Ranking the Primarchs - 30k

[Scribe]

Yes, the wiki's and their impact on what people think is real are...comical.

 

Even in this thread you also see that people skipped on 'fightyness' as the limiter. If we are talking 'generalship' or 'administration' or 'crafting ability' the lists will differ. If we are talking about charisma, or even nebulous 'leadership' the lists will differ.

 

It could be an interesting discussion breaking all of those down.

[calgar101]

Exactly and I agree there. We first must decide what parameters we are using to judge how good a Primarch is. Ranking a Primarch should not be limited to their combat abilities, generalship and governance are also hugely important but overlooked lots O think.

Once we can decide what factors we use to rank them we might be able to come up with a rough guide... nothing definitive.. but a guide.

 

Combat prowess

Generalship

Governance

Charisma

Victory tally

 

Not sure what other attributes to use to rank them?

[StrangerOrders]

Yes, the wiki's and their impact on what people think is real are...comical.

 

Even in this thread you also see that people skipped on 'fightyness' as the limiter. If we are talking 'generalship' or 'administration' or 'crafting ability' the lists will differ. If we are talking about charisma, or even nebulous 'leadership' the lists will differ.

 

It could be an interesting discussion breaking all of those down.

I think its just the nature of the hobby. Its a war game so folks tend to latch onto combat performance.

 

More tragically, folks tend to neglect even their tactical or strategic (please dont beat up on me if you wanna debate the terms, just accept that I mean their ability as commanders). 

 

To look at my own favorite (Fulgrim). He often does pretty well on these lists because he is a pretty good duelists. But I'd argue that pre-Chaos his value is more that he is one of the more diplomatically and strategically adept Primarchs.

 

It probably helps that the authors put in alot less effort into designing battles and campaigns than they do the fights (They do not have to be geniuses, plenty of writers come up with great imitations by studying and Frankenstein-ing campaigns form actual history).

 

In the end I think alot of people just look at this and say 'eh, over all' instead of focusing on combat exclusively.

 

Although it probably helps that combat is where the narrowest 'gaps' are. Because no Primarch (yes even Lorgar) wasn't made to be at least some degree of beatstick. 

 

I would contest Horus as an outlier though. BL for some reason retroactively made it so that he was always a mentally unstable wreck (first reaction to having siblings was to suggest murder for attention), I'd question if the Athame was even needed by Chaos with the direction they went with. They just needed to tell Horus that Corax had a bigger room in the Imperial Palace.

 

One thing that does irk me is Angron though. 

 

He wasn't designed to be what he is (he seemed to have had a pretty different design ethos at that). And I often feel that we flanderize precisely how much brain damage the Nails do, we've seen in the books that he wasn't a zero across the board. Yes, he obviously fell beneath his brothers in alot of respects but for some reason he tends to be treated as if he was actively stupid.

 

A stupid man wouldn't be noted in the Forgeworld books to actually have instituted a pretty effective (if brutal) hierarchy in his Legion, planned out a number of successful campaigns and have generally be adept at his job.

 

I do blame the unreliable narrator for this though, as even Angron literally lampshades this when he gives Lorgar the side-eye for thinking he couldn't do the same mental math his brothers could (calculating warp jumps, which is anything but simple for the record).

 

As far as combat (both within a formal duel and in open battle), I think Angron would obviously do very well in most circumstances. But I also don't think he would score an automatic zero in other arenas despite the assumptions we often attach to him.

[Scribe]

Your comments on Horus perfectly illustrate the issue for me.

 

We are told by 'reliable' sources that he is the best of the Primarch's, first among equals, unparalleled in leadership, etc etc, but the novels never paint the same picture. That alone makes these kinds of discussions near impossible.

 

Should he be ranked well? He was made Warmaster, how could he not have been a success? Yet all we can point to are his clear flaws.

 

Angron, as my admitted favorite is utterly flawed, and had no chance to be what he was intended to be. Do we guess? I would simply chalk him up to being low ranking on near everything not due to ability or aptitude, but out of disdain.

 

He was never going to lead, not long term, his path was always going to be towards killing due to how he grew.

[calgar101]

Horus was or is supposed to be the beat of them but what were we actually shown to show this? Guilliman could be argued as one of the most successful of the Primarchs due to his achievements. The Lion fought against Chaos monsters for years... but so what? If combat prowess is all we can use to measure Primarchs by then a lot of good Primarchs I feel are ranked lower than they should be. Dorn was placed in charge of Terras defences, would that not put him higher up a rankings list?

