What would be Horus and Luna Wolves opinion regarding

[Azorius]

The Imperium was exponentially stronger at that stage. And the Triumph alone was the glory the Emperor had meant to give His sons, not the campaign.

That is the point. Loss among Legions and other assets of Ullanor seem trivial compared to Rangdan. 

[Marshal Rohr]

There’s no way to judge how costly Ullanor was. I’m certain ABD wasn’t trying to say Ullanor didn’t matter. He doesn’t do stuff like that. There is also no way the implication from MoM is that the Rangda were the end all threat to mankind.

[bluntblade]

I'm really losing the thread of this conversation. Are we saying the Luna Wolves should have some nagging insecurity that the DA are better than them?

 

The Rangdan were a terrible threat, but ultimately they were one front of many. To my mind, to say the Luna Wolves - or the Iron Hands, Salamanders or Imperial Fists - were diminished by their absence is like saying that a WW2 soldier who fought in Africa was lesser than one who deployed in the Pacific or Europe.

[Marshal Rohr]

I'm really losing the thread of this conversation. Are we saying the Luna Wolves should have some nagging insecurity that the DA are better than them?

 

The Rangdan were a terrible threat, but ultimately they were one front of many. To my mind, to say the Luna Wolves - or the Iron Hands, Salamanders or Imperial Fists - were diminished by their absence is like saying that a WW2 soldier who fought in Africa was lesser than one who deployed in the Pacific or Europe.

Essentially the premise was that the Luna Wolves would feel insecure about the Lion’s tally of victories and then stopping the Rangda.

 

Also I found the exact quote about Ullanor. Page 213, Chapter 13 ‘They crave recognition for honor and achievements, and the Triumph was the ultimate expression of that’. So hes very clearly referencing the Triumph and not the Ullanor Crusade itself. Consider one of Urlakk Urg’s lieutenants managed to overcome the Emperor’s psychic might and throttle him, it’s safe to say Ullanor was not some walk in the park.

[SpAcEGhOsT095]

@Marshal Rohr

I don't think the widowmaker was near the throneroom. It was Ezekyle. I think Horus had to help him up because he was buried under a pile of dead orks.

 

 

[Azorius]

 

 

I'm really losing the thread of this conversation. Are we saying the Luna Wolves should have some nagging insecurity that the DA are better than them?

 

The Rangdan were a terrible threat, but ultimately they were one front of many. To my mind, to say the Luna Wolves - or the Iron Hands, Salamanders or Imperial Fists - were diminished by their absence is like saying that a WW2 soldier who fought in Africa was lesser than one who deployed in the Pacific or Europe.

Essentially the premise was that the Luna Wolves would feel insecure about the Lion’s tally of victories and then stopping the Rangda.

 

Also I found the exact quote about Ullanor. Page 213, Chapter 13 ‘They crave recognition for honor and achievements, and the Triumph was the ultimate expression of that’. So hes very clearly referencing the Triumph and not the Ullanor Crusade itself. Consider one of Urlakk Urg’s lieutenants managed to overcome the Emperor’s psychic might and throttle him, it’s safe to say Ullanor was not some walk in the park.

It is a very plausible theory that the Emperor deliberately suppressed his power for testing Horus. And it should be noted that Astronomicon had been immense drain of his power, and that only increased the Crusade proceeds.

 

And yes, in my mind The Lion poses a bit of an existential crisis for Horus. Horus. Horus is the first, the favorite, the first among equals. But The Lion challenges that. While Horus had the record for most campaign victories, at the time of the warmaster appointment The Lions record was growing faster than Horus’, and given more time it seems he would have surpasses him. The Lion is the other “first”, and the only one with the capability and will to potentially dethrone Horus. There is also another scene where Guilliman talks to The Lion about Horus, and how Horus relished the validation of being placed above The Lion. Being above Dorn, Guilliman, Sanguinius and the rest meant nothing, but being above The Lion meant something.

 

To me Horus is the first child, used to all the attention and love, who is then challenged by his new siblings taking his parents attention, and acting out in insecurity.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

Consider one of Urlakk Urg’s lieutenants managed to overcome the Emperor’s psychic might and throttle him, it’s safe to say Ullanor was not some walk in the park.

 

While I agree with the sentiment about Ullanor, that Ork wasn't a Lieutenant. That was a completely different campaign, attacking Gorro, a separate empire from Ullanor. It happened at the start of the Great Crusade and it was the Warlord of Gorro that tried to choke the Emperor.

