Which primarch is next? Or will it be two?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Lol that’s all .

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

After perusing the Index Astartes articles, Primarchs with return Prophecies/Missing in Action: Russ, Corax, Khan. Primarchs in near death conditions/stasis: Guilliman and the Lion. Dead Loyalist Primarchs: Sanguinius and Dorn. Unknown condition, but mentioned being alive post-Heresy: Ferrus and Vulkan.

*ahem*: DORN IS NOT DEAD.

 

He wasn't dead by the end of the book where he went missing and VULKAN mentioned he was alive during the Beast series.

 

Also Ferrus is EXTRA dead. Like, he needed to stop fighting Fulgrim while he was ahead. Or had a head.

 

Ferrus was cloned several times to try and bring him back and get him to switch sides but was rekilled several times after he died. His GHOST was seen at one point and the Emperor talks about "remaking" him.

 

So yeah, you mixed up some Primarchs there.

I’m not mixing up anything. This is older fluff.

[Panzer]

Here's my "hot take" on resurrecting Primarchs:

1. We know that cloned Primarchs can retain their memories (Ferrus Manus did for instance)

2. We know that only with their souls can they be at full power and not be some crippled thing

 

So basically, if they're coming back we need them to likely be cloned and their souls to be returned to their bodies OR for Yvrainne to pull more of that voodoo magic and rewind time on the bodies like she did the Rubric to restore them (this isn't counting Imperial Daemon stuff as those should be a thing too, but be less overt in how they work than Chaos ones....like the Sanguinor becoming possessed by Sanguinius (it worked for Sigmar after all!) or something instead of us getting a Daemon Prince Sanguinius).

 

That said, I don't think EVERY dead Primarch should come back, leave some cards off the table for the future so we don't blow through everything right away after all, and it's possible that, like Horus, Sangiunius should never return (assuming they both had their souls torn apart and it wasn't just Horus).

We also know that it's possible to make a perfect clone of a Primarch, soul included. Bile did it with Fulgrim but then gave him away to Trazyn.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Could that only be because Fulgrim is still "alive", so there was a warp presence that could be regrown, Dark Eldar style?

[Panzer]

Could that only be because Fulgrim is still "alive", so there was a warp presence that could be regrown, Dark Eldar style?

 

I doubt that's the reason or else all the other Fulgrim clones before wouldn't have failed.

[Elzender]

While I haven't read the Beast series, isn't it implied that Vulkan is not really aware of what has been happening in the Imperium since he left, and that he's not in the best mental state? It could be that he simply doesn't know that Dorn dissapeared/was killed, and he talls about him as if Dorn was still around.

 

About Kurze's visions, I've read that in one of the most recent HH books Sanguinius argues that not all of Kurze's prophecies are set in stone, and that they can be avoided or altered. Moreover, I think in some lore it said that his visions were always of the worst possible future, and thus they might just be a possiblity, not something bound to happen.

 

So while I wouldn't get too optimistic about the current status of Dorn, I wouldn't completely disregard his return.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

After perusing the Index Astartes articles, Primarchs with return Prophecies/Missing in Action: Russ, Corax, Khan. Primarchs in near death conditions/stasis: Guilliman and the Lion. Dead Loyalist Primarchs: Sanguinius and Dorn. Unknown condition, but mentioned being alive post-Heresy: Ferrus and Vulkan.

*ahem*: DORN IS NOT DEAD.

 

He wasn't dead by the end of the book where he went missing and VULKAN mentioned he was alive during the Beast series.

 

Also Ferrus is EXTRA dead. Like, he needed to stop fighting Fulgrim while he was ahead. Or had a head.

 

Ferrus was cloned several times to try and bring him back and get him to switch sides but was rekilled several times after he died. His GHOST was seen at one point and the Emperor talks about "remaking" him.

 

So yeah, you mixed up some Primarchs there.

I’m not mixing up anything. This is older fluff.

 

Older fluff that has been at least partially invalidated. I mean Ferrus is dead, we know the Khan is having motorcycle races with the Dark Eldar (and the only claims of his return are from his chapter but have no ties to any actual prophecy), Dorn stopped being dead yonks ago and is MIA as far as we know (likely to try and make things more ambiguous at the time instead of telling everyone they have a dead Primarch), Corax apparently can turn into a flock of birds now so for all we know he's hiding on the Raven Guard homeworld in a tree somewhere, and the Lion is fully healed but sleeping so soundly that not even Chaos breaking into his house could wake him. That's not even getting into Vulkan who apparently can't be summoned until you find all seven Dragon Balls.

 

Oh, and Sanginius is super dead as well, but we don't know if his soul was shattered or not yet.

