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.

I thought ADB did a great job on EoE, though i find all his work to be top quality.

Feel free to differ though. I know ADB browses online forums so hopefully if he sees this topic he takes the positives from or rather than the negatives.

BrianDavion wrote:

What do I think?

I think the idea that a deamon prince isn't really the person anymore is 100% CORRECT. they've been absorbed be a chaos god. of COURSE it's an open question, how much of them is really left!

If you enjoy gakky writing without pathos or any narrative weight where the fascist Imperium is portrayed as overly justified in their actions sure.

as for what I think of Angron, I buy it. I'm gonna level something with you buddy.. ANGRON ISN'T A GOOD FIGHTER He's a Bezerker who rushes in and bulldozes his way past everything.

Hey I have a question.

Why do you post in this section of the forum if you know basically nothing about 40k's background?

If your knowledge of Angron as a character amounts to him not being a bad fighter you're more ignorant of the fluff than someone who gets all of their fluff from lexicanum or 1d4chan.

Angron, the Primarch who crushed Guilliman and even Leman Russ in a duel isn't a good fighter now? The one whom Corax believes could only be defeated by maybe two other Primarchs (one of them Sanguinius yes) in single combat? The one Lorgar believes they need on their side because he's the only one who can stand against Sanguinius in martial combat (so much for that)? Angron has the absolute most accolades of any of the traitor Primarchs and possibly all of them when it comes to dueling.

Being among the best at fighting one on one is Angron's sole niche among the Primarchs. The only thing he's good at. And you don't even know that?

meanwhile Sanguinus is constantly described as one of the most skilled Primarchs, with literal pre-cognation. I can TOTALLY belive Sanginius was capable of defeating Angron. especially as Angron's had his demon form long eneugh that he's proably adapted himself for it. and that means accepting that "yeah I can take its and just heal them" In short Angron's fighting like Wolverine.

Your reading comprehension is pretty bad my friend. I don't even necessarily mind Sanguinius beating Angron. It's Angron being nearly effortlessly defeated and humiliated I take issue with. Think of it from a World Eater fan's perspective. One of them reads that. How are they supposed to get excited or feel anything at all for the upcoming release of the World Eaters codex or Angron's model? When Angron is sold as the biggest melee powerhouse of the Primarchs and his Legion as the most dangerous melee combatants of the Chaos Marines, how are they supposed to see that as anything but a bad joke?

It's even worse outside of a vacuum. The Siege of Terra has been the traitor Primarchs being treated like gak one after the other, almost as if they panicked at the end of the story when they realized how much more underdeveloped and boring the loyalist Primarchs and Sanguinius in particular were by comparison so they have to overcompensate by making the traitor Primarchs and Angron in particular clowns.

As for Magnus not "knowing immediatly how to deal with Vulcan, well.. I guess Magnus hadn't read 'Vulcan lives"

You don't appear to be aware of the events of the novel, so one wonders why you're responding at all? Not only did Magnus have knowledge of Vulkan's status as a perpetual, but Magnus literally killed him hundreds or thousands of times in a row, each time taking a little more damage until Vulkan can prevail.

Magnus, and all of the Primarchs, are supposed to have superhuman intellects with a nearly peerless grasp of tactics and strategy. So after a couple times where Vulkan immediately resurrects after being killed it doesn't occur to him to, idk, push him off the bridge I think they were fighting on? Cut his arms and legs off but keep him alive? Toss him into orbit? Freeze him below the neck? Any way to immobilize or remove him without killing him?

Though I suppose it does make sense given ADB's idiotic assertion that it's not really Magnus anymore and just some dumbass daemon pretending to be him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SideSwipe wrote:
I thought ADB did a great job on EoE, though i find all his work to be top quality.

Feel free to differ though. I know ADB browses online forums so hopefully if he sees this topic he takes the positives from or rather than the negatives.

Hopefully he does the right thing and quits his career as a writer tbh.

No.. Angron is a bezerker, he's an effective fighter, normally, but he is not a skilled fighter. He's a bezerker.

I didn't think Angron was effortlessly defeated. Sanguinius had to trick him by dropping his guard so Angron would run him through and give Sanguinius a pivotal opening.

There's a point at which Angron is convinced he's won and is gloating to Sanguinius, while Horus psychically urges him to finish Sanguinius off.

I certainly wouldn't describe that as an effortless victory.

I think they must have put different pages in Void_Dragon's version to the rest of us.

That assumes he has even read it

good point there Tneva. I've heard certain.... reactionaries have an issue with ADB, apparently stemming from his less then flattering depiction of the emperor in master of mankind

BrianDavion wrote:
No.. Angron is a bezerker, he's an effective fighter, normally, but he is not a skilled fighter. He's a bezerker.

