Path of Heaven - Discussion

[HeritorA]

Remember that time Khârn the betrayer was screaming about the Eightfold Path before anyone even knew what Chaos was?

I don't, that never happened.

That happened in 'Galaxy in Flames' - you cant chop it out As Argel Tal said: 'You own name spells Betrayer'

[Thurservor]

 

I look forward to seeing the post Terra interactions with the Primarchs to see how things boil over then.

 

 

Exactly! and especially between those that were on Terra during the siege and those that were somewhere else. It would be really interesting if Dorn would try to explain to Corax and Russ that their little games where a waste of time while the culmination of the conflict happened while them and their legions were most needed on  terran walls. Will there be blame on Sanguinus death on them too? I wonder

[Phoebus]

In the older lore, that sense of blame was already expressed in the Lion challenging Leman Russ to a duel. The Lion blamed Russ for slowing down their return to Terra, placing blame on him for them not getting back in time to prevent their father's mortal wounding. For his part, Russ bared his chest and invited the Lion to stab him - not as part of Fenrisian bravado, but in a genuine invitation to end him. I am absolutely sure that a lot of Dorn's anger and resistance at the idea of the Codex Astartes and its division of the Legiones Astartes into Chapters was informed in great part by the fact that his own Imperial Fists were annihilated during the Siege of Terra.

[b1soul]

Yeah...but in fairness, the guy proposing the chapter system had also experienced massive losses

 

Perhaps not as much as the Fists though

[bluntblade]

I didn't quite appreciate the kicking the Ultras had taken until I read Betrayer. Guilliman's fury might not be on par with Angron's, but all the same it's something to behold.

 

I'm liking more and more the details added about the Scars in this book. In some series the first book gives you the info-dump and the rest don't add more; instead Wraight's added more Chogorian stuff and other titbits here, where it's easier to absorb.

[Phoebus]

b1soul,

 

Not nearly as bad, I would think.

 

The old lore (back when most Legions numbered a mere 10,000 Space Marines each) holds that, at the time of the Second Founding, the (known) Successor Chapters of the Ultramarines almost outnumbered the (known) Successor Chapters of all the other Legiones Astartes combined. I imagine the same holds for the new lore. Fifty-thousand or so Ultramarines survived Calth. Another 50,000 were never even at Calth to begin with. The Shadow Crusade undoubtedly did ruinous damage to the latter, as it did to so many of the Five Hundred Worlds (see Armatura, etc.), but it cannot have wiped them out. Ultramar being a model of efficiency, you have to imagine the XIII Legion's capability to rebuild will still have been astounding.

 

Who knows what the Ultramarines strength was following the Siege of Terra? Void Stalker describes the Primogenitors (the Second Founding Chapters) as being the Ultramarines "... reborn after the Heresy, wearing hundreds of icons proclaiming their new allegiances." Perhaps "hundreds" is used for effect, and perhaps the XIII Legion never matched their pre-Calth, but I still think they outnumbered the survivors of that battle by a considerable margin, just as they did in the old lore.

[b1soul]

b1soul,

 

Not nearly as bad, I would think.

 

 

What you say is likely true

 

...as of the end of the Shadow Crusade, do we have a rough approximation of UM numbers

 

Pre-Betrayal, the UM were 250K strong. After the Shadow Crusade, I'm thinking they're less 100K...maybe 80K

[HeritorA]

I didn't quite appreciate the kicking the Ultras had taken until I read Betrayer. Guilliman's fury might not be on par with Angron's, but all the same it's something to behold.

 

I'm liking more and more the details added about the Scars in this book. In some series the first book gives you the info-dump and the rest don't add more; instead Wraight's added more Chogorian stuff and other titbits here, where it's easier to absorb.

Kicking of Ultras on Nuceria was done only for one goal - to show how epic WE and WB are. Nothing else. I do not like Ultrasmurfs boys - but the way A D-B has shown Ultramarines at Nuceria, under the direct leadership of Guilliman - quite meh. They do not deserve that thrashing from the absolutely incompetent Legions like WB and WE.

 

 

b1soul,

 

Not nearly as bad, I would think.

 

The old lore (back when most Legions numbered a mere 10,000 Space Marines each) holds that, at the time of the Second Founding, the (known) Successor Chapters of the Ultramarines almost outnumbered the (known) Successor Chapters of all the other Legiones Astartes combined. I imagine the same holds for the new lore. Fifty-thousand or so Ultramarines survived Calth. Another 50,000 were never even at Calth to begin with. The Shadow Crusade undoubtedly did ruinous damage to the latter, as it did to so many of the Five Hundred Worlds (see Armatura, etc.), but it cannot have wiped them out. Ultramar being a model of efficiency, you have to imagine the XIII Legion's capability to rebuild will still have been astounding.

