Talk:Roboute Guilliman

From 1d4chan


Ultramarines VS WB/WE/AL[edit]

Ultras never fought all of them at once.

On Calth there was only a handful of Word Bearers, and they still managed to wreck major havoc.

On Nuceria Gyrlyman had a brilliant idea of commiting planetfall under fire of rthree Fuck You class battleships right on the heads of WE and WB armies.

And no one knows what really happened on Escrador.

I propose we split this page into a "canon views" section and a "/tg's story". It lets us keep the humor while presenting both sides of the pi cture.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've really been thinking of rewriting the intro to be more accurate and less "raging about Matt Ward" for a while now. The original paragraphs come off as just offensive and whiny, while the Codex Astartes-An autobiography of sorts section does a better job of detailing criticism of Guilliman without the whining. -- SFH (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The majorly of Ultramarine losses on Calth were due to the opining attack, remember this is before the Hersey happen. And let's be honest Guilliman was always a politician first general second, the Codex Astartes faults are following it blinding.

  • Yeah, yeah, they weren't expecting attack, and couldn't believe in betrayal. They could not even think about space marines fighting agaist space marines. Except II and XI legions was purged before, Space Wolves and World Eaters fought each other once, and Night Lords went renegade just before Heresy. Yet still smurfs could not even imagine astartes-vs-astartes fight and properly respond to it.
    • To which I pose this question: How much did a line Ultramarine, or even a senior Ultramarine, know about those events? Given how much the Emperor was willing to withhold information about...Gods, virtually everything, I imagine he probably kept the details of pre-heresy inter-Astartes engagements quiet. -- SFH (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Its implied the two missing Legions were absorbed into the Ultramarine however they were most likely mindwiped, and the others were most likely told they were just new recruits. Also the Space Wolves and World Eaters were viewed as a bunch of mindless psychos so them fighting each other isn't that hard to grasp.
    • Isn't it established in canon that RG is a great logistician but shitty field commander? It's consistent with losses at Calth and the subdivision of the legions.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • He was also a better Statesman than warrior, but since he had a noblebright upbring, not that badass and Matt Ward likes him people are too butthurt to not bitch about how much him and his legion "sucks".

Codex Astartes - Autobiography[edit]

Should this section be moved to... you know... Codex Astartes ? Or at least take most of the references that don't actually involve the man himself out, that section seems a bit unwieldy to even attempt to clean-up --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Forge Worlds Ultramarines and Guilliman[edit]

So I'll not mince words, this is directed at Newerfag, I get why you deleted the sections I first put up about the Forge World stuff (ironically stopping me from changing it to what I later put up when I realized I was in the wrong) but I don't get why you're changing the sections now, especially when you're changing them to what is blatantly untrue. You claim "Tempest tries to downplay this" (specifically how great he is) when it does nothing of the sort, it outright states that he is the best in all forms of warfare, and is just as great a strategist, as he is a warrior, as he is a tactician, "a paragon among the Emperor's sons" (a direct quote from the book), part of this I included in another direct quote from the book that you felt you had to delete, I'm presuming because it's blatant favouritism on FW's part and contradicts years of established lore. You deleted the part I added about Guilliman watching how other Legions make their own units, which he then copies and does better (yes, the book says this) and you're deleting the part where he's the quickest to react and the most disciplined, which are traits he shared with his legion (once again the book states this). You deleted the part where the Ultramarines are declared to be the most innovative (specifically with their battle plans), the most intelligent and the most numerous since they had the best recruitment/training and being able to pull of the specialities of other Legions just fine (once again, the book directly states this).

Now I do not want any sort of editwar, but Forge World do portray Guilliman and his legion as all but perfect, and I'm not going to leave that ignored. In the interest of fairness and peace, how about we make a separate section for the Forge World fluff since not only is it new, but it contradicts a lot of what's been already established, and will fit better into the policy of "everything is canon, not everything is true." This way the GW fluff we all know isn't mired down by FW's fluff. -- Triacom (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Triacom, and I'd even go as far to say that the page should just be reverted to his previous edit rather than just adding a separate section do differentiate between FW & BL fluff. It doesn't contradict each other any more than GWs own fluff does, and it was clear in the text where it all comes from anyway. I know its a step backwards from GWs perspective to start laying on the blue-love a bit thickly, but this really is the case with Tempest. However we should be careful about how we look at it. As we all know, any piece of text can read as Imperial propaganda and be heavily biased within itself but does not have to make it completely true even though it is canon, Book I - Massacre was apparently "narrated" by Cyros Morturg from the Death Guard; Book V - Tempest could easily have been "narrated" by an Ultramarine adept or someone who survived the Horus Heresy. Also we need to be careful about what conclusions we draw, yes "Paragon" means an example of excellence, and that follows with how the Emperor treated Lorgar by using the Ultramarines as paragons for how a space marine legion should be on crusade, but being a paragon does not mean "being the best" and that each of the legions and primarchs had their particular strengths and the particular thing they they were "the best" at beyond all the others, so we should be careful about how much we read into what's being said.

Also, in-universe opinions can change as time goes on, or as we shift to a different perspective. So by Book VI, which is apparently going to cover the Shadow Crusade and the Underworld War we might see the darker side of the Ultramarines and/or the depths they might sink to.

As final food for thought, I'd just want to point out that being "told" something is different from being "shown" something. Just because we are told that they are the most intelligent, most innovative and have the best recruitment means little until you've seen evidence to back it up: Most Intelligent? most initiative I'd say, particularly when in nearly every other example of the fluff they seem better at predicting and reacting to events, but not necessarily coming up with the best solutions, especially when 10,000 years later the codex becomes a hidebound relic. Most innovative? Not when nearly everything they do has been done by someone else first, they took the unit ideas from elsewhere and improved them, and according to BL writers, the Codex itself is being shown to have incorporated sources from everywhere rather than being Guilliman's singular vision, I'd call that derivative. Best recruitment/training? Well, they had their own Empire, and Tempest even says that Guilliman used the advantage of the superior lines of supply and recruitment to steadily build up his forces while other legions were taking casualties, as well as being suspected of absorbing the survivors from one or both of the fallen Legions and getting big influxes of troops that way. Compare to the Iron Warriors who seemed be in a perpetual state of "under strength" and Book III - Extermination showing that some Grand Battalions were routinely 60-80% destroyed in some cases and still considered "acceptable losses" meaning they could have been MUCH higher in terms of recruitment/training --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Tempest having a narrator would have really helped it and I wouldn't have altered Guilliman's article if that were the case, but the book isn't narrated by anyone, and all of the quotes I've put up weren't from the lore parts of the book, they were from the actual rules. In the rules sections they have a neutral perspective to go into detail about the various weapons and special abilities without any in-universe person reading it out, which is why I was really annoyed that the neutral perspective was Guilliman is better than the others. I even left quite a few out, for example there's an entire paragraph in his "Preturnatural Strategy" rule about just how smart he is, even among all of the other Primarchs, and that bit of him being a paragon was taken from the Primarch description box, the one right below their points cost to sum up what they are (resilient, blood-crazed, that sort of thing). In Guilliman's case his summary is that he's a paragon, smart, an excellent statesman, an excellent warrior as well as extremely level headed with an unbreakable will. Even in other sections they love going on about Guilliman, the description of the Legatine Axe starts by saying that Guilliman designed an awesome axe that, thanks to precision and perfect balance, requires more skill to use than brute force.

To focus on his forces for a second (this part is from the lore though) the book outright states that if the Ultramarines and their Auxilia were to become aware of Horus's rebellion and massed in strength, they would have made a bastion that could have taken on the entire rebellion by themselves. Dead serious about that (and yes, it does say the ENTIRE rebellion, which would include things like the Dark Mechanicus and Daemons), I guess the Imperial Fists/Blood Angels/Raven Guard at Terra either didn't try or weren't smart enough to build a bastion properly (clearly not as smart or as good as Guilliman obviously). It also describes Guilliman and the Ultramarines as the major decisive threat, saying they were "a blade at the throat of Horus' rebellion" as well as saying that if they became aware of the rebellion and Horus made any moves against the core worlds of the Imperium he'd find himself trapped by Guilliman's forces, and while I don't want to downplay how much the most numerous legion (once again that's from the lore, so maybe take that one with a grain of salt even though this lore also tries to have a neutral perspective) would have helped I don't believe for a second that they could have taken on ALL the traitors like how the book describes they could. For the record both of these are said BEFORE the Isstvan Atrocities, not after meaning that the traitors were more worried about the Ultramarines than they were any other Legion (I certainly don't see any mention of how the Raven Guard could screw the traitors over for example).