Tell me that you're ignorant of the character without telling me that you're ignorant of the character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SideSwipe wrote:
I didn't think Angron was effortlessly defeated. Sanguinius had to trick him by dropping his guard so Angron would run him through and give Sanguinius a pivotal opening.

There's a point at which Angron is convinced he's won and is gloating to Sanguinius, while Horus psychically urges him to finish Sanguinius off.

I certainly wouldn't describe that as an effortless victory.

Sanguinius started the fight wounded and tired after beating Ka'Bhanda and took exactly two blows in that fight, none of them fatal. Angron spent most of the fight being completely incapable of hitting Sanguinius, taking several fight-ending or fatal blows (at one point having the spear of telesto literally shoved through his brain), and only survived because he kept regenerating damage. And that second blow, the stab? Sanguinius let it happen to remove the Nails, and at IIRC several points he is referred to as "humiliated". He literally begs Sanguinius not to do it with a little "no".

Any "effort" expended on Sanguinius' part was solely because of the Daemonic advantages Angron had (which is to say healing), the text is clear on this point: Angron is a punk compared to Sanguinius and stood little chance now that he was a Daemon and would have stood no chance as just a Primarch.

So I now ask you in the hopes that you will be less verbally helpless than Brian: How are World Eaters fans reading this novel supposed to come away with any positive feelings towards the World Eaters or Angron release?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
good point there Tneva. I've heard certain.... reactionaries have an issue with ADB, apparently stemming from his less then flattering depiction of the emperor in master of mankind

Haven't read btw. I just appear to have a more sophisticated understanding of literature and storytelling than you do apparently.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
A lot of dan abnett's work relies on him inventing something not in 40k and then writing his story revolving around it so it becomes something important, or causally throwing lines in that upturn 40k and have big consequences.

He came from comics though where you can say whatever you want and reset it whenever you want.

But in an ongoing narrative, wholesale inventing things with significant ramifications like enuncia which makes selling your soul to chaos for power pointless, or no wolves on fenris being one of the most ridiculous and contrived retcons so that space Wolves are even more parody, or perpetuals and the ruination of Vulkan's tragic death by him now growing back like wolverine up to 11, or the super special extra primarch he added to the setting and so on.

I enjoy Abnett's work including some of the contrivances you mentioned but I recognize they can be quite damaging to the setting if it takes an established faction or character in a very different direction than they were previously written or alluded to be. I'm not familiar with the special extra primarch bit, is that from HH or 40k?

For 20 odd years there were 20 primarchs. But, in order to flanderise the alpha legion to space wolf levels - but rather than wolfy wolfy wolfy, it's secret secret secret - hey look the alpha legion actually has 2 primarchs and it's a secret because they're secret and the alpha legion are secret.


As for the current conversation on echoes of eternity. IMO the concept of removing the primarchs minds from their daemon incarnations is a way for them to keep them all heroes for fanbois. It's ok to love angron because the big satan daemon isn't ACTUALLY him, so he's still a good guy. You'll be able to have an imperial angron with primaris world eaters in a few years and you won't have to be chaos to do it.

Primarchs have become too superhero for 40k, they're taking over the identity of the setting. To the point where the choice to work for chaos in return for temporal power is now a distant memory of sneaky tricksy chaos stealing your body and and putting a daemon in it...

The original sinister attraction of chaos was the fact that life sucked almost everywhere and most people had no power. So chaos offered power and freedom but at the cost of your soul. So the choice was a conscious and deliberate one to gain power above your station in life at the cost of damnation.

Now I'm not even sure what the point of a chaos primarch is?

That and their seeming intent to keep bringing Primarchs back into 40k. The daemon primarchs still existing was the ultimate irony and seduction of chaos - they sold their souls and became immortal, outliving their brothers but becoming eternal slaves to their patrons in the process.

 Hellebore wrote:

As for the current conversation on echoes of eternity. IMO the concept of removing the primarchs minds from their daemon incarnations is a way for them to keep them all heroes for fanbois. It's ok to love angron because the big satan daemon isn't ACTUALLY him, so he's still a good guy. You'll be able to have an imperial angron with primaris world eaters in a few years and you won't have to be chaos to do it.

I can assure you 100% that literally no one likes Angron or the World Eaters because they are "good guys".