 

As for the Traitors we know that none of them are missing, but some have rather ambigious statuses. Logar is apparently some kind of monkey daemon thing that won't leave his room (making him the biggest NEET in the galaxy), Pert became a Daemon Prince for reasons I don't get since his legion (who are reflections of him) hack off mutated bits and stick robot parts on them. Horus is still SUPER dead and without his soul even the most perfect clones of him are basically useless, Angron is likely our next Daemon Primarch (but that's not really a surprise there), Alpharius is Dead and Omegron is cosplaying as him but its unclear how that's working out (at this rate I wouldn't be surprised if Alpharius' soul isn't hopping around possessing members of his Legion), and Fulgrim is still hungover from the last party Slaanesh threw so it'll be a while before he can be ready to lead his army on the table again.

 

Basically, it seems GW has made a point to try and keep the current activities of most Primarchs pretty unrelated to the current events of the game (until more recently) and keep any possible deaths (at least, if you died post Heresy) as ambiguous as possible so they don't have to retconed back to life.

[Marshal Rohr]

Yeah, I am aware there has been new fluff, but if GW is going to be rereleasing Primarchs I wanted to check their original status to see what GW said about it the first time.

[BitsHammer]

Yeah, I am aware there has been new fluff, but if GW is going to be rereleasing Primarchs I wanted to check their original status to see what GW said about it the first time.

Time to break out RT then! :P

 

Seriously though, considering how much the old fluff has changed, I don't rely much on 2nd era (and in some cases even 3rd era) fluff to lay the groundwork for the setting.

[Marshal Rohr]

Index Astartes was third edition. Everything in them has been adapted for the Forge World books and many things have been repeated in the 8th Edition codexes.

 

What are you even trying to argue here? That the Primarchs return prophecies is brand new? That’s patently wrong and you should really take the time to read those sources before you accuse someone of not knowing the background.

[BitsHammer]

Index Astartes was third edition. Everything in them has been adapted for the Forge World books and many things have been repeated in the 8th Edition codexes.

 

What are you even trying to argue here? That the Primarchs return prophecies is brand new? That’s patently wrong and you should really take the time to read those sources before you accuse someone of not knowing the background.

No, I was arguing that newer sources contradict some of those things and that's been a common thing GW tends to do: constantly tweak the lore and change details. Basically just quoting the old lore while ignoring newer sources is worse than not even paying attention to the older sources because the newer sources are at least the most currently correct ones while the older stuff may be left out of an update occasionally (with most of the left out stuff being from RT and 2nd) the most updated versions of what hasn't been left out in the updates will be more correct than the older stuff.

 

Or are you going to argue that a source that says Ferrus is alive is somehow more correct than the current lore that says he's dead?

[Marshal Rohr]

Except, no one is ignoring newer sources. I wanted to see what the old lore said and you attacked me for posting about it. So back off. Go back and read Marshal Loss’ Post. He explained to you exactly what I was saying.

[BitsHammer]

Except, no one is ignoring newer sources. I wanted to see what the old lore said and you attacked me for posting about it. So back off. Go back and read Marshal Loss’ Post. He explained to you exactly what I was saying.

I read it, but I disagreed with the premise since the sources weren't completely correct anymore. I mean, sure, it's nice to go back and look at old lore, but it doesn't really tell us anything in this case since it's been replaced since then.

[Marshal Loss]

But he's not quoting the old lore while ignoring newer sources. He quoted Index Astartes to look at it in isolation, because of its importance, which you seem to fundamentally misunderstand. This is an actual historiographical practice. It's not like he quoted a newer source and said "this can't be right, because IA says this"...

 

Prior to Index Astartes, references to the Primarchs and their histories were scattered across literally decades of publications and WD articles. As a response to the immense interest of the player base in the history of the Legions and their Primarchs, the IA series was written as a coherent whole and was designed to be viewed together. That makes it the first source material we have where GW actually sat down and fleshed out the Primarchs and their Legions (as their accounts were in various states of 'completion') in unison. Many of the authors who wrote these articles would later go on to be part of the BL HH series (Graham McNeil, Gav Thorpe, Anthony Reynolds, etc) and others were true legends of 40k (Pete Haines! Rick Priestley! Jervis!). The IA series went on to be the much of the basis for BL and FW's entire account of the HH series. Yes, some events have been invalidated - but far less than you appear to believe.

