Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dude is literally the least successful, the least skilled, weakest, with the fewest number of accomplishments Primarch out of all 18. Dude is just written in the books to die and serves no other purpose. And this is because of inconsistent writing. Dude is mentioned that he's this super blacksmith and has the most advanced legion, Horus proceeds to say that he only needed Ferrus to win the HH which absolute nonsense.

Ferrus gets outdone as a "blacksmith" by Vulkan and Fulgrim and is out invented by Perty. Never won a duel against another Primarch and loses in every battle he participates despite being all odds in his favor. Compare to someone like Perty who goes YOLO, wins every battle (well he did lose some), without all odds in his favor.

Dude is a hyperactive idiot who marched into certain death and failed at basically everything he did. His own novel opens up with him losing a wargame to the EC. Literally whenever he or his legion are on screen, they lose. I thought Angron was the worst Primarch, but Ferrus takes the Crown. Ever since my intro to 40K in 2008, I was never interested in Ferrus and the IH, now out of curiosity I found out, objectively speaking, he is the worst Primarch.

Dude couldn't even take on Fulgrim only wielding the Laer Blade.

Sanguinius took on Ka'Bandha, Daemon Angron and Frieza Horus

Konrad went up against The Lion and Vulkan

Gman who is not one of the best duelists or fighters fought both Lorgar and Angron

Perturabo slapped Angron, Fulgrim and fought Dorn (Iron Cage)

Angron fought Leman, held a Warhound Titan's leg, fought Sanguinus and Gman and all of this he did with the Butcher's Nails (can't believe I'm showing respect for Angron)

There is no "technically won", Ferrus got his head cut off, Fulgrim won the fight. Fulgrim and Horus proved to some of the IH that they're more powerful than Ferrus, thus joining the traitors. Ferrus lost, he was weak.

He is the best at nothing and the worst at several things. He is objectively the worst general among the Primarchs, one of the worst duelists, he is an inferior craftsman to at least 2 of his brothers, he isn't a psyker, he isn't even particularly likable or charismatic. He is a blunt instrument that is outdone by the 3 other blunt instrument Primarchs, Dorn, Perturabo, and Angron. There is nothing I can give him the win on.

Oh well, someone has to be last.

People always forget about Primarchs #2 and 11...
IMHO, Ferrus gets shafted in the lore because there is not much about him. Even his Primarch book is about him in battle and doesn't even touch on his origins. He's a fall guy whose only real accomplishment is to die on Istavann.

Ferrus is trash but I'm tired of this stanning for Perturabo. Perturabo sucks and the only reason he's so popular is because the aesthetics of his legion are cool and him being an intelligent but socially akward nerd feels relatable to wargamers.

Which is not to say that I dislike Perturabo (I think he's a great character) but rather that if Ferrus is pathetic than Perturabo is a close rival for being one of the most pathetic Primarchs in the lore. He has never won a single Primarch fight clean (the only instance where he definitvely "won" a duel was against Angron and he did so by depowering him through some cheese counter-ritual, not through strength of arms), Fulgrim bullied him the way a jock pretends to be friends with the school nerd and then betrays him by banging the nerd's oneitus. His entire motivation as a character stems from a deeply rooted inferiority complex toward the Fists and being scared of the consequences of nuking his own home planet. He has suffered multiple embarrasing upsets in warfare despite being le strategic man of the traitor primarchs: losing at Terra despite holding every military advantage, losing a void battle to Alexis Polux, a dude that wasn't even a primarch, despite holding every military advantage, and Horus firing him out of disgust from the task of hunting down the White Scars because despite outnumbering and outgunning the Scars, Perturabo literally could not fathom trying to fight an enemy that just runs away rather than standing their ground and allowing the battle to turn into a protracted siege.

It's embarrasing. Perturabo has literally never won a fight where his side didn't hold the advantage from the get go and his entire characterization is basically being COLD AND BITTER about circumstances that are entirely his fault. The only traitor primarch who's more pathetic than Perty is Mortarion.

Manus is definitely not the worst Primarch, that honor goes to Lorgar or Alpharius/Omegon; a lot can be said about the cool color scheme of the IW, thus presumably making their Primarch one of the best, that is actually not true as Perturabo is a genius that can create everything necessary to win, but his lack of daddy love ❤️ made him the way he is, so he under performed.

 Big Mac wrote:
Manus is definitely not the worst Primarch, that honor goes to Lorgar or Alpharius/Omegon; a lot can be said about the cool color scheme of the IW, thus presumably making their Primarch one of the best, that is actually not true as Perturabo is a genius that can create everything necessary to win, but his lack of daddy love ❤️ made him the way he is, so he under performed.