 

And yes, in my mind The Lion poses a bit of an existential crisis for Horus. Horus. Horus is the first, the favorite, the first among equals. But The Lion challenges that. While Horus had the record for most campaign victories, at the time of the warmaster appointment The Lions record was growing faster than Horus’, and given more time it seems he would have surpasses him. The Lion is the other “first”, and the only one with the capability and will to potentially dethrone Horus. There is also another scene where Guilliman talks to The Lion about Horus, and how Horus relished the validation of being placed above The Lion. Being above Dorn, Guilliman, Sanguinius and the rest meant nothing, but being above The Lion meant something.

 

 

To me Horus is the first child, used to all the attention and love, who is then challenged by his new siblings taking his parents attention, and acting out in insecurity.

 

 

That's the thing, it appears to only be in your mind. What we know directly from Horus, (via False Gods) is that Sanguinius was the brother he felt unworthy of/challenged by, not the Lion. Also, the DAs didn't even merit a mention (iirc) when the Mournival are having their 'who's the hardest chat' with Sigismund in Horus Rising. So it seems more likely that Horus and the XVI were generally somewhat apathetic towards the DAs (as much as one could be, about a SM Legion), which would be consistent with Jonson's reputation of 'doesn't play well with others'. If your best example is a conversation between Gulliman and the Lion (during the Heresy to boot) that actually doesn't tell us much. At best, that's merely Gulliman's opinion. At worst, it's Gulliman playing the politics game (something that the Lion was infamously bad at) and telling Jonson what he wants to hear (much more likely imo). I also don't know where you're getting this 'Lion's record was growing faster than Horus's' thing, never heard that before. Horus had his issues, but angst about Jonson sure doesn't seem to be one of them. The duplicity and insecurity you've tried to paint Horus with in this thread just isn't bourne out by the fluff.

[rendingon1+]

That's the thing, it appears to only be in your mind. What we know directly from Horus, (via False Gods) is that Sanguinius was the brother he felt unworthy of/challenged by, not the Lion. Also, the DAs didn't even merit a mention (iirc) when the Mournival are having their 'who's the hardest chat' with Sigismund in Horus Rising. So it seems more likely that Horus and the XVI were generally somewhat apathetic towards the DAs (as much as one could be, about a SM Legion), which would be consist with Jonson's reputation of 'doesn't play well with others'. If your best example is a conversation between Gulliman and the Lion (during the Heresy to boot) that actually doesn't tell us much. At best, that's merely Gulliman's opinion. At worst, it's Gulliman playing the politics game (something that the Lion was infamously bad at) and telling Jonson what he wants to hear (much more likely imo). I also don't know where you're getting this 'Lion's record was growing faster than Horus's' thing, never heard that before. Horus had his issues, but angst about Jonson sure doesn't seem to be one of them. The duplicity and insecurity you've tried to paint Horus with in this thread just isn't bourne out by the fluff.

 

 

I don't really give a :cuss if Lion should be Warmaster or not, was it right that Horus was chosen or not etc. Lion was not chosen and that's the fact. Quoting various BL sources as an evidence is not very good either (like/especially Horus Rising), because they just focus on specific character's point of view or opininons which might be 100% biased or well, it's just like their opinion man. For example:

Also, the DAs didn't even merit a mention (iirc) when the Mournival are having their 'who's the hardest chat' with Sigismund in Horus Rising.

1) It would be true IF we knew that each Mournival member has participated in joined operations with DA, which as I recall, was Abaddon only lack of evidence on the part of the others. Even after that you can account for factors like: jealousy, dislike etc. Also, it's just the loose talk not: "Alright gentlemen, let's compare EVERY legion to decide who's the hardest. Bring your dataslates, we're meeting in the archive level 53-2-1, we're totally gonna scour every battle record and analyze every campaign and battle fought by every Legion ever to be fair. Let's sort it out!"

2) What would you expect from the first book wriiten from Luna Wolves perspective? That every Legion will be mentioned and talked about? Please...

At best, that's merely Gulliman's opinion. At worst, it's Gulliman playing the politics game (something that the Lion was infamously bad at) and telling Jonson what he wants to hear (much more likely imo).

So Mournival talk is stating of fact and what G says is "merely his opinion at best". Ok.

Also please give a source that states Lion was bad at politics (and infamously so according to you) because I can give you one that's states exactly opposite.

Last thing: Lion's conquest count was indeed very high and rising very fast, especially since he was found "in the middle" and Horus was the first. In old/codex sources Horus, Lion and Guilliman are quoted as 3 top conquerors. But I don't think number of conquest was a sole requirement to be a Warmaster. My opinion is that Horus was chosen because:

- He was found first and tutored by the Emperor/Malcador for longer than the others. More than that I think he wanted to learn, unlike some of his brothers who were like: "ain't no time for talking, just taking my Legion see ya".