They might argue how justified certain facets of his identity or choices were and have respect for some of his more noble qualities during lucid moments (like rejecting Leman Russ and the others hypocrisy and calling what they were doing what it was: conquest at the orders of a tyrant), but the appeal of Angron and the World Eaters is that they are a mindlessly violent legion of frothing berserkers who butcher billions for no reason at all.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

As for the current conversation on echoes of eternity. IMO the concept of removing the primarchs minds from their daemon incarnations is a way for them to keep them all heroes for fanbois. It's ok to love angron because the big satan daemon isn't ACTUALLY him, so he's still a good guy. You'll be able to have an imperial angron with primaris world eaters in a few years and you won't have to be chaos to do it.

I can assure you 100% that literally no one likes Angron or the World Eaters because they are "good guys".

They might argue how justified certain facets of his identity or choices were and have respect for some of his more noble qualities during lucid moments (like rejecting Leman Russ and the others hypocrisy and calling what they were doing what it was: conquest at the orders of a tyrant), but the appeal of Angron and the World Eaters is that they are a mindlessly violent legion of frothing berserkers who butcher billions for no reason at all.

By good guy I meant loyalist. And they were still mindlessly violent butchers while being loyalist.

 Hellebore wrote:

By good guy I meant loyalist. And they were still mindlessly violent butchers while being loyalist.

Angron and the World Eaters have been Chaos for literal decades now. No one who got into them is bummed that they are Chaos Marines.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

By good guy I meant loyalist. And they were still mindlessly violent butchers while being loyalist.

Angron and the World Eaters have been Chaos for literal decades now. No one who got into them is bummed that they are Chaos Marines.

Since the creation of the the HH series and all the pre heresy background on marine legions, there's been a pretty big upswell of players who like to play the traditionally chaos legions as loyalist legions. There are players for whom the world eaters being loyalist is their initial impression and only later do they discover their fall to chaos.

This is part of the issue with the HH taking up too much airtime in the 40k background department, it's really heavily colouring the game, sliding it even further towards nothing but marines and primarch superhero leaders.

 Hellebore wrote:

For 20 odd years there were 20 primarchs. But, in order to flanderise the alpha legion to space wolf levels - but rather than wolfy wolfy wolfy, it's secret secret secret - hey look the alpha legion actually has 2 primarchs and it's a secret because they're secret and the alpha legion are secret.

Ah Alpharius+Omegon, gotcha. Yeah, I see what you mean, I'm also not a fan of Primarchs acquiring more and more of the setting focus but it sells well, so we keep getting more of it.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
No.. Angron is a bezerker, he's an effective fighter, normally, but he is not a skilled fighter. He's a bezerker.

Tell me that you're ignorant of the character without telling me that you're ignorant of the character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SideSwipe wrote:
I didn't think Angron was effortlessly defeated. Sanguinius had to trick him by dropping his guard so Angron would run him through and give Sanguinius a pivotal opening.

There's a point at which Angron is convinced he's won and is gloating to Sanguinius, while Horus psychically urges him to finish Sanguinius off.

I certainly wouldn't describe that as an effortless victory.

Sanguinius started the fight wounded and tired after beating Ka'Bhanda and took exactly two blows in that fight, none of them fatal. Angron spent most of the fight being completely incapable of hitting Sanguinius, taking several fight-ending or fatal blows (at one point having the spear of telesto literally shoved through his brain), and only survived because he kept regenerating damage. And that second blow, the stab? Sanguinius let it happen to remove the Nails, and at IIRC several points he is referred to as "humiliated". He literally begs Sanguinius not to do it with a little "no".

Any "effort" expended on Sanguinius' part was solely because of the Daemonic advantages Angron had (which is to say healing), the text is clear on this point: Angron is a punk compared to Sanguinius and stood little chance now that he was a Daemon and would have stood no chance as just a Primarch.

So I now ask you in the hopes that you will be less verbally helpless than Brian: How are World Eaters fans reading this novel supposed to come away with any positive feelings towards the World Eaters or Angron release?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
good point there Tneva. I've heard certain.... reactionaries have an issue with ADB, apparently stemming from his less then flattering depiction of the emperor in master of mankind

Haven't read btw. I just appear to have a more sophisticated understanding of literature and storytelling than you do apparently.

Well personally, as a WE fan, I thought the depiction of Kargos and his degeneration was fantastic. Inzar congratulating himself for thinking he was manipulating Kargos throughout the novel led to a great payoff of Kargos killing Inzar in the fit of rage post Angron's death.

Throughout the novels, it's made clear that Angron's ability to regenerate is near all powerful. He gets reduced to blood scraps in earlier novel, and simply regenerates and butchers the imperials. He is shown to have abandoned self preservation (to some extent this is true even pre ascension) so it's not surprise he would neglect his defense in a duel.