I'm glad you said it. Everyone hates Lorgar. If GW wrote that every year his Legion would gather to give his daemon prince head a swirly, I'd believe it.

Unfortunately, his character is underwhelming and it's not helped by the fact he gets killed very early on and is not able to contribute much. gakky Primarchs like Angron, Curze, and even Perturabo get some character development during the Horus Heresy. They aren't exactly cool, but at least we know more about what makes them tick. Ferrus Manus is just so forgettable.

The Iron Hands in 40k are also pretty bland all things considered. You would think that a Chapter/Legion being so obsessed with logic and planning would pull the rugs under the enemy's feet and say "I got you just where I wanted". But they are just dumb, uninteresting, and don't have much to make them so unique.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ferrus is trash but I'm tired of this stanning for Perturabo. Perturabo sucks and the only reason he's so popular is because the aesthetics of his legion are cool and him being an intelligent but socially akward nerd feels relatable to wargamers.

To be frank, a legion with the easiest paintjob is always going to be close to many peoples hearts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bibotot wrote:
The Iron Hands in 40k are also pretty bland all things considered. You would think that a Chapter/Legion being so obsessed with logic and planning would pull the rugs under the enemy's feet and say "I got you just where I wanted". But they are just dumb, uninteresting, and don't have much to make them so unique.

Well their actions seem more emotion driven than logic. Perhaps they are more into the direct logic and planning for sledgehammer attacks. Take away the material advantage and they couldn't adapt to not having overwhelming force to win battles. Kinda like me playing RTS games...

 TheChrispyOne wrote:
People always forget about Primarchs #2 and 11...
IMHO, Ferrus gets shafted in the lore because there is not much about him. Even his Primarch book is about him in battle and doesn't even touch on his origins. He's a fall guy whose only real accomplishment is to die on Istavann.

Primarch 2 was diagnosed with radiation cancer and thus was wiped out from Imperial records, Primarch 11 on the other hand was too much for diversity, equal rights for all life, and the Emperor didn't like that and purged him from Imperial records.

Ferrus could easily have a lot of lore before his death, the thing is, him and the IH aren't that likable. They're anti-humanity and always been Mechanicus aligned. The only thing cool about them is using the most advanced technology unlike the rest of the legions, even with that they still fail.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ferrus is trash but I'm tired of this stanning for Perturabo. Perturabo sucks and the only reason he's so popular is because the aesthetics of his legion are cool and him being an intelligent but socially akward nerd feels relatable to wargamers.

Which is not to say that I dislike Perturabo (I think he's a great character) but rather that if Ferrus is pathetic than Perturabo is a close rival for being one of the most pathetic Primarchs in the lore. He has never won a single Primarch fight clean (the only instance where he definitvely "won" a duel was against Angron and he did so by depowering him through some cheese counter-ritual, not through strength of arms), Fulgrim bullied him the way a jock pretends to be friends with the school nerd and then betrays him by banging the nerd's oneitus. His entire motivation as a character stems from a deeply rooted inferiority complex toward the Fists and being scared of the consequences of nuking his own home planet. He has suffered multiple embarrasing upsets in warfare despite being le strategic man of the traitor primarchs: losing at Terra despite holding every military advantage, losing a void battle to Alexis Polux, a dude that wasn't even a primarch, despite holding every military advantage, and Horus firing him out of disgust from the task of hunting down the White Scars because despite outnumbering and outgunning the Scars, Perturabo literally could not fathom trying to fight an enemy that just runs away rather than standing their ground and allowing the battle to turn into a protracted siege.

It's embarrasing. Perturabo has literally never won a fight where his side didn't hold the advantage from the get go and his entire characterization is basically being COLD AND BITTER about circumstances that are entirely his fault. The only traitor primarch who's more pathetic than Perty is Mortarion.

Perty may be a man child but he is a likable character so are the IW. I'm just taking him as an example because what Ferrus and the IH do, Perty and the IW do it better, Vulkan and the Salamanders prove many times to be the better blacksmiths than Ferrus and the IH. Perty broke Dorn's defenses and proved to be the better Siege Master.

I would say Angron was pathetic, and Mortarion, yeah even under Nurgle he's still pathetic.

 Big Mac wrote:
Manus is definitely not the worst Primarch, that honor goes to Lorgar or Alpharius/Omegon; a lot can be said about the cool color scheme of the IW, thus presumably making their Primarch one of the best, that is actually not true as Perturabo is a genius that can create everything necessary to win, but his lack of daddy love ❤️ made him the way he is, so he under performed.