- He was not damaged in mind like most of the other Primarchs

- He was efficient in his conquest + strategic genius

- He was charismatic and inspiring (his personal primarch trait and learned skill)

- Good at politics and PR

 

Again, I'm not arguing in Johnson's favour that he should be a Warmaster or DA were the best because I think it is stupid. I completely disagree with Azorius and feel deeply ashamed that his (apparently) chosen faction is also mine.

[Leif Bearclaw]

I don't really give a if Lion should be Warmaster or not, was it right that Horus was chosen or not etc. Lion was not chosen and that's the fact. Quoting various BL sources as an evidence is not very good either (like/especially Horus Rising), because they just focus on specific character's point of view or opininons which might be 100% biased or well, it's just like their opinion man.

 

And yet that's the vast majority of the evidence we have. How valid is is depends on what you're conclusions you're trying to draw from it. For example, character X saying something is evidence for their opinions (with the caveat of 'can vary according to circumstance'). And, just a reminder, OP's premise is 'I think Horus and the XVI had a major insecurity issue around Jonson and the I' so character's opinions are a valid data point is assessing that claim.

 

 

1) It would be true IF we knew that each Mournival member has participated in joined operations with DA, which as I recall, was Abaddon only lack of evidence on the part of the others. Even after that you can account for factors like: jealousy, dislike etc. Also, it's just the loose talk not: "Alright gentlemen, let's compare EVERY legion to decide who's the hardest. Bring your dataslates, we're meeting in the archive level 53-2-1, we're totally gonna scour every battle record and analyze every campaign and battle fought by every Legion ever to be fair. Let's sort it out!"

2) What would you expect from the first book wriiten from Luna Wolves perspective? That every Legion will be mentioned and talked about? Please...

You seem to have completely missed my point here. If OP's assessment of DA/LW relations was accurate, then yes, I would have expected someone to mention the DAs in such a conversation. The absence of a mention counts against OP's claim of enduring animosity on the part of Horus and the LW (let alone the "The Lions record was growing faster than Horus’, and given more time it seems he would have surpasses him. The Lion is the other “first”, and the only one with the capability and will to potentially dethrone Horus." bit), especially given the lack of evidence presented in support. You'll also note I said 'more likely xyz' not 'definitely is', because the evidence available indeed isn't conclusive, but there is at least some.

 

 

So Mournival talk is stating of fact and what G says is "merely his opinion at best". Ok.

When the subject is 'what does Horus think?', pretty much (though the best source is Horus himself, hence my reference to his comments about Sangy). The Mournival are a more reliable source on the subject of Horus and the XVI than Gulliman, because they have more first hand experience.

 

 

Also please give a source that states Lion was bad at politics (and infamously so according to you) because I can give you one that's states exactly opposite.

Well there's his murdering a subordinate during an argument, which doesn't say much about his temperament for command. His entire managing of Luther and the Fallen also counts against him in the 'people skills' department. There's also this summary from Lexicanum (sourced to Fallen Angels and Unremembered Empire) "Lion El'Jonson gained notoriety for his leadership and combat capability in the Great Crusade, but was too secretive and stoic to be considered for the honour of Warmaster. Indeed, the Lion himself admitted he had difficulty understanding the emotions of others."

[Marshal Rohr]

@Marshal Rohr

I don't think the widowmaker was near the throneroom. It was Ezekyle. I think Horus had to help him up because he was buried under a pile of dead orks.

I stand corrected, good catch.

 

 

Consider one of Urlakk Urg’s lieutenants managed to overcome the Emperor’s psychic might and throttle him, it’s safe to say Ullanor was not some walk in the park.

 

While I agree with the sentiment about Ullanor, that Ork wasn't a Lieutenant. That was a completely different campaign, attacking Gorro, a separate empire from Ullanor. It happened at the start of the Great Crusade and it was the Warlord of Gorro that tried to choke the Emperor.

And yes, in my mind The Lion poses a bit of an existential crisis for Horus. Horus. Horus is the first, the favorite, the first among equals. But The Lion challenges that. While Horus had the record for most campaign victories, at the time of the warmaster appointment The Lions record was growing faster than Horus’, and given more time it seems he would have surpasses him. The Lion is the other “first”, and the only one with the capability and will to potentially dethrone Horus. There is also another scene where Guilliman talks to The Lion about Horus, and how Horus relished the validation of being placed above The Lion. Being above Dorn, Guilliman, Sanguinius and the rest meant nothing, but being above The Lion meant something.