 

Who knows what the Ultramarines strength was following the Siege of Terra? Void Stalker describes the Primogenitors (the Second Founding Chapters) as being the Ultramarines "... reborn after the Heresy, wearing hundreds of icons proclaiming their new allegiances." Perhaps "hundreds" is used for effect, and perhaps the XIII Legion never matched their pre-Calth, but I still think they outnumbered the survivors of that battle by a considerable margin, just as they did in the old lore.

'Fifty-thousand or so Ultramarines survived Calth' 

- 56234 with 26456 wounded (in case of SM wounded is almost inoperable).

Another 5 chapters weren't at Calth at all - add to that garrisons and distant expedition and you will indeed have '50,000' ultramarines.

In that Forge World HH book 5 'Tempest' is a great helper.

 

'The Shadow Crusade undoubtedly did ruinous damage to the latter, as it did to so many of the Five Hundred Worlds (see Armatura, etc.), but it cannot have wiped them out. Ultramar being a model of efficiency, you have to imagine the XIII Legion's capability to rebuild will still have been astounding.' 

 

- on Armatura evocati lost 4 thousand SM + two chapters lost their fleet assets with SM on board (up to 3k).  Add to that great losses at Perciphon, Konor, Ulisses etc.  during first and second parts of Shadow Crusade and you will have additional 20-30k Ultramarines casualties.

 

But after the Siege of Terra due to the dilligence of Guilliman Ultramarines would be the most numerous Legion (genebanks on Macragge and Konor; new indocrination programs) with almost a 100k operational Space Marines.

They could have lost another 50k in the Scouring - but recruiting program was going non-stop, so even after the Scouring they would be the most numerous.

Even if they used 50k to create Primogenitors chapters - it was an easy task.

 

Hope this helps.

[Phoebus]

Regarding the Emperor's Children...

 

As the Great Crusade went on, the vagaries of war led to various legions rising and falling in estimation, falling to their knees because of losses or finding prominence because of great victories. The First Legion were once pre-eminent, for example, and at times were led by the Emperor himself. The Rangdan Xenocides, however, saw them suffer losses that were perhaps only ever matched by the Iron Warriors. That, and the fact that they had not yet found their own primarch, ensured that other legions would surpass them. The Luna Wolves themselves enjoyed a fundamental advantage in that they found their primarch first. Whatever their strengths and weaknesses as a legion or as a culture, they were led by Horus. The future Warmaster was perhaps one of the three most balanced primarchs - politically as well as militarily - and with him at the fore so soon into the Great Crusade, the XVI Legion were able to build from strength to strength.

 

Betrayal offers that the III Legion pre-Fulgrim was noted for the pre-disposition of its legionaries for individual achievement and superiority, for their superior physical aspect, and for their aristocratic pedigree. In the "early wars" of the Great Crusade, the III Legion were best known not for operating as a unified force, but as the key supporting element - or outright leaders - of Imperial Army forces. Later still, they earned renown as ceremonial troops, honour guards, and standard bearers for not just important Imperial persons but the Emperor himself. Their signature physical and personality aspects undoubtedly played a role in this. Thus, it wasn't demonstrating that they were a superior legion (compared to their peers) that earned the Emperor's Children their sobriquet and the right to wear the aquila on their armour. It was a different form of duty and excellence altogether.

 

In fact, it's only after the III Legion were joined to Fulgrim that their "quest for perfection" truly began, and that this drive began manifesting in their war planning and battle tactics. Another bit of evidence that the III Legion weren't yet as perfectionist in their planning and execution of their campaigns might be found in their state at the time that Fulgrim was discovered. That is to say, unless the overwhelming majority of its legionaries had both their progenoids harvested prior to the disaster (something that is at least unlikely), the III Legion should not have suffered so terribly. That their losses were so great and constant over time implies that their performance as an independent force was not significantly different or better from that of most of the Legiones Astartes - who ultimately were a shock assault force.