I think you're getting a bit hung up on Angron losing, my reading of it is that it was a herculean effort for Angron to be defeated, and that's as good as can be expected considering the ending of the HH demands he be defeated and banished(to my mind, he's not going to be inclined to retreat just because Horus does).

I don't like WE because they're great fighters, same way I don't care for any legion on the basis that they're better than the others(I prefer it when legion differences are depicted as being doctrinal rather than straight up one legion being flat out more competent than others at some aspect of war).

I like the WE for their cynical pathos. Angron rebels because he hates his father, but he doesn't really prefer Horus, but simultaneously his is the only legion that is depicted as being the most dedicated to attacking the defenders.

They don't value honour, but they have strong bonds of brotherhood. Of all the traitors, they're the only ones that I can recall being depicted as having genuine comrades outside the legion (Kargos having a genuine bond with the Flesh Tearer, which he feels even post treachery, though the Flesh Tearer no longer does). Similarly, Kharn has made efforts to shepherd his legion during the siege, when other big name captains from other legions seem intent on pursuing their own goals(Typhus keeping his forces back from the battle for the spaceport when he could have intervened comes to mind).

These character depictions are why I like the WE, not whether they lose or win any given fight. Feel free to disagree, but I think what appeals to each of us is different enough that neither of us will change our tune.

I mean, it's not like ADB didn't do the same thing with the Exalted in the Night Lords novels.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I sure hope not. ADB is the most overrated and inconsistent writer in Black Library. On one hand you have masterpieces (insofar as any BL work can be a masterpiece) like The First Heretic and Helsreach, sloppy faux-philosophical schlock like Betrayer, and utter garbage like The Emperor's Gift.

...

Really interested to hear your criticisms of The Emperor's Gift. I'm not exactly a fan of the novel myself. Feel free to PM me, if preferable.

 Hellebore wrote:
A lot of dan abnett's work relies on him inventing something not in 40k and then writing his story revolving around it so it becomes something important, or causally throwing lines in that upturn 40k and have big consequences.

That is why I dislike Abnett's work as well. Within an established IP, I think it is more respectful and skilful to be able to tell a story within the known constraints of the universe, to color within the lines so to speak, with at most slight twists or changes on a localized scale rather than some wholesale never before seen massive change/concept that upsets the entire setting (or has implications for potentially upsetting the whole setting).

I see it as more a problem of someone trying to make their own stamp on the universe by running roughshod over what has already been established. I have the same problem with other IPs where newcomers do that, as to me it seems disrespectful of what has come before.

I'd concur, Abnett is a fantastic author, but I feel he's too fond of adding massive setting changing plot hooks for my taste.

 Void__Dragon wrote:


So I now ask you in the hopes that you will be less verbally helpless than Brian: How are World Eaters fans reading this novel supposed to come away with any positive feelings towards the World Eaters or Angron release?

honest question, do you come away from Hamlet with strong positive feelings towards Hamlet? the Horus heresy, ESPECIALLY for the traitors, is a tragedy you're not supposed to feel good about them, and be pumped up. you are supposed to feel sorry for them

seriously do you not get this? the Horsu Heresy isn't supposed to be some heroic adventure where everyone comes out looking awesome. It's a TRAGEDY. by the end of it the primarchs are going to be dead or broken people. Some break before others do.

Iracundus wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
A lot of dan abnett's work relies on him inventing something not in 40k and then writing his story revolving around it so it becomes something important, or causally throwing lines in that upturn 40k and have big consequences.

That is why I dislike Abnett's work as well. Within an established IP, I think it is more respectful and skilful to be able to tell a story within the known constraints of the universe, to color within the lines so to speak, with at most slight twists or changes on a localized scale rather than some wholesale never before seen massive change/concept that upsets the entire setting (or has implications for potentially upsetting the whole setting).

I see it as more a problem of someone trying to make their own stamp on the universe by running roughshod over what has already been established. I have the same problem with other IPs where newcomers do that, as to me it seems disrespectful of what has come before.

Kind of like whoever conceived Primaris.

BrianDavion wrote:

honest question, do you come away from Hamlet with strong positive feelings towards Hamlet? the Horus heresy, ESPECIALLY for the traitors, is a tragedy you're not supposed to feel good about them, and be pumped up. you are supposed to feel sorry for them

seriously do you not get this? the Horsu Heresy isn't supposed to be some heroic adventure where everyone comes out looking awesome. It's a TRAGEDY. by the end of it the primarchs are going to be dead or broken people. Some break before others do.