 

 

To me Horus is the first child, used to all the attention and love, who is then challenged by his new siblings taking his parents attention, and acting out in insecurity.

 

That's the thing, it appears to only be in your mind. What we know directly from Horus, (via False Gods) is that Sanguinius was the brother he felt unworthy of/challenged by, not the Lion. Also, the DAs didn't even merit a mention (iirc) when the Mournival are having their 'who's the hardest chat' with Sigismund in Horus Rising. So it seems more likely that Horus and the XVI were generally somewhat apathetic towards the DAs (as much as one could be, about a SM Legion), which would be consistent with Jonson's reputation of 'doesn't play well with others'. If your best example is a conversation between Gulliman and the Lion (during the Heresy to boot) that actually doesn't tell us much. At best, that's merely Gulliman's opinion. At worst, it's Gulliman playing the politics game (something that the Lion was infamously bad at) and telling Jonson what he wants to hear (much more likely imo). I also don't know where you're getting this 'Lion's record was growing faster than Horus's' thing, never heard that before. Horus had his issues, but angst about Jonson sure doesn't seem to be one of them. The duplicity and insecurity you've tried to paint Horus with in this thread just isn't bourne out by the fluff.

I thought at the end of the story the Emperor tells Horus they are going to Ullanor?

[rendingon1+]

Well there's his murdering a subordinate during an argument, which doesn't say much about his temperament for command. His entire managing of Luther and the Fallen also counts against him in the 'people skills' department. There's also this summary from Lexicanum (sourced to Fallen Angels and Unremembered Empire) "Lion El'Jonson gained notoriety for his leadership and combat capability in the Great Crusade, but was too secretive and stoic to be considered for the honour of Warmaster. Indeed, the Lion himself admitted he had difficulty understanding the emotions of others."

I have trouble in defending Thorpe's poor writing (remember he justified killing Nemiel with "because it would be too obvious that two brothers on opposite sides will have to face each other at the end, so I killed one" or something like that. That should give an idea how bad Thorpe is) but even if we accept it:

You have a demonic incursion on your flagship. Demons do whatever they want, most weapons seems to be ineffective, your loses are very heavy. Dire situation indeed. And then one of your ex-librarians stops giving a about Nikea and starts chugging mind bullets at demonic foes killing them by the dozen. Finally you seem to have a weapon that can turn the tide and save the ship. You're about to give an order to lift Nikaea ban so your fleet may actually survive...

BUT

One of your subordinates, chaplain no less says: nope. You can't. You try to reason with him for a moment, you give AN ORDER for him to be cool but he still throws a tantrum. On a command bridge, your subordinate questions your authority in front of everyone. Remeber, time is ticking, every minute means more loses and a risk of destruction is more real... 

 

You know what happens next and seriously: Considering how adamant Nemiel was about upholding the Edict I would not be suprised when order to stand down/being arrested he'd put a fight in the middle of the crysis. And that would be huge blow to the morale anyway.

 

BTW we have more examples or primarchs lashing out at their sons if they say/do something not to their liking. For example Sanguinius almost killing Amit when he questione Horus' loyalty, Perurabo and Berossus (I know he's a traitor so doesn't count), If I recall Manus and Corax either had this kind of incidents too. Of course Lion is pointed out because his spanking of Nemiel resulted in fatality and it's the Lion so he's automatically a big jerk lol.

 

I hope people understand Legion is not democracy, and there are plety of examples of summary executions in military history. Let's not forget it was an active warzone and Legion survival was at stake.

 

His entire managing of Luther and the Fallen also counts against him in the 'people skills' department.

I agree it's a bit more complicated and rather badly fleshed out at the moment. I hope FW will shed some light on this matter.

 

There's also this summary from Lexicanum (sourced to Fallen Angels and Unremembered Empire) "Lion El'Jonson gained notoriety for his leadership and combat capability in the Great Crusade, but was too secretive and stoic to be considered for the honour of Warmaster. Indeed, the Lion himself admitted he had difficulty understanding the emotions of others."

Lexicanum is not a source I would trust unless it has bibliography attached.

 

On the other hand you have

[Vykes]

 

...

 

And yes, in my mind The Lion poses a bit of an existential crisis for Horus. Horus. Horus is the first, the favorite, the first among equals. But The Lion challenges that. While Horus had the record for most campaign victories, at the time of the warmaster appointment The Lions record was growing faster than Horus’, and given more time it seems he would have surpasses him. The Lion is the other “first”, and the only one with the capability and will to potentially dethrone Horus. There is also another scene where Guilliman talks to The Lion about Horus, and how Horus relished the validation of being placed above The Lion. Being above Dorn, Guilliman, Sanguinius and the rest meant nothing, but being above The Lion meant something.