[The Neverborn]

 

 didn't all excel equally. And it seems clear that I was not misinformed. Even a normal Imperial probably wouldn't gain too much from taking strategic planning lessons from Angron or interpersonal lessons from, well most of them actually.

 

The are all quite fighty though, 

 

Even in this thread you also see that people skipped on 'fightyness' as the limiter. If we are talking 'generalship' or 'administration' or 'crafting ability' the lists will differ. If we are talking about charisma, or even nebulous 'leadership' the lists will differ.

 

 

 

I was trying to restrict this to martial  ability, i changed that to "Fightyness" as i didn't want to imply skill.

 

But it became obvious very quickly, that people are either unable on unwilling to take this objectively in a goal orientated conversation and many of the response have been unhelpful or thinly vailed attempts to undermine the conversation. Honestly I'm more than a little perturbed.

 

I propose two options

 

1) Lock the conversation.

2) Understand the original intent and move forward.

[Fedor]

A Tier: almost all of them. 50/50 or 60/40 type fights depending on context.

 

B Tier: Alpharius/Omegon, but not because of the flanderization of them as non-combat spy types, but because Thorpe -i think it was - that first decided to make the long held fan speculation that they were clearly smaller than the rest a reality.  Lorgar due to his disinterest in developing his individual martial skills, but he did get stronger after going full in on Chaos.

 

A few light hearted observations at things i usually see in these sorts of discussions in other online spaces...

 

It seems like it's often  the Lion and Sanguinius fans ( i guess mostly DA and BA players) that have a hard time accepting that their Primarchs are anything other than easily the best at everything. Slightly followed by the more vigorous Russ/Wolves supporters. You would think that the books had outright said repeatedly that these three were massively superior to everyone else to the point they aren't even from the same template, instead of mostly being pretty vague and mild when primarch comparisons come up.  These legions being the most popular and hyped up by GW will obviously play a part here.

 

On the other hand i've seen a significant amount consider Dorn and Guilliman or sometimes Pert to be average/mediocre fighters despite nothing of the sort ever being suggested in any of the books. Maybe it's those lame forgeworld stats in Dorn's case.

 

Horus seems to be widely considered inferior to all the loyalist posterboys. THe HH series depiction of him (or lack of it) has no doubt taken its toll.

 

On a similar note, Mortarion always seems to be ignored or near the bottom of any lists/tiers. The Khan usually rated well above him despite their fight being equally contested and inconclusive. HH series depiction probably to blame here too.

[StrangerOrders]

A Tier: almost all of them. 50/50 or 60/40 type fights depending on context.

 

B Tier: Alpharius/Omegon, but not because of the flanderization of them as non-combat spy types, but because Thorpe -i think it was - that first decided to make the long held fan speculation that they were clearly smaller than the rest a reality.  Lorgar due to his disinterest in developing his individual martial skills, but he did get stronger after going full in on Chaos.

 

A few light hearted observations at things i usually see in these sorts of discussions in other online spaces...

 

It seems like it's often  the Lion and Sanguinius fans ( i guess mostly DA and BA players) that have a hard time accepting that their Primarchs are anything other than easily the best at everything. Slightly followed by the more vigorous Russ/Wolves supporters. You would think that the books had outright said repeatedly that these three were massively superior to everyone else to the point they aren't even from the same template, instead of mostly being pretty vague and mild when primarch comparisons come up.  These legions being the most popular and hyped up by GW will obviously play a part here.

 

On the other hand i've seen a significant amount consider Dorn and Guilliman or sometimes Pert to be average/mediocre fighters despite nothing of the sort ever being suggested in any of the books. Maybe it's those lame forgeworld stats in Dorn's case.

 

Horus seems to be widely considered inferior to all the loyalist posterboys. THe HH series depiction of him (or lack of it) has no doubt taken its toll.

 

On a similar note, Mortarion always seems to be ignored or near the bottom of any lists/tiers. The Khan usually rated well above him despite their fight being equally contested and inconclusive. HH series depiction probably to blame here too.

The Morty one is so weird tbh.

 

I think it might be due to his recruitment. Which I fight is unfair since he was under a mountain of handicaps there, bu it does set the narrative.

 

I think it likely ties into his lack of likability tbh. There is alot of emotion there.

 

But practically speaking, I think he objectively is a good fighter even among his brothers (if perhaps not so much of an Angron or a Sangi) and is supposed to be one of the better generals (Forgeworld specifically notes that his main talent was a superb feel for the battlefield and a preternatural gut for who should be where in the battle)). 