 

Take Ferrus for example, whose account in IA you seem to take issue with. This is what IA says, abridged, but accurate:

• What became of the Primarch became a mystery (can be explained as an in-universe perspective from 40k)
• He attacked the traitors with rewnewed fury, desperate to reach Horus (replaced with Fulgrim, but accurate)
• Numbers too few, never forgiven the Salamanders or RG for failing to follow his lead (accurate)
• Body of Ferrus never found, many believe he somehow survived (semi-accurate, the IH mucking about with his arms and Horus chatting to his skull isn't exactly going to be publicized in-universe)
• ....."until the return of Ferrus, when he will lead man out of darkness...", the Iron Hand strengthen and prepare themselves, eradicating their weak links to humanity (the whole point of this is that Ferrus isn't coming back, and that the Iron Hands are going to be forever cutting away the very humanity that Ferrus would have wanted them to keep - there's no "basis" to the prophecy. Grimdark!)

Innumerable other examples also correlate well - for example, 'Alpharius' 'dies' at Guilliman's hands, but there's still room for that to happen even with the death of the OG Alpharius to Dorn as there are now two Primarchs. Alpharius' original origin story now factors into Bligh's deliberately varied accounts, etc. So it's far from being irreconcilable with current lore, as you seem to believe. I'm not saying it's entirely correct, or that everything not included is eventually going to be drawn upon, but there's a reason why people look to IA for guidance as to where they're going to take the Legions in the future. It's the first time you can look at a series of publications, take every Primarch, and note with some coherence what their state is as of 40k.

 

And you yourself are not actually taking into account all of the 'newer sources' that you place such importance on: the accounts in CSM codexes, for example, and various HH shorts.

 

It seems to me, given your original reaction, that you're just going off because you don't want Dorn to be dead. Well, IA makes it pretty clear in my view that he's dead, and you also seem to be leaving out Curze's visions of his demise - which is current lore, being from the HH series. Vulkan did talk about him as if he were alive, but Vulkan doesn't exactly have a history of mental stability and clarity, does he now? Let's be real: Dorn will eventually come back, I'd bet money on it, because GW will want him to come back and as others have noted, there has been a move in recent years to convert death/demise to ambiguity. I'd rather he be dead because I thought it was a great death for a titan of the setting, but there's no use complaining about the inevitable. So don't fret. But at the same time, you can't say "Dorn is alive! I know because (x)" while ignoring other sources saying the opposite when you yourself are unjustifiably accusing others of doing the same thing - especially in this case, where that is literally the opposite of what Rohr was doing.

 

Hope this helps!

[BitsHammer]

Taking any source in isolation is inevitably ignoring other sources. So from sentence one you're laying a false premise on what I was trying to say.

 

 

Even if you want to argue historical importance of information that has been proven to be incorrect (like we often find with history, just look at what we thought we knew about who came to America first from Europe as an example), the fact that it's now wrong isn't going to change. The lore has expanded, changed and moved on. Looking at it alone isn't enough, especially when it's five editions out of date.

 

And apparently I need to work on how I try and attempt to post a comedic overreaction to something via a text based medium since that went over about as well as the introduction of Jokaero in the 5th ed Grey Knights codex.

[Marshal Loss]

Taking any source in isolation is inevitably ignoring other sources. So from sentence one you're laying a false premise on what I was trying to say.

 

Only true if you're trying to draw conclusions exclusively based off that. Rohr did no such thing, all he did was say "after perusing IA" before listing IA's accounts. As a real-world example, I literally just published a paper in a peer-reviewed academic journal looking at Plutarch in isolation to draw some specific historiographical conclusions about his (now known to be false) portrayal of a certain ruler from antiquity. So, no.

 

Even if you want to argue historical importance of information that has been proven to be incorrect (like we often find with history, just look at what we thought we knew about who came to America first from Europe as an example), the fact that it's now wrong isn't going to change. The lore has expanded, changed and moved on. Looking at it alone isn't enough, especially when it's five editions out of date.

 

Historical sources are not invalidated or made useless just because they are later found to be partly (or even wholly) incorrect. That's not my opinion, that's fact. And again, you're being deliberately selective, ignoring my point that most of IA is actually still corroborated by current lore. You can't just say "IA is incorrect", because it isn't wholly incorrect, even if some sections have been invalidated or contradicted.

 

Even in the context of this discussion, as I've demonstrated, IA is not wholly invalidated, and IA's importance in the development of 30k lore means it deserves to be quoted. You can discount it if you like to fit your view of the setting, which is itself not entirely corroborated by newer sources that you've conveniently ignored; what I take issue with is the erroneous belief that because it's old, and some parts are invalidated, it is of no use. There are some discussions in the BL subforum regarding canon that might help you here.

 

And apparently I need to work on how I try and attempt to post a comedic overreaction to something via a text based medium since that went over about as well as the introduction of Jokaero in the 5th ed Grey Knights codex.

