Ferrus Manus: Gorgon of Medusa

[Ascanius]

Primarchs fighting on the front lines of the Heresy wars makes more sense, I think, since there's no other way to effectively counter a Primarch. It only takes one deciding to lead from the front to make it necessary for others to do so sooner or later.

[bluntblade]

Well, when one of the stronger ones can literally knock down a Titan-analogue, you can see why.

 

There's a passage in Path of Heaven that makes very clear just how deadly one Primarch is. Jaghatai Khan flips Land Raiders and minced pretty much any elite squad he goes up against.

[DarKnight]

Half the Astartes and a good portion of their human auxiliaries thought the Emperor abandoned mankind because he retired to Terra to do much more import stuff so I guess leading from the front no matter how less effective is really important from a morale standpoint. A couple chapters into my first read of the novel and it's decent so far, random point: has there been a more useless First Captain in history than Gabriel Santar? Sheesh

[Heliomanes]

Yeah, this one seems a bit uneven. I really enjoy the Gardenal stuff in this one. Well fleshed out world, wish we spent more time there. Santar and Akurduana on the other hand get annoying really fast. Santar is a dunce, bordering on being inept, while Akurduana is best at everything, so I lost interest in the two pretty early on.

[Demigod]

I liked Akurduana and DuCaine I think they really showed the Terran side of the legions. At first I too had the impression that Akurduana  is simply the best at everything but never that he was showing off , and later on in the books his faults start showing as well.. DuCaine also gave away Khârn type of vibes trough the entire books, like he was ashamed of Ferrus being his primarch and just wanting to go back to the Unification days.

 

On the other hand Ferrus ,Santar and the IH ( without DuCaine) were all represented in a fairly similar light ,as complete tools that are barely competent. Ferrus has a character that is a mix of  Petruabo at his worst days and Lion when he kills Nemiel . The guy is fostering resentment and bad blood not just within his own legion but towards other legions as well, all in the name of conflict will make us strong.  He was often described in other books as one of the  top 3 candidates for warmaster and someone the other primarchs looked to as an "elder" figure but all I got from this book is that I completely understand why Horus and Fulgrim thought the he would turn so easily , he is on the verge of being unhinged and falling to Khorne.

 

I liked how Gardenal was potrayed and organized although the fights with them were not represented that good. To much of the action fell to just " things are dying " without and description of the surroundings and combat. 

[Fedor]

The depiction of Ferrus sounds unfortunate. I had a worry i would be left feeling let down in that regard when i saw Guymer had a poll on his twitter about who was angrier...Ferrus or Angron. Having a brutal, explosive and uncompromising side that when unleashed can compare to some of the more overtly aggressive primarchs like Angron or Russ is fine...we know Sanguinius has that too, but given the slim posthumous heresy mentions of Ferrus(and the forgeworld lore) focused on making a point of what an efficient ,well-rounded general/senior primarch he was, i had hoped this would be the book to really showcase that side. Medusan rage being in the background not to the fore.

[Roomsky]

In defense of Guymer's Ferrus, I think he did quite well actually incorporating what's been established about the guy rather than pulling a new personality out of his ass just to make him look good. The Ferrus book comes with the unenviable task of writing a character piece about someone who was apparently in line to be Warmaster, but whose greatest on-screen accomplishment was being strategically inept and then dying. At the very least, Guymer manages to give Ferrus a personality that foreshadows his actions on Isstvaan V: he doesn't do things in half measures. If he sees any advantage at all, he hits it with everything at his disposal.

 

It also paints an interesting picture of what the big E was looking for in a warmaster. Between the Lion, Horus, and now more clearly Ferrus, it strikes me less like The Emperor wanted a great leader so much as a leader who doesn't faff about with overmuch diplomacy. He clearly wanted humanity united and quickly, contentment can be worked on later. Contrast Guilliman, an excellent general who would go far out of his way to bring a world to peaceful compliance, ditto for Sanguinius, while the other brutal primarchs are basically tools rather than warleaders (Angron, Curze, etc.) 

 

All that said, it still doesn't strike me as all that hard to make the guy a bit more charismatic. Horus was friendly, enjoyed diplomacy when he could make use of it, and was willing to be flexible in situations that usually called for thoughtless violence. Ferrus has none of that, and my one consistency gripe is that I never really saw the same man who wrote that passage about shedding his iron hands. 

[Kelborn]

Though I haven't read the book by myself, I agree with Roomsky.

 

I always imagined Ferrus to be a potent warlord, who has to deal with his hot temperament / anger issues. That's why he headed right into the enemies' ranks on Istvan instead of retreating along his brothers.

 

It fits the evolution of the Iron Hands. Until now, we always thought that Ferrus' only and fatal mistake would be Istvan. But it seems like it wasn't the only one, at all. During the HH and the following centuries, they tried to get rid from their father's flaws. Did this turn them into some of the most relentless chapters of them all, not giving anything on "weak" humans? Most likely.

Might they return into "old" habits / the era of Ferrus behavior? Let's see. What we know is that they start to take care for others since Stronos became more and more of a constant chapter master.