While I can't speak about Alpharius, Lorgar is definitely not the worst Primarch.

Lorgar is physically one of the weakest of the Primarchs and not the best fighter of the Primarchs. But he's also not the worst. He's a powerful psyker, but in much more subtle ways. He influences people and has a sort of charisma-based-psyker-aura that helps him in unprecedented ways (for instance, his own Legion began to think his physical presence caused them to be unable to disobey him, due to this aura, or that it may be gene-based).

He's basically the Dr. Doom of the Primarchs: he's not the best at anything, he's also not the worst at anything. He's just good at a lot of things that adds up to a versatile package that can get gak done without being the flashiest or the most impressive.

"The Word Bearers won. They eat dirt and drink shame. They chant prayers to the unwanted truth through bloodied lips. They lost everything. And yet they still won."



-Telemachon

Maybe it is because of my poor grasp of english, but i am sometimes unsettled by the way people seem to rant at characters as if they were alive.

What primarch is worst is mostly a question of how good/comprehensively he is written, plus a healthy dose of personnal taste.

From what I used to listen to on duty (mostly horus heresy lore breakdown series), while Manus felt under exploited to me, I think it at least made a somewhat touching and effective victim/protagonist. Quite uneducated opinion probably.

Its such a disappointment to see people think in such plain terms as who "won" the fight between Fulgrim and Manus.

Ferrus had Fulgrim dead to rights but the last vestiges of the love for his brother stayed his hand until the whispers of a Daemon broke Fulgrim's will and turned him into the first Primarch to kill one of their kin.

It's like every single battle between Primarchs is some showcase match rather than the tragedy of betrayal and breaking of brotherhood.

Regarding the Iron Hands themselves, is there meant to be a thematic irony to them that I'm not picking up on? I've only read a few short stories about them (some from the Heresy, some form modern 40k), but they kind of don't live up to the cool image of them I built up in my mind.

Like, on paper, they're all about making themselves marines+ via cybernetics, and the implication, I thought, was that they're robotically logical to match. So compared to other marines, I'd expect them to be pulling off augmetically-enabled trick shots, swinging their swords a bit harder, and moving with computer-precise coordination.

In practice, it seems like their augmentations are drawbacks as often as assets (haywire effects, scrap code, etc. with minimal emphasis on actually being more capable thanks to the augments.) Plus they're kind of bull-headed. Like, there's a story where they basically insist on using the battle plan with the best statistical success rate for their situation rather than looking at the details of their situation and adapting accordingly. To the point that the main character has to fight his way through the short story just to go, "Guys. Look. Use your brains. We have to do things slightly differently or the orks will win." And it's played up as a huge revalation.

Basically, I want IH to be smart marines with cool gadgets and/or marine+ bodies. They don't seem to really deliver on either of those in practice. Maybe I need to read a different short story?

Cobblers.

Ferrus was the first, so far as we know, Primarch to fulfil their destiny,

To die gloriously in battle. Fighting the most severe of threats, in an attempt to end the threat.

That he did not succeed doesn’t make him weak or a failure. He gave his all, he gave no quarter. He didn’t win, but his dedication and heroism still stands.

Ferrus Manus had the bad fortune of dying at the start of the Heresy, so he never got to have his exploits detailed in the Heresy novels like the other Primarchs.

That said, the little lore that we do get of him is pretty cool. He drowns a giant invulnerable wyrm creature in lava with his bare hands, which is pretty metal (pun intended).
Ferrus Manus also takes on the Emperor himself in a man-to-man fight that ends up leveling entire mountain ranges. Dude was definitely no push-over.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Regarding the Iron Hands themselves, is there meant to be a thematic irony to them that I'm not picking up on? I've only read a few short stories about them (some from the Heresy, some form modern 40k), but they kind of don't live up to the cool image of them I built up in my mind.

Like, on paper, they're all about making themselves marines+ via cybernetics, and the implication, I thought, was that they're robotically logical to match. So compared to other marines, I'd expect them to be pulling off augmetically-enabled trick shots, swinging their swords a bit harder, and moving with computer-precise coordination.

In practice, it seems like their augmentations are drawbacks as often as assets (haywire effects, scrap code, etc. with minimal emphasis on actually being more capable thanks to the augments.) Plus they're kind of bull-headed. Like, there's a story where they basically insist on using the battle plan with the best statistical success rate for their situation rather than looking at the details of their situation and adapting accordingly. To the point that the main character has to fight his way through the short story just to go, "Guys. Look. Use your brains. We have to do things slightly differently or the orks will win." And it's played up as a huge revalation.