 

To me Horus is the first child, used to all the attention and love, who is then challenged by his new siblings taking his parents attention, and acting out in insecurity.

 

 

But that's kinda the thing, it is mostly your thoughts in a meta-sense.  When we see Horus actually talking abut Johnson and the First, it's not with some awe factor but a sort of vague derision in the same way that we see him talk about Russ: they're dangerous but they are containable and exploitable. In books/short stories like Warmaster, we can see where Horus has his Senpei complex at work and lo and behold, it's Sanguinius.  He's always had an insecurity and fondness for Sanguinius, while said source (Warmaster) also includes his bereaved mumblings that Gulliman was his "too damned perfect" brother with a dangerous legion that absolutely, positively, had to be knocked out of the war.  It always struck me as positively Matt Wardian in tone, but that's during a candid conversation (read as: Hamlet-esque delusional theatrics) with the skull of Iron Boy.   It's purely Horus Lupercal's thoughts when he's at a surprisingly vulnerable point.  

 

Was that not the point of the whole discussion?  What does Horus and the 16th think of Johnson? 

 

It doesn't matter what others think Horus thinks of them, otherwise why not just use the Know No Fear talk between Ultramarine captains that Horus was just feeling insecure and Gulliman was playing the 'good boy' diplomat card in patronizing Horus Lupercal by even agreeing to send his legion to work with Lorgar's pathetic undisciplined fanatics?  That Horus' new title of Warmaster isn't anything more than pity, because Gulliman didn't actually want the title to begin with and is kinda Emperor #2, and he's also super handsome, and that keeps every other primarch up at night worrying about how they can't possibly measure up in comparison to their wonderful liege lord? (His legion fanboys about him a bit, and it's written to be an in-universe bias). 

 

Johnson does seem to very much be in the position of a very good general and personal fighter, but not the most widely regarded for his politician or diplomatic acumen.  He's abrasive in that his doggedness and self-determination usually is at odds with larger plans.  Descent of Angels in no uncertain terms says that Luther is the main claim to the success of Johnson in the political arena and kept the Order together, just like he kept most of the facets of the Legion together (hence has so much Calabanite support).  Then you have Johnson as part of the triumverate in Imperium secundus, and it didn't end with Sangy and Bobby G swooning before him, it ended with Gulliman basically saying: "Johnson, I'm not trying to be your mom or anything, but 'Lord Protector', I told you not to do one thing.  And what did you do?" "Well, teeeeeeeechnically-" "... gimme' your sword.  Nope, hand it over."  The Dark Angels are a legion, they are a big legion, they are a big legion with a lot of tech and gadgets and some exceptional exemplary individuals, but they are a fractious legion with a lot of loyalties and ideals with some wonky issues due to them also being a testbed for the other subsequent formations.  

 

I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the writing for most of the Angels series in 30K is... contentious, maybe not Battle for the Abyss contentious, but its pretty high up there as a second choice.  But it's also the sources we're given, so to ignore them for being poorly formatted, thought out, and phrased would be like me complaining about every single time John Grammaticus shows up: don't like it but it's what's there. 

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

BTW we have more examples or primarchs lashing out at their sons if they say/do something not to their liking. For example Sanguinius almost killing Amit when he questione Horus' loyalty,

The Sangy example is valid with 2 caveats/mitigations, he didn't kill Amit and the nature of the confrontation, Amit basically accused Sangy's closest brother of the worst crime imaginable. He however doesn't have previous form of treating his men badly, and a more positive, charismatic reputation that still puts him solidly in the 'more personable' end of the Primarchs personalities. Whereas Jonson doesn't. Jonson also clearly chose to kill, rather than just slap down, Nemiel (and we know Jonson was fully capable of quickly and non-fatally incapacitating Marines, as seen by the confrontation with the SW Watch Pack). Whichever way you spin it, murdering a senior officer for objecting to a legally dubious order is hardly a triumph of the Lion's command ability and highlights the inflexible 'my way or nothing' nature of his character that made him unsuited to the Warmaster role.

 

 

Perurabo and Berossus (I know he's a traitor so doesn't count), If I recall Manus and Corax either had this kind of incidents too. Of course Lion is pointed out because his spanking of Nemiel resulted in fatality and it's the Lion so he's automatically a big jerk lol.