 

I don't want to come off as someone arguing that the Emperor's Children circa the Late Crusade Era. were no better than their peers. That the Emperor's Children were remarkable in their training, planning, and execution at that time in history goes without saying. That certain legions were better than others also goes without saying. Perturabo is said to have been the greatest siege master, for example, and to have possessed genius for war and technology alike. He almost certainly was and did, but consider his response to adversity, as compared to Fulgrim's. When faced with adversity and what he perceived a flawed legion, Perturabo doubled down on mass recruitment and maximum concentrated firepower to compensate for cannon-fodder tactics. Likewise, one doesn't have to struggle to imagine that the Emperor's Children wage war better - that is, more efficiently, more quickly, and with less losses - than, say, the World Eaters or the Death Guard. Bottom line, while most legions were more worried about their "signature warfare," the Emperor's Children tried to maximize their effectiveness through combined arms and making sure that everyone was the best they could be at their job.

 

That having been said, I would caution anyone who would argue that it's a fact that the Emperor's Children were a better legion than, say, Guilliman's Ultramarines or the Lion's Dark Angels - both legions with a legacy of brilliant commanders and strategists. There has always been a tendency to take the older lore (which often represents almost mythologized views from 10,000 years in the future) as fact, but the more recent material has been more nuanced, more detailed, more indicative of what was known at the time (or at least what was propagated and/or believed), and more nuanced. With that in mind, let us not forget that Betrayal doesn't just show us how effective the Emperor's Children could be (e.g., by executing Guilliman's counter-attacking doctrines better than his own Ultramarines that day); it also reminds us that there were times when they weren't the ones honoured, when they failed to reach the standards set by others. Striving for perfection is one thing; there's no guarantee one will reach that standard, though, or that of someone else for that matter. Nor should we forget that the arrogance and contempt the Emperor's Children increasingly began demonstrating would probably have been the greatest impediment to their stated goal.

[b1soul]

I don't see any reason why the EC would be more efficient than the SoH, DA, or UM

 

As for IW and DG, they are siege and attrition specialists.

 

I imagime that during the GC, often thise two situations were not a choice. The EC would be less well-suited to handle such campaigns, no?

[Marshal Loss]

I agree with Phoebus.

 

For Fulgrim, keeping his Legion as intact as possible when achieving victory was perhaps always a consideration, albeit one seldom admitted to.

 

The Legion relied greatly on thorough and detailed strategic planning and the flawless execution of its battle plans by the individual warriors of the Legion. Every aspect of battle was analysed and turned to their advantage, from terrain and weather to the availability of logistical support and reinforcement, nothing was left to chance. Each component of the Legion's forces as well as any allies or auxiliary forces under their command was taken into account and utilised accordingly. This forethought and almost mechanistic approach to warfare had its dangers as well as its strengths however, and should an entirely unforeseen contingency occur (as unlikely as this was in most cases), or some crucial element or strategic asset be unexpectedly removed, the Legion could be wrong-footed, thrown into confusion and suffer the consequences.

 

The EC never had the psychology for those kinds of actions, so they avoided them where possible. And I think the above quote shows it's fair to say that they're more efficient than other Legions, but that doesn't mean they're better. They had a penchant for this kind of planning, which would give them, the majority of the time, a 'flawless' victory. Other Legions and their Primarchs are known for strategy, but not in the kind of 'all details covered' approach the Emperor's Children attempted to perfect. And as the above quote also shows, it was far from foolproof. Over time, their arrogance would have undermined this, leading to them ignoring the input and advice of others, setting up the kind of hubris we see personified in the opening trilogy, and their fall to Chaos, where all thought of strategy eventually went out the window.

 

Take my beloved SoH for example. The Sons of Horus are known for their tactical flexibility, striving to be able to fight anywhere anytime against anyone. Where possible, they preferred going straight for the throat with a decapitation strike. That's very different to the clockwork combined-arms approach of the EC. It doesn't mean the EC are better, but the approach is very, very different, and without a doubt when the EC's methods work, that's what I'd call efficiency. Even the Alpha Legion operate on the premise of contingencies, which by their very nature are based on the possibility of something going wrong.

 

Abridged version: efficient does not equal superior. It is, however, very easy to see why they would be considered more efficient than the SoH, DA or UM. But that same efficiency makes them ineffective in certain environments or when their protocols fail them, where the more tactically flexible Legions would excel.

[Phoebus]

b1soul,

 

I would disagree with that assessment.

 

This is kind of a tricky topic because, ultimately, a primarch is only as good a commander as the author can make him out to be. Mike Lee, for instance, showed us a Lion capable of mentally calculating firing and timing sequences for multiple squadrons of vessels engaging multiple squadrons of enemy vessels in void combat. This was after he thought up an ingeniously indirect stratagem that would have denied Horus something he needed for the Siege of Terra while simultaneously making it available to one of the primarchs tasked with taking him down. Fast forward twenty-eight novels, and Gav Thorpe showed us a Lion with a hundred times as many Space Marines and an entire expeditionary fleet at his disposal being stymied by a guerrilla insurrection.

