Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.


From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Rogal Dorn

I wonder why it is stated so difinitively that Rogal Dorn is dead here when there are rumors, also published by GW, that he is the leader of the Adeptus Custodes.

Rogal Dorn is now officially listed as missing and "presumed" dead. According to the latest Space Marine codex he went missing after an attack on a chaos ship and only his hand was found. In the past this has been the way for GW to introduce cannon into otherwise convoluted back stories. Supes69

Unknown primarchs

As I did some research on this topic (the hypothesis that they were never found) and I already posted that on Warseer, I'll be back sooner or later with my sources to prove that they were found (still at work, have to wait for a mayor break ;)) --Inquisitor S. 21:23, 12 February 2007 (CET)

"White Dwarf 166, page 12: Quote [...] the infants (=primarchs) were only dispersed by this action and not destroyed, and the twenty fell from the warp onto human worlds where they were variously adopted by human parents So this case should be settled for now.

And hey, in the same text there mention of an "Invisibility"-power of one of the primarchs.

Further on the text states that of the 20 primarchs nine survived in the Imperium, and the remainder was killed in the Heresy or fled to the EoT."

"EDIT: another source that settles things: Codex Ultramarines, 2nd Edition, page 7 (at least in the German edition): All twenty legions took part in the Great Crusade and every legion was led by its primarch.(...)"

--Inquisitor S. 21:38, 12 February 2007 (CET)

Hmmm... gotta get me that WD166! I had it once but sold it when I moved house :( You're right - all 20 Primarchs were recovered according to various texts. Odd how the Horus Heresy art books and novels don't mention either the missing two Primarchs or their legions. --newsdeskdan 21:24, 12 February 2007 (GMT)

Well it's only the same as it has always been ^^. Basically I am quite convinced that we will never get to know anything on this topic :D --Inquisitor S. 22:35, 12 February 2007 (CET)
Hmmm... Beware, these unholy discussions are the beginning of Heresy, brother Inquisitor. :) I still don't buy it. They didn't fell to Chaos and they didn't fight against the traitors. What happened to them: the two Primarchs and the two legions? I mean we are talking more or less about 20,000 Space Marines here. I looked at Google and this seems to be quite a "hot" topic. Games Workshop simply likes to leave such questions unanswered, it provides material for endless discussions (who will never find the true story as GW sees no reason to answer), simply helps to sell background books and novels, and keeps the interrest of older fans. A similar case is: "The story and stats of Arhra, the original and fallen Striking Scorpion, who is only reported to have joined Slaanesh". Never saw his full story anywhere except very brief mentions.
My personal conspiracy theories?
1)The two Primarchs were never found, their legions fought initially at the Great crusade but on the long term they couldn't survive whithout them, slowly dying one by one, until noone was left and they were simply forgotten - they simply died, no need to keep records.
2)They were indeed found and lead their legions during the Great Crusade, but so far away that with the events of the Horus Heresy they were simply unable to return (I suppose that the "light" of the Holy Beacon was quite reduced at the end of the civil war). The Primarchs could probably have returned but they would have to abandon their legions and they would have never betray their own band of brothers. In my opinon this or something similar is the most probable answer. Too away to return, contact impossible or not wanted any more.
3)They simply deserted with their legions during/at the end of the war, and erased themselves from all Imperial records and fled far, far away (again beyond the reach of the beacon). They might have deduced/predicted how religious/fanatical the Imperium was going to become. Perhaps their homeworld/backgound or their understanding of the Emperor's vision (HE didn't want to be worshiped as a god, at the least initially) left them no other choice. We will never know, at least until GW decides to gain some bucks selling the story.
If you want we can improve the text into a: "Nothing is known about the two unknown Primarchs and their respective legions." + "Primarch" Rubineck. Probably it is better this way. Irulan 23:28, 12 February 2007 (CET)
I'm into 40K now for so many, many years, that the everpresent Primarch-threads are quite boring for me most of the time. Therefore I stick to facts (=printed, official sources), so all that we know is what I quoted above until officially contradicted or new sources turn up :) --Inquisitor S. 00:28, 13 February 2007 (CET)

Ok, I have a question regarding their creation. Where they created in Luna (Moon), or in subterranean laboratories under the Urals or under the Himalayas? I sincerly don't remember. Perhaps they were created on the Moon but quickly transfered to Earth, or something similar. Please give your source with your answer. Irulan 03:19, 22 February 2007 (CET)

The most recent quote I can find is that they were on Earth (Codex Space Marines 4), the older stuff i have says the same thing. As for where on earth, no idea.--Jonru 09:35, 22 February 2007 (CET)
Spontaneously I don't recall this being mentioned. That stuff about the Urals is completely unknown to me. In the Himalayas I think is the Astronomican. In the Warhammer 40.000 Compendium Dr. Devam Outek is being mentioned as possibly working on the Primarch project on Terra. I'm at work right now and can't check that but if you remind me later I can check that. --Inquisitor S. 14:17, 22 February 2007 (CET)


Ah but you are worng Inquisitor the two missing Primarch's did some thing to enrage the Emperor witch caused him to Expunge both Primarch's that is why they are not mentiond. If my memory serves me right in the Horus Heresy novels one of them talks of Magnus the red being told by the Emperor that if he continues his antics with the sorcery he will be deleted from Imperial records. You can also find this in the Horus Heresy Colected Visions book.

Not necessarily. Indeed on page 94 (ish) of Collected Visions it does say that Magnus would be removed from records, but it doesn't mean that the other two legions did the same thing, they could have been removed for very different reasons (being destroyed for example...).--Jonru 10:10, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
According to the Horus Heresy books, I believe "The First Heretic" leading lines from Lorgar indicate that only the Primarchs themselves were removed. Their legions were rolled into the Ultramarines to swell the ranks of Ultra's to over 500,000. What happened to the Primarchs themselves it is still up for grabs. It is known through the continuity of the books that the unknown Primarchs were found and took part in the first part of the Great Crusade. And that at some point were sanctioned and either destroyed or banished. In the book that covers Corax there are also suggestions as to the makeup of the genetics of at least one of those legions as no known legions possess the additions that were listed. If someone could look that up and make a cross section of the traits listed with known legions that would be awesome.


Nine loyal primarchs survived? We only know of 7.

I just noticed that the issue is even more unclear than I believed. If we believe the statement of WD 166 that 9 loyal primarchs survived the Horus Heresy then the 'two unknown ones' were loyalists.

To make it real simple, let's count up the loyal survivors: Lion El'Jonson, Leman Russ, Jagathai Khan, Rogal Dorn, Roboute Guilliame, Vulkan, and Corax. Only Seven, and Sanguinus and Ferrus Manus are allready dead so they don't count.

Unless someone can put some light in this issue, I will include this info in the article shortly. Irulan 20:47, 13 April 2007 (CEST)

If we're going to nitpick here - we could argue exactly the opposite. After all, Alpharius and his brother *WERE* loyal, and since the log of one of them's death is disputed in its veracity, it could be claimed nine loyal primarchs DID survive. At least eight certainly did. Sunyavadin 03:07, 21 September 2010 (BST)

Alpharis- Dead?

XX Alpharius unknown Alpha Legion traitor dead, killed by Roboute Guilliman - Weather he was killed or not is disputed amongst Alpha legion layers as:

"The account of Guilliman's attack on the Alpha Legion was taken from what appeared to be the personal log of an Ultramarine involved in the strike, though its validity has been questioned by both Inquisitors and the Ultramarines themselves, and it remains unclear as to whether Alpharius remains at large."

The popular belief is that it was a clone of Alpharius as a Primarch of his stature is unlikely to be killed by a single sword strike after dodging several bolter shells.

Popular belief is irrelevant (= fan-theory). The only known source tells us that he was slain by Guilliman. I grant you that the source is somewhat suspect (suppossedly the Inquisitor who wrote it was manipulated by the Alpha legion). But the major fact persists: Alpharius has not appeared in over 10'000 years. There have been 13 Black Crusades and Alpharius hasn't appeared in any of them. All the other fallen Primarchs (minus Nighthaunter) have appeared somewhere (even if inside of the Eye of Terror). So if we have only one source and a a fan-theory what is going to win? The source, of course. You will have to wait for more novels of the Horus Heresy series, I suspect that the death (or not) of Apharius will appear in one of the last books. Irulan 16:27, 19 August 2007 (CEST)

Horus' vision of the scattering

Well the quote in the article is correct. And the visions are induced by chaos and show how the primarchs were scattered. I also do not remember exactly if Erebus said something about this (can't look it up as I haven't got the novels here). The thing I changed before Irulan's edit was to make that sentence a bit less ambiguous as the way it was written it could mean that the scattering was orchestrated by chaos (which I doubt as official canon still leaves this unexplained) or the visions were orchestrated by chaos (which is correct in the novel False Gods). Werther the vision is a lie or not remains to be seen (after Irulan has reread the novel :P) and for me the question remains if this passage is relevant for the article. If it's a lie as Irulan thinks it is... then it has no added value besides the mention that Horus had an chaos induced vision about it and one of the lost primarchs (XI legion)... if it's not... I think it can remain in the article but should perhaps, IMHO, be rewritten a little to make it more clear the vision mentions one of the lost primarchs and make it fit better in the article than it does in it's current form.

Any thoughts on that? -- JoeneB, 2 September 2007, 14:46 (CEST)

1.) I seem to remember that there were some older official sources stating explicitly it was the Chaos Gods who "abducted" the incubator capsules. 2.) I don't think Irulan or anybody else can come up with an answer if the vision was real or not, given the nature of the description itself. --Inquisitor S. 18:23, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh yeah... but Irulan said in his edit description he thought Erebus said something about the visions in False Gods that indicated it were false visions or something...hence the reread, that was what I was referring to. Regarding the Chaos Gods taking the primarchs... ok I'm not aware of those sources so I believe you if you say so :) Then all that remains is a small rewrite I think.-- JoeneB, 2 September 2007, 18:54 (CEST)

Well personally I think that vision was false to drive a wedge between Horus and the Emperor, but as I said, I think this is one of GW's usual ambiguous stements which everybody can interprete in their own way. --Inquisitor S. 19:07, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

hmm that's a very plausible explanation of the vision. GW is good at that stuff, keeps the fans going ;) -- JoeneB, 2 September 2007, 19:29 (CEST)

Ok I finally re-read the relevant chapters (had lended the book to a friend). In truth it's impossible to be 100% sure. In page 323 Magnus says: "You must not believe whatever he has told you. It is lies, all of it. Lies that disguise his sinister purpose". I think that the whole vision (including the part of the XI tank) was only that: a vision (nothing more). I grant that the thought of Horus of "untapped glories that lay within, knowing they would never come to pass" are mystifying. But the part of his punch hiting the tank and cracking and killing half a dozen Custodes, facing Constantine Valdor and the Emperor face to face? If that part were really true the Emperor and Valdo would have recognized him, don't you all agree? In personal opinon: It is a lie, a lie, nothing but a lie (i.e. a false vision of the past). The vision of the future that Horus experiences however are a "possible future" according to Magnus. I think that the paragraph should be left as it is. Irulan 18:32, 17 September 2007 (CEST)


The current revision is not by me as stated in the history, i merely removed redmachine d's spam. Don't want to take credit for work I didn't do. thanks, that guy

You shouldn't care about "credit". --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 12:20, 2 July 2008 (CEST)

Lion El'Jonson

It says that the Emperor knows of Lion El'Jonson sleeping within the rock, is this legit? Where's the citation?--Vindicta 08:35, 10 January 2009 (CET)

Codex: Angels of Death (2nd Edition), p14, The Final Secret, last few words. I'll add cites.--Jonru 13:20, 10 January 2009 (CET)
Thanks, I'll add to this to Lion El'Jonson's article; it seems relevant enough (and important too).--Vindicta 13:25, 10 January 2009 (CET)

Discovery Order

Would the list benefit from adding what order the primarchs were re-united with the Emperor? I suppose this would hinge on whether or not this info has been revealed in the canon. I only know that Horus was first, Alpharius was last and Magnus the Red was discovered sometime before Lorgar (and vice versa). Kiwichris202 05:11, 25 January 2012 (CET)

I think this is a great idea. Maybe just make a heading and a numbered list. Something like this would be alright i think.
Done a bit of delving, Rogal Dorn was 7th and Moration was after Night Haunter, Roboute Guilliman and Corax. Kiwichris202 03:51, 26 January 2012 (CET)

Order of Discovery

  1. Horus - some information on where? when? blah blah
  2. Magnus - ^^
  3. Lorgar - ^^
  4. Alpharius (and Omegon) - ^^

Thoughts comrades?--Ytokes 07:13, 25 January 2012 (CET)

In the spirit of recording all information we have access to, I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't turn into a clusterfeth of edits based on suppositions and personal opinions (like what used to happen to the Blood Ravens page). We'd need to be pretty strict about it, ie stress the only ones we know for sure (Horus, Dorn, Alpharius Omegon) and then a listing of salient, cited and sourced facts (ie Magnus was present when Lorgar was discovered). That would actually be pretty useful for the people always arguing about this on forums, if done properly.--Mob 22:59, 7 February 2012 (CET)
Yeah I can understand where you're coming from Mob, the definite's can be listed but the known orders will need to be sourced and explained.--Ytokes 07:41, 8 February 2012 (CET)

False Gods Chapter Ten: Horus recalls that he was the only son of the Emperor for three decades.

The order currently listed (as sourced from Laurie Goulding) isn't accurate to the texts. In A Thousand Sons chapter 22, Ahriman tells Lemuel Gaumon that Mortarion, Corax, and Dorn despised the Sons' psychic powers in the time before Magnus was found, but the list puts Mortarion and Corax after Magnus. Although Corax, in Deliverance Lost, recalls that the Emperor told him about his seventeen brothers, there's no explicit mention of how many had already joined the Crusade. We'll have to alter the list unless a subsequent printing of ATS changes the named primarchs. DarkSoldier 09:43, 23 May 2013 (CEST)

Also, Magnus reminds Lorgar in The First Heretic chapter 10 that he was with the Emperor when he arrived on Colchis between one and two centuries ago. A Thousand Sons chapter 1 states that the Thousand Sons had been fighting the Crusade (under the name Magnus had given them) for less than a century. Magnus could not have been with the Emperor decades before he found him and I find it implausible that the Emperor would have taken Magnus to Colchis straight away without introducing him to his legion.
So far I can reliably put the discovery of the primarchs relative to each other in this order: Horus > Russ > Dorn > Lorgar > Mortarion > Angron > Magnus > Corax > Alpharius. Curze is after Dorn, Lorgar, Ferrus, and Fulgrim according to his memory in Prince of Crows. DarkSoldier 05:42, 29 May 2013 (CEST)
Chapter 14 of Vulkan Lives states that Vulkan was among the last rediscovered. DarkSoldier 07:08, 31 August 2013 (CEST)


Can someone upload the full-sized cover art for The Primarchs (Anthology)? This is the closest thing to an "official" group image of them.--Proteus77 20:18, 21 April 2012 (CEST)

Uploaded it, didn't want to put it in the article, figured you had a specific idea for it. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/File:The_primarchs_wall.jpg#.T5L_QTJSQtp --Mob 20:42, 21 April 2012 (CEST)

Rogal Dorn

I wonder why it is stated so difinitively that Rogal Dorn is dead here when there are rumors, also published by GW, that he is the leader of the Adeptus Custodes. (Author unknown)

Rogal Dorn is now officially listed as missing and "presumed" dead. According to the latest Space Marine codex he went missing after an attack on a chaos ship and only his hand was found. In the past this has been the way for GW to introduce cannon into otherwise convoluted back stories. Supes69
First: Rogal Dorn has never been rumored to be the leader of the Adeptus Custodes to my knowledge. Do you have any sources for this? He did lead the defense of Terra during the Horus Heresy though, maybe you have the two confused?
Second: I have looked through the new space marines codex and found no mention of Dorn being missing with only his hand found, could you please give me a page number? (I have formatted this page a little to keep it neater, previous 2 posts were disorganized and at the top of the article.) BrotherKeef 21:34, 2 April 2014 (CEST)
He may be referring to the Sentinels of Terra supplement rather than the 6th ed Marines codex. Misanthropy 01:58, 3 April 2014 (CEST)

Primarch Rediscovery

I have integrated the list into the main body of the table. Having a list stuck up on it's own looks clumsy and doesn't add anything of value. All of the information remains on the page, integrated alongside the other details of each Primarch. If it's desperately urgent to be able to see a list ordered by rediscovery, suggest changing the table so it is sortable. Personally I don't think it is.Phunting (talk)10:09, 27 May 2017 (MDT)

Happy, now sortable?Phunting (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2017 (MDT)
No, because they are two very different sections. Midnight Sun (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2017 (MDT)
So what? Do you want a section listing all of the homeworlds separately? What's the point? I've explained my thinking that it is neater to have them all in the same table. You've then started flinging around accusations of 'destruction' and 'vandalism'!
I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. Grateful if we could have a third opinion from someone else on which is preferable.Phunting (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2017 (MDT)
Discovery is an important component of the Primarchs, especially the order. Homeworld can easily be added to the discovery order with a location of the discovery. These are very separate things. Midnight Sun (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2017 (MDT)
Sure. But why does that have to be in a separate list that elongates the article and looks clumsy, when it can be neatly integrated into the main table without any loss of information? This looks like it comes down entirely to simple personal preference. I'm utterly happy to go with consensus on this if someone else wants to step in. You see, not trying to 'destroy' anything, it's just a simple disagreement over style!Phunting (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2017 (MDT)
Now the sole user who objected to this is no longer around, I've removed the separate list. All info still contained within the table.Phunting (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2018 (MDT)

Omegon labelled as a Loyalist?

In the list of primarchs while Alpharius is labelled as a traitor, Omegon is noted as a loyalist. Where is the confirmation of Omegon being loyal? Granted there have been hints that Omegon might have acted against Alpharius there doesn't seem to be anything concrete enough to call it a fact. White, The Augur of Ecstasy (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right that it's not accurate. It seems to be based on older lore that was implying Omegon was a Knights-Errant. Things have gotten more complicated since then and for all intents and purposes "Alpharius Omegon" is treated as a traitor primarch in current lore. I've reversed it. Good catch. Harriticus (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Objection to source

I object to source #17 being used as a source. What BL people do in their private time and webspace does not constitute a valid source for main article content. And the header of these forums makes the reliability very clear: "The content of this forum is not officially endorsed by Games Workshop, Black Library or Forge World and no challenge is made to any copyright or intellectual property." --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to originally include the source (I just updated it to an archived version), but this seems like a clear-cut example of a grey area (ignoring the fact that these aren't clear-cut by definition), as far as the Lexicanum's rules for accepted sources go. I assumed it must have already been discussed on the relevant page, but if it hasn't, then I'd be happy to open a discussion for it. -- The Warmaster (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I know the source was there before your edit. But as things often happen this attracted my attention only now because somebody touched it. And I agree that is not a clear cut case (otherwise I would have deleted it right away). So you're welcome to open a corresponding discussion as you clearly have busied yourself with the underlying issue already *thumbsup* --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Done, discussion opened. -- The Warmaster (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Forgot this discussion happened, but this timeline has now been backed up in its entirety in an official source: https://thehorusheresy.com/explore-the-galaxy The Warmaster (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
which doesn't forgive the fact that this troublesome primarch table is now again outside the borders of the site' graphical template for the sake of a trivial piece of information (read = it's ugly), which has a better use in each individual primarch' pages. --Siegfriedfr (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Messy Primarch Table

The Primarch table is completely out of hand, doesn't fit the site template and is a terrible user experience. I see there was an editing war about it years ago, so not gonna touch it before someone is able to give some input and ideas about clearing it up and making it fit with the sit layout. My first idea would be to put the "fate" text walls in a separate table, or even a different page since some people were intent on cramming all the info in a table that couldn't handle it.

--Siegfriedfr (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
You could move the portraits down into the page's image section as well? It seems a bit unnecessary to have those in the table itself. KazilDarkeye (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)