They aren't automatons and don't wish to become them, at least not during the Crusade/Heresy era that is.
In the 40k universe, the mantra of "The Flesh is Weak" originates from a conversation between Ferrus and Vulkan that is recalled by a Salamander after the Dropsite Massacre:

When they lost their Primarch, the Iron Hands suffered a huge psychological blow. It preyed on their worst fears and prejudices, taking what was once praise and twisting it into hatred of humanity as a whole.
This philosophy drove the Iron Hands down a dark path all the way into the 41st Millenium where much of the Chapter, including some of it's senior Iron Fathers and captains truly believed that if they were to be pure and perfect then they had to remove their flesh and become fully machine.
They suffered the same flaws as their greatest enemies, the Emperors Children. They sought a perverted and debased form of perfection that was only prevented at great cost to the Chapter down the line.
The trauma of Istvaan led the Iron Hands to attempt to purge any emotion so they wouldn't follow the "weakness" of their Primarch who lost his discipline and logic when he charged into the Urgall Depression to take the head of Fulgrim for his betrayal. Ferrus made an error but he did so because the betrayal of Fulgrim was far more important and devastating to him than any other Primarch turning Traitor. Yes, he hated Horus, Angron and Mortarion but Fulgrim was his closest friend, ally and companion amongst their brotherhood and his betrayal broke Ferrus.
I believe that entire part of the story is probably one of my favourites and the duel between the two in Fulgrim is exceptional.

Basically, I want IH to be smart marines with cool gadgets and/or marine+ bodies. They don't seem to really deliver on either of those in practice. Maybe I need to read a different short story?

That's because they aren't that. The Iron Hands don't embrace technology in a positive manner, they do it out of disgust and revilement of their human form.
They don't see technology as an asset to enhance themselves, they see it as a cure for the perceived weakness of the flesh and the emotions that come with that.
Their very creed and culture is actually entirely opposed to the that of their Primarch who practiced and employed a balance of rage, discipline and logic that made the Xth Legion one of the most effective Legions during the Crusade.

Peraturbo did nothing worth while?

He basically carried the majority of the siege of Terra with huge amount of his 'force's basically ignoring his advice or orders to help end the siege faster and he absolutely cracked the Imperial Palace to Dorn's stubborn shock and surprise.

Peraturbo wanted to be treated as an equal and was snubbed because he lacked in some PR game that he never had a chance to learn and his world of cloak and dagger politics was very damaging to his mind.

He felt the most human of reactions to his situation, bitter and passed over despite performing the same, not every human psyche can weather it gracefully. People snap.

Reading the comments, in fact, it gets me thinking that in the end, it is not that bad how Manus is.

After all, in a rich and credible,.nuanced story, not everyone is first, invincible, flawless, not every character shines.

If you think about the character in the whole, that's (maybe not intentionally) excellent at giving depth to the whole picture.

Granted, I say that as an adept of André Gide's Les Faux monnayeurs and his approach of "the novel is its own subject.".

Well everyone’s gonna their best and worst primarchs.

I think the problem with Ferrus is that we knew he died by fulgrim has about 20 years before the first HH book was written. There was no twist so they just wrote it rather than building it up.

They didn’t just miss the opportunity to buildup ferrus but the relationship between ferrus and fulgrim. Ferrus wasn’t just the first primarch to die and fulgrim wasn’t just the first to kill his brother, they were best friend and fulgrim agonised over the killing of his brother. I’m not saying they didn’t mention that but they failed, imo, to make ferrus death a big event by just accepting that we all knew it was going to happen

Tbf, they do a pretty good job of milking the drama in the short stories from Fulgrim's point of view. Playing regicide against clone after clone of Ferrus in an attempt to sorta kinda change/justify the past landed pretty well the first time I read it and is definitely one of the most interesting things about Fulgrim.

I'd like to point out that we don't really see Fulgrim distraught over Ferrus because as soon as Ferrus dies, Fulgrim is no longer Fulgrim.

He gets possessed by the Daemon bound to the Laer Blade and it rules his body for some time after Istvaan.
Fulgrim doesn't go into detail about what he experienced but he was tortured by the Daemon endlessly until he eventually regained control.

 Gert wrote:
I'd like to point out that we don't really see Fulgrim distraught over Ferrus because as soon as Ferrus dies, Fulgrim is no longer Fulgrim.

He gets possessed by the Daemon bound to the Laer Blade and it rules his body for some time after Istvaan.
Fulgrim doesn't go into detail about what he experienced but he was tortured by the Daemon endlessly until he eventually regained control.