 

All that having been said, "attrition specialist" sounds to me like someone who is either a masochist or can't be bothered with the welfare of his men.

 

To be clear, I'm not terribly concerned about which primarch is "the best." I'm more interested about the fact that a few of them are not necessarily invested in the ideology of the Space Marine Legion as a shock force above all else, nor are they focused on a single tenet of warfare. Horus Lupercal, for example, strikes me as an exemplar of that Legiones Astartes "ideal." He is considered to be the greatest of the primarchs and a warrior without peer, best known for his "spear-tips" - applications of overwhelming firepower and superhuman force. He's absolutely brilliant at what he does, but what he does is not exactly brilliant. He is like a peerless surgeon who nonetheless opts to get to the tumor with a chainsaw. That's not to say that the Sons of Horus weren't flexible, adaptable, or strategically and tactically savvy. They just didn't feel the need, culturally and ideologically speaking, to be other than ruthless exemplars of that aforementioned ideal. Neither did their primarch, and never was a very good reason given to them to change.

 

Likewise, Corax is devastating when waging unconventional warfare, and the Khagan is renowned for the strategic and tactical mobility and agility his commanders and warriors display. Neither the Nineteenth Son nor the Fifth, however, could be said to be comfortable with waging wars outside his comfort zone. Mortarion may very well have the best heavy infantry in the Legiones Astartes, but the brutal truth of war is that, literary license aside and all else being equal, eleven of his brothers' legions would most likely best his own on most battlefields. Relentless, dedicated, and inured to hardship though they may be, the Death Guard will have been some combination of outgunned, outmanned, and outmaneuvered - or even all three - in most such scenarios. In addition, I imagine the Iron Warriors could at least earn a stalemate against the Death Guard, while the Thousand Sons will have had a field day.

 

That's what makes Fulgrium, Guilliman, and the Lion special in my eyes. That's how they stand apart from their fellow primarchs: they appear to have been strategists and tacticians first and foremost, rather than "specialists" or "just" commanders of a shock force. Theirs was a balanced approach to warfare, no less devastating than that of other legions when necessary, but never as wasteful as some, straightforward as others, nor doctrinally bound or subject to a single style of warfare.

 

Were there situations where, e.g., Perturabo would have been the best choice for command, bar none? Yes, absolutely. I'm sure there were certain orbital defenses, mind-bending fortresses, or impregnable strongholds whose destruction he was best suited to prosecute. In general, however, Perturabo appears to have been unconcerned about his men's casualties, and this appears to stem from a genuine lack of connection with most creatures around him - human or Astartes. That's wasteful. I don't doubt for a second that a Perturabo who possessed more empathy could have arrived at far more ingenious and resourceful ways to win his campaigns.

 

Could the Emperor's Children be more efficient that the Dark Angels, Sons of Horus, or Ultramarines? Sure, and Betrayal shows that this was the case - just as it shows that they sometimes weren't. A lot of this obviously comes down to specific situations, scenarios, and individuals. The meticulous, often obsessive planning and training the Emperor's Children undertook, combined with their desire to conduct flawless campaigns, will have meant that they will probably have outperformed their peers in other legions who were less driven than them, or satisfied with a more straightforward idea of war. On the other hand, the arrogance and contempt often shown by Emperor's Children commanders and legionaries alike, post-Fulgrim, will have led to no few instances of them underestimating friend and foe alike and suffering accordingly. Those shortcomings are probably a reason why, as Marshall Loss cited, the Emperor's Children didn't always do so well with contingencies and unexpected breakdowns: if you've convinced yourself that you have the perfect plan, there's little incentive to figure out what you're going to do when that plan fails.

[b1soul]

My thoughts...

 

The quote above appears to raise uncertainty as to whether the EC truly have overall higher efficiency.

 

It seems quite clear that the EC are only able to pull off flawless victories under some conditions (no surprise really). Under other conditions, they are more prone to struggling than most other legions.

 

This probably means that the EC would merely be extremely efficient under limited conditions conducive to highly orchestrated warfare, i.e. the EC may not be more efficient overall.

 

Again, looking at the quote...the EC are apparently heavily plan-dependent, and they struggle when something critically undermines the original plan.

 

I also don't think Guilliman and his UM (or even the Lion and his DA) would be less meticulous or have less combined arms savvy than Fulgrim and his EC.

 

I think the critical difference is that Guilliman and the Lion are not as focused on minimising losses.

