely means that Guilliman is less resilient than his brothers. Maybe you could say that it was because a different author wrote it, but even that also comes down to fan interpretation and supposition. (Unless Graham McNeill and Dan Abnett come into the thread personally to clarify their stances) If you wish to view it a certain way, then I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it. At least, I certainly know plenty of online fans who approach the issue from the exact opposite point of view. Certainly I know many 40k forums that approach issues with a group consensus on what is true or not. (Some forums even have rules for debating and what is considered valid or canon) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892864 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Name them. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892958 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So I guess Guilliman is only the second weakest Primarch, then. After Vulkan. *eye twitches* Being serious though, I don't think anyone necessarily expects to convince anyone else to completely change their view of the primarchs, and their abilities, because we are all coming from different fluff backgrounds and tastes as to what is cool. In fact such an argument would be pretty much pointless IMO. For example, most of my fluff knowledge is based on 4th ed onwards, where as Legatus knows much more about the earlier fluff. I don't have such deep roots in the fluff as him, so it doesn't seem like a great leap to roll with the latest fluff changes, compared to those who've been in the hobby longer. I find these debates interesting just because it makes me think about the fluff and characters in a way I may not have before. For me what makes the Primarchs fascinating is they are so superior to a standard human it is unreal, but they still have our flaws and very human weaknesses. In some ways we are not unlike the astartes in the Heresy, we like to picture our chosen primarch as a flawless god of war with no equals, but we look at the others and compare them to our primarch. We all have primarchs and legions that we do or don't like, and this colours how we view them. Legatus is an Ultramarine, and to him Guilliman is peerless strategist and incredible warrior. To me he's not as tough as Vulkan, but still a primarch worthy of admiration. Someone else might view him as a pampered individual relatively unskilled in actual combat. No-one is wrong, and no-one is right. Just enjoy your own universe as you see fit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892967 Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackoption Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Ultimately, it is really hard to objectively compare primarchs from subjective sources (BL and IA Authors). It is possible to compare their accomplishments, but less so their physical characteristics. We may have to wait until FW does Guilliman's rules before any such side by side comparsion is possible for us in the fan/player base. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892971 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Name them. Spacebattles. Stardestroyer.net. Sufficient Velocity. Those are just three of the most prominent ones I have visited, with exclusive sub-forums dedicated to versus debates. The sub-forums have their own rules and expectations on how to debate, such as the burden of proof, and the fact one must provide proof of feats in order in debating. 40k is a popular topic and posters often like providing combat feats and weapon calcs for Astartes and Primarchs in particular. Those three take a very Watsonian view to debating and often debates can get quite vitriolic. High-end feats are typically used when comparing Primarchs with outliers dismissed as per forum tradtion. Would you like me to provide links to the forums? I can do so, along with weapons calc threads or power respect threads, along with links to the relevant sub-forums. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3892978 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Those aren't 40K forums... Nowhere, on the internet, is consensus possible. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893058 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewolf86 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 My view on the varying Primarch strength and resilience is to remember that they are the combination of genetic engineering and warpcraft. I see much of their great power as being drawn indirectly from the warp as a sort of latent psychic ability. When enraged or determined a Primarch can endure far more and be 'stronger'. So at times when enraged or desperate a Primarch can flip a Land Raider (Vulkan) or stop a Warhound lowering its foot (Angron). They can fight on with a sword in their spine (Curze), fight on after being crushed in rubble (Angron), or resist Ferrus's fist hitting them in the face (Fulgrim). When unprepared mentally or surprised they are not as resilient like Fulgrim being snipered, Guiliman being badly injured by bolter shells, Vulkan being killed by two shruiken pistols. It's worth noting a lot of the things being discussed come from Abnett books. I think sometimes he chooses to have a more dramatic story at the expense of considering previous established background. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893060 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewolf86 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Going from the strategy table in Conquest Guiliman should give out some quality army wide buffs.. He gets three total picks at the player's choosing. No other primarch does that and it shows to me that FW consider him the most effective Primarch for successfully overseeing a campaign from start to end. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893065 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Those aren't 40K forums... So? It doesn't change my point one whit. 40k is frequently and enthusiastically discussed on those boards, with entire threads dedicated to analysis. So my point stands. Would you like to link me to some threads? I can certainly do so. Nowhere, on the internet, is consensus possible. Certainly it is. Try arguing that the Imperial Guard suck on an Imperial Guard-centric board. See how quickly the rest of the forum unites against you. Or try arguing how terrible Dark Elves are on a Dark Elf-centric board. Or even just go on 4chan and ask them how they think of Matt Ward. Now on the internet as a whole it's impossible to get a wide consensus, but on individual forums? Certainly it's possible. I've been on the receiving end of board enough times to know that. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893085 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You're confusing plurality with consensus. For there to be consensus, it requires everyone to agree. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893108 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You're confusing plurality with consensus. For there to be consensus, it requires everyone to agree. Semantics. You get my point. You can have overwhelming opinion on a group forum with the few dissenters shouted down by the majority. I've seen it happen and have been on the receiving end of it. Certain forums just have a majority view of something, with the ones I specified tending to the Watsonian view. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893110 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It's not semantics. The world would be a different place if decisions had to be made by consensus over plurality. You made it sound like there was some 40K board somewhere, where everyone agreed with each other and then that became forum law for canon. What you're describing is no different than anywhere else. Majority views are not 'correct' just because 50+1 say so. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893130 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It's not semantics. The world would be a different place if decisions had to be made by consensus over plurality. You made it sound like there was some 40K board somewhere, where everyone agreed with each other and then that became forum law for canon. What you're describing is no different than anywhere else. Majority views are not 'correct' just because 50+1 say so. It's semantics. My point was that forums have overwhelming agreement and often take that established view on the forum. The minority remain just that, a minority that is often ignored. It's not changing the dominant culture on the forum. That was my point, to show that boards like that exist and that trying to post the opposite view generally won't end well. Don't put words in my mouth. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893137 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I have taken part in quite a few of said discussions, and you're right: it's not a problem - so long as you're not interested in them having a meaningful* resolution. I've seen a group reach a meaningful resolution. I might not agree with them, but I've seen 40k forums reach a group consensus. http://i.imgur.com/gvDdF.gif Those were your words... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893162 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I have taken part in quite a few of said discussions, and you're right: it's not a problem - so long as you're not interested in them having a meaningful* resolution. I've seen a group reach a meaningful resolution. I might not agree with them, but I've seen 40k forums reach a group consensus. http://i.imgur.com/gvDdF.gif Those were your words... ...and? I'm not sure what the problem is here. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893165 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You said not to put words in your mouth, and you clearly said the words. I wasn't making anything up, you said it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893174 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You said not to put words in your mouth, and you clearly said the words. I wasn't making anything up, you said it. I'm not sure how that's a contradiction with my statement. You accused me of making up some 40k board were literally everyone agreed with each other and made forum law because of that. I didn't. You put words in my mouth. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893181 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You said group consensus. That's exactly what group com census means. You also said 40K forums. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893199 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gree Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 You said group consensus. That's exactly what group com census means. And can also be taken to be meaning most of a majority opinion. You are nitpicking. You also said 40K forums. Yes, and 40k is an active topic on those forums. I'm not sure what the problem is. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/300119-who-were-guillimans-four-or-five/page/6/#findComment-3893207 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.