So in your eyes the traitor legions and their primarchs should just be portrayed as losers who can't compete even in their identifiable niche becuse the Horus Heresy is a hecking tragedy bro come on you're supposed to feel sorry for them?

No, because the tragedy of Angron isn't that he's actually a bad fighter. It's that despite being almost unstoppable one on one even among his brothers his mind is so far-gone that he has effectively destroyed his Legion and he places no value in his life because of the terrible situation forced upon him. The Night of the Wolf showcases this reasonably well, where sure Angron naturally crushes Leman Russ one on one, but his Legion is so broken that they don't even notice that Angron has been surrounded and survives only at Russ and his Legion's leisure. That it was only the Wolves' mercy that let Angron survive. And most tragic at all? Angron probably doesn't even care because he should have died on Nuceria and he knows it.

Also, the notion that the traitor Primarchs are all the more flawed and broken ones is a blight upon canon and I'm getting pretty tired of the writers giving backhanded justifications for the fascist Imperium because the other side is so much hecking worse. It also frankly doesn't lend itself to making the loyalists especially interesting, which is probably why the traitors get constantly gak on in favor of them. The only loyalist worth a gak as a character is Guilliman. The others are bland and almost interchangeable. Except Leman Russ, who somehow manages to be an even bigger loser than the traitors are and at least can elicit pity.

The Iliad was also a tragedy. Achilles' idiotic bullheadedness ended up getting his friend/lover killed by Hector. This is tragic. Yet Achilles is still able to live up to his niche, one very similar to Angron's, namely being the best single combatant of the entire war and he indeed then proceeded to kill Hector in single combat.

I'm not saying Angron needed to win. I'm saying that when you give a character a niche it's really gakky to then humiliate them at that niche just to make another character look good. It isn't that Sanguinius won, it's that he won fairly easily, and the only reason there was a challenge at all is because of outside supernatural influence. Especially when ADB had built up that Angron was the only one who could bring down Sanguinius in martial combat and that's why Lorgar ensured he would survive to the siege but lol! Guess not, he never had a chance.

Would you be just as accepting of another Primarch easily beating Magnus in a psychic duel? Or of another one being much better than Dorn at defending fortresses, or Perturabo at breaking them? If a character's niche among their fellows is going to be so casually disregarded, why establish the niche at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Greyish wrote:
Really interested to hear your criticisms of The Emperor's Gift. I'm not exactly a fan of the novel myself. Feel free to PM me, if preferable.

Honestly it's been so long I can barely remember why I hated it. I remember hating the Fenrisian inquisitor for a myriad of reasons, the primary one being that she's fething a former Chaos cultist which is just another one of ADB's weird as feth perverted irrelevant details, kind of like the Grey Knights in the novel bathing with the female inquisitors and their retinue and one of them hits on the main character and says some cringe gak like it's a shame he was made an Astartes after she sees him naked. One would think fething a former Chaos cultist regularly and openly especially in front of the fething Grey Knights would be grounds for immediate execution but I guess not. Her reaction to the whole post-Armageddon gak with the attempted purges of the Guard was also jarring given what Inquisitors are expected to do. ADB also couldn't help but suck off the Space Wolves in the last third of the book but he's always been a fanboy writer at heart and proves you should never let fanboys write the material.

Urgh, I'd forgotten about that bathing segment. Thanks for the reply.

I don't care who writes the final book of SoT. I just want to start with:

"I was there, the day Horus slew the Emperor" or "I was there, the day the Emperor slew Horus".

We got to bookend The Horus Hersey!

Can I hi jack this thread and ask what you all would score the siege of terra series out of 10? Looking for something to read.

I assume there’s no need to have read the preceding HH novels

I'd rate or fairly well. It's much better written than the Horus Heresy series, and it's concise enough that no book is meaningless filler.

 Muhr wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Muhr wrote:

I sure hope not. ADB is the most overrated and inconsistent writer in Black Library. On one hand you have masterpieces (insofar as any BL work can be a masterpiece) like The First Heretic and Helsreach, sloppy faux-philosophical schlock like Betrayer, and utter garbage like The Emperor's Gift.

Every BL author is at best inconsistent yes (even Dan Abnett deal with it), but among the so-called "top tier" BL writers ADB's work can get particularly terrible.

I couldn't disagree more. Betrayer is one of my favourite HH books alongside the first three, Fulgrim, The First Heretic, Deliverence Lost, Angel Exterminatus and Know No Fear.

What BL novels would you consider to be exceptional?

Black Library. Exceptional. Pick one.

Don't necro a thread just for a lame joke please.