No, Jonson gets pointed out because of the company he's being put with, the charismatic, political types (Sangy, Horus, Gulliman). While Perty is a particularly bad one (hell, some of the that's been added to his story is possibly the second worst fluff in the Heresy), none of those 3 Primarchs (assuming Manus and Corax are accurate, I'm unaware of either attacking their men in a fit of pique) were particularly political creatures or 'potential Warmasters' (while Ferrus might have been considered, he was passed by for similar reasons as Jonson).

 

 

Lexicanum is not a source I would trust unless it has bibliography attached.

 

On the other hand you have

Did you lose a bit of post there? While you're right about Lexicanum in general, I did mention which books it cites as the source for the claims I quoted, but I don't have access to them to check myself.

[Marshal Rohr]

Lexicanum is reliable, Warhammer Wiki is not. I think you guys are getting the wires crossed. Lexicanum requires everything to be cited.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Lexicanum is reliable, Warhammer Wiki is not. I think you guys are getting the wires crossed. Lexicanum requires everything to be cited.

But the citations are sometimes dubious/absent (like the recent edits around the Black Legion vessel Harbinger of Doom, seemingly started by a thread on this very forum), which is why I included the citations in my first post, so it was as obvious as possible where the info was coming from.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Lexicanum is reliable, Warhammer Wiki is not. I think you guys are getting the wires crossed. Lexicanum requires everything to be cited.

But the citations are sometimes dubious/absent (like the recent edits around the Black Legion vessel Harbinger of Doom, seemingly started by a thread on this very forum), which is why I included the citations in my first post, so it was as obvious as possible where the info was coming from.

 

 

Gotcha, best case is always to personally verify then. 

[rendingon1+]

The Sangy example is valid with 2 caveats/mitigations, he didn't kill Amit and the nature of the confrontation, Amit basically accused Sangy's closest brother of the worst crime imaginable. He however doesn't have previous form of treating his men badly, and a more positive, charismatic reputation that still puts him solidly in the 'more personable' end of the Primarchs personalities.

 

 

He "chose" to kill in the heat of the moment and regreted it afterwards (od course he didn't share his grief with anyone later on). It was an impulse, and while I don't deny it was rather bad PR decision I can understand it (in fact I can't because Thorpe is a bad writer), but I elaborated on circumstances he killed Nemiel. Please read my post again.

 

Whereas Jonson doesn't. Jonson also clearly chose to kill, rather than just slap down, Nemiel (and we know Jonson was fully capable of quickly and non-fatally incapacitating Marines, as seen by the confrontation with the SW Watch Pack).

Comparing killing Nemiel and mock ritual duel with wulfs is not fair, it's like comparing target practice at the shooting range and firing in actual combat. Ie. Performing same action in stressful situation may yield different results.

Whichever way you spin it, murdering a senior officer for objecting to a legally dubious order is hardly a triumph of the Lion's command ability and highlights the inflexible 'my way or nothing' nature of his character that made him unsuited to the Warmaster role.

 

Now, I don't want to assume you're biased or something, but calling it "legally dubious order" is laughable. Psychic force was the only proven weapon that could prevent destruction of the Legion forces, not: hey, Asmodeus show us this trick with fireballs, nah, don't worry about the edict.

In the time of crysis EVERY primarch (except vulkan who was missing and Ferrus who was dead) lifted Nikaea ban.

Sanguinius - Signus, check.

Roboute - Calth, check.

Dorn - didn't even disband his Librarius just locked them up for later.

Corax - actively using librariansafter Istvaan

Russ - "totally non psykers rune priests"

Khan - didn't give a about Nikaea at all

So, whichever way you spin it - nope, Lion killing Nemiel can be justified, but MAYBY it was not the best decision.

 

Also: Point can be made how extremely loyal some Dark Angels were to the Emperor  - loyalty above Legion (and reason)

 

No, Jonson gets pointed out because of the company he's being put with, the charismatic, political types (Sangy, Horus, Gulliman). While Perty is a particularly bad one (hell, some of the that's been added to his story is possibly the second worst fluff in the Heresy), none of those 3 Primarchs (assuming Manus and Corax are accurate, I'm unaware of either attacking their men in a fit of pique) were particularly political creatures or 'potential Warmasters' (while Ferrus might have been considered, he was passed by for similar reasons as Jonson).