 

Fulgrim's perfectionism and strong desire to avoid legion casualties are strengths and weaknesses.

 

As for the SoH, judging by what I know about Cthonian ganger culture, yeah...perhaps the SoH are significantly less meticulous than the EC, but the SoH should compensate for that with their aggression and skill at executing high risk/high reward strategies.

 

The SoH may take more losses at times, but their "tear out the throat" approach probably achieves victory more quickly than the EC's highly pre-planned style.

Under other conditions requiring more flexibility, the SoH would be more efficient in perhaps many ways.

[Loesh]

I never got the impression that Fulgrim wanted to simply minimize legion losses, only that he felt bad when they occurred. It's different from the Dorn brand of pragmatism but still devoted towards the overall goal, if a better outcome is achieved by spending lives then he will do so.

 

I think, honestly, the critical difference with Roboute and the Lion is they have always had more resources to work with. It's why I tend to respect Fulgrim more on the whole: Roboute was born into a vast amount of wealth and resources which he then put his statesmans mind towards expanding, the Lion had the first legion which was outfitted with a surplus of Archeotech and other rare weaponry. 

 

The Third Legion was grounded down to almost nothing before Fulgrim arrived, and yet they were raised to a point where they were given the Emperor's emblem and the kind of reputation that a Remembramancer would stab someone over being close to, that speaks volumes I think.

[Phoebus]

Regarding resources... Yes and no.

 

That Guilliman enjoyed an unparalleled support structure in Ultramar goes without saying. That's more credit to him, though: that he was one of the preeminent strategists of the Imperium, able to conquer so many worlds, but also balanced with the rulership of such a realm. Any primarch could have made more of their conquests. Few actually did. Dorn never seems to have looked back to exercise control of the Inuit Sector. Perturabo seems to have utilized the Meratara Cluster as a resource and nothing else. Of the rest? Not much worth mentioning.

 

Where the Dark Angels are concerned, it's dangerous to make assumptions regarding what archaeotech they had left before a dedicated book gives us more loe on that matter. Undoubtedly they have some relics from the time they were the First, but whether or not they suffice to win a war is another matter. Remember, the Rangdan Xenocides reaped a bloody toll on the I Legion, and this may very well have reflected in their stockpile of such weaponry.

 

Finally, I think it's worth remembering that the reconstitution of the Emperor's Children came under quite favorable conditions. They were under the aegis of the most favored son, whose legion undoubtedly was supplied in a manner befitting Lupercal's status. If that weren't enough to ensure them similar advantages, Betrayal makes it clear that the Emperor "personally decreed substantial resources immediately put at the Legion's disposal." Also, let's recall that the Palatine Aquila was most likely given to the III Legion before Fulgrim's discovery, and their new title was given immediately after their reunion with their primarch. The influence Fulgrim would have on his legion and their reputation, and their reconstitution as well, came after both such gifts.

[Loesh]

It's always been made plain and clear that the Dark Angels were the most powerful legion to begin with though, as well as the most experimental. They were the legion, the six hosts, or simply the angels of death before all others. Whatever losses they took I don't think compare to the handicap of the third legion being cut down to two hundred individuals, substantial resources being pushed behind them or not.

 

Likewise that they were awarded either honor to begin with and that they continued to hold it means that the legion was already exceptional before Fulgrim, and continued to be exceptional afterwards, and the admittedly old fluff tells us as much. That the wide imperium holds them in such extreme regard doesn't indicate they did anything to push away from that reputation after either.

[Marshal Loss]

My thoughts...

 

The quote above appears to raise uncertainty as to whether the EC truly have overall higher efficiency.

 

It seems quite clear that the EC are only able to pull off flawless victories under some conditions (no surprise really). Under other conditions, they are more prone to struggling than most other legions.

 

This probably means that the EC would merely be extremely efficient under limited conditions conducive to highly orchestrated warfare, i.e. the EC may not be more efficient overall.

 

Again, looking at the quote...the EC are apparently heavily plan-dependent, and they struggle when something critically undermines the original plan.

 

It really doesn't. If you'd read Betrayal, you'd realise this. Their flawless approach pays off the majority of the time, not in 'limited' circumstances. It's a weakness, not an ever-present oft-occurring flaw, or the Legion would never have developed the reputation they held.

 

We're talking about being the most efficient Legion on the battlefield. There is no overall higher efficiency, without it being open to interpretation. At that point it's conjecture.

