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.

 Wyzilla wrote:
How the hell is CSM fluff bad?

Bunch of boring, bland, one-dimensional villains that have zero depth outside of ridiculously childish behavior and lame excuses for their villainy.

I've seen Pokemon villains that had more depth than Chaos Space Marines. As for your criticism of Sisters of Battle, I take it you haven't actually READ any of their novels?

MarsNZ wrote:
You claimed CSM have good fluff and criticised SoB in the same post?

Now you've really done it...

Let us be honest, there are a lot of books out there that have SoB slaughtered in the dozens all the while a small unit of SPEES MUHRINEZ does the job in a unit of 5 . Also I'd argue CSM do have some good fluff books. HH tends to be hit or miss (probably leaning more miss and by more I mean quite so but this is true for both sides) but bar that there are some gems (and honestly this goes for all. Hurrah for Sturgeon's Law coupled with fans writing books as well as people that hardly know the world! And a realm of contradictory fluff)

It was never possible for me to particularly care about the overwhelming majority of the Horus Heresy, but meh; the only books I have particularly liked thus far are A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns, which are excellently written alongside one another, but sort of just okay on their own.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
How the hell is CSM fluff bad?

Bunch of boring, bland, one-dimensional villains that have zero depth outside of ridiculously childish behavior and lame excuses for their villainy.

I've seen Pokemon villains that had more depth than Chaos Space Marines. As for your criticism of Sisters of Battle, I take it you haven't actually READ any of their novels?

To be honest I can argue that for loyalist marines, IG, and pretty much every other faction. Especially loyalist marines though. Although I haven't really found an Eldar book I have really enjoyed yet. Also wait so how is a one dimensional villain bad but a one dimensional army of green fungi that just want war and act childish good? Also really the excuse for villainy varies from one to another.

Onto SoB books (when they are the focus), I personally enjoyed the James Swallow books but nothing beats a small article on a WD- The bones of Saint Emiline!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
It was never possible for me to particularly care about the overwhelming majority of the Horus Heresy, but meh; the only books I have particularly liked thus far are A Thousand Sons and Prospero Burns, which are excellently written alongside one another, but sort of just okay on their own.

To be honest my list of HH books aren't much better. Some of the first books, the two you mentioned, and one or two other novels that I have since forgotten (if I remember I will edit them in) are really the only ones I found "good". Some were entertaining but more like a guilty pleasure in the this is so bad it is good.

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be honest I can argue that [...] Especially loyalist marines though.

You aren't going to find me disagreeing too hard. "Bolter Porn" isn't very interesting to me.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Also wait so how is a one dimensional villain bad but a one dimensional army of green fungi that just want war and act childish good?

Orks have a huge amount of subtle differences that show exactly how alien they are; but nothing they do is inherently illogical from the standpoint of a race that cares for nothing but war.

It's probably wrong to call them one-dimensional, really. Orks are a careful balance of seriousness and comedy; they take everything they do quite seriously, and they love every second of it... but to us, it is a strange, silly, alien worldview that we find hard to understand, and often find quite amusing. Yet in-universe they are frightening, an unbeatable horde that will NEVER stop waging war because waging war is their greatest love, their raison d'etre-- you can try to deal with them, but they'll just figure out how to make those deals in to something that helps them wage war. Yet sometimes this results in something that is meta-funny, like the warboss who went back in time to steal a second copy of his own gun. Makes perfect sense that he'd do that. But its' still hilarious!

It's this balance that elevates Orks from "meh, they're just a boring horde" to something better.

They're the race that exists to be knocked over by the good guys.

It's sad, the Orks were my first love in 40k, even before the Necrons, but it's true.

Chaos Marine fluff varies depending on where exactly you are looking. The only thing we can say for certain is that it is infinitely more exciting than Sisters of Battle fluff.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
They're the race that exists to be knocked over by the good guys.

We're talking about Orks, not Chaos Space Marines

Orks are interesting in their own right, even without any "good guys"; see Deff Skwadron

Chaos Space Marines require Loyal Space Marines in order to exist, to work as lore. Orks work by themselves, even with no other faction to play them off of, because they can play off of our own culture and expectations, our own base assumptions on how people act.

I think chaos Marines have some of the most interesting fluff out there. Their 'heroes' are usually far more multi-demensional than most loyalist characters.

But I also love the HH books, which are popular to criticize at the moment. I think they're fantastic and some of the best stuff GW has put out. So, what do I know?

Having different opinions/tastes in books is not bad, and me disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm saying you're a bad person.