So Johnson character is just judged by "compared to X"? Taking most civilised/human/charismatic primarchs and comparing them to a dude who's literally entire life is either fightinig for survival in demon hunted forests, followed by disciplined life in a militant Order. He had none of Guillimans political tutelage, nor his adopted, loving "parents" who also happened to be good people, neither did he was a champion of the people like Sanguinius, who also shared hardships with his Tribe on daily basis. Johnson grew up in the forest, then was taken by soldier-knights, who's only duty was fighting beasts and other knights while living strict, organised, isolated and disciplined life in the fortresses of the Order. He probably had very little interaction with Calibanites or almost none at all, and didn't live with "his people" like Sanguinius or RG. Besides what's very important Lion was kind of reliant on Luther, his only friend-brother-father. Luther was extremely charismatic, hell, he was even respected by Astartes from other legions even though he was just a normal (augmented) human. It was Luther who always did the talking and it was Luther who refined Lion's plans and ideas to presnet them to others. Luther was a velvet glove - without Luther only iron fist remained. Nevertheless Lion could stand for himself and evidently was respected by his brothers as a leader, but respect was all he got. I don't think he was liked, nor was he invited for joined campaign birthday parties. At least unlike some other primarchs he was ok with that.

 

My point: It's unfair to judge Lion compared to pinnacle of Socially Perfect Primarchs when clearly he was not of the sort.

Did you lose a bit of post there? While you're right about Lexicanum in general, I did mention which books it cites as the source for the claims I quoted, but I don't have access to them to check myself.

 

Yup, and there was much more.eh. There was a qoute from Leman Russ about Lion and politics, will provide it later.

 

Once again: I don't try to make Lion look like a saint, he was a bastard (like most of them), but he was not a stupid, socially awkward monster either.

[Vykes]

"Loyalty is its own reward... 'cept if your name starts with a N and ends in Emiel."

 

What Jonny was or wasn't is kinda totally immaterial to this, it's what does Horus and his legion think of them.  

[rendingon1+]

Yeah, I know  

But hey, last time I was defending Lion was like 2 years ago or something.

[Brother Styphus]

"Loyalty is its own reward... 'cept if your name starts with a N and ends in

What bothers me about the Loyalty quote is that everyone points to it as if that is the end all be all of truths. Its ironic. Nemiel was loyal to the Emperor over his primarch, and was rewarded with a killer headache.

[Vykes]

Feels about the last time a half decent narrative with him came out

 

Eh, I like the Lion but because of his flaws and failings.  Like, he feels more dangerous and problematic than most primarchs, not to the same level as someone like Curze or Angron, but he's one of the loyalist comparatives along with Russ in that he's almost an issue when he's on your side.  Seriously lethal dude with some strange and awesome secrets and tech (Not gonna lie, I love the Tuchulcha triad angle and a lot of the Thramas stuff), but his problematic personality are just something that others have to contend with.  The flaws make him fascinating for me. 

 

But when compared with the other primarchs, he seems like he's viewed as a wardog: dangerous, pretty loyal, but not the most diplomatic (and yeah, I know of the Russ quote on the Lion being a big shot in the Terran courts... the same courts that basically no one else likes dealing with for their aloof pomp, and is at least in part responsible for Horus flipping out and saying, 'Y'know what, fine.  Let the galaxy burn.')  That doesn't make me like him less, it makes me like him more.  He's no Lupercal, Gulliman, Lorgar, or Khan in my list of primarch waifu's but he's pretty cool. 

 

 

What bothers me about the Loyalty quote is that everyone points to it as if that is the end all be all of truths. Its ironic. Nemiel was loyal to the Emperor over his primarch, and was rewarded with a killer headache.

 

 Spot on, man.  That's kinda the great irony of it to me too: Nemiel was loyal to the edicts of the Emperor which, ostensibly, is an absolute loyalty to preserve the soul of the legion and its character.  Dorn and Sanguinius both did similar things to legionnaires and they didn't end up dead, so does that say more or less about the Lion that his loss of control straight up murders one of his own legionnaires because he didn't like what he said? 

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

He "chose" to kill in the heat of the moment and regreted it afterwards (od course he didn't share his grief with anyone later on). It was an impulse, and while I don't deny it was rather bad PR decision I can understand it (in fact I can't because Thorpe is a bad writer), but I elaborated on circumstances he killed Nemiel. Please read my post again

 

Comparing killing Nemiel and mock ritual duel with wulfs is not fair, it's like comparing target practice at the shooting range and firing in actual combat. Ie. Performing same action in stressful situation may yield different results.

 

Again, despite violent reaction, neither Dorn or Sangy killed the Marines that confronted them more traumatic truths than 'I object to this order because it's against the decree of the Emperor' (in Sangy's case, also under pretty stressful circumstances). I chose the Wolf example because it involved Jonson, and highlighted how quickly easily a Primarch can overpower a Marine with flat out killing them.

 

 

Now, I don't want to assume you're biased or something, but calling it "legally dubious order" is laughable.