 

Some may say that the Sons of Horus are the most efficient, because they conquer the most worlds the fastest. Others may say the Ultramarines, because they conquer lots of worlds but don't have as brutal an impact as the XVI. But in terms of a battle, a Legion doing what they do best, the Emperor's Children stand alone in terms of their efficiency.

 

 

I also don't think Guilliman and his UM (or even the Lion and his DA) would be less meticulous

 

There is no way that's true. This kind of depth in terms of planning is literally the hallmark of the Emperor's Children.

 

 

As for the SoH, judging by what I know about Cthonian ganger culture, yeah...perhaps the SoH are significantly less meticulous than the EC, but the SoH should compensate for that with their aggression and skill at executing high risk/high reward strategies.

 

The SoH may take more losses at times, but their "tear out the throat" approach probably achieves victory more quickly than the EC's highly pre-planned style.

Under other conditions requiring more flexibility, the SoH would be more efficient in perhaps many ways.

 

You're dealing in absolutes, which is not the right approach. To be the most efficient Legion does not mean you need to be the most efficient Legion in every context. No Legion would meet that criteria. The Sons of Horus are efficient in the regards that their approach suited the needs of the Great Crusade - they would brutally conquer worlds quickly by tearing the throat out and then moving on, leaving other forces to mop up in their wake.

 

In terms of a set battle, a mean or average, the Emperor's Children doing their thing on their day is going to be more efficient than the Sons of Horus doing their thing on theirs. Being efficient in terms of planing and preparation is a huge part of their ideals of perfection. Other Legions, other Primarchs, may disagree, but their results prior to their fall speak for themselves.

 

As Phoebus said above, there are situations where they were, and situations when they weren't. But I think it's fair to say that there is more evidence in their favour than there is against.

 

 

I never got the impression that Fulgrim wanted to simply minimize legion losses, only that he felt bad when they occurred. It's different from the Dorn brand of pragmatism but still devoted towards the overall goal, if a better outcome is achieved by spending lives then he will do so.

 

That might be true in the novels, but Betrayal spells it out pretty clearly. It does make sense to me, they had a rough start and Fulgrim would have been mindful of maintaining the Legion's collective psychology as he built up the Legion. Attrition didn't suit who they were and ran the risk of reminding them of where they came from, so they avoided it. Nothing to be ashamed of in my view.

[Loesh]

That is actually true Marshal, I was overlooking Betrayal in some of that stuff and just going purely off the novels.

[Phoebus]

Regarding the Dark Angels, I don't disagree with the general gist of what you're saying, of course. Everything you mentioned is a matter of record, insofar as the lore goes. I just think we need to wait and see to what degree all this will be made clear. Right now, it's a bit subjective.

 

Regarding the Emperor's Children, of course they were exceptional before Fulgrim. This is true on more than one level. They were exceptional in ways different than what made them special under Fulgrim, though. Regarding their renown, we can't fall in the trap of assuming that it was truly unique (versus being highlighted within their specific history), or if it was particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things.

[Phoebus]

I want to re-emphasize:

 

Yes, I think some legions are better than others. Yes, I think the Emperor's Children are demonstrably better than several others. I tend to think of them as being in a top tier of legions - along with the Dark Angels, Sons of Horus, and Ultramarines. That having been said, I think it would be a very difficult proposition for someone to convincingly argue that any one of the legions is conclusively better than all the rest.

[Loesh]

I want to re-emphasize:

 

Yes, I think some legions are better than others. Yes, I think the Emperor's Children are demonstrably better than several others. I tend to think of them as being in a top tier of legions - along with the Dark Angels, Sons of Horus, and Ultramarines. That having been said, I think it would be a very difficult proposition for someone to convincingly argue that any one of the legions is conclusively better than all the rest.

 

Well yeah, I wouldn't even want to attempt that. Comparing hammers to knives at a point, they were all made for different jobs. If any argument for best is to be made, it's that within the parameters of the Great Crusade the Sons of Horus were without a doubt the best and leave it at that.

[mc warhammer]

so where would white scars fall on that scale? their performance during the great crusade wasn't seen as worthy as the "top tier" legions but performed exceptionally against the combined might of several traitor legions in the time between scars and PoH

[Marshal Loss]

That's just a good illustration of how pointless these rankings systems are in many cases, but it can be accounted for to some degree. What success the Scars had in the Heresy was due to a few factors - they were relatively untouched, having been separate from the opening salvos and not placed into an intentional deathtrap like some Legions that stayed loyal. They were also fighting a war in a way that suited them - hit and run, fighting behind enemy lines, while the Traitors were spread across the galaxy re-conquering the Imperium, the White Scars were able to respond rapidly without suffering a knockout blow before the war began. I think it's pretty clear they were underrated by the Traitors initially too, helping to construct the aforementioned factors. That placed them in a far better position to do what they do best then the Blood Angels, Ultramarines or Dark Angels, for example.