Though I was working under the assumption that this was the assumed state of things in this forum, given that we are talking about the lore of a setting that explicitly states "believe what you want to about our lore" as its standard for what is and isn't canon.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
How the hell is CSM fluff bad?

Bunch of boring, bland, one-dimensional villains that have zero depth outside of ridiculously childish behavior and lame excuses for their villainy.

I've seen Pokemon villains that had more depth than Chaos Space Marines. As for your criticism of Sisters of Battle, I take it you haven't actually READ any of their novels?

That same criticism can be levied against Orks; they're ridiculously childish, bland, and have lame excuses for wanting to fight people. At least Aaron Dembski-Bowden manages to create compelling characters in his novels about the Night Lords. I don't know of any fluff that makes Orks seem the least bit compelling.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
How the hell is CSM fluff bad?

Bunch of boring, bland, one-dimensional villains that have zero depth outside of ridiculously childish behavior and lame excuses for their villainy.

I've seen Pokemon villains that had more depth than Chaos Space Marines. As for your criticism of Sisters of Battle, I take it you haven't actually READ any of their novels?

You're clearly reading the wrong novels. The right ones have them as the protagonists.

And as for their motivations, it's likely simply you not understanding them. Astartes bear much similarity to the Bushido code with pledges of unwavering loyalty, hence why the majority of Legions stayed loyal to the traitor Primarchs and followed them into the maw of hell itself. Plus motivations of CSM's is a gigantic pool to draw from, ranging from renegade to devout worshiper of Chaos, whereas with most loyalist and Astartes it will boil down to love of the emperor, defending the imperium, fighting heretics, etc. Whereas CSM's typically are a rowdy bunch of pirate warmongers having much more in common with the original characterization of Astartes, which works well with them. There's a whole rainbow of flavors whereas with the Imperium you're stuck with a small collection of character choices.

 Melissia wrote:
We're talking about Orks, not Chaos Space Marines

I don't think you quite understand what I mean.

Chaos Marines are in any given story generally the big bads, or at least a very elite dragon. In some older Abnett work, like First and Only, this is not the case, but for the most part if Chaos Marines are involved then gak is going down.

Orks are usually just a speedbump, a horde of nameless barbarians who only exist to provide something to be mowed down in droves by the protagonist, and are rarely the main threat. You get a few exceptions. Helsreach was a particularly notable novel where the Orks were both the only threat the Black Templars fought, but were also very dangerous. At one point, through their own low cunning, they manage to incapacitate an Emperor Titan that until then was entirely unopposed in its onslaught. But these instances are rare.

Orks are interesting in their own right, even without any "good guys"; see Deff Skwadron

Other than Deff Skwadron though, what notable Ork books are there? Blood and Thunder? Most disappointing 40k work I've ever read. I really expected so much more.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Other than Deff Skwadron though, what notable Ork books are there?

That is less the fault of the faction and more the fault of GW's intense focus on the Imperium.

Or more accurately, its focus on Space Marines, and to a lesser extent, the Imperial Guard and Inquisition.

 Wyzilla wrote:
You're clearly reading the wrong novels. The right ones have them as the protagonists.

I struggle to finish ANY Space Marine book most of the time, never mind a CSM-focused one.

 Melissia wrote:

Black Knight wrote:
The only reason Orks exist

Orks are far too awesome to need a reason to exist.

Their love of fighting is something that is truly alien, they take it to the logical extreme in every way. That's a good amount of the reason why they're both funny AND frightening, which gives them far more depths than boring factions like CSMs.

Except that CSM's are the logical extremes of humanity when it is set free of all restrictions.

But, y'know, that can't ever be interesting.

Hey, Melissia, I've got a message for ya.

Kisses,
Children of Torment

 SarisKhan wrote:
Hey, Melissia, I've got a message for ya.

Kisses,
Children of Torment

Said the *Noise* Marine

Exalted

Here's my favorite Chaos book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

 MWHistorian wrote:
Here's my favorite chaos book.

Spoiler:

Fix'd

Ah...

Rule #1, everyone.

Seriously.

2014!

Melissia, ever heard of the Night Lords books?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Melissia, ever heard of the Night Lords books?

Yes, what of them?

I wasn't impressed.

 StarTrotter wrote:
oh and most of SoB appearances. Watch the loyalists be 100x better and sisters gain faith from watching SPEES WULVES!