Now I don't intend to put up most of that (which is why I didn't do it originally), I'm just using it as an example of how Tempest blows the Ultramarines and Guilliman in particular way out of proportion. To address what you add in the last paragraph Dark Angel 2020, they do try showing us that the Ultramarines are better, Guilliman gets into a few fights and comes out on top quite easily, he also picks out the best plans of attack and implements them without any hitches prior to the Word Bearers betrayal (and even with that he recovers his composure and carries on). The Legion makes a point several times that they care more about knowledge and the battle plans than they do any other aspect of war, (which I'd think is also evidenced in their rules and Rite of War). They're innovative because taking ideas from somebody else and improving upon them further is still innovation as they're injecting new ideas and concepts into old methods and making them better. It's funny that you mention the recruitment of the Iron Warriors, because declaring the Ultramarines to have the best recruitment/training methods were one of the parts I found really ridiculous, which could be explained away if they don't have any upper-limit on how many marines they plan to recruit (I never saw one in Tempest anyway) as well as that whole "noble sacrifice" making them require good recruitment rates, or maybe the Iron Warriors had really good recruitment rates but really shitty training which would give them the troops they need while still being technically lower than the Ultramarines in this aspect. -- Triacom (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to argue, was just playing devil's advocate and offering different viewpoints so we needn't get wound up about a single source and accuse GW of unilaterally jerking off the blue man. When we compare one viewpoint to a variety of other sources on offer we can start putting together a more varied picture. As for innovative/intelligent, I get what you mean and perhaps my meaning wasn't conveyed adequately; I meant in a creative sense. Guilliman was relatively uninspired, while he deconstructed and no doubt improved upon the methods of others and was supremely intelligent, there is little evidence of him coming up with genuinely brilliant ideas of his own -things that Horus and the Lion were both noted for- and behaves far more formuliacally, especially when breaking things down to theory/practical. Similarly, Corax noted (in Soulforge) that Guilliman initially couldn't comprehend how understrength units could contribute more than the sum of their parts and tended to wield his forces in predictable formations... At least until Guilliman learned the lesson and adapted to Corax. The same with the Codex, where it took Aeonid Thiel's experience on Calth for Guilliman to realise that small "chapter sized" formations of men trained in multiple roles (see also: everything Alpharius was doing already) more easily deploy than many thousand strong legions each with companies specialising in one thing, and could deal with opponents much more effectively. Other examples range from minor to major: including borrowing Kurze's red censure markings, Perturabo's Siege tactics and the fact that despite what was originally thought, Guilliman had little "new" input on the post-heresy Imperium beyond a Codex derived from experience gleaned from elsewhere and splitting the Army into the Guard & Navy; most of the 40k institutions were put in place by Malcador, and the "civilian" Council of Terra was already there. My point is that Guilliman could only be "the best" by taking what was best from his brothers and peers, but was apparently incapable of thinking creatively for himself. We can also extrapolate that from the near-robotic theory>practical viewpoint and how the most dogmatic of 40k Ultramarines seem to view the codex as a series of IF>THEN>ELSE statements with little room for improvisation or deviation. You can have the highest IQ in the universe but it comes to nothing if you can't think outside of the box, something I feel sums Guilliman up perfectly, especially if you consider the ruinstorm and the justifications for Imperium Secundus (ie: everything inside his box) --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • My main concern with all this and the reason for the deletions was that like with the Ultramarines page before it, I feared that those edits would once more devolve into nothing more than mindless Smurf-bashing without actually adding anything of merit to the page. I'm not saying that Tempest wasn't jerking off Guilliman, but it's nothing that hasn't been said before dozens of times in the earlier Space Marine codexes (and let's all remember that the first vanilla SM codex was specifically called "Codex: Ultramarines). The important thing is that the article should inform as well as entertain, and simply pointing out the obvious and then acting like it's something absolutely horrible is both unfunny and uninformative. That said, I'm fine with it existing as its own segment, and I've added a caveat to the end specifically pointing out the fact that just because the book says something does not make it an objective fact. GW has passed off the Smurfs as the Emperor's gift to the Imperium repeatedly since 2E at the earliest, so why should this be treated so differently and override all the other fluff about him so far (including the actual Horus Heresy books)? If anything, I could even argue that the Guilliman wank does more to support the existing lore than it does to contradict it. And of course, just because the "narrator" was never specifically named doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Somebody had to be the person speaking in the introduction, after all.--Newerfag (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • +1 Newerfag, I think you and I just came to the same conclusion from different starting points. I may take some time later to incorporate my main counterpoints above into the page once I've done a bit more research, see what else I can dig up --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh I don't intend to accuse GW in general of sucking off Roboutte, just Forge World's Tempest of doing that. Him not having any creative spark is a very good point though, even in Tempest Guilliman doesn't make anything new, just better versions of what everyone else does/has, which still annoyed me because what's the point of the other Primarchs if Guilliman can do what they do and better at that? Yes he learns from them but he could have learnt the same lessons from Auxilia Commanders or his own men in different environments as an example. All the other fluff portrays Guilliman as a very smart man who knows best how to use the resources available to him and his legion (generally speaking), but doesn't excel in any particular area apart from non-combat related roles, very different to what Tempest claims. I also don't intend to turn the article into smurf bashing (which is why I didn't alter the Ultramarine article, and still don't intend to). Incidentally I'll go as far as to say that it's impossible for there to have been a narrator in this book because of how much information is in the book. There's no way any one person (or group of people) could have co-operated to tell this story because that would mean one person was in several major events across several ships and planets at the same time (since travel between them at the speed required to know all of this as well as access to the various areas is literally impossible), or it would mean Lorgar, Guilliman, and several Ultramarines, Word Bearers as well as World Eaters sat down together, wrote all of this down then compiled it into the book, which would definitely not happen under any circumstances during or after the Heresy. I'd definitely argue against the Guilliman wank in the new book being closer to the existing lore (especially because it would mean he's better at Siege Warfare than Perturabo, and he's far better at Fortifying/Building a Fortress than Rogal Dorn), and I'm going to say that the text blurb in first person is no different than the occasional quotes on the sides of the rules.
Anyway if you feel that it's Smurf bashing and can think up some way to write it in a way that you don't feel it's Smurf bashing, then more power to you, I just started this bit in the discussion because I don't want it altered to the point that it's unrecognizable (like claiming Tempest doesn't say what it does) or deleted again. -- Triacom (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps I interpreted what it said differently; to me that particular fluff came off as suggesting that Guilliman was most similar to what the Emperor had envisioned the Space Marines to be rather than him being the absolute best of the Primarchs (which is a position I personally ascribe to Horus). And as I mentioned in the article, it's likely that all of it was written shortly after the Heresy, and given that Guilliman was highly influential then even after he had abdicated his position as a High Lord of Terra I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wrote it in-universe was sucking up to him. Out of universe, it seems more like proof that for GW (and Forge World as an extension), old habits die hard. Perhaps the Shadow Crusade book might drop a few hints about his failings (to say nothing of the Imperium Secundus if they go down that particular route), but for now it would be wisest to remember that one piece of fluff shouldn't override all the others simply because it's new. Same for crunch, since at the least I'd assume Angron's going to get rules for fielding him as a Daemon Prince.--Newerfag (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A new personal flaw revealed in Tempest?[edit]

Reading Tempest right now - wondering why the fuck the oh so mighty primarch of the Ultramarines is behaving like Vulcan (going full berzerk on the Word Bearers and his men having huge trouble persuading him to actually stop just randomly running around the hull and killing traitors instead of being his usual tactically perfect self). Was this kind of rage (seemingly even greater than the one that hit primarchs like Corax on Istvaan) already a part of his personality? The Legion itself is described ridiculously favourably at times (I mean yes, they are the largest and most organised, and I can get that they would have been dangerous on the long-term as they rivaled Horus for control of the eastern half of the Galaxy, but he could have just ignored them because of the Ruinstorm), but they are alos shown as weak when their command structure fails, and (as said earlier on this talk page) lacking imagination (along with their Primarch at times). So can someone prove me wrong, or can we put these flaws somewhere on the page? --Talon of Anathrax (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Guilliman's doing that because he did it in the regular books, it's not something new to Tempest and it's already recorded on his page (just slightly under the Horus Heresy section). In universe Guilliman wanted to bury the hatchet between him and Lorgar and at first he thought Lorgar had agreed to work with him, finding out Lorgar lied and used this as a decoy to slaughter his people was what made him angry, he does calm down and that never happens again, if you'd like to expand on it further then feel free. -- Triacom (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Girlyman's new model[edit]

Just saw the new FW primarch model My initial reaction was to hate it - the stance is strange, and it just doesn't have the same drama and flow as the other primarchs However, looking more at it, there are some quite nice details on it What do you think?