 

Path of Heaven says as much - the Traitors didn't expect the White Scars to launch so a coordinated campaign of harassment, leading to heavy losses. Over time, they learned how to respond more effectively. And while I don't want to diminish their achievement, the Scars were undoubtedly not engaging in the kinds of vast battles that would put them at risk of destruction, they would have been actively avoiding main Legion fleets in order to do as much harm as possible.

 

What does this tell us? Not much. The Scars were underestimated, and they punished the Traitors for it heavily. Does it make them a top tier Legion? Nope, but it certainly doesn't make them look like they deserve to be near the bottom, either. The Legions were all incredibly powerful, especially when left to flourish in their natural kind of war.

[Phoebus]

I think the White Scars and the Raven Guard go hand-in-hand: specialists whose preferred facet of warfare is suitable (and more often, advantageous) given the realities of warfare in the 30th and 31st Millennia. With that in mind, I think they are both more capable than the more straight-forward, less-tactically minded legions out there. Given numerically equal forces with access to appropriate equipment for a force their size, and all else being equal, I see both as outperforming the Space Wolves, Night Lords, World Eaters, Death Guard, Word Bearers, and Salamanders. I think they'd have a decent chance against the Blood Angels.

 

That having been said, I struggle to see either legion doing as well in situations that don't suit their preferred mode, however, or in finding the best answers to deal with them.

[b1soul]

b1soul,

 

I would disagree with that assessment.

 

 

This is kind of a tricky topic because, ultimately, a primarch is only as good a commander as the author can make him out to be. Mike Lee, for instance, showed us a Lion capable of mentally calculating firing and timing sequences for multiple squadrons of vessels engaging multiple squadrons of enemy vessels in void combat. This was after he thought up an ingeniously indirect stratagem that would have denied Horus something he needed for the Siege of Terra while simultaneously making it available to one of the primarchs tasked with taking him down. Fast forward twenty-eight novels, and Gav Thorpe showed us a Lion with a hundred times as many Space Marines and an entire expeditionary fleet at his disposal being stymied by a guerrilla insurrection.

 

All that having been said, "attrition specialist" sounds to me like someone who is either a masochist or can't be bothered with the welfare of his men.

 

To be clear, I'm not terribly concerned about which primarch is "the best." I'm more interested about the fact that a few of them are not necessarily invested in the ideology of the Space Marine Legion as a shock force above all else, nor are they focused on a single tenet of warfare. Horus Lupercal, for example, strikes me as an exemplar of that Legiones Astartes "ideal." He is considered to be the greatest of the primarchs and a warrior without peer, best known for his "spear-tips" - applications of overwhelming firepower and superhuman force. He's absolutely brilliant at what he does, but what he does is not exactly brilliant. He is like a peerless surgeon who nonetheless opts to get to the tumor with a chainsaw. That's not to say that the Sons of Horus weren't flexible, adaptable, or strategically and tactically savvy. They just didn't feel the need, culturally and ideologically speaking, to be other than ruthless exemplars of that aforementioned ideal. Neither did their primarch, and never was a very good reason given to them to change.

 

Likewise, Corax is devastating when waging unconventional warfare, and the Khagan is renowned for the strategic and tactical mobility and agility his commanders and warriors display. Neither the Nineteenth Son nor the Fifth, however, could be said to be comfortable with waging wars outside his comfort zone. Mortarion may very well have the best heavy infantry in the Legiones Astartes, but the brutal truth of war is that, literary license aside and all else being equal, eleven of his brothers' legions would most likely best his own on most battlefields. Relentless, dedicated, and inured to hardship though they may be, the Death Guard will have been some combination of outgunned, outmanned, and outmaneuvered - or even all three - in most such scenarios. In addition, I imagine the Iron Warriors could at least earn a stalemate against the Death Guard, while the Thousand Sons will have had a field day.

 

That's what makes Fulgrium, Guilliman, and the Lion special in my eyes. That's how they stand apart from their fellow primarchs: they appear to have been strategists and tacticians first and foremost, rather than "specialists" or "just" commanders of a shock force. Theirs was a balanced approach to warfare, no less devastating than that of other legions when necessary, but never as wasteful as some, straightforward as others, nor doctrinally bound or subject to a single style of warfare.