Is it though? The Emperor outranked Jonson. He didn't have the authority to overrule Imperial decree, so his order to ignore the Edict could be viewed as an illegal, and hence invalid, order. The Legions had been given a stark lesson in the consequences for breaking the Edict at Prospero. Break the Emperor's law, and your entire Legion, Homeworld and civilian population were forfeit. In that context, while fighting without psykers that time might doom Jonson's task force, the Legion would survive. Whereas breaking the edict would (as far as someone like Nemiel would know) put them, Caliban and every Marine in DA colours in the crosshairs of the Talons of the Emperor.

 

Funny you seem to think I'm 'biased', I actually agree that Jonson made the right call, but nevertheless Nemiel potentially had reasonable, logical objections to the decision, and didn't deserve to get murdered over them.

 

 

So Johnson character is just judged by "compared to X"?

I wouldn't say 'just'. But when you're comparing Primarchs that is what you're doing, you're comparing 18 characters on point X. And when X is 'working well with others, being diplomatic, charismatic etc.' Jonson isn't exactly top tier.

 

 

My point: It's unfair to judge Lion compared to pinnacle of Socially Perfect Primarchs when clearly he was not of the sort.

And yet, that's what the 'would the Lion make a good Warmaster?' question necessitates. He has to be compared to the most diplomatic, charismatic and personable of his brothers, because those are the traits needed in a good Warmaster, not just 'kills enemies good'. The Lion isn't unique for not measuring up. Imo the only two real choices for Warmaster were Horus or Sangy (maybe Gulliman, Fulgrim at a massive stretch).

 

 

Once again: I don't try to make Lion look like a saint, he was a bastard (like most of them), but he was not a stupid, socially awkward monster either.

Stupid? No. Socially awkward? Compared to some (not all) of his brothers, yes. And that's the thing, I'm not saying the Lion was terrible, merely that he wasn't Warmaster material, or as politically astute as some of his brothers. I'm honestly surprised this has proved to be so contentious.

[Brother Styphus]

I'm honestly surprised this has proved to be so contentious.

 

I agree with you there. Fallen Angels has Nemiel wondering why Lion can't tell if the Mechanicum guys were shifty, and Dreadwing has Holguin wondering why Lion would betray loyalist Admech because he couldn't tell that they weren't shifty. Ignoring his Social ineptitude belittles the significance of Luthor's banishment, as Luthor was the people person.

[rendingon1+]

Nor do I think that Lion would ever be a good Warmaster - I'm not arguing this fact. As an Emperor's proxy you have to be not only great general but also a figurehead, which Lion would not be capable of (but at least he looked good and had a style lol), I think we agree on this. Just pointing out that his "flaws" or whatever, are not really that crippling as people think or want to think. In my opinion. Russ fragment:

 

'The Lion,' said Jorin, musingly. 'You've fought with him before?'

'I've barely swapped two words with him, and they were enough.'

'They say he will have more worlds under his heel than any other, one day.'

'Probably, him or Guilliman. He's a good tactician. Cold-blooded, stiff-necked, arrogant. It's why he does so well on Terra. Blood of the gods, Jorin, I will not be beaten by him.'

AND

This primarch, more so than perhaps any other, radiated a dark, sombre majesty, the calm presence of one born to rule and comfortable in the role. In another age he might have been an emperor in his own right, the undisputed ruler of a thousand worlds. Even in this Imperium he was the commander of the oldest and proudest of Legions, a regent to the one who had created them all, though the kingly aspect had not been diminished by time, remaining one of suzerainty, of domination, of command.

 

 

[rendingon1+]

 

 

I'm honestly surprised this has proved to be so contentious.

I agree with you there. Fallen Angels has Nemiel wondering why Lion can't tell if the Mechanicum guys were shifty, and Dreadwing has Holguin wondering why Lion would betray loyalist Admech because he couldn't tell that they weren't shifty. Ignoring his Social ineptitude belittles the significance of Luthor's banishment, as Luthor was the people person.

Actually it was not about Magos but a general (and it was so awkwardly and heavy handedly implied that I wonder people still take this book seriously), and  if you want examples of Primarchs trusting other who appeared to be traitors later, just look at Dorn and who has he sent to Istvan: perturabo, curze, alpharius etc. Was it his social ineptitude either? Ot Perturabo trusting Fulgrim, or Sanguinius trusting Horus with Signus assigment, or Leman trusting Horus with Prospero, or etc. Every primarch or other has made a wrong decision in trusting someone and suffered for it.

As for Dreadwing, Lion takes no chances after all that happened. Besides ForgeWorld-less Magii were just insignificant. It's kind of funny how things other people do "normally" are a flaw when talking about the Lion.