I don't like it nearly as much as the other Primarchs, it looks like it would make a far better inspirational statue than anything else, just look at his unpainted version for that. All the other characters at least look like they're in a battle or intimidating the enemy, his model is just the odd one out. That said it does have some nice detail to it, as nearly all Forgeworld models do, but that's about it. -- Triacom (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand I really like it (yeah, i'm strange :p)...it is exactly as I always pictured him: Julius Caesar with power armour...IN SPACE! Also the fact that he is not in an intimidating pose doesn't really annoy me, as I have always thought of him as more of a leader than a warrior, and his pose strike me as solemn and dignified, as it should be (in my opinion, at least). It seems to me that he could be having his inspirational speech before or after a great battle, or he could be saying some epic sentence like "alea iacta est" or "veni, vidi, vici". In short, I can say that this is one of my favourites Primarchs models so far! But, as always with something like this, it is more a matter of personal taste than anything else. Hekaloth (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yea I like it a lot as well, it does seem like he is about to give a rousing speech or is the middle of one, it honestly fits his character a lot. I mean most of the other primarchs fit better in a battle pose that girlyman for some reasonDragoon508 (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why the Armour of Reason isn't calculated correctly[edit]

Guilliman's Armour of Reason isn't done right, you cannot halve mathhammer and just have it as a flat .5 for the people who cause slightly over a wound on him, the correct calculation actually was 0.25 reduction in wounds taken (as the anon says), as it is the mathhammer is very heavily in Guilliman's favour and you cannot say that somebody else is correct then ignore what they say, as is what happened in the mathhammer page. As such I'll be changing it and would request anyone who wants to change it back to post here first. -- Triacom (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually another reason this is wrong I found when calculating the new mathhammer is that one re-roll, how it was calculated before, singlehandedly makes his armour better than a 3++ save, which anyone with a brain can tell you it should not. -- Triacom (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually I did not ignore them. I saw that I was wrong and then I changed what was actually wrong, and I also changed the related calculations on the other Primarchs (the ones for which the math changed). All the Primarch of which I didn't change the mathhammer are the ones who, after the invulnerable saves, can manage to mathematically wound him at least one time (so 2 wound before the saves). Then for all of these Primarchs the correct reduction is the 0.5 I used, because he can re-roll a single failed invulnerable roll per phase and he will do so (we are using probability here) against them, but will not re-roll the others. As for the others (Mortarion, Vulkan, Perturabo, Alpharius, Rogal Dorn), they struggle to even put a single wound on him per phase, and that I did change (that was the error), halving the damage taken because, effectively, if they only wound him 0.8 after saves, then he will reroll it and it will be a 0.4, because it is even less that the single failed save he can re-roll per phase. If you read the changes, you should see that is the case. The anon made me realise that I miscalculated, but the method I used after should not be incorrect as the method he suggested (calculating the reroll only on the first attack of every Primarch) is a lot more heavily biased in the opposite direction: you are effectively limiting the effect to a single one of (at least) 4 attack. Let's take Vulkan as an example: with that first attack, he has a 0.5 chance to hit, than a 0.417 to wound and, lastly, a 0.21 chance to actually make it past the invulnerable save. That means that the re-roll should happen only one out of five time for that particular attack, the other 4 remaining usable for other wounds that could pass. My calculations, instead, take into account the chance Vulkan has to wound him every round and then that of the Armour of Reason to negate said wound. Finally, yes, his armor is mathematically better than 3++ against the ones who struggle to wound them, and although this could not be the case if you rolled well against him, the section doesn't take into account the off chance of this. We all know a sergeant can kill Horus if he roll only six and Horus only ones, but the chance of something out of the ordinary happening is not calculated (obviously). Also, I would like to point out that nothing I change is done arbitrarily and by ignoring other thoughts, as this whole issue should make more than evident. Hekaloth (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Changing it to halve wounds taken is not correct in any way shape or form, same with making it take 0.5 of a wound away. Look at it this way if you have to, you're treating the Armour of Reason as a new dice, not an old dice. An old dice has stopped half of a wound (0.5), and it can try and stop the half it didn't catch (this is where the re-roll comes in), meaning it has half a chance at stopping half a wound, meaning it stops all but a quarter of that wound (0.25 go through), simple as that. -- Triacom (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If we wound him 3 times, then he saves 1.5 across three dice, only one of which is rolled again, which means you treat that dice and the wound it was saving as if it only wounded him once, what I mean to say is the dice you count as having the Armour of reason re-roll will save 0.75 of a wound, while all other dice save 0.5 of a wound (meaning in total he takes 1.25 wounds from three dice, not 1, he'd only take 1 wound if he had a 3++ save). If you have it take off 0.5 every time then that means you are giving him the equivalent or better than a 3++ save, even though only one of the dice is re-rolled, which anybody can tell you is wrong. -- Triacom (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But it is a new dice. As you are using it, the armor of reason is a re-roll against the first wound caused but not saved, while the rule is "the first invulnerable save failed by Roboute Guilliman in each particular phase of the game may be re-rolled". The first failed, not the first taken. So it is the same as saying against the first wound suffered, since if he will take the wound he could re-roll it, but if he does not he will have another chance to do so for other wounds. So, if he take at least one wound in each particular phase the armor will save against it. I understand your point but as you are using it, it should also be considered the possibility of the reroll to not being used, which is 50%. Then, you could have a 50% chance to use it again on the next failed save, resulting in a 25% chance to save that wound, which actually takes us back to the 0.5 reduction. Hekaloth (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It ISN'T a new dice specifically because it's a re-roll. Here's the full description: "in addition, the first invulnerable save failed by Roboute Guilliman in each particular phase of the game may be re-rolled." Calculating re-rolls are different than calculating when effects like Concussive come into play, re-rolls happen alongside the first roll, not in addition to it if you happen to have a whole number. This means it is not a new dice, meaning it always comes into play since you're just improving the odds of the existing dice. If we were to treat this as coming into effect on a pure failed roll, and only a failed roll, then it would never come into effect as in mathhammer there are no failed rolls and all of Guillimans rolls are half successful, meaning he never has a failure according to that definition.
Let's look at it another way then since you don't get it yet, yes the armour strengthens the first save he has to make, but it does not strengthen it as much as you claim. Let's say we wound Gulliman 3 times, and then through saves he only takes 1.5 wounds across three dice before the armour of reason. IF the armour of reason were to cut that down by 0.5 (making it so Guilliman only takes 1 wound) then you are claiming that the first of those three dice (the one with the re-roll) has a 100% chance to fully stop one of those wounds while the other two dice have a 50% chance of stopping the other two wounds. I'm sorry but that's not how math works, you cannot end up at a zero by continuously dividing, which is what happens when any sort of saves are made.
Here's another way of looking at it just in case you want to claim it's the first failed save again, when you calculate any saves, you always calculate them, even if there is no full wound on a model. For example in several challenges Angron's armour is enough to drop the wounds taken below 1, yet his Feel no Pain is still calculated alongside that in taking some off the wound even though he hasn't been wounded yet. This is the same thing with IWND, you subtract 0.333 from the calculations, meaning you always calculate it, even though it can't come into play unless a full wound is on a model.
The reason you calculate those two is because it's still correct mathwise, meaning that IWND would still heal the same amount (either removing a full wound after three turns or 0.333 across three turns, regardless of how you wanted to calculate it), same with Angron's Feel no Pain, and same with Guilliman's re-roll. The only thing that IWND changes is how much damage they deal per round (for example IWND only comes into play every second round). As another example, if a Marine with a Powerfist and 2 attacks went after Guilliman, they'd hit once, cause 0.833 wounds, and according to you that would be it since the rules state you only take Invulnerable saves if you take a wound, and Guilliman hasn't taken one yet, but in mathhammer, those are potential wounds, so you need to calculate potential damage reduction.
tl:dr, you're trying to compare this to how the game is played, and in the process are forgetting this goes by averages and what could potentially happen (for example if guilliman takes 0.25 of a wound, that doesn't mean he has 5 3/4's wounds left, it means he has a 25% of taking a wound). -- Triacom (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is exactly the same argument as before, but the point is still the same: an incorrect use of probability calculation. As I said before (that was the most important point) you can't use it as a single re-roll, because as long as he does not receive wounds he can still use it again. So, as I already said, you must also calculate the chance of him reusing it, or you're doing a really half-assed job. And you didn't: you simply used it on the first wound, and that's it, but let's break it down really good: 1 wounds taken---> 0.5 is saved, the other 0.5 not---> he can reroll the 50% chance of him having taken it, reducing it to 0.25, but he also has a 50% to not taking any kind of wound and keeping the armor of reason for another time. Then, on the second wound suffered, he would have a 50% to still halving that wound. Your mathhammer simply ignore this fact, making the armor a "he can re-roll the first invulnerable save taken", instead than the first failed. Hekaloth (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You can't use a re-roll as a re-roll? You really don't seem to get mathhammer, as I explained above going by your logic we would only calculate feel no pain saves once somebody has taken a wound, because that's when it comes into play, but in mathhammer GUILLIMAN HAS TAKEN WOUNDS. When he makes a save he takes 0.5 wounds every single time per whole wound because half of that invulnerable save is failed. As I stated above your logic fails because in mathhammer there's no such thing as a failed save, all it does is decrease the damage taken so therefore going by your logic it would never come into play and re-rolls have to stack onto existing rolls, which is why you cannot treat it as a new dice.
I'm going to restate this other point, if Guilliman takes 3 wounds, he rolls three dice to save them, 50% chance of success so he takes 1.5 wounds. All 3 of those dice saved 0.5 wounds. Knocking off 0.5 wounds again, using only one of those three dice is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE because you are claiming that the dice with a re-roll has a 100% chance of blocking a wound, which CANNOT happen. That's the whole reason your argument fails, you are not applying proper mathematics and you are treating this as if he can roll four dice, not three with one re-roll.