 

Although, to tie into my theme of marine-bias. The Khan notes that his lack of showiness (for a Primarch) did tend to mean that he wasnt as well-known as his brothers. So folks might just be leaning to much on their favored-legion bias.

 

Not to mention that there is this weird theme in BL of making everything about him have to be warp-related, even by Chaos standards. We have really yet to see a book just focused on his generalship and in his area of preference.

 

Its sort of the opposite of Dorn, who suffers alot from being stuck on Terra and having a weird rep for being 'bad' at Primarch v. Primarch per the rules. Which is kinda hilarious given that they just opted to weigh more heavily on his generalship, which in the end makes him an insane LoW choice with a criminally low point-cost.

Edited April 30, 2020 by StrangerOrders

[Izlude]

Guys....This was settled like a day ago....

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/04/29/part-3-grand-finale/

 

The Lion is number 1!!!

 

His model is pretty awesome BTW. I have Guilliman and Dorn, if i was a better painter and/or have more time would get them all and make some crazy chess board with this

[StrangerOrders]

Guys....This was settled like a day ago....

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/04/29/part-3-grand-finale/

 

The Lion is number 1!!!

 

His model is pretty awesome BTW. I have Guilliman and Dorn, if i was a better painter and/or have more time would get them all and make some crazy chess board with this

Well, it is totally fortunate and not at all related that he has an upcoming model release then! 

[Ishagu]

The combat prowess of a Primarch is literally the least valuable attribute.

[The Neverborn]

 

But it became obvious very quickly, that people are either unable on unwilling to take this objectively in a goal orientated conversation and many of the response have been unhelpful or thinly vailed attempts to undermine the conversation. 

 

 

 

The combat prowess of a Primarch is literally the least valuable attribute.

 

 

Guys....This was settled like a day ago....

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/04/29/part-3-grand-finale/

 

The Lion is number 1!!!

 

His model is pretty awesome BTW. I have Guilliman and Dorn, if i was a better painter and/or have more time would get them all and make some crazy chess board with this

Well, it is totally fortunate and not at all related that he has an upcoming model release then! 

 

 

 

 

 

I propose two options

 

1) Lock the conversation.

2) Understand the original intent and move forward.

 

 

 

Can some mod just lock this please.

 

This post is just a lost cause at this point and i regret ever bringing it up.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Battle Brother Abderus

[mc warhammer]

any primarch can take another primarch imo

[Lord_Caerolion]

Plus, you need to consider equipment and preparations. We've seen that, given time and resources, Perturabo can have his Legion effectively hamstring Angron and be able to take him easily in a fight. Dump them both naked in an empty room? Perturabo's almost certainly gonna be beaten into the floor. 

 

I mean, it's an interesting topic, it's just such an open-ended question, with just so, so many variables. Throw blatant fan bias into the mix, and it becomes very hard to come to a clear answer. 

[b1soul]

I would be fine with Horus simply having the most naturally ingratiating charisma of all the Primarchs, with Sanguinius coming in as a rather close second but being more "fey" and sporting obvious mutations deviating from the standard human form. Horus is also the best diplomat among his brothers, and handles interpersonal relationships like a charm.

 

Horus doesn't necessarily have to be the most brilliant general or most devastating fighter, but he's still very proficient in both areas, making him a tough nut for any other Primarch to best. His ultimate talent is the ability to effectively leverage the talents of others.

 

He is the only Primarch (other than Sanguinius) who has a decent chance of presiding over the fraternity without alienating certain brother Primarchs.

 

The "best and brightest" tagline is a post-Heresy product of Imperial storytellers, including the Ecclesiarchy

[Indefragable]

Is this thread about who we think is the fight-iest fluff-wise?

 

...or the best fighter as depicted in the Black Library Horus Heresy series of novels? 

 

Hidden Content

There's kind of a triangle of lore for this sort of thing, whose axes* are A. Established Lore --> B. Forgeworld Black Blooks  --> C. Black Library fiction.

 

...you could add in tabletop rules as a datapoint as well to make a diamond moreso than a triangle (or a square, but that feels odd....but a wrestling "ring" is a square, so maybe that is appropriate...), but that's a whole other matter.

 

In short, there's a big difference between all 3 mediums. 

 

The issue with B+C is that it's all about whatever the plot requires, though B usually strives to have a bit more grounding to things and less plot armor, though these days they have to essentially rationalize whatever insanity shows up in the BL stuff. 

 

A is a tricky one since it's essentially the collected works of the setting in general and the collective opinion of All Who Participate in it. That's still pretty subjective and subject to retcons. 

 

[Kelborn]

=][= Locked as requested by the threads author. =][=