 

Were there situations where, e.g., Perturabo would have been the best choice for command, bar none? Yes, absolutely. I'm sure there were certain orbital defenses, mind-bending fortresses, or impregnable strongholds whose destruction he was best suited to prosecute. In general, however, Perturabo appears to have been unconcerned about his men's casualties, and this appears to stem from a genuine lack of connection with most creatures around him - human or Astartes. That's wasteful. I don't doubt for a second that a Perturabo who possessed more empathy could have arrived at far more ingenious and resourceful ways to win his campaigns.

 

Could the Emperor's Children be more efficient that the Dark Angels, Sons of Horus, or Ultramarines? Sure, and Betrayal shows that this was the case - just as it shows that they sometimes weren't. A lot of this obviously comes down to specific situations, scenarios, and individuals. The meticulous, often obsessive planning and training the Emperor's Children undertook, combined with their desire to conduct flawless campaigns, will have meant that they will probably have outperformed their peers in other legions who were less driven than them, or satisfied with a more straightforward idea of war. On the other hand, the arrogance and contempt often shown by Emperor's Children commanders and legionaries alike, post-Fulgrim, will have led to no few instances of them underestimating friend and foe alike and suffering accordingly. Those shortcomings are probably a reason why, as Marshall Loss cited, the Emperor's Children didn't always do so well with contingencies and unexpected breakdowns: if you've convinced yourself that you have the perfect plan, there's little incentive to figure out what you're going to do when that plan fails.

 

I assume you're mainly diagreeing with my comment about attrition?

 

I don't think attrition is a great way of warfare when the situation allows for better options.

 

What I am saying is that when the situation does not allow for better options than attrition, you'd want the DG and not the EC.

 

Of course, such DG-"friendly" situations might be rare...and if you had to stick with either the DG or the EC for all campaigns, you might be better off sticking with the latter.

 

It really doesn't. If you'd read Betrayal, you'd realise this. Their flawless approach pays off the majority of the time, not in 'limited' circumstances. It's a weakness, not an ever-present oft-occurring flaw, or the Legion would never have developed the reputation they held.

A few points

 

1. "under limited conditions" as in "not under all conditions" or "under some conditions"...so you can settle down

 

I did not say "only under very rare conditions"...and if there was confusion because of my word choice, I'm clarifying it now

 

2. I did not say - and did not mean to imply - that it was an ever-occurring flaw

 

3. Could you quote the passage saying that the EC's flawless approach results in a slam dunk the majority of the time? Majority of the time could mean 50.1% of the time. I suspect we have little to no data and just have to speculate based on vague wording

 

We're talking about being the most efficient Legion on the battlefield. There is no overall higher efficiency, without it being open to interpretation. At that point it's conjecture.

Sure, agree. We're discussing our opinions based on limited info and almost non-existent data

 

Some may say that the Sons of Horus are the most efficient, because they conquer the most worlds the fastest. Others may say the Ultramarines, because they conquer lots of worlds but don't have as brutal an impact as the XVI. But in terms of a battle, a Legion doing what they do best, the Emperor's Children stand alone in terms of their efficiency.

How are we defining efficiency?

 

Some factors to consider:

 

1. Time to victory

2. Victory to loss ratio

3. Kill to death ratio

4. Kill to force ratio

5. Kill to resources expended ratio

6. Force to force ratio

7. Ratio between campaigns fought under preferred conditions and campaigns fought under non-preferred conditions

8. Probablity of enountering preferred conditions vs. non-preferred

9. % kill to % loss ratio, etc.

 

You could craft an efficiency formula based on such variables and assign each legion an index number based on all campaigns of each legion.

 

I doubt we could say the IIIrd, or any legion, is the most efficient...because we simply lack sufficient info for the legions.

 

This would be something Malcador might be able to do with his observers, spies, remembrancers...i.e. grade legion performance.

 

There is no way that's true. This kind of depth in terms of planning is literally the hallmark of the Emperor's Children.

You are entitled to that opinion

 

 

You're dealing in absolutes, which is not the right approach. To be the most efficient Legion does not mean you need to be the most efficient Legion in every context. No Legion would meet that criteria.

No, you're misreading

 

A could be more efficient than B in some situations but less efficient than B in other contexts. A might still have a "weighted average" efficiency greater than that of B

 

That is what I mean by overall efficiency. Perhaps "average" efficiency would be clearer

 

As Phoebus said above, there are situations where they were, and situations when they weren't. But I think it's fair to say that there is more evidence in their favour than there is against.

Perhaps...but we simply don't have enough info to say that the EC are, on average, more efficient than the UM or DA.

 

That is my opinion.