Yeah I agree, but I would have liked to have seen in the books leading up to the drop site massacre is the close bond and relationship between ferrus and fulgrim so that at the point where ferrus is killed we feel the conflict between fulgrim and the demon living in his head. It was never goi g to be a suprise for anyone who knew the HH lore but it still could have been heartbreaking

February manus simply cannot get ahead

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ferrus is trash but I'm tired of The only traitor primarch who's more pathetic than Perty is Mortarion.

Dude you can't just leave that take there and walk away. Let's hear it. Whsts wrong with morty?

^grabs popcorn^

Peter Turbo is down there as primarchs go because of his attitude- he's a petulant, obstinate man-child... but, he's a genius/capable petulant, obstinate man-child! He also resented being used as a tool of war and wanted to make cultural things like theaters and whatnot- but he never TOLD Big E he resented this. If Emps would've let him play with the golden Legos and help build the palace, the HH would've been a lot different, as he carried the other primarchs and was the chief tactician.

:Uuurp: Morty also had the resentment issue but his character flaws were also felt by the legion. The Dusk Raiders were more like the Salamanders and cared about the citizens they were fighting for, but the Barbarus recruits didn't care- use all manner of toxic, biological warfare and kill 'em all! Hence, the name change to Death Guard. Morty was also a hypcrite as he pushed for the Council of Nikea to stop the Librarian program- then later took up sorcery to "best combat the witches". Pretty much his only saving grace was that he didn't drink Erebus's Koolaid to quickly and it was mostly Typhon who corrupted the legion with plague and he only submitted to save his sons the fate of eternal torture and pain of disease.

Heck, even Curze who routinely skinned and wore the bloody tatters of his enemies felt remorse and hated what the Night Lords had become. He'd spent years on Nostromo killing off the gangers and trying to stop crime and saw his legion was just the same gangers and psychopaths! Konrad's story is more appealing because he's a tragic character and unlike Sangiunius, his powers tended to show the worst of all outcomes- then he'd set about to make them true, feeling it was inevitable. Though the assisted suicide by M'shan felt a bit anti-climatic for a primarch death, it just showed how Goth Emo Kurze was and he wanted to die.

Worst primarch for me (Formerly) was Angron because of the one-note characterization of him: "I burn with Generic Rage!" But after Slave of Nuceria, I have a bit more sympathy for him being abused, tortured, forced to have the nails and killing his Mentor/Father figure, only to have Emperor swoop in and scoop him up. And then he goes back and takes the skulls of his gladiator slave "Family" and ads them to his wargear. Sheesh.

Mortarion changed the Legion name to the Death Guard because that's what his personal guard were called when he conquered Barbarus. It has nothing to do with suddenly hating civilians or using chemical weapons.

The Dusk Raiders also absolutely weren't like the Salamanders. In fact they were more like the 8th or 12th Legions with this quote to support that:

The Dusk Raiders' armour was originally unpainted, but with their right arm and both shoulders coloured crimson. This was done with the intent to show their enemies that they were the Emperor's red right hand, relentless and unstoppable. Many enemies simply threw down their weapons at nightfall so they didn't have to fight the terrifying Dusk Raiders.

 Gert wrote:
Its such a disappointment to see people think in such plain terms as who "won" the fight between Fulgrim and Manus.

Ferrus had Fulgrim dead to rights but the last vestiges of the love for his brother stayed his hand until the whispers of a Daemon broke Fulgrim's will and turned him into the first Primarch to kill one of their kin.

It's like every single battle between Primarchs is some showcase match rather than the tragedy of betrayal and breaking of brotherhood.

Simpletons gonna simp. People seem overly prone and conditioned towards one-dimensional thinking, you see it in every fandom - "Who's the best...", "Who's the strongest...", "Who's the most powerful...", "Who would win...". The answers and the arguments always boil down along the line of a single metric (or arguing which of several metrics matters most to answering the question, etc.). Theres never any deeper consideration that theres things like multiple factors or deeper context that matters, or that theres irrelevancy to the topic in general.

Who cares who beat who in a fight? Who cares who accomplished what impressive physical feat? Why are these arguments always over about whos the strongest or the best fighter, and never about whos the best lover (probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), best dressed (also, probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), has the nicest hair (again... probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), the smartest, best logistician, best strategist, the best poker player, etc? Primarchs aren't Orks (although the fact that size seems to be an indicator of their leadership status makes one wonder), being bigger and stronger and a better fighter doesn't make them inherently better. This might come as a surprise, but the many famous generals and military leaders of history that are studied today, weren't the strongest or best fighters of their time - many of them didn't even really do a lot of time on the front line and certainly didn't (regularly) get into hand-to-hand brawls or sword fights with their peers or opponents to get promoted or prove their higher status.