As I've said before, I don't think that the majority of fluff involving the SoB is bad, just the most prominent of it. Remember, lots of fluff portraying the SoB well is back in older times, and often in more obscure sources. On top of that, the bad portrayals often get way more hype. Just look at the hubbub that the Bloodtide kicked off next to most other pieces of fluff, and you can understand why people may have become more concious of fluff that portrays the Sisters badly.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Let us be honest, there are a lot of books out there that have SoB slaughtered in the dozens all the while a small unit of SPEES MUHRINEZ does the job in a unit of 5

Already addressed that above, but I'd also point out that BL books isn't so bad to the SoB. After all, we still have James Swallow's three SoB works, Daemonblood, Ben Counter's first Grey Knights novel and Daemonifuge all giving a very good portrayal of the Sisters too. Also, a lot of books might be overstating it a little.

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Melissia, ever heard of the Night Lords books?

Yes, what of them?

I wasn't impressed.

Quite the irony, since I found them better than pretty much any loyalist, IG or SoB book.

And I found them tedious and boring. Everyone has different tastes.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Melissia, ever heard of the Night Lords books?

Yes, what of them?

I wasn't impressed.

Quite the irony, since I found them better than pretty much any loyalist, IG or SoB book.

Not sure that's really irony, just two people liking different things.

 Troike wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Melissia, ever heard of the Night Lords books?

Yes, what of them?

I wasn't impressed.

Quite the irony, since I found them better than pretty much any loyalist, IG or SoB book.

Not sure that's really irony, just two people liking different things.

I think the irony is that each side thinks that the other is bland, whiney and boring.

I agree.

Kill the loyalists!

 Troike wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
oh and most of SoB appearances. Watch the loyalists be 100x better and sisters gain faith from watching SPEES WULVES!

As I've said before, I don't think that the majority of fluff involving the SoB is bad, just the most prominent of it. Remember, lots of fluff portraying the SoB well is back in older times, and often in more obscure sources. On top of that, the bad portrayals often get way more hype. Just look at the hubbub that the Bloodtide kicked off next to most other pieces of fluff, and you can understand why people may have become more concious of fluff that portrays the Sisters badly.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Let us be honest, there are a lot of books out there that have SoB slaughtered in the dozens all the while a small unit of SPEES MUHRINEZ does the job in a unit of 5

Already addressed that above, but I'd also point out that BL books isn't so bad to the SoB. After all, we still have James Swallow's three SoB works, Daemonblood, Ben Counter's first Grey Knights novel and Daemonifuge al giving a very good portrayal of the Sisters too. Also, a lot of books might be overstating it a little.

Ah my apologies then. I'll admit I really don't buy that many BL books. I bought a few HH (and all involving TS because they are my favorite legion followed by Salamanders), James Swallow's three works after your recommendation of them, some eisenstein, and then quite a couple guardsman books. Well then, I'm glad to hear I was wrong! Just haven't had the best of luck with what I have read I guess.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Ah my apologies then. I'll admit I really don't buy that many BL books. I bought a few HH (and all involving TS because they are my favorite legion followed by Salamanders), James Swallow's three works after your recommendation of them, some eisenstein, and then quite a couple guardsman books. Well then, I'm glad to hear I was wrong! Just haven't had the best of luck with what I have read I guess.

Nah, no apology needed. It's a common misconception.

Did you enjoy the James Swallow SoB stuff, by the way?

 Melissia wrote:
That is less the fault of the faction and more the fault of GW's intense focus on the Imperium.

Not really. Orks get dragged through the mud in the BL worse than any other xenos. Yeah, Tau, Daemons and Eldar lose to the Imperium, but they also have a ton of wins, too. (There is an entire trilogy centered around Eldar spanking Imperium for example, which includes a Space Marine chapter being all but extinguished.)

There also plenty of Chaos centered books that are all about CSM handing it to the Imperium (Night Lords trilogy, Iron Warriors omnibus to name a few).

So you can't really hide behind any perceived GW bias for the Imperium here.

Orks are necks to be stepped on in most novels because they're a goofy race of cockney accented fodder and they have the numbers to not go extinct because of it.

 Troike wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Ah my apologies then. I'll admit I really don't buy that many BL books. I bought a few HH (and all involving TS because they are my favorite legion followed by Salamanders), James Swallow's three works after your recommendation of them, some eisenstein, and then quite a couple guardsman books. Well then, I'm glad to hear I was wrong! Just haven't had the best of luck with what I have read I guess.

Nah, no apology needed. It's a common misconception.

Did you enjoy the James Swallow SoB stuff, by the way?

Yes! I quite enjoyed it.