I'll break this down to you in the most basic way possible since you don't fully get it yet, in the actual game if Guilliman has taken an AP2 wound, he'll roll a dice, and if that fails he'll roll it again. Both rolls have half a chance of letting that wound through so you multiple 1/2 by 1/2 which equals 1/4 chance of that wound going through, this is basic fractions. -- Triacom (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You still don't get the point: he will never reduce it by only 0.25. That's only in the case of him taking one wound. Now, try to read really carefully this passage, since I am going to explain all the steps and I don't want to explain it another time for you to propose again the same example: mathhammer use probability calculation, and by using it right you can't state that the armor of reason only reduce damage by 0.25 in total. You can't even state that it will ever be a 0.5, in that you are correct, but that's not what I'm trying to say here; the point is that it will always tend to 0.25 (unless he take only one wound before saving, which is never the case with other Primarchs) but will never reach it. The same with 0.5, I know. But still the problem is that this method is a real hassle and since these days I don't have much time I concluded that I would leave it like that, with some minor changes, because the numbers would have been closer to the real ones than with the changes you did (Still not perfect but, as I said, that's my time right now): why is that? Actually the difference is the same (still wrong, but not wronger), only in the opposite direction, for all the Primarch who do 2 or less wounds: let's take Vulkan and Mortarion, which are the ones doing less damage: 1.667 (that's how you properly round off): the first wound has a 50% chance of being stopped, and then another 50% chance of being stopped by the re-roll, which is your 0.25. But then, there is a probability of 50% that the first wound was already saved, and that's when the "fist invulnerable save failed" and not simply "first invulnerable save", because with this you have a 50% of using it again for the second wound (which is a 0.667 in their case): that mean you only have a 50% chance to use a 4++ on another wound that passed against another 50% chance of being saved, and that's exactly a 12,5% chance of saving against that wound, after having taken into account the probability of saving against the first. In the case of these two, then, he can save another 0.083, which is then added to the 0.25 and become a 0.333, which is exactly between my reviewed method (halving the wound) and yours (taking 0.25 away). Then again, for someone who does 2 wound, it is simpler: using the same exact method you come out with a 0.125 chance for the second save, making it a 0.375 reduction, which is, again, exactly between your method and mine (using the 0.5). Now, here it's when it become wronger, since with more wounds it will come infinitely closer to his perfect score (the 0.5) whithout actually being able to reach it, but still always further from the 0,25. So, for example, Angron would allow him to have a massive 0.484 reroll on the first round, a 0.469 on the second and a 0.406 on the third and subsequent round. That's still a lot closer to 0.5 than to 0.25 and, while no one method is completely right, I decided to keep the first because I didn't have the time to bother to change every single damn computation, since some are even more obnoxious than others (*cough* Alpharius *cough*). So, now, that would be the right method: if you are willing to use it, do so, but if you aren't I think the page should return to his previous form, which was less wrong, even if not by much, until I find the time to actually do all the changes on this and the other Primarchs page. Hekaloth (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It does reduce it only by 0.25 but I get why it's confusing, mainly because I added it retroactively. I'm going to explain it again and be as simple as possible for you. Here's what you're arguing, you say that you roll a dice, trying to get a 4+. The odds of doing that are 50% (1/2) and then you do it again, adding the new roll to the old roll, meaning your equation for the re-roll is 1/2 + 1/2 = 2/2 = 1 wound saved, meaning that if he takes three wounds he'll only end up having one unsaved wound. That's not how math works, you can never save one wound always no matter how many times you roll the dice, you only get closer and closer to saving the wound (but never quite get there). The correct equation is 1/2 * 1/2 (since you are rolling one dice twice) = 1/4 chance the wound has of going through the roll and re-roll. This is true regardless of how many wounds he has taken, not just one wound, because it's a re-roll, not an extra dice and you cannot treat it as an extra dice. It does not matter if the wound is saved or isn't saved, so long as he has partial wounds taken (meaning always) it still comes into effect because you are looking at the probability that he'll be hurt by the attack, and how much damage he will take from it, so if he has one re-roll, he is forced to use it in the first roll he has to make because there's a 50% chance the wound goes through, and a 50% that the re-roll will stop it meaning we still end up back at 0.25 wounds taken. This changes but not in the way you claim when we get into partial wounds (but I'll go over those in a bit).
Now let's break down the rolls to save, and use your example because you seem to forget how the game is played. If Guilliman takes 1.667 wounds, he has to make two saves, one for the full wound, one for the partial wound. This means you separate the full wound from the partial in cases like this, then apply the saves, then add them back together. Normally that process is skipped because it's rare that saves can change all that much (unless you're using items with certain conditions like the Gorgon's Chain), or that you only get one re-roll. So he has to save 1 + 0.666(infinite) wounds. The save with the re-roll is used first, meaning it gets applied to the whole wound, taking away 0.75 of that wound, then his regular 4+ save is applied to all other rolls, meaning you're left with 0.25 + 0.333(infinite), meaning the total is 0.583 wounds he takes in damage and It Will Not Die will take that down to 0.25 at the start of the next turn (the total damage dealt and saved along with IWND means all the hidden decimal points end up becoming zeros). This also means that if he took 2.666 wounds (from Fulgrim) he'd make three rolls, two for whole wounds and one for the partial wound, it would look like this: 1 + 1 + 0.667 and his re-roll would be used first, taking off 0.75, then his regular 4+ is used for all other wounds, so the amount of damage he took looks like this: 0.25 + 0.5 + 0.333 = 1.083. I mentioned earlier that I applied the 0.25 retroactively, and that's because taking away 0.25 was all that was necessary since there isn't a single Primarch that fails to cause less than one whole wound on him before saves.
Now if he only took less than one wound, let's say a Sergeant with a Power Fist attacked him, he'd have to save 0.833 wounds, but his re-roll would still come into effect here, because he still rolls one dice to save those 0.833 wounds. You take off 75% of the damage (meaning divide it by 4), and you must apply the re-roll even if a full wound hasn't been removed before saves, otherwise your math is full of holes (it ends up at 0.208 wounds taken, and 0 wounds with IWND).
One more thing, if you want to bitch about the rounding being wrong, complain to the guy who posted it wrong. I didn't put up the Mortarion vs Guilliman fight or the Vulkan vs Guilliman fight. -- Triacom (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy...first thing first, if you claim to understand my point don't change it to a mere 1/2+1/2=1, since it is the furthest thing to what I bothered to explain. Second, I see that you still don't understand the part regarding the possibilities, but it's probably because you don't have a good base of probability calculation. It's not your fault, and maybe (probably) I did not explain myself clearly enough, but still you should try to understand: as I already stated, it never becomes 0.5, but it's never 0.25 either because the first take place in an ideal universe in which he has take and infinite number of wounds and the second ignores the chances of it being used in the future. Possibility that becomes exponentially less likely the more wounds he take, until it is almost non-existant, but you still can't ignore it. This is not play, this is math, and even if you claim you are using the game as a base you should agree with me on the fact that a single re-roll on the first failed save is still better than a re-roll on the first wound taken and still not saved, and what I explained in the post above is the reason as to why that is so. If it was the second it would have been a simple 0.25, but it is not, and I thought I made this clear. Now, in the example you made of the 3 wounds: the first is reduced by a 0.75, then the second has half the chances that the first had of being re-rolled, but still has it and that reduce the wound taken by 0.125 for a total of 0.625. Lastly, the third wound has only a quarter of a chance, so it can only be reduced by 0.0625, for a total of 0.5625. Meaning that he will not take only 1 wound, but nor will he take 1.25 wounds: he will take 1.0625 wounds. Mathhammer is still math, and is done by adding probability, and you can't discard one after only using Half of it. Hekaloth (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like I misspoke when I said I get where you're coming from and NOW I finally get why you're so focussed on him being able to use it later, though your math is still wrong it helped me learn what I also did wrong (in my math it always go off when it shouldn't). The reason my math is wrong is because it always assumes he'll get the re-roll, meaning I'm giving him better odds than he should be getting, the reason your math is wrong is because you're applying the full result of the re-roll across multiple wounds, meaning you're actually giving him several re-rolls, not just one. The first thing to remember about 4+ re-rolls on saves is that they can never save more than half of the original save, if your math goes over 0.25 wounds blocked by the re-roll then you've done something wrong, but I'll take your equation and correct it.
Let's say he's taken 3 wounds, split into 1 + 1 + 1, after his normal save it looks like 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5, then you apply the reroll, any of these dice can fail, the re-roll AT MOST can save 50% of the wounds that go through any of these dice, and it has a 25% chance of going off on any of the three dice as well as a 25% chance of it not going off at all. This causes it to block less than a quarter of the wounds that would have gone through if we factor in that it might not happen, making the equation: 0.5625 + 0.5625 + 0.5625 (meaning it saves 0.1875 wounds total). This is true even when Guilliman takes one wound, because as you are fond of saying, there's a 50% chance of the re-roll not coming into play, so that would mean if he took only one save the dice with the re-roll would reduce the result by 0.625 when you factor in that 50% chance that it won't happen.
If you can't wrap your head around that then just look at your own equation: 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 somehow becomes 0.75 + 0.625 + 0.5625 with only one re-roll? No, that is not how math works, you are applying the FULL benefit of the re-roll to the first roll instead of factoring in the 50% that it might not happen which cuts the amount saved in half, then you're applying the half the result to the second roll, despite already applying the full result earlier, then you're applying a quarter of the result despite already applying the full result earlier, put into game terms your math claims that being able to re-roll a 4+ on three wounds will allow it to save 0.4375 wounds, which when added to the save from the dice you re-rolled totals 0.9375 saved on one dice (since you are still only ever re-rolling a single dice). This means you are claiming that a 4+ with a re-roll is better than a 2+ save, which even the biggest novice in knows isn't true.
To do this another way with your statements, let's look at why I thought you were saying a dice with a re-roll is 1/2 + 1/2: It's because you claim that a re-roll of a 4+ save has a 50% chance of being used in the first wound working, which is true, and that somehow gets you to say the re-roll increases the save of the first wound to 0.75 (0.5 + the 0.25 re-roll), but by this statement if the re-roll had a 100% chance being used on the first wound (times 2) your equation would say that the re-roll increases the save to 1.
I would also like to point out how the rule would look if your equation were to be used: "Guilliman can re-roll failed invulnerable saves, however after each invulnerable save (successful or failed) roll a D6. On a 4+, he can no longer re-roll Invulnerable saves that phase."
I do want to give you thanks though for helping me figure out where I went wrong and how to apply re-rolls like this correctly. -- Triacom (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Too Many Quotes[edit]

The heading kind of speaks for itself. We should try to keep it down to one, maybe two at max, pertinent quotes at the beginning of the page. If you really want to keep the extra quotes, use them to head up other sections. The opening quote is supposed to be a single very accurate very pertinent quote that helps sum up the primarch's character. I'll reorganize things within a few days if I don't hear back from anyone. Josman (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Guilliman's Return??[edit]

Unconfirmed rumors said that Guilliman might be the first Primarch to return in the 13th Black Crusade: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/12/40k-rumors-sisters-primarchs-2017.html

Who said his plastic model is genuinely liked? By whom? I've seen nothing but hate and I despise it myself. Looks stylistically nothing like the marines around him in the pictures, whilst the FW one at least suits them?
I can't speak for everyone, but of the three ultramarines players I know, myself included, two quite like the new model, and the third is largely indifferent but things it's a little too "Age of Sigmar-y". Josman (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
While I'm not really a fan of it (it's okay, but I think it would be more interesting to convert into a Dreadknight) I've seen a lot of people online say they really liked the model, except for really small details like his calves being too thin (I wasn't aware that was an issue, but apparently it is). -- Triacom (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The model is absolute garbage after the Forge World model. I think it's because it looks nothing like the army around it. Have a look at the marines in the background, they couldn't be more stylistically different than Warcrafty Girlyman.

Mathhammer between Angron and Guilliman results are messed up.[edit]

The results for the math hammer fight between the two primarchs change according to the page you look at. On Angron's page Angron loses but on Guilliman's page Angron wins. I do not personally math hammer so I do not know what the correct result is. I personally suspect that the issue is something to do with the Armor Of Reason but that is just a guess, I left a edit before but I do not think anyone noticed it.

I've looked it over, the math on Angron's page is still using the incorrect math re-roll for the Armour of Reason. Thanks for pointing that out. Do note that in most of Guilliman's fights here the math is incorrect (I stated above which ones I fixed it for) since the Armour of Reason is a huge pain in the ass to do mathhammer on. I'll probably get around to the other fights sometime later though I can't say when. -- Triacom (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I was the OP, np dude.

TL;DR on the Armour of Reason.[edit]

This is for those who are confused about the math with the Armour of Reason and want to double check it, but either don't want or don't know how to do the math themselves. It is a complete pain in the ass to calculate because the amount of extra Wounds it saves varies greatly depending on how many attacks Guilliman's opponent has, and not based on how many Wounds were caused, or how many Wounds were saved. For the purpose of the following cheat sheet, it'll include Guilliman's buffed save rather than flat out saying how much the re-roll saves on its own.

  • If Guilliman's opponent has 1 attack, his save becomes 0.625 (37.5% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 2 attacks, his save becomes 0.584 (41.6% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 3 attacks, his save becomes 0.563 (48.1% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 4 attacks, his save becomes 0.550 (43.7% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 5 attacks, his save becomes 0.542 (45.8% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 6 attacks, his save becomes 0.536 (46.4% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 7 attacks, his save becomes 0.531 (46.9% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 8 attacks, his save becomes 0.528 (47.2% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 9 attacks, his save becomes 0.525 (47.5% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 10 attacks, his save becomes 0.523 (47.7% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 11 attacks, his save becomes 0.521 (47.9% of wounds get through).
  • If Guilliman's opponent has 12 attacks, his save becomes 0.519 (48.1% of wounds get through).

Note that while it appears that his save gets worse, it's actually getting better because his re-roll is being slightly applied to progressively more and more attacks. As a quick example, If Guilliman suffered a wound from 1 attack, then the Armour of Reason's re-roll would assist in blocking 0.125 wounds. If he suffers 3 wounds from 3 attacks then it would actually block 0.188 wounds. The reason this happens is because there's no guarantee which attack will require the re-roll, and there's also no guarantee the re-roll will come into play at all. I also stopped at 12 attacks, since I believe that's the most any single opponent can have, in any case the gist of it is that the more attacks come at Guilliman, the more the Armour of Reason will save (though the amount of wounds it prevents can never be more than 0.250 Wounds). If you want to apply the re-roll in mathhammer then you're going to have to do mathhammer the long way. Here's an example of how to do that if Guilliman's opponent has three attacks, hits on 3's and Wounds him on 4's with an AP2 weapon:

  • Opponents attacks: 1+1+1.
  • Opponents hits: 0.666+0.666+0.666.
  • Wounds caused: 0.333+0.333+0.333.
Guilliman's invuln save, with the re-roll stops 56.3% of damage from all of those dice (to find the unsaved wounds, multiply each of the dice by 0.437).
  • Unsaved wounds after Guilliman's save: 0.146+0.146+0.146.
    • Tallied up, from that sort of opponent only using 3 attacks on him Guilliman will suffer 0.438 unsaved wounds, meaning in this case the armour helps save 0.062 across the three dice.

Do note that you can't half-ass this by applying the re-roll to the total amount of wounds caused (like you can with regular save rolls and rolls that always allow re-rolls) otherwise the math will not be accurate. This is the biggest reason for why the Armour of Reason is a massive pain in the ass to calculate. -- Triacom (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother answering me if you're tired of all this shit, but I am actually really curious about how the whole "only one re-roll" works. How can it be unrelated to the amount of (un)saved wounds since it is the only determined factor we have ? One attack from Angron will not cause as many wounds as one from a Praetor with Paragon blade, how can they be comparable ? I genuinely don't understand why re-rolling 1 attack only saves 0.125 more wounds instead of 0.250. I know the amount of re-rolls is not proportional, hence the number of extra saved wounds growing more slowly than the number of attacks, but this case is puzzling me. Since Guilliman has 1/2 chance of saving a single round, the re-roll will happen half the time and then will have a 1/2 chance to actually save the wound. So he has a 1/2*1/2 = 1/4 chance of being wounded and 3/4 (--> 0.75 = 0.50 + 0.25) chance of saving the wound. Just like a regular re-roll of a single dice needing a 4+, its literally the same thing. The save is ultimately way better than a 3+ (0.67), but it keeps being less and less effective until becoming close to a standard 4+. I don't say you're wrong, I'm just too ignorant about math to understand the logic behind this... and it frustrates me to be honest. -- 78.250.220.8 00:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This is going to be a long explanation because to fully explain the Armour of Reason I need to break down mathhammer at its core, but if the short reason's all you're interested in, then the reason your math differs is because the Armour of Reason's re-roll doesn't always come into play (unlike other things which always say they come into play), and you're not accurately taking that into account with your equation, although you're very close, I'll show you what you've missed: "the re-roll will happen half the time and then will have a 1/2 chance to actually save the [part of the] wound [that went through the invulnerable save]." The bit in the square brackets is the part you forgot. What you're doing above is applying it to the whole wound before using Guilliman's regular invulnerable save which is how you ended up with 0.25 saved rather than 0.125. Mathhammer takes into account if the re-roll never comes into play which is why the applying it to the unsaved wound in this case looks like 0.5/(2*2) = how much it blocks.
Long explanation: it's related to the number of attacks, because mathhammer's actually based on how many attacks a model has and the Armour of Reason's re-roll has a chance of not coming into play. Normally this isn't very important so what you usually see posted is just the condensed version of it. Think of it like long division vs short (also called simplified) division. The short version's depicted in the primarch fights, whereas the long version looks like this:
  • Model A has 3 attacks, if we're just looking at the number of unsaved Wounds these attacks will cause then it looks like: Attack A = 1, Attack B = 1, Attack C = 1.
  • Model A hits 66% of the time with their attacks. This looks like: Attack A = 0.666, Attack B = 0.666, Attack C = 0.666. I think you can see where the rest of this is going.
In the short version you see "Causes 1.998 hits, causes 0.999 Wounds" even though all of that's from 3 attacks, and now I'm going to get to the reason I'm telling you this.
If a model has a 4+ Invulnerable save and they can re-roll the first failed save, how do you know which one of the opponents attacks are going to need the single re-roll, and what guarantee is there that it one of the wounds will be unsaved and need it in the first place?
  • Going back to our example, when a 4+ save comes into effect on a wound it looks like 0.5. If they suffer three wounds then after saves it looks like 0.5+0.5+0.5.
  • To ask an earlier question again, so which of these do you apply the re-roll to, and how are you so sure that the re-roll will come into play? We can't apply it flatly to any one of these attacks/dice since we don't know which could cause the unsaved wound, and we don't know if it'll be needed.
  • The armour of reason has a 25% chance of going off on each of those attacks, and a 25% chance of not being needed to go off at all. In this case that's going to be (0.250/4), the result of which is how much in it'll save on each of the three dice (applied seperately). The result is 0.0625 (I have to go to the fourth digit in this case), so the model with the re-roll's save essentially becomes 0.5625 rather than 0.5 if they had nothing, or 0.75 as they would be if they could re-roll everything. In turn it makes those unsaved Wounds look like this: 0.4375+0.4375+0.4375, in total preventing 0.1875 wounds from going through (as you can see I rounded above because as I said, Primarch fights don't go past the third digit).
After looking it over I'll admit that my cheat-sheet isn't quite accurate (as it assumes they all cause unsaved Wounds), as it says for the person to subract when in reality the non-condensed re-roll saves that much in percentage across all of the dice used to attack. I'll be re-wording it shortly to be more accurate. If you're worried about the mathhammer on the main page, I did all of that separately and then whipped up the cheat-sheet afterwards really quickly (hence the poor wording on it) so the math on the main page should still be pretty accurate. I'll be double-checking it anyway in a bit after re-wording the cheat sheet to be more accurate, as I'll admit I was a little tired and bored when I corrected the math, so I might have made some mistakes. -- Triacom (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: After looking over it I'm fairly certain I did mess up in the Primarch duels. While I don't believe the outcomes of the fights will change, it looks like I'll have to redo the math there again. By the time I've finally gotten it correct I'm sure there won't be a person who hates Guilliman more than I do. -- Triacom (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
ANOTHER EDIT: I just thought of a much simpler way to explain why the Armour of Reason only saves 0.625 on one wound from one attack:
  • If a model has a 4+ save, then it looks like this: 0.5
  • If a model has a 4+ save that they can always re-roll it looks like this: 0.75
  • Guilliman's re-roll isn't always used. It only happens 50% of the time on a single wound from one attack. So 50% of the time Guilliman's save is 0.5; 50% of the time it's 0.75 which averages out to 0.625 (much like how an average D6 roll is 3.5 even though that isn't a number on the dice).
My only excuse is that sometimes I get too wrapped up in the math. -- Triacom (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoah. I didn't expect such a precise answer, thank you so much for taking the time. I understand the logic about the "you can't know what wound will be re-rolled", but I still don't get why the result (0.625) is different from a regular re-roll for one wound (0.75). Technically, a standard re-roll is also susceptible to never happen if the wound is saved normaly, both are triggered if the normal save is failed. I don't see where the difference lays. When you say "50% of the time Guilliman's save is 0.5; 50% of the time it's 0.75 which averages out to 0.625" I can't help but feel there is something wrong. The concrete situation then would be "50% of the time Guilliman has a 4+ save, 50% of the time he gets a re-rollable 4+ save" right ? But it is not, because you would need 3 dice to complete the whole process if you actually get the re-roll : 1 to determine if you get the 4+ or the re-rollable 4+ (50%), 1 to determine if the normal 4+ save is successful (another 50%), and a third for the re-roll (50%). It does 0.5*0.5*0.5=0.125 as you calculated, but the first step simply does not exist because the save will ALWAYS be re-rolled if it fails against a single wound. The literal transcription of your calculation into a rule would be "When Guilliman suffers one or more wounds, roll a dice before making any save. On a 4+ (your first 50%), the first invulnerable save failed by Roboute Guilliman in each particular phase of the game may be re-rolled (the 0.75 save). On a 3 or less (the remaining 50%), Guilliman don't get any re-roll (the 0.5 save)." I really don't want to sound agressive or stubborn, but could you please consider this possibility ? Thanks again. -- 78.250.214.111 02:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The difference is in the wording as it's the difference between a guarantee and a maybe. You're comparing a one to infinity in terms of how many saves can be re-rolled and while I'd like to believe that they are the same in this case I can't think of how to add up the math to make them so. I'd also like to point out that purely on a mechanical level "50% of the time Guilliman has a 4+ save, 50% of the time he gets a re-rollable 4+" Against a single Wound actually is the exact same thing as him being able to re-roll the first unsaved wound in a phase as 50% of the time the wound will be saved by his normal save, and 50% of the time he'll be able to re-roll that save. There are not three dice in this example, there's only one with 50% results being 0.5 wounds saved and the other 50% being 0.75 wounds saved, with the average between them being 0.625 (though this example is getting off-track from the math at its core, much like the example I quickly whipped up as a TL;DR).
Don't get me wrong, I am considering it. I do like discussions like this and they're also ones I'd like to get outside opinion on (I'm not going to improve if I reject outside input) however whenever you deal with anything besides an infinite number you have to take into account that it might not be used, and that's the main difference between a 4+ save that can re-roll the first failed save and a 4+ save that re-rolls all failed saves. -- Triacom (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's another way that highlights the difference between an infinite and a non-infinite using a mechanical example. Let's say we don't use the re-roll until Guilliman is mathematically going to fail an invulnerable save and suffer an unsaved wound (as the wording in the rule states) and in this example he'll be wounded twice across two rounds by a model with one attack. In the first phase, he saves 0.5 Wounds. The re-roll doesn't trigger yet since he's not yet guaranteed to suffer an unsaved wound. In the second phase he suffers a wound, saves 0.5, and is now guaranteed to lose a wound so the re-roll kicks in, saving an additional 0.25 across two rounds, meaning his save average across two rounds is 0.625 (0.5 in the first, 0.75 in the second). Why does a 4+ save that re-rolls all failed rolls result in a higher average? It's because mathwise it's always used to lower the remainder that got through since there's no question on whether or not it can come into play. As another mechanical example I'd also like to point out that regular re-rolls are applied alongside saves directly to the wounds the model's suffered, but thanks to its wording Guilliman's special re-roll can only apply to unsaved wounds. If he does not have an unsaved wound then he cannot technically use the re-roll, hence my example in this paragraph. -- Triacom (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still puzzled when you say "In the first phase, he saves 0.5 Wounds. The re-roll doesn't trigger yet since he's not yet guaranteed to suffer an unsaved wound. In the second phase he suffers a wound, saves 0.5, and is now guaranteed to lose a wound so the re-roll kicks in, saving an additional 0.25 across two rounds, meaning his save average across two rounds is 0.625 (0.5 in the first, 0.75 in the second)." I agree that you need 2 rounds in order to get a wound and trigger the re-roll, okay. But Guilliman could re-roll both wounds since the AoR rule is rebooted each phase. So if you consider that 2*0.5 unsaved wounds simply become 1 wound (just like when you do basic Mathammer) then you HAVE TO consider the re-roll as a normal 4+ as well since the probability of getting a re-roll is equally distributed between the two saves. 2 wounds = 1 unsaved wound on average = 1 re-roll on average. The additional save is not a 0.25 across two wounds, it's a plain 0.5. 2 wounds --> 1 saved, 1 remaining --> 1 re-roll --> 1/2 more wounds saved = 1.5 wounds saved across 2 wounds = 0.75 wound saved on average.
The thing is, you never get a 0.5 OR a 0.75 save. You get 1 dice for your 4+ save and IF it succeeds (50%), you won't need any additional save. If it fails (50%), then you have to re-roll the dice which has again 50% chance to fail/succeed.
1 wound --> 4+ save --> saved ?
--> yes (0.5)--> No re-reroll
--> no (0.5) --> Re-roll --> saved ?
--> yes (0.5)
--> no (0.5)
==> The first 0.5 is the trigger when three different possibilities arise, not all of them being equiprobable though. It is not one of the two branches of a tree, it's the trunk itsel. I think it would be easier to figure this out by considering only the final possible outcomes, starting from the very moment you are about to roll your save. There are only three combinations covering all the possibilities :
1 The wound is saved, no re-roll will ever happen = 0.5 chance of happening with a 4+
2 The wound is not saved, the re-roll happens and succeeds = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25 chance of happening with a 4+
3 The wound is not saved, the re-roll happens and fails = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25 chance of happening with a 4+
==> Once we sum up all the combinations where the save is finally saved (1, 2), the result is 0.5 + 0.25 = 0.75 . So here again the overall save will be 0.75 if we consider all the potential outcomes.
Thank you again for taking the time to deal with my obnoxious perplexity. -- 82.230.192.245 21:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for being persistent. I've been thinking over this at work, and I believe you are right and that I am in fact applying the re-roll wrong. After examining it in detail I realized you actually don't need to take the possibility it won't get used into account like I was doing, you just need to apply it to the first attack levied against him and leave it at that. Right now however it's quite late so I'll be adjusting the values at the starting page when I'm not about to go to bed or go to work. -- Triacom (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR, on the TL;DR on the Armour of Reason.[edit]

So the TL;DR section grew larger than I thought it would and while it offers what I feel is a good explanation for why the Armour of Reason is such a pain in the ass, it doesn't really help as much as I want it to for people who want to do the calculations themselves. So in the words of a famous priest, here's the short, short version:

To calculate the unsaved wounds that get through Guilliman's invuln and re-roll, calculate just one of the attacks that are being made instead of all of them and stop just before you get to the part where the invuln save comes in. When you're there, look at how many attacks that is, and multiply the result by the following:
  • If they have 1 attack, multiply by 0.375
  • If they have 2 attacks, multiply by 0.416
  • If they have 3 attacks, multiply by 0.481
  • If they have 4 attacks, multiply by 0.437
  • If they have 5 attacks, multiply by 0.458
  • If they have 6 attacks, multiply by 0.464
  • If they have 7 attacks, multiply by 0.469
  • If they have 8 attacks, multiply by 0.472
  • If they have 9 attacks, multiply by 0.475
  • If they have 10 attacks, multiply by 0.477
  • If they have 11 attacks, multiply by 0.479
  • If they have 12 attacks, multiply by 0.481
Once you've done that, multiply that result by the amount of attacks the model is making and you'll get the amount of unsaved wounds that were caused to Guilliman. The formula it looks like this: (((1*HitPercentage)WoundPercentage)X)Y. X is the multiplier on the above chart, Y is the amount of attacks the model is making.

If you have questions please ask them in the first TL;DR section and I'll do my best to answer them. -- Triacom (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A note on posting stats.[edit]

While it's been set in the main page that posting stats, along with points costs is fine since GW could take down this wiki even without those, I feel that we shouldn't get that far into detail with Guilliman's (or anyone's) stats. There's a big difference between taking advantage of somebody's generosity to explain what's going on in a text blurb, and doing the equivalent of uploading what is essentially a scanned image (don't poke a sleeping bear is all I'm saying). Also while it might just be my opinion, the 40k version of his stats doesn't quite look as good as the 30k version. -- Triacom (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I never really considered this site as the "go to" place to find rules, and posting essentially a word for word block of rules is pretty bad form and probably crosses a line. Any discussion of rules should be perfectly fine, because it assumes people have already seen them. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This issue has been hashed out on the main page more than once, and Wikifag has always more or less said to do whatever, he'd just remove content if GW bitched.
Anon, I don't think you read what was written or checked the dates at the end of the paragraphs. -- Triacom (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

About how Emperor communicate with Guilliman during the Gathering Storm[edit]

So did Emperor telepathically communicate with Guilliman or he really had a text to speech device installed? I'm much more curious if the Emperor had consciousness ever since he was put to the throne and was aware the clusterfucks happened in the galaxy. Needs more citation on this one. --TheSpoilerHeretic (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Emperor's always been able to speak in some form, we're just not exactly sure how. Even back in second edition he allegedly talked to the leader of the Brides of the Emperor, though like Guilliman she isn't telling anyone how the conversation went. How he does it is really up to speculation, just like how his soul's still there when his body has been dead since nearly the beginning of the game. Yes he's dead. 100% dead. There are no vital signs whatsoever coming from his body, but his spirit's still there and nobody's quite sure how (it might be something to do with the Golden Throne, or the Golden Throne might do nothing at all right now) and this was stated in every main rulebook that I can remember. As for other things he can do, he's still making the Astropaths, and I believe it was stated in the 6th edition BRB that he can still take on the appearance of whatever he wants as it states that different people who look upon him will see different things, and those won't necessarily be a corpse. He's also aware of the shithole the Imperium's become, however his soul also seems unable to leave the throneroom so there's not too much he can do aside from staying the course and hoping for the best (though the Custodes codex hints that they might have been discreetly going around the galaxy in his name on rare occasion). It could be that speaking takes a lot of effort from him and can only be done in between long periods, or it could be some other reason. -- Triacom (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

30k Guilliman vs 40k Guilliman?[edit]

Can I see the Mathhammer on that? 2602:306:32EB:400:29B0:7CA5:F22D:BF09 20:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Guilliman's a traitor.[edit]

GuillimanTraitor.PNG

So I'd like to put this little picture in the main page with a slight description as a joke, but I'm bringing it here first since I know it'll get removed if I don't. Apparently GW decided to list the formations under every category that includes even a small part of them, so for now Guilliman is listed under "Chaos Space Marines" (definitely thanks to Cypher). Personally I think it's kind of funny, and I'm not sure how long it'll take for them to correct this. -- Triacom (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Guilliman's Selective Bias[edit]

Why does Roboute Guilliman, who is heavily implied to despise religion and nearly attacks the Ecclesiarchy, not have such negative sentiments towards the Adeptus Mechanicus? It seems like a double-standard, especially since the Adeptus Mechanicus has also had a bad record with some members getting too fixated on Necrons. If Guilliman has enough understanding to not tar all members of the Mechanicus with the same brush, why doesn't he apply such fairness to the Ecclesiarchy? Yes the Mechanicum existed back in 30k, but how do they escape Guilliman's disapproval with the religious bent they've taken.

  • "Religious bent they've taken"? Were they any less religious before? As I recall, the whole pretext for Schism of Mars was that Koriel Zeth dared to question, if not outright deny, Deus Mechanicus' existence. But that is not the point. The, rather obvious, reason why Guilliman tolerates Mechanicum is, why, the very same reason the Emperor had - he needs it. Not only that, but he also can not afford a confrontation with Mars: might I remind you, that unlike Ministorum, which, after Thor reforms, lacks any direct power and relies primarily on it's 'spiritual' influence with the rabble and higher echelon alike, and whose standing army are the ill-fated 'not-men-at-arms', Mechanicum is a vast empire, that holds practically all of the Imperium technology hostage, backed by skitarii, Knightly Houses and Titan Legions. Being pragmatist and fanatical materialist, he may disapprove, but nonetheless see the need, while Ministorum's 'area of expertise' is simply beyond him - why would anyone in their right mind put their faith in some absent, cruel and generally dickish father figure? And that pretty much everyone around him argues, appealing to human nature, that it may be just what Imperium needs at that time and age, serve only to further frustrate him.
It's probably because he's used to the AdMech, can see why they do what they do and is in no position to do anything about it. Yes, Guilliman doesn't really like the Ecclesiarchy, however he's mellowed out on them a lot by the time his Crusade ended. Honestly it's gotten to the point that he doesn't really have a problem with them anymore, just in who they worship. -- Triacom (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "why would anyone in their right mind put their faith in some absent, cruel and generally dickish father figure?" Why say such a thing? That "absent, cruel and generally dickish father figure" is the Emperor who is Guilliman's father. Why would Guilliman have that view of him, even if he knows the Emperor isn't a god? Was there bad blood between Guilliman and the Emperor?
By no means does Guilliman despise religion as a concept, but consider that the modern Imperial Creed is largely based off the works of the dude that murdered 100,000 of Guilliman's sons. On Calth, one of the crown worlds of Ultramar, Oll Perrson stayed Catholic for all the years he was there, openly practicing. This has always indicated to me that within Ultramar, as with the original Roman Empire, there's a fair degree of religious flexibility so long as you aren't bringing your worship into the public forum. I imagine that Guilliman's issue is less with religious practice at all, and more with the whole "State religion written by fucking Lorgar" thing. Josman (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ‘He is not a god,’ [Roboute] said. ‘He is to me. He is to trillions. Why will you not accept the truth?’ ‘To me, He was a father.’ A distant, uncaring, heartless, manipulative father, he thought. ‘And a lord. I have died for Him once, and would again. That does not give Him divinity.’ Coldness. That was the defining sensation of his meeting with the Emperor. Infinite, terrible coldness.
Well there you have it. Even if that has little to do with his shtick with Ministorum. His problem is with humanity's stupid and obsolete need to believe in smth larger than themselves and what that need leads to. And the fact that this particular brand of cancer bears Lorgar of Colchis' trademark might have smth to do with it, too.
He understands that need just fine, he just doesn't like that it has to be towards someone only he knows to be a heartless tyrant. But even so, he accepts that it's better that they worship him than just leave themselves open to Chaos.--Newerfag (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Not how I would've put it, but... "Knowing what opposed mankind made him see the utility of lies."
    • Thanks for explaining, I didn't know all of the Horus Heresy lore. I knew of the lore before then when the Emperor did to religious worship what Stalin tried to do (aside from the fact that in-universe the Emperor may have been Stalin at one point) and oppose it for numerous reasons (including that non-Chaos God focused religions deprived them of power and at a personal level my own Christian faith). I didn't know there was bad blood between Guilliman and the Emperor, thank you for explaining. Guilliman is right that the Emperor isn't a god, and the Emperor is nasty (though better than many of those leading the galaxy in 40k). On a side note "humanity's stupid and obsolete need to believe in smth larger than themselves" and "brand of cancer" remarks imply a disgusting level of illogical, close-minded anti-religion/anti-theistic bigotry on the part of the person who wrote them (such a need exists for a reason, despite what you say). I would be happy to discuss this with you though some may disrupt this discussion not liking a spiritual/religious/theological discussion (or debate) on this page.
  • That's from "Dark Imperium" by Guy Haley, not Horus Heresy. "non-Chaos God focused religions deprived them of power" Not really, merely re-directed it. "I didn't know there was bad blood between Guilliman and the Emperor, thank you for explaining." No 'bad blood' per se, Guilliman is just finally completely disillusioned with the Emperor by "Dark Imperium", to the point as to even imply that he wants to kill him. "Guilliman is right that the Emperor isn't a god" Is he? "If a man has all the powers of a god, is he not a god? Guilliman asked himself. That is what Mathieu believes. Theoretical, there is the possibility he is correct. I am not immune to mistake." "On a side note "humanity's stupid and obsolete need to believe in smth larger than themselves" and "brand of cancer" remarks imply a disgusting level of illogical, close-minded anti-religion/anti-theistic bigotry on the part of the person who wrote them" 'Illogical', that's rich... You're right about the last part, though. "such a need exists for a reason, despite what you say" Do you know that reason? Because I do, and it sickens me. "I would be happy to discuss this with you" As the existence of a god or gods is a typical Russell's teapot, any discussion on the subject is the very definition of a waste of time, and indeed unsuitable for this here wiki.
Ooh, we got an edgelord here. Before I get to that though I'd like to point out that If you're not directing power at the chaos gods, then you are depriving them of power. Now that's out of the way, nearly every single human in the entire world has a religion as defined by the dictionary definition of a religion, and the only people who don't are those who never make it a priority to care one way or the other, and who never pursue it in any way, shape or form. To break this down, even believing that there is no higher power of any kind is still technically a religion as you're holding onto a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith which is one of the definitions of a religion. To imply people who believe in religion one way or the other are cancerous is definitely illogical (as you're grouping yourself in with them using a term that's supposed to illicit disgust), close-minded (as you're not open to any sort of debate and actively run away using an easily countered analogy despite trying to provoke people), and it's without a doubt anti-religious/anti-theistic, though done in a really stupid way, like claiming that obesity is an issue that people should do something about while not realizing that you're 300 pounds and currently eating cookies.
TL;DR: Fuck off with your 13-year old edge and stop pretending as if you're better than the people you seem to hate. You shouldn't have brought it up in the first place and it had nothing to do with this discussion. -- Triacom (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Guilliman wants to kill the Emperor; he said quite clearly he'd be willing to die for him again. It would be correct to say he would have preferred the Emperor to show a little more humanity, however. Everything else still applies though.--Newerfag (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "‘The Emperor loves us all,’ lied Roboute Guilliman." Do remember who he is talking to there. As for implication: "‘I marvel that you walked alongside the holy Emperor Himself, my lord.’ ‘I did,’ said Guilliman sadly. ‘I wish it could be so again.’ He had his own reasons for desiring that. He kept them to himself." Quite possibly far-fetched, but with that air of hostility every time he speaks or thinks about the Emperor, you can't help but wonder what those reasons are and why does he so bent on keeping them to himself... And he does wonder, whether humanity would be better off without the Emperor's "miscalculations".
  • I'm not sure Guilliman wants to kill the Emperor. Guilliman was alone with him in the Throne Room on Terra and made no move against him; iirc the Adeptus Custodes were outside so they wouldn't have been able to stop him. Maybe Guilliman wanted to take the Emperor to parts of the Imperium and show him all the harm he had done (or that Guilliman thinks he did). While there is implication, this is speculation. To me it looks more like Guilliman may be questioning the Emperor's plan, but he's not planning to depose or kill him. (On a side note, thanks for your input Triacom. I compare that puerile person and their anti-theism to an overweight child who denounces vegetables as evil while insisting their diet of candy is natural and good despite the tooth decay/obesity/diabetes they're bringing about, or a drug-addicted career criminal who denounces the police and their role as evil. He's not worth causing strife for on this page, so if he comments and mentions his own selfish, pernicious views again, I'll delete it and stay on topic. I said I'd debate him, but he doesn't seem to be looking for anything like logic or fairness so I won't waste my time; "some men just want to watch the world burn").
  • Why, if you really want a nice god who acts the part and has most of the defining traits most religions claim their patron benevolent deities to have then you may just go for Age of Sigmar, in fact, I greatly suspect Games Workshop has recently developed the character of Sigmar in a way to be a foil to the Emperor, while both characters went through horrible things at least you can actually feel sympathy for Sigmar. Amusingly enough Guilliman has started to show many similarities with the God-King: got trapped for millennia due the machination of some evil deity, saw his nation in ruins, came back in the moment of supreme need, loathes many of the responsibilities he has yet keeps going because he knows he is the only one who can do it, made a whole new breed of supersoldiers and right now is trying his ultmost to fix things up while keeping all their realm factions working together. Ultimately I think all this stuff has actually done the job of adding more character and humanity to the Ultramarines' Primarch.

Discipline[edit]

The Ultramarines are famous for their discipline, nobody is disputing that. But the Imperial Fists, Death Guard, Iron Warriors, Iron Hands, Dark Angels, and even the fucking Word Bearers are known for discipline too. It's ridiculous to assert "most disciplined" unless you have a quote and page number. EatTheRich (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, "held by some as a paragon" doesn't equate to "was a paragon". "So that he might study and improve.... proving himself once again master of blah blah blah" doesn't quite mean "proving himself once again master of blah blah blah". It's understandable given precedent, but we shouldn't be so knee-jerk about making him a Mary Sue. Frankly, I've had enough of the Smurf wanking on this page in general. If someone tried to say on Dorn's page that he was the greatest leader and conqueror, there'd be a justifiable edit war. EatTheRich (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Armour of Fate[edit]

As of 8th Edition, does Guilliman still need to wear the Armour of Fate, or has he somehow healed?

  • It's somewhat unclear. The codex and a few other sources say that the armor serves as life support, yet you have him walking around in just his black carapace, body glove, and robes in Dark Imperium. Josman (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe that it means "life support" in the way of helping him survive wounds that would have killed most other people, hence the ability to revive after losing his last wounds.--Newerfag (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • But didn't he need to wear the Armour to work as a life support to stop Fulgrim's poison from killing him. Did wearing the Armour of Fate allow him to heal so that by the time of Dark Imperium he no longer needed any form of life support, and only wore the armour for battle.
        • I think the Armor was what healed him of the poison. After it was done, it's just really good armor that also helps to keep him fighting longer than he would be able to normally. So yeah, by the time of Dark Imperium he no longer needs it to stay alive. --Newerfag (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
In Rise of the Primarch they outright state (albeit in the Eldar's dickish way of speaking) that he'll never be able to remove the armour or he'll die, but don't worry about it too much, it's just another plot point that the writers completely forgot about (for others like this, see almost the entirety of Death Masque). -- Triacom (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
My theory is that they were either exaggerating or mistaken. --Newerfag (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought they made it pretty clear, much like how Death Masque made it clear that its ritual was a make-or-break deal for the Eldar in that they'd either become triumphant or extinct, and then Fracture of Biel-tan decided that it was going to have none of those negative consequences and still have it work out. It's just writers having no communication with each other, or not caring for whatever was written previously and it's nothing new to this setting either. -- Triacom (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Roboute's rage-in-vacuum stint: Not half an hour - it was TEN HOURS[edit]

Page 49, Horus Heresy: Betrayal.

"He had fought for ten hours in a vacuum without any apparent oxygen supply..."

It's fucking crazy, but he's a Primarch. He doesn't even know the extent of his own powers anyway. (By the way, he also remarked that he has yet to know how to unlock the powers of Daddy's burny sword - latest Space Marines Codex, I recall.)

Julius Caesar, Augustus, or Gaius Marius?[edit]

Real talk: which one of them is the most accurate representation of Roboute? The first is famous for the Gaul conquest but was assassinated before he became emperor. The second one is the very first roman emperor, and the third is maybe the most famous roman general, who created the roman legion we all know and love.--Gilten (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not both all three? --58.162.223.230 11:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Guilliman is basically a mashup of every competent Roman. He's got Cato the Elder's humility and wisdom; Ultramar is basically Cato's vision of proper un-hellenized roman life . But he's also not afraid to call himself dictator and rule a fraction of the empire personally rather than let it all go to shit. --Piroko (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Could someone ask his Latin teacher the correct pronunciation of this god damn name? I know that GW kinda did it on purpose, but it is annoying that each and every one of us has his own interpretation.--Gilten (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the Black Library audiobooks? Might as well pronounce it the same way that they do. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
How would you transcribe it? https://youtu.be/1_wXCBDiLEA?t=86 I am French, so I am not sure how to write it correctly.--Gilten (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)