With Ferrus, I feel that most of his characterisation is in other character's references to him or the short stories. For example, he rocks up in the most recent book of the Horus Heresy and has a chat with Sanguinius. Alternatively, there's the short story where he finds an Iron Hands vessel from 40K times that the Warp spat out.

It's quite ironic actually, because his legion in 40K are all about purging emotion in the style of the Mechanicus, but he was really quite the hothead. His volcanic temper and passion were greater than just about any other Primarch. He never wanted them to become machines - he saw that as half the problem that led to things like Old Night. When compared to Vulkan or Perturabo in making things, he's also got his own niche - Perturabo is an artist at the end of the day, equally comfortable at working in buildings or sculpture as he is mechanics - whilst Vulkan was a craftsman. Ferrus never cared for the beauty of any form except the functional. He's brutalism made manifest.

Malcador actually said quite clearly in one of the books that the Primarchs had a lot of crossover and multiple redundancy built into their attributes under the assumption that some would be lost. So both Corax and Curze have the ability to fade into the background, both Curze and Sanguinius can see the future, both Sanguinius and Russ harbour more feral twists to their gene seed, both Russ and the Khan are more in tune with nature and the world around them, and so on. It's consequently not surprising that Ferrus might share his affinity for working with his hands with other brothers. He's like Sanguinius's rage hooked into Horus' practicality hooked into Vulkan's desire to create.

I suppose if you don't like that particular crossover of attributes, he might seem lame. But his brothers all regarded him really quite highly.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:


He felt the most human of reactions to his situation, bitter and passed over despite performing the same, not every human psyche can weather it gracefully. People snap.

Heh, I'm dealing with that at work right now. Suddenly I find him entirely relatable.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:


He felt the most human of reactions to his situation, bitter and passed over despite performing the same, not every human psyche can weather it gracefully. People snap.

Heh, I'm dealing with that at work right now. Suddenly I find him entirely relatable.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterisation, to be honest.

Perty's first problem is that he was petty and immature. He had to be the best at everything, or he didn't want to play. On his homeworld, there was one master craftsman who he used to call out to a competition once a year, and win. But then one year, that craftsman put his whole artistic soul into his sculpture - and actually created a superior end piece to Perturabo. Perturabo nodded, gave a shark smile, and conceded defeat....then came round with a hammer to trash it the next week.

He never really moved on from being that man. He was outraged that Fulgrim got the nice shiny eagle, and the Lion got to be the 'First', and Horus was the Warmaster, and so on. He considered himself to be hard done by and ill-recognised - but he never really did much that was worthy of recognition. Mortarion was the poor fecker that got slung into the really dirty combat zones, Perturabo was no worse treated than Dorn was. But he never realised that because -

Perturabo's second problem was that he wasn't actually very well equipped to be an war leader - he was just an artist playing the role. At a core level, he wanted to create. He wanted to make magnificent buildings and fine sculpture and great cities. His rages and his volatility were part of that artistic temperament. He wanted people to marvel at his creations and bask in the limelight - not to spend his time grubbing around warzones. Perturabo's deployment into such an environment where his other brothers were better suited to it (Dorn was better at sieges, Roboute better at admin, Sanguinius better at fighting, etc) left him feeling unfulfilled - which in turn left him feeling that his personal sacrifice in knuckling down to fight wars was being unrecognised. He was ultimately a tool that was put to the incorrect usage, and his resentment brewed from that bad application of his person and talents.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Simpletons gonna simp. People seem overly prone and conditioned towards one-dimensional thinking, you see it in every fandom - "Who's the best...", "Who's the strongest...", "Who's the most powerful...", "Who would win...". The answers and the arguments always boil down along the line of a single metric (or arguing which of several metrics matters most to answering the question, etc.). Theres never any deeper consideration that theres things like multiple factors or deeper context that matters, or that theres irrelevancy to the topic in general.

Who cares who beat who in a fight? Who cares who accomplished what impressive physical feat? Why are these arguments always over about whos the strongest or the best fighter, and never about whos the best lover (probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), best dressed (also, probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), has the nicest hair (again... probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), the smartest, best logistician, best strategist, the best poker player, etc? Primarchs aren't Orks (although the fact that size seems to be an indicator of their leadership status makes one wonder), being bigger and stronger and a better fighter doesn't make them inherently better. This might come as a surprise, but the many famous generals and military leaders of history that are studied today, weren't the strongest or best fighters of their time - many of them didn't even really do a lot of time on the front line and certainly didn't (regularly) get into hand-to-hand brawls or sword fights with their peers or opponents to get promoted or prove their higher status.