 

Seems like his Primarch novel shows us why he was a potent candidate (for the reasons Roomsky mentioned) but why he wasn't elected in the end.

 

And I highly agree that I'd love to see some hints of the "man who wrote that passage about shedding his iron hands."

[Indefragable]

Finished the audiobook version. Disappointed overall. Rather than show why the loss of Ferris was a stunning setback early on that almost cost the loyalists the war in the first battle, they make it seem like <in George Carlin voice> “ey, ‘e woz askin’ for it!”.

 

It’s not a bad read by any means, but the X Legion get dumped on and rather than show why Ferrus could have been a prime contender, they show why he basically deserved to be the first one dead on Istvaan.

 

Add more later.

[Taliesin]

Almost makes you think that's the point they're trying to get across. Maybe not all of them are created equal, some are lesser than others and Ferrus is bottom of the barrel.

 

That, or maybe BL simply doesnt have any good ideas for Ferrus as a character.

[Indefragable]

Almost makes you think that's the point they're trying to get across. Maybe not all of them are created equal, some are lesser than others and Ferrus is bottom of the barrel.

 

That, or maybe BL simply doesnt have any good ideas for Ferrus as a character.

 

I'm torn on the matter. Because on one hand not every faction/legion/primarch can ALL be THE BEST all the time. And like Wolf King by Chris Wraight, I really think the setting in general could use some weaknesses and such coming to the fore. From a literary standpoint that is great progress for the series and setting overall.

 

On the other hand...when the standard is EVERYTHING being THE BEST ALL THE TIME, it's impossible to feel fair until every faction/legion/primarch has had a least a single moment in the limelight. This feels especially harsh for Ferrus since his defining moment in the setting is dieing at the start of the greatest war humanity has ever seen. He's already starting with character debt, if you will. This book had the chance to show the opposite side of the coin, yet if anything it seems to suggest we shouldn't mourn the loss of Ferrus since he was a bit of a bad apple anyways. 

[bluntblade]

Which is a pity if it's true, because French and Merrett built such a great image of Ferrus with their take on Gardinaal.

[Fedor]

I don't think BL have been trying to suggest Ferrus was bottom of the barrel. The Fulgrim depiction(well, other than comically knocking himself out barely minutes into a fight which i'd hopefully think was just McNeil fumbling that scene) forgeworld lore and brief thoughts on him we get from other primarchs hint more at attempts to show him as formidable.

 

I think there are similar difficulties in portraying him well as there are with the Lion....a great no-nonsense warlord\general Primarch but with some serious personality issues that mean he was never going to be as good a pick as Horus or Sanguinius if the Emp wanted someone that would be able to hold the other primarchs together easily.

 

Only with much less page time due to the early death, it's even harder to balance a depiction of the flaws and strengths out well. I haven't read the Primarchs book yet, but it's not a big page count and maybe Guymer just leaned a bit too heavily to the one side of things? Nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just that we don't know when\if we'll get another Ferrus themed book any time soon and there's been so little on him that this is one of the Primarch books i would have played it relatively safe with and gone for a depiction and scenario that solidified the better qualities described in the lore\previously hinted at.

 

From some of the descriptions of Gorgon of Medusa i get the feeling it may work better as a Ferrus character study if it wasn't the first book we've had focused on him or was part of a longer novel.

 

 

Of course there's also the aside that the Drop Site Massacre first wave assault is one of the harder of the big heresy battles to write as a sensible military operation, and with Ferrus getting turned into the leader of it in the HH series(i don't remember that being mentioned in the old fluff) he catches most of the flak from those that are harsher on the military tactics side of the setting often not making a great amount of sense. If we get more books set in the Heresy era post-siege of terra it's THE battle that really could do with a Know no Fear style book  that goes into more detail on the lead up, reactions of the different legions once summoned by Dorn, just why the frontal assault was a good choice etc..

[RedFurioso]

French and Merrett built such a great image of Ferrus with their take on Gardinaal.

How do they relate to Gardinaal?

[bluntblade]

French and Merrett built such a great image of Ferrus with their take on Gardinaal.

 

That campaign forms the IH exemplary battle, with Ferrus being not angry, but pitiless and unerringly precise.

[deepsix81]

I liked the first Perturabo primarch story just fine. The sequel here feels like overkill.

 

But seriously, what I liked most about this one was that it laid bare that the split of the Heresy wasn't a good guy/bad guy thing. Ferrus showed no nobility at all, and demonstrated outright contempt for humanity. As a previous poster mentioned, this is wildly different from the idea that he wanted his legion to stop their reverence for the machine over humanity. I'll chalk that up to character evolution (as the previous story seemed to be further along the timeline towards Isstvan), but it feels like that Ferrus and the one from Gaardinal aren't related in any way.

 

Along that line of thinking, I can't come up with a reason for Ferrus to have chosen the Emperor's side. With the way that he views himself and his legion from this story, what business would the Iron Hands have had in the Imperium? Did he choose loyalty to the Emperor simply because he was the only person to best him, or was there something more substantial that I missed? It's been more than a decade since I read the Fulgrim novel, maybe there is an answer there. Curious if anyone else has thoughts on that.

