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

Hi guys,
I'm quite bored so was thinking about 40k novels and was wondering
who is the best 40k author and why?

How about a poll?

Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

By such a large margin that the others might as well not even bother showing up.

Dan Abnett is the man. His take on the Imperial Guard is classic, and his work on the Inquisition, taking us inside the actual "normal" culture of the Imperium was excellent. Titanicus was an incredible amount of fun as well.

Sandy Mitchell is really good too and Ciaphas Cain's a legend because of Mitchell's skill, but few people have added to the fluff or created a chunk of universe quite the way Abnett has.

Dan Abnett and Aaron Dembski-Bowden have always been my favourites.

Special mention goes to Graham McNeil and Nick Kyme. McNeil writes the occasional BL novel I really like, and as for Kyme Ive really enjoyed his Salamander's trilogy.

I've not read any of ADBs stuff - but SM in the heresy just don't interest me. I read Mechanicus, but really don't care about any of the space marine chapters enough to want to read about them.

Abnett's stuff is good, though.

Kaldor wrote:Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

By such a large margin that the others might as well not even bother showing up.

Yep. ADB is the man!

Dan Abnett. Really great writer.

Aaron Dembski-Bowden is my favourite 40k author, closely followed by Dan Abnett and Graham McNeill.

Dan Abnet, closely follwowed by the one who wrote Thousand Sons. sorry but I can't remember his name

I haven't read a lot of ADB, but my favourite 40K writer so far is Dan Abnett, as I have read almost everything he has ever written, with the only exception of Titanicus and his Horus Heresy novels.

matapata98 wrote:Dan Abnet, closely follwowed by the one who wrote Thousand Sons. sorry but I can't remember his name

Graham McNeill.

As to my favorite author, I'm gonna have to echo everyone who has said ADB.

Ian Watson..... *sigh* such an amazing book!

Dan abnetts a hack, he can write a fair phrase but his stories suck look at the space wolf book prospero burns, it has 1 chapter that has anything to do with the title of the book, the thousand sons spent a good portion going into depth about the fight and abnett spends a single measly chapter on it.

Gaunts ghosts started off okay but after book four he fell into what would become well known flaws in his writing such as inventing tech that does not or could not exist in the 40k canon, his pretty female chars never die, his special charecters can take on a squad of chaos space marines and not take a single casualty in return etc etc.

Look at eisenhorn he has a whole group of pariahs serving him even though they are always mentioned to be rare, do you really think the Culexus Temple would let him keep all of them when they are so valuable?

Never mind a whole world where everyone has access to speeders that use rare suspensor tech.

This has become a bit of a rant but it really irks me that he gets such praise when he's average at best.

Nobody's said it?

Matt Ward! (Note that I (though I once hated it) am a fan of the new Necron fluff).

Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

By such a large margin that the others might as well not even bother showing up.

He is epic, Night lords ENOUGH SAID.

I have to disagree with hobo, I think Dan Abnett is just brilliant, particularly the Eisenhorn series. Yes, he adds things into his book. So what, this is 40k, we all know there is no set cannon, particularly in terms of tech (every codex has 'brand new tech' which didn't used to exist). And they aren't pariahs in Eisenhorn's staff, just Untouchables. I think I've had to rebuy that omnibus, I read it to pieces...and The Saint omnibus is on its way to its second copy (kind of funny considering) and so is Ravenor.

I like Mitchell too, but there is too much recycling of phrases by the end, it ate at me...and I had (re)read the Flashman series just before getting onto Mitchell's work, and while Cain isn't that much of a prick, it was similar enough that I should probably give it another go when Flashman wasn't the last series I read.

When ABD is good, he's really good.

But Dan Abnett is consistently good, so I'll go with him.

hobojebus wrote:Dan abnetts a hack, he can write a fair phrase but his stories suck look at the space wolf book prospero burns, it has 1 chapter that has anything to do with the title of the book, the thousand sons spent a good portion going into depth about the fight and abnett spends a single measly chapter on it.

Gaunts ghosts started off okay but after book four he fell into what would become well known flaws in his writing such as inventing tech that does not or could not exist in the 40k canon, his pretty female chars never die, his special charecters can take on a squad of chaos space marines and not take a single casualty in return etc etc.

Look at eisenhorn he has a whole group of pariahs serving him even though they are always mentioned to be rare, do you really think the Culexus Temple would let him keep all of them when they are so valuable?

Never mind a whole world where everyone has access to speeders that use rare suspensor tech.

This has become a bit of a rant but it really irks me that he gets such praise when he's average at best.

Is that why when Chaos Marines show up they immediately fall back?
He makes things up but they're not exactly outside of the realm of 40k. Bare in mind that he, as well as other writers, are the guys who WRITE the fluff. They ARE the fluff.
If you're that upset by land speeders in a universe that...already contained land speeders, then so be it.

Ultimately, it depends on what you want to read about.

Dan Abnett is great for Inquisiotiral and IG stuff. He's not bad for other stuff, although I find anything beyond those first two rather hit or miss. Regardless of the story and what may think of it, his characterizations are generally top-notch and always enjoyable even if the plot is average (I'm thinking Legion here, mainly, and for me the jury is still out whether that will ultimately be a better novel in the long term once we know more about the behind the scenes machinations.)