I think it's something that crosses over from game to background discussion. Everyone who plays Heresy does the Primarch Royal Rumble at some point and will get annoyed when their Primarch loses then tries to justify why they should get buffed by picking background reasons.
I know because I've done it myself. I used to lament at Fulgrim being rubbish at killing Primarchs despite being only one of two to ever actually accomplish that feat. But as I've grown and learned not to be childish, Fulgrim never actually beat Ferrus, not in combat anyway. Fulgrim beat Ferrus because the latter hesitated and the former was possessed by a Daemon that used supernatural means to lop off Ferrus' head a speeds even beyond a Primarch.
The duel was not even handed. Yes both landed some brutal blows but Ferrus was powered by rage and betrayal while Fulgrim kept taunting him, actively making the duel harder as Ferrus got angrier. By the time Fulgrim realised Ferrus was absolutely playing for keeps, it was too late and he was on his back with the final blow about to fall.

 Gert wrote:
Mortarion changed the Legion name to the Death Guard because that's what his personal guard were called when he conquered Barbarus. It has nothing to do with suddenly hating civilians or using chemical weapons.

The Dusk Raiders also absolutely weren't like the Salamanders. In fact they were more like the 8th or 12th Legions with this quote to support that:

The Dusk Raiders' armour was originally unpainted, but with their right arm and both shoulders coloured crimson. This was done with the intent to show their enemies that they were the Emperor's red right hand, relentless and unstoppable. Many enemies simply threw down their weapons at nightfall so they didn't have to fight the terrifying Dusk Raiders.

The Dusk Raiders were the WS before the WS if I'm not mistaken, just attacking at Dusk. Until Mortarion came and screwed everything up, making them immovable objects and with their fall to Nurgle, even bigger and harder immovable objects.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Simpletons gonna simp. People seem overly prone and conditioned towards one-dimensional thinking, you see it in every fandom - "Who's the best...", "Who's the strongest...", "Who's the most powerful...", "Who would win...". The answers and the arguments always boil down along the line of a single metric (or arguing which of several metrics matters most to answering the question, etc.). Theres never any deeper consideration that theres things like multiple factors or deeper context that matters, or that theres irrelevancy to the topic in general.

Who cares who beat who in a fight? Who cares who accomplished what impressive physical feat? Why are these arguments always over about whos the strongest or the best fighter, and never about whos the best lover (probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), best dressed (also, probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), has the nicest hair (again... probably Fulgrim or Sanguinius), the smartest, best logistician, best strategist, the best poker player, etc? Primarchs aren't Orks (although the fact that size seems to be an indicator of their leadership status makes one wonder), being bigger and stronger and a better fighter doesn't make them inherently better. This might come as a surprise, but the many famous generals and military leaders of history that are studied today, weren't the strongest or best fighters of their time - many of them didn't even really do a lot of time on the front line and certainly didn't (regularly) get into hand-to-hand brawls or sword fights with their peers or opponents to get promoted or prove their higher status.

That's the fun part. If everyone was equal, it would be dumb and boring.

 Ketara wrote:
With Ferrus, I feel that most of his characterisation is in other character's references to him or the short stories. For example, he rocks up in the most recent book of the Horus Heresy and has a chat with Sanguinius. Alternatively, there's the short story where he finds an Iron Hands vessel from 40K times that the Warp spat out.

It's quite ironic actually, because his legion in 40K are all about purging emotion in the style of the Mechanicus, but he was really quite the hothead. His volcanic temper and passion were greater than just about any other Primarch. He never wanted them to become machines - he saw that as half the problem that led to things like Old Night. When compared to Vulkan or Perturabo in making things, he's also got his own niche - Perturabo is an artist at the end of the day, equally comfortable at working in buildings or sculpture as he is mechanics - whilst Vulkan was a craftsman. Ferrus never cared for the beauty of any form except the functional. He's brutalism made manifest.

Malcador actually said quite clearly in one of the books that the Primarchs had a lot of crossover and multiple redundancy built into their attributes under the assumption that some would be lost. So both Corax and Curze have the ability to fade into the background, both Curze and Sanguinius can see the future, both Sanguinius and Russ harbour more feral twists to their gene seed, both Russ and the Khan are more in tune with nature and the world around them, and so on. It's consequently not surprising that Ferrus might share his affinity for working with his hands with other brothers. He's like Sanguinius's rage hooked into Horus' practicality hooked into Vulkan's desire to create.

I suppose if you don't like that particular crossover of attributes, he might seem lame. But his brothers all regarded him really quite highly.

A lot of characters say positive things about Ferrus, however his actions say otherwise, proving to be incapable of what he does. And what he's good at, his brothers do it better than him. Fulgrim won his first duel against Ferrus, and he still won his second, even without the Laer Blade, Fulgrim would've still won. It's written how it's written, it could've been done much better, but that's not the point now.

Had Fulgrim and the EC not been written bored every time because of Slaaneshi corruption, Fulgrim could've way easily defeated Ferrus and the IH.

Dorn himself admits that had Fulgrim and the EC could be bothered, they would've taken the palace. Once Fulgrim realized the plan failed, he lost interest, took his toys and left.

Dorn shook his head. ‘That’s not the half. We repelled the Phoenician from the wall there. The Phoenician and his entire Legion. Fulgrim is now a true monster too. I shudder at the thought of his transformation. I merely fought. He… he took brutal losses. I didn’t close to kill him, despite my efforts, but I think… I think he’s done. I think he’s broken, and quit the siege, and taken his damn children with him. The monsters are one fewer.’

Sanguinius tilted his head, quizzical. He laughed in astonishment. ‘You tell me that, brother…’ he said, ‘all of that, and yet you preface it with the words “I had hoped for more”? What more could there be?’

‘So much,’ said Dorn, expression grim. ‘For a moment, there seemed a chance to take Lupercal himself. But no. I was denied.’

Sanguinius rose to his feet, arms wide, wings rippling. ‘Fulgrim’s departure is a great prize, still!’ he cried. ‘Great Terra! Rogal? This is a victory for us. For you.’

Dorn nodded. ‘And I mark it as such,’ he admitted. He looked at his brother ruefully. ‘You know the real irony? Fulgrim could have taken the wall. The power he has, the Legion strength. The unimaginable daemon gifts. He cut the wall wide open, brother, wide open. But for a… a stroke of fortune, I held it closed. Fulgrim got deeper, and faster, than any of them so far. Excess was his undoing, as ever. The brazen confidence of over-strength. He threw his whole damn Legion into a space too small.’

Dorn shook his head. He smiled at the Angel sadly. ‘I tell you this plainly, brother,’ he said. ‘If the Warmaster or the Lord of Iron had ever managed to harness him, he would have won this for them in a matter of days. He could have been their greatest weapon.’

What I'm trying to say here is that Fulgrim and the EC were always better than Ferrus and the IH, even though Ferrus and the IH also sought perfection (just not the same way as Fulgrim and the EC), Fulgrim and the EC did it better. The EC remained the most powerful traitor legion in the Eye of Terror until Abaddon summoned a ship from orbit to destroy their base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterisation, to be honest.

Perty's first problem is that he was petty and immature. He had to be the best at everything, or he didn't want to play. On his homeworld, there was one master craftsman who he used to call out to a competition once a year, and win. But then one year, that craftsman put his whole artistic soul into his sculpture - and actually created a superior end piece to Perturabo. Perturabo nodded, gave a shark smile, and conceded defeat....then came round with a hammer to trash it the next week.

He never really moved on from being that man. He was outraged that Fulgrim got the nice shiny eagle, and the Lion got to be the 'First', and Horus was the Warmaster, and so on. He considered himself to be hard done by and ill-recognised - but he never really did much that was worthy of recognition. Mortarion was the poor fecker that got slung into the really dirty combat zones, Perturabo was no worse treated than Dorn was. But he never realised that because -

Perturabo's second problem was that he wasn't actually very well equipped to be an war leader - he was just an artist playing the role. At a core level, he wanted to create. He wanted to make magnificent buildings and fine sculpture and great cities. His rages and his volatility were part of that artistic temperament. He wanted people to marvel at his creations and bask in the limelight - not to spend his time grubbing around warzones. Perturabo's deployment into such an environment where his other brothers were better suited to it (Dorn was better at sieges, Roboute better at admin, Sanguinius better at fighting, etc) left him feeling unfulfilled - which in turn left him feeling that his personal sacrifice in knuckling down to fight wars was being unrecognised. He was ultimately a tool that was put to the incorrect usage, and his resentment brewed from that bad application of his person and talents.

While Perty never grew out of the man child he is, he still proved to be the better Siege Master. Dorn is better at defenses, Perty at offense. Perty proved to better numerous times, he only wanted acknowledgment which he never got.