 

Yes, you definitely do, because going *ahem* and writing words in all-caps just makes you look juvenile, to be blunt. It's pretty difficult to have a reasonable discussion about something like this when you've responded in the way(s) you have.

 

Anyway as this is going far off topic I'll cease now, but I sincerely hope you reconsider jumping down somebody's throat over something they didn't do in the future (or trying to be funny and making it look like that's what you're doing, as the case may be).

[Master Sheol]

It's all a mess

HH novels (and 40k too) messed with the established fluff of 2nd/3rd edition of IA and Codices

 

Try to read some 30k/40k DA novels for example cause they are the worst pieces of garbage ever written by Humanitas handicap and they mess so hard with DA established fluff that after that DA has no fluff at all cause all fonts contradict each other

 

BL had to fill more than 50 books for HH so they ended up mailing the same mistake PJ did when expansion the Hobbit ti male three movies instead of 1/2, filling out the blank spaces with garbage

 

I stay with the old fluff cause it was written by people like Chambers and Priestley

 

BTW they are ruining with a passion DA and SW fluff lately so this means they are creating reason to make the Wolf and the Lion return

[spessmarine]

Rather than just speculate who would come back, what do you think of how they'd be on the tabletop?

I hope they don't make any of them buff machines like Guilliman, or too well-rounded and lacking weaknesses.

 

Khan would be bike man who buffs just bikes.

Corax being the squishy, stealthy, blob-blender.

A unique role for someone like Lion is a little trickier.

[Master Sheol]

Rather than just speculate who would come back, what do you think of how they'd be on the tabletop?

I hope they don't make any of them buff machines like Guilliman, or too well-rounded and lacking weaknesses.

 

Khan would be bike man who buffs just bikes.

Corax being the squishy, stealthy, blob-blender.

A unique role for someone like Lion is a little trickier.

The Lion is the supreme strategist so he should buff DA like RG does with UM or even better

[Azekai]

 

Rather than just speculate who would come back, what do you think of how they'd be on the tabletop?

I hope they don't make any of them buff machines like Guilliman, or too well-rounded and lacking weaknesses.

 

Khan would be bike man who buffs just bikes.

Corax being the squishy, stealthy, blob-blender.

A unique role for someone like Lion is a little trickier.

The Lion is the supreme strategist so he should buff DA like RG does with UM or even better

 

So... a better Guilliman that is green. No thank you.

 

There has to be a better way to represent tactical acumen and strategic forethought than reroll bubbles.

[Master Sheol]

 

 

 

Rather than just speculate who would come back, what do you think of how they'd be on the tabletop?

I hope they don't make any of them buff machines like Guilliman, or too well-rounded and lacking weaknesses.

 

Khan would be bike man who buffs just bikes.

Corax being the squishy, stealthy, blob-blender.

A unique role for someone like Lion is a little trickier.

The Lion is the supreme strategist so he should buff DA like RG does with UM or even better

So... a better Guilliman that is green. No thank you.

 

There has to be a better way to represent tactical acumen and strategic forethought than reroll bubbles.

It's not my fault if GW gave the big smurf the abilities who should be the Lion ones

[Panzer]

It's all a mess

HH novels (and 40k too) messed with the established fluff of 2nd/3rd edition of IA and Codices

 

Try to read some 30k/40k DA novels for example cause they are the worst pieces of garbage ever written by Humanitas handicap and they mess so hard with DA established fluff that after that DA has no fluff at all cause all fonts contradict each other

 

BL had to fill more than 50 books for HH so they ended up mailing the same mistake PJ did when expansion the Hobbit ti male three movies instead of 1/2, filling out the blank spaces with garbage

 

I stay with the old fluff cause it was written by people like Chambers and Priestley

 

BTW they are ruining with a passion DA and SW fluff lately so this means they are creating reason to make the Wolf and the Lion return

 

Well to be fair they are constantly ruining T'au fluff just by having Kelly write all the novels lately and they don't have anything like a Primarch to return (tho the Greater Good apparently now has a divine representation in the warp thanks to humans and auxiliary races lol...) so that's not really an indication for anything aside from writing bad fluff. 

[Ishagu]

It's debatable whether the Lion is a better general than Guilliman. He might have more intricate battle plans but he would be inferior at managing his resources or the morale of his army.

[Triszin]

IF the lion comes back I see him taking a twinned role of Guilliman, just on the other side of the galaxy, in the dark imperium. the rock being a massive rallying point to assist other beleaguered imperial forces

[bluntblade]

From memory the Lion deemed one of the greatest strategists, his handicaps being a lack of Horus and Guilliman's tact and political mastery.