ADB is IMHO good in an all around way. He writes good IG, he writes good Space Marines and CSM, etc. As a testament to his writing, I tend to loathe the Word Bearers with a deep seated passion, and ADB's 'First Heretic' (which I expected to hate reading) was actually rather enjoyable. If he can make me tolerate WB, the man can write IMHO.

Sandy Mitchell is pretty meh when it comes to plots (Ciaphas Cain pretty much lags in latter books for the repetition) but I think he writes some of the best non-grimdark characters around. Quirky, weird, and generally not the silly caricatures you might expect from, say, a codex.

Ben Counter is hit or miss when it comes to things. I dislike Soul Drinkers, but I like his IG stuff, I LOVE his Grey Knights stuff (except for Dark Adeptus and the short story 'sacrifice'). I like his Sisters of Battle stuff, and I generally like naything he does that involves Chaos and the warp in one way or another. That's his gift.

Graham McNeill I like for Ultramraines and AdMech and Imperial Guard. I dislike his CSM oriented books (Except for Thousand Sons, and that is mainly because its only indirectly CSM - more 'traitor' than actual warp worshippers.)

James Swallow? Good for SoB although they get on my nerves with their sanctimony sometimes, kind of hit or miss with alot of other stuff. Would do better doing AdMech like McNeill, rather than Space Marines. (Blood Angels is really hit or miss for me. Although I iliked Nemesis, so he could do Assassins.)

Rob Sanders: I didn't care much for his IG novel (mostly for the characerization) but the guy has improved and he's grown on me. I like both Atlas Infernal and Legion of the Damned. The former for its sheer quirkiness and the idea of a Radical leaning Inquisitor who seems more like a rejuvenated mad scientist/explorer (think 'Sliders' with chainswords.) and the latter for the the way LoTD was constructed and excuted. The characterizations and buildup were ab it slow to start, but once you got into the book it was downright fantastic right til the end.

Nick Kyme is pretty hit or miss for stories, but is generally great for 'humane', non grimdark characters. Not exactly 'Codex adhering' fluff, but I generally like how he wirtes his people in general. The Salamanders novels are a prime example - great characters (I love He'stan) but the plot and story kinda fell through for me up to Nocturne (I mainly feel it failed to deliver on the epic the buildup of the first two novels promised.) I actually like his Sicarius Ultramarines stuff for the characterizations as well, especialyl the human-Astartes interactions of both Assault on Black Reach AND Fall of Damnos.

Gav Thorpe - I like him mainly for Last Chancers and Some of his Eldar stuff (just something non Imperial is worthwhile to read.) Oh and Angels of Darkness, its the best Dark Angels novel bar none. I'm also partial to his Raptors Marauders short stories and the Karis Cephelon oriented ones.

Steve Lyons: Mostly written IG novels I know of. I disliked Dead Men Walking (too much emphasis on grimdark, not enough on the tragedy and dehumanization inflicted upon the poor Kriegers. Writing it as a tragedy would have carried far better impact than the novel had.) Ice Guard is IMHO his best work.

Steve Parker: I rank him up there with Abnett, McNeill, ADB, and Mitchell. I enjoyed Rebel Winter. I enjoyed Gunheads. I enjoyed the HEll out of Rynn's World and I love his Deathwatch short stories. The guy can write great characters AND rather great stories. He's got a bit of Sandy Mitchell and Abnett rolled into one.

Bill King: I love his Space Wolf stuff, but I love his IG stuff (He wrote a short story in one of the old anthologies that was just great, and Macharius is great too.) I think my favorite Space Wolf novel was 'Wolfblade' simply for the approach and risks he took with it (esp MIGHTY HAEGR!) it had humour and drama without drawing from the Space Marine aspects of the story.

Chris Wraight: I'll be blunt. I'm rather biased towarsd Bill King, so I'm not a big fan of Battle of the Fang. Which isn't to say it isn't well written, but I just didn't like the Space Wolf characteirzation. I actually found myself drawn more towards the Thousand Son characters in the book for the feeling of tragedy there. It was like a repeat of 'A Thousand Sons' at the end, in a way. And I loved bjorn and his Dreadnoughts for their interaction with the Fenrisians. On the plus side, I really enjoyed Wrath of Iron, even though the Iron Hands still come off as colossal jerks because of the way the plot was executed. Definitely a tragedy sort of thing, and writing Space Marine tragedy well is rather hard to do. (His human characters are quite likable too, and the fact they are also tragic only plays into that, IMHO.)

Goto: YEs, Goto. I like his Death Watch stuff. I hate his Eldar stuff. Eldar prophecy is the worst novel I have ever read, and I have never touched it (nor will I ever).

Andy Chambers: I liked Ancient History, I liked deus Ex Mechanicus, and I wsa surprised to find I liked Path of the Renegade (I'm not a Dark Eldar fan.) I can't wait to see what he writes next.


So its really hard for me to pick a single 'Best' author, because there's always something to like about them, and it really depends on what your'e reading about. This is also going to make it hard to get a consensus on 'best' as well, because when it comes to 40K people are drawn to it for lots of various reasoms (a specific faction or race or character, for example) and the tastes will always differ. And because the authors differ as much as the tastes, the perception of those authors will likewise differ and attract different people. (EG the perception that Abnett is bad at writing 'proper' Space Marines often comes with the idea that he overpowers his Guardsmen. It's not a universeally held belief, but it reflects how the tastes and attitudes of people can differ. Likewise, while I absolutely loathe Honsou, some people evidently like him and the Iron Warriors stuff.)