[bluntblade]

Ferrus, from the FW fluff and other material, seems to have viewed his entire existence as revolving around his service to the Emperor.

[Bellarius]

To answer why the gene-sire of the Iron Hands remained loyal - It's because Ferrus was content in his role as a primarch. Others desired to be leaders who reshaped worlds, built empires or hungered for something else. Ferrus was ultimately content in his role as a soldier, and as a necessary evil to see humanity's empire rebuilt. More than anything else, he was staunchly loyal to the Emperor's vision, which was why he refused Fulgrim's offer outright. That being said, this character here and the one seen elsewhere are nothing alike.

 

I'm going to be blunt here, I think we once again have Codex: Clan Raukaan to answer for this severely botched depiction. Guymer is a good author, and he has more hits than misses by far, but he began writing the modern Iron Hands shortly after that poor joke of a work was smashed into the canon. He admitted over Twitter that he couldn't ignore the work, and it would not surprise me that it might have coloured his perceptions of Ferrus and the Iron Hands in every regard. It's why where, in something Forgeworld set up as the single best example of how the legion fought and why Ferrus was a good commander, we have the legion being written once more as abject failures who are overshadowed by everyone else involved. Even when they are victorious the book pulls an abrupt stunt to have the Iron Hands fail, and makes the book's surprise protagonist take a victory which overshadows Ferrus' accomplishments. It seems as if the only way Black Library is actually going to get a good Iron Hands story any time soon is if the entire Sapphire Prince/Stronos/Iron-Hands-betray-Ferrus-and-fail-at-everything storyline is completely rejected and retconned away as never having happened.

[Plaguecaster]

Well damn..... brought it last weekend in the hopes of getting a good IH novel but haven't gotten around to reading it yet though from all these reviews it's making me think maybe I shouldn't read it then

[Roomsky]

Well damn..... brought it last weekend in the hopes of getting a good IH novel but haven't gotten around to reading it yet though from all these reviews it's making me think maybe I shouldn't read it then

 

From what I heard Wrath of Iron is the king of IH novels, if that's specifically what you're looking for. While Ferrus Manus was far from perfect, if the subject interests you and you have no great attachment to a particular rendition of the lore, you'll probably find things to like. If nothing else Ferrus finally gets a proper BL entry (We don't talk about Feat of Iron).

[Plaguecaster]

Got Wrath and loved it though I just wish they would of let Wraight write more Iron hands as he is really the only aurthor who can actually do them good, yeah I will still try reading it I just hope I don't lose interest part way through as some of it really sounds disappointing

[bluntblade]

French and Abnett contributed good Iron Hands shorts to Shattered Legions.

[Indefragable]

For those who have read a plethora of Iron Hands works--very broadly speaking--what are the elements of things you like in the good depictions vs the not-so-good depictions

[Bellarius]

For those who have read a plethora of Iron Hands works--very broadly speaking--what are the elements of things you like in the good depictions vs the not-so-good depictions

 

Apologies, would you prefer the long or short list for that?

 

The short version is simple - The Iron Hands in their Index Astartes appearance were set up to be the Imperium's necessary evil. They were brutal, uncompromising, and were willing to perform ruthless acts on par with the Inquisition, but it was usually reserved for when it was needed most. They spent lives rather than wasting them, and while neither "nice" nor especially human, they at least reacted appropriately to the situation at hand.

 

The negative ones tend to take the above elements and twist them into pure hypocrisy. They will have them performing acts like (to cite an infamous moment) refusing to assist Imperial Guard units by demanding that they prove themselves strong by surviving an impending Eldar onslaught. One that the Iron Hands themselves are not only running away from but effectively created. They will constantly hammer down on ideas such as the fact that the Iron Hands need to be redeemed, and that their every cultural quality, tradition or ideological standing is inherently wrong, without question nor even entertaining that there might be some in-universe merit to the concept. The stories are less interested in exploring the themes behind the Iron Hands than piling on straw man argument after straw man argument about how they are wrong, how they are always wrong, and how they are incompetent failures of space marines who need to abandon everything they are recognised for and sever all ties with the Adeptus Mechanics to redeem themselves.

 

Or, if you desire the extremely short version.

 

Good stories - Makes out the Iron Hands as monsters built to win humanity's bleakest battles.

Bad stories - Make out the Iron Hands to be discount Borg who need to be saved by Stronos.

[bluntblade]

I find there's a subtlety of tone that matters with the Iron Hands. They are a clear cut example of Good Is Not Nice, although there's absolutely range within that - think of Meduson, and then consider Henricos, let alone Rauth.

 

I'd also say the Iron Hands are especially prone to one-dimensional presentations, and sub-par presentations of them might be particularly egregious because the augmetics become a very crude prop and then it's all 0101010101110001101 I have metal in me so I am strong. And while Salamanders can frustrate in that regard too, they are at their core more sympathetic and therefore more palatable.