# Ibram Gaunt or Ciaphas Cain: Who's Better?



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

So the question has been raised in other forums about Gaunt vs. Cain. Some favor Cains with his comic/cowardly side and his partners null powers, while others favor Gaunt's heroic actions and a regiment of bad ass killers behind him. so who's better, or who would win in a duel?

Tell us why you would vote for one or the other, and where the novel series should go.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Could you have spelt his first name any more wrong lol. Ibram*

I've not read any of the Cain novels, but I just can't see him being better than Gaunt, even without the likes of Mkoll, Rawne and Varl backing him up.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> Could you have spelt his first name any more wrong lol. Ibram*
> 
> I've not read any of the Cain novels, but I just can't see him being better than Gaunt, even without the likes of Mkoll, Rawne and Varl backing him up.


Isn't he Abraham's brother?


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm sympathetic toward Cain as he's not just a decent sort; he's a ray of hope that you don't need to be a Space Marine, a fanatical warlord, or a murderous Inquisitor to make it in 40k. At the end of the day, I would much rather be a Ciaphas Cain than an Ibram Gaunt. :wink:


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

I've never read the Caphais Cain series but isn't he portrayed as a goofy, lives by his luck sort of guy who unintentionally became a hero?

Ibram has his moments though where he values the life of those he fights with even when his job description says they're all canon fodder.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

I hate these threads, but the title was just cringe worthy beyond belief. Its *Ibram*, not Imbraham. Also, its *Ciaphas*, not Caiphas...

But while at it, Gaunt would eat Cain for breakfast.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Trying to ignore that title for now, my vote has to go with Cain on this one.

Gaunt is a briliant tactition, inspiring leader, and superb fighter however he has generally only been pitted against more human oriented foes. He has only taken on a few chaos marines, and though he did go toe to toe with a chaos warlord it was just the one (unless he has fought another one in Salvations Reach.)

Cain, on the other hand, has fought against Ork nobs and at least one warboss, daemons, Tyranids, and genestealers. Despite Cain downplaying his skills in his series, its noted time and again that he is both an excellent shot and swordsmen; he has been able to stand up to genestealers on his own (you know those things that give space marine terminators a tough time.) And while he may always be looking to keep himself away from danger, Cain is still a fairly decent tactition in his own right. He does manage to bring two former regiments together as one cohesive unit, rally a regiment in the wake of a Tyranid invasion, form an ad-hoc army and fight across an enemy controlled continent, and prevent a chaos cult from corrupting a planet.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Let me just fix that title and proceed to be the first to vote for Cain.


----------



## maelstrom48 (Sep 5, 2012)

You are a jerk for posting this thread. This is one of those rare choices no man should ever be forced to make.

But for me personally, Ciaphas. I love how bifurcated his character is. On the surface, he's such a coward. In truth, he's a hero, but that truth is buried so deep that even he doesn't know it. And sometimes as a reader, you can be fooled into believing it too. His internal dialogue is hilarious.

Also, for Gaunt, you need to view his character through the lens of his regiment, all the various characters who narrate throughout the story. _They_ flesh him out. Whereas Ciaphas, all the reader needs to know how awesome he is, is him. And maybe Jurgen.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

It seems Ciaphas' cowardice is taken as a fact. I've only read a couple of the 'Cain' novels, but it was my impression that they were told from the perspective of the authorities, based on Cain's own journals, interviews, and recollections... and that the authors of these reports doubted his supposed cowardice.


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

maelstrom48 said:


> You are a jerk for posting this thread.


Ouch now I feel bad, sorry bro  Shout to Serpion5, thnxs for fixing that bro

Anyway I apologize for butchering the name, I had Imbraham here in the "First and Only" novel. 

Anyway I would vote Gaunt simply because he provides a better story. Cain is unique in that he is comical, and a hero. Gaunt on the other hand brings a better story with twists in the plot that make one drool to keep reading the book until you find out you finished it within two hours(As I did once to my dismay). 

I feel it's more down to the writers. Dan Abnett's a better writers in my opinion than Sandy Mitchell, plain and simple.


----------



## TraitorsHand (Sep 19, 2010)

In a duel? Cain would take it. He has been stated numerous times to be an extremely talented swordsman taking on khorne beserkers (Granted Jurgen usually does the melta-kill), genestealers, Orks including nobs, and a Warboss that he fought and killed without Jurgens aid, a Daemon Prince(ess), Sparta kicking a chaos lord, and various other baddies. 

Better Commissar? Tie. Both are inspiring as while Cain may be 'cowardly' his mere presence does turn around the situation such as Guardsmen instantly rallying in his presence, gathering a large force of militia and PDF to overthrow ork occupation, earning respect from the Tau for his 'honorable' nature, and holding a planet with a few PDF forces and Commissar cadets from a full-blown chaos incursion. 

Neither of them are 'gun-ho' shoot that man for blinking out of line, so we can discount that as both 'care' for the well-fare of their soldiers. 

Tactical abilities? Gaunt. While Cain does have a good tactical sense shown numerous times where he spots an ambush or tactical situation before others and has shown he is a more then capable leader. Gaunt does it everyday, while Cain does not. Personally, I hate the 'Commissar-Colonel' business. 

Overall? Cain. If they fought, Cain's superior dueling skills would tell until Gaunt's powersword cleaved through Cain's trusty chainsword, but Gaunt would overextend himself due to Cain's epic 'DODGE!' skills, and Jurgen would melta him removing his upper half. Duel resolved, Cain would give Jurgen a hesitant pat on the back, as who knows when he last washed, and head off to go and enjoy a nice evening with his Inquisitor.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Well it makes zero sense that he was able to take on all the enemies you mentioned.

Is it not stated that most of his deeds are made up and have no actual sources?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

i cant really decide between the two, Gaunt cares for his men, is a warrior of his time and is not afraid to take the fight to the enemy.

Cain...now Cain tries his best to get away from the fight but even when he has put himself in the shit he always come up smelling of roses...i have laughed more times at Cains exploits then any other so i really cant decide.


----------



## TraitorsHand (Sep 19, 2010)

Fighting Khorne Beserkers, Demoness - Traitors Hand

Fighting Genestealers - For the Emperor, Emperors Finest, The Greater Good

Fights a Psyker assassin - Duty Calls

Sparta kicks - Last Stand 

Earning Tau respect - For the Emperor, The Greater Good

Some of his deeds and sources. If you mean in story that he makes them up then no as more then half of them have the Inquisitor editing his journal present, and she verifies it.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Well in any case, it's stupid that the author decided that an unaugmented human could even _scratch _any of those enemies.

An inquisitor like Eisenhorn with everything he's gone through in the books and Pariah? A _tiny _ maybe.


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

Malus Darkblade said:


> Well in any case, it's stupid that the author decided that an unaugmented human could even _scratch _any of those enemies.












That's the nature of the Cain books.

The Gaunt series is rooted in realism. It's trademark gritty, smoke-clogged Abnett. Cain is not. If you're willing to take Cain's stunts at face value, he wins.


----------



## Gromrir Silverblade (Sep 21, 2010)

^ ^ Massive Lols for the lovely animation. I have never read any of the Cain books but I always liked that in Necropolis Gaunt basically does the work of a Lord General and shows how rubbish most of them really are, then steps down and leads his men in a fight against a Chaos Warlord.


----------



## TraitorsHand (Sep 19, 2010)

Why? If it happens in fantasy, all is well. Magnus beating Asavar Kul that's ok. Even if some people debate on if he did or not as one book said he did and another says he did not. I prefer to believe he did not.

An elector count impaling Vlad, most powerful of the Von Carstien Vampires, with his runefang and 'killing' him, that's ok. Said vlad being tackled off a wall by an old priest, that's ok, a Bretonnian Duke striking down a Chaos lord in single combat, that's ok. But the second anything resulting in a normal human being able to accomplish anything by the strength of his will, and his luck, in 40k it becomes utterly ridiculous. I hate that about 40k. 

You may hate Cain, or you simply love Gaunt, but whatever the case, like it or not, those are some of the Hero of the Imperium's feats. In a duel, Cain takes it.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Malus Darkblade said:


> Well in any case, it's stupid that the author decided that an unaugmented human could even _scratch _any of those enemies.
> 
> An inquisitor like Eisenhorn with everything he's gone through in the books and Pariah? A _tiny _ maybe.


It's all situation dependant. I may as well ask how realistic it is for a few hundred individuals to fight off a few hundred thousand people at a pass, for that matter.

Personally, I just look to see how well-written the scene in question is, and whether what the author tried to convey rely strictly on his say-so or if there was some logic to it.

Case in point, Dan Abnett gets tons of flack for his Ghosts taking on three or four Chaos Space Marines in one of his novels. As written, there's nothing really wrong with the scene he described. The way his unaugmented Guardsmen took down those genetically engineered, Chaos-enhanced Space Marines is probably how one would have to do so. Was the scene perfect? No. I suppose anyone who has read Abnett's 'Know No Fear' would be curious as to why those Traitors lacked the same super-senses, etc., which might have rendered the Ghosts' gambits null. On the other hand, Abnett properly conveyed that these Traitors were monstrously arrogant and were more focused on what they considered to be a slaughter-fest rather than a proper military operation.

The problem, I suspect, is when you have so many such scenes in a novel where the reader loses suspension of disbelief and focuses instead on the fact that one of the setting's key themes (the power of the Space Marines, in this question) is being disregarded. Is this the case here? I don't know. I've only read one Cain novel (and I'm